While the late eighteenth century was spent acquiring and planning out the land of the capital city, it was during the first half of the nineteenth century that Washington DC’s layout was built into reality. Within these early decades of construction, Washington DC saw a succession of several influential architects and urban designers.  Although L’Enfant’s plans for Washington DC were not completely followed, these architects managed to keep to his main points and succeed at building a fantastic site for the national seat of government. Furthermore, despite the federal government’s unwillingness to provide the large amount of funds needed to support the extravagant plans of the architects, the public buildings that comprise the nation’s capital city turned out to be grand and impressive to look at.
          

In the very early years of Washington DC, the land was very rustic and appealed to many new settlers who were attracted to the open spaces. The style of residential architecture in these years ranged from small houses, rowhouses, and villa estates among the green setting. Furthermore, as it was not yet completed, the federal district was viewed as a temporary residence by the congressmen, a fact that led to the creation of hotels and other homes for the traveling politician.(5) However, in order to make L’Enfant’s plan a reality, it was necessary to change the landscape in order to build the capital city. (1)
           

Within the first sixty years of the nineteenth century, the seat of government witnessed the construction of the President’s House, the Capitol, City Hall, the Treasury, the Post Office and other various public and federal buildings. Many architects and planners were responsible for these plans with the most important construction done by Benjamin Latrobe, George Hadfield, and Robert Mills. Other influences on the layout of the built environment of Washington DC were due to private interests in the residential areas. (5)

The Burning of Washington DC



           

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Unfortunately on the 24th of August 1814, during the War of 1812, British forces responded to the American invasion of York (now Toronto) by invading Washington DC and burning most of the city down. Casualties included the Capitol, federal and government buildings along with the White House. Out of honor and respect the British did not harm both the residential areas and the home of the Commandant of the Marines in the Marine Barracks. Furthermore, the Patent Office and the Post Office were spared due to the pleas of Dr. William Thornton, Superintendent of Patents, to the British that the lost knowledge would be a disservice to mankind if destroyed. (6) Valuables were collected and taken to safety by both citizens and government during the chaos with some offering their homes for storage space. After the British left the area, the buildings required further protection from robbers taking advantage of the situation. (3)

Reconstruction of the capital began with the voting of funds in 1815 and was completed in 1819. Within the newly built Library of Congress came the personal library of Thomas Jefferson purchased to replace the burnt contents. Furthermore, this incident highlighted previous remarks by the states regarding spending on military and defense of the capital when the war began and how its destruction marked the significance the capital held in the minds and hearts of its citizens. As funds were not spent on defense, private forces were used to fend off British soldiers and were unable to follow federal orders. After the war, there was a debate regarding moving the capital to a new area, however public opinion called for the location to stay where it was.  The burning of the capital managed to invoke nationalistic pride and support in the war, but also gave birth to the nationalistic spirit toward Washington, DC. (2)

Benjamin Latrobe
          
Benjamin Latrobe was a highly skilled architect and engineer whose greatest known accomplishment was the President’s House, known today as the White House. “Latrobe designed several of the capital city’s outstanding residential and religious structures in a style so representative of the early affluence of the constituent city that the era can rightfully be called ‘Latrobe’s Washington.’ The capital was indebted to Latrobe for his classical public buildings as well as the City Canal designs.” (5) Latrobe was also significant in helping President Thomas Jefferson’s plans and ideas regarding the built layout of Washington DC to come to life. (5)

The Capitol

Latrobe was brought to Washington DC in 1802 by President Thomas Jefferson to design drydocks for the Navy Yard, a plan that was never carried out. Instead, in 1803, Jefferson commissioned Latrobe to design and build the south wing of the Capitol, appointed surveyor of public buildings, and held the power and prestige of a presidentially selected architect and engineer in Washington DC. The Capitol was designed by a man named William Thornton, but Latrobe and his successors were in charge of its construction. Latrobe also supervised its reconstruction after it was burned down as a British causality of the War of 1814. (5)

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 2 Edward Sachse’s 1852 view of Washington imagined a completed and prominent Capitol building

The White House

However, it was the President’s House that held the prominent significance in Latrobe’s career. Prior to his arrival, the White House was the only public building that was near completion. Designed by James Hoban under Irish architectural influences and selected by President Washington, the President’s House was made of artistically carved gray stone and painted in whitewash, hence its commonly known title: The White House. It was also burned down in the War of 1814 and it was Latrobe who would be in charge of its redesign and reconstruction alongside its original planner, James Hoban. Rebuilt by 1818, the new version of the White House include porticos on its north and south sides and for most of the century, held a dominating presence in the federal capital as the largest building in the area. (5)

