DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Posted (3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2004 times:
But don't get too excited. The Oval Office needs renovation and the President (whether it is Obama or someone else) will need to vacate the famous chamber for as long as a year.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11546 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1975 times:
I have to wonder how long the White House as a whole can hold out. It's already been renovated and expanded several times, but it is still a building from another time and the president may simply need more room and more secure facilities. I would think that sometime, in maybe the not too distant future, it may be a better option overall to move the offices at least to a new state of the art and more survivable building. I see no reason why the current White House couldn't remain as the official residence other than the fact that having the president commute more often is a security issue and an inconvenience to citizens.
Perhaps in the future the President can live and work with his staff at a new, modern facility and use the current White House as a venue for state events.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Cadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1223 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
A year seems like a lot...I mean the West Wing isn't all that big. My old high school (which is huge), underwent massive renovations over the course of one summer. That included replacing electrical wires, pipes, windows, the boilers, etc. Then again, I'm sure that in addition to the situation room, there are probably parts of the West Wing that we do not know about.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17874 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1962 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1): but it is still a building from another time
It's only from the 1820s (and the internal structure was replaced while Truman was in office). There are plenty of buildings from that time around the world that are still standing and being actively used for various purposes. The White House is obviously well taken care of, so I see no reason it can't continue to function as both residence and office.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 4, posted (3 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1922 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
It's only from the 1820s (and the internal structure was replaced while Truman was in office). There are plenty of buildings from that time around the world that are still standing and being actively used for various purposes. The White House is obviously well taken care of, so I see no reason it can't continue to function as both residence and office.
The other thing is that much of the Executive Branch is not just housed in the White House. The President is one man and can only occupy so much office. There are a bunch of office buildings in the immediate vicinity of the White House that can also be used. The wings can always be enlarged and they can always build downwards, too.
The White House will not be abandoned as long as the US exists. Even if it lasts 5,000 years.
GBLKD From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 330 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1884 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): It's only from the 1820s (and the internal structure was replaced while Truman was in office). There are plenty of buildings from that time around the world that are still standing and being actively used for various purposes. The White House is obviously well taken care of, so I see no reason it can't continue to function as both residence and office.
10 Downing Street dates back to 1682 and the core of Buckingham Palace was built in 1705. The White House is a relative youngster by comparison. No reason why as you say good mainenance should see it last for a very long time.
Mortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1842 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1): I have to wonder how long the White House as a whole can hold out. It's already been renovated and expanded several times, but it is still a building from another time and the president may simply need more room and more secure facilities.
The Whitehouse is just a little older than the Royal Palace in Norway, so I am sure the construction is good enough if maintanance is being kept up. I beleave the Whitehouse has a huge basement under ground ? Can't an evetual enlargment happen under ground ?
slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1782 times:
Its not so much the age of the building which is a problem but the size, IMHO.
Having visited the premises once, I was surprised by how little it is: Any mediocre royal palace in Europe is way larger.
In fact, other than downing street in London, I can't think of any leader's residence which is so disappointingly small as the white house in DC and downingstreet is the residence of the PM under a monarch!
Something bigger would definitely be appropriate and could become a landmark really soon, similar the the Kanslerambt in Berlin.
photopilot From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2418 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1768 times:
Seeing as this year is the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 in which British soldiers burned down the White House (actually burned down on August 24, 1814), we'd be happy to re-enact this so that you can rebuild from scratch.
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
While there are some who hope he vacates the 'oval office' by losing re-election, it appears that that there are serious needs for renovations to the WH. I suspect that despite major renovations done in the past, some serious problems still exist as well as a probable need to improve security infrastructure. It is suspected that even before 9/11 and much more since then, extensive underground facilities with an emergency 'bunker' have been built to keep the President, family and top staff secure if a terror attack of various kinds.
