Architectural Originalism?

I am amused by the meltdown among the left and the legacy media (but I repeat myself) over the demolition of the White House East Wing, a building which--as far as I can see--had no particular historical or aesthetic merit, and seems to have consisted of cramped offices, the entrance and exit points for White House visitors, and numerous offices designated for the use of the First Lady and her staff.

Before construction began, in 1902, on the first building to the east of the Executive Residence, the White House had a lovely "East Entrance," one which was cruelly obscured by the new building, which served as an entrance and exit point for visitors and which--as far as I can tell--wasn't officially dignified with the name "East Wing." Its primary feature, according to the East Wing Wikipedia page, appears to have been a long cloakroom with many hooks for visitors' coats and hats.

In 1942, as part of the construction of, and effort to disguise, the below-ground Presidential Emergency Operations Center, the building was expanded to include a second floor for offices, and the cloakroom was turned into the White House Family Theater. It seems to be at this point (82 years ago) that it became known as the "East Wing."

It wasn't until 1977 (48 years ago) that Rosalynn Carter became the first First Lady to secure her own office in the East Wing. Less than half a century, and only nine Presidents ago (eight if you count Trump as one). One does wonder what all the other dozens of previous First Ladies did with themselves, where they did it, and how they survived. (I do know that Grace Coolidge knitted a lot, and I can say, from personal experience, that one doesn't need an entire large building for such an activity. Well, for the yarn stash, maybe. Yeah, that. She probably could have filled the East Wing, had it been available at the time. Just saying.)

Architectural Digest has posted a nice timeline of White House renovations over the years. It's behind a paywall, but you might get a free view. Axios has published a partial list. History.com also has a nice photo essay on the subject.

So, today I say, "The White House is a living, breathing, monument, one envisaged, approved and built by our Founding Fathers (and other enslaving families). It is a building which has remained sensitive to history, but which has also changed and flexed with the times, overcoming the mistakes, but staying true to our founding principles, adapting to contemporary culture and mores along the way, and one whose caretakers must continue to redesign and transform it to meet the needs of the twenty-first century and beyond."

But what I'm hearing from the left is something more along the lines of, "The White House is an untouchable, unchangeable, historical artifact, conceived and built by our peerless Founding Fathers (never mind the 'enslaving' business), which no man--least of all Orange Man Bad--should alter, deface or otherwise attempt to bring up to date. Nothing has changed there over the decades, ever, and there's no need to start now."

Sheesh. Talk about the shoe being on the other foot. Even if we're looking at the difference between--not always exactly comparable--ideas and things.

I can't wait until some unfortunate person is tasked with the job of telling Donald Trump that the electricity (installed in 1891) is being pulled out in order to restore the building to its original pristine state, that the basement is being retrofitted for the comfort of the slaves that work there, or that the entire interior and furnishings are being burned to a crisp in honor of the events of 1814.

PS: I see that today's Washington Post is promoting a canard I've seen elsewhere, with regard to the White House's "East Room." That's the room that holds 200, and in which largish state occasions have been held to this point, albeit always with the necessary assistance of tents and other temporary accommodation in the White House grounds, making such hosting events difficult, if not simply unfeasible, during the winter months.

The East Room is not part of the "East Wing" and is not affected by the demolition and future construction. It's part of the Executive Residence. So the feverish crying in this morning's opinion piece in WaPo, that (emphasis mine):

Trump didn’t get to see Mick Jagger and B.B. King perform in the East Wing, where only 200 people could be seated. That sort of intimacy is gone forever. In 2012, I was a lucky attendee at the Red, White and Blues concert hosted by President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama. Seated directly behind the Obamas, I’d guess the performers were maybe 10 feet away. If the president hadn’t been blocking me, I might have felt Jagger’s sweat as he slithered and strutted across the room beneath a life-size portrait of George Washington

besides being TMI, is entirely false, and a disgraceful bit of reporting from someone who claims to have been there in the audience at the event. Jagger and King never performed in the East Wing. They performed in the East Room.

"That sort of intimacy" is not "gone forever," and the opportunity to "[feel] Jagger's sweat"--for better or for worse--in the White House East Room remains to this day and beyond.

All this reminds me of the shrieking about how Trump destroyed the Rose Garden (another iconic White House concoction with a rather spotty history) with his "Mar-a-Lago" patio effect. Now, I don't much like that particular aesthetic, but I wonder how many people realize that all Trump did was pull up the rather scraggly lawn and replace it with marble, tables, and umbrellas. The roses weren't touched. And I wonder--remembering the wig out over Melania's efforts there during Trump's first term--how many remember that the trees that were removed were dying or dead, and that only about a dozen of the original roses were still in flower. As a Brit, I can think of so many marvelous Rose Garden themes--"Garden of Peace," "Garden of History," "Garden of Color"--and can't help viewing the rather pathetic offerings on display at the White House as less than optimal. Maybe import some gardeners from the Royal Horticultural Society to tell the White House staff what to do, now that something like 1/3 of Brits are replacing their front gardens with fake grass and concrete, because they can no longer be bothered to plant flowers or take care of the real thing?

Feeling a bit like Trump, here, myself:

Weaving...

*Photo at top of post is from the Library of Congress and shows the first "East Wing" constructed in 1902, before it became known as such, and while it was still basically a cloakroom. I can only suppose that the lovely approach, the magnificent fountain and lawns, and the carefully chosen trees were all ripped out in 1942 for the expansion. Go figure.