DC Development

Today, Washington, D.C. is not only our nation’s capital city—it is a bustling metropolitan area, defined not only by its politicians, but by its non-profit leaders, business men and women, and even professional athletes and entertainers.  Washington is one of America’s premiere cities and has served as a tourist destination for millions over time.

Because of Washington, D.C.’s modern notoriety, it is hard to imagine its streets and buildings as a large and undeveloped plot of land—home not to the center of our nation’s government, but to snakes, mud pits, and agrarian farmers. 

But, as with all things in our country, the development of Washington was a long and hotly debated process.  Those involved in the planning and executing of the building of Washington were mostly divided over what the city itself should be symbolize—should the capital be of grandiose stature, representing a central government that wields its enormous power, or should it be small, agrarian, and “republican” in design, representing that the central government is only as strong as its parts allow it to become.  A select group of political actors played a large role in the development of the city, and their political beliefs closely aligned with the vision they held for its future. 

It must first be noted that Alexander Hamilton supported the capital to be located in New York or Philadelphia, which were two of the largest urban and economically booming American cities at the time.  It wasn’t until Hamilton, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson agreed upon the “Dinner Table Bargain” that Hamilton conceded to the capitals relocation to Washington, in exchange for the implementation of his fiscal plan.

George Washington thought the capital city should contain large buildings, magnificent streets, and an urban atmosphere to reflect a strong central government.  Though George Washington is widely recognized and known for his humility, he believed that the best government for the future of America is one that is large and powerful in design, almost flaunting its power and influence to peer countries.  L’Enfant, Washington’s lead design architect for the city, aligned with Washington’s vision and was the primary designer of the city’s plans.

Though he agreed with George Washington on the capital’s new location, Thomas Jefferson, due to their differing political ideology, strongly disagreed with the first president’s vision for its future.  Jefferson believed that the government should avoid a becoming a powerful, central player in American policies, seemingly due to the fear of it becoming detached and distant from America’s citizens.  After becoming president, Jefferson made a point to stall the development of the “President’s Home”—another symbol of his disagreement with George Washington.  In an effort to become the “People’s President,” Jefferson began to “dress down”, regularly invite colleagues into his home, and become active in local markets.

The building of Washington, D.C. is just another picture of political disputes and reflective ideology.  Reading stories like the one described above allows Americans to develop a deeper appreciation for our country’s development over time.