ABSTRACT
Title of Thesis:CAPITAL CONSTRUCTIONS: RACE AND
THE REIMAGINING OF WASHINGTON,
D.C.?S LOCAL HISTORY IN THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY
Megan Elizabeth Harris, Master of Arts, 2006
Thesis directed By:Professor Saverio Giovacchini
Department of History
From the time of its creation to the present day, Washington, D.C. has been
conceptualized as a symbol of the United States, rather than a city in its own right.
Such a view disregards the idea that Washington, D.C. possesses a local history.
Through the investigation of two recognized historic districts?Georgetown and U
Street?this thesis explores how Washington, D.C.?s local history has been
commemorated.  Examining the constructed nature of these historic districts?the
?reimagining? of them?reveals that over the course of the twentieth century,
Washington, D.C.?s local African American history has been both erased as well as
embraced.  Furthermore, the recognition of these two areas as historic has had
dramatic repercussions for residents of these neighborhoods.
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTIONS:
RACE AND THE REIMAGINING OF WASHINGTON, D.C.?S LOCAL HISTORY
IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
By
Megan Elizabeth Harris
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
2006
Advisory Committee:
Professor Saverio Giovacchini, Chair
Professor James Gilbert
Professor Angel David Nieves
? Copyright by
Megan Elizabeth Harris
2006
ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures .. . . . . . . . iii
Introduction. . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter One:
City of the Nation: Imagining Washington, 1800-1920 . . . 13
Chapter Two:
?A Great Deal of Fashion Has Come to Georgetown?:
Making Washington?s Oldest Neighborhood Historic . . . 30
Chapter Three:
?You Street? and the ?New U?:
Visions of African American Life and History on U Street, NW . . 64
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . 102
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . 110
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Lincoln Memorial. . . . . . 13
Figure 2: Map of the Georgetown Historic District. . . . 45
Figure 3: Pomander Walk, Georgetown. . . . . 49
Figure 4: Mt. Zion United Methodist Church. . . . . 59
Figure 5: 13
th
 and U Streets, NW. . . . . . 64
Figure 6: Map of the Greater U Street Historic District. . . 67
Figure 7: Lincoln Theatre, U Street. . . . . . 78
1
Introduction
From the time of its inception to the present day, Washington, D.C. has been
envisioned, in the words of city planning historian John W. Reps, as ?exist[ing]
almost entirely as a governmental city.  Its raison d?etre is national administration, the
buildings for the federal establishment occupy its commanding sites, and the majority
of its citizens find employment in the myriad tasks of governing a large and complex
nation.?
1
  Configuring the city in this way ignores the fact that Washington is and
always has been a city as well as a capital, a home to flesh-and-blood inhabitants with
histories?and a collective history?that exist independent of the presence of the
federal government.  The question then becomes, has the local history of Washington
been commemorated, and if so, how?
To shed light on the issue, I have investigated two case studies: Georgetown
and U Street, two Washington, D.C. neighborhoods that have been recognized as
historic.  Over the course of the twentieth century, both of these areas have seen
massive changes to their local reputation as well as to their demography.  In her work
A Golden Haze of Memory: The Making of Historic Charleston, Stephanie Yuhl
describes the way in which early-twentieth-century groups of elite white Southerners
?reinvented? Charleston, South Carolina?s past through a variety of different means,
from historic preservation to writing to painting, in order to confront the threats posed
by modernity as well as to reclaim a lost sense of social superiority.
2
  Throughout her
                                                  
1
 John W. Reps, Monumental Washington: The Planning and Development of the Capital
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), xiii-xiv.
2
 Stephanie Yuhl, A Golden Haze of Memory: The Making of Historic Charleston (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005), 6.
2
analysis, Yuhl terms this process of reinvention ?re-membering? in order to
emphasize the active nature of the enterprise.
 
This thesis is about this reinvention or re-membering, both as a phenomenon
(the fact that it happened) and as a process (how and why it happened).  I maintain
that this same sort of remembering has taken place in the Georgetown and U Street
areas of Washington D.C.  Over the course of the twentieth century, both of these
neighborhoods have been reimagined; a crucial part of this process has been the
establishment of them as historic.  The first case study, Georgetown, is the oldest part
of Washington, but was not defined as historic until the 1920s and 1930s, when
historic preservationists restored many of the oldest Georgetown residences.  Fifty
years later, the U Street area of the city, a historically African American
neighborhood that serves as my second case study, underwent a transformation that
was similar in scope.
As this thesis will demonstrate, the reimagining of Georgetown and U Street
was informed by the particular understanding of Washington as a symbol of the
nation.  Indeed, this perception of D.C. provided the framework within which
Georgetown and U Street were defined as historic.  As well, the reimagining of both
Georgetown and U Street has hinged on issues of race.  I chart the imagining of D.C.
from the nineteenth century, when the city was envisioned as the domain of whites, to
the twentieth century, which saw the creation of historic Georgetown and historic U
Street, one of which worked to reinforce this image of Washington, the other to
contradict it.  I argue that part of the ?historicization? of these areas was the coding of
them as either ?white? or ?black? spaces (with their histories racialized accordingly),
3
and that these interpretations were products of the time periods during which they
were carried out.
At the core of this exploration of Georgetown, U Street, and Washington,
D.C. are several broader questions: how does a place become historic, and what are
the forces that shape it?  In particular, what role do market forces play in this process,
in the form of historic preservation and cultural tourism?  How does the existence of
historic neighborhoods influence the popular vision or understanding of a city, and
vice versa?
The Creation of the Historic
At the root of this notion of re-membering is the concept of collective
memory.  In recent years, scholars from fields as disparate as psychology, history,
and cultural studies have produced a body of work large enough to merit the naming
of a new subfield: memory studies.  Drawing on the work of French sociologist
Maurice Halbwachs, most memory scholars now agree that groups learn about and
engage in ?remembering? the events of the past, much as individuals do.
3
  For both
groups as well as individuals, this ?remembering? is a social process, a construction,
molded and shaped by a variety of different, often competing pressures.  Thus, how
we understand the past is subject to the conditions?political, economic, and
cultural?of the present.
Consequently, as symbols of collective memory, historic sites are also
constructions.  Those places that we understand as ?historic,? such as civil war
battlefields, Frederick Douglass?s home, and the former internment camp at
                                                  
3
 Maurice Halbwachs, The Collective Memory, trans. Francis J. Ditter, Jr., and Vida Yazdi
Ditter, Introduction by Mary Douglas (New York: Harper & Row, 1980).
4
Manzanar, to name a few, exist because we, as a society, deem them worthy of
remembering.
4
  Memory scholars refer to places and structures that embody memory
as ?sites of memory,?
 5
 or ?technologies of memory,?
 6
 mechanisms through which
collective memory is formed and perpetuated.
As social constructions, the existence of historic sites may have less to do with
the actual historical realities of a place than with the political, economic, and social
power structures of contemporary society.  The widespread lack of sites
commemorating the history of minority groups in the United States, particularly
African Americans, serves as just one example of the ways that social conditions,
such as racial prejudice, can influence the establishment (or lack thereof) of historic
sites.  Hence, throughout this thesis I refer to ?historic? Georgetown or Historic U
Street (that is, using quotation marks and capitalization) to delineate the constructed
nature of the historicity of these places.
Once established, the interpretation of historic sites is not set in stone; the
stories that they tell will vary according to changes in the greater society.  Edward
Linenthal makes this point clear in his analysis of the commemoration of American
battlefields, which he labels ?sacred spaces? to denote the fact that they are revered
                                                  
4
 On the development of civil war battlefields as historic sites, see Edward Linenthal, Sacred
Ground: Americans and Their Battlefields, 2
nd
 ed. (Chicago: University of Illinois Press,
1993); on Frederick Douglass?s home and other African American historic sites, see Jeffrey
C. Stewart and Fath Davis Ruffins, ?A Faithful Witness: Afro-American Public History in
Historical Perspective, 1828-1984,? in Presenting the Past: Essays on History and the Public,
ed. Susan Porter Benson, Stephen Brier, and Roy Rosenzweig (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1986), 307-336; on Manzanar National Historic Site, see Robert T. Hayashi,
?Transfigured Patterns: Contesting Memories at the Manzanar National Historic Site,? The
Public Historian 25:4 (Fall 2003): 51-71.
5
 Pierre Nora, ?Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire,? Representations 26
(Spring 1989): 7-24.
6
 Marita Sturken, Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic, and the Politics
of Remembering (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).
5
within American collective memory.
7
  As Linenthal explains, the views of the past
offered by sites such as Lexington and Concord and Little Bighorn have undergone
revision over the course of their existence.  Linenthal?s research also reveals how
sites of memory can be interpreted in many different ways.  For example, the sites of
war that Linenthal examines continue to be literal battlefields, ?spaces where
Americans of various ideological persuasions come, not always reverently, to
compete for the ownership of powerful national stories.?
8
As Linenthal indicates, historic sites often become contested and are pulled
into national dialogue because they are so important to our sense of history, and
therefore, to our sense of identity.  As Benedict Anderson has made clear, a shared
history is crucial to creating a shared national identity.
9
  This facet of collective
memory raises intriguing questions about the collective memory of Washington,
D.C., itself a symbol of national identity.
Creating the Historic City
With these ideas of collective memory and historic site-making in mind, a
number of scholars (such as Stephanie Yuhl) have investigated the twentieth-century
?creation??that is, the social construction?of ?historic? neighborhoods, cities, and
regions in the United States, such as New York?s Lower East Side and Times Square
areas, New Orleans, and the entire regions of New England and the Southwest.
10
  As
                                                  
7
 Linenthal, 1.
8
 Linenthal, 1.
9
 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism, 2
nd
 ed. (London: Verso, 1991).
10
 See, for example, Anthony J. Stanonis, Creating the Big Easy: New Orleans and the
Emergence of Modern Tourism (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 2006); Hasia
R. Diner, Jeffrey Shandler, and Beth S. Wenger, ed., Remembering the Lower East Side:
6
their work demonstrates, these scholars have explored the political, social, and
economic factors that have led, either directly or indirectly, to establishing these areas
as ?historic.?
One such factor that has played a role in shaping public ideas of historic areas,
particularly urban areas, is tourism.  As Yuhl?s narrative indicates, while the
establishment of ?historic? Charleston was not carried out solely to attract tourist
dollars, this was one of the end results.  The past created by these Charleston
residents was not only usable, but also marketable, eventually resulting in the creation
of ?Historic Charleston,? ?a burgeoning tourist entity that lured thousands of history-
hungry visitors to the city annually.?
1
  Yuhl?s work reveals how the marketing of a
neighborhood, city, or region to tourists has an undeniable impact on the
conceptualization of place.
This is a thread that runs through many scholarly works on the creation of
?historic? cities: marketing the city to tourists involves commenting and capitalizing
on the city?s past, thus affecting the collective memory of the place.  In his
exploration of the development of the modern concept of New Orleans, appropriately
titled Creating the Big Easy, Anthony J. Stanonis describes how part of this creation
process entailed ?reinventing the urban past??for example, through the restoration of
                                                                                                                                                
American Jewish Reflections (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2000); Hal K.
Rothman, ed., The Culture of Tourism, the Tourism of Culture: Selling the Past to the Present
in the American Southwest (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2003); Dona
Brown, Inventing New England: Regional Tourism in the Nineteenth Century (Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996); William R. Taylor, ed., Inventing Times Square:
Commerce and Culture at the Crossroads of the World (New York: The Russell Sage
Foundation, 1991); and Briann Greenfield, ?Old New England in the Twentieth-Century
Imagination: Public Memory in Salem, Deerfield, Providence, and the Smithsonian
Institution? (Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 2002).
1
 Yuhl, 7.
7
buildings in the French Quarter and the reinvention of Mardi Gras?in order to
expand New Orleans? tourist base and combat the city?s image as dangerous and
depraved.
12
This connection between tourism, memory, and the making of historic places
and memory landscapes has grown even more inextricable with the rise of what is
known as cultural, or heritage, tourism.  As a phenomenon, cultural tourism has been
taking place in the United States for the majority of the twentieth century, since the
days of Colonial Williamsburg and Henry Ford?s Greenfield Village.  Phoebe Kropp
charts the development of California?s Spanish missions as tourist attractions,
explaining how the perception of these missions as the remnants of a romantic past
made them an overwhelming draw for tourists, and thus led to a ?re-imagining of El
Camino Real,? the scenic highway that connected them.
13
However, the label ?cultural tourism? denotes a relatively new twist on this:
the conscious attempt to capitalize on Americans? interest in the past, and to use the
commemoration of particular pasts as a means of economic development.  Cultural
tourism has been defined as ?travel directed toward experiencing the arts, history, and
special character of unique places.?
14
  Cultural tourism enterprises include museums,
historical walking tours, historical sites, and the like.  The title of a 1998 pamphlet
published by Virginia?s Department of Historic Resources to promote cultural
                                                  
12
 Stanonis, 23.
13
 Phoebe Kropp, ?In Search of History and Romance On El Camino Real,? in The Culture of
Tourism, the Tourism of Culture, 40.
14
 Kathryn Schneider Smith, Capital Assets: A Report on the Tourist Potential of
Neighborhood Heritage and Cultural Sites in Washington, D.C. (Washington, D.C.: D.C.
Heritage Tourism Coalition, 1999), 2.
8
tourism, ?Putting Virginia?s History to Work,? captures this marriage of cultural and
economic goals.
15
In the context of the creation of historic sites, cultural tourism has played a
large and complicated role.  In a very real way, cultural tourism makes the past a
commodity to be purchased and consumed.  Cultural tourism holds within it the risk
of telling marketable, easily digested stories rather than complex, multi-layered ones.
In marketing the past, cultural tourism also inherently affects collective memory and
sense of place.  In describing the impact of tourism on the Southwest, Hal Rothman
comments, ?Much of the physical landscape of the region, its public symbolism, the
construction of its roads, trails, and even cities reflected a process that took cultural
history, planed off its rough edges, and placed it in a neat little wrapper that was
intelligible to the traveling classes.?
16
  Rothman cites San Antonio as a particular
example of this ?packaging? of ?an exotic but smoothed past.?
17
  Rothman also points
out that cultural tourism can sometimes result in the objectification of particular
groups and pasts, the transformation of them into spectacles: as he says, along with
?learning and reverence,? cultural tourism ?sells? dismay at the past.?
18
To be fair, cultural tourism also holds within it a promise of exposing people
to new ideas and ways of seeing the world.  Some proponents of cultural tourism
aspire to use tourism as the ?hook? to engage people in dialogue about stories that
might otherwise be ignored, or to garner funding for projects that unearth less popular
                                                  
15
 Tourism Handbook: Putting Virginia?s History to Work (Richmond, Virginia: Department
of Historic Resources).
16
 Hal K. Rothman, ?Introduction: Tourism and the Future,? The Culture of Tourism, the
Tourism of Culture, 7.
17
 Rothman,?Introduction,? 8.
18
 Rothman, ?Introduction,? 10.
9
historical narratives.  These potential benefits should not be overlooked.  However,
historically, tourism (cultural or otherwise) has affected historical narratives and
historical sites in ways that scholars and critics deem negative; hence, Rothman?s
indictment of tourism as a ?devil?s bargain.?
19
Historic preservation (the protection and conservation of old buildings) is
another important factor that shapes our understanding of what is historic.  As Rudy
Koshar suggests in his work on German historic preservation efforts, ?National
monuments, and [official] memorial spaces account for only a small part of the built
environments? ?commemorative capital,? its capacity to foster an awareness of the
past.?
20
  Koshar?s work illustrates that historic preservation is an act of memory-
making, and that restored old buildings are sites of memory as well.  Similarly to
tourism, historic preservation is a cultural phenomenon that has undergone substantial
revisions within the twentieth century.  Though the 1930s saw increased interest in
preservation, the 1960s era federal historic preservation legislation initiated a sea
change in the practice of preservation in the United States.
Following this legislation, individuals and institutions (most notably the
federal government) alike began to work to save old buildings.  Government
sponsorship of historic preservation had a significant impact on the creation of
historic sites around the country, as well as on the understanding of what it means for
a building or place to be ?historic.?  Under the 1966 National Historic Preservation
Act, which spelled out the criteria for a building to be listed on the National Register
                                                  
