What do you think?
Rate this book
Washington Burning: How a Frenchman's Vision for Our Nation's Capital Survived Congress, the Founding Fathers, and the Invading British Army
The Riveting Story of the Federal City and the Men Who Built It
In 1814, British troops invaded Washington, consuming President Madison’s hastily abandoned dinner before setting his home and the rest of the city ablaze. The White House still bears scorch and soot marks on its foundation stones. It was only after this British lesson in “hard war,” designed to terrorize, that Americans overcame their resistance to the idea of Washington as the nation’s capital and embraced it as a symbol of American might and unity.
The dramatic story of how the capital rose from a wilderness is a vital chapter in American history, filled with intrigue and outsized characters–from George Washington to Pierre Charles L’Enfant, the eccentric, passionate, difficult architect who fell in love with his adopted country. This Frenchman–both inspired by the American cause of liberty and wounded while defending it–first endeared himself to then General Washington with a sketch drawn at Valley Forge. Designing buildings, parades, medals, and coins, L’Enfant became the creator of a new American aesthetic, but the early tastemaker had ambition and pride to match his talent. Self-serving and incapable of compromise, he was consumed with his artistic dream of the Federal City, eventually alienating even the president, his onetime champion.
Washington struggled to balance L’Enfant’s enthusiasm for his brilliant design with the strident opposition of fiscal conservatives such as Thomas Jefferson, whose counsel eventually led to L’Enfant’s dismissal. The friendships, rivalries, and conflicting ideologies of the principals in this drama–as revealed in their deceptively genteel correspondence and other historical sources–mirror the struggles of a fledgling nation to form a kind of government the world had not yet known.
In these pages, as in Last Train to Paradise and Meet You in Hell, master storyteller Les Standiford once again tells a compelling, uniquely American story of hubris and achievement, with a man of epic ambition at its center. Utterly absorbing and scrupulously researched, Washington Burning offers a fresh perspective on the birth of not just a city, but a nation.
In 1814, British troops invaded Washington, consuming President Madison’s hastily abandoned dinner before setting his home and the rest of the city ablaze. The White House still bears scorch and soot marks on its foundation stones. It was only after this British lesson in “hard war,” designed to terrorize, that Americans overcame their resistance to the idea of Washington as the nation’s capital and embraced it as a symbol of American might and unity.
The dramatic story of how the capital rose from a wilderness is a vital chapter in American history, filled with intrigue and outsized characters–from George Washington to Pierre Charles L’Enfant, the eccentric, passionate, difficult architect who fell in love with his adopted country. This Frenchman–both inspired by the American cause of liberty and wounded while defending it–first endeared himself to then General Washington with a sketch drawn at Valley Forge. Designing buildings, parades, medals, and coins, L’Enfant became the creator of a new American aesthetic, but the early tastemaker had ambition and pride to match his talent. Self-serving and incapable of compromise, he was consumed with his artistic dream of the Federal City, eventually alienating even the president, his onetime champion.
Washington struggled to balance L’Enfant’s enthusiasm for his brilliant design with the strident opposition of fiscal conservatives such as Thomas Jefferson, whose counsel eventually led to L’Enfant’s dismissal. The friendships, rivalries, and conflicting ideologies of the principals in this drama–as revealed in their deceptively genteel correspondence and other historical sources–mirror the struggles of a fledgling nation to form a kind of government the world had not yet known.
In these pages, as in Last Train to Paradise and Meet You in Hell, master storyteller Les Standiford once again tells a compelling, uniquely American story of hubris and achievement, with a man of epic ambition at its center. Utterly absorbing and scrupulously researched, Washington Burning offers a fresh perspective on the birth of not just a city, but a nation.
