Unbuilt Washington

The National Building Museum’s survey of the buildings that might have been built in the nation's capital has captured the public's interest.

National Building Museum, Washington, D.C.

Through May 28

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Blame “architectural groupthink,” said Philip Kennicott in The Washington Post. This fascinating exhibition “makes abundantly clear” that the Washington we all know—the “rigidly neoclassical city of white marble and columns”—is mostly the product of fairly arbitrary decisions made less than a century ago. A single generation decided to express government power via “an orderly march of white palaces” on a landscape “denuded of trees,” and builders have followed in lockstep ever since. Sure, it’s fun to guffaw at a 1792 plan for a Capitol building with an oversize weather vane atop its dome. But more intriguing are the newer proposals, which suggest that a different Washington could yet be built. In a nation entering “an age of decline,” the imperial National Mall “doesn’t really make sense anymore.” We could plant trees and add shops and housing. We could make Washington “more livable,” more modest, more “welcoming.”