The White House served as the symbol of executive power in Washington DC, and in its creation, placement, and modifications served as being representative as changes in the amount of control and power held by the executive branch in the system of checks and balances. To President Washington, the authority of the executive branch in the built environment was relevant to the White House and its surrounding public buildings “and no one understood the relationship between place, space, and power better than the first president.” (4) It was this very insight into the relationship of place, space, and power that the President chose the site of Washington DC, commissioned its planners and collaborated with L’Enfant in the city’s design and layout. Both the White House and the Capitol in the early days of planning were criticized for their excessive land use which Washington defended with its significance as a building meant to exist in the future as a the home to a leader of a large and prosperous nation. Today, the White House is still prominent as a figure of the power of the leader of the nation and its executive branch, the President of the United States of America. (4)

The City Canal

In 1802, Latrobe was also commissioned as an engineer by Congress and the Washington Canal Company to construct the City Canal. Although L’Enfant’s plans for the canal’s layout throughout the city held several aesthetic and drainage features, Latrobe was forced by a lack of available financial funds to remove them from the original design. However, Latrobe did manage to include L’Enfant’s emphasis on the northern boundary of the ‘Grand Avenue’ in the canal’s design. Unfortunately, despite L’Enfant’s and Latrobe’s hopes that the City Canal would assist Washington DC’s economy as a supporting, yet major commercial route, the lack of available government funds to help it its upkeep led to the canal’s usefulness to be lost to storm, erosion, and the cost of repair. (5)

George Hadfield

Alongside Latrobe’s work on the public and private commissions of Washington DC, an architect with the name of George Hadfield is to be held responsible for the construction of the capital city’s City Hall along with the Treasury, War, State, and Navy Departments. Originally built prior to 1800, the Treasury and War Departments were built east and west respectfully of the White House. Made of brick and serving as executive office buildings, they were rebuilt and amended with two additional buildings – the State and the Navy Departments – after the burning of Washington DC in 1814. Together these buildings and the White House stood as a physical representation of the executive branch in Washington DC. In 1820, Hadfield was commissioned to build City Hall, a building whose later functions deviated from the original design. (5)

Robert Mills
          
Another important architect in this century was Robert Mills from 1836 to 1851, a student of Latrobe who dealt with both the public and private architectural and engineering projects in a style that appeared to greatly favor Classical architecture. An example can be found in the Ionic design of the rebuilt Treasury Building after its burning in 1834. Mills was also responsible for the constructing the Doric styled Patent Office designed by Ellicott in 1836 on the L’Enfant’s intended site for the national nonsectarian church. Mills’ architectural style was apparent enough that according to the “historian Robert L. Alexander, ‘his version of the Greek Revival was the style most expressive of the new American political system.’” (5)
 

Robert Mills also designed and financed the construction of the Washington Monument in 1848. “The siting of the obelisk off the President’s House and Capitol right angle was the result of fears about uncertain foundations.”  (5) The Washington Monument was beneficial in unintended changes in L’Enfant’s ceremonial plans for the Mall, which was used for cultural institutions such as the Smithsonian Institutions. (5)

Transportation

            L’Enfant’s expected transportation network as a result of the growth of the nation’s capital into a series of diverse, urban communities were brought into realization in the creation of an omnibus line between the Navy Yard and Georgetown in 1830. There were also further developments in the transportation network that aided Washington DC in its independence as a functioning, independent economic center. The construction in 1828 of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and its financial failure helped Washington DC, Alexandria, and Georgetown realize that their economic solutions laid in transportation systems that lay beyond their own borders. Beyond the creation of a canal, they decided to strengthen the links they had with others by focusing their transportation network on the river. However this decision was later revoked with the creation of transportation systems on land such as the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, turnpikes, and roads, and increased ecological changes to the Potomac River as a result of deforestation and landscaping for growing residential areas. (5)

Water Power

The growth of the residential districts within Washington DC invoked an increased need for water. Montgomery C. Meigs was appointed chief engineer to create a new function water system by Congress and unlike previous federal projects, this single project had the most available funds to finance it since the creation of the Capitol. Meigs’ vision of this new water system also held aesthetic and health benefits alongside its functional features as one of his ideas saw the water supply enter fountains in order to allow for the sanitary conditions in an increasingly crowded city. The completion of Meigs’ water system allowed for enough water to supply a city in current times and the design needed few modifications or repairs since.
           

