> > a big chunk of it was just torn down
> You think they're too dumb to understand the difference between "tearing down" and "renovating"?
Are you? You think the East Wing is being "renovated"?
Renovation is renewal, repair, restoring function and safety.
What's happening instead? Knocking the safe and functional East Wing flat (walls, roof, both floors, 30+ internal rooms) and replacing it with a completely new structure with new foundations and a different purpose... and with a new footprint larger than the entire White House of 2024!
Nowhere even remotely close to the same thing. Might as well brag that you "repaired" your sedan by selling it and buying a new truck.
Yes, it is being renovated. Adding a new room is renovation.
They aren't demolishing the entire White House...
The East Wing isn't being renovated. It's gone, and being replaced with something else.
So the White House is being renovated then, right?
Bingo.
You keep using that word, but it doesn't mean what you want it to.
Renovation is as your interlocutor says, a restoration. Remodeling is what is happening there, tearing apart something and putting something new in its place. It's a more drastic and expensive work.
Fine, remodeling. The specific word is not finally the point. Incessant semantic pedantry doesn't change the fact that Trump is not destroying the White House.
Most people understand that any sort of "remodeling" or "renovation" often requires some demolition first.
And I get your point, but that is a crucial distinction when you're talking about historical buildings. If said ballroom was simply an extension, no one would complain about the placement.
> Incessant semantic pedantry doesn't change the fact that Trump is not destroying the White House.
Incessant semantic pedantry? You mean like stridently defending that Trump is not destroying the White House, in response to a comment that didn’t claim that Trump was destroying the White House?