Let’s Talk About the Proposed Eisenhower Building Paint Job
- Preserve Rhode Island
- May 20
- 3 min read
In addition to the destruction of the East Wing of the White House to replace it with a ballroom, the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) is also slated for significant alterations. During an April 16 Commission of Fine Arts review meeting, the Executive Office of the President, Office of Administration, presented a concept plan with two options for painting over the EEOB’s original solid granite façade in bright white. The first would paint the entire building except for the base; the second would paint the building including the base. Leading up to the meeting, 900 comments were submitted from renowned preservation professions with 100% disapproval.
Among the organizations offering public comment, The D.C. Preservation League presented compelling evidence for leaving the building unpainted. They conducted a survey of 25 leading preservation professions and specialists in masonry, who unanimously rejected the idea of painting the building with the proposed Mineral Silicate paint — or any paint for that matter. Their joint statement declared:
Granite lacks the calcium carbonate necessary for the paint to bond, nor does paint strengthen granite or protect it from deterioration.
Application of paint will require extensive abrasion of the surface so that the paint can adhere and will permanently damage the granite, meaning that removing the paint would be impossible without significant further damage to the stone.
Silicate paint traps moisture and will cause the surface of the stone to fail over time.
Staining will still occur but will be more visible against bright white paint; cleaning and repainting will occur with high frequency and would require more maintenance than unpainted granite. The cost of painting and repainting will be higher for the American taxpayers.
Painting will increase security risks because of the required scaffolding.
Changing the color will be inappropriate to the historical significance of the building.
Despite written and testified public comment, the commission approved the proposal but agreed to test samples of the granite cladding to determine what possible damage painting could do to this landmark building.
This is not the first time significant alterations have been proposed for the building. Designed by Alfred Mullet in a French Second Empire style for the State, War, and Navy Departments, construction began in 1871 and went on for 17 years. By its completion in 1888, its style had fallen out of favor. Throughout the years, subsequent proposals were made to replace the façade with Classical elements, and the building even faced demolition in 1958. Despite these threats, the building was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1969 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1972 as one of the country’s few remaining examples of French Renaissance Revival architecture. The nomination form was completed by the National Capital Planning Commission.
Upon approval by the Commission of Fine Arts, the painting project was presented to the National Capital Planning Commission on May 7th. The project scope includes cleaning, repointing, and stone restoration. They requested additional information to be presented during the next commission meeting, including:
Evaluation of potential visual or physical impacts
Summary of other measures considered to meet the project goals, including cleaning the building and/or the addition of lighting
Information about the proposed paint, including details regarding application, adhesion, water infiltration, long-term maintenance and upkeep, and ease of removal, along with examples of where paint has been successfully used on other exterior granite façades
Photo-realistic visualizations for each paint option and existing conditions from pedestrian level locations.
Preserve RI submitted a formal comment to the NCPC opposing the painting of the façade. To read our written statement, click the button below.