Beyond its usefulness as a water supply system, Meigs’ creation was also useful in establishing new social and economic systems. To begin with, it is interesting to notice that the creation of the water supply system helped encourage the social lines between the affluent and less prosperous in Washington DC. As the water came from the west, the wealthier residents moved into that area to ensure a less likely chance at water shortages. Furthermore, while the technological improvements found in the water supply were greatly appreciated, its economic value in increasing interdependence with outside regions beyond their 100 mile area was momentous.  By the time the city entered into the era of the Civil War, it had become a modern urban environment necessary for its status as the seat of government. (5)
 

​Work Cited

1.      Dix, Gerald. “‘Washington on View: The Nation’s Capital Since 1790’ by John W. Reps.” The Town Planning Review, Vol. 63, No. 4 (Octover 1992): 452-454. Accessed 28 February 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27798231
This article is a book review on Washington on View. The Nation's Capital Since 1790 by John W. Reps. Despite its length, it is meaningful in putting the nation’s capital in an overall perspective in the planning process. In a short and meaningful few pages, it managed to grasp the overall plans of L’Enfant and his significance in the later processes of construction. Furthermore, it analyzed the political atmosphere in those years and how it interacted with the funding and construction of Washington DC. Overall, this article was exceptional at revealing the state of the capital over the years of its urban design and planning process.

2.      Kelly, Patricia. “Washington in Ruins.” American Art, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Fall 2011): 112-125. Accessed 28 February 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/663956
Patricia Kelly’s article, “Washington in Ruins,” was successful in shaping a new understanding of the actions that led to the burning of the capital city. It brought to attention how the lack of funding towards the national capital’s defense and military operations, especially during a time of war, brought down the nation’s seat of government and gave birth to a nationalistic pride and spirit. In retrospect, I also believe this may have begun the support of funding towards military and defense spending in order to protect the physical symbol of the nation in Washington DC, Further analysis was spent on design that was later destroyed in the burning of the capital, and thus irrelevant to my topic of discussion.

3.      Langley, Harold. “‘The Burning of Washington: The British Invasion of 1814’ by Anthony S.Pitch.” Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Spring, 1999): 126-127. Accessed 28 February 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3124930
Harold Langley’s review of the journal article “The Burning of Washington: The British Invasion of 1814” was a useful source at a short analysis of the main points of the incident and its aftermath. It was useful in my narrative in helping understand how most studies view the incident and how the people of the area reacted to the burning of a national city.

4.      Morales-Vazques, Rubil. “George Washington, the President’s House, and the Projection of Executive Power.” Washington History, Vol. 16, No.1, (Spring/Summer, 2004): 36-53. Accessed 28 February 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40073580
This was meaningful in its analysis of George Washington’s involvement in the planning of Washington DC along with selecting the location of the President’s House, the White House. It laid out the relationship of place, space, and power that President Washington figured into the design and layout of the President’s House. He saw the physical symbolism of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to be found in the built forms of Washington DC and sought to establish the presence of the executive branch in the area. While the size and the aesthetic designs were protested, President Washington rose in defense that it was a necessary endeavor as the nation grows in prosperity and wealth. Any future changes to the capital would lose its significance and historical value, so the executive buildings should be built as planned in order to stand as a symbol of its power and strength to last throughout the years. This article is relevant and useful as a study of Washington’s plans for the capital and the country and saw the executive buildings to be a symbol of national pride.

5.      Gutheim, Frederick and Lee, Antoinette J. WORTHY OF THE NATION: Washington, DC, from L’Enfant to the National Capital Planning Commission. 2nd Ed. (Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006): 36-61.

6.      "Washington, DC History." Washington DC. Last modified 27 October 2004. Accessed 16 February 2013. http://washington.org/DC-information/washington-dc-history

Image Sources:

Figure 1: Thompson, G. “The taking of the city of Washington in America.” Wood engraving. London: October 14, 1814. From Library of Congress: By Popular Demand: Portraits of the Presidents and First Ladies, 1789-Present. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/presp:@field(NUMBER+@band(cph+3g04555)) (Accessed 18 February 2013)

Figure 2: Morales-Vazques, Rubil. “George Washington, the President’s House, and the Projection of Executive Power.” Washington History, Vol. 16, No.1, (Spring/Summer, 2004): 50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40073580 Accessed 28 February 2013.