370 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2008
About the author
Les Standiford
34 books162 followersLes Standiford is a historian and author and has since 1985 been the Director of the Florida International University Creative Writing Program. Standiford has been awarded the Frank O'Connor Award for Short Fiction, a Florida Individual Artist Fellowship in Fiction, and a National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship in Fiction, and belongs to the Associated Writing Programs, Mystery Writers of America, and the Writers Guild.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
July 13, 2026
Washington, D.C., is my birthplace – I was born in the old Columbia Hospital on the city’s West End, just across Rock Creek from Georgetown – and therefore I am always seeking out books dealing with the history of my native city. Those factors and interests brough me to Les Standiford’s 2008 book Washington Burning, and I found it to be a pleasant and interesting history of the Nation’s Capital from its beginnings in the 1790’s through the burning of its public buildings by the British Army during the War of 1812.
Standiford is not an author that I would have linked with Washington, D.C., history. At the time of this book’s publication, he was the director of the creative-writing program at Florida International University in Miami; and much of his work, in both fiction and non-fiction, has had a South Florida focus. His best-known work of non-fiction may be Last Train to Paradise (2002), an account of Henry Flagler’s construction of the ill-fated Key West Railroad; some of his other books have titles like Coral Gables: The City Beautiful Story and Miami: City of Dreams. Yet in Washington Burning, he shows that he can write about the Nation’s Capital as well as he writes about the Sunshine City.
The story of the establishment of Washington, D.C., is – perhaps inevitably – in large part the story of Pierre Charles L’Enfant, the brilliant and erratic engineer who set forth a visionary plan for a new United States capital that was to be built from scratch. L’Enfant’s plan was truly unique and brilliant – with diagonal “grand avenues” that intersected with the north-south and east-west grid pattern of most American cities. The ultimate effect was to create broad vistas filled with what we would now call green space, in a manner that symbolized the openness of the new American democracy.
In the long run, L’Enfant’s concepts took hold, inspiring city design here in the United States of America with plans for major U.S. cities like Detroit, Indianapolis, and Sacramento. L’Enfant’s good ideas had an influence internationally as well; world capitals of other young democracies – cities like Brasilia, Canberra, and New Delhi – took their design inspiration from L’Enfant’s plans for Washington, D.C.
That was the good news, as decades and centuries passed. The bad news, in L’Enfant’s own time, was that the mercurial, impulsive, hot-tempered L’Enfant was only too aware of the elements of genius in his nature, and was not disposed to suffer lightly those whom he considered to be fools. Those aspects of L’Enfant’s nature all too often brought him into conflict with the federal commissioners who had been given the task of overseeing the construction, of what was originally known as the “Federal City.”
In September 1791, at a relatively benign stage of the diplomatic relations between the city’s governing commissioners and its designer, the commissioners wrote to L’Enfant, letting him know that “they had agreed to name the federal district the ‘Territory of Columbia’ and had settled on the name of the Federal City as well – he was asked to title his document ‘A Map of the City of Washington.’ They also asked that he give numbers to the north-south streets and alphabetic designations to those running east to west” (p. 107). It’s fun to see these little details of D.C. life – the sort of thing residents of the city routinely invoke when they identify a restaurant or a music club as being near “8th and I” or “14th and U” – coming into their first existence.
But L’Enfant’s autocratic and peremptory ways made the talented Frenchman his own worst enemy. In 1792, just one year into the construction of the new city, L’Enfant was fired from his post as chief designer of Washington, D.C. Over the decades, he went from being toasted as a genius, to falling into poverty and living in obscurity as a houseguest of friends. L’Enfant’s fall is a painful story to read.
L’Enfant’s firing did not solve all the problems of those who wanted to give the United States of America its shining new capital. The construction of the city – and of the public buildings that would house the legislative, executive, and judicial branches called for in the United States Constitution – took time. It was not until November 1800 that President John Adams came to Washington to move into the Executive Mansion, becoming the first U.S. President to live in what is now known as the White House.
The Executive Mansion did not look very mansion-like to President Adams, as “piles of rubble were still strewn about the weed-choked grounds. There was a wooden walkway bridging a gully in front of the north entrance, and on the south side of the building, a temporary wooden balcony had been hastily thrown up outside the windows of the Oval Room where one day a spacious porch would overlook the Potomac in the distance” (p. 204).
