It seems hypocritical for the newly emergent Americans to adopt such a reminder of colonial oppression, yet in 1791 a plan for Washington DC by Pierre Charles L’Enfant was created using that gridiron as a basis for the layout. However, what distinguishes Washington from contemporaries like Philedelphia and New York was the deliberate use of two grids, both radial and orthogonal to generate the plan. Until this point the complex layering of street patterns was a signifier of age in cities and was thus a uniquely European phenomenon (from the perspective of this discussion). Centuries of political conflict would leave its scars on urban fabric as the city was constructed and reconstructed over time. Multiple street patterns are one of the clearest signs of this conflict. They invariably contradict the intentions of the pattern and embody the image of the city as a dynamic clash of ideas, functions and cultures. It brings to mind Haussmann’s laceration of Paris or Sixtus IV’s pilgrim routes before him (Aureli 2011). This simultaneity was quintessentially urban and perfectly represented a society that drove people to the colonies in the first place. Framed thus the scheme for a revolutionary capital seems paradoxical. When viewed pathologically it provides insight into both the American psyche and a shift in meaning for the grid in the city.
 |
| Phildelphia 1683 |
 |
| Philedelphia 2016 |
When viewed at face value, the integration of radial and colonial grids in Washington simply created buildings that were more difficult to construct, more expensive and less practical than purely orthogonal blocks (Ballon 2012). However, to contest issues of pragmatism here is to miss the point; as Tafuri notes ‘the least economically necessary city in America is also the most configured’ (1976).
What then was the point of the radial grid? Within the answer lies a more fundamental issue, what was the point of Washington DC? Indeed the notion of attempting to centralise the control of a region as vast as America before mass transit and communication seemed foolish. Whereas the ports of the Eastern Seaboard found a clear driver in trade and economics, the capital was purely an act of political will. The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1788 made clear that any central government needed to operate and convene autonomously from its member states. The District of Columbia was created to this end, only as a result of negotiation, and its existence justified purely in the legal terms of the Constitution (Article One, Section Eight) (1776). However, even such a hallowed document did not solely provide an ingenuous reason for the physical existence of Washington DC in a real place within America. Only through a quid pro quo between the government and member states was the Potomac site chosen (Crew, Webb & Woolridge 1892). Unlike the strategic defensibility of Edinburgh’s volcanoes or the connectivity offered to London by the Thames, there was no intrinsic reason for DC’s placement. The square could literally be dropped anywhere, highlighted in the city’s lack of relationship to the Potomac. When compared to other capitals the justification for Washington’s existence seems very fragile. It can be seen therefore that only the idea of the District has any pre-existing veracity. The creation of its city (Washington) was not a pragmatic response to the needs of its inhabitants, it was an attempt to realise a utopia (Tafuri 1976). The need here was validation, the innate human desire to claim and to own their environment. The birth of Washington DC was the concrete expression of what America aimed to be. It sought to construct this image as a physical manifestation of the Revolution, artificially defining its identity. In place of ingenuous growth dictated by need and culture, the point of Washington was to symbolise a new culture. Its purpose was defining America, not representing it.
How does the apparently paradoxical design of the plan fulfil this political will?
It was Jefferson who provided the philosophical basis for L’Enfant’s design and with it laid the foundations for American self-image. Jefferson envisioned this new utopian democracy as distinctly anti-urban with a strong bias towards agrarian economy. This vision opposed the laissez faire capitalism of America’s imperial parents and the resultant industrialisation the United Kingdom was undertaking and contradicted other views of America as an entity driven by economic progressiveness. Jefferson feared the authoritarianism of capitalist economics and consequently rejected urbanisation, making his utopia thoroughly regressive (Tafuri 1976). Jefferson wanted the foundation of a democracy without its logical consequences of industrialisation and economic imperialism, a contradiction that highlights how radical L’Enfant’s design for Washington was.
 |
| Hamilton vs Jefferson |
In response to the chaos of European cities and opposing the conceptual fragility of the Baroque in the new age, classicism’s underlying rationality provided order to the form and management that cities desperately required both politically and economically. However, there also existed several competing reactions and interpretations of ideal city form. The complex and conflicting ideological mesh that intensified during Europe’s Enlightenment resulted from the relative intimacy of the territory and meant no unified position could form. This was not the case for the USA. Physical and philosophical separation precluded Americans from influencing the debate. Indeed though abundant in resources and enterprise, the fledgling nation remained an isolated composite of quite divergent ideals.
No comments:
Post a Comment