This page has annotations:

1. 1 2019-05-01T00:07:32-07:00 Theresa Hamm 3dde3bfdae2b4dc6d907fd561695d83469187191 The six dots and lines meant to represent the lobby Theresa Hamm 1 plain 2019-05-01T00:07:32-07:00 Theresa Hamm 3dde3bfdae2b4dc6d907fd561695d83469187191

This page is referenced by:

• 1 2019-04-26T18:52:33-07:00 Citizens and the City 39 plain 2019-05-14T01:52:44-07:00 The Capitol Lobby and the National Mall
  
  As The United States declared independence from the overseas British monarchy, not only did the government change, but the role of citizens also changed. Going from a government across the Atlantic Ocean to one at home meant that citizens now had more access to their leaders. Explore how L'Enfant, Washington, and Jefferson, along with other early leaders, incorporated their views of the role of citizens in government into their plans for the city. 
  
  A Platform for Government and Industry
  
  In her book Temple of Liberty, Pamela Scott discovered similarities between an erased drawing of the Capitol in L'Enfant's original plan and a small engraving made by L'Enfant, not included in his plan (Hawkins 2017, 77). From this finding, many have argued that the small engraving of the Capitol may actually be L'Enfant's detailed plan of the Capitol. In this engraving, architect and historical cartographer Don Hawkins asserts that L'Enfant had included a large lobby in the Capitol (Hawkins 2017, 77). Hawkins interprets that the lines and dots on the engraving indicate "a spacious enclosed area for the reception and interaction of people" (Hawkins 2017, 77). Further, Hawkins proposes that this lobby in L'Enfant's engraving "would have been gigantic compared to any enclosed space in America at the time" (Hawkins 2017, 77). Reflecting on the mindset of early leaders, L'Enfant could have planned this large lobby as a way to open the government up to the people. In particular, Alexander Hamilton longed for the Congress to support "commerce and industry" (Hawkins 2017, 77), so L'Enfant may have planned the lobby as a place for businessmen to meet with their representatives. However, this grand lobby was never constructed. When L'Enfant was fired from the project for disobeying orders by demolishing a home while surveying land because the house was extending across the street (Verner 1969, 63 & Founders, December 10, 1791), Washington and Jefferson sought out other planners to carry out the design. After going through many architects and many designs that were similar but not identical to L'Enfant's, the grand lobby had been removed (Hawkins 2017, 78). The lobby was replaced with "four small squares" and it has yet to be determined what these squares could represent (Hawkins 2017, 78). 
  
  Interests of a Small GovernmentBesides changing architects, Hawkins suggests that the removal of the lobby could also be attributed to Jefferson's political views. While the lobby was supported by federalists like Hamilton who wanted a large federal government, antifederalists who supported a small, noninvolved, government were wary about the lobby. To Hamilton and other federalists, the lobby was seen as a personification of "a mutually beneficial relationship between commercial and legislative interests" (Hawkins 2017, 78). However, among the planners of the city, Jefferson stood alone with his small government, antifederalist views. Moreover, by this time, Jefferson was in charge of picking the new, post-L'Enfant design of the Capitol. Jefferson's political motives could have led him to support a plan without the lobby. Dramatically, Jefferson viewed a lobby where business and government could be connected "as a threatening, oligarchic symbol planted within the legislative precinct" (Hawkins 2017, 79). In other words, Jefferson felt that the lobby, by giving business and government a platform to meet and discuss, opened another arena for the federal government to grow and expand its power. His ideal small antifederalist government would keep government out of the affairs of industry.
  
  "A People Space"
  Carter Brown, the chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts from 1969 to 2002, claimed "the Mall is a people space, even when one is not there for the fireworks" (Witt 2005, 517). The National Mall has been described "as a palimpsest for the nation's history" with "the open spaces that currently define the Mall's grandeur hav[ing] taken shape only in fits and starts" through the addition of different monuments (Witt 2005, 518). Moreover, in studying the planning of the Mall, its history precedes its construction. Similar to the Capitol lobby, Jefferson and L'Enfant had opposing views on what the Mall should be. Jefferson imagined the Mall with an "understated [...] formal garden design," believing this modest design would match the modestly of a capital city that was "carved from the wilderness and emblematic of American agrarian virtues" (Witt 2005, 518). L'Enfant instead pictured the Mall as a "[commemoration of] the nation's founding" meant to "prophesy its fate as [a] 'vast empire'" (Witt 2005, 518). To achieve this grand view, L'Enfant designed the Mall with "two major boulevards that would emanate in a radial pattern westward from the Capitol" (Witt 2005, 518,). Then, L'Enfant planned a vast area of grass with "picturesque garden elements" (Witt 2005, 518). In L'Enfant's mind, the Mall was to be a place for "civic ceremonial processions" and a place to pay tribute to the history of the nation (Witt 2005, 519). On the other hand, Jefferson saw this monumental plan more suited for a "European absolute monarchy than [...] an infant republic" (Witt 2005, 519). Again, Jefferson's preference for a small national government leads him to his preferences for a smaller, less grand, version of L'Enfant's plans for both the Capitol lobby and the Mall. Despite Jefferson's antifederalist concerns, it is interesting that he was opposed to the Mall considering how the Mall has been a place of protests and civic gatherings—a place where the people have asked their government to listen to their concerns, a place where federal power has been checked. Unlike the deletion of the Capitol lobby, the Mall today follows L'Enfant's vision more than it follows the Jeffersonian ideal. 
  
  The Progression of History
  As the Mall changes with the addition of monuments such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, some express concern over changing "the nation's most sacred civic space" (Witt 2005, 518). However, Matthew Witt, an expert in public administration, argues that changes to the Mall serve as a reminder of the nation's history, like L'Enfant imagined. While L'Enfant could never have planned the future monuments that would later fill the space in his design, L'Enfant's grand, European-like design paved the way for the Mall today. L'Enfant's desire to build a space meant for a large empire correctly predicted the future of the young nation. With Jefferson's modest vision, there would be no space to celebrate leaders like Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. In other words, had Jefferson's ideal mall prevailed, the Mall would not serve as a place to celebrate the nation nor a place to participate in governmental affairs. L'Enfant's plan serves as both a celebration of history and as a place where history is made, with events like Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech taking place at the Lincoln Memorial. Following the words Jefferson wrote, "as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, [...] institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times," the changing National Mall embodies Jefferson's writings even though his architectural preferences favored a static mall (Witt 2005, 528).