If the modern American cityscape is an affront to the mind and the senses–and by my estimation, it is–Washington, DC is the ugliest city in the country. It embodies everything wrong with the modern city, and nothing of the sparse positives that exist in small city neighborhoods. Outside of government buildings and monuments, its architectural style is unsightly and unimaginative. And its monuments, with few exceptions, are products of political maneuverings and secretive Masonic subversion. The will and desire of the people is almost always absent in their designs.
In discussing this with a friend last night, he came to the conclusion that Washington was indeed ugly, but that “it was one of the few working cities in the country.” I could not disagree more. It has a transit system that, with the exception of the Metro, is horribly impractical and expensive. During the short 15 minute walk from my apartment to the National Mall, one passes countless examples of government nonsense. Building after building with titles like “The Office of Personnel Management” drive home the government’s own self-masturbatory nature. It is an accentless, personless, communityless city consisting of descriptionless glass buildings and the colorless, column-adourned walls of government monstrosities that house a systematic mess and misdirection piquing the grand quotes that wreathe them.
But Washington doesn’t just have the appearance of ugliness. Every summer, the soulless city is filled yet again with wide-eyed interns, traveling from every corner of the country, their young moist tongues eager to lick Feinstein office envelopes for three months. In their heart is the hope that one day they can be allowed to prepare Feinstein’s coffee, then maybe write her press briefs, maybe organize phone-banks in the unlikely event she faces a competitive election campaign, and having acquired this on-site training, maybe return home and recycle Washington’s tried-and-true folly in their own political careers.
This is not London or Paris; beautiful cities that bloomed first into community-centers for their respected nations and then into power-centers. Washington was built as a power-center. Our only hope is that middle-American communities keep sending their men and women to DC–families and values and traditions and career experiences in tow–to check the ambitions of Washington and her adopted children.
By my estimation, having spent the last three years with aspiring bureaucrats, Washington isn’t getting any prettier anytime soon.
9 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Well, Patrick, you’ve started off with a bit of a bang. I can’t argue with most of this post, but I do want to take issue with your blanket attack on the city’s architecture, notwithstanding (some) government buildings and monuments. Yes, I’ll second, much of the architecture in the city leaves quite a bit to be desired; however, the city has some gems. Rowhouses across the city (I think, specifically, right now, of Mt Pleasant) offer charming façades; Georgetown, by and large, the most commercial aspects, perhaps, excluded, shines; and on 14th NW, the Tivoli, the interior degradation and Giant next door ignore, has been restored to brilliance.
This city is far from perfect, but it ain’t all bad, at least architecturally. (Now, those interns are another story, I assume. I just try to ignore them.)
Comment by nathancontramundi August 17, 2008 @ 2:56 pmYou are correct to the extent that not every building in DC is an eyesore. Maybe it is that the townhouses in DC still have no resemblance to an actual community. Prices are so high, especially in Georgetown, that Georgetown houses are status symbols, inhabited mostly by rich folks with multiple estates.
The city still, in my estimation, has very little character outside of the grey behemoth houses of government. But I will conede that I may have been a bit over the top in my description of DC aesthetics. It’s not all ugly (on the surface, at least).
Comment by patrickjford August 17, 2008 @ 6:55 pmWow, the phrase “aspiring bureaucrat” hit me like a sledgehammer! What a thing to aspire to be! Good luck on the new blog!
Comment by Tracy Fennell August 17, 2008 @ 11:13 pmYou’re right to say that “the townhouses in DC still have no resemblance to an actual community”, but, I submit that, maybe, they do to the greatest extent that they ever will in this city. I hope otherwise, but, fearing the word, willingly praise them for what little they do.
Also, I second both aspects of Tracy’s comment. Cheers.
Comment by nathancontramundi August 17, 2008 @ 11:42 pmPatrick,
I’m going to have to disagree with you. There are plenty of historic neighborhoods in D.C. where you can find interesting architecture (e.g. the mansions in Mount Pleasant). Also, renovations on rowhouses are taking place in many areas. Maybe it’s just me, but seeing these old rowhouses fixed up with nice little gardens in the front yards is pretty cool.
I agree that downtown DC/Foggy Bottom is an eyesore at best, but once you leave those relatively tiny portions of DC, it gets much better.
I moved to 16th St and Spring Rd this past May and I have to say that I love it: minutes from Columbia Heights/14th Street, Mount Pleasant, and Rock Creek Park (via Piney Creek Park). And once you get away from the concrete downtown/FB, it seems at least a couple degrees cooler (at least up on top of the hill) and a few hundred dollars a month cheaper.
And I don’t understand what you mean by: “It has a transit system that, with the exception of the Metro, is horribly impractical and expensive.” With the exception of the Metro? The Metro IS largely impractical and expensive, whereas the bus is cheap and generally will take you wherever you want to go (often in less time than the Metro — and how the hell are you supposed to get to H St NE without the bus, unless you cab everywhere?). The city is also warming to bike commuting, as evidenced by the inclusion of bike lanes in many of the road resurfacing projects around Northwest. Oh, and if you do have a car, the city is relatively drivable (maybe not so parkable depending on the time of day), at least in terms of the near impossibility of being lost longer than five-ten minutes in a car.
Comment by Get Out of Foggy Bottom August 18, 2008 @ 8:31 amPFord … As someone in love with the concept of the perfect city and the perfect urban area – I find your analysis of Washington troublesome. I agree that Washington is different than many other cities around the world, but disagree in the notion that it is ugly. Then again whatever makes a city ugly is really a personal matter. I’d say that cities like Ottawa or Brazilia are ugly – but some people might find them attractive and beautiful.
I personally think that Washington’s transit system is a disaster, and the slow progression of this great city is also saddening. I believe that everything we hate about Washington can be embodied in the lack of home rule, the lack of the people’s determination over their own city.
I see a bright future for Washington, not involved in the tearing down of government buildings – but in the revitalization of currently dilapidated neighborhoods.
Perhaps looking at this city outside of Foggy Bottom and the central Federal city and you might find it to be a lot more beautiful than previously thought. A city rich with history, and a future that is bright
Comment by Tim August 18, 2008 @ 9:31 amoh and PS — I like the new blog
Comment by Tim August 18, 2008 @ 9:32 amYour piece is very insightful and I am inclined to agree with many of the assertions you have made. Washington has been one of the largest examples of ills inflicted by central planning- constructed by the idealistic and narrow-minded few. It is full of impractical usage of space and its zoning policies are riddled with rules like the statue for historic preservation that requires developers to maintain outdated and impractical structures. The national mall is gorgeous and provides a certain version of history that the central planners wanted to convey, but the monuments are largely monochromatic. They represent a continuing style that is rigid, and does not reflect the diverse landscape of America.
Indeed, Washington is flawed because of the urban planner’s utopian vision for Washington. Though, not the greatest city, I feel that by no means that the underlying flaws in its development have rendered it one of the ugliest cities in America. There are plenty of much uglier cities- Detroit, Atlanta, Baltimore, Newark to name a few.
Washington has faced major impediments throughout its history, but still remains a highly sought after destination for tourists and and prospective residents. Real estate, though slightly weakened by current economic conditions, still shows strong demand in the residential and commercial markets, and continues to exhibit growth. Crime has dropped significantly over the past years, though it still remains a problem. Investment as well as carefully thought out planning has resulting in modest, yet, promising improvements in Southeast DC.
Historically having a somewhat misguided and detached plan as a nation’s capital, the city is by no means the ugliest. It has just been a common victim of urban designer’s wishful thinking. I do think, however, that the passage of time has enabled many to learn from past mistakes and take action to help promote a bright future for Washington. The previous as well as the current city-council have made promising strides to improve the city’s numerous flaws.
Comment by James Aston August 18, 2008 @ 12:12 pmI have mixed feelings on this. I’m a wanna-be agrarian myself, but I’ve never been able to escape the love of cities. Among my favorite U.S. cities are Pittsburgh, Boston, and (of course) New York. I have mixed feelings on Denver and Atlanta, have spent too little time in Seattle, and despise Phoenix.
Having lived in the area DC on-and-off for the past 5 years, I always felt that the city was kind of boring. James Aston’s comment that the city is monochromatic has always been one of my complaints. There’s so little color or life, especially amongst the monolithic gray slabs that comprise the Constitution Ave. corridor.
There are of course bright spots of architecture, like my parish, St. Mary Mother of God in “Chinatown” (good luck finding any Chinese there) or Georgetown, Adams Morgan, and even the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception or the National Cathedral. And while I admit that there’s something stoic that I’ve grown fond of in the drab monuments to bureaucracy, I often wonder why our Nation’s Capital couldn’t be more appealing on the whole.
And the sprawl around the Virginia and DC suburbs…that’s another story.
Comment by Steve August 18, 2008 @ 1:25 pm