The book is titled Washington Burning, and therefore it should perhaps not be surprising that Standiford starts with an in medias res review of the burning of Washington’s public buildings by the British Army in the summer of 1814. Chapters 2 and 3 chronicle that grim time, and then Chapters 4 through 33 take us back to L’Enfant and the commissioners and the founding of the city. I suppose Standiford sensed that a war is more interesting, for many readers, than arguments between a designer and a committee.
Once Standiford gets to the war, and the British destruction of the public buildings of Washington in 1814, the book really takes off, with lots of vivid detail and drama. Standiford captures well the trauma that the British attack inflicted upon the American psyche, invoking in the process a striking modern association:
“Rebuilding” Washington was something of an open-ended process, making it difficult to say just when all that the British had destroyed was finally put right again. What new structure, for instance, will take the place of what existed on the footprint of the Twin Towers – or wipe away the memories of what took place there? Just when and how are such losses repaired? (p. 304)
Washington Burning was written just a few years after 9/11, and it is clear that the parallels between the calamity of 1814 and that of 2001 were very much on Standiford’s mind as he wrote this book. Those parallels come up again near the end of Washington Burning, when Standiford discusses the slow, gradual process through which two important things happened: L’Enfant’s reputation was rehabilitated, and the brilliance of his plan for the design of Washington, D.C., was acknowledged.
While considering L’Enfant’s monument at Arlington National Cemetery – “a simple but elegant table tomb supported by graceful columns, with the Plan of Washington engraved on top of the slab” (p. 314) – Standiford offers a haunting reflection on what one can see and hear from L’Enfant’s final resting place at Arlington, along with the monuments and the memorials and the museums and the United States Capitol:
And occasionally the quiet is broken by the roar of jet engines from planes descending toward nearby Reagan National Airport. It is difficult to hear that sound without thinking of other jets descending toward Washington, and of the awful destruction at the Pentagon…and with that, also the thought that it was not fighter planes, not anti-aircraft fire, not any military marvel that brought that fourth plane down on September 11, 2001 – simply a band of ordinary citizens who were willing to lay down their own lives before they’d see other lives taken and a part of their nation destroyed. (p. 315)
It is a striking association to make, “as we stare out across the Potomac at the city that has served as a symbol of our nation, and therefore both a target and a place to be defended” (p. 315), and a thought-provoking note on which to conclude this fine work of popular history.
Standiford is not an author that I would have linked with Washington, D.C., history. At the time of this book’s publication, he was the director of the creative-writing program at Florida International University in Miami; and much of his work, in both fiction and non-fiction, has had a South Florida focus. His best-known work of non-fiction may be Last Train to Paradise (2002), an account of Henry Flagler’s construction of the ill-fated Key West Railroad; some of his other books have titles like Coral Gables: The City Beautiful Story and Miami: City of Dreams. Yet in Washington Burning, he shows that he can write about the Nation’s Capital as well as he writes about the Sunshine City.
The story of the establishment of Washington, D.C., is – perhaps inevitably – in large part the story of Pierre Charles L’Enfant, the brilliant and erratic engineer who set forth a visionary plan for a new United States capital that was to be built from scratch. L’Enfant’s plan was truly unique and brilliant – with diagonal “grand avenues” that intersected with the north-south and east-west grid pattern of most American cities. The ultimate effect was to create broad vistas filled with what we would now call green space, in a manner that symbolized the openness of the new American democracy.
In the long run, L’Enfant’s concepts took hold, inspiring city design here in the United States of America with plans for major U.S. cities like Detroit, Indianapolis, and Sacramento. L’Enfant’s good ideas had an influence internationally as well; world capitals of other young democracies – cities like Brasilia, Canberra, and New Delhi – took their design inspiration from L’Enfant’s plans for Washington, D.C.
That was the good news, as decades and centuries passed. The bad news, in L’Enfant’s own time, was that the mercurial, impulsive, hot-tempered L’Enfant was only too aware of the elements of genius in his nature, and was not disposed to suffer lightly those whom he considered to be fools. Those aspects of L’Enfant’s nature all too often brought him into conflict with the federal commissioners who had been given the task of overseeing the construction, of what was originally known as the “Federal City.”
