THE L’ENFANT PLAN
The L’Enfant plan, as before stated, was prepared for the Federal
City under the direction of President Washington and Thomas Jefferson
in 1791 by Maj. Pierre Charles L’Enfant, and applied to the 10 miles
square set apart as Federal territory and called the District of
Columbia. This was the first and most comprehensive plan ever designed
for any city. It was a masterpiece of civic design. As originally drawn
it extended only to Florida Avenue NW. and was designed for a city of
800,000, the size of Paris at the time. It was submitted to Congress by
President Washington on December 13, 1791.
The original plan shows explanatory notes and references by Major
L’Enfant, among which he calls attention to the position of the
main buildings and squares, the leading avenues, and the plan of
intersection of the streets and their width. The avenues were to be 160
feet in width. No city designed merely for commercial purposes would
have avenues of such width; hence the whole plan indicates that it was
especially designed for the seat of government of the Nation.
There are two great focal points in the L’Enfant plan--the Capitol and
the White House--each with its intersecting avenues, that add beauty
and charm to the city and at the same time make distant parts of the
city easy of access.
The methods and features of L’Enfant’s plan, which included the reports
and correspondence between L’Enfant and President Washington, in
1930 were given intensive study by William T. Partridge, consulting
architect of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Mr.
Partridge’s findings and his review of the features of the plan, which
are still possible of attainment, constitute a notable contribution to
the research in this field, and we quote at length:
A study of L’Enfant’s plan, as well as a careful reading of his
descriptions, shows the effort made to model his design to the
existing topography. No mention can be found of Versailles or London
as an inspiration. He reiterates again and again in his letters
that this plan of his was “original” and “unique.” In a letter to
Jefferson requesting some Old World city maps he deprecates any
copying and asks for this information only as a means for comparison
or to aid in refining and strengthening his judgment.
In order to investigate how far the existing conditions of the
site for the Federal City dictated the plan of present Washington,
a topographical map of the terrain, as existing at that period,
has been carefully prepared from old maps and descriptions and an
attempt made with an open mind to follow L’Enfant’s procedure. Much
was assumed, only to be corroborated by later study of the original
manuscripts and reports. All printed transcriptions of L’Enfant’s
reports have been altered by their editors in the effort to interpret
L’Enfant’s strange English, a fact leading to misinterpretation on
the part of trained architectural commentators dependent solely on
these printed transcriptions.
[Illustration: THE L’ENFANT PLAN]
[Illustration: TRANSCRIPTION OF NOTES INSCRIBED ON L’ENFANT PLAN]
At the convention of the American Institute of Architects held in
Washington in 1929, the history and development of the National
Capital was the principal topic of discussion. The merits of the
plan of L’Enfant were duly acknowledged by all, though emphasis
was laid upon the progress of those modern projects sponsored and
carried through largely by the efforts of the institute or its
individual members. The work of the McMillan Commission and the
admirable recommendations of that trained and experienced body, that
the “central area” be restored with some resemblance to L’Enfant’s
original plan were generally acknowledged. There was no comparison,
however, attempted between the proposed plan of L’Enfant and the
much-altered modern plan, nor was there discussion in detail of the
“public walk” of the original design. The real merit of the original
L’Enfant plan was sensed only by one speaker at the convention
mentioned, Mr. Medary, when he spoke of the early structures
maintaining their places as dominating elements in the original
design and confirmed the judgment of L’Enfant “in fitting the plan of
the proposed city to the topography of the site.”
There has come down to us only a single manuscript plan which
students have accepted as the original design and on which they have
based all their comments. This drawing depicts only an intermediate
stage of the plan. The first plan was much altered by L’Enfant
himself at the request of President Washington, but by a careful
study of internal evidence of the later drawing the designer’s
masterly original may be restored. Existing documents tell us that
not only were considerable changes made in the plan by order of
President Washington, but alterations in the layout were also made
by L’Enfant’s successors, all of which disturbed considerably its
skillful symmetrical fitting to the irregular topography. If this
submitted restoration proves correct, there is no ground left for
further accusation of his indebtedness to both Versailles and the
London plan for minor details. It is the writer’s conclusion that
L’Enfant did exactly what he claimed--devised an original plan,
entirely unique. He arrived at his parti only after a careful study
on the spot of the best sites for the principal buildings, allocated
in the order of their importance, and located with consideration of
both prominence and outlook. He tied these sites together by means of
a rectangular system of streets and again connected them by means of
diagonal avenues. The principal avenues followed closely the existing
roads. Additional avenues were extended to the “outroads” or city
entrances and were laid out primarily for the purpose of shortening
communication--an engineering consideration. L’Enfant mentions that
the diagonal avenues would afford a “reciprocity of sight” and “a
variety of pleasant ride and being combined to insure a rapide
Intercourse with all the part of the City to which they will serve
as does the main vains in the animal body to diffuse life through
smaller vessels in quickening the active motion to the heart.”
