2. Once there is a ballroom that large, won't there be endless pressure to inflate the guest list so the crowd will look right in the space? It's not as though they'll have those movable walls that hotels used to subdivide ballrooms... or will they?!
3.
What are the potential benefits of this extra-large ballroom space? How have giant ballrooms used through history played a part in diplomatic achievements or in elevating the patriotism of the people? What's the downside?
5. Are people misunderstanding the size of the project and picturing the footprint of the building — or even the one room — as 90,000 square feet? Do people not understand that there will be many rooms and hallways on multiple levels and that 90,000 is the total square feet of all the floor space?
6. Did Trump deliberately deprive us of detailed plans of the project in order to lure his antagonists into making assumptions about how big and weird it will be so that he could later present a completely reasonable design and make them look like stupid hotheads?
7. Once we see how the new East Wing looks, won't that create pressure to enlarge the West Wing, to achieve symmetry and isn't the West Wing in great need of an overhaul?
Posts
108 comments:
Why are you asking your commentators? Why not ask Grok?
@Big Mike Your question contains an unproved proposition.
Once there is a ballroom that large, won't there be endless pressure to inflate the guest list so the crowd will look right in the space?
No, they'll just invite Pritzker or chris christie. Problem solved.
Anyone that wants AI answers to these questions is welcome to cut and paste my questions into their preferred AI.
I just want the questions out there.
As if I'd have come up with Alexander Van der Bellen on my own!
Gotta love Althouse's #6. The mere fact that she would ask that shows the tide is turning.
I had the thought Mike did. Seems like good data for Grok to ponder and save me the detailed research time. I think I will ask...
"2. Once there is a ballroom that large, won't there be endless pressure to inflate the guest list so the crowd will look right in the space? It's not as though they'll have those movable walls that hotels used to subdivide ballrooms... or will they?!"
They currently set up a tent for large events, right? Then use the ballroom for those events and continue handling smaller events the way they have been doing it all along.
They would need a monster kitchen, Pritzger notwithstanding.
In Europe former palaces and state halls are used for VIP receptions and state dinners.
Sometimes construction of a ballroom is just construction of a ballroom.
Now… about that $37T in debt…
I assumed Althouse was asking Grok.
Not disclosing the actual plans limits the amount of interference by the legions of busybodies affected by TDS. Defining something provides fodder for the use of Alinksky's rules. The ballroom's size won't lead to padding out of the guest list, that's my guess. They'll have smaller functions in other White House rooms, like they've always done. I would guess that the actual ballroom size is probably going to be more like 15-20k sq ft, with the rest of the floorplan being in support of that, and other White House functions.
I think most Americans can buy into the idea of making this large, 100+ year addition to the White House. However, it should be thought out and not undertaken on a whim by Trump alone. This is some of the most highly valuable space in the United States; its use should be maximized. But, by all appearances, it is being driven by Trump's desire to have some cool big balls before his time in the White House is over.
For what it's worth, I received a message from a former colleague whom I met years ago when he was Deputy at the US embassy in Prague.. A retired foreign service officer, he attended several state dinners at the White House. He had this to say about Trump's new ballroom at the White House.
: "I can't speak to the aesthetics or historical preservation, but the White House definitely needed a larger space for official functions. State dinners were very uncomfortable for all save the senior officials. Once you passed through security, you were directed straight to your table. The tables and chairs were so packed in that, once seated, it was very difficult to get up to use the restroom, as you had to navigate through a tangle of chairs in close proximity. And God help you if the need came when the audience was quiet, listening to the President or their guest make official remarks. There was no way to silently exit the room. I learned not to eat or drink several hours before the event so as to avoid the need for bodily functions.
I attended four dozen state functions in capitals all across Europe and Asia. The White House East Room had the smallest capacity by far, holding 175-200. I understand the new ballroom's capacity will exceed 900.
Maybe the question is not why the President is doing this, but why this wasn't done years ago.
’Do people not understand that there will be many room and hallways on multiple levels and that 90,000 is the total square feet of all the floor space?’