19
 Hal K. Rothman, Devil?s Bargains: Tourism in the Twentieth-Century American West
(Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1998).
20
 Rudy Koshar, Germany?s Transient Pasts: Preservation and National Memory in the
Twentieth Century (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998), 5.
10
of Historic Places, thousands of buildings, neighborhoods, and landscapes were
designated as ?historic.? The 1960s era federal preservation legislation also created
tax break incentive programs in order to encourage individuals and developers to
restore old homes.
Like cultural tourism, historic preservation, as it is currently practiced, can
affect both positive and negative changes in the historic landscape.  Oftentimes, when
old buildings are restored, their economic value rises.  When an entire neighborhood
is revitalized, property values (and taxes) may rise to such an extent that the property
owners cannot afford to continue to reside in the area.  The declaration of a property
or neighborhood as a historic district usually requires owners to maintain their
properties in particular ways; again, owners of houses in historic districts cannot
afford to do this sometimes.  To summarize, historic preservation has the potential to
result in the gentrification of an area, and the displacement of long-standing
communities of people.
Imagining D.C.: An Exploration in Three Parts
This thesis is broken down into three chapters.  To set the scene, Chapter One
examines the development of Washington, D.C. as a concept.  This chapter begins
with an examination of how the city?s original planners imagined D.C., and how this
vision has persisted over the course of the city?s history.  I pay particular attention to
the development and role of the National Mall, as it was situated to be the ceremonial
center of the national city.  In keeping with my focus of the impact of tourism on the
formation of a city ?identity,? in order to understand the conceptualization of
11
Washington, I examine the representation of the city in urban tourism guides.
Throughout my analysis, I investigate the racialized nature of this imagining, that is,
how the city was imagined in exclusively white terms.
Chapter Two deals with Georgetown, the oldest continuously settled section
of the city.  The heart of this chapter is a discussion of the 1930s-era transformation
of Georgetown?s reputation and demography.  In their search for cheap, affordable
housing, young New Deal government workers began to renovate Georgetown?s
older dwellings.  The area came to be appreciated not only for its affordable housing,
but also for its quaint and historic atmosphere.  As the area grew more desirable,
Georgetown was slowly transformed into an exclusively white neighborhood, with its
history as a racially integrated area forgotten, and its African American residents
compelled to move out.
The subject of Chapter Three, the U Street neighborhood, known as D.C.?s
?Black Broadway,? stands as both similar as well as a counterpoint to Georgetown.
As I demonstrate, many of the same forces that worked to transform Georgetown
have been at work in U Street?s recent revitalization.  However, while these pressures
constructed Georgetown as a white area with a white history, they have had the
opposite result on U Street.  The area?s African American past has been
acknowledged, to the extent that U Street is now configured to represent D.C.?s
African American past.
On a personal note, this thesis stems from my lived experience as a resident of
the D.C. area (first in the city proper, and then in Silver Spring, Maryland) for the
past three and a half years.  As a newcomer to Washington, D.C., I learned quickly
12
that only tourists and politicians referred to the city as ?Washington.?  Instead, I grew
accustomed to saying, ?I live in the District,? or ?I live in D.C., in Dupont Circle.?
Clearly, there were two sides to my new home.  While I learned to appreciate the
perks of living in ?official Washington? (particularly the free Smithsonian museums),
my enjoyment of the city stemmed more from my experiences exploring the areas off
the Mall.  My research and analytic framework have been the result of long walks
through D.C.?s ?historic? areas.
13
Chapter One:
City of the Nation: Imagining Washington, 1800-1920
Figure 1: The Lincoln Memorial: even at night, tourists flock to the iconic
structures that have come to define Washington, D.C.
In 1913, in the introduction to a guidebook to Washington, D.C., Vermont
Supreme Court Justice Wendell Phillips Stafford proclaimed, ?The capital of a
nation? must be in a very true sense, a city that is set on a hill and which cannot be
hid? whether we will it so or not, it will become a symbol?a symbol of the great
Republic whose visible throne is here.?
 21
  Stafford continued to describe the role of
the capital city as ?a city which is the outward and visible sign of the inward and
                                                  
21
 Wendell Phillips Stafford, ?Introduction,? in James Bryce, The Nation?s Capital
(Washington, D.C.: B.S. Adams, 1913), 11.
14
spiritual life of a free and advancing people,? arguing that such a place ?must be a
work of art.?
2
Though Stafford?s comments might seem typical of a politician, they
epitomize the commonly held view of Washington during the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries.  In this chapter, I deconstruct this view, analyzing the factors that
played a role in creating it.  Within my discussion, I look at how city planners in the
late 1800s and early 1900s imagined the city, and how these concepts became
permanently embedded in Washington?s landscape.  As well, I have drawn on tourist
guidebooks and other travel literature dating to the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.  A number of scholars have probed the connection between the
representation of cities in guidebooks and the development of particular urban
identities; as I discuss, this is the case with Washington, D.C.  Through these
guidebooks, Washington?s ?identity? was solidified in the public imagination.
These forces?the development of Washington by city planners and
politicians, and the representation of it by tourism promoters and travel
writers?shaped the physical and metaphorical construction of Washington.  Through
these pressures, Washington took on the identity of the federal city, a place
representative of the glory, the moral righteousness, and the beauty of the entire
nation.  In accordance with the racial norms of the time, this identity depended on the
removal of African Americans from the cityscape.
                                                  
2
 Stafford, 13-15.
15
City of the Capitol
In the introduction to a volume of essays comparing the capital cities of Berlin
and Washington, D.C., historian Andreas Daum offers a few thoughts on the unique
qualities of capital cities.  Throughout history, says Daum, capital cities have been
conceived of as representative of the country as a whole.  Whether or not they are the
most populous city of the country, the most beautiful, or located in the geographic
center of the nation, capital cities are constructed to symbolize the country in a
number of ways.  To start, in most cases, they exist as the seat of the federal
government.  As well, Daum relates, their landscape works ?to articulate a national
identity.?
23
  Daum goes on to explain that this articulation is carried out through
?spatial signifiers? and ?constructed spaces,? such as the layout of streets and the
architecture of federal buildings.
24
  These spaces exist to project the image, purpose,
and history of the entire country to domestic visitors and foreigners.  As well, capital
cities have a ?preservative function?: they stand as ?nation-states? repositories of
memory.?
25
  Capital cities are oftentimes home to a country?s national archives and
national art and history museums.  As well, capital cities preserve and maintain the
nation?s collective memory through memorial statues and other structures.
Within this context, Washington, D.C. both adheres to and deviates from the
traditional model of a capital city.  As I will discuss, like other capital cities,
Washington has been conceptualized as both a symbol of the United States and the
                                                  
23
 Andreas Daum, ?Capitals in Modern History: Inventing Urban Spaces for the Nation,? in
Berlin-Washington, 1800-2000: Capital Cities, Cultural Representation, and National
Identities, ed. Andreas Daum and Christof Mauch (Washington, D.C.: German Historical
Institute, 2005), 4.
24
 Daum, 17.
25
 Daum, 19.
16
country?s ?repository of memory.?  However, unlike other capitals, these roles have
informed Washington?s identity in dramatic and unique ways.  In other words,
historically, Washington?s role as the capital of the United States has been the
determining factor in the creation of the city?s identity.
This is due in part to the fact that unlike many European capitals, which
possessed identities as cities prior to taking on the role of national capital, D.C. was
(for the most part) an entirely planned city.  This is not to say that there were no
residents of the area prior to the city?s establishment in 1791; indeed, there were
many plantations and farms in the area, not to mention the villages of Georgetown
and Alexandria.  However, the vast majority of the city?s development came after its
establishment as the capital.  Thus, Washington has had a pre-determined identity
since the beginning of its existence as a city.  While Paris and London are the capital
cities of France and England, respectively, these cities? identities encompass much
more than simply their roles as capital cities.  Washington is the Capital, rather than a
city that happens to be the seat of the federal government.
Though I have been speaking of capital cities? metaphorical ?construction,? it
is important to note that Washington literally was built from the ground up in order to
best represent the nation.  Washington?s identity-building began with the plan for the
city created by Pierre L?Enfant and approved by George Washington.  This plan
served to ?articulate [America?s] national identity? both explicitly and implicitly.
L?Enfant envisioned a networking of crisscrossing streets named for different states
of the Union, whose intersections would form public squares that would be
17
maintained by individual states.
 26
  The layout of the capital city would also represent
the Constitution, with Pennsylvania Avenue linking the Capitol and the White House,
symbols of two branches of the government.
 27
  L?Enfant?s plan also called for a
?grand avenue? linking the Capitol and the President?s House, a space that would
later become the Washington Mall.
28
  In L?Enfant?s eyes, the layout of Washington
would represent the diversity of the nation while highlighting the glory of its ideals.
All in all, as Sarah Luria comments,  ?Not only would the city serve as home to the
national government, it would provide a site where the abstract concept of the nation
could be experienced as a physical reality?something a citizen could point to, visit,
and admire.?
29
While some aspects of L?Enfant?s plan?such as the Capitol building and the
White House?were put into place relatively quickly, others floundered in the face of
lack of funding, and it would eventually take most of the nineteenth century before
the original vision of the capital city even came close to being realized.  During the
early to mid-1800s, Washington was most often described as a vast empty landscape,
dotted with a few impressive buildings (such as the Capitol), thus giving the
impression of the ruins of an ancient civilization.
30
During this time, Washington?s reality clashed with that which both its
founders and the public had come to imagine it to be.  Flaws and shortcomings in the
                                                  
26
 Rubil Morales-Valesquez, ?Imagining Washington: Monuments and Nation Building in the
Early Capital,? Washington History 12 (Spring/Summer 2000): 19.
27
 Sarah Luria, Capital Speculations: Writing and Building Washington, D.C. (Hanover, New
Hampshire: University Press of New England, 2006), xxiii.
28
 Reps, 21.
29
 Luria, xxiii.
30
 Walter Erhart, ?Written Capitals and Capital Topography: Berlin and Washington in Travel
Literature,? in Berlin-Washington, 1800-2000, 59.
18
city were highlighted by the expectations of grandeur held by visitors and encouraged
by L?Enfant?s plan.  In a notable and oft-quoted example of this, Charles Dickens
proclaimed Washington ?the City of Magnificent Intentions,? noting the city?s
?spacious avenues, that begin in nothing and end in nowhere; streets, miles long, that
only want houses, roads, and inhabitants.?
31
  Dickens? commentary indicates the
strength of Washington?s imagined identity: as historian Catherine Cocks explains,
?Despite its admittedly grand public buildings, Washington came in for a
considerable amount of criticism precisely because its local conditions did not live up
to the promise of republican splendor.?
32
Creation of the Modern Washington
The McMillan Commission of 1901 reinvigorated L?Enfant?s plan and created
the modern Washington, both in a literal and figurative sense.  Spurred by the
contemporary ?city beautiful? movement, which emphasized social uplift through the
beautification of the built and natural environment, the Commission sought to restore
Washington?s reputation as the capital city by beautifying it.  To carry out this goal,
the Commission erected numerous Beaux-Arts government buildings, Union Station,
and perhaps most importantly, the National Mall.
The creation of the Mall represents the McMillan commission?s emphasis on
memory.  While L?Enfant?s plan for the city was designed to visually represent the
country and its people, it was not until the McMillan Commission that the landscape
of Washington was used to stimulate memory.  One facet of this transformation of
                                                  
31
 Charles Dickens quoted in Erhart, 57.
32
 Catherine Cocks, Doing the Town: The Rise of Urban Tourism in the United States, 1850-
1915 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 38.
19
Washington into a memory landscape was the construction of dozens of memorial
statues scattered throughout downtown Washington.  Many of these statues depicted
Revolutionary War heroes, such as Major General Comte Jean de Rochambeau, or
?founding fathers? such as Daniel Webster.
3
  The presence of these statues led a
German tourist to remark in 1924 that Washington was a ?marble town?monuments
on every corner.?
34
  While it may not have been the original goal of L?Enfant, the
work of the McMillan Commission resulted in the sense of Washington as a spur to
remembrance: ?In the case of Washington, D.C., we witness an entire federal city that
was designed as a classical monument.?
35
  All in all, the cumulative result of the
changes wrought during the time of the McMillan Commission was the
transformation, or perhaps more accurately, the redefinition, of Washington as a
?memorial oasis.?
36
Central to the McMillan Commission?s plan, and to this sense of Washington
as a ?memorial oasis,? was the development of the National Mall.  If the entire city of
Washington functions as a site of memory, then the Mall serves as its center.
Geographically defined by symbols of the spirit of the country (officially, it stretches
from the Capitol Building to the Washington Monument, but is understood to include
the area from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial), the Mall ?asserts the identity of
the city as capital.?
37
                                                  
3
 Cultural Tourism D.C., ?Outdoor Sculpture,?
<http://www.culturaltourismDCorg/index.htm>
34
 Alexander Roda Roda quoted in Erhart, 74.
35
 Janet Ward, ?Monuments of Catastrophe: Holocaust Architecture in Washington and
Berlin,? Berlin-Washington, 1800-2000, 156.
36
 Ward, 157.
37
 Christof Mauch, ?Capital Gardens: The Mall and the Tiergarten in Comparative
Perspective,? in Berlin-Washington, 1800-2000, 201.
20
While the natural elements of the Mall?the vast stretch of lawn and the
botanical gardens?were an important part of the McMillan Commission?s vision for
the space, the Mall is best known for the monuments and memorials that are located
on it and the Smithsonian Institution museums that line its edges.  These structures
are evidence of the Mall?s imagining as the ?pantheon of national memory.?
Furthermore, the existence of these institutions creates a ?reference work in American
history? that presents a lesson in ?American triumph and success.?
38
  In other words,
the Mall was conceived to portray those people, events, and values deemed critical to
the American identity, and those who have played a role in making the United States
a great nation.
This representation necessarily engages the issue of citizenship, that is, who is
an American, and who is to be remembered.  To be on the Mall is to be front and
center in American consciousness: on the Mall, physical space denotes metaphorical
space.  Thus, for most of the twentieth century, the history lesson presented on the
Mall has narrated the experiences and achievements of white, male Americans.
Historically, the achievements of other segments of the population, such as women
and African Americans, have been totally absent from the commemorative structures
located on the Mall.
39
  While the Mall (along with all of Washington) was intended to
                                                  
38
 Mauch, 213.
39
 Though the Lincoln Memorial arguably might be considered a homage to the president who
ended slavery, Scott Sandage persuasively argues against this characterization of the
monument. In his article, ?Civil Rights and the Lincoln Memorial,? Sandage contends that
the creation of the Lincoln Memorial had little to do with Lincoln?s role in ending slavery,
and mostly to do with his role in the ?economic and political reunion of North and South?:
?The Lincoln Memorial was conceived of as a symbol of national consensus, linking North
and South on holy, national ground.? Scott Sandage, ?A Marble House Divided: The Lincoln
Memorial, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Politics of Memory,? Journal of American
History, 80:1 (June 1993): 139-141.
21
be the visual expression of American democratic ideals, this intention did not play out
in practice.
Ironically, representatives of these populations have used the space of the
Mall to counter this historic lack of representation.  To be more specific, this idea of
the Mall as representative of American memory has also served as the rationale for
using it as the site of national protests and marches.  Different groups have used the
space of the Mall in order to contrast the reality of the United States with the message
of American ?triumph and success? represented on it.
 40
  Arguably the use of the Mall
as a particular site of protest (as opposed to the space in front of the Capital,
Pennsylvania Avenue, or other places in downtown Washington) began in 1939 with
Marian Anderson?s NAACP-sponsored concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
As historian Lucy Barber discusses, Anderson?s concert set the stage for A. Philip
Randolph?s 1941 Negro March on Washington; though it was cancelled, Randolph
planned to employ the symbolism of the Lincoln Memorial, and the Mall as a whole,
in order to convey the injustice of segregation in the armed forces and defense sector.
Arguably the most famous use of the Mall to protest inequality was the 1963 March
on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, during which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave
his famous ?I Have A Dream? speech.
                                                  
40
 See Lucy G. Barber, Marching on Washington: The Forging of an American Tradition
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002) and Barber, ?Marches on Washington and
the Creation of National Public Spaces, 1984 to the Present,? in Berlin-Washington, 1800-
2000, 285-303.
22
Tourism and the Development of Washington?s Constructed Identity
As I have discussed, city planners and politicians imprinted the understanding
of Washington as the federal city on its physical landscape.  In this section of Chapter
One, I examine another source of imagining, that of tourist guidebooks, and their
effect on the perception of Washington.  While Washington had attracted visitors
(particularly foreigners) since its inception, Washington as a tourist attraction is a
facet of the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  As I will discuss, the
presence of tourists, and the advent of literature created to guide them, has had an
impact on the city?s imagining.  Tourist guidebooks and other literature shaped the
experiences of visitors to Washington by highlighting particular sites and
experiences; as well, they informed armchair travelers? understanding of Washington.
As one guidebook author described his purpose in writing,
To all such?those who have seen the city, and those who have not?this work is
offered as a means of pleasure and instruction.  The former can enjoy once more the
delights of a visit to the ?Seat of Government,? and live over again in memory the
pleasures they once experienced; and the latter, by the comforts of their own
firesides, it is hoped and believed, obtain a more intimate knowledge of the Federal
City from the pages of this work, than they could by a mere visit to Washington.
41
These guidebooks serve as an invaluable source in determining Washington?s identity
during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  As Walter Erhart relates, ?In
reading travel literature?or in traveling ourselves?we encounter not one city or the
?real? city but rather a constellation of experiences, appearances, fantasies, and pre-
written texts that create the cities we know.?
42
                                                  
41
 James D. McCabe, Behind the Scenes in Washington (New York: Continental Publication
Co., 1873), 9.
42
 Erhart, 52.
23
From the mid nineteenth to the early twentieth centuries, Americans began to
visit a variety of cities, including Washington, D.C.  Changes in technology and shifts
in social attitudes and cultural norms meant that by the turn of the century, many
Americans were choosing to spend their leisure time visiting cities in addition to
mountains, forests, and beaches.  This new type of travel experience necessitated
guidebooks in order to assist visitors in making their journeys.
What drew visitors to Washington?  As they had from the beginning of the
city?s establishment in 1800, many came to observe ?the new democracy in action.?
43
However, scholar Diane K. Skvarla concludes, ?In reality, most Americans were
simply not interested in seeing their new lawmakers.?
4
  Then again, visitors may
have succumbed to tourism promoters? claims that the journey to Washington was a
pilgrimage required of patriotic Americans.  Declared one writer in 1902, ?Every true
American should have pride in the beautiful city of Washington. All that counts for
the glory of the only true republic on earth is centered in this historic capital.?
45
More frequently, visitors to Washington came to behold the city?s striking
architectural achievements.  Indeed, according to guidebooks and travel literature of
the nineteenth century, there was little else to Washington other than awe-inspiring
federal buildings.  In other words, during the nineteenth century, guidebooks to
Washington, D.C helped to shape the identity of the city as filled only with
government buildings and bureaucrats.  In his 1869 guide, The sights and secrets of
the national capital, John B. Ellis wrote, ?As a general rule, there is little to see after
                                                  
