So Many Questions: Damaging the White House

For architects, the wanton destruction of the East Wing, including the colonnade designed by Thomas Jefferson and the wing itself designed by McKim Mead & White (though considerably bowdlerized) is a national tragedy, even though in the scheme of today’s political horrors it is far from the worst. Of course for everyone else the White House, along with the Capitol, is the symbol of America, its image on the back of every $20 bill. Trump intends to leave a permanent mark on Washington by throwing up a bloated East Wing. (This earlier post lays out the damage if you were not following the story as the excavators completed their work.)

The house does not belong to him, but to the American people and such a substantial, irreversible alteration requires the approval of the National Capital Planning Commission, which exists, along with other official guardians of Washington’s Monumental Core precisely to avoid damaging changes at the whim of the President or anyone else. (The degree to which NCPC review is binding on the executive branch appears to be fuzzy, it should be noted.)

The Royal Hall of Favor Seeking

If Trump can drastically alter the White House on a whim, can’t his successors just tear it down for their own reasons? Maybe that would temper Trump’s urge to put his own paw print on everything. I’m not holding my breath.

A properly deliberate process would entail drawing up a thorough assessment of what the building needs, and rationally establishing a set of priorities, and seeking funding in a transparent, disinterested manner (“disinterested” not being a term in the Trump vocabulary). Any alterations should meet a demonstrated need.

None of this happened, of course, with Trump’s rush to get this monument to himself built before the next election. In a properly functioning democracy a Pay to Play Palace or Royal Hall of Favor Seeking would not be a reason to add an outsize addition.

So many questions; so little transparency. Have the East Wing’s historic elements, its antique furnishings, and its art been catalogued and safely stored somewhere? Or has it all been tossed into the dumpster? Did anybody separate from the White House review the plans for the demolition and new design, making sure the construction is appropriate and safe for use? Have security practices been altered to manage new vulnerabilities created by turning the White House complex into a construction site? Has access to the security bunker beneath the East Wing been retained? Or is it, too, to be demolished?

Pay to Play Palace

It can reasonably be inferred that contracting giant Clark Construction, which claims a $24-billion portfolio of government projects, and AECOM, one of the world’s largest architecture and engineering firms, were looking to ingratiate themselves with the administration that has billions in building contracts to award. What did it take to get this no-bid gig? Also, the no-competition award to the design architect, John McCrery, should be investigated, since he does not appear to be qualified to work for the Federal government. (At any rate these firms should be invoicing early and often. Trump has a reputation for stiffing designers and builders.) Since there has been no documentation of how these firms were hired or how they are to be paid, we are allowed to assume the worst in an administration awash in conflicts of interest and self dealing,

The Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) could drive them to do things they would not ordinarily do—as so many others have done. Licensing boards and professional associations should investigate the firms for ethical violations—at the very least—and look into ejecting the principals and canceling the professional certifications that allow them to practice if yet undisclosed machinations warrant it.

In a matter of days, the cost has risen from $200 million to $300 million. Does anyone on this project know what they are doing? Trump has said he’s raising the money privately and no taxpayer dollars will be required. Please. That never happens.

The White House released a list of tone-deaf funders of the ballroom debacle, including big crypto firms that are enriching Trump, big tech companies that seek lush government contracts as well as defense contractors. They are all in violation of conflict of interest rules but all the guardians of clean governance have been fired.

Many of these companies tout their good corporate citizenship so what were they thinking? They should all be ashamed of themselves. One donor, T-Mobile, tried to distance itself from this increasingly toxic project by indicating that it had made a gift not to Trump directly but to the charitable nonprofit, the Trust for the National Mall, which has supported the National Park Service in improving the Mall. It was being disingenuous. The Trust agreed to be a conduit for Trump’s vanity project, which could imperil the Trust’s non-profit status and piss off regular supporters who thought they were underwriting conservation of resources important to Americans, not assisting in their destruction.