I saw a decent image of the architectural model and it is three stories. However, the top two stories of elevation, based on interior renderings, are floor-to-ceiling. Floor space is generally the calculation for square footage, so if that’s correct, the overall building will have the footprint of 45,000 s.f.
If my assumptions are incorrect then it will still have a footprint of 30,000 s.f. (two-thirds of a football field, less endzones). Either way, it is a very large structure.
2. Once there is a ballroom that large, won't there be endless pressure to inflate the guest list so the crowd will look right in the space?
Not hard to put up partitioning curtains. They do it for concerts and basketball games played in large stadiums. They are fairly cheap compared to tents. Better to have a large ballroom and partition part of it than have a small ballroom and wish you built bigger. Call in diverse and inclusive, but it will be unequaled.
You silly boomer.
You really do not understand numbers and the deficit and what is coming for this country in years to come.
Very good. DT seems to enjoy maddening his enemies about as much as he enjoys attracting independent voters.
One thing I notice about Grok. It is lazy. It goes to standard sources and makes no effort to test the veracity of opinions before making its declarative statements about the truth ir provides. I will demonstrate below:
I asked the first question and got the following:
Were There Other Presidents Who Spoke of Needing a Big White House Ballroom Before Trump?
No, there are no verified historical records of previous presidents explicitly expressing a desire for a "big White House ballroom" or proposing a large-scale addition like Trump's 90,000-square-foot (later expanded to 100,000 sq ft) event space. White House renovations have been common since 1800 (e.g., Truman's 1948–1952 reconstruction, Kennedy's 1961–1963 redecoration), but they focused on structural integrity, family spaces, or offices—not a grand ballroom for state dinners.
Historical Precedents: Presidents like Obama (2009–2017) and Biden (2021–2025) used tents for large events (e.g., Obama's 2010 state dinner for India, Biden's 2022 Nordic summit), but neither proposed a permanent ballroom. Earlier presidents (e.g., Truman, who added a balcony in 1949) expanded for functionality, not opulent entertaining spaces. Historians like Douglas Brinkley (October 2025 interview) note no prior president "obsessed" over a ballroom, calling Trump's plan "unprecedented in scope."
Trump's Pre-2016 Interest: In 2010, as a private citizen, Trump expressed to Barack Obama's advisor David Axelrod a desire to build a White House ballroom, per Axelrod's 2025 memoir. This predates his presidency but doesn't involve other presidents.
I pushed back and asked the following:
You mention earlier that no president has expressed a need publicly for an indoor state dinner facility, but how many times have there been references to the micky-mouse arrangement of having to schedule around weather, and subjecting guests to the elements and less than hospitable facilities? Is Trump the only person who ever noticed that poor image we present?
To which Grok Replied:
You're correct that the White House's reliance on temporary tents for large state dinners has drawn criticism for its makeshift nature—exposing guests to weather, requiring long walks (e.g., "100 yards from the main entrance," as Trump noted), and using porta-potties or mobile facilities that feel less than regal. While the exact phrase "Mickey Mouse arrangement" isn't widely used in historical records, there are at least 5–7 documented references from presidents, aides, and White House staff since the 1990s highlighting these issues, often in private memos or post-event reflections that leaked or were reported later. These complaints focus on the logistical hassles, poor optics for international guests, and the indignity of weather-dependent setups. Trump isn't the only one who noticed—previous presidents like Obama and Clinton raised similar concerns—but his public emphasis (e.g., calling tents a "disaster" in rain during his July 31, 2025 announcement) is the most vocal and action-oriented. Below, I'll summarize the key instances, with a count and context.
Key References and Examples
Barack Obama (2009–2017): Obama explicitly complained about tents during his tenure, particularly after the 2010 State Dinner for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (400 guests in a South Lawn tent). In a 2010 Oval Office conversation with advisor David Axelrod (recounted in Axelrod's 2015 memoir Believer), Obama said the setup was "ridiculous" because guests had to walk through rain to a distant tent, using porta-potties, and the weather nearly derailed the event. He called it a "Mickey Mouse operation" in private, per aides, and pushed for indoor alternatives, though none materialized. Similar gripes surfaced after the 2014 French state dinner (rain forced a tent, with guests in formal wear exposed to drizzle).
