The regular website didn't block me for some reason, so here are some quotes: [...] [...] [...] On the one hand, yes that does seem hard. On the other hand, someone who was really focused on...
The regular website didn't block me for some reason, so here are some quotes:
Powell’s critics have pointed to certain features of the building plans as ostentatious, including vegetated roofs and changes to the elevator. The Fed has said the price tag for the renovation has more to do with the challenges of building — particularly underground — in what was once a swamp near the Tidal Basin along the Potomac River.
[...]
The project was always going to be tricky, with initial cost estimates pinned at $1.9 billion. Construction on the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building and the adjacent Federal Reserve East Building involves adding new office space, removing asbestos and lead, and replacing antiquated mechanical systems. Neither the Eccles Building — an austere edifice designed by Paul Cret and dedicated by Franklin D. Roosevelt — nor the East Building has been fully renovated since they were built almost a century ago.
[...]
Some of the bigger cost factors are largely invisible. The price of structural steel exploded in 2021, just before construction began. Any building project in Washington’s so-called monumental core is covered by a bevy of design oversight boards that can — and did — slow down the work. And the renovation of structures built during the New Deal has to account for federal security standards adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
[...]
Parts of the job call for deep excavation. Expanding the Fed’s campus involves converting a parking garage underneath the Eccles Building into additional office space. A five-story addition on the north side of the Fed’s East Building also boasts four extra floors below ground — a common trick in Washington, where heights are capped and historic vistas are protected. Below the south lawn of the East Building, a 318-space parking garage is being added. According to the Fed, the water table was higher underground than builders had predicted.
On the one hand, yes that does seem hard. On the other hand, someone who was really focused on keeping costs down might have reasonably asked, "wait, why don't we move to northern Virginia?" But then again, the Federal Reserve normally makes over $50 billion a year, so maybe it seemed affordable.
The way Trumps mind works is so interesting. $2B costs means Powell must be skimming off the top. I wonder what Trump has been skimming off the top of...
The way Trumps mind works is so interesting.
$2B costs means Powell must be skimming off the top.
I wonder what Trump has been skimming off the top of...
I'm not sure what to do with this but there's a person on Substack and YouTube who goes by The Drey Dossier, who has put together a compelling argument that the ballroom is actually a cover story...
Her voice is very calming. There's some real teeth to this conspiracy lmao She's in deep. As with all conspiracies, I'll see it when I see it, but it's interesting nonetheless. People have a...
Her voice is very calming.
There's some real teeth to this conspiracy lmao
She's in deep.
As with all conspiracies, I'll see it when I see it, but it's interesting nonetheless. People have a tendency to yap about these things. Even so, I'll be reading that substack just to amuse myself with the what-if.
Apple's spaceship HQ is much larger, has extensive underground infrastructure, uses ultra-high-end materials, and was built in an ultra HCOL with very high construction costs, and it cost just...
Apple's spaceship HQ is much larger, has extensive underground infrastructure, uses ultra-high-end materials, and was built in an ultra HCOL with very high construction costs, and it cost just $5bn.
I think sometimes it's just more efficient to tear a building down and build something new.
This is a large problem with many government buildings around the world. Many of them have historic designations which severely limit how they can be renovated and costs go up like crazy. I used...
This is a large problem with many government buildings around the world. Many of them have historic designations which severely limit how they can be renovated and costs go up like crazy. I used to work out of one mainly and it still had half-duplex networking back then. It's now 2026 and it still only has half-duplex networking. They looked into renovating the building in the early 2010s just to redo the networking and the quoted cost was CA$300mm at the time. Now it's north of CA$1b. Just to replace the networking cables across the whole building.
The complication is they can't just tear open walls and restore them, it's prohibited. They have to slowly and manually snake many kilometres of cables in and around this giant, ancient building while avoiding many sensitive parts of it, in a slow and painful way.
That is true. I just feel/think that $2.5bn is mind bogglingly obscene for two mere buildings, and I hope that whatever systems led to this get changed. For comparison, the reconstruction of Notre...
That is true. I just feel/think that $2.5bn is mind bogglingly obscene for two mere buildings, and I hope that whatever systems led to this get changed.
For comparison, the reconstruction of Notre Dame—also a large but far more delicate historic preservation project—cost $900m.
Digging under an existing historic building in a ground inclined toward swamp will never not be expensive. I don't know the line when you say "tear down the historic building" vs "preserve it"...
Digging under an existing historic building in a ground inclined toward swamp will never not be expensive. I don't know the line when you say "tear down the historic building" vs "preserve it"
Plus then you want to build to last, not to have to do this again in 25 years.... The cost honestly makes sense to me.
