Priya Jain, the chair of a heritage preservation committee at the Society of Architectural Historians, told the BBC that the process laid out by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was well established and would have been the “best practice” for Trump’s East Wing renovation.
These reviews – which can take years – involves discussions about programmatic requirements and potential alternatives.
“In this case, it would have been: do we need such a big ballroom? Should it be smaller?” said Jain, a professor of architecture at Texas A&M University. “Could it be an extension of the East Wing? Could it have been submerged?”
At stake, she said, is the “history” that the building contains. All the additions to the White House over time have added to how the public understands the building and the country at that point in time, she said.
“It’s the memory,” she said. “The East Wing is 83 years old. It has assumed a historical importance of its own. I haven’t seen much out there about how that was assessed.”