Bill Clinton (1993–2001): Clinton's administration used tents for ~10 large events (e.g., 1997 Irish state dinner for 500+ guests), and White House logs from 1998 (leaked in a 2005 Washington Post piece) show Chief of Staff John Podesta noting the "embarrassing" porta-potty lines and weather risks as "undignified for world leaders." Clinton himself joked in a 1999 post-event memo about "surviving the tent apocalypse," highlighting the poor image.
George W. Bush (2001–2009): Bush's team criticized tents after the 2002 German state dinner (rain-soaked walk to tent, 600 guests), with Press Secretary Ari Fleischer telling reporters it was "not the welcome we want for allies." A 2003 internal memo (FOIA-released in 2015) called the setup "haphazard" and "Mickey Mouse," citing porta-potty complaints from European dignitaries.
Joe Biden (2021–2025): Biden's 2022 Nordic Leaders' Summit reception (500 standing guests in a heated tent) drew quiet complaints from staff about cold drafts and facility lines, per a 2023 Politico report on White House event logistics. Biden aide Anita Dunn noted in a memo that "tents make us look like a pop-up wedding, not a superpower," echoing weather exposure issues.
Part 2:
5–7. Earlier References (Reagan, Carter, Ford):
Ronald Reagan (1981–1989): After the 1984 British state dinner (tent for 700 guests, rain forced umbrellas), Reagan aide Michael Deaver wrote in a 1985 memo that the "porta-potty parade" was "undignified," suggesting permanent indoor space.
Jimmy Carter (1977–1981): Carter's 1979 Egyptian state dinner (tent for 500, humid weather) led to guest complaints about "sweaty conditions," noted in a 1980 New York Times piece as a "logistical embarrassment."
Gerald Ford (1974–1977): Ford's 1976 Australian state dinner (tent for 400, windy conditions) prompted a White House curator's note on the "poor optics of guests battling elements," per declassified logs.
For all the tl;dr here is the summary:
For question 1, Grok says no president called for a ballroom. Technically true.
But when challenged about the real issue, THE NEED FOR A BALLROOM, Grok admitted that other presidents expressed such a need or at least complained about the impacts of not having one.
Always challenge Grok. It's lazy.
“won't that create pressure to enlarge the West Wing, to achieve symmetry and isn't the West Wing in great need of an overhaul?”
Trump’s third term.
. . . or at the rate Trump is going . . . next year.
The West Wing & East Wing are already asymmetrical. Roosevelt the Ted built the West Wing & East Wing and then Roosevelt the Frank expanded them. I’m down with symmetry but what should be the wing-to-residence ratio?
And from the perspective on Pennsylvania Avenue it looks better.
Trump's ballroom appears to be substantially larger than Macron's. I doubt the British PM even has one. His residence is a more humble row house. I don't think the Canadian PM has a ballroom, but it doesn't matter since the official residence was turned over to the rats (literal rodents) some years back.
The Kremlin has several banquet rooms. The largest is a match for Trump's ballroom. I'm assuming that Xi has his choice of banquet halls in the Forbidden City. Plus I'm tired of doing the rough meters to feet calculation.
I asked Grok #4, but in a way that would get better results.
How many countries can host 1000 people in state dinners indoors? 25-30 was it's estimate (12 countries in Europe)
I followed up with how many were grand style similar to Trump's vision? 15-20.
It does not seem too out of place for the leader of the free world to at least be at the level of a few other nations of the world.
and make them look like stupid hotheads?
To be fair, they don't need any of Trump's help to look like that.
If I'm skeptical of this project it's because Parkinson (the Parkinson's Law guy) demonstrated that as the British Empire shrank the British Colonial Office grew and grew. Similar with the Navy and the Admiralty, I believe. Building massive new edifices is not a good sign, as it provokes a fear that decline is already setting in.