The WH is the home and prime office of the President. It is the symbolic and physical structure of our Head of State. It has a lot of history. It won't be replaced. Is is also built on weak ground and not 'bedrock' which probably adds to it's need for major renovations. Past renovations were probably not of the standards of today as to materials, structural or fire codes or modern security needs. Past renovations may have problems showing up or triggered other problems needing repairs.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 8073 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1704 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): the internal structure was replaced while Truman was in office
I read his biography and the press ripped him to shreds for doing it. They didn't want to understand that the building literally was in danger of falling down. They thought he was using the money to "pimp his ride" and couldn't understand why the President should have such luxury.
At the time, the project engineer said that the White House was still standing largely out of habit!
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4871 posts, RR: 21 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1651 times:
Maybe they are finally going to pull out all of Nixon's hidden microphones.
Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2): That included replacing electrical wires, pipes, windows, the boilers, etc.
My understanding of that project is that it included almost all the West Wing, except the actual Presidential Office - the Oval Office and his secretaries office. This 'new' project is the finish of the larger West Wing project.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 8073 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1613 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 11): My understanding of that project is that it included almost all the West Wing, except the actual Presidential Office - the Oval Office and his secretaries office.
Edit: In order to refurbish the Swiss parliamentary building, we've relocated both the seat of the legislative and the executive to congress venues in Geneva, Lugano and Flims in 1993, 2001 and 2006. This was also done to symbolically strengthen the ties to the non-German speaking parts of Switzerland.
ba6590 From UK - England, joined Jul 2007, 119 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1510 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 11): My understanding of that project is that it included almost all the West Wing, except the actual Presidential Office - the Oval Office and his secretaries office.
He was referring to the renovation his school underwent, not what had previously been done to the white house.
"Never forget, the higher we soar, the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche -
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1): I have to wonder how long the White House as a whole can hold out. It's already been renovated and expanded several times, but it is still a building from another time and the president may simply need more room and more secure facilities.
The White House is simply a shell building. The only original remains are the exterior walls. As others have mentioned, the building was gutted and retrofitted with steel beams during the Truman administration.
I see no reason why the building won't be used by our government for decades to come. Although a similar renovation may need to happen in the future.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28959 posts, RR: 66 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1442 times:
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 15): As others have mentioned, the building was gutted and retrofitted with steel beams during the Truman administration.
And that was back when they had better steel then we have this day and age. They didn't use as much recycled crap. That and engineers seemed to build more margin into their structures rather than today when they try and get by with as little metal as possible.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17874 posts, RR: 59 Reply 17, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1417 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 16): That and engineers seemed to build more margin into their structures rather than today when they try and get by with as little metal as possible.
That's just a result of increased precision and better metallurgy these days. When you have a better idea of how much metal you need to support the required load, and how much load your metal will take, you can better match the amount you use to how much you actually need. That's why older equipment is often over-engineered - not because they wanted to do it that way, but because that's the only way they could be sure it was going to meet the requirements.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1395 times:
Quoting slz396 (Reply 7): Its not so much the age of the building which is a problem but the size, IMHO.
Having visited the premises once, I was surprised by how little it is: Any mediocre royal palace in Europe is way larger.
The residence is little. But once you throw on the two wings, it's actually quite large.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 12568 posts, RR: 68 Reply 19, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1359 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 16): And that was back when they had better steel then we have this day and age. They didn't use as much recycled crap. That and engineers seemed to build more margin into their structures rather than today when they try and get by with as little metal as possible.
Not really. Back then they still used the Bessemer, Siemens-Martin and Thomas proceses to convert raw iron into steel.
All these processes use heated air to burn the impurities out off the moltemn metal, but since air contains nitrogen, they introduce it into the steel. Nitrogen causes brittleness within the steel when it ages or is exposed to low temperatures.
A few years ago a whole county in Germany was cut off from the electric grid after a series of high voltage masts failed in cold weather. They were all installed back in the fifties and the power company was too thrifty to replace them.