For $2.5bn you can get a new office building every year for 25 years. From an architectural standpoint, the Federal Reserve Building isn't even remarkable.
For $2.5bn you can get a new office building every year for 25 years. From an architectural standpoint, the Federal Reserve Building isn't even remarkable.
Which means, at least for you, this is a policy issue as far as how historical buildings are designated and where the balance of "tear down" vs "rebuild" falls. My point wasn't that it should last...
Which means, at least for you, this is a policy issue as far as how historical buildings are designated and where the balance of "tear down" vs "rebuild" falls. My point wasn't that it should last and not be replaced in 26 years but that we should be good for 75+. That's not unreasonable.
I'm just saying the cost makes sense given those factors, and it's unlikely there's some sort of fraud going on that someone needs investigating for. Whether this is worth the cost, I really don't care. It's done. We waste more money on dumber things. And this todo is all just because of a petty man's grudge.
This is a stretch, but I know public sector employees are rather sensitive to change so I wonder if they predict significant attrition by moving the office to a different area in the region....
This is a stretch, but I know public sector employees are rather sensitive to change so I wonder if they predict significant attrition by moving the office to a different area in the region. Beyond that consideration, moving locations around DC is a huge thing and you can easily double the length of an employee's (awful and truly life draining) commute by repositioning the office.
The regular website didn't block me for some reason, so here are some quotes:
[...]
[...]
[...]
On the one hand, yes that does seem hard. On the other hand, someone who was really focused on keeping costs down might have reasonably asked, "wait, why don't we move to northern Virginia?" But then again, the Federal Reserve normally makes over $50 billion a year, so maybe it seemed affordable.
The way Trumps mind works is so interesting.
$2B costs means Powell must be skimming off the top.
I wonder what Trump has been skimming off the top of...
The
200300400 miyion dollar ballroom of course.I'm not sure what to do with this but there's a person on Substack and YouTube who goes by The Drey Dossier, who has put together a compelling argument that the ballroom is actually a cover story for a secret subterranean data center buildout.
As always when you see stuff like this, please conspiracy theorize responsibly.
Her voice is very calming.
There's some real teeth to this conspiracy lmao
She's in deep.
As with all conspiracies, I'll see it when I see it, but it's interesting nonetheless. People have a tendency to yap about these things. Even so, I'll be reading that substack just to amuse myself with the what-if.
Apple's spaceship HQ is much larger, has extensive underground infrastructure, uses ultra-high-end materials, and was built in an ultra HCOL with very high construction costs, and it cost just $5bn.
I think sometimes it's just more efficient to tear a building down and build something new.
These are historic properties, which means ripping and replacing is not legal.
This is a large problem with many government buildings around the world. Many of them have historic designations which severely limit how they can be renovated and costs go up like crazy. I used to work out of one mainly and it still had half-duplex networking back then. It's now 2026 and it still only has half-duplex networking. They looked into renovating the building in the early 2010s just to redo the networking and the quoted cost was CA$300mm at the time. Now it's north of CA$1b. Just to replace the networking cables across the whole building.
The complication is they can't just tear open walls and restore them, it's prohibited. They have to slowly and manually snake many kilometres of cables in and around this giant, ancient building while avoiding many sensitive parts of it, in a slow and painful way.
That is true. I just feel/think that $2.5bn is mind bogglingly obscene for two mere buildings, and I hope that whatever systems led to this get changed.
For comparison, the reconstruction of Notre Dame—also a large but far more delicate historic preservation project—cost $900m.
Digging under an existing historic building in a ground inclined toward swamp will never not be expensive. I don't know the line when you say "tear down the historic building" vs "preserve it"
Plus then you want to build to last, not to have to do this again in 25 years.... The cost honestly makes sense to me.
For $2.5bn you can get a new office building every year for 25 years. From an architectural standpoint, the Federal Reserve Building isn't even remarkable.
Which means, at least for you, this is a policy issue as far as how historical buildings are designated and where the balance of "tear down" vs "rebuild" falls. My point wasn't that it should last and not be replaced in 26 years but that we should be good for 75+. That's not unreasonable.
I'm just saying the cost makes sense given those factors, and it's unlikely there's some sort of fraud going on that someone needs investigating for. Whether this is worth the cost, I really don't care. It's done. We waste more money on dumber things. And this todo is all just because of a petty man's grudge.
You mean like the east wing of the White House?
...speaking from nearly four decades of institutional archictecture, it's not sometimes: it's almost always...
This is a stretch, but I know public sector employees are rather sensitive to change so I wonder if they predict significant attrition by moving the office to a different area in the region. Beyond that consideration, moving locations around DC is a huge thing and you can easily double the length of an employee's (awful and truly life draining) commute by repositioning the office.
archive.is didn't work for this one.