Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-06-17
Cities
aDSRepIe
Obeisunt
Buildings
BY ROBERT ]. LEWIS
WHERE WE STAND can
" infIrarea v,,ta1 ~. -


ing as high as the Wash
ington Monument? Obviously
not. Impossible.
Yet when you walk along
Constitution avenue, every
elm tree that's close to you
seems to tower above the
Monument, which is SIS feet
'51z inches high. please look
next time.)
Clearly, the trees are not
higher than this soaring
stone shaft. But they seem to
be, because they are closer
than the Monument to the
point at which you view
them.
Thus, the appearance of
things depends on your point
Of view. The laws of perspec-
tive dictate the looks of OBJ
jects in the landscape on the
basis of their position in re-
.lation to us and to each
other.
This effect = to mention
another example-can make
a three-story building seem
higher than the Capitol
Dome. Yet the dome rises 285
feet above the Capitol'S East
Plaza-and sits on an So
foot-high hill, besides.
On the other hand, the
Capitol Dome is as high
above the level of the ground
as 40-story buildings would
be in downtown Washington.
And, depending on where
you stand, 1t could seem to
be much higher than the
talleSt skyScraper anywhere
in the same way that a
tree can seem to be higher
than the Washington Monu-
ment.
Which leads to another
kind of point of view, and
another way of thinking.
For the seeming validity of
ideas, as well as the seeming
height of objects, can be in
fluenced by where we stand,
by our point of view.
OVER THE YEARS, Wash
ington has been made a
horizontal city, kept flat,
with all buildings oheisantly
subordinate in height to the
Capitol.
Even in sections of the city
far removed from the Capt.
tol-where the laws of spa
tial perspective cannot OPP
crate - severe height limits
have been enforced.
Those who set up controls
for Washington's develop
ment-and those who main
tain them-thus have had
an objective in mind that
went beyond the visible
scene.
Not only did they disre-
gard the fact that it's often
quite impossible to make the
Capitol Dome appear to be
even so tall as a tree; they
also disregarded the fact
that not even the slightest
glimpse of the Capitol is
available from parts of the
city.
From their point of view,
the issue was not, alone, the
control of the visible rela-
tionship Of the Capitol and
all other buildings.
They wanted the invisible
relationship to be involved
and under control, as well.
To achieve and justify this
kind of control, they based
their mental view of how
things should be on a diff
ferent perspective than the
kind that has to do with
esthetics, and objects in a
landscape composition.
Instead, they adopted a
point of view not in the per-
spective of objects in space,
but in the perspective of
ideas in time.
FROM THEIR theological
point of view, the pre-
eminence of Government
deserved to be symbolized
overwhelmingly in the Ma
tons Capital. What better
way to do this (they pre-
Sumably asked themselves)
than to subordinate sternly
all buildings, near and far,
to the very symbol of the
Gnvernpoert itSeIfo
Obviously, this point of
view was not adopted on a
principal basis of esthetics,
but on another theological
plane altogether.
To its adoption and con-
tinued enforcement can be
traced the flat appearance