Similarly, if the Titanic would have been built out of a modern steel, the collision with the iceberg would have caused the hull to rip open that much. It would have buckled, but not cracked.
Today´s mass steels are made mostly by the Austrian developed Linz-Donawitz process, in which pure oxygen is being blown onto the surface of the molten iron in the reaction vessel.
Recycled steel is being molten in electrical arc furnaces under carefully controlled conditions and samples are taken of each charge for analysis in the laboratiry to adjust the necessary alloys.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11546 posts, RR: 27 Reply 20, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1327 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 6): so I am sure the construction is good enough if maintanance is being kept up. I beleave the Whitehouse has a huge basement under ground ? Can't an evetual enlargment happen under ground ?
It's well maintained, but I think the eventual issue is going to be how much space there is and how secure that space can be. I'd think that within several decades people may have to look at building something akin to the Pentagon (not nearly as large though) for the executive branch and leave the current White House as a ceremonial venue.
Eventually I think that it will become a better option to just build a greenfield facility for the President and his staff.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
propilot83 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 512 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1304 times:
Well you gotta do what you gotta do, nothings perfect in life, nor will it ever be. If you have to move someone like the President to the EEOB then so be it. Either sacrifice the Oval Office for repairs, renovation upgrades, etc. or live with old outdated damaged material. Please only choose one! hahaha
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, RR: 15 Reply 22, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1270 times:
Quoting slz396 (Reply 7): Something bigger would definitely be appropriate and could become a landmark really soon, similar the the Kanzleramt in Berlin.
One reason why the building is so big is the nearby Reichstag building with its huge cupola. The two architects were afraid a modest building would simply disappear in the metaphorical shadow of the Reichstag (and its twisted history).
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
stealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5073 posts, RR: 51 Reply 23, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1194 times:
At the risk of going off topic..(or cross topic)
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 19): Similarly, if the Titanic would have been built out of a modern steel, the collision with the iceberg would have caused the hull to rip open that much. It would have buckled, but not cracked.
Are you sure about that... there is 80,000 odd tonnes of 6 year old scrap metal lying on it's side off the coast of Italy.
Seems like more than buckled steel to me.. and travelling slower than Titanic at the time, took about the same time to sink though!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
stasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3061 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1163 times:
The entire White House is getting a huge renovation, including infrastructure. The estimated price tag is almost $400 million USD. This four year project includes replacing all of the plumbing, sewar, climate control, electrical, security, fire suppression systems, and (of course) numerous"classified" improvements. Like a high tech bunker very deep under the White House that can withstand chemical or biological warfare.
And this wasn't a "shovel ready" project that Obama crafted - it was originally approved by the Bush Administration in the aftermath of September 11th.
It is the largest improvement program done to the executive mansion since the Truman Administration's entire gutting of the building.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
25 okie: Thanks for the pic canoecarrier, I am thinking the only way you could get that scale on my house with a bulldozer and a dump-truck inside would be wi
26 Airstud: Why didn't they just do the renovations while Dubya was President? As far as I know he never spent any time at the office.
27 zippyjet: If you listen to Coast To Coast AM many pundits say eventually when DC sinks due to rising sea level or it gets nuked the new USA Capital and of cour
28 BMI727: They'll need to put a bike rack on Cadillac One then.
29 Aesma: Shell building indeed, very impressive picture. I thought the WH was still in wood, seems like you like recyclable wood houses in the US, not made to
30 canoecarrier: The Truman library has a lot of artifacts taken from the building when they did the renovation. Much of the wood trim, doors, and hardware were saved
31 Ken777: And even today the WH is the most recognized Presidential/PM/s residence in the world, ant that Black Door in 10 Downing Street is the most recognize
32 airport1970: I did not know that. "he never spent any time at the office" What facts do you base that statement on?[Edited 2012-02-05 06:06:06]
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14046 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 330 posts, 
From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 2759 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2418 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 332 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jul 2007, 119 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 12568 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5073 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