In September 1791, at a relatively benign stage of the diplomatic relations between the city’s governing commissioners and its designer, the commissioners wrote to L’Enfant, letting him know that “they had agreed to name the federal district the ‘Territory of Columbia’ and had settled on the name of the Federal City as well – he was asked to title his document ‘A Map of the City of Washington.’ They also asked that he give numbers to the north-south streets and alphabetic designations to those running east to west” (p. 107). It’s fun to see these little details of D.C. life – the sort of thing residents of the city routinely invoke when they identify a restaurant or a music club as being near “8th and I” or “14th and U” – coming into their first existence.
But L’Enfant’s autocratic and peremptory ways made the talented Frenchman his own worst enemy. In 1792, just one year into the construction of the new city, L’Enfant was fired from his post as chief designer of Washington, D.C. Over the decades, he went from being toasted as a genius, to falling into poverty and living in obscurity as a houseguest of friends. L’Enfant’s fall is a painful story to read.
L’Enfant’s firing did not solve all the problems of those who wanted to give the United States of America its shining new capital. The construction of the city – and of the public buildings that would house the legislative, executive, and judicial branches called for in the United States Constitution – took time. It was not until November 1800 that President John Adams came to Washington to move into the Executive Mansion, becoming the first U.S. President to live in what is now known as the White House.
The Executive Mansion did not look very mansion-like to President Adams, as “piles of rubble were still strewn about the weed-choked grounds. There was a wooden walkway bridging a gully in front of the north entrance, and on the south side of the building, a temporary wooden balcony had been hastily thrown up outside the windows of the Oval Room where one day a spacious porch would overlook the Potomac in the distance” (p. 204).
The book is titled Washington Burning, and therefore it should perhaps not be surprising that Standiford starts with an in medias res review of the burning of Washington’s public buildings by the British Army in the summer of 1814. Chapters 2 and 3 chronicle that grim time, and then Chapters 4 through 33 take us back to L’Enfant and the commissioners and the founding of the city. I suppose Standiford sensed that a war is more interesting, for many readers, than arguments between a designer and a committee.
Once Standiford gets to the war, and the British destruction of the public buildings of Washington in 1814, the book really takes off, with lots of vivid detail and drama. Standiford captures well the trauma that the British attack inflicted upon the American psyche, invoking in the process a striking modern association:
“Rebuilding” Washington was something of an open-ended process, making it difficult to say just when all that the British had destroyed was finally put right again. What new structure, for instance, will take the place of what existed on the footprint of the Twin Towers – or wipe away the memories of what took place there? Just when and how are such losses repaired? (p. 304)
Washington Burning was written just a few years after 9/11, and it is clear that the parallels between the calamity of 1814 and that of 2001 were very much on Standiford’s mind as he wrote this book. Those parallels come up again near the end of Washington Burning, when Standiford discusses the slow, gradual process through which two important things happened: L’Enfant’s reputation was rehabilitated, and the brilliance of his plan for the design of Washington, D.C., was acknowledged.
While considering L’Enfant’s monument at Arlington National Cemetery – “a simple but elegant table tomb supported by graceful columns, with the Plan of Washington engraved on top of the slab” (p. 314) – Standiford offers a haunting reflection on what one can see and hear from L’Enfant’s final resting place at Arlington, along with the monuments and the memorials and the museums and the United States Capitol:
And occasionally the quiet is broken by the roar of jet engines from planes descending toward nearby Reagan National Airport. It is difficult to hear that sound without thinking of other jets descending toward Washington, and of the awful destruction at the Pentagon…and with that, also the thought that it was not fighter planes, not anti-aircraft fire, not any military marvel that brought that fourth plane down on September 11, 2001 – simply a band of ordinary citizens who were willing to lay down their own lives before they’d see other lives taken and a part of their nation destroyed. (p. 315)
It is a striking association to make, “as we stare out across the Potomac at the city that has served as a symbol of our nation, and therefore both a target and a place to be defended” (p. 315), and a thought-provoking note on which to conclude this fine work of popular history.
