I'm not sure the L'Enfant argument really *could* apply to this intersection, as Florida Avenue was the edge of his plan. The streets to the north and west of Florida (previously, "Boundary Street") weren't even conceived by him.

by Joey on Aug 20, 2008 10:03 am • link • report

Three friends and I were stuck waiting on one of the traffic islands there on Sunday afternoon. This could certainly be an improvement. They should put a statue of Mrs Henderson in the circle.

by Steve on Aug 20, 2008 10:55 am • link • report

Joey is 'technically' correct in that this street is outside of the original City of Washington and L'Enfant's plan for it. However, if you extend the principals laid out in the plan to this area, then yes an intersection of a main east/west (or north/south) 'street' with a diagonal 'avenue' is supposed to contain a 'public place' of some sort. (I.e., a triangular place.)

Two things to note though ... I think 'circles' were reserved for the meeting of two avenues (i.e., diagonals.) Also, not only were streets not paved back then ... but I don't think sidewalks had been invented yet. Like David (and others) have noted, the street was once upon a time considered a "shared" area ... available to one and all ... pedestrians, people on horse back, and carriages. I don't know this for a fact, but it would make sense that under these circumstances, sidewalks would not have been needed. (I've seen a 19th Century print of a street corner in the downtown of a European city where sidewalks are not evident.) Additionally, I've been in narrow European streets where one level of paving is used from one building line to the one on the other ... and the area is shared by vehicles and pedestrians. Ditto most "places" in European towns ... where there isn't a curb to define what part of the "place" is for use by cars and what part is for use by others. So, what this means is that without sidewalks, the triangular small public spaces are only defined by the building lines of the buildings along the edges of the area. So .. I guess you could extend the L'Enfant plan here to mean a larger triangular "park" area (like the one at 16th and Florida and New Hampshire) exists under modern circumstances where we DO use curbs to define between "street" and "sidewalk", but the actual defined "circle" is probably not in accordance with the plans ... Just my 2 cents.

One interesting notion though is that our streets were designed to be a shared public space (from building line to building line) used for everything from getting from point A to point B to providing meeting places for markets and other social and commercial interactions ... I think the keyword here is that they were "shared" and not divided up by sidewalks or painted lanes ... Now, did people at the time 'naturally' tend to walk to the sides and leave the center open for carriages (and people on horse back)? I don't think so from the pictures I've seen ... But it would be interesting to learn how they functioned back then.

by Lance on Aug 20, 2008 12:54 pm • link • report

I just want to throw this out there...I hate traffic circles. I have a car, but rarely drive in the city. A few weeks ago, I drove to work for the first time since I moved here a 15 months ago. Driving through the traffic circles in DC, especially Dupont Circle, is miserable. I'm also usually a pedestrian, and walking through them is miserable too. Why would we ever want to make another one??

by PJ on Aug 20, 2008 12:56 pm • link • report

*L'Enfant's plan didn't include traffic lights either (for which traffic circles can be a substitution).

*As Joey said, this was the northern edge of L'Enfant's map - one of the reasons things get so topsy-turvey just north of here.

*Circles work particularly well when most of the routes are one-way, one-lane roads.

IMO they're appropriate wherever a 6-way intersection exists which doesn't have a ton of traffic - it gets traffic through the intersection faster while increasing pedestrian safety. The multilane roundabouts confuse me, and would probably lead to frequent accidents among US drivers; Dropping one on a 6-way intersection where one route is busy only seems wise if you include a traffic tunnel like Dupont Circle - they *can* be made with a small footprint if it's necessary.

by Squalish on Aug 20, 2008 1:02 pm • link • report

PJ: I should be more clear distinguishing "traffic circles" from "modern roundabouts". Circles are usually bigger, and ones like Dupont have so many lights that it's always choked up. A roundabout is basically a wide intersection with a round planter in the center. The lights let one or two incoming roads go at a time, and then they can continue through without stopping at each other road along the way. That's much less frustrating than Dupont (I always avoid going through the circle, and I live very close to it).

by David Alpert on Aug 20, 2008 1:12 pm • link • report

Lance: Historically, streets have been used for everything short of permanent dwellings. Cart vendor space, playgrounds, marketplaces, walking paths, pasture... L'Enfant was inspired to create what were considered absurdly large avenues in part of his experience with the-street-as-public-square in places like Versailles/Paris. The street was simply the public common area. Paved roads and fast-moving transportation, and sidewalks to offset them, didn't come until later.

PJ: Do you have a problem with one-lane traffic circles? What makes you miserable? How does it differ from a 6-way stoplight?

by Squalish on Aug 20, 2008 1:16 pm • link • report

Also see "1920s Boy Scouts kicked people out of streets" about the transition from streets as shared public spaces to streets as car-only domains.

by David Alpert on Aug 20, 2008 1:31 pm • link • report

I like this idea. Even though I don't drive, I experience traffic in a similar sense because I bike. And as a bicyclist, I love roundabouts (and Circles).

