To what end exactly? Whether you like Trump or not it's objectively true that the US does not currently have adequate facilities to host large head of state functions. That we set up port-a-johns and tents to host them bears that out. What exactly would be the point of tearing down a facility built just because it was built by during the admin of a guy you disagree with politically?
Did you miss the part where you typed wing? And they torn down part of the east wing currently the smallest part of the Whitehouse complex. The East Wing was built as the WH ballroom. We have as a nation outgrown that facility. It needed to be enlarged and updated to meet current modern demands. The original WH was 8k SQ. It's now over 55k sqft not including the wings which constituted another almost 50k sqft. This is not the first time the WH has been added on to and it won't be the last. Your only objection is who's doing it not that it's being done.
First, to delete the excess and monument to self unbefitting of the people's house.
In other words. I dont like the guy who built it so Im going to throw a temper tantrum.
Build it with an eye towards symmetry and aesthetics
Yes, you love your little strawman.
Oh bullshit. The original size of the WH was 8k sqft. It's not over 55k sqft. That's 6.5 times its original size. Should we tear down everything and restore it to the original 8k size? Both the west and east wings were additions HUGE additions should they be torn down? The East wing was built as a ball room for ***** sake. We are just expanding the size of the space because it no longer meets the requirements of the office. You're just a TDS political hack.
Still symmetrical and majestic
www.theguardian.com