Much a due about nothing. Most could care less about this issue.
#2. Of course they'll have the movable walls thingy. Architects will design the building so that it can accommodate all sorts of groups of different sizes. Best to have the flexibility. The days of the tent/s will be gone.
This is the response I got when I asked how many square feet per person is needed for a ballroom.
"
For a ballroom event, you typically need about 14 square feet per person if guests are seated, and around 9 square feet per person for a standing reception. If you plan to include a dance floor, it's advisable to allow for additional space, approximately 4.3 square feet extra per person for dancing."
I assume those are the minimum requirements. You also need space for office space, administrative services, custodial services, food service, storage, refrigeration, cooking, bar service, etc., etc.
An article about the ballroom was just published on PJMedia: https://pjmedia.com/jamie-wilson/2025/10/25/trump-the-builder-the-artist-in-chief-and-his-ballroom-n4945263
“I doubt the British PM even has one.”
But there’s a Palace down the road.
https://twitchy.com/gordon-k/2025/10/24/i-cant-believe-they-did-this-to-the-peoples-house-memes-respond-to-dems-manufactured-hysteria-n2420817
“The days of the tent/s will be gone”
To appease the Democrats they can set up the tents and port a potties inside the ballroom..
Per Grok
“The ballroom in Buckingham Palace, the largest room in the palace, measures 120 feet long, 60 feet wide, and 45 feet high.
This gives it a floor area of 7,200 square feet. It was completed in 1855 during Queen Victoria’s reign and is used for state banquets (seating up to 170 guests) and investitures.”
You know the Democrats are just going to tear the whole damn thing down when they regain the Presidency. That is how politics is played today.
"You know the Democrats are just going to tear the whole damn thing down when they regain the Presidency. That is how politics is played today."
And, when they do so, we already know your silence will be deafening, Lonejustice.
lonejustus… Queen of Teh Hissyfit!
Hes the sole drummer in the band
There is also an anti-terrorist consideration. The windows in the big beautiful ballroom will be constructed with bullet-resistant glass. Tents are not bullet-resistant. Nor are they mosquito-resistant. Trump's renovation will provide a considerable degree of both.
To the matter of Althouse's questions:
1. Yes, and yes.
2. Endless pressure? Only in future Democratic presidential terms, if any. (The Whigs will enjoy the White House before a Democrat will soil its dignity.) If Trump understands anything it is exclusivity.
3. Benefits include an end besmirching the national dignity with tents and porta-potties. Downsides? None. Any government building completed without additional debt is a blessing.
4. Putin has four. Three of them built for the tsars.
5. Yes, they understand, except the morons who watch Joe Scarborough.
6. Yes. And his victims always oblige.
7. Yes. But the temptation to expand the West Wing just for the sake of symmetry must be resisted. Extra space will only demand extra bureaucrats to fill it. Besides, the aesthetics of symmetry are oversold. Nobody thinks less of Windsor Castle for its lack of symmetry. If I.M. Pei's ridiculous pyramid can be tolerated, a White House without east/west symmetry can be tolerated as well.
...and where are the kitchens, and how does the food flow into and out of the dining area ? and Toilets--when they used tents was it just a row of those tacky port-a-potties ?
I mean, there is a lot to consider.
You know the Democrats are just going to tear the whole damn thing down when they regain the Presidency.
So again, don't do anything at all.
That seems to be your response to everything. Well, the Democrats are just going to do x,y and z so you might as well sit on your ass and do nothing.
"You know the Democrats are just going to tear the whole damn thing down when they regain the Presidency."
Spend taxpayer money to tear down something that didn't cost the taxpayers anything to build? Sounds just like what you'd expect to hear from the lunatic left.
Per Grok: “The ballroom in Buckingham Palace, the largest room in the palace, measures 120 feet long, 60 feet wide, and 45 feet high.
This gives it a floor area of 7,200 square feet. It was completed in 1855 during Queen Victoria’s reign and is used for state banquets (seating up to 170 guests) and investitures.”
Also per Grok, Buckingham has combined capacity of 1200 with additional rooms.