November 25, 2024
Merely an okay book, while there are some highlights and I learned a bit, overall it’s a pretty boring book. 2.5 stars felt like rounding down.
July 5, 2008
BEWARE. I DON'T FLAG SPOILERS. BUT I DON'T PUT MY REVIEWS OUT ON ANY FEED, EITHER.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim what the book jacket does -- that "the narrative is as absorbing as that of any good novel" -- but I found the material interesting and think Standiford did a great job considering that the only verbatim dialogue came from diaries, letters, articles.
A few of the bits that made an impact on me -- 1. the notion that D.C.'s location was not a surefire thing, 2. that it had several names (incl. Federal City and Washingtonople) beside Washington D.C.; 3. that Washington had farmland not far away (which was probably enhanced in value by the siting of the nation's capital; 4. that the destruction of D.C. united the nation in a way that the construction of D.C. never achieved.
I didn't like Jefferson as well as I thought after reading this -- quite a harsh guy in some ways.
I liked Dolly Madison in the end, when earlier I had no opinion of her at all.
I liked and disliked Pierre L'Enfant, which is what I think Standiford was going for -- L'Enfant was a larger-than-life character who never got his due during his lifetime, in part because he could be so annoying.
One quibble w. "Washington Burning" -- I wish the author or publisher had commissioned a map illustration that would have combined some of the 18th-century landmarks (geographic and manmade) of D.C., with key modern landmarks superimposed.
As I'm not a hardcore history buff, I have to say I couldn't sit and read this through; instead, I'd read for a couple nights, then lay off for a night or two, then resume.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim what the book jacket does -- that "the narrative is as absorbing as that of any good novel" -- but I found the material interesting and think Standiford did a great job considering that the only verbatim dialogue came from diaries, letters, articles.
A few of the bits that made an impact on me -- 1. the notion that D.C.'s location was not a surefire thing, 2. that it had several names (incl. Federal City and Washingtonople) beside Washington D.C.; 3. that Washington had farmland not far away (which was probably enhanced in value by the siting of the nation's capital; 4. that the destruction of D.C. united the nation in a way that the construction of D.C. never achieved.
I didn't like Jefferson as well as I thought after reading this -- quite a harsh guy in some ways.
I liked Dolly Madison in the end, when earlier I had no opinion of her at all.
I liked and disliked Pierre L'Enfant, which is what I think Standiford was going for -- L'Enfant was a larger-than-life character who never got his due during his lifetime, in part because he could be so annoying.
One quibble w. "Washington Burning" -- I wish the author or publisher had commissioned a map illustration that would have combined some of the 18th-century landmarks (geographic and manmade) of D.C., with key modern landmarks superimposed.
As I'm not a hardcore history buff, I have to say I couldn't sit and read this through; instead, I'd read for a couple nights, then lay off for a night or two, then resume.
August 27, 2008
I enjoyed the subject matter, not a normally treated subject from that time period. I also didn't realize how much a hot political issue it was to locate the federal city where Washington is today and how much the decision shaped the political structure of compromise and give and take that symbolizes the American embodiment of government. The intrigue and the politics behind the building of the federal city, both the first time and then after the sacking by the British, as well as the many characters involed was very interesting. I just did not prefer the author's structuring of the book, jumping around historically was a bit confusing. But, all in all, it was an interesting "listen" and I learned a lot.
May 20, 2013
Gave it 3 stars for subject matter but for the book itself would rate it a 2 star. Was a slow read but the amount of historical content I learned by reading the book was astounding. I love that time in history, the birth of our nation and never was taught in school the political debate and firestorm on where to place the nations capital.
Even back during the early years of our nation the government was built on lobbyist and special interest groups. When the writer focused on those areas was I most interested.
He lost me at times when he started quoting letters or assuming that is what some of the founding fathers "might have said" in response to L'Enfant's letters. I don't want conjecture just facts please!
Even back during the early years of our nation the government was built on lobbyist and special interest groups. When the writer focused on those areas was I most interested.
He lost me at times when he started quoting letters or assuming that is what some of the founding fathers "might have said" in response to L'Enfant's letters. I don't want conjecture just facts please!