As a pedestrian (which I also am frequently) I like them less. They sometimes can take longer to walk around and drivers don't like to stop when they leave the circle/roundabout.

But traffic volumes are light enough in this area that I think it will increase safety. Additionally, since there will no longer be a multi-intersection stoplight, pedestrians won't have to stop and autos and bicycles don't have to stop and idle as much.

One of the reasons I like Circles is that they provide a usable urban space and they set off their surroundings. They provide a space for monumental buildings and use a statue or structure to close off the streetscape.

This roundbout has the opportunity to at least close off the streetscape. It might also serve to set off a place for a public building, although that's less likely since the area is already built up. This plan won't provide much in the way of usable public space, however the green space provided in Monumentality's plan is certainly better than unused asphalt.

As for Mr. L'Enfant, I love his plan. But I love the principles behind his plan far more. He got a lot right when he desinged Washington, in my opinion, but times change. As long as we hold up his principles, we are holding up his plan, no? After all it was his principles we used to extend Washington north of Boundary Street, and it has a similar feel to the L'Enfant City.

by Matt' on Aug 20, 2008 1:44 pm • link • report

I now have a perfect one-size-fits-all excuse for not doing something I don't want to do:

"I'm sorry, that is not consistent with L'Enfant's plan"

by Reid on Aug 20, 2008 1:56 pm • link • report

David, your "1920s Boy Scouts kicked people out of streets" link is linking to a picture ..

Squalish: "*As Joey said, this was the northern edge of L'Enfant's map - one of the reasons things get so topsy-turvey just north of here." That and the fact that they stopped leveling the topography when they got to Boundary Street (i.e. Florida Avenue). ... Unlike NYC where basically all of Manhattan was leveled out so that the grid could easily be extended.

by Lance on Aug 20, 2008 2:55 pm • link • report

Oops. Here's the article about the Boy Scouts.

by David Alpert on Aug 20, 2008 2:57 pm • link • report

I don't think they did much in the way of leveling the topography here. Capitol Hill still exists after all.

Boundary Street (Florida Avenue) follows the Fall Line, which is one of the reasons that Washington is where it is. The Fall Line is the area where the Piedmont turns into the coastal plain. It's presence marks the point where all rivers and streams "fall," hence the Great Falls of the Potomac. Of course rivers slowly erode the fall line back, which is why in the Potomac's case it's so far upstream.

Still, the fact that all streams fall gives a lot of potential energy in the form of water mills. This caused the development of a lot of cities for industrial purposes and other cities for trade purposes becuase the Fall Line marks the highest point of navigation on rivers.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_line

by Matt' on Aug 20, 2008 3:03 pm • link • report

I’d like to address a few points here.

Though circles and roundabouts do have some disadvantages, what I have proposed is certainly better than what is currently at that intersection--- an intimidating, confusing, and dangerous sea of asphalt punctuated by tiny islands and many traffic lights. I have driven and walked through that intersection several times and have never been satisfied. Other than a roundabout/circle, there are few ways to safely accommodate six streets all converging at once.

As for L’Enfant’s wishes, it’s harder to determine the traffic engineering preferences of a man who died long before the invention of the automobile. Furthermore, I am surprised by the accusations of L’Enfant spinning in his grave (he’s buried in Arlington Cemetery, if anyone wants to check) since I conceived the idea as a very L’Enfant solution to a modern problem. I plotted the circle and statue to align with the New Hampshire Avenue axis, thus visually terminating the avenue at a formal public space and prominent ornament. Everything else fits around that central baroque element. I would like to see the NCPC out-L’Enfant that!

My only guess is that the NCPC assumed that a circle or roundabout would require the demolition of existing structures. My plan stays strictly within the public rights-of-way, thus requiring no eminent domain seizures and no adjustments to any structures--- not even to the historic walls or steps of Meridian Hill Park.

As for the discussion of grids and Washington’s terrain, though it is true that parts of the L’Enfant city were graded slightly, Florida Avenue (or Boundary Street as they called it back then) was always at the foot of the escarpment separating the flatter L’Enfant city from the higher-elevated Columbia Heights and Adams Morgan. I’m not sure exactly why the streets fall into such disarray outside the L’Enfant plan, but my best guess is that they were developed at different times from different, oddly-shaped farms. Without the dogged (some say stubborn) artistic vision of L’Enfant, the city’s subsequent developers platted neighborhoods that best fit their plots of land. (One notable exception is Petworth, whose original developers replicated L’Enfant principles).

by Eric Fidler on Aug 20, 2008 3:35 pm • link • report

I live near here, and I've thought a circle would be perfect for this spot a thousand times. I even thought I should really draw it up and sending it to DDOT and the city council. Meridian Hill park isn't even part of the L'enfant plan. It would really change the character of the area (and be a perfect change to go with reopening the 15th to two-way traffic to the south.) In fact, this is the very edge of the original plan, so its really a stretch to say that this would not keep to the intent of L'Enfant.

by Neb on Aug 27, 2008 10:17 am • link • report