White House extension will have "adverse" but not "significant" impacts says NPS

An environmental assessment by the National Park Service recently made public found that president Donald Trump's demolition of the White House's East Wing to clear the way for a ballroom was acceptable.

The environmental assessment was publicised as part of a lawsuit taken up by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) against the federal government, which challenges the legality of Trump's actions regarding the White House grounds.

The National Park Service, which acts as stewards for the White House grounds, conducted the report in August. Trump first announced plans for the White House ballroom construction in late July.

Named Finding of No Significant Impact, the assessment was co-signed by National Park Service deputy director Frank Lands. It detailed the potential scope of the president's plans and its impacts, well before the wholesale demolition of the East Wing.

It outlined potential effects on the "three distinct cultural landscapes" in the White House and President's Park, as defined under the 1791 DC masterplan by French engineer Pierre Charles L'Enfant.

"Long-term adverse effects"

In a section titled "short and long-term beneficial and adverse effects," the report detailed potential downsides of the plan, including short-term adverse effects such as construction disruptions, along with longer-term effects related to disruptions of the landscape design and obstructed views.

"Under the selected action, the White House grounds cultural landscape, which was originally designed by Thomas Jefferson and later modified by the designs of Andrew Jackson Downing, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr, and others, will be altered through an expansion of the White House footprint and the addition of a larger structure on its east side," said the report.

"These changes will result in long-term adverse effects on the cultural landscape."

However, the report also highlighted benefits, including the lack of need for temporary tents. The report ultimately deemed the project not to have "significant" adverse impacts.

"Despite the adverse impacts identified in the EA, the selected action will not result in significant adverse impacts to the park's cultural landscapes," said the report.

Beyond the effects of the park, it also cited the adverse effects of changes to the historical architecture, saying that "these changes will adversely alter the design, setting, and feeling of the White House and the grounds over the long term".

It countered this by noting the benefits of being able to host large events, reiterating the benefits of foregoing the need for temporary structures, which has been the tradition for hosting large events.

How recent plans to build a full-scale MMA arena on the White House lawn figure into these predictions is unclear.

"A building that has evolved over time"

The assessment stipulates potential mitigation measures, including replanting of trees, documentation of artefacts, and salvaging of materials during the process, although it's unclear whether these measures have been implemented in the wholesale demolition of the former East Wing.

The department cited the White House's continued adaptation to changing executive and public needs over time.

"The White House is unique in that, while it is a historic building, it is also a building that has evolved over time. Since 1805, Presidents have expanded and updated the White House to meet the needs of the executive office of the president."

"The selected action is consistent with this historic pattern of use and with the park's enabling legislation," said the report, noting that an Environmental Impact Statement will "not be required".

It confirmed that the building will be complete by summer 2028.

On top of the NTHP, which goes into hearings today, 16 December, things seem even more up in the air, given the post-demolition firing of the ballroom's original architect, James McCrery.

The architecture community has since come out against Trump's replacement, Shalom Baranes Associates, signing a petition that calls into question Shalom Baranes Associates' compliance with AIA bylaws.

Currently, the White House is exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act, which contains strict rules for augmented historic structures. Today, representative Jamie Raskin introduced legislation to end that exemption.

The image is by McCrery Architects, courtesy of the White House. 

The post White House extension will have "adverse" but not "significant" impacts says NPS appeared first on Dezeen.