43
 Diane K. Skvarla, ?Nineteenth Century Visitors,? Washington History 1:1 (Spring 1989): 7.
4
 Skvarla, 8.
45
 Thomas Fleming, Around the Capital with Uncle Hank (New York: Nutshell Publishing
Co, 1902), 1.
24
one has explored the public buildings and grounds. The city does not offer many
attractions to a stranger, and few care to remain after seeing the National property.?
46
Ellis?s description of the capital epitomizes the view of Washington provided
to visitors during this time period.  His account reflects less Washington?s post-Civil
War population boom, and more the vision of Washington as a place of marble
hallways and little else.  As Cocks relates, ?Long before any other American city,
Washington offered itself as primarily an aesthetic and historical object for
visitors.?
47
  Guidebooks during the late nineteenth century served tourists by giving
descriptions of the architecture of the Capitol, instead of offering sketches of ?local
color,? as did many urban guides of the time.
48
  As Skvarla argues, particularly during
the early to mid nineteenth centuries, guidebook authors focused nearly exclusively
on the Capitol building, with some description reserved for the White House.
49
Wrote the author of Behind the Scenes of the Capitol, ?Here is the great Capitol, the
most majestic and beautiful edifice on the Continent, which affords so much pleasure
to the lover of the beautiful ? Here are gathered the stately and imposing edifices of
the Patent-Office, and the Departments of State, the Treasury, and the Post-Office,
each in itself a worthy object of pride to the whole country.?
50
In the twentieth century, tourist guidebooks actively shaped visitors? (and
armchair travelers?) sense of Washington.  During the earliest years of urban tourism,
tourism professionals and guidebook writers relied upon, and in fact created, a sense
                                                  
46
 John B. Ellis, The sights and secrets of the national capital: a work descriptive of
Washington City in all its various phases (Chicago, IL: Jones, Junkin & Co., 1869), 55.
47
 Cocks, 39.
48
 Cocks, 37.
49
 Skvarla, 10.
50
 McCabe, 9.
25
of cities as having distinct ?personalities.?  As Cocks argues, this strategy helped to
solidify Americans? sense of the city as the site of leisure and pleasure, and to
alleviate their concerns about urban safety by ?portraying urban landscapes as tidy
artistic compositions.?  All in all, ?The idea of an urban personality packaged a city
as a salable commodity for a national clientele.?
51
This ?packaging? of Washington reinforced the identity that had proliferated
from the time of the city?s conception.  Charles Pepper?s 1900 Every-day life in
Washington emphasizes the places and people of the federal government; he remarks
on such ?every-day? occurrences such as the inauguration of new presidents and other
circumstances of ?pomp and pageantry.?  Much like Ellis?s guide, Pepper offers the
reader descriptions of federal buildings such as the Treasury Department, the White
House, and the Capitol building.
Still, unlike the view of Washington offered by Ellis, Pepper?s account also
makes note of Washington?s ?picturesque and historic suburbs? and ?notable and
palatial residences.?
52
  In other words, Pepper?s view of Washington takes tourists
beyond the federal core of Washington.  As Pepper?s account makes clear, though, for
the most part, when early twentieth century tourist guidebooks did venture off the
Mall, the focus remained on Washington?s stately and beautiful character.
This view of Washington included distinct ideas about the local residents of
the city.  Within Ellis? mention of ?strangers,? and in Pepper?s descriptions of the
customs of the federal city, one can see the seeds of the idea of Washington as a place
with ?insiders? and ?outsiders.?  Washington insiders, it was understood (and still is),
                                                  
51
 Cocks, 145.
52
 Charles M. Pepper, Every-day life in Washington (New York: the Christian Herald, 1900),
xi.
26
were privy to the inner workings of life in the capital.  Much as Washington came to
be known exclusively as the federal city, all Washington residents were seen as
bureaucrats.  As Ellis wrote in 1869, ?Every man, woman, and child in Washington,
is a politician. The people inhale politics with the air they breathe, and talk and think
of but little else.?
53
In the vision of Washington promoted by travel writers, these local residents
were also white.  While the city would not achieve a majority African American
population until the mid-twentieth century, African Americans still made up a
significant percentage of the population.  However, this population was not
represented in the imagining of Washington as carried out by tourism promoters and
guidebook writers.  As discussed earlier, city planners and politicians configured
Washington as a space to showcase and celebrate the best of American
culture?which, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, meant the world
of white Americans.  Thus, historically, there have been no invocations of African
Americans or African American history on the Mall.  Similarly, tourism promoters
and travel writers configured Washington as a wholly white city.  Even if these
writers did give readers a taste of Washington beyond the federal core of the city,
only rarely did they mention the city?s African American residents.
One exception to this is when African Americans were portrayed as a
spectacle.  As Catherine Cocks explains, many urban guidebooks during the early
twentieth century offered readers inside looks into areas of the city populated by
ethnic and racial minorities, such as San Francisco?s Chinatown and the Jewish and
Italian quarters of New York and Chicago.  In Washington, this phenomenon
                                                  
53
 Ellis, 183.
27
occurred along racial lines; Washington?s ?quaint ethnics? were the members of its
African American populations.  Often, travel writers directed visitors to public
markets, such as D.C.?s Central Market, so that they might observe African American
life; at the market, one author wrote, ??quaint old darkies offer for sale old fashioned
flowers and ?yarbs,? live chickens, and fresh-laid eggs ? smoking cob pipes and
crooning wordless melodies just as they used to in ?befo? de wa? days.??
54
Travelers who visited the areas inhabited or frequented by ?quaint ethnics?
under the direction of travel writers took part in a phenomenon known as ?ethnic
slumming,? a facet of the urban tourism experience increasingly popular at the end of
the nineteenth century.  In addition to offering written accounts of areas of the city
such as Chinatown, tour operators created actual tours of these neighborhoods,
ushering visitors through at night or taking them to visit ethnic restaurants.  However,
ethnic slumming (at least in the form of tours) predominated in New York and San
Francisco, and occurred less frequently in Washington, D.C.  Not surprisingly, tour
operators in Washington, D.C. escorted travelers to the Capitol building and to the
White House; ?colorful? slums did not fit into the imagining of Washington.
Travel writers also mentioned African Americans in the context of
Washington's exceptionalism.  African Americans were utilized to illustrate
Washington?s status as la cr?me de la cr?me, as a city worthy of its status as capital.
Wrote one author, ?The District of Columbia has a large proportion of colored
inhabitants. There are many thousands of these either employed in the Government
service or in trade and industry, and they comprise an unusually large number of
owners [of property].  A great majority of them are thrifty and industrious and no city
                                                  
54
 Cocks, 200.
28
of the country makes a better showing for its colored population.?
5
  Echoed another,
?The Washington negro is in a class by himself?light-hearted and good-natured,
shooting craps when there are no customers in sight, or shrilly whistling some ragtime
ditty.?
56
  This last quote illustrates historian Howard Gillette, Jr.?s comment that in
early travel literature, ?African Americans tended to be ignored?their presence, if
acknowledged at all?referred to genteelly and in a patronizing manner.?
57
By and large, though, travel writers imagined Washington without mentioning
the presence of African Americans.  Despite the many contributions of Washington?s
African American population to the development of the city, they were not included
in the official view of it.  In Washington, African Americans could construct the
Capitol building, but they were not present in those guides that interpreted it to
Washington visitors.
Concluding Remarks
As I have discussed, by the early twentieth century, the concept of
Washington as the federal city was firmly embedded in the landscape of the city as
well as in the popular imagination.  City planners had created a city that represented
the spirit and memory of the country through landscape and architecture; this view of
D.C. was perpetuated through the work of travel writers and guidebook publishers.
As the capital city, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Washington
                                                  
5
 Pepper, 41.
56
 Fleming, 169.
57
 Howard Gillette, Jr., ?Washington, D.C. in White and Black: The Social Construction of
Race and Nationhood,? in Composing Urban History and the Constitution of Civic Identities,
ed. John J. Czaplicka and Blair A. Ruble (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press,
2003), 197.
29
needed to possess certain characteristics: monuments, memorials, architectural
splendor, and lawmakers.  In contrast, the local aspects of D.C., particularly its
African American population, were ignored.  In Chapter Two, I explore how this idea
of Washington, D.C. informed the reinvention of Georgetown during the mid-
twentieth century, and how, as in the city at large, Georgetown became known as a
place reserved exclusively for whites
30
Chapter Two:
?A Great Deal of Fashion Has Come to Georgetown?:
58
Making Washington?s Oldest Neighborhood Historic
Wandering through the streets of Georgetown on a recent, rainy fall day, away
from the crowds and the bustle of M Street, admiring the architectural beauty all
around me, I caught myself marveling at the fact that I was walking on the same
cobblestone streets as eighteenth century colonial tobacco traders, nineteenth century
aristocrats, and twentieth century Senators and Presidents.  Even with an eye
untrained to recognize architectural styles, I could discern the ages of the houses
surrounding me: their craggy brick sides flecked with moss, they seemed to sink into
the sidewalks.  I longed to explore tiny, picture-perfect row houses, nestled next to
one another and stretching barely ten feet wide.  Catching glimpses of hidden
gardens, I could practically see ladies in pillbox hats and Jackie O suits sipping
lemonade and gossiping over finger sandwiches.  A few minutes later, I realized that I
(the detached, objective scholar) had succumbed to the spell of ?Historic
Georgetown.?
As my experience demonstrates, for Washington?s residents and visitors alike,
the name ?Georgetown? denotes the home and playground of Washington?s richest
and most famous and politically powerfully citizens.  It is understood that the people
who live in Georgetown are well dressed, well schooled, well heeled, well
connected?and white.  This vision of Georgetown is so pervasive that is hard to
                                                  
58
 Grace Dunlop Ecker, A Portrait of Old Georgetown (Richmond, Virginia: Garrett &
Massie, Incorporated, 1933), xii.
31
imagine that it has not always been the case.  In today?s popular imagination,
Georgetown?s racial and socioeconomic homogeny is taken for granted.  Similarly,
the sense of Georgetown as a historic area also is accepted as a given.  In fact, this
understanding of Georgetown is a relatively recent phenomenon, solidified during the
first half of the twentieth century.  This chapter explores the transformation of
Georgetown over the course of the twentieth century.  I use the general term
?transformation? to denote a number of smaller, interconnected shifts in
Georgetown?s racial and socioeconomic demographics, its local, national, and
international reputation, and its relationship to Washington, D.C.
Most historians have pointed to this transformation as a product of the New
Deal era, which saw an influx of residents into Georgetown.  However, as Dennis
Gale asserts in his 1982 PhD dissertation on historic preservation in Georgetown,
?However dramatic Georgetown?s decline and restoration may appear in retrospect, it
must be remembered that it was a process characterized by gradualism? the energies
of two or three generations of residents brought not a simple before-and-after tale of
renewal but rather an enduring, erratic, sometimes imperceptible process of
change.?
59
  Over time, white, upper-class Georgetown residents put into place their
vision of Georgetown as the most historic and the most elite area of the city.
As I will discuss, ?Historic Georgetown??as both a real and an imagined,
constructed place?left no room for African Americans.  The transformation of
Georgetown hinged on the notion of the area as genteel, as the home of
                                                  
59
 Dennis E. Gale, Restoration in Georgetown, Washington, D.C., 1915-1965 (Ph.D. diss.,
George Washington University, 1982), 22. Gale?s dissertation offers an invaluable and
virtually the only scholarly, in-depth discussion of social, cultural, and economic factors that
led to the preservation of Georgetown.
32
?distinguished men and women.?
60
  ?Historic Georgetown? was a space defined by
beauty and charm, a place where homes of architectural beauty, restored and well-
maintained, lined cobblestone streets.  The racial standards of the time dictated that in
order to exist within this vision, residents could only be white.  Thus, while African
American residents of Georgetown were not subject to a systematic, government-
sponsored relocation project, the creation of historic Georgetown hinged on their
elimination from the area and the history books.  Part of the vision of ?Historic
Georgetown? included the ?cleaning up? of areas of the neighborhood perceived as
dirty and unsightly, such as Georgetown?s alley dwellings; most often, these areas
were the sites of African American homes and businesses.  African Americans
existed only on the fringes of Georgetown?s historical narrative as it was constructed
during the 1920s and 1930s, and they had no place in the Georgetown of the twentieth
century.
Georgetown?s Early History
Platted as a town in the state of Maryland in 1751, Georgetown existed as a
distinct entity even after the establishment of the District of Columbia in 1791.
During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, Georgetown was a thriving
community centered on the tobacco trade, and the village served as virtually the sole
source of provisions for the burgeoning capital.  By the 1820s, the growth of the
District slowed the growth of Georgetown; the community also floundered in the face
of a dying tobacco trade.  However, by the mid-nineteenth century, the town had
found new sustenance through the establishment of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal,
                                                  
60
 John Clagett Proctor, ?Old Georgetown and Early Settlers,? Washington Sunday Star, 7
December 1930, 12.
33
which terminated in Georgetown, thus making it a key part of a regional shipping
trade.  Also during this time, following the Civil War, Georgetown lost its
sovereignty and was brought under the jurisdiction of the territorial government of the
District of Columbia.
While the Georgetown of today is made up almost entirely of white, wealthy
residents, historically, this has not always been the case.  Since its establishment
through the mid-twentieth century, Georgetown was home to a significant population
of African American residents.  The District of Columbia was carved out of the two
states with the largest nineteenth-century concentration of African Americans in the
United States (Maryland and Virginia), and Georgetown was the most densely
populated area in the immediate area surrounding Washington; thus, it makes sense
that the area would have a high proportion of African American residents.
61
  Records
indicate that by 1810, African Americans made up over a third of Georgetown?s
population.
62
  Prior to the Civil War, many of these African Americans were slaves,
but as was the case throughout Washington City (as it was known at the time), many
had bought or been given their freedom.
63
  Though the character and reputation of
Georgetown would shift a number of times, these demographics remained more or
                                                  
61
 Letitia Woods Brown, Free Negroes in the District of Columbia, 1790-1846 (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1972), 17.
62
 Kathryn Schneider Smith, ?Georgetown,? in Washington at Home: An Illustrated History
of Neighborhoods in the Nation?s Capital, ed. Kathryn Schneider Smith (Northridge, CA:
Windsor Publications, 1988), 22.
63
 The number of free African Americans in the District increased steadily over the course of
the nineteenth century, from approximately 30% in 1810, to 50% in 1830; by 1860, nearly
80% of Washington?s African Americans were free. Woods, 11. In her examination of free
African Americans in the District, Woods discusses how slavery in Washington was more
?open-ended? than elsewhere in the United States, with owners ?willing to accept a variety of
work relationships,? and sometimes ?converting life slavery to service for a time.? Woods,
14.
34
less constant through the 1930s: ?From 1776 to the New Deal, one-third of the
population of Georgetown was African American.?
64
In terms of Georgetown?s nineteenth and early twentieth century housing
patterns, a number of historians have pointed to Georgetown as an ?integrated?
neighborhood, because not only was the area home to both African American and
white residents, but it possessed what one local historian has deemed a ?checkerboard
quality.?  Census records indicate that African Americans often lived side by side
with white residents, or in small clusters sprinkled throughout the area; there were
also a few larger African American enclaves such as Herring Hill in East
Georgetown.  However, while these two populations may have been physically
proximate, and thus technically integrated, by no means did they live on equal terms
or in equivalent conditions.  In this way, historian Kathryn Schneider Smith
comments, Georgetown?s race relations resembled those of a small Southern town.
65
Smith argues that this residential pattern, and these race relations, remained consistent
after the Civil War and well into the twentieth century.  As she states, ?Black and
white were physical neighbors, but their relationships were proscribed by social
conventions.?
6
These residential patterns continued into the twentieth century, even in the
face of increased segregation throughout the rest of Washington, D.C.  In Black
Georgetown Remembered, scholar Kathryn M. Lesko notes, ?By all accounts, racial
relations in turn-of-the-century Georgetown reflected a unique co-existence that
                                                  
64
 Tanya Edwards Beauchamp, Georgetown Historic District, [brochure] (Washington, D.C.:
District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office, 1998), 5-6.
65
 Smith, ?Georgetown,? 23.
6
 Smith, ?Georgetown,? 27.
35
would characterize Georgetown for the next forty years.?
67
  However, Lesko admits
that segregation was the organizing principle behind any outward racial harmony:
?Although race relations in Georgetown remained cordial throughout the first half of
the twentieth century, segregation was still integral to the conduct of everyday life in
the black community.?
68
  Drawing on anecdotal evidence, Smith echoes this
statement with her comment, ?It is clear that the friendly public acceptance of black
neighbors was couched in a system of black deference to whites.?
69
  As Dennis Gale
reiterates, ?Blacks who grew up in Georgetown seem to remember the community as
a friendly place where blacks and whites enjoyed generally pleasant relations, and
because of employment and residential patterns, came into frequent contact. Yet, they
also remember a setting where blacks were decidedly in an inferior status.?
70
Nevertheless, while Georgetown?s ?integration? may not have been full-
fledged, community historians argue that Georgetown?s residential pattern?and the
stability of its African American community?is still distinctive.  African Americans
living in Georgetown built schools and churches, ran small businesses and medical
practices, and participated in fraternal societies and sports leagues.  Though many
African American Georgetowners worked in service to their white neighbors, or were
                                                  
67
 Kathleen M. Lesko, general editor and contributing author, and Valerie Babb and Carroll
R. Gibbs, contributing authors, Black Georgetown Remembered: A History of its Black
Community From the Founding of ?The Town of George? in 1751 to the Present Day
(Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1991), 43.  Lesko?s volume is less a
traditional academic scholarly history and more a celebration of the life of a community;
nevertheless, it is an invaluable collection of information pertaining to the African American
heritage of Georgetown.
68
 Lesko, 43.
69
 Kathryn Schneider Smith, From Port Town to Urban Neighborhood: The Georgetown
Waterfront of Washington, D.C., 1880-1920 (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company, 1989), 108.
70
 Gale, Restoration in Georgetown, 98.
36
laborers, throughout the nineteenth century there existed a notable population of
African American businessmen and professionals.
The Creation of ?Historic Georgetown?
While Georgetown had flourished as the terminus of the C and O Canal, this
phase of the neighborhood?s history ended in 1889, when a flood devastated the
already-outmoded canal.  By the turn of the century, Georgetown?s local and regional
prominence was waning.  Especially along the banks of the Potomac, Georgetown
had a gritty, industrial feel to it; its landscape included ?the industrial smokestacks of
a rendering plant, the Capital Traction Company?s coal-fired power plants, several
large ice warehouses, and sprawling stone and gravel companies.?
71
  In fact, the
presence of so many manufacturing plants led to the zoning classification of
Georgetown as ?industrial? in 1920.
72
  Many of Georgetown?s wealthier citizens
moved to more suburban neighborhoods, and the area became much less
economically diverse; as Lesko relates, ?Georgetown became a neighborhood
increasingly populated by working class citizens of both races.?
73
 As a longtime
Georgetown resident remembered, ?I never boasted about where I grew up until I was
well into middle age?in the 1920s and ?30s, Georgetown was on the wrong side of
the tracks.?
74
 In contrast to newer dwellings in other parts of the District, Georgetown?s
nineteenth-century houses appeared to potential residents to be ?backward??many
                                                  
71
 Lesko, 41.
72
 Lesko, 44.
73
 Lesko, 42.
74
 Jessie Nimnom Burruss, ?When Georgetown Was On the Wrong Side of the Tracks,?
Washington Post, 23 July 1987, J1.
37
lacked electricity or indoor plumbing?and ?dowdy.?  And, as Smith points out, to
Washington residents used to highly segregated living conditions, the ?mixed [racial]
nature of the population?must have added a sense that the place was out of date.?
 75
Lesko also notes that after 1910, many single-family houses ?stood vacant or were
turned into boarding houses.?
76
However, though Georgetown?s socioeconomic standing may have shifted
towards the working class, a number of wealthier residents remained.  Reminiscing in
1987 about growing up in Georgetown, Pauline Gaskins Mitchell, a longtime African
American resident of Georgetown, commented, ?Georgetown in the ?20s was
primarily a working-class community, but had scatterings of wealthy people
principally along N, Q, and R Streets.  Their estates or expensive homes were never
more than a block or two from the less pretentious homes of the middle class or the
substandard houses of the poor.?
7
These wealthier residents and mansion-owners would play a key role in the
reimagining of Georgetown through historic preservation.  In describing the
transformation of Georgetown as a gradual process, Gale emphasizes changes that
occurred in the 1910s and very early 1920s, specifically, the restoration, or
?remodeling? as it was termed at the time, of colonial-era houses in Georgetown.
This remodeling helped to draw attention to Georgetown?s historic and architectural
resources and pave the way for the later, larger-scale preservation.  This was
particularly the case because a number of these ?remodelers? were members of the
                                                  
75
 Smith, Washington at Home, 27.
76
 Lesko, 42.
7
 Pauline Gaskins Mitchell, ?Growing Up Black In ?The Village? West of Rock Creek,?
Washington Post, 23 July 1987, J1.
38
social and political elite. Robert Todd Lincoln, son of Abraham Lincoln, and Newton
D. Baker, Secretary of War under Woodrow Wilson, carried out some of these early
restorations.  Perhaps most notable was the 1920 renovation of the Dumbarton Oaks
estate by Robert Bliss, who later became the United States ambassador to Argentina.
The participation of Georgetown?s wealthier residents in civic associations
also helped to pave the way for the transformation of Georgetown.  Established in
1878, the Georgetown Citizens Association [GCA] remains Washington?s oldest
neighborhood association.
78
  A brief look through the early-twentieth-century era
minutes and papers of the GCA reveals that the members of the association concerned
themselves mostly with issues of public life such as traffic problems, road conditions,
the installation of public utilities, and the upkeep of schools and public libraries.
While these minutes reveal a strong community spirit and investment in
Georgetown?s livability, they do not mention the preservation of the built
environment as a goal or value of the association.
79
The exception to this is a 1924 pamphlet titled ?The Future of Georgetown.?
This document was produced by a handful of GCA members, including such
prominent community members as Mr. and Mrs. Dean Acheson, who called
themselves the ?Homeowners? Association.?  As this pamphlet makes clear,
Georgetowners in the early 1920s felt that developers were threatening the quality of
                                                  
78
 Citizens Association of Georgetown, ?About CAG,?
<http://www.cagtown.org/aboutcag.html> The organization is now known as the Citizens
Association of Georgetown; however, I use the term ?Georgetown Citizens Association?
throughout this thesis, as this was how the group was known during the specific time period
of my study.
79
 Georgetown Citizens Association Papers, boxes labeled ?GCA Minutes 1920-1929,? ?GCA
Minutes 1930-1939,? ?GCA Minutes 1940-1949,? ?GCA Minutes 1951-.? Peabody Room,
Georgetown Branch of the District of Columbia Public Library.
39
their neighborhood.  The years during and immediately after World War I saw a rise
in D.C.?s population and, consequently, a need for more urban housing.
Georgetowners involved in the Homeowners? Association feared (correctly) that
developers wished to raze older buildings in order to construct high-rise apartment
buildings, and they wrote the pamphlet as part of their successful campaign to
convince Congress to impose height restrictions on Georgetown buildings, a measure
that was adopted by Congress in June 1924.  As Gale writes, this lobbying effort on
the part of the GCA constituted an attempt to ?employ the relatively untested
mechanism of zoning? as a means of preserving Georgetown?s character.
80
  While
?The Future of Georgetown? does not explicitly name the area?s architectural
resources as part of Georgetown?s character, the publication marks a turning point in
the imagining of Georgetown.  In other words, the actions taken by the Homeowners
Association indicate an investment in protecting Georgetown?s built environment.
Though the transformation of Georgetown arguably began in the 1910s with
the remodeling of individual properties, the pace of this redefinition quickened during
the 1920s.  More and more property owners began to restore eighteenth and
nineteenth century houses.  Through an examination of the building permits issued
for renovation in select areas of Georgetown, Gale concludes, ?Repair and renovation
activity seems to have crept upward very gradually throughout the 1920s.?
81
These individual restorations led to a noticeable shift in Georgetown?s local
reputation.  An examination of local press coverage reveals that the 1920s and early
1930s saw unprecedented attention paid to ?historic Georgetown.?  During this time,
                                                  
80
 Gale, Restoration in Georgetown, 108.
81
 Gale, Restoration in Georgetown, 81.
40
journalists writing for local papers praised Georgetown?s unique history and
character.  Perhaps most notably, the Washington Sunday Star ran a series of columns
on Georgetown?s history written by local amateur historian John Clagett Proctor.
These columns combined commentary on Georgetown?s history (particularly as it
connected to the history of Washington, D.C.) with descriptions of ?famous places?
that could still be visited by readers.
82
Along these same lines, the New York Times and the Washington Sunday Star
both ran a story about Georgetown on Christmas Day, 1927, in which Richard
Oulahan noted, ?[Georgetown?s] streets retain their old-time quaint narrowness, its
houses their ancient architecture ? Georgetown has preserved its individuality and
character while standardization surrounds it.  Outsiders are recognizing that and
paying tribute.?
83
  Continued Oulahan:
Everywhere are reminders of the glory of the old town and those inhabitants of it who
helped make the nation?s history? the ancient Maryland Colonial community,
famous as a part before and for some time after the Revolution, is beginning to be
appreciated at last? Newcomers are just as rigidly insistent as its old families,
descendents of those who made it and keep it true to original ideas, that it shall retain
that Georgetown atmosphere which political absorption by the national capital has
not served to influence.
84
Oulahan?s article is typical of the journalistic treatment of Georgetown during this
time period.  Many of these articles were quick to note Georgetown?s unique
architecture as well as its independence from Washington, D.C.  Wrote Oulahan, ?In
                                                  
82
 John Clagett Proctor, ?Old Georgetown in History of District,? Washington Sunday Star,
27 March 1932,16.
83
 Richard V. Oulahan, ?Georgetown Holds Old-Time Prestige,? New York Times, 25
December 1927, E1.
84
 Oulahan, E1.
41
its own heart and mind Georgetown is Georgetown and scorns the capital?s
patronage.?
85
Not surprisingly, Proctor?s articles and Oulahan?s piece described
contemporary Georgetown, and the area?s history, in exclusively white terms.
Proctor?s pieces emphasize the achievements of prominent former (white) residents of
Georgetown, such as Benjamin Stoddert, first Secretary of the Navy, and William
Wirt, former Attorney General, as well as many of the original (white) settlers of the
area, many of whom came from Scotland.  No mention is made of the neighborhood?s
contemporary or historic African American residents.
The sole exception to this is an anecdote about Yarrow Mamout, a former
slave and Georgetown resident immortalized in a portrait painted by Charles Wilson
Peale in 1819.  Descriptions of Mamout (identified by Procter as ?an old Negro
known as Yaro?) are reminiscent of characterizations of African Americans made by
other travel writers during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  In other
words, Proctor focused on Mamout as a ?quaint ethnic.?  To introduce a passage
ostensibly ?quoting? Mamout on his passage to freedom, Proctor wrote, ?Fond of
conversation, he often, in broken language, relates the story of his life, which we
insert here as a specimen of curious dialect.?
86
  Along these same lines, Oulahan
recognized the non-white segment of Georgetown?s population in a paternalistic way
characteristic of the times.  In his description of contemporary Georgetown at
                                                  
85
 Oulahan, E1.
86
 Proctor, ?Old Georgetown and Early Settlers,? 12.
42
Christmastime, Oulahan wrote, ?Farm negroes, men and women, mingle with the
congested throng, a laughing contingent full of the spirit of Christmas.?
87
?A Fashionable Place to Live?
The image of Georgetown continued to shift with the New Deal era. The
1930s saw the influx of large numbers of educated, intellectual young people to
Washington, all looking for affordable places to live. Georgetown?s location, adjacent
to the downtown business and political corridor, was a primary draw.  As Constance
McLaughlin Green notes, ?The convenience of the location and the abiding charm of
the shabby little village had begun to have its effects in the late 1920s.  Impecunious
young New Dealers moved into the cramped little houses when restored.?
8
  In
addition to increasing the demand for Georgetown housing, in choosing to live in
Georgetown, these New Dealers further increased the area?s visibility.  As Gale
relates, these young, ambitious, and oftentimes well-known government officials
brought a certain intellectual vigor and youthful cachet to the neighborhood.
89
  An
early 1930s Washington Post article noted, ?Georgetown has completed a strange
cycle of history.  Again it has become a fashionable place to live.?
90
These developments in Georgetown continued to draw the attention of local
journalists.  Indeed, the history and restoration of Georgetown was such a popular
topic in Washington papers during the 1930s that William D. Beall lamented in the
                                                  
87
 Oulahan, E1.
8
 Constance McLaughlin Green, The Secret City: A History of Race Relations in the Nation?s
Capital (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), 236.
89
 Gale, Restoration in Georgetown, 117.
90
 ?Only Eight Prerevolutionary Houses Left Standing in Georgetown Today,? Washington
Post, 14 August 1933, 8.
43
Washington Post in 1932, ?So much has been written about ?Dear Old
Georgetown,??its present appellation? that he wonders if anyone will still care to
read his reminiscences.
91
  Beall?s comment illustrates the amount of popular press
articles on Georgetown during this time period; as well, it alludes to the idea of
Georgetown as a distinct, new entity.
Until the late 1930s, the preservation of Georgetown?s built environment
came about through private restorations of individual properties, as well as the 1924
zoning law.  However, toward the end of the 1930s, Georgetown?s wealthy, white
residents began to pay more attention to, and work to preserve, the area?s
architectural resources.  The efforts of a group known as the Progressive Georgetown
Citizens Association [PGCA] were at the forefront of this movement.  Founded in
1926, the organization was created by a number of female Georgetown residents in
response to the fact that the Georgetown Citizens Association restricted its
membership to men only.  While generally the PGCA tackled many of the same
issues as the GCA, ?As the 1930s drew to a close, the Progressives resolved that
eighteenth-century architecture in Georgetown was to be a leading concern.?
92
Thus was born the legislation that would become Public Law 81-808,
commonly known as the Old Georgetown Act.  Drawing on oral history testimony
from PGCA members, Gale writes, ?Aware that communities such as Alexandria,
New Orleans, and Charleston had established historic districts, Dorothea De
Schweinitz, an active Progressive member, met with a neighbor in 1949 and drafted
                                                  
91
 William D. Beall, ?Georgetown Resident Recalls Noted Homes,? Washington Post, 3 July
1932, M7.
92
 Gale, Restoration in Georgetown, 140.
44
the text for a bill establishing such a district in Georgetown.?
93
  The resulting
legislation, passed September 22, 1950, made any construction, reconstruction,
alteration, or demolition of any private or semipublic building within the Georgetown
Historic District subject to review and approval by an architectural view board, which
would be convened and administrated by the Commission of Fine Arts.
The passage of the Old Georgetown Act finalized the transformation of
Georgetown.  This legislation cemented Georgetown?s reputation as a special place
worthy of particular protection.  By putting Georgetown?s built environment under
the jurisdiction of the Commission of Fine Arts, Congress raised the neighborhood up
to the level of the National Mall.  The Old Georgetown Act demonstrated a clear
investment on the part of the federal government in protecting Georgetown.  Today,
Georgetown remains the only non-public area of the city to fall under the jurisdiction
of the Commission of Fine Arts.
The Old Georgetown Act also marks one of the first instances of the federal
government intervening to protect the historic and architectural resources of a specific
urban neighborhood.  Prior to the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA),
the federal government was only minimally involved in the protection of these types
of resources.  For this reason, historic preservationists generally have celebrated this
groundbreaking legislation.
94
                                                  
93
 Gale, Restoration in Georgetown, 221.
94
 It is worth noting that because the Act was a new type of government action, it was not
subject to the same sort of review that now characterizes the declaration of a historic district.
Under the 1966 NHPA, before a neighborhood or area can be listed as a historic district on
the National Register of Historic Places, a public hearing must be held. No such public (non-
Congressional) hearing was held to consider the repercussions of the Old Georgetown Act.
See Gale, The Impact of Historic District Designation in Washington, D.C. (Washington,
D.C.: The Center for Washington Area Studies, 1989).
45
Figure 2: Georgetown Historic District, established by the 1951 Old Georgetown
Act. Map courtesy of the Office of Planning, District of Columbia City
Government.
Making Georgetown White
However, the Old Georgetown Act had dramatic detrimental effects on
Georgetown?s African American population.  As more and more houses were
restored, prices in the area rose, and many working-class residents, including much of
46
Georgetown?s African American population, sold their properties to eager buyers.  In
this way, Georgetown?s population rapidly became more racially and economically
homogenous.  As Lesko relates, ?Many families simply could not afford to comply
with new zoning restrictions and were forced out by renovation costs.  Often black
families had to close the boarding houses that provided both their incomes and cheap,
affordable rentals for their black tenants as well. Such houses were now required to
become single family dwellings.?
95
Dennis Gale argues that his study uncovered no ?organized, mutually
supported campaign? to use the preservation of Georgetown?s historic houses as a
means of ?remov[ing] Georgetown?s poorer families? or its African American
population.
96
  However, while this may not have been an articulated goal of the
Georgetown newcomers and civic organizations, it was likely a ?goal supported by
many? of the white, wealthy preservationists responsible for the passage of the Old
Georgetown Act.
97
  Certainly it was a byproduct of their actions.  As I have
discussed, the vision of Georgetown constructed by these wealthy, white elites was
tinged with racism.  The very fact that the GCA was segregated by race through the
1950s is evidence that racial prejudice was deeply ingrained in the organization.
98
The treatment of Georgetown?s alleys exemplifies this unspoken connection
between ?cleaning up? the area and the removal of African Americans.  Washington,
                                                  
95
 Lesko, 97.
96
 Gale, Restoration in Georgetown, 312.
97
 Gale, Restoration in Georgetown, 312.
98
 ?Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the Georgetown Citizens Association.?
According to the 1948 GCA Constitution, the organization denied membership to African
Americans as well as to those members who would ?refuse to answer the question, ?Are you a
Communist?? in the negative.? In 1945, the GCA admitted women to its ranks. Georgetown
Citizens Association Papers, box labeled ?GCA Minutes 1940-1949,? Peabody Room,
Georgetown Branch of the District of Columbia Public Library.
47
D.C.?s alley dwellings had been targeted by housing reformers for much of the early
twentieth century.  As James Borchert makes clear in his notable study Alley Life in
Washington, white, upper-middle-class social workers and politicians viewed
Washington?s alleys as dens of iniquity and breeding grounds for pathological
behavior.
9
  Located throughout the city, these alleys housed a majority African
American population; as Borchert comments, ?By 1897? blacks now made up 93%
of alley residents, and black alley dwellers accounted for nearly one-fourth of the
city?s nonwhite population.  Of the 237 inhabited alleys in the Federal City, nearly
70% were totally segregated.?
10
  Georgetown was home to a number of these alley
communities.
101
  A 1943 Harper?s Bazaar article titled ?Bedlam, D.C.? described the
Georgetown alley known as Bell?s Court; its title leaves no confusion as to the
author?s view of the alley and its residents.
102
  The author of this article, a newly
established resident of Georgetown, discusses peering up into an alley adjacent to her
property; she reports that she was ?not even noticed by my black neighbors, who
were completely engrossed in singing, talking, fighting, washing, dressing, playing
cards or crap, with dogs or chickens, or sleeping??
103
As Borchert explains, alley reform became a popular issue in both the
Progressive and the New Deal eras.  This agitation culminated in the 1934 Alley
                                                  
9
 James Borchert, Alley Life in Washington: Family, Community, Religion, and Folklife in
the City, 1850-1970 (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1980). In providing the context for
his study, Borchert cites Charles Weller, Neglected Neighbors: Stories of Life in the Alleys,
Tenements, and Shanties of the National Capital (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston
Company, 1909).
10
 Borchert, 42.
101
 Lesko names four alley communities in Georgetown: ?East Place?Poplar Place? Cecil
or Cissell Place? and Bell?s Court or Bell or Bells Court.? Lesko, 82.
102
 Harriet Crowley, ?Bedlam, D.C.,? Harper?s Bazaar, July 1943, cited in Mary Mitchell, A
Walk in Georgetown (Barre, Massachusetts: Barre Publishers, 1966), 81.
103
 Crowley cited in Mitchell, 81.
48
Dwelling Authority, an agency charged with overseeing the ?discontinuance? of alley
dwellings after 1944.
104
  The underlying rationale for cleaning up Washington?s
alleys was that such places interfered with the ability of the Capital to stand as the
most beautiful, representative city of the country.  As John Ihlder, one of the leading
proponents of the alley improvement efforts, said in a speech to the National Capital
Park and Planning Commission,
If Washington is to represent us fairly among the great world capitals?it must
provide dignified, spacious, comfortable living conditions for those whose work calls
them here or whose inclination prompts them to become residents. The prestige and
appeal of the capital do not lie wholly in its governmental structures, but do lie
largely in its dwellings.
105
Georgetown?s alley dwellings were not demolished whole-scale, as were
others in Washington.  With the area?s rise in popularity, alley dwellings there
became extremely valuable real estate, to the extent that ?in 1952 citizens? groups
involved in the restoration movement successfully engineered repeal of the ban on
alley dwellings that was to go into effect the following year.? 
106
  In the case of Bell?s
Court, the housing was condemned by the city, and then bought and restored by
developers, renamed ?Pomander Walk,? and finally rented to new tenants (at nearly
ten times the price that they had previously been rented for). Commented William A.
Millen in an 1951 Washington Evening Star article, ?Georgetown is witnessing the
evolution of one of its historic alleys from a slum to highly sought-after rental
                                                  
104
 Borchert, 52.
105
 John Ihlder cited in Howard Gillette, Jr., Between Justice and Beauty: Race, Planning, and
the Failure of Urban Policy in Washington, D.C. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press,
1995), 135. Gillette, Jr., provides an insightful analysis of Ihlder?s role in alley dwelling
reform during the 1930s and 1940s; Ihlder was also a Georgetown resident and a member of
the GCA.
106
 Borchert, 54.
49
property?The area has gone white, and the little colored colony has found quarters
elsewhere.?
107
  The transformation of Bell?s Court can be seen as a microcosm of the
changes that were wrought in Georgetown during the 1930s through the 1950s:
African American properties previously considered rundown and shabby were
?cleaned up,? restored, and became some of the area?s most quaint and charming
housing options.
Figure 3: Pomander Walk, formerly Bell?s Court, Georgetown. October 2006.
All in all, Georgetown?s reimagining and the concurrent demographic shifts
associated with it were products of the social, political, and cultural atmosphere of the
1920s and 1930s, both in Washington, D.C. as well as the United States in general.
This time period saw increased racial tension among whites and African Americans,
which manifested in a number of ways, from violent race riots (such as the one
                                                  
107
 William A. Millen, ?Condemned Slum in Georgetown Alley Goes High Hat As Homes
Redone,? Washington Evening Star, 14 September 1951, B1.
50
occurring in Washington in 1919) to the rise of racially restrictive housing covenants
to keep African Americans out of particular communities.  Racially segregated
housing and neighborhoods became a standard fact of life across the country.  For
example, while housing reform was a facet of the New Deal, the policies put in place
to carry out this reform did not include integrated public housing.
While residential segregation was not a new institution in D.C.?the
establishment of LeDroit Park in 1873 as an upscale housing establishment for whites
only testifies to this?the early twentieth century saw an intensifying of residential
segregation.
108
  Across the city?and in cities across the country?much clearer lines
were drawn to delineate ?white? and ?black? neighborhoods.  Howard professor
William H. Jones commented in his 1929 study of African American housing
conditions that in Washington, ?White people with considerable social and economic
status?the class that is capable of maintaining the racial solidarity of the community
by prejudice and public opinion?do not prefer to live in culturally heterogeneous
communities.?
109
This increased residential segregation across the city necessarily informed the
reimagining of Georgetown.  White, wealthy elites in Georgetown, such as those
involved in the burgeoning preservation movement and in the Georgetown Citizens
Association, sought to preserve what they saw as the area?s special character.  Not
only did African Americans clash with their vision of Georgetown, they were thought
to damage it.  During the 1920s and 1930s, particularly in Washington, D.C., African
                                                  
108
 Ronald M. Johnson, ?From Romantic Suburb to Racial Enclave: LeDroit Park,
Washington, D.C., 1880-1920,? Phylon 45:4 (4
th
 qtr., 1984): 264-270.
109
 William H. Jones, The Housing of Negroes in Washington, D.C. (Washington, D.C.:
Howard University Press, 1929), 59.
51
Americans dwellings were consistently perceived as unsightly and unsanitary.  As
became the case throughout the country, the presence of African Americans in
predominantly white neighborhoods was thought to disrupt the image of the
neighborhood and to bring down property values.
10
  There is evidence to suggest that
white Washingtonians moved to Georgetown precisely because it was becoming a
homogenous community: in his description of the transition of LeDroit Park from an
upper-class, white neighborhood to a more middle-class African American area,
Ronald M. Johnson relates that with the influx of African Americans in the early
1900s, at least one white LeDroit Park resident relocated to Georgetown, perhaps in
the hopes of reclaiming the elite, white neighborhood atmosphere that he had once
enjoyed.
11
?Historic Georgetown? Solidified
Following the passage of the 1950 Old Georgetown Act, the reimagining of
Georgetown was complete.  Commemorative activities during the 1950s and 1960s
only helped to reinforce this image of Georgetown as historic, white, and wealthy.
Georgetown?s bicentennial, celebrated by area residents in 1951, was one of these
events.  To commemorate the bicentennial, residents launched a three-day long
festival, complete with a parade featuring Georgetowners in colonial-era costume.  In
addition, 1951 saw the launching of an exhibit at the Library of Congress featuring
                                                  
10
 On the origins of these perceptions, see Kevin Fox Gotham, ?Urban Space, Restrictive
Covenants and the Origins of Racial Residential Segregation in a US city, 1900-50,?
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24:3 (September 2000), 616-633.
Gotham, a sociologist, argues ?the adoption and application of racially restrictive covenants
helped nurture and reinforce emerging racial stereotypes that identified black living space and
culture with deteriorating neighborhoods and dilapidated housing.? Gotham, 618.
11
 Johnson, 268.
52
the history of Georgetown.  The GCA lobbied Congress for a commemorative stamp,
and installed small plaques with the colonial name of the street alongside
Georgetown?s real street signs.
12
  All of these commemorative activities helped to
cement the reputation of Georgetown in the minds of Washington residents and
visitors.
The scale and type of historic preservation activities in Georgetown grew as
well.  In the early 1950s, a small group of area residents grew concerned about the
potential demolition of a cluster of buildings located at the corner of 30
th
 and M
Streets, known as the Thomas Sim Lee Corner.  Named for their builder, a governor
of Maryland during the Revolutionary War, these structures dated to the late 1700s
and early 1800s.  In order to preserve the buildings, these preservationists initiated
what Gale terms ?private market restoration,? forming a corporation?Historic
Georgetown, Inc.?that bought the buildings with the plan of restoring them for use
as retail spaces.
13
  This development marks an early instance of the historic
preservation technique of adaptive reuse.
These commemorative activities were also accompanied by national media
coverage of Georgetown.  The neighborhood was featured in articles in prominent
periodicals such as the Saturday Evening Post (1948), National Geographic (1953),
and the Economist (1960).
All of these articles commented on Georgetown?s rise-fall-rise narrative: its
colonial prominence, its decline into shabbiness, and its contemporary revival by
                                                  
12
 Letter, Stanton Kolb to ?Neighbors,? 1 October 1951. Letter, Harold B. Hinton to Sen.
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., 12 March 1951. Georgetown Citizens Association Papers, box
labeled ?GCA Minutes 1951- .? Peabody Room, Georgetown Branch of the District of
Columbia Public Library.
13
 Gale, Restoration in Georgetown, 302.
53
historic preservationists.  These publications discussed this trajectory primarily in
terms of Georgetown?s tenacity of spirit.  As the subtitle of the National Geographic
article proclaimed, ?A proud colonial port, made part of young America?s new
capital, refused to be abolished and now sees its old identity restored.?
14
  The writers
of these articles painted Georgetown as a place that had never fully given in to being
dominated by encroaching Washington.
In the eyes of these writers, Georgetown?s transformation also was significant
for its sheer scope; that is to say, the fact that the once-shabby part of town could now
be attracting such a high volume of political and social notables.  Both the Saturday
Evening Post and National Geographic articles provided their readers with lists of
Georgetown?s well-known residents; the Economist noted that Georgetown ?has more
inhabitants listed in ?Who?s Who? than any other place so small.?
15
  Remarked
Henry and Katherine Pringle in the Saturday Evening Post, ?Distinguished, historic,
quaint, old-world, cultured, and celebrity-packed are among the adjectives applied to
the most widely known residential part of Washington.?
16
In discussing Georgetown?s notoriety, these articles hinted at the national and
international scope of Georgetown?s reputation: ?Georgetown?s fame goes far beyond
the readers of the society columns.  It has been spread all over the world by members
of the diplomatic corps.  Newly arrived diplomats, particularly those in the lower
ranks, try to get houses in Georgetown?because they have heard about it, because it
                                                  
14
 William A. Kinney, ?Washington?s Historic Georgetown,? National Geographic, April
1953, 513.
15
 ?District Within A District,? The Economist, 28 May 1960, 867.
16
 Henry F. Pringle and Katharine Pringle, ?Georgetown on the Potomac,? Saturday Evening
Post, 20 March 1948, 33.
54
provides a correct address.?
17
  Similarly, the Economist noted, ?There are more than
twenty towns and villages called Georgetown scattered about the United States and
Canada, but only one, Georgetown on the Potomac River, is internationally
fashionable?as Chelsea and Mayfair (Georgetown has the character of both) are
celebrated far beyond London, so Georgetown is well known beyond the District of
Columbia.?
18
As well, these articles pointed out the contrast between Georgetown and
Washington.  Unlike Washington, Georgetown was intimate, familiar, a true
community: ?Being so small, the place is neighborly. It is possible to borrow an egg
or a cup of sugar, although requests for a bucket of ice cubes are more common.?
19
Echoed William F. Kinney in National Geographic, ?To come from ?the city? to
tranquil Georgetown is like being transported to a tight little village, remote and
pleasant.  There is a serenity about its narrow colonial streets with their uneven
sidewalks of red brick.?
120
In constructing their vision of Georgetown, these articles placed African
Americans at both the center and the periphery of the area?s transformation.  Both the
Saturday Evening Post and the Economist articles took note of the fact that
Georgetown?s renaissance affected the racial demography of the area.  The Economist
noted, ?Most of the poor, both colored and white, have now vacated their ramshackle
and often tiny homes, leaving them to be remodeled by the affluent and artistic.?
121
Pringle and Pringle commented that the rising popularity of Georgetown, ?combined
                                                  
17
 Pringle and Pringle, 172.
18
 ?District Within a District,? 867.
19
 Pringle and Pringle, 33.
120
 Kinney, 515.
121
 ?District Within A District,? 367.
55
with the acute housing shortage, is slowly but surely forcing out the Negroes, who
occupied the section after it fell from prosperity and glory more than 100 years
ago.?
12
  Therefore, these articles conveyed the sense that it was through the
transformation of the area from integrated to predominantly white that Georgetown
had achieved its elite status and quaint charm.  These articles also hinted at the fact
that Georgetown?s evolution was not quite complete, and that the area required more
?cleaning up?: in the Saturday Evening Post, Pringle and Pringle discussed the
squalor of Georgetown?s unrestored areas, remarking, ?Georgetown is a compound of
Greenwich Village?s Bank Street, Belgrave Square in London, and the Negro sections
of the most backward cities of the Deep South.?
123
  These articles also reinforced the
nostalgic vision of Georgetown?s African American history.  Kinney?s comments in
National Geographic on Georgetown?s past African American residents evoked the
paternalism of Oulahan?s 1927 New York Times article:  ?On Christmas Eve, from
colonial times until the Emancipation Proclamation, bands of slaves went through
town singing carols in soft, rich voices.?
While these articles positioned Georgetown in contrast to Washington, they
made clear that Georgetown?s prestige, and the sense of it as historic, derived from its
relationship with Washington, D.C.  Part of the vision of historic Georgetown was of
the neighborhood as the traditional home of important men of the past: politicians,
government clerks, and merchants, who had played a role in the construction of the
nation?s capital.  As twentieth century Georgetown became the home of many
prominent civil servants, and its national and international reputation grew, this facet
                                                  
12
 Pringle and Pringle, 172.
123
 Pringle and Pringle, 33.
56
of its sense of place took on an even greater meaning.  Even as Georgetown was
lauded as a place apart from the capital, it derived its sense of history and of historical
importance from its inhabitants ?who helped make the nation?s history? in their
service to the federal government.
In this view of Georgetown, these inhabitants that had graced its hallowed
streets and contributed to the building of the nation, were almost entirely white.  The
racial standards of the early to mid-twentieth century precluded this view of
Georgetown?s history from including African Americans in any roles besides loyal
and devoted slaves.  In the eyes of the white elites, such as the members of the
Georgetown Citizens Association, who participated in the construction of historic
Georgetown, ?history? was the realm of white people.  Not surprisingly, the
interpretation of Georgetown?s history that was solidified during this time period
ignored the agency of African Americans in creating a stable community, and the
integrated nature of the community.  By definition, Historic Georgetown celebrated
the achievements of white Georgetowners.  Again, this interpretation was a product of
the social, political, and cultural conditions of the early to mid-1900s.  The vast
majority of historic sites during this time period reinforced the racial hegemony of the
United States; virtually none offered positive portrayals of African Americans or
documented their achievements and contributions to society.
?Historic Georgetown? as Modern Tourist Commodity
The 1960s saw both a solidification of Georgetown?s national and
international renown and the continued development of its reputation as home to the
57
social and political elite.  Georgetown?s connection with the Kennedy family?John
F. Kennedy resided there off and on from 1947 to 1960, and Jacqueline Kennedy
returned after his assassination?only helped to bolster this perception of the area.
The 1960s and early 1970s also saw increased commercial development in
Georgetown; more specifically, during this time period, high rents forced out many of
the locally run and family businesses that had historically been present in the area.
Replacing these old-time businesses were high-end boutiques and national chain
stores.
124
Both of these factors helped to make Georgetown a tourist destination.  From
the 1960s to the present, ?historic Georgetown? has been a commodity marketed to
tourists.  Georgetown began to be featured in guidebooks as early as the 1950s: the
1953 American Automobile Association ?Guide To America? cites Georgetown as a
specific site of interest before mentioning even the Capitol or the White House.
125
However, as Kathryn Lesko comments, ?Looking back, old Georgetowners see that it
was in the late 1960s and early 1970s that the ?tourist trade? merchants and
developers really fastened their grip on Georgetown.  Glossy promotional literature,
as well as numerous newspaper and magazine articles, routinely touted the stylish
boutiques, exotic restaurants and quaint ambience both locally and nationally.?
126
Today, Georgetown is a favorite destination of tourists; the area has joined the
monuments and the Mall as part of the Washington ?schlep,? as novelist Christopher
                                                  
124
 Gale, 319.
125
 American Automobile Association, Guide to America: A Treasury of Information About
its States, Cities, Parks and Historical Points of Interest (Washington: Public Affairs Press,
1953), 121.
126
 Lesko, 113-114.
58
Buckley terms it.
127
  They are drawn not only by the premiere restaurants, shopping,
and bars located in the neighborhood, but also by the sense of Georgetown as a
historic site and as an integral part of the city.
Rescuing a Hidden History: ?Black Georgetown Remembered?
Georgetown?s racial homogeneity remains part of its sense of place.  The
process of Georgetown?s racial and socioeconomic homogenization that had begun in
the 1940s persisted through subsequent decades; in fact, it became even more deeply
entrenched.
128
  By 1960, only nine percent of Georgetown residents were African
American.
129
  These demographics have informed the contemporary perception of
Georgetown.  In a city where two-thirds of the residents are African American,
Georgetown is understood as a bastion of elite white culture.  The widespread
misconception among Washington residents about the lack of a Metro stop in
Georgetown is indicative of this perception of the area as white, wealthy, and elite.
As transportation historian Zachary Schrag points out, ?Many believe that WMATA
[Washington Metro Area Transit Authority] planned a station for Georgetown, then
withdrew its plans in response to opposition from politically influential residents who
feared that the subway would bring undesirables?the poor, the criminal, the
                                                  
127
 Christopher Buckley, Washington Schlepped Here: Walking in the Nation?s Capital (New
York: Crown Journeys, 2003). A guidebook to walking tours in D.C., it focuses almost solely
on the National Mall. Buckley, Jr.?s title may be a pithy play on words, but it reminds us that
a tour, literally, a schlep, of ?official? Washington is still a rite of passage for many
Americans.
128
 Ron Shaffer, ?Georgetown: Fewer Than 250 Blacks,? Washington Post, 8 January 1972,
B1-B7.
129
 Lesko, 42.
59
nonwhite, and the tacky?to their exclusive neighborhood.?
130
  In fact, Schrag points
out, a Metro station in Georgetown was never a viable option, due to the technical
problems of locating a station there and the lack of a large commuter population. Still,
the fact that this story persists?to the point of being understood as common
knowledge among Washingtonians?symbolizes Georgetown?s reputation.
Georgetown, it is understood, is not a place for the ?poor, the criminal, the nonwhite,
and the tacky??and whose residents possessed both the inclination and political
clout to keep it wealthy, white, and genteel.
Figure 4: Mt. Zion United Methodist Church, 1334 29
th
 Street, NW,
Georgetown. October 2006.
While Lesko argues that during the late 1960s and early 1970s ?little attention
was given by the media to the social history of the community, particularly of the
                                                  
130
 Zachary Schrag, The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), 155.
60
original black contribution,? it was also during this time period that several ?black
Georgetown? landmarks were added to the National Register of Historic Places.
131
Two of these were the Mt. Zion United Methodist Church and its associated
cemetery, the Mt. Zion Cemetery, both of which were added to the Register in 1975.
The late 1980s and early 1990s saw community efforts to restore Georgetown?s
African American past to the popular imagination.  The Mt. Zion Community House,
added to the Register in 1975, was restored in 1985 for use as a community center
and museum documenting the history of African American life in Georgetown.
132
Most recently, a documentary on ?black Georgetown? was produced in
conjunction with Georgetown University?s bicentennial celebration, which led to the
writing of Lesko?s Black Georgetown Remembered: A History of Its Black
Community From the Founding of ?The Town of George? in 1751 to the Present
Day.  The release of both the documentary and the book sparked press coverage of
Georgetown?s African American history: a number of articles in area newspapers
featured interviews with current and former African American residents of
Georgetown.
13
A variety of factors can be seen at work in these efforts at commemorating
Georgetown?s African American community, and preserving the physical evidence of
it.  To begin, as a result of the changes wrought by the Civil Rights movement and the
                                                  
131
 Lesko, 114.
132
 Gayle Young, ?Historic Cottage in Georgetown To Be Museum,? Washington Post, 1
September 1984, E1-E9.
13
 See, for example, Charles Bermpohl, ?Georgetown Honors a Rich African-American
Legacy,? Northwest Current, 19 February 2003, 27-29; Charles Elder, ?Video Traces Era
When Georgetown was Poor, Black, Neighborly,? Washington Post, 16 February 1989, J1;
Sarah Booth Conroy, ?Finding the Soul of a Place: A Black History of Georgetown,?
Washington Post, 23 February 1992, F1; Elizabeth S. Clare, ?In the Presence of the Past,?
Washington Post, 16 February 1990, N6.
61
advent of the ?new social history,? the late 1960s and 1970s saw an increased interest
in and awareness of African American history, and consequently in recognizing and
protecting African American historical sites, on the part of both African Americans
and whites.
134
  This new sensitivity towards African American history led to the
official declaration of many sites connected to African American history as ?historic?
and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as the federal government
revised their criteria of what was historically and architecturally significant.
135
  This
has been the case in Washington, D.C. in particular, as historians, preservationists,
and city officials have realized the importance of commemorating African American
history in a city with a majority African American population.  As I will discuss in
Chapter Three, the recognition of U Street?s African American past stands as
evidence of this increased attention.
However, in the case of Georgetown, these efforts have made only moderate
inroads in rethinking the neighborhood?s history with an eye to its African American
past, or to changing the public understanding of it: on a recent (2006) walking tour of
Georgetown, offered through Cultural Tourism DC, the guide made no mention of the
area?s African American history.  Similarly, a 2006 Washington Citypaper article
named Georgetown ?D.C.?s Whitetown?
136
 and a recent 2006 Washington Post article
                                                  
134
 See, for example, Fath Davis Ruffins, ?Mythos, Memory, and History,? in Museums and
Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, ed. Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and
Steven D. Lavine (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992). As well, based on the
newspaper coverage of Georgetown?s African American history (all four articles cited were
written in February), African American history month has done much to increase awareness
of local African American history.
135
 Antoinette J. Lee, ?Cultural Diversity and Historic Preservation,? CRM [Bulletin of the
National Park Service, Cultural Diversity] 15:7 (1992): 1-2.
136
 John Metcalft, ?Black Guide to Georgetown,? Washington Citypaper, 4 August 2006, 18.
62
remarked on the ?hidden history? of Georgetown?s African American past.
137
  It
appears that while it was possible to reinvent Georgetown?s identity in the early
twentieth century, the resulting historic narrative has become deeply entrenched in
Georgetown?s sense of place.
Concluding Remarks
The twentieth century saw the transformation of Georgetown from a shabby,
working-class area to the site of million-dollar residences housing the wealthy elite
and renowned politicians; from a racially integrated neighborhood to an all-white
enclave; and from a dowdy, backward village to Washington, D.C.?s first federally
recognized and protected historic area.  These changes were enacted both through
external factors (such as the influx of residents into the District during the New Deal)
and through the work of wealthy, white Georgetown residents, who sought to protect
what they viewed as Georgetown?s unique way of life.  Accompanying these
changes?in fact, a key part of them?was the growing sense of Georgetown as a
historic neighborhood, as the home of important men who had helped to build the
national capital.  On the whole, this interpretation of Georgetown?s past did not
include the African Americans who had made up one-third of the area?s population
for more than a century.  Georgetown?s history was imagined in this particular way in
accordance with the racial standards of the time, which dictated that history was the
realm of white men ?particularly when it pertained to the national capital.  In the
next chapter, I explore how a ?transformation? was wrought in another part of
                                                  
137
 Andrew Stephen, ?Georgetown?s Hidden History,? Washington Post, 16 July 2006,
Section B01.
63
Washington, D.C.: that of U Street, NW. As I describe, this transformation yielded
very different results.
64
Chapter Three:
?You Street? and the ?New U?:
Visions of African American Life and History on U Street, NW
Figure 5: Urban palimpsest: 13
th
 and U Streets, NW. October 2006.
Another fall day, another walk around town, only this time under a cloudless
blue sky.  On this unseasonably warm day, I find myself at the corner of 16
th
 Street
and U Street, NW.  A glance down 16
th
 Street yields a glimpse of the White House;
the Washington Monument stands tall in the distance. I ramble eastward down U
Street.  As I walk, I play a cultural critic?s version of the child?s game ?I Spy?: what
do I see?  Above me, green signs hang on lampposts, reading ?See it! Be Inspired!
Historic U,? with a drawing of the African American Civil War Memorial, located
down the street at 12
th
 and U.  I walk past nineteenth century roughhouses, which
now house shoe stores and vintage clothing boutiques and upscale furniture shops,
luxuries to lure yuppie consumers.  At 14
th
 and U, I stop and look around: I stand next
65
to McDonald?s and across the street from the Reeves Municipal Building.  One block
up, a massive construction project is underway; a sign promises expensive condos
coming in the near future.  BMWs, Hummers, and Volvos zoom by on the street.
From a mural on the side of a building, Duke Ellington peers down on commuters
emerging from a Metro Stop.  Across the street, a placard relates the history of the
area.  Continuing my walk, I pass a small, white building that once housed a silent
movie theater: this is Ben?s Chili Bowl, ?a Washington landmark since 1958.?  A few
blocks down, at the recently reopened jazz club Bohemian Caverns, pictures of the
jazz greats that once performed there line the windows.
As I hope to have conveyed through this description, dotting the landscape of
U Street are signs of the recent changes in the neighborhood, markers of the forces
shaping these changes, and symbols of how U Street?s history has been continually
invoked as part of these changes.  I contend that, like Georgetown, U Street has
undergone a transformation over the course of the twentieth century.  As I did in
Chapter Two, I use the term ?transformation? to connote both the gentrification of the
area, and the solidification of the notion of U Street as historic.  As in the case of
Georgetown, I argue that these two developments are inextricably connected.
Changes that helped to secure U Street?s reputation as ?historic??such as the
preservation of historic landmarks, and the mapping of the area by cultural tourism
advocates?also increased the demand for housing along U Street and brought new
businesses to the area.  Today, the neighborhood is the site of some of D.C.?s hottest
restaurants, trendiest nightspots, and most cutting-edge boutiques.
66
The pivot on which this reinvention has spun has been U Street?s African
American past.  As in the case of Georgetown, the transformation of U Street has
depended on it being defined as historic.  However, while in Georgetown this process
resulted in the erasure of African American history from the narrative, the
reimagining of U Street has had the opposite result.  While Georgetown?s African
American past has been ignored, U Street?s has been embraced, to the extent that U
Street has become virtually synonymous with D.C.?s African American history.  I
argue that this shift is the product of an increased societal recognition and awareness
of African American history and achievements over the past fifty years.  However,
this celebration of U Street?s past does not guarantee that the area will remain a
stronghold of African American life and culture.  U Street?s transformation means
that long-time residents of the area may eventually be priced out of the neighborhood,
just as they were in Georgetown.
Before beginning any analysis of U Street, it is important to establish the
parameters of the area in question.  Roughly defined, U Street is understood to
include the area framed by 7
th
 and 16
th
 Streets, NW, and S and W Streets, NW
(although technically the boundaries of the official Greater U Street Historic District
fall slightly outside of these borders) [see Figure 6, page 67].
67
Figure 6: Greater U Street Historic District. Map courtesy of the Office of
Planning, District of Columbia City Government.
The boundaries of U Street relate to its history: the definition of this portion of D.C.
as a distinct place dates to the growth of businesses and entertainment venues during
the early twentieth century.  Consequently, ?U Street? is a non-political designation,
used colloquially.  U Street is also part of the district known as ?Shaw,? the
boundaries of which are drawn slightly beyond those of U Street.  The designation of
68
the neighborhood as ?Shaw? occurred during the 1960s, when the area was named
after a nearby junior high school.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that many Shaw
residents (and residents of the District in general) regard the designation as arbitrary
and irrelevant.
138
   For the purposes of this paper, the neighborhood in question will
be referred to as ?U Street? as this seems to be the term by which the area is most
commonly known.
The History of U Street
 While U Street has existed as a residential area of the District since the
beginning of the nineteenth century, most historians, cultural tourism promoters, and
area developers have focused on U Street?s development as a center for Washington?s
African American community during the early years of the twentieth century.
 139
  The
area had been home to African Americans since the Civil War, due to its proximity to
the Freedman?s Hospital (managed by the Freedman?s Bureau) and Howard
University, the preeminent university in the nation for American Americans.
140
  Until
                                                  
138
 Kathryn S. Smith, ?Remembering U Street,? Washington History 9:2 (1997): 32. See also
Stephanie Frank, ??If We Own the Story, We Own the Place?: Cultural Heritage, Historic
Preservation, and Gentrification on U Street,? MA thesis (University of Maryland, 2005), 5.
139
 It is important to recognize that until the early 1990s, little scholarly work had focused on
the history of Washington?s U Street neighborhood. The journal Washington History,
produced by the Historical Society of Washington, D.C., is the source of a number of
scholarly articles on U Street. See Michael Andrew Fitzpatrick, ??A Great Agitation for
Business?: Black Economic Development in Shaw,? Washington History 2:2 (1990): 48-73;
Smith, ?Remembering U Street,?; Michele F. Pacifico, ?Don?t Buy Where You Can?t Work:
The New Negro Alliance of Washington,? Washington History 6:1 (1994): 66-88; Dana
Lanier Schaffer, ?The 1968 Riots in History and Memory,? Washington History 15:2 (2003):
4-33; Mara Cherkasky, ?For Sale to Colored: Racial Change on S St. NW,? Washington
History 8:2 (1996): 40-57; Patricia M. Cook, ??Like the Phoenix?: The Rebirth of the
Whitelaw Hotel,? Washington History 7:1 (1995): 4-23.
140
 Kimberly Prothro Williams, Greater U Street Historic District (Washington, D.C.: Office
of Historic Preservation, Department of Planning, District of Columbia City Government,
2003), unpaginated.
69
the turn of the century, however, the neighborhood was largely multiracial in its
demographics.  As I discussed in Chapter Two, the years between 1900 and 1930 saw
a heightening of racial tensions that resulted in an increase in residential segregation
throughout the city.  Different neighborhoods rapidly became more racially
homogenous; whereas Georgetown became whiter, the African American community
centered along U Street saw an unprecedented flourishing.
141
  While new streetcar
lines enabled whites to relocate beyond the boundaries of the downtown city core into
new suburban developments, racially restrictive housing covenants prevented African
Americans from taking advantage of these new housing sites.  The result was that U
Street shifted from a multiracial area to an African American enclave.
142
  It is likely
that this newly-developed African American area of the city included former
Georgetown residents.  As discussed in Chapter Two, African Americans living in
Georgetown during the first decades of the twentieth century were slowly priced out
of the housing market there, and some of these families may have chosen to relocate
to the U Street area.
Effectively forced to live in a specific area of the city, this population of
African Americans residing in the U Street area created institutions that spoke to their
needs in a segregated city.  To begin with, U Street was the city?s center for black
businesses: between 1886 and 1920, the number of African American businesses in
                                                  
141
 This time period also saw the growth of Washington, D.C.?s African American population
in general, as this was the era of large-scale African American migration from the rural South
to Northern cities. In the context of Washington, many young, single women relocated to the
District to work in the domestic service sector. See Elizabeth Clark-Lewis, Living In, Living
Out: African American Domestics in Washington, D.C., 1910-1940 (Washington,
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994).
142
 Trieschmann, Sellin, and Callcott, Section 8, Page 17-18.
70
the U Street area grew from fifteen to over three hundred.
143
   The area played host to
other services built by and for African American Washingtonians, such as the
Whitelaw Hotel, the only premiere hotel for African Americans in the city.  The
institution of these businesses meant that the African Americans living and working
on U Street during this time period literally built their own environment: a number of
the extant buildings on U Street, such as the Industrial Savings Bank, located at 11
th
and U, were created by African American business owners and architects during the
early and mid twentieth century.
As well, during this time, U Street grew to exist as the primary entertainment
district for African Americans in Washington.  A number of jazz clubs were
established in the area, fostering such notable talents as Duke Ellington, arguably U
Street?s most famous native son.  Along with these jazz clubs, the Howard Theater,
built in 1910, provided a performance space for some of the country?s most
prominent jazz and blues artists. U Street was also home to a number of first-run
movie theaters, most notably the Lincoln Theater.
The popularity of U Street?s theatres, clubs, and restaurants was multifaceted.
Perhaps most notably, these venues allowed African Americans to enjoy top-quality
entertainment without confronting the humiliating experience of segregation.  At the
Lincoln Theater, for instance, African Americans could view first-run Hollywood
movies in an environment that replicated the grandeur and comfort of Washington?s
downtown, all-white picture palaces.  As well, many of these entertainment venues
also served as de facto community centers for Washington?s African American
population.  The Lincoln Colonnade, a ballroom attached to the Lincoln Theater,
                                                  
143
 Fitzpatrick, ?A Great Agitation for Business,? 49.
71
hosted university socials, meetings of fraternal organizations, and charity fundraisers,
as well as performers such as Fats Waller, Bessie Smith, the Mills Brothers and Lena
Horne.
 14
In addition to acting as the center for African American entertainment options,
U Street was the place to be for more cerebral pursuits.  During the early twentieth
century, the area served as home to prominent African American intellectuals, such as
historian Carter G. Woodson, Alain Locke, Langston Hughes, Paul Lawrence
Dunbar, and Mary McLeod Bethune.
145
   Many of these intellectuals were active in
organizations that worked to improve the situation of African Americans in the
United States, from the NAACP and the National Urban League to the New Negro
Alliance, which pushed for African American labor rights during the 1930s, making
U Street the site of both social justice activism as well as intellectualism.
146
All of this led to the creation of U Street as a closely-knit ?city within a
city.?
147
  In her classic 1967 work on Washington, D.C.?s African American history,
Constance McLaughlin Green argued that Washington?s African Americans lived in a
?secret city,? created by segregation, and hidden to the eyes of D.C.?s white society.
Wrote Green, ?Virtually from the beginning [of the city?s history] white citizens of
the District of Columbia manifestly were acquainted with only the most obvious facts
about how free Negroes lived? Indeed at every point before mid-twentieth century?
                                                  
14
 Luci Blackburn, ?Lincoln Theatre,? National Register of Historic Places Registration
Form, 27 October 1993, Section 8, Page 4.
145
 Kathryn S. Smith, ?Remembering U Street,? 30.
146
 Pacifico, 68.
147
 Trieschmann, Sellin, and Callcott, Section 8, Page 17. ?City Within A City? is also the
title of the Greater U Street Heritage Trail (a project sponsored by Cultural Tourism D.C.).
72
colored Washington was psychologically a secret city all but unknown to the white
world round about.?
148
The U Street neighborhood both was part of this secret city as well as its most
notable example.
149
  Many long-time U Street residents have mentioned the autonomy
and self-sufficiency of the neighborhood during the 1920s and 1930s, and the support
networks that the neighborhood afforded its residents.  Remembered one former
resident, ??We had everything we needed right in our community?our churches, our
schools?banks, department stores, food stores.??
150
  Another asserted, ??Shaw was a
family.?
151
  In literature and in the African American press, U Street was often
referred to as ?You Street.?  This pun can be taken as indicative of African
Americans? sense of ownership of the area: ?You Street? was their street.
 In fact, the U Street area as a whole served as a meeting space for
Washington?s African American community.  In scholarly and popular press articles
commemorating U Street?s ?golden age,? the area is consistently remembered as a
community gathering place for the entirety of Washington?s African American
population, not just residents of the area. As D.C.?s ?Black Broadway,? U Street drew
African Americans from all over the city to dine at upscale restaurants, cheer their
favorite jazz performer at the Howard or Republic Gardens, see a first-run movie, or
                                                  
148
 Green notes that the term ?secret city? did not originate with her, but was ?first assigned to
the Negro city in an anonymous article in Crisis in 1932.? Green, viii.
149
 Surprisingly, Green does not offer much description of the cohesiveness and prominence
of the U Street neighborhood, though she does remark that in the early 1900s, ?U Street in
northwest Washington was becoming the colored Connecticut Avenue.? Green, 179.
150
 Kathryn Schneider Smith and Marya McQuirter, A Guide to the Historical Resources of
Shaw (Washington, D.C.: The Thurgood Marshall Center for Service and Heritage, 1996), 13.
In compiling this guide, in 1996 Smith and McQuirter convened discussion sessions during
which about 75 residents and former residents gathered to reminisce about U Street.
151
 Smith, ?Remembering U Street,? 35.
73
simply stroll up and down U Street dressed in their best clothes.  Recalled Arthur
Ashe, who used to pass through the area as a young tennis player, ?In Washington,
the corner of 14
th
 and U was the grapevine.  The cream of black society and
everybody else passed through there, so if you were at 14
th
 and U, you knew where
the parties were, you knew who was in town, you knew if there was trouble.  You
were in the know.?
152
  Another former patron echoes Ashe?s comments: ??U
Street?for black people that is where you came.  You didn?t have to live in this area
to be part of U Street.  We all converged on this place, regularly.??
153
  For African
Americans ?converging? there, U Street was not only the place to be, but it was the
place to be elegant and fashionable: ??You had to wear a tie to walk down U Street??
is a frequent refrain of those who remember the area in its heyday.
154
U Street existed as the premiere entertainment district for Washington?s
African American population, and a predominantly African American residential
area, through the 1950s.  Beginning in the late 1950s, however, U Street?s
prominence within the African American community waned.  As I have discussed, U
Street thrived because segregation forced African Americans to live in certain parts of
the city.  During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Supreme Court ruled against both
racially restrictive real estate covenants and the segregation of public spaces.  These
changes in law meant that African Americans could reside anywhere in the city and
patronize any businesses and social institutions they wished.  Thus, desegregation led
to the dispersal of U Street residents to other parts of Washington and the Virginia
                                                  
152
 Arthur Ashe quoted in Juan Williams, ?14
th
 and U: When Being There Meant Something,?
Washington Post Magazine, 21 February 1988, W23.
153
 Smith, ?Remembering U Street,? 34-35.
154
 Smith, ?Remembering U Street,? 35.
74
and Maryland suburbs; as well, because African Americans were no longer restricted
to shopping and eating only along U Street, the businesses there faced competition
from restaurants and stores throughout the city.  These conditions created shifts in
community dynamics; many long-time residents moved away from the area, and
businesses were forced to close.  These occurrences along U Street were not unique;
as historian Robert Weyeneth points out, ?In one of the great ironies of the civil rights
movement, desegregation undermined the historic need for black business districts
and contributed to the economic hardship experienced by black businesses that could
not make the transition.?
15
The 1968 urban riots following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. caused further fracturing of the community.  As historian Dana Lanier Schaffer
relates, King?s assassination ?provided the spark? that ignited the anger of many
African American District residents.
156
  Drawing on oral history interviews, Schaffer
relates, in recalling the riots, ?African Americans described a widespread resentment
toward generations of political, civil, and especially economic injustice.?
157
  African
Americans throughout the United States faced unequal conditions, but these
disparities were particularly prevalent in Washington.  King?s assassination in April
1968 touched off nearly two weeks of looting, arson, and destruction carried out by
mobs; most of this destruction took place along the U Street corridor as well as along
Seventh Street, NW and H Street, NE.  According to Schaffer, mobs targeted white-
owned businesses, though a number of African American businesses were damaged
                                                  
15
 Robert Weyeneth, ?The Architecture of Racial Segregation: The Challenges of Preserving
the Problematical Past,? The Public Historian 27:4 (Fall 2005): 39.
156
 Schaffer, 6.
157
 Schaffer, 6.
75
as well; to protect themselves, African American store owners installed signs in their
windows reading ?soul brother? to indicate their affiliation with the African
American community.
158
  In the end, the Washington riots ?resulted in 13 deaths and
$24 million in insured property damage, a physical devastation more extensive than
in any other riot-stricken city across the country.?
159
 City efforts to rebuild the riot-affected areas faltered in the face of continuing
tension between government officials and area residents about the best way to
proceed.  Thus, the riots had severely detrimental and long-lasting effects on the U
Street corridor.  Physically, much of the area remained in ruins through the late 1960s
and early 1970s; many store owners elected not to rebuild, and moved away from the
area.  Perhaps more importantly, the damage incurred during the riots brought down
property values and gave U Street the reputation of a crime-stricken area.
160
Even before the 1968 riots, however, U Street had changed.  A 1965
Washington Post article describes the changes wrought by integration on U Street:
?Many [U Street merchants] realize that they have lost the dubious advantage of a
segregated market and that they?ll have to enter the mainstream of business or fold?
Scattered among the bustling taverns and restaurants and white-owned movie theaters
on U Street are dozens of vacant stores, silent warnings to incompetent
entrepreneurs.?
161
  As this article indicates, the loss of businesses along U Street
resulted in boarded-up and abandoned buildings, which became prime real estate for
                                                  
158
 Schaffer, 18-19.
159
 Schaffer, 6.
160
 Schaffer, 26.
161
 William J. Raspberry, ?Negro Business Looks Bearish,? Washington Post, 17 October
1965, E2.
76
drug activity and prostitution.  By the mid-1970s, U Street had earned a reputation as
one of the most dangerous areas of the city.
How was U Street imagined during this time period? Washington Post
coverage of the area during the 1960s and 1970s records frequent stabbings, killings,
prostitution, and police shootouts with drug dealers.  While journalists sometimes
commented on U Street?s history as an African American business and entertainment
district, this history was treated as a distant, dream-like memory; the focus of these
pieces was the contemporary crime and drug activity.
 162
  The suggestion of
legislation to rename U Street for Prince Hall, the founder of the oldest African
American fraternal lodge and the namesake of the Masonic lodge located on U Street,
is indicative of the imagining of the area during this time period: the idea of U Street
as so unredeemable as to warrant a new name to wipe the slate clean.
163
Creating Historic U Street: Precursors
While a 1978 Washington Post article discussed the ?revival? of U Street (in
the context of the newly reopened Casbah jazz club),
164
  U Street?s renaissance (and
development as a ?historic? district) arguably began in the early 1980s.  A July 1983
Washington Post article notes,
It sounds like a fantasy to rival Cinderella: 14
th
 and U Streets NW, a city crossroad
that has become a synonym for drug use and prostitution, turning into a revitalized
intersection with new housing, shops and offices. But this is the ambitious vision of
                                                  
162
 See, for example, Courtland Milloy, ?River of Darkness: 14
th
 Street: Once a Mainstream,
Recently a Backwater, Flowing Strong Again, Always a Frontier,? Washington Post
Magazine, 23 November 1980, 14.
163
 Marcia A. Slacum, ?Masons Want U Street Named For Founder,? Washington Post, 5
December 1983, D5.
164
 Neil Henry, ?Reviving U Street with the Sounds of Jazz and Soul,? Washington Post, 3
August 1978, D.C.3.
77
the 14
th
 and U Street area under an effort being planned by the District government,
community groups and the largest private developer in that neighborhood.
165
This article correctly points out both the hardships facing U Street, as well as the two
factors that would play the largest role in its redevelopment: the D.C. city government
and private development.  The decision to locate the Frank D. Reeves Municipal
Building, located at 14
th
 and U Streets, NW, was a conscious move on the part of
then-Mayor Marion Barry to symbolize the ?the city?s firm commitment to spurring
the renewal of one of Washington?s more notorious areas.?
16
  In constructing the
new government offices on U Street, Barry hoped that development would spring up
around the Reeves building, thus helping to stimulate the area?s economy.
Another facet of the city?s strategy to revitalizing the area was the decision to
locate a Green Line metro stop on U Street.  However, the Metro line had much more
gradual effects than the Reeves center.  Construction on the Metro stop began in
1987, and continued for the next four years, finally reaching completion in 1991.
Throughout much of the construction phase, the arrival of the Metro actually had a
detrimental effect on the revitalization of the area: businesses on U Street suffered
tremendously from the noise and congestion created by building the station, and
approximately 100 businesses were forced to close.
167
  However, overall, the location
                                                  
165
 Sandra Evans Teeley, ?City Center is Gleam in Vision of 14
th
 and U Changes,?
Washington Post, 10 July 1983, C1.
16
 Eric Pianin, ?New City Building Only Half the Battle,? Washington Post, 16 August 1984,
D.C.1.
167
 Linda Wheeler, ?Nightmare on U Street: Metro Work Puts Up Barriers to Business,?
Washington Post, 15 April 1987, B1. Linda Wheeler, ?True Grits: Shaw Merchants Start to
Cash In on the Green,? Washington Post, 18 November 1991, B3. For more on the effect of
Metro construction on area businesses, see Schrag, 217-218.
78
of the Metro helped to increase the area?s visibility and provide patrons to the small
businesses located there.
168
Along with the construction of the Reeves building and the U Street Metro
Station, the late 1980s saw increased private real estate and commercial development
in the area.  One of the key players in this development was Jeffrey Cohen, a D.C.-
area developer and close friend of Marion Barry?s.  Cohen began buying a number of
U Street properties during the mid-1980s, envisioning a neighborhood-wide
revitalization of the U Street area through the development of several new properties
and an outdoor plaza.  One of these properties was the Lincoln Theater, formerly one
of the most popular and elegant movie theaters in the area, located at 1215 U Street
NW.  The role of the Lincoln Theater in the revitalization of U Street deserves
particular attention.
Figure 7: The restored Lincoln Theatre, 1215 U Street, NW. October 2006.
                                                  
168
 Wheeler, ?True Grits,? B3.
79
The Revival of the Lincoln Theater
Jeffrey Cohen bought the Lincoln in 1983.  However, Cohen was forced to
declare bankruptcy in September 1991, and the restoration of the theater was taken
over by the D.C. city government.  This restoration was completed in 1994, and the
Lincoln opened as a performing arts venue in February 1994.
Clearly, the city played a key role in restoring the Lincoln.  Much of the city?s
interest in restoring the theater was economic in nature.  The city government saw the
$4 million dollar price tag of preserving the theater to be a worthy investment in
restoring the area.  In announcing that plans for the theater?s revitalization were on
schedule, then-Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly asserted, ?When reopened, the Lincoln will
be a significant economic development catalyst, increasing business activity for
existing business [sic] and attracting new restaurants, shops, clubs and office [sic] in
the area.  This means more jobs for residents and more revenue for the city.?
 169
Along with recognizing the revenue potential of restoring the Lincoln, the city
recognized the importance of the history of the theater.  Through a nomination
prepared by the Office of Business and Economic Development of the D.C. city
government, the Lincoln Theater was successfully added to the National Register of
Historic Places in October 1993.  Kelly commented subsequently on the historic
nature of the theater: ??At last we see our history restored and beautified again? We
want [tourists] to see more than the Washington Monument. We want them in our
community? The reopening of the Lincoln is considered the heart of the
                                                  
169
 ?News Release,? Office of Business and Economic Development, Government of the
District of Columbia, 13 March 1992, located in ?Shaw? vertical file, Washingtoniana
Division, District of Columbia Public Library.
80
revitalization of U Street NW.??
170
  This remark is telling: while Kelly expresses a
desire to communicate the history of D.C.?s African American population to tourists,
ultimately, the history of the theatre is considered a tool through which to bring about
economic revitalization.
The restoration of the theater drew immediate and widespread attention from
the local media.  Indeed, the Lincoln restoration stands as the moment in which the
popular press (namely the Washington Post) began to write copiously about the
revival of the U Street district.  The resulting newspaper articles positioned the theater
as a symbol of the revitalization of the U Street area.  Commented one journalist,
?The Lincoln?s rise and fall and rise? has mirrored the life cycle of this
neighborhood just north of downtown D.C.?
171
Another theme of this journalistic coverage was the idea of the Lincoln
Theater as not only symbolic of the area?s revitalization, but a critical component of it
as well.  Nathea Lee, executive director of the U Street Theatre Foundation at the
time of the Lincoln?s reopening, was quoted as stating, ?It?s incredible how many
people remember the theater, and it was inevitable that the city would catch that fever
and realize that if this community is to be revitalized, getting the theater finished was
a key step.?
172
  This feeling apparently was shared by existing and potential area
business owners: commented Virginia Ali, co-owner of Ben?s Chili Bowl, the famous
eatery next door to the Lincoln, ??The Lincoln is a landmark, and once [restored], it
will bring people to U Street? there aren?t many drawing cards left up here. We need
                                                  
170
 Roxanne Roberts, ?The New Jewel of U Street: Lincoln Theatre?s Gala Return,?
Washington Post, 2 May 1994, G1.
171
 Jon Cummings, ?Glory Days Recaptured in Washington, D.C.,? Inside Arts: The
Magazine of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, 1 June 1995, 26.
172
 Cummings, 26.
81
the Lincoln.??
173
  A 1995 Washington Post article describing the ?rebirth? of the area
stated, ?[Many] merchants point to the historic Lincoln Theater in the 1200 block of
U Street as the deciding factor when they looked for places to open their
businesses.?
174
As a result of the Lincoln?s restoration, for the first time, writers and
politicians imagined U Street as a historic area worthy of celebration and protection.
Even more so than the arrival of the Reeves center and the construction of the Metro
stop, the restoration of the theater, and the media attention that it garnered, solidified
the public sense of U Street as both a historic neighborhood and an up-and-coming
part of D.C.  For these reasons, I argue that the restoration of the Lincoln stands as
one of the key moments in the redefinition of the U Street area.
Restoring Other U Street Landmarks
The Lincoln Theater was not the only historic structure on U Street to be
revitalized during the early to mid-1990s (though it was by far the most notable
restoration).  A number of other important U Street buildings were restored during
this time period.  For the most part, these restorations were carried out through the
cooperation of community groups and developers, with the goal of preserving the
history of the area while also contributing to its economic revitalization.  The
preservation of these landmarks played a central role in the construction of historic U
                                                  
173
 Linda Wheeler, ?D.C. to Finish Lincoln Theatre Restoration,? Washington Post, 15
August 1991, C1-C4.
174
 Linda Wheeler, ?A Whole New U: Businesses Spring Up Along Historic Street in NW,?
Washington Post, 26 December 1995, B01.
82
Street: they nurtured the physical landscape of historic U Street, won media attention,
and attracted additional businesses to the area.
One of these notable restorations was the Whitelaw Hotel, located at 13
th
 and
T Streets, NW.  Established in 1919 as a premiere hotel for African Americans, it was
one of few such hotels that existed in Washington during the era of segregation.  The
Whitelaw was built by African Americans as well as for them: the hotel was funded
by John Whitelaw Lewis, the owner of the Industrial Savings Bank (also located on U
Street), and designed by an African American architect.  Though the hotel prospered
during U Street?s heyday, it too was adversely affected by the end of segregation in
Washington, and by the 1960s and 1970s it had fallen into severe disrepair and
become a haven for drug addicts.  The hotel was closed by the city in 1977 due to
building code violations, sat vacant, and finally sold to a series of developers.  It
changed hands a number of times during the 1980s, but was bought in 1991 by
Manna, Inc., a non-profit corporation that develops affordable housing.  Thanks to
Manna?s work, the Whitelaw was restored in 1992, and successfully nominated to the
National Register of Historic Places in 1993.
175
Like the Whitelaw Hotel and the Lincoln Theater, the True Reformer Building
was constructed to serve the needs of D.C.?s African American population (though
unlike the Whitelaw and the Lincoln, which were built during the 1920s, the True
Reformer building was erected in 1903).  The headquarters of a Richmond, Virginia-
based African American fraternal organization, the Grand United Order of True
Reformers, the building was ?conceived, built, designed, and patronized by African
                                                  
175
 Cook, ??Like the Phoenix,?? 9.
83
Americans.?
176
  In addition to serving as the headquarters for the True Reformers, the
building also played a role in the community by housing a concert hall as well as
other businesses.  Although the building passed out of the control of the True
Reformers in 1910, it remained a center for U Street?s African American
community.
17
  By the 1970s, though, much of the building stood vacant.  Nominated
to the National Register of Historic Landmarks in 1989, the building was bought by a
developer in 1996, and sold to the non-profit Public Welfare Foundation in 1999 for
use as their headquarters.  The building now also houses the African American Civil
War Memorial Freedom Foundation and Museum.
The 12
th
 Street YMCA building, renamed the Anthony Bowen YMCA in
1972 and now known as the Thurgood Marshall Center for Service and Heritage, was
the home of the first African American Young Men?s Christian Association, founded
in Washington in 1853 by former slave Anthony Bowen.  Designed by African
American architect William Sidney Pittman and funded in part by philanthropist
Julius Rosenwald, the 12
th
 Street YMCA was built in 1912 to serve as a meeting and
recreational space for U Street?s youth and adults.  It contained a swimming pool, a
basketball, a library, and numerous rooms to accommodate overnight guests.  When
the main branch of the YMCA relocated to a different part of Washington in 1982,
the building was closed ?due to mounting operational costs, declining membership,
an accumulated deficit, and concern for the safety of the children.?
178
  The building
                                                  
176
 Cultural Tourism DC, ?True Reformer Building,? African American Heritage Trail
Database, <www.culturaltourismDC.org>
17
 Linda Wheeler, ?On U St., Blacks Created a Powerful Symbol,? Washington Post, 19
January 1999, A1.
178
 ?Twelfth Street Young Men?s Christian Association,? National Historic Landmark
Nomination Form, 1994, 17.
84
was sold to a non-profit trust created to protect the building, which aided in the
declaration of it as a National Historic Landmark in 1994.  Restorations were begun
in 1998, and in 2000 the Thurgood Marshall Center for Service and Heritage
launched operations there.  The Marshall Center offers exhibits documenting the
history of the U Street area; as well, it provides office space for a number of non-
profit organizations.
Reimagining Historic U Street: Popular Press Coverage
The restoration of these prominent U Street historic landmarks, combined
with increased business enterprise following the completion of the Metro stop,
resulted in a wave of popular press articles, particularly in the Washington Post, about
the ?revival? of U Street.  The journalistic treatment of U Street was both evidence of,
as well as a factor in, the making of U Street as a historic area.  This press coverage
was key in helping U Street make the transition from being popularly conceived as a
dangerous part of town to a trendy place with a historic past.
As mentioned earlier, this wave of positive press began with articles that
accompanied and narrated the restoration of the Lincoln Theater in the early 1990s,
and continued into the late 1990s and early 2000s.  Going beyond simply recording
particular changes or developments (such as the restoration of the Whitelaw or the
institution of the Greater U Street Heritage Trail), these articles commented on the
transformation of the U Street neighborhood in its entirety, using language such as
?renewal,? ?rebirth,? and ?reinvention? to describe the changes taking place on U
Street.
85
More than one author summed up the shift in U Street?s reputation and
conception with the label, ?the New U.?  Take, for example, a 1998 Washington Post
Magazine article, which discussed the various stages of U Street?s history:
Some streets, some neighborhoods, get one life. It?s all they need. Others, if they?re
lucky, or special, get more than one. Like U Street? In the beginning, there was the
old U. The first U. Black U? the heart of black cultural, economic and social life in
segregated Washington?the next U was the post-riot U? and then it was lights out
for a quarter-century? And now, in 1998, at the end of this separation and court-
ordered coming together, there is a third U, also known as the New U. It is
mixed?black and white living together, along with yellow and brown.
179
On the whole, these articles were overwhelmingly positive in their analysis of
the U Street?s shifting definition.  Though the article cited above discusses racial
tensions that remain in the ?New U,? and the fact that the area is ?still evolving,? the
overall tone of the piece is on U Street?s importance as a historic area, as well as its
potential to become the center of Washington?s nightlife and a multicultural oasis in a
city still relatively polarized by race.
Many of these articles publicized U Street?s wealth of new businesses,
particularly trendy new restaurants, clubs, and bars.  As early as 1993, journalists
were writing about U Street?s burgeoning scene: ?From funky coffeehouses to ethnic
cuisine to theaters and art galleries and nightclubs, the U Street corridor between 12
th
and 16
th
 streets NW is undergoing a cultural revolution, the likes of which hasn?t been
seen since the metamorphosis of Adams-Morgan in the early 1980s.?
180
  In a sense,
articles such as these were travel narratives; they treated U Street as an intriguing
foreign city and introduced readers to its undiscovered treasures.
                                                  
179
 Mary Battiata, ?Landscape: U Street,? Washington Post Magazine, 1 February 1998, W13.
180
 Joel Glenn Brenner, ?On U Street, A U-Turn to Renewal,? Washington Post, 6 November
1993, E1.
86
In fact, U Street served as the subject of so many Washington Post articles
during the early 1990s that Post writer Eve Zibart was moved to write in 1994,
There are a great many good things to say about the nightspots in New U, and we've
said most of them: the serious (that they've brought younger, more prosperous, more
culturally and ethnically mixed Washingtonians to the once nearly deserted Cardozo/U
Street neighborhood); the socioeconomic (that these are grass-roots entrepreneurs
investing in the inner city and self-empowering and such); the silly (that they've
replaced 14th Street's red lights with black lights); and the cynical (that thrift-store
decor has become as cookie-cutter as fern bars).
181
Zibart?s comments illustrate both the quantity and the quality of U Street press
coverage during this time period.  Zibart continued, ?It might be time to set a few
things straight -- that the U Street Corridor is in danger of becoming awfully
plastic.?
182
  With this statement, Zibart asserts her opinion that the reimagining of U
Street was complete?that, in fact, the area had lost its ?edgy? character that had
made it unique and attractive in the first place.
In the imagining of U Street carried out by these journalists, U Street?s history
takes center stage.  All of these articles mention U Street?s history as part of their
description of the new scene.  While it may have been positioned as the ?new Adams-
Morgan,? U Street?s African American past made it distinct from any other area in
the city.  Thus, just as in the case of Georgetown, the popular press treatment of U
Street helped to solidify the sense of the area as an important historic place.
However?and this point is crucial?unlike Georgetown, it is U Street?s African
American past that is featured in these articles.  Whereas the journalistic treatment of
Georgetown in the 1940s and 1950s helped to wipe away that area?s African
                                                  
181
 Eve Zibart, ?Trendy Signs for U Street,? Washington Post, 10 June 1994,  N13.
182
 Zibart, N13.
87
American past, these articles worked to solidify the sense of U Street as an important
African American historic area.
Remembering Historic U Street: Cultural Tourism Development
This press coverage of U Street?s arrival also paved the way for the arrival of
cultural tourism efforts by establishing the perception of the area as having rid itself
of the crime and vice that had previously plagued it.  Thus, this press coverage, and
the vision of U Street that it publicized, made the neighborhood navigable for cultural
tourism.
The non-profit organization Cultural Tourism DC (CT/DC) has played a key
role in making the U Street area ?historic.? Originally known as the D.C. Heritage
and Tourism Coalition, the organization was founded in 1996.  According to their
website, the goals of CT/DC are to: ?increase awareness of local cultural institutions
among visitors and residents; promote pride and appreciation for Washington?s arts
and heritage; serve as a resource for neighborhoods seeking to develop their cultural
tourism potential; and create more tax revenue, jobs, and business opportunities for
the city.?
183
  CT/DC functions as a coalition of ?more than 185 cultural and
neighborhood organizations,? as well as creating and promoting their own
programming.  Their website, the organization?s main means of disseminating
information, features information about upcoming events sponsored by members,
general visitor information, cultural attractions (such as museums) throughout the
city, historic neighborhoods, and historic tours and trails.
                                                  
183
 Cultural Tourism DC, ?About Us?Overview,? <www.culturaltourismDC.org>
88
As their name and statement of goals make evident, CT/DC exemplifies the
marriage of cultural and economic enterprises that the term ?cultural tourism? has
come to denote.  While CT/DC seeks to expose residents and visitors to Washington?s
?hidden treasures,? they do so in the context of increasing revenue for the city.
CT/DC?s impact on U Street?s sense of place began as early as 1997, through
work done by the organization?s founding executive director, Kathryn S. Smith.  In
1997, Smith was the co-curator of a temporary outdoor exhibit exploring the history
and memory of U Street; the exhibit was mounted on a Metro construction fence and
occupied the space until 1999.  This project led to the creation of the ?City Within a
City: Greater U Street Heritage Trail,? a project launched in 2001 and co-sponsored
by Cultural Tourism DC.  The Greater U Street Heritage Trail is a self-guided
walking tour, which uses a written pamphlet and a series of large placards posted
throughout the U Street area to narrate the history of the neighborhood.
CT/DC?s Heritage Trail, particularly the placards located at various points
along U Street, has played an essential role in publicizing the area?s past.  These
placards literally mark the landscape of U Street as ?historic.?  In other words, they
act as a legitimizing force:  U Street has been recognized as a historic place by an
official authority.  They are obvious and attention grabbing; while visitors to U Street
may not notice the restored historic buildings, or may not have read the countless
newspaper articles about U Street?s past, the markers are hard to miss.
These placards, and the accompanying pamphlet, also establish CT/DC?s
version of the history of U Street.  CT/DC focuses on U Street?s ?golden age,? that of
the 1920s through the 1950s.  According to CT/DC, the story of U Street is a clear
89
?rise-fall-rise? narrative, defined by the rise of the neighborhood as Washington?s
premiere African American community, its descent following desegregation and the
1968 riots, and its climb back up during the 1990s and twenty-first century to become
one of Washington?s most hip, trendy areas.  CT/DC emphasizes U Street?s self-
sufficiency, the small-town feel of the area, and the presence of institutions such as
the Industrial Savings Bank that demonstrate African American initiative and
business enterprise.
184
As scholar Stephanie Frank points out in her 2005 MA thesis, CT/DC?s
version of the U Street story was the result of a (conscious or unconscious) choice to
narrate the history of the area in a particular way.  Drawing on oral history interviews
with stakeholders connected to the U Street community, Frank contends that the
CT/DC narrative offers only one of many possible interpretations of the area.
For example, one trope that has arisen in the ?remembering? of U Street is the
comparison of it to Harlem, specifically, predating and rivaling Harlem.  While this
analogy was made as early as the 1930s,
185
 CT/DC solidifies this interpretation of U
Street through their walking tour titled, ?Before There was Harlem, There was U
Street.?  In making this comparison, CT/DC comments on U Street?s parallels to
Harlem in its vibrant performing arts scene and tight-knit African American
community, as well as on the fact that some of the key figures of the intellectual arm
                                                  
184
 Paul K. Williams and Kathryn S. Smith, City Within a City: Greater U Street Heritage
Trail, 3
rd
 edition (Washington, D.C.: the Historical Society of Washington, D.C. and Cultural
Tourism D.C., 2005).
185
 The guide to Washington produced by the Federal Writers Project in 1937 commented,
?The area in the vicinity of Georgia Avenue and U Street represents the east end of
Washington?s ?Little Harlem,? a region of Negro movies, beer parlors, poolrooms, and beauty
salons.? Federal Writers? Project, Works Progress Administration, Washington, City and
Capital (Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.O, 1937), 710.
90
of the Harlem Renaissance, such as Langston Hughes and Alain Locke, lived and
worked on U Street before relocating to Harlem.
However, CT/DC does not draw the parallel between U Street and Harlem to
include the more risqu? elements associated with Harlem.
186
   To be more specific,
historians have characterized Harlem as a ?liminal? space, or an ?interzone,? which
both whites and African Americans of all social strata patronized in order to
transgress the boundaries of what was considered morally, socially, and sexually
appropriate for their genders, races, and classes.
187
  The possibility of whether or not
U Street served precisely the same function has not been explored by CT/DC or by
scholars, though preliminary evidence suggests that this may have indeed been the
case.  In her work on African American women and the criminal underground
economy, scholar Sharon Harley discusses the life of Odessa Marie Madre, the
?Queen of Washington?s Underworld?; according to oral history sources, Madre
operated ??two illegal saloons and an elaborate bookmaking operation at 16
th
 and U
Street, N.W.??
18
At the very least, evidence hints at the area as the playground of a hedonistic,
decadent crowd.  Another interpretation of the contemporary pun on the area?s name,
?You Street,? besides indicating ownership of the space, is that U Street was a place
                                                  
186
 Frank, 38.
187
 For an analysis of Harlem as a liminal space (one of many throughout New York City),
see George Chauncey, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay
Male World, 1890-1940 (New York: BasicBooks, 1994); for an analysis of the ?interzone,?
see Kevin J. Mumford, Interzones: Black/White Sex Districts in Chicago and New York in the
Early Twentieth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997).
18
 Sharon Harley, ??Working for Nothing but for a Living?: Black Women in the
Underground Economy,? in Sister Circle: Black Women and Work, ed. Sharon Harley and
the Black Women and Work Collective (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University
Press, 2002), 56.
91
for indulgence, to focus on you.  As a 1946 article in the African American periodical
Newspic commented, ?Even rain has beauty along Washington?s glittering You Street
after dark.  Pleasure-seekers, desiring to stir up the moonbeams of their souls, spend
most of their time and money in the theaters, night clubs, dance halls and business
establishments along this main stem.?
189
The 1925 epistolary novel When Washington Was in Vogue also suggests this
idea of U Street as a place to throw off the constraints of everyday life.  Written by
native Washingtonian Edward Christopher Williams, and originally published
anonymously in the African American newspaper The Messenger, the novel gives the
reader an unparalleled feel for the sights and sounds of African American Washington
during the 1920s.  Williams? narrator, Davy Carr, passes judgment on the self-
indulgent behavior of the patrons of U Street nightclubs, theaters, and bars:
I took a walk up You Street while finishing my cigar, and watched the crowds
coming out of the three movie theaters and at the entrances of the two or three well-
known dance halls. As I look upon our folks on these days of prosperity, it is borne in
upon me that we are indeed a pleasure-loving people, that we love display for its on
sake, and fine clothes and the gauds of life? of course, I believe in pleasure as a
natural and proper element in a well-ordered and normal life, but I fear, somehow,
that we have the proportions wrong.
190
In addition to downplaying the more risqu? elements of U Street, CT/DC
characterizes the U Street experience as almost entirely an African American story,
with emphasis placed on the area?s African American businesses.
191
  Such a narrative
draws the focus away from U Street?s white residents and business owners, as well as
                                                  
189
 ?Washington?s U Street,? Newspic, April 1946, unpaginated.
190
 Edward Christopher Williams, When Washington Was in Vogue: A Love Story. Previously
published anonymously as The Letters of Davy Carr in The Messenger, January 1925-June
1926. Edited by Adam McKible (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 33.
191
 Frank, 37.
92
those of other ethnicities, which existed alongside the area?s African American
population.  Similarly, the focus of CT/DC?s story is on middle-class residents, an
emphasis that ignores the working class segment of the population.  Finally, CT/DC
maintains a clear spotlight on the 1920s to the 1950s, which ?overlooks the positive
strides during [the 1960s and 1970s] when the neighborhood hosted a flourishing of
black arts, radicals, institutions, and jazz clubs in the 1960s and 1970s.?
192
All of this is not to say that CT/DC misinterprets the history of U Street in a
radically inappropriate or ahistorical way.  More, it is important to recognize that the
version of U Street?s history is just that: a version, an interpretation.  No historian will
deny that the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s saw a flourishing of African American artistic
expression and business enterprise on U Street, or that the area hosted a
predominantly African American population during this time period.  As well, it is
clear that drugs and crime became an acute problem in the U Street neighborhood
during the 1970s and early 1980s.  CT/DC chose to emphasize these aspects of the U
Street story over others.  This choice does not necessarily lead to a wholly inaccurate
picture, but it does remain a less comprehensive narrative.
The question then becomes, why did CT/DC choose to present the history of
U Street within this context, that is, with an emphasis on U Street?s ?golden age? of
African American business, entertainment, and intellectual life?  The most logical
answer is that this version of the U Street story was the most palatable and marketable
to a wide audience.  In other words, CT/DC?s narrative is the product of the
?smoothing? process described by Hal Rothman, in which complicated stories, or
those that threaten to disrupt the dominant paradigm, are brushed away.
                                                  
192
 Frank, 40.
93
In truth, this question?why CT/DC selected to present a particular historical
narrative over another?is only part of a much larger question, one which is at the
heart of my exploration of U Street?s revitalization: at this particular historical
moment, why has U Street been imagined in the ways that I have described?  Before
answering this question, there is one more factor to investigate: that of U Street?s
residential and commercial real estate boom.
Living and Working on the ?New U?
U Street?s transformation is bound up with the renewed interest in it as a place
to live and work.  While this demand for real estate may appear to have skyrocketed
over night, like the general transformation of the area, it has been a gradual process.
Articles in the Washington Post as early as the late 1970s and early 1980s chart a
renewed interest in U Street residential property, noting the arrival of property-
owners who had begun to renovate dilapidated townhouses.  Admittedly, the area did
not see the level of private restoration as did Georgetown in the 1920s and the 1930s;
in this case, individual property owners have done less work in the reimagining of the
area?s sense of place.  However, private restoration has played a role.
Private restoration, along with commercial and real estate development,
occurred even during the peak of U Street?s drug and criminal activity.  A 1980
Washington Post article about the brutal murder of an elderly neighborhood resident
provides a tragic commentary on this: ?The neighborhood has a number of retired and
elderly residents who have lived there for years.  In recent months, those residents
have been joined by young professionals who have renovated the sturdy row houses.
94
Such renovations usually bring sales offers much larger than the older residents had
ever expected, and [the victim] had apparently received some offers.?
193
  Private
restoration increased steadily as crime rates fell and the reputation of the area as an
affordable alternative to other high-priced areas grew; newspaper coverage during the
late 1980s and early 1990s consistently mentions renovations of the housing stock
carried out by newcomers to the area.
Journalists described these newcomers as ?urban pioneers? braving the city?s
?last frontier.?  At the time this analogy was made, in the early 1980s, it helped to
further the sense of the area as dangerous and crime-ridden, as a ?fallen? area in need
of salvation.  This analogy also added the dimension of race to the situation: while
newspaper articles claimed that newcomers to the area were not necessarily white,
this analogy effectively racialized the long-time residents and the newcomers.  One
new white resident of the area, also a District of Columbia police officer, noted in
1980 that to live in Shaw, ?You have to have a pioneer attitude or the Indians will get
you.?
194
Toward the end of the 1980s, developers as well as individuals began to take
an interest in the area.  Encouraged by factors such as the arrival of the Metro, and of
new businesses, developers began to buy older buildings and vacant lots, renovate
them, and put them back on the market.  This development has only escalated since
the late 1980s, and the early 2000s has seen a particular development boom.
Statistics kept by the Historic Preservation Review Board, part of the D.C. city
                                                  
193
 Athelia Knight, ??Nice Lady? Beaten to Death: Murder Shocks Neighbors in NW,?
Washington Post, 12 April 1980, B1.
194
 Linda Wheeler, ?Shaw, Old and New: City?s Last Frontier,? Washington Post, 15 June
1980, A1.
95
government?s Office of Planning, indicate a dramatic escalation in the number of
permit applications for changes to the area?s historic buildings since the
neighborhood was declared a historic district in 1998.  In 1999, 63 permit
applications were reviewed by the Historic Preservation Review Board; in 2005,
332.
195
  In 2006, these numbers placed U Street as second only to the historic districts
of Capitol Hill and Georgetown in terms of the overall number of permit applications
reviewed.
196
Interestingly, while real estate developers started buying and selling properties
in the area during the mid-1980s, it was not until the mid-1990s that these properties
were marketed as located on ?U Street.?  A 1988 Washington Post article describes
new development west of 14
th
 Street, but discusses how real estate developers were
attempting to capitalize on the popularity of the adjacent Dupont Circle neighborhood
by calling the area around 14
th
 and U Streets ?Dupont East.?  By the mid-1990s,
properties in the area were considered part of the neighborhood labeled ?U Street.?
This fact is further evidence of U Street?s reimagining: as popular press articles began
to tout the area?s history, developers made this a marketable feature of houses in the
neighborhood.  This ploy has continued: developers of new apartment buildings and
luxury condominiums still draw on the history of the area as a means of promoting
and selling these spaces.  A particularly conspicuous example of this marketing of the
past in the context of real estate is the Ellington, a mixed-use building which features
                                                  
195
 ?21
st
 Annual Report to the Council of the District of Columbia,? Historic Preservation
Review Board, District of Columbia Office of Planning, March 