The similarity of the angles of the two principal avenues
(Pennsylvania east, from Eastern Branch Ferry to the Capitol, and
Maryland east, from the Bladensburg Road entrance to the Capitol)
which followed closely for some distance the existing roads,
doubtless suggested the radial pair-avenue idea. This was entirely
accidental and the outgrowth of existing conditions. The system of a
rectangular-street plan with radial avenues is not only borne out by
the mention he makes himself in his descriptions but was followed by
Ellicott in his redrafting of the plan for the engraver.
Our artistic, hasty-tempered genius refused to give Ellicott any
documents or any information. Ellicott states in his letters on the
subject that, although he was refused the original plan, he was
familiar with L’Enfant’s system and had many notes of the surveys he
had made of the site himself, so it is possible that the plan was
recreated by Ellicott.
Space and time do not permit an excursion into the squabble over
this engraved plan. Changes were made in reduction to the proper
size of the plate. These changes led to violent protests on the
part of L’Enfant, although in later years his memorial states that
the changes were not so very damaging. To an architectural mind the
alterations in question destroyed the unity and symmetry of the
whole, and L’Enfant’s later softened protest can be explained by his
desire for payment by Congress. He could not afford at that time to
imperil his chances.
In the attempt to find the method by means of which L’Enfant arrived
at the system underlying his plan for the city, we are handicapped
at the very start by lack of sufficient data for identification
of the various plans mentioned in the old records. There was made
in Washington, as the work progressed, a large map with numbered
squares. Many references are made to this “large plan” in the old
correspondence, but it must not be confused with the layout of the
original design under discussion. A letter from the commissioners
states it was in L’Enfant’s hands some time after his dismissal.
As far as we now know, there is but one original drawing in
existence, which, after 100 years of neglect and careless handling,
is now sacredly preserved in the Library of Congress. The
elaborateness and care shown in the carefully lettered notes and
profuse marginal references marks this a presentation copy. This
plan included “the alterations ordered by Washington and sent to
Philadelphia on August 19, 1791, for transmission to Congress.”
THE ELLICOTT PLAN--THE L’ENFANT PLAN ENLARGED
The executed plan of the Federal City as redrawn by Andrew Ellicott
departs but little from the modified L’Enfant plan. The changes
are perhaps an improvement on the layout as modified by President
Washington.
Discussion recently has arisen in reference to the credit Ellicott
should be given for the executed plan of Washington. In 1802 a
congressional committee found--
that the plan of the city was originally designed by Major L’Enfant,
but that in many respects it was rejected by the President, and a
plan drawn up by Mr. Ellicott, purporting to have been made from
actual survey, was engraved and published by order of General
Washington in the year 1792.
The chief alteration shown in Ellicott’s engraved plan is the
straightening of what is now Massachusetts Avenue. The suppression of
the eastern portion leading to the upper bridgehead made it end at what
is now known as Lincoln Square, the drawbridge over Eastern Branch
being reached by what is now Kentucky Avenue.
By moving the marine hospital site north some distance and ignoring
the Rock Creek Ford at the other end, Ellicott was enabled to run
Massachusetts Avenue in nearly a direct line; the western end reached
the road to Frederick, as it did in L’Enfant’s plan.
The settlement of this section of the city was at that date
problematical, and no serious attention was given to the change in
plan. The area was marshy and was a popular place for hunting snipe.
This fact explains the meandering of Florida Avenue to the northwestern
boundary line of the old city.
[Illustration: THE ELLICOTT PLAN]
[Illustration: TRANSCRIPTION OF NOTES INSCRIBED ON ELLICOTT PLAN]
In an overlay of the two plans of L’Enfant and Ellicott, prepared with
great accuracy by the hydrographic section of the Navy, only the main
east-west and north-south axes of the Capitol and White House coincide.
An examination of this drawing shows that the art of surveying had not
at that period reached present-day accuracy.
[Illustration: THE DERMOTT OR TIN CASE MAP OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON,
1797-98]
Several suppressed sections of the L’Enfant plan were restored in
the engraved plan. Maryland Avenue was carried through to the “Grand
Avenue,” and South Carolina Avenue extended to New Jersey Avenue and
the “Town House” site.
The plan of James R. Dermott, the officially approved plan, had many
more city squares, and consequently more lots for sale. It is known
as the Tin Case Map, because about 50 years later it was thus found
preserved. The cry of grasping owners and voracious speculators was for
more lots; and L’Enfant’s letter of warning to President Washington
dated August 19, 1791, against this evil proved more than justified.
This city plan also indicated the names of the avenues.
What is known as the King Map was made by Robert King, a surveyor
in the office of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and
published in 1818.
[Illustration: THE KING MAP]
The map is of interest in that we note in it the word _Judiciary_ in
what is known as Judiciary Square. We learn from L’Enfant’s Memorial
addressed to Congress on December 7, 1800, that L’Enfant intended the
third coordinate branch of the Government, the Judiciary, be located
there. To-day the Square is largely occupied by court buildings.
[Illustration: VIEW OF EARLY WASHINGTON]