Park: The Transformation of the Rose Garden

The 2020 redesign of the White House Rose Garden by Oehme, Van Sweden was a project marked by meticulous hands-on oversight. It involved the removal of flowering Crabapple trees, a more subdued planting scheme, infrastructure upgrades, and the addition of a defined stone pathway. While these changes modernized the space, they also sparked debate about balancing historical preservation with contemporary needs. The garden, long a symbol of elegance and diplomacy, now reflects the aesthetic preferences of former First Lady Melania Trump but at what cost to its legacy?

A Historical Jewel Transformed

The Rose Garden, in its modern form, was conceived during John F. Kennedy’s administration by socialite and gardener Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, alongside landscape architect Perry Wheeler. Its origins trace back even further to 1913, when First Lady Ellen Axson Wilson commissioned George Burnap to create the White House’s first dedicated garden.

The latest redesign, however, has dramatically altered the garden’s essence. The central lawn a hallmark of its landscape has been replaced with diamond-patterned stone pavers, forming an event courtyard. The perimeter features drainage grates shaped like American flags, and the Presidential Seal marks each corner. While some greenery remains, including rose bushes and hedges bordering the new courtyard, critics argue the space has lost its timeless charm in favor of functionality.

Trump’s Vision: Grandeur Over Tradition?

Former President Donald Trump defended the changes, stating, “We got great reviews for the Rose Garden we had to do it.” The redesign aligns with his broader efforts to reshape the White House grounds, drawing inspiration from his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida. Trump cited practical concerns, like the lawn’s tendency to become “wet and muddy,” particularly problematic for high-heel-wearing guests.

Yet, the project has faced widespread criticism, including from the Kennedy family and preservationists. Detractors argue that the pavers and ceremonial elements prioritize opulence over the garden’s historical role as a living, evolving space for gatherings, press briefings, and quiet reflection.

A Grand Ballroom Expansion: Ambitious or Overreach?

Beyond the garden, Trump unveiled plans for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom nearly double the size of the White House itself to replace temporary event tents. Estimated at $200 million, the project would be funded privately by Trump and “patriotic donors.” McCrery Architects and AECOM were tapped to design the addition, described as a “beautiful and necessary renovation” that maintains classical elegance.

However, the rushed timeline and lack of public review have raised eyebrows. The New York Times highlighted concerns from historic preservation experts, noting the White House’s exemption from the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. While the AIA (American Institute of Architects) issued recommendations to preserve the site’s integrity, the project’s scale and symbolism remain contentious.

Preservation vs. Progress: A Delicate Balance

The Rose Garden and ballroom projects underscore a tension between modernization and heritage. While updates can enhance functionality, they risk erasing layers of history. As the AIA’s letter emphasized, any modifications to the White House must honor its “historical and symbolic significance”—a principle that should guide future administrations.

✦ ArchUp Editorial Insight

The White House Rose Garden’s redesign reflects a clash between tradition and transformation, where pragmatic updates collide with sentimental attachment to historical landscapes. While the new courtyard improves event hosting, its stone-heavy design feels impersonal, stripping away the garden’s organic warmth. Critics rightly question whether such changes prioritize spectacle over substance. Yet, the project also highlights a rarely discussed truth: even iconic spaces must evolve to remain functional. The ballroom proposal, though polarizing, addresses real logistical gaps. If executed with sensitivity, it could marry grandeur with legacy proving that innovation need not come at the cost of heritage.