“I doubt the British PM even has one.”
The British PM is a lowly functionary. His job is not to throw state banquets or balls. That is the job of the Head of State, I.e. the Monarch, whose quarters are well equipped for it.
If (God forbid) the Democrats ever gain the White House, they can use the new ballroom for WNBA games. They will have room to spare for the spectators.
Well illustrated Wa St Blogger. AI is like the genie with three wishes.
Even at the most remote outpost of empire we have a grand ballroom. One of my great working pleasures was IT support at Melbourne's Government House:
The Ballroom commands an entire wing of Government House. At 42m long and 16.7m wide, it is longer than the Ballroom at Buckingham Palace.
Three original crystal chandeliers, by Oslers of Birmingham who supplied Buckingham Palace, are striking features of the Ballroom. Converted from gas to electricity, the chandeliers each have more than 1,000 pieces of crystal.
The Ballroom is serviced by a supper room that runs its entire length and has its original serving bench and fittings.
The Minstrels’ Gallery, where musicians perform at functions, features a semi-circular sound shell that reflects the arches and scalloped sconces above the dais, musical motifs of Pan and his pipes in the upper corners, and an intricately gilded iron balustrade.
There is an oral tradition that when the plans for the Ballroom were presented to Queen Victoria for approval, she objected to the size as it was longer than the Ballroom at Buckingham Palace and asked that the building be reduced. However, by the time her request reached Victoria, construction had already begun.
"Trump's ballroom appears to be substantially larger than Macron's. I doubt the British PM even has one."
The King has one! The traditional place for state dinners is the Ballroom in Buckingham Palace, 10,000 square feet.
There's also St. George's Hall at Windsor Castle.
Figures. Drives up price of cocaine, then takes food from poor children. Now, he puts struggling local porta-potty and big tent companies out of business, meaning even more un-employment.
Hopefully, his 3rd term will be less brutal.
Could have been worse. Obama and his honchos may have designed it.
"..and where are the kitchens, and how does the food flow into and out of the dining area ? "
Trump can send out to MickeyD's. Or for more formal occasions pizza.
Earth movers and Trump is coming
We're finally on our own
This autumn I hear the drumming
Four stories of ba-aall-room
Gotta get down to it, dozers are tearing it down
Should have been gone long ago
What if you knew her and found her heels in the ground
Why put up tents when you know?
CC, JSM
Prof: "The King has one! The traditional place for state dinners is the Ballroom in Buckingham Palace, 10,000 square feet."
As for the PM, Parliament has the huge, ancient multipurpose Westminster Hall - the hammerbeam rafters span an uninterrupted space of over 16,000 square feet that can be used for almost anything. CC, JSM
Good Lord, you people are putting so much effort and worry into a privately-funded, largely trivial thing.
However, it should be thought out and not undertaken on a whim by Trump alone.
To quote our host, "your question contains an unproved proposition."
Trump has been planning to do this for over ten years. https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1982132887617941977
90000 on single level is 300 by 300 [> 16th of a mile squared]
good to practice 100 yd dashes by various species
Lazarus said...
I doubt the British PM even has one.
Most assuredly. Their current Prime Minister does not appear to have any balls.
One hopes that dancing will be on the program, given the extra space. The model should be the Congress of Vienna, 1814-15, which featured numerous balls, which formed the social scene and improved the tone of the negotiations, and which led to the popularity of the waltz, which was introduced there.
Congress of Vienna waltz -
https://gaskellball.com/congress.html
My wife and I have attended the Gaskell balls several times, at the excellent Oakland Scottish rite temple. It should be a goal of this project to make this a regular feature of White House events.
I doubt the British PM even has one.
Of course, the British have several layers of rulership above the PM, some of whom have access to enormous palaces with ridiculously large ballrooms, strawman.
I'm sure the contractors can put up and take down walls if necessary. A big ballroom would provide a more comfortable space for dining and for dancing, major entertainment, even temporary exhibitions, conferences, tournaments; whatever, a chamber orchestra and a ballet troop.
Trump's antagonists don't need an excuse to scream and moan; no matter how reasonable his goals might be, they won't be acknowledged. I saw an artist comparing the tearing down of the East Wing to the Taliban destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan. He was seriously hysterical about the demolition of the East Wing. His followers' completely agreed that the two actions were exactly equivalent.
Hearing "Oakland" one imagines a deadly slum, which is accurate to a degree. But a lot of Oakland is very pretty, even gracious, especially around Lake Merritt and in the hills above it. The architecture of the 1920's-40's has a lot to do with that. The change in population (white flight) was disastrous.
"troupe"
"Trump's antagonists don't need an excuse to scream and moan; no matter how reasonable his goals might be, they won't be acknowledged."
You'd think they've never heard "The boy who cried wolf" fable. At this point, it's easier to just ignore any complaints.
Is it any surprise that Trump is turning the White House into Mar-a-Lago North? I wouldn't mind this so much if he had at least an ounce of taste.
You know the Democrats are just going to tear the whole damn thing down when they regain the Presidency.
The Dems' memory is limited to about 3 weeks. By the time they get back into power, they will have forgotten all about this and will host an inaugural ball big enough to fill the room with rappers, terrorists, and various and sundry celebrities, provided most are not white.
Mar a Lago seems rather nice. It is inspired by, generally, Spanish architecture, and wouldn't be out of place there as a country villa. Granted Trump didnt build it, but he bought it and chose to live there. In what way is it in poor taste?
Look at the animation at the top of the Washington Post today. I don’t see how anyone can look at that and not see a problem. It totally overwhelms the rest of the White House. .
As for square footage, if anything it minimizes the size since the ballroom appears to have 40 ft ceilings. They should compare the sizes of the buildings by cubic feet.
The building is not that unattractive in my view. Lots of uglier buildings on the UW campus It just doesn’t belong there. I bet it would be hard to find any architect who thinks it fits.
Wa St Blogger’s summary leads me to ask, wouldn’t it be nice if the four living ex-presidents could make a joint statement supporting the new ballroom?
I know, I know, but a guy can dream, can’t he?
The views from the ballroom are going to be incredible.
To the west will be the White House, spectacular when lit up at night. To the south will be the Washington monument, again, spectacular when lit up at night as well.
It takes full advantage of the views by having big windows on three sides and by being raised up above grade level.
It will be one of the best, and could even be the best banquet venue in the city.
I scrolled quickly thru comments so may have missed one. That said, FFS people, including hostess, they've been putting people into tents for decades due to the lack of space for State Dinners & other Executive functions. Oh, BTW, "The modern East Wing was constructed in 1942 under Franklin Delano Roosevelt to conceal an underground White House bomb shelter built in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor."
The WaPo pictures don't show the surrounding buildings, and that exaggerates the impact of the new ballroom.
In context, there is a huge hulking building to the east, so the new ballroom will fit right in to the Washington D.C. of 2025.
https://preview.redd.it/bbqane7f9go71.png?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=ccc8160a85b4cec0f0b0db3bfdf906fe782703e4
It's kind of funny that progressives are apoplectic because a modern city isn't restricting itself to the scale of a 200 year old building with a lot of space around it. They want to turn back the clock to the good old slave-owning days of 1802.
"You know the Democrats are just going to tear the whole damn thing down when they regain the Presidency. That is how politics is played today."
Republicans build. Democrats tear down. That is how politics is played today.
The ballroom is a cover story for the new basement under the East Wing, which will house a large and well protected military and intelligence operations center now sorely lacking in the current version of the White House. Drones be coming, fo' sure.
Washington Post lead editorial in Sunday’s newspaper is a defense of the White House ballroom.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/10/25/ballroom-east-wing-trump-white-house/
I Demand to see the videos of Epstien’s Ballroom!!
My questions:
1. Has anyone verified how much money has been raised?
2. What if the costs exceed the amount raised? Who is on the hook for the difference?
3. Who is overseeing the project? The US government or the 501c3 that has the funds? Who signed the contracts?
4. What if there are funds leftover? Who controls where those go?
Comments on the WaPo editorial are insanely TDS.
“You know the Democrats are just going to tear the whole damn thing down when they regain the Presidency.”
No, just take off Trump’s name, hang a “The Donald John” sign over the bathroom, and call it good.
One (possibly) upcoming use of the new ballrom would be a celebration of the success of the Artemis II (and III and IV too, maybe) Moon mission. It would permit invitations to the White House for more of the project teams involved in such things. In that case some people I know well may be going to the White House. As they deserve to.
Weird questions, Ann. Full of assumptions that reasonable people would not make.
You missed the obvious reason for ripping down the East Wing. Beneath what was the East Wing is the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), a secure underground shelter for the president during emergencies, which Trump likely wanted to have upgraded to combat today's bunker-busting bombs and nuclear weapons - and, of course, enhanced with gold trim.
BTW - statistics show that new housing costs in D.C. easily run $333 per sq ft, not counting the teardown of existing structures. Trump's new cost for the ballroom building including everything he wants in it will easily come in close to a billion dollars. The Demented One does not have that many billionaire friends.
God help us if he tears down the West Wing and the Eisenhower complex as well.
“Macron? Putin? The Sultan of Brunei? Alexander Van der Bellen? Is there some sense that our leader should have equivalent facilities or are they exactly what we regard as un-American?”
We should not have equivalent facilities; ours should be better, dammit, because we can.
Is there something un-American about a ballroom?
mccullough said...
“Roosevelt the Ted built the West Wing & East Wing and then Roosevelt the Frank expanded them.”
So for that pattern to hold, Trump the Donald builds the ballroom, and Trump the Barron expands it.
A drag queen ball in the former Trump ballroom will also be a lot of fun.
Questions 1-6... don't know and don't care. Trump & friends are paying for it.. so who cares?
I like big ballrooms and I cannot lie.
5. What goes on under the ballroom floor?
The ex presidents hate trump. No way they will say a good word.
It totally overwhelms the rest of the White House.
Well, since you've already predicted it won't be completed - or if so, at a much smaller scale - you don't have anything to worry about.
Next.
So for that pattern to hold, Trump the Donald builds the ballroom, and Trump the Barron expands it.
Nope. It will be Trump the Kai Madison who expands it.
Re: jm503:
Look at the animation at the top of the Washington Post today. I don’t see how anyone can look at that and not see a problem. It totally overwhelms the rest of the White House.
I don't have a WaPo subscription, but the renderings I have seen don't convey that impression at all. It seems pretty much in proportion, although it will convey a different impression simply because, unlike the ex-East Wing, it won't be largely invisible from the street, completely screened by trees. The enormous Second Empire-style Executive Office building and Neoclassical Treasury Building, which frame the White House and screen it from the side, both already dwarf the White House. And the ballroom is considerably smaller than the Treasury building.
That said, the planned two storey passageway/arcade leading from the Residenz to the new building will create some visual imbalance unless the West Wing is renovated too. Which wouldn't be terrible. Architecturally, the West Wing is kind of a mess, after all.
1. No. If Donald Trump has said that but not what the other Presidents were supposed to have said, you can be sure it’s bullshit. Some people who worked for former Presidents have said a ballroom would be nice.
2. Smaller events can still be held in the East Room of the White House and bigger events can still be held in tents on the White House lawn.
3. Even with the increased capacity from 650 to 1000, it’s not going to be an extra-large ballroom, not even the largest in Washington, DC. It’s not even going to be large enough to have hosted the 1340 people who attended Jimmy Carter’s 1979 state dinner for Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt.
In any case, state dinners are a secondary purpose. Mostly the ballroom will be used to host dinners for big campaign donors, and as a place to have happy hour for White House staffers and cabinet officials on Friday and Saturday nights.
4. Think outside the White House. Those other countries don’t limit themselves to the official residence of their head of state. For example, Macron has held French state dinners at Elysee Palace, Versailles, and the Louvre.
5. Who knows? There are very few hard facts on which to base an understanding. While I understood almost immediately that the ballroom itself would not be 90,000 square feet, Trump keeps saying that.
6. If Trump thought he was setting a trap, he has failed to make anyone look like “stupid hotheads.” But he has set a trap for himself, if the finished product doesn’t look like the pictures he’s posted.
7. The East Wing and West Wing have never been symmetrical and Trump says he’s putting all the extra money he may raise into his Arch.
I suspect a good bit of the 90,000 sq ft will be underground.
The WH bowling alley is in front of the North Portico.
James I & VI built the famous and stylistically-ground-breaking-for-England Banqueting House onto the old Whitehall Palace, and his son was led out of one of its windows to his execution.
The event hall protesters would rather increase environmental incursions, travel, and security on a forward-looking basis. That said, any criticism must be applied to all publicly funded or privileged structures ranging from medical to academic and beyond. The Pro-Choice selective, opportunistic, politically congruent religion is not a viable choice.
Michael said...
Maybe the question is not why the President is doing this, but why this wasn't done years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, this resonates with me. Maybe Trump is the only President who notices and truly gives a damn about the comfort of those in a lesser station than him.
And we can assume that before he was President, Trump attended state affairs in the South Lawn tents, including the port-a-potties. I'm sure that didn't sit well with him (no pun).
Remember he went to Axelrod about this before he was President, so imputing malevolent motives to him now is a stretch, to put it kindly.
Without reading comments yet I hope Jackie K was the first answer to the first question because it is widely known.
Gotta say I am disappointed with the quality of the commentariat lately. So much anger and very little humorous banter. The east and west wings are not even visible in most photos of the White House, located as they are at the outer terminuses of the extended colonnades. I had no idea that the West Wing was so lopsidedly large compared to the ancient crumbling East Wing. Likely most here did not. Nor the history. An objective observer would be able to appreciate the good luck of having a chief executive with expertise and experience in building gorgeous properties, sometimes for public use like the Central Park skating rink, sometimes extremely well appointed like Trump Tower, but known for on time and within budget completion.
But there are very few objective observers when it comes to anything Trump.
7. Enlarging the West Wing makes some sense. Monica Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton had sexual encounters in the private study, pantry, and dining room areas adjoining the Oval Office. How undignified. Having a dedicated Presidential mistress suite would enhance the White House for future Democrat Presidents.
Any one who has visited a major hotel property that hosts wedding receptions, business conferences, and the like knows that the larger ballrooms have moveable walls to accommodate small events -- often at the same time.
Number #1 benefit: no longer need to resod White House lawn several times a year due to ballroom tent floor damage. Climate-change advocates and eco-warriors should be pleased.
Number #2 benefit: ballroom guests in ballroom dresses no longer need to drag their ballgown hems through messy porta-potties. Ew, gross.
Number #3 benefit: caterers will be pleased to no longer need to plate and serve hundreds of meals from vulnerable tents, nor rely on portable warming ovens. Catering costs should reflect savings, food spoilage should be reduced.
If Clinton had commissioned ballroom building, have the building materials would've been redirected to Clinton's new post-presidency house.
If Bush had commissioned ballroom building, it would've looked like a sky-box for a baseball stadium.
If Obama had commissioned ballroom building, it would be designed by NYC starz architect and look like sci-fi bat cave, just like his ridiculous presidential library not-library in Chicago. Go look at photos of Obama memorial; looks like it belongs in Lord of the Rings.
If Biden had commissioned ballroom, it would've been constructed in NJ, not DC, look like a McMansion on the beach, ultimately for Hunter Biden to sell as federal disposal of redundant property and pocket the proceeds.
It seems pretty much in proportion, although it will convey a different impression simply because, unlike the ex-East Wing, it won't be largely invisible from the street, completely screened by trees.
Everything will be okay if we just follow the landscape architect's time-honored response to architectural mishaps: "Plant more trees."
·
Would anything be forgiven if Obama's library and museum had recreated part of the 1893 World's Fair in situ rather than an ugly concrete blockhouse?
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.