White House Ballroom - Standards
In the context of criticisms like those surrounding the White House State Ballroom, the AIA and preservation experts often cite violations of existing standards, such as disproportionate scale, incompatible aesthetics, or lack of harmony with historic fabric, underscoring the need for review processes to ensure compliance.
Architectural historian Bryan Clark Green noted that "from a norms and customs side, administrations have always gone through that [approval] process to get buy-in and to make sure the public sees the process and isn't surprised by the design." The Society of Architectural Historians noted this would be the first "major change to its exterior appearance" since 1942, urging "a rigorous and deliberate design and review process."
A few days after the ballroom project’s unveiling, American Institute of Architects President Eveylyn Lee and AIA Interim EVP/CEO Stephen Ayers sent an open letter to the Committee for the Preservation of the White House, "A rigorous historic-preservation review is critical to guarantee harmony with James Hoban’s neoclassical style and protection of historic sightlines, such as Pennsylvania Avenue and Lafayette Square. Strict adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (HABS/HAER/HALS) is essential to the safeguarding of the White House architectural legacy. It is critical that the Committee ensures that these standards are rigorously applied."
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) supports historic preservation through professional guidance, contractual documents, and advocacy for adherence to established standards, particularly in projects involving historically significant structures like the White House. While the AIA does not maintain its own independent set of preservation standards, it frequently references and incorporates the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, developed by the National Park Service (NPS) under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These standards were created with input from organizations including the AIA and are widely used in federal programs, tax incentives, and preservation planning. The AIA's involvement emphasizes creative design processes in preservation, viewing it as more than mere repair but as an opportunity to integrate historic integrity with modern needs.
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are National Park Service (NPS) administered standards provide the foundational guidelines for handling historic properties. They consist of general standards applicable to all treatments, plus specific standards for four treatment categories: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Evolved since the 1970s (with major revisions in 1992, 2011, 2017, and 2019 to address sustainability, flood adaptation, and modern materials), they ensure the retention of historic character while allowing compatible changes. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
Examples of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards being applied to White House projects are somewhat limited due to the White House's exemption from certain requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 107, which states that the Act does not apply to the White House and its grounds. However, the National Park Service (NPS), which oversees aspects of the site's management, often strives to align projects with these standards voluntarily to preserve historic integrity. The standards, formalized in 1977 and revised over time, guide treatments like preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction.
If the National Park Service or other federal agency carries out planning, development, and construction of the proposed addition, then the project had to undergo review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
National Park Service New Additions to Historic Buildings state " a new addition must preserve the historic building’s form/envelope, significant materials and features; must be compatible with the historic building’s massing, size, scale, and architectural features; and must be differentiated from the historic building to preserve its character. Standard 10 calls for new additions to be constructed in such a manner that the essential form and integrity of the historic property be unimpaired if the new work were to be removed in the future.... there must be a balance between differentiation and compatibility in order to maintain the historic character and the very identity of the building being enlarged. New additions that are either identical to the historic building or in extreme contrast to it fall short of this balance. Inherent in all of the guidance is the concept that an addition needs to be subordinate to the historic building....
"A new addition is most appropriately located where its visibility from the primary views of the historic building is minimized. This is often a rear or obscure elevation. However, rear or side elevations may not always be sufficiently secondary to be suitable locations for an addition, particularly when a historic building is visually prominent from many vantage points....
"The size, scale, and massing of a new addition all pertain to the addition’s overall volume and three-dimensional qualities. Taken together, size, scale and massing are critical elements for ensuring that a new addition is subordinate to the historic building, thus preserving the historic character of a historic property. Typically, a compatible addition should be smaller than the historic building in both height and footprint. However, there are other considerations that may allow moving away from this basic concept.
"Depending on its location, it may be possible that an addition slightly taller or slightly larger than the historic building may be acceptable, as long as it is visually subordinate to the historic building. In some cases, separating the addition from the historic building with a small hyphen can reduce the impact of an addition that is larger than the historic building. Another way of minimizing the impact of a new addition to an historic building is to offset it or step it back from the mass of the historic building.
The White House Rose Garden Landscape Report included Appendix K with excerpts from the Secretary's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995 edition), guiding the work under the "rehabilitation" treatment. This ensured compatible changes that retained historic character, such as minimal alterations to distinctive features and the use of evidence-based replacements. Despite controversy over aesthetic changes (e.g., removal of some foliage), the project aimed to comply with standards for sustainability and modern use while preserving the garden's cultural landscape significance.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
