[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.L Enfant s successors generally fol-lowed his original design.However, by the latter half of the nineteenthcentury, the harmony of his initial city plan had been undermined by abarrage of additional streets.After L Enfant s ignominious dismissal in 1792, numerous and diverseengineers and architects descended on the slowly emerging capital, allvying for the chance at making a substantial contribution to the designof the new city.Some were eminently more talented and experiencedthan others.The subsequent architectural history of Washington, DC,paralleled the political history of the nation (O.W.Larkin, 91).Concep-tual conflicts, rivalries, and compromises resulted in the long drawn-outprocess of planning and building the nation s capital.Late Georgianadvocates, such as Samuel McIntire and Charles Bulfinch, submitteddrawings that were derived from either their own successes (in the caseof Bulfinch, his design of the Boston State House can be seen in his planfor the Capitol) or their English progenitors.Far less competent architects (notably William Thornton, a self-confessed amateur) became involved in the design of the Capitol.8 Bythe time Jefferson had become president in 1801, the Capitol had de-volved into a hodgepodge of different architectural conceptions.To rem-edy the situation, in 1803 Jefferson appointed Latrobe to oversee thedesign of the Capitol.The result was a streamlining of structure.Latrobeexcluded an extraneous dome (of Thornton s design), retained the outerwalls of the wings, added the House of Representative s oval chamber,and decorated the capitals (top portion of the columns) with corncobsand tobacco leaves.The latter details illustrate Latrobe s desire to rein-vent Greek orders to reflect American nature (R.Hughes, 119).The dev-astating aftereffects of the War of 1812, however, resulted in anotherredesigning and rebuilding period that extended past the early nation-alist period.It would be the responsibility of future generations to com-plete L Enfant s magnificent plan.Architecture 81DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE: SHELTER ANDSECURITY FOR THE AMERICAN FAMILYAs dynamic as government buildings and city planning were duringthis period, architecture and planning were not limited to buildings ona grand scale.Though the more academic architects and builders wereinspired by lofty ideals that they expressed through their designs, ordi-nary builders worked in the same style of the colonial period (Kimball,145).Americans were concerned with the shelter and the security of theirfamilies and holdings.Domestic architecture (that is, buildings producedfor the family unit) reflected the changing times and fortunes ushered inby the new nation.Innovations in domestic architecture, by nature of its form and func-tion, are often slow.Family domiciles and outer buildings have fourelemental requirements: protection from the elements and forces of na-ture; preparation of food; provision for working space, preferably witha good light source; and allocation of sleeping quarters.In ColonialAmerica, settlers were concerned initially with the bare essentials.Fromthe beginning, American settlers followed the architectural styles fromtheir homelands (Hunt, 259).Therefore, there was not a set domesticarchitectural style in Colonial or Federalist America.Habitations fol-lowed ethnic partialities and environmental constraints.Domestic build-ing in America was an intricate mixture of ethnic, historic, and economicfactors (St.George, 1827).Structures on the eastern seaboard were builtby colonists who had migrated from Great Britain, Germany, France,Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands (ibid).Some examples of thismultinational influence could be seen in the almost austere, simple linesof medieval English building, especially the design of the small, clap-boarded house or stone cottage.The log cabin, which dotted the Amer-ican landscape, was the legacy of the Swedes and the Germans.Scandinavian design can also be seen in the steep roofs of many homes.The Dutch Colonials had a significant influence on New York building.The Dutch love of brick and stone and steep, pitched gabled roofs (and,in the late eighteenth century, the gambrel roof) were easily modified forthe New World s buildings (Blumenson, 17).In addition, in the North-east and the East temporal forces of climate, moral reform, historicalsurvival, and adaptive reuse of structures had a major impact on thedesign of domestic architecture (St.George, 1827).This pattern hadmarked American domestic architecture for the past three centuries.American domestic architectural styles lagged several years (even dec-ades) behind those in Europe.In addition, American planners, whenemulating European styles, erected buildings that were not as large or82 Popular Culture of the New Nationas grand as their European counterparts.There were fundamental dif-ferences between American architecture and the European styles Amer-ican builders imitated.The differences arose from the availability ofmaterials (for example, American builders preferred wood simply be-cause it was readily available), the machinery available, the number andexpertise of carpenters and other craftsmen, the differences in the Amer-ican climate and social conditions from that of Europe, and the conse-quent diverse needs for protection (Hunt, 259).Nevertheless, there were some particular styles that were prevalentthroughout this period.The hall-and-parlor type of house (also knownin various regions as Colonial, Early American, or Cape Cod ) be-9came the most prevalent type in republican America (Glassie, 1898)
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]