Planning the National Mall's Third Century
Not that it stops us from trying.
Yesterday, the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts gathered a group of experts at the National Building Museum to discuss ways to balance Washington’s "dual role as an urban center and a national showcase." The symposium was in support of the National Capital Framework Plan, an effort to provide ways to "extend the desirable qualities of the National Mall to surrounding areas." It's a good thought, because after 200 years, the Mall is cluttered with so many memorials, museums and other landmarks that Congress was compelled to impose a no-build zone for much of the Mall in 2003 (excluding the already planned Vietnam Wall Visitors Center, MLK Memorial and National African-American History and Culture museum). That hasn't stopped interest groups from pursuing additional commemorative works, meaning the Landmark Plan must "create important new places for cultural and commemorative attractions."
The roster of assembled experts discussing these issues was impressive, including scholars (Alex Krieger of Harvard, Lawrence Vale of MIT and Timothy Beatley and Maurice Cox of UVA), and administrators (D.C.'s Dan Tangherlini and Harriet Tregoning and Vancouver's Larry Beasley), as well as historians, authors and designers. They were preceded by Tuesday's keynote talk by architect David Childs.
To understand why coherent planning is so important and uniquely challenging in Washington, a little historical perspective is in order. This history is brilliantly captured in the Building Museum's current exhibit, "Washington: Symbol and City."
Photograph by Wally McNamee of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial dedication, November 13, 1982. Used with permission.
In a story familiar to most Washingtonians, in 1791 Pierre L'Enfant layed out a plan for a new National Capital on virgin land along the Potomac, near the geographic center of the fourteen existing states. L'Enfant's gridded plan, criss-crossed diagonally by broad boulevards, envisioned the city as more than just the seat of legislative power, but a model for the physical embodiment of our unique and experimental new democracy - a place where great neighborhoods of regular citizens coexist and interact with an accessible, open government.
During Washington's first century, the governmental core built up, clustered around three planned focal points: the Capitol Building, a monument to George Washington and a Presidential Mansion. Most of the development was haphazard, including train tracks and a depot on the Mall itself.
At the start of D.C.'s second century, the McMillan Commission, inspired by the Chicago World's Fair and the City Beautiful Movement, focused attention on establishing order and monumentality to the core. The space we know today was established: land was dredged and reconfigured to extend the Mall to a planned Lincoln Memorial and to shape the Tidal Basin and Potomac Park. The train depot was relocated and expanded into Union Station.
The focus on the Mall shifted the perception of the core, with the Capitol shifting from the symbolic center to the eastern edge. L'Enfant's "great neighborhoods" were unevenly developed and while some avenues built up to be grand boulevards, others remained underdeveloped. While the McMillan Plan's focus on the Mall is rightly credited with creating much of what is beloved about D.C. and the Mall today, it fundamentally changed the way the city was envisioned. As Krieger noted, the Capital City had all of its emphasis on the "Capital" and very little on the "City."
Through all this, the Mall's urban context has transformed dramatically. That context changes our impression of the Monuments, as Vale demonstrated through a series of historical images. In one moment, the Capitol evoked the optimism of the country while surrounded by booming construction. In another, the urban slums at its doorstep portrayed a callous and sometimes racist leadership. Today, a context of physical barriers and other security measures symbolizes a government often disconnected and unnerved by openness and transparency.
All of this leads to a set of very complex questions, which some of the presenters grappled with yesterday: As we begin Washington's third century, what does the future look like? How do we foster a monumental core that resonates with Americans, where visitors can personally connect to places and ideals? How can that core relate to and enhance the vibrant city that has developed around it? Can a new narrative be written for the Capital City? A narrative that embraces walkable urbanity and sustainability, fully integrated with a core area that tells a coherent National Story to our visitors? How can public input improve a planning process that was formerly conducted by few people in relative secrecy?
Finally, as Tangherlini questioned, how can D.C. make planning decisions on an equal footing with the federal government, if that government doesn't recognize our legitimacy?
Let us know your thoughts on the Framework Plan in the comments. More importantly, let NCPC know.