April 19, 2014
I picked this book up because we were traveling to DC and I wanted to read something related.
I found this book completely fascinating.
I had no idea how DC came to be or all the controversy surrounding it!
Standiford was able to weave the story of how DC came to be and how it's first few decades went in a way that was informative and entertaining without being too technical.
I enjoyed the book tremendously and loved the history lessons learned it.
Sometimes, though, Standiford jumps around a bit, then goes back and it took me a few seconds to realize there was a jump. But overall, I enjoyed the book and recommend it!
I found this book completely fascinating.
I had no idea how DC came to be or all the controversy surrounding it!
Standiford was able to weave the story of how DC came to be and how it's first few decades went in a way that was informative and entertaining without being too technical.
I enjoyed the book tremendously and loved the history lessons learned it.
Sometimes, though, Standiford jumps around a bit, then goes back and it took me a few seconds to realize there was a jump. But overall, I enjoyed the book and recommend it!
October 4, 2011
This is a well-researched, but sometimes dry history. I suppose it doesn't help much that everytime they quote the story's main protagonist, L'Enfant, his convoluted and sometimes tortured syntax slows progress down to an absolute crawl.
July 24, 2016
Tells the story of the building of the capital at Washington DC and how Peter Charles L'Enfant became the architect of the White House. The burning of the White House is discussed but it seems to be a foot note in the narrative which seemed off given the title of the book.
December 21, 2010
Very interesting topic and people. Sometimes dull writing.
October 30, 2013
This was not a slow read, as others have suggested. In fact, whether you like historical fiction or non-fiction, this is a must read.
September 11, 2014
A wonderful biography of a man, and a city which still puzzles, grows, and confounds visitors and citizens alike.
June 19, 2021
Very little about Washington Burning, a little bit about Washington Building. So, the title was misleading. The book is primarily a biography of L'Enfant in his days as the architect of the first design of the city of Washington. It does describe with clarity the power of politics. Yes, it was slow reading at times but, it was written by a historian not a novelist. I would've loved to read more about the area, the geography, the surrounding locations and buildings, and the people of the Potomac area. This is not a book for those traveling to Washington, it doesn't do justice to the buildings, the streets, the monuments, etc. The details of the construction are confusing, there is no effort placed on trying to describe what L'Enfant blue-printed. Again, purely about the character of the architect, nothing else in the book. One page about Washington's death, one paragraph about the writing of the Star Spangled Banner. A couple of chapters on the British advancing to DC. One chapter about Washington Burning (plus a page on Madison rescuing the painting of Washington). Based on the title, the book is a 2 star, based on the biographical report on L'Enfant's vision it gets a 3.5 star.
August 1, 2019
Well done book and review of how Washington DC was built. Politics have not changed…The end of the revolutionary war is thought to be the war of 1812 and the start of this fascinating book. The building of the capital city has am interesting history. Well done book and fun reading.
June 14, 2025
The author provides a well researched and clearly documented look at the planning and development of our Capitol city, Washington, DC. Of note are the insights into the early politicking necessary to decide on the final location of the city. Some things never change.
July 16, 2018
Interesting - seems like politics haven't really changed that much since the start of our country.
May 3, 2020
Very interesting if somewhat haphazardly presented.
January 23, 2022
Interesting how Washington DC was designed and how the British burned the city
August 31, 2012
Les Standiford's "Washington Burning: How a Frenchman's Vision of Our Nation's Capital Survived Congress, the Founding Fathers, & the invading British Army" tells the story of the creation of Washington, DC & how it came to become our nation's capital in December 1800. The book gains its title from the burning of the city in August 1814 by the British in the War of 1812 & follows the decisions made by the Continental Congress to decide as to where exactly our nation's capital should be. The main focus is on Pierre L'Enfant who becomes the designer for the layout of the new city & who also once deposed of the project spends his entire life trying to get credit for the design of the city. Standiford's story spans the majority of the years from 1782 until L'Enfant's death in 1825 & shows the struggles the new nation had in even establishing the city let alone keeping it viable. It also reminds us that bureaucracy was just as strong in those days as they are in the present one. While the history itself is a little bit interesting, the story goes astray in starting off with references to the 9/11 attacks & the over focusing on the destruction of the city by the British in 1814. There's also a bit of disorganization of things when it comes to L'Enfant's legacy the the timeframe it took to complete the city itself. Overall not a bad history of DC but there are likely better ones out there.
October 15, 2008
The description calls it 'riveting.' I think that's being a little kind. At first I was interested in the story of Peter Charles L'Enfant, the architect who planned the city of Washington. But the story bogged down in detail pretty fast. Then the story would get so far ahead, then in the next chapter back up to some insignificant detail. I really found the story of the British invasion and destruction of Washington in 1812 to be great reading, but then the story slowed down again with more detail.
This book could have been so much better. The personalities are big; the history important. But the book was not well organized in its construction. The writing was usually good and even funny in parts. The conclusion should have been better. And it needed lots more photographs or illustrations of the people and places he was writing about. And just a minor grump - I hated the rough edged pages. It made it a nuisance to hold the book and turn the pages.
In all, good for true history buffs, but for most other people, only worth a skim.
This book could have been so much better. The personalities are big; the history important. But the book was not well organized in its construction. The writing was usually good and even funny in parts. The conclusion should have been better. And it needed lots more photographs or illustrations of the people and places he was writing about. And just a minor grump - I hated the rough edged pages. It made it a nuisance to hold the book and turn the pages.
In all, good for true history buffs, but for most other people, only worth a skim.
August 25, 2010
I picked up this book because I wanted to start to be intentional about knowing some of the history of Washington. This provides pretty good insight into the creation of the city, but I have to admit doesn't do a very good job of describing the actual construction of the city. It is truly just about the struggle to choose the capital and design parts of it (mostly the Capitol and the White House). Not bad, not great, but a good introduction to how the city was founded and pretty well written.
February 22, 2012
Tremendous read on the creation of Washington. It is amazing to think how much the city today resembles L'Enfant's vision in spite of all the problems he had (many of which were self-inflicted). It is amazing how much history repeats itself -- the construction of the city was perpetually harmed by Congress' penny pinching and political backbiting. Interesting anecdote, in spite of the fact that L'Enfant was living in Washington when the British burned it, nobody knows where he was on that day. Hopefully, some day some researcher will figure that out.
October 13, 2008
This book sounded promising but was boring until the last few chapters when it gets to the war of 1812 and the renewed interest of the cities architect 70 years after his death.
The author does a nice job at the beginning of tying the idea of the terrorism of 9/11 to the burning of Washington, D.C., and then he ties that back nicely at the end.
The rest of the book is like reading the minutes of Congressional meetings.
The author does a nice job at the beginning of tying the idea of the terrorism of 9/11 to the burning of Washington, D.C., and then he ties that back nicely at the end.
The rest of the book is like reading the minutes of Congressional meetings.
June 3, 2012
This book portrays the history and development of the city of Washington DC, along with all the frustrating and annoying interferences of self-seeking politicians and greedy businessmen who almost succeeded in preventing the building of the city.
January 13, 2016
If you are interested in US history in particular the post American Revolutionary period you should enjoy this book. It covers both the building of Washington DC as well as the War of 1812 and how it effected the district.
December 28, 2008
This book was not very good and I do not think I will ever finish......not worth the time. Stopped reading and did not finish....
Read
August 13, 2009Seems pretty good so far . Starts with a background of the French designer of DC
Read
September 21, 2010Very interesting and worth reading to expand one's understanding of the origins of our capital city. And that Congress is the same as it was 200 years ago.
October 20, 2014
Anti-L'Enfant for certain... The writing was not very readable.
June 22, 2015
An unsympathetic view of Pierre L'Enfant. Here was a man who likely suffered from mental illness and he is ridiculed throughout the book.
April 26, 2016
This contained many interesting insights into the time between the wars and the building of Washington. I enjoyed it as an easy read you can pick up again, if you take breaks.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews