I wonder who the 4 sources are and how intensely Trump and the architect have disagreed. Is it a friendly back-and-forth about proportion and aesthetics or is there raging and threatening to stomp off and tell all?
And I wonder what size the architect thinks is right. We're told Trump wants a 90,000-square-foot building but not what the architect has been arguing for. We are told there's a "general architectural rule" that an addition shouldn't "overshadow" the main building and the executive mansion is 55,000 square feet. But what's the specific position the architect is taking? 90 is so huge, but what is the proposed ensmallment?Fault me if you like, but I went over to Grok and prompted: "Assume I want to write a fancy-schmancy essay interweaving the Trump and the architect story with ideas from the Ibsen play 'The Master Builder.' Help me out!"From Grok's answer (which spoils the ending of the play):
ADDED: Here, watch the whole play:In Ibsen’s The Master Builder, Halvard Solness clings to his eminence by refusing to let younger men rise, yet he is haunted by the desire to build “castles in the air” — homes for human beings that are also monuments to himself. In the end he climbs his own fatal tower to place the celebratory wreath, driven by a mixture of vanity, guilt, and erotic compulsion.Donald Trump’s proposed 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom is the contemporary equivalent of Solness’s impossible tower-with-a-spire: a structure that must be the largest, the most gilded, the most talked-about, even if it crushes the modest, symmetrical mansion it is meant to serve. James McCrery, the neoclassical architect Trump himself crowned as master builder, now plays both the cautious Brovik and the admonishing Hilda Wangel — warning that the addition will “overshadow” the historic house the way Solness’s pride overshadowed every human relationship. The drama unfolding in the East Wing blueprints is nothing less than a late-act reprise of Ibsen’s tragedy, complete with hubris, a vertiginous height, and the lurking possibility of a fatal fall....
Posts
40 comments:
By now the size is established. The contractor has been hired and work is underway, so the architect and engineers have already made their drawings and specified the materials and construction procedures. Contractors have contracted to fulfill the design drawings and spec book from the architect and engineers. Whatever permits the federal government needs in DC have been obtained. I think it is very unlikely that any changes from here on out are anything but minor. Changing the size of the building probably means starting over.
What Grundoon noted. Detailed engineering happens before ground-breaking. And detailed engineering happens after architectural design. Whoever thinks Trump is arguing with architects doesn't know construction project management.
DC blew up all "norms" in Trump 1 and I'm not inclined to believe any still stand. Now in Trump 2 they trot out weak shit like Architectural Norms? C'mon, dopes. You can do better than that. It sounds like surrender when you just keep running the same failed playbook. Think bigger. Think big ballroom the size of a great ballroom.
What Grundoon said. The article is just more clickbait for WaPoo readers. End of story.
Clues
I don't believe there exists a conflict over the ballroom size. I don't believe any disagreement is taking place. Any quotes are likely fabricated. I'm sick of pseudonews taking the place of actual reporting on actual events.
Grundoon - that sounds correct to me.
Once something is permitted - you are pretty much done.
If you want to make serious changes - the permit process starts all over again.
Trump is improving the white house at minimal or zero cost to the taxpayer. Sounds good, right? Of course not!
The Wapo/NYT must make it seem bad. Its orange man. So now we get some unsourced, fake story about arguments with the architech. How many times has the MSM Lied with the "anonymous sources"? Answer: lots.
There's no reason for someone to remain anonymous. They're not divulging classified secrets. Its about building a ballroom. If they really exist, they'd put their name to it. So, I say bullshit.
Remember how in the 1st term, Melanie and Trump "destroyed the Rose Garden". Did Biden change it back? I dunno. you tell me.
The actor in the recorded version of the play is E.G. Marshall (who I'm surprised to see reminds me of Meade!).
The more important and interesting question is what happens to the ballroom in 3 years when the democrats control the WH and Congress. I’m thinking a museum dedicated to Corruption by the present president. 90,000 square feet is probably not enough space.
While we're at it, let's write a fancy-schmancy essay interweaving the Trump and Melania with ideas from the Ibsen play 'A Doll's House.' Yeah, that's the ticket.
Any moment now some judge some where is going to issue a stop work order.
pettyjim5301
Care to name that corruption? A few actual real items - please.
Winning the election against idiot Kamala is not one of them. boo hoo.
Donald Trump is certainly a master builder but unlike Ibsen’s Solness he doesn’t appear to suffer from acrophobia. His taste and mine are a bit different but I have to agree with the commentators upthread who argue that the fact that the project has broken ground means that the permits are in place, which in turn means that the design is complete and vetted, and the engineering is done.
There’s probably a bit of lying by omission going on in the Post since the new wing must accommodate not merely s large indoor ballroom, but also the replacements for the old East Wing offices.
In the age of 20-something year old radicalized lied-to /rage-filled / entitled to kill/ inspired/trained leftist snipers - moving the ballroom type activities from an outside tent venue - to a beautiful neo-classical secure and warm indoor space seems logical.
& NO TAX-payers will be ripped-off.
Leftists everywhere - whiiiiine. boo hoo.
Democrats will happily party in it, Jim. They love free stuff. They love royal accoutrements. But they have you fooled with their fake Trump bitching. That's the funniest part. You actually believe they hate the ballroom. LOL. What a fool.
jim5301 said...
The more important and interesting question is what happens to the ballroom in 3 years when the democrats control the WH and Congress. I’m thinking a museum dedicated to Corruption by the present president. 90,000 square feet is probably not enough space.
This is the problem with Ann licking the media's toes.
People like Jim are feeding on these lies. Even though Ann is making fun of them on one level she is refusing to see the eventual results of this implicit dishonesty and evil.
Shitheads like this are just waiting to throw as many people in jail and kill as many of us as they need to get power back and they will tell any lie they need to justify it.
jim5301 said...
“The more important and interesting question is what happens to the ballroom in 3 years when the democrats control the WH and Congress. I’m thinking a museum dedicated to Corruption by the present president. 90,000 square feet is probably not enough space.”
That would be really poor use of the space. Example number 123,456,789 of why leftists suck at both economics and the skills to responsibly run things.
RCOCEAN II said...
Remember how in the 1st term, Melanie and Trump "destroyed the Rose Garden"?
I can just imagine female reporters in spike heels standing or walking in the old Rose Garden when the ground was soggy. Nevertheless, TDS prevents them from expressing gratitude for the change.
To paraphrase Churchill, if the ballroom is big enough to contain the largest possible events, nine-tenths of its events will be conducted in the depressing atmosphere of an almost empty or half-empty room.
WaPon, WaPoff, WaPout... the WaPors are anti-choice.
WaPo making it Ballroom vs Ballsroom.
This seems like news:
"The historic Georgia election interference case against President Trump and allies for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election is no more."
Maybe 50,000 ft is in the basement... like a real nuke bomb shelter... In Japan many buildings are TEN stories underground as well as 10-20 stories above ground.
Large ballrooms have moveable partitions to accommodate smaller events. So stop with the criticism of the size, EP. More, Orange Man Bad shite
Trump once said the ballroom is big enough for an inauguration. I think the days of outside inaugurations are over. The ballroom has bulletproof windows and a droneproof roof.
By my guess using the sketches and the statement that the ballroom can seat 650 people I think the ballroom is about 20,000 sq ft or a little less. The indoor and outdoor sketches that have been published make me think the ballroom floor is about 30,000 sq ft. The ballroom is on the second floor. So if the footprint is 30,000 sq ft and there are two floors and a basement that would be 90,000 sq ft.
By the way, the entire building, inside and out, is very photogenic. I think photographers will make great use of it in dramatic photos of sunrises, sunsets, white puffy clouds, the new north lawn flag standing full in a strong breeze, and beautiful candid photos of dignitaries.
What does Trump know about building stuff anyway?
Eric Swallwell(D-fang fang f-er) plans to tear the Ballroom down. Because hate and rage fuel the Soviets.
Its just click bait for the Ingas
@Paul, the old East Wing reportedly had 55,000 sq. ft. of office space, and the replacement building is supposed to provide that much space and more. So 20,000 to 25,000 is probably about right.
Ballroom envy.
Paul said...
“Maybe 50,000 ft is in the basement... like a real nuke bomb shelter... In Japan many buildings are TEN stories underground as well as 10-20 stories above ground.”
Or - hear me out - underground is the secret headquarters for U.N.C.L.E. You can access it from the Del Floria memorial coat check room.
Where were these "architectural norms" when the monstrosity known as a J. Edgar Hoover building was built to squat over Pennsylvania Avenue?
----- I wonder who the 4 sources are
"Russian Bot-1, R-Bot-2, R-Bot-3, and uh.... oh.... it's in my notes here, I know I have it. Let me skate on that one, mio editoreo, four sounds just right. I can come up with it later on if we really need it. Like anyone's counting."
I saw the film version with Wallace Shawn. It's hard to think of him playing Trump. Trump playing Shawn might be interesting though.
Large ballrooms have moveable partitions to accommodate smaller events.
I’ll take “Sheratons in suburban New Jersey” for $500.
Trump is more of a Master Baiter than a Master Builder.
Of course, Trump could show us the plans, or a summary that shows things like building footprint and height, but that would be too much transparency and take all the fun out of it for Trump.
There’s a model that has been show to the press, but presumably the model is the architect’s vision not Trump’s vision. Because the one thing we know is that Trump did not build the model.
As to cost to the federal government, it won’t be free, and Trump has said as much. Will it be 10%, 30%, or 50%? Again, Trump isn’t telling us.
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.