The Unusual Creation of Washington, D.C.

“Creating a city is hard. Creating a city from scratch is risky. Creating a great city from scratch is reckless. Creating the capital of a major country from scratch is unusual.” This is how From Philadelphia to Washington: The Creation of the National Capital begins, the latest book in the Cities series published by ACS under the guidance and initiative of engineer, economist, and professor Miguel Aguiló. The book offers a detailed exploration of the evolution of Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., revealing how these two places have played a fundamental role in shaping the identity and development of the United States.

Aguiló sees the founding of Washington, D.C. as a unique and pivotal moment. “It was not the first capital of the young United States in the late 18th century. The first was Philadelphia, which at the time was the second most populous city in the world, surpassed only by London. The agreement among the nine founding states to create a new capital city was key to the nation’s later success.”

Founded in 1682, Philadelphia was based on a classical urban plan, with a central core, two main axes, a grid of streets, and parks in the center of each quadrant. In 1790, George Washington, the first President of the United States, selected the site for the future capital, Washington, D.C.—a square area measuring ten by ten miles at the mouth of the Potomac River. At the time, it included three small independent towns with fewer than 5,000 residents.

Washington’s plan broke with established models by using diagonal avenues to ensure maximum visibility of the two main government buildings: the Capitol, home of Congress, and the White House, the president’s official residence. “The Capitol was deliberately given greater prominence, as the seat of popular sovereignty,” Aguiló notes.

Washington commissioned the design of the new capital to a young French painter, Pierre L’Enfant, who had limited experience in urban planning. He achieved some major successes, as well as a number of mistakes. More than a century later, a group of architects, engineers, and landscape designers appointed by the Senate revised part of L’Enfant’s plan—particularly the so-called L-shaped layout—and gave Washington, D.C. its final momentum.

Although only about 120 miles apart in a straight line, Philadelphia and Washington exerted political influence in opposite directions. The story of the territory between them is intertwined with the nation’s political, social, and architectural history. The backbone of this corridor was the railroad.

“This territory, shaped by the successive visions of 46 presidents, carries the imprint of each leader and their decisions,” Aguiló writes in the book. “Washington, D.C.’s central position along the country’s geographic, cultural, and temporal axes has forged a unique identity. It is not just a city; it is a metropolitan landscape in which the city extends into the territory and stands as the epicenter of collective memory and presidential narrative, expressed through buildings, monuments, memorials, and landmarks. It is a landscape made up of a network of cities connected by shared histories, roads, and transportation systems—a tangible testament to the nation’s evolution.”