Washington DC: Washington D.C. as a policy system seems neither fish nor fowl—through frequently is rather foul. The city does not possess an economic base of its own; its hinterland belongs to somebody else. To assert it is an industrial city, a creature of the industrial age risks furrowed eyebrows. Nevertheless, it is an American city and I’m sure that hidden in its canyons of power, there lay a policy system. In 1871, the half-built downtown and surrounding neighborhoods benefited from Congressional legislation that provided the city with a government modeled on territorial government. The President appointed a governor, and a upper chamber of the legislature (the lower being elected), and a “board of public works” with considerable powers, including the power to tax. The district was awarded a non-voting seat on the Congressional committee that administered/governed its operations. In an amazing act of hypocrisy during the Reconstruction Era, the legislation reduced the franchise of newly enfranchised Afro-Americans. On top of all this Congress authorized several new cabinet department buildings (War, State, and Navy) which would be placed in the hands of the newly authorized Bureau of Public Works.
One of the five members of the Bureau was Alexander Shepherd, a native of Washington and a former residential real estate developer. Simultaneously, he owned a number of paving and stone companies and served as board member of streetcar, railroad and banks—all with contracts and business relationships with his public works department. A friend of President Grant, he subsequently was appointed chair of the Bureau, and then Governor of the City. From the Bureau, Shepherd during the early1870’s constructed an administrative/political machine without benefit of an ethnic base or immigrant voting. As a former alderman, then chairman of the city’s Bureau of Public Works he envisioned the building of a modern city and a monumental capitol of the nation. This required, in his mind, an aggressive physical development program from which he linked with extensive patronage (complete with graft/kickbacks) system. The jobs or patronage went not to him, but to the national Republican Party.
His first project was a drainage system, requiring street leveling, extensive street paving and “views” from key monuments and structures. His plan was “to create a city with unrivaled sanitary facilities, and clean, well-paved, well-lighted thoroughfares”[1].In that when Shepherd started the project, Washington was described as a “swampy mud-hole and a physical mess of unpaved and ungraded streets, open sewers, and disorganized buildings” one can argue significant public benefit could follow from this infrastructure. What might surprise the reader is that it was ungodly expensive. But not to worry, the bond issue did not require voter approval but only Bureau of Public Works approval which could be obtained through recourse to methods and payments normally associated with political machines. “Creative accounting” in DC’s financial statements did the rest.
Upon the bond’s closing, D.C.’s debt soared, surpassed only by the total debt of seven states[2]. But the streets got paved and water/sewers installed. The city’s newspapers, however, pointedly compared Shepherd to Boss Tweed (then having his troubles displayed in court); indeed, an atmosphere of scandal pervaded the Town and the Grant Administration at the time. Shepherd came to be called “Boss Shepherd”. The Panic of 1873 hit, and Washington’s fiscal condition headed way south of the Mason-Dixon line. Congressional intervention alone saved DC from bankruptcy. Shepherd was ousted in 1874, the Board of Public Works abolished and Shepherd headed off to Mexico where he made a second fortune. There is a statute of him on Pennsylvania Avenue. Is Shepherd America’s first economic development “Boss”?[3] Whatever! Shepherd’s example suggest that a Boss, absent an electoral machine, was both possible, and augers future “bosses” hailing from obscure public bureaucracies.
[1] Charles N. Glaab and A. Theodore Brown, A History of Urban America (New York, Macmillan Publishing Co, 1983) quote from architect Constance M. Green, p. 214.
[2] Charles N. Glaab and A. Theodore Brown, A History of Urban America, op. cit., p. 214.
[3] Raymond Mohl, The New City, op. cit. pp. 100-101.
Washington DC: City Beautiful Goes National
Burnham had been a busy little bee since the Great White City and City Beautiful had certainly gathered considerable momentum in its aftermath. The prospect of yet another centennial-type event soon appeared on the horizon. In 1900 Washington D.C. would have its one hundred year birthday. Our friend, Downing had developed a plan, back in the 1850’s and Alexander Shepherd, our bureaucratic machine boss had spruced up the place with many buildings, streets and what-have-you in the post-Civil War Grant Administration. So in 1900 when the American Institute of Architects held its convention in D.C., it sparked the interest of Michigan Senator James McMillan. In time-honored Washington-style, a commission (the McMillan Commission) was formed by the D.C. Congressional Committee to figure out what could be done to “class up” the joint.
No doubt smelling lush contracts, Burnham, Olmsted’s son (the father by this time was not well) and Charles McKim (partner in the most prestigious Beaux Arts architectural firm, along with Stanford White) were appointed and drew up plans to update L’Enfant—an update organized about a great mall between the capitol and the Potomac around which key government buildings would be built, and a series of parks (Rock Creek a centerpiece), and monuments throughout the city. Working with the Pennsylvania Railroad, they proposed to remove offending rail lines and centralize rail access to D.C. in an impressive Beaux Arts railway station.[1] In effect, the proposed plan created a national civic center with companion parks and boulevards and monuments—the Cadillac of City Beautiful. In true style, the Commission jaunted off for a six week tour of the Continent to derive proper inspiration for their image of what a national capital should look like. The McMillan Plan was released in 1902 and over the next several decades, monument by monument it was put into place. The D.C. of present day seen by the average tourist is the McMillan Plan D.C.
The union station and plaza, the [Federal] triangle of massive, neoclassical federal buildings, the mall, … the Lincoln Memorial, and the memorial bridge to Arlington, the Jefferson Memorial (as a substitute for [the Paris] Pantheon [and] …. Olmsted [Jr.]’s scheme for a park system, extending beyond the boundaries of the District of Columbia to include scenic areas along the Potomac River from Great Falls to Mount Vernon [and Rock Creek Park] …. all testify to the strength of the McMillan commission’s ideas.[2]
The plan served as a model for other cities to imitate. In 1910 Congress established the Commission of Fine Arts to implement the McMillan Plan and over the next decade much of the mall was rebuilt and the Lincoln Memorial was constructed. Following this lead World Fairs in Saint Louis, San Francisco and San Diego propelled the city beautiful design to ever-higher visibility and added a considerable “coolness” factor to the movement,
Burnham’s Washington Plan drove home the value of comprehensive city planning. Like the Chicago’s World Fair, the monumental Washington plan awakened and nurtured the belief that urban life could be orderly and efficient, that cities could be beautiful and inspiring. Capturing the attention of civic leaders in other cities, Burnham’s grandiose Washington plan gave new impetus to urban planning.[3]
Cleveland’s politics subsequently went under some stress and strains as the Hanna state Republican machine clashed with a charismatic, but rogue mayor.
New York City (Improvement Commission Report of 1907), Philadelphia (City Parks Association) and Baltimore (Municipal Art Society) kicked into high gear to get things going in their communities. New York’s effort didn’t come to much in the long run, and for various reasons neither did Baltimore. Philadelphia, however, although it took a considerable while to develop (1919) and carry out, built today’s Benjamin Franklin Parkway.
(Chicago Merchant’s Club and later the Commercial Club—both merged in 1907)
[1] Charles N. Glaab and A. Theodore Brown, A History of Urban America (3rd Ed) (New York, Macmillan Publishing Co, 1983), pp. 262-263.
[2] Mel Scott, American City Planning, op. cit., pp. 55-56.
[3] Raymond A. Mohl, The New City, op. cit. p. 79.
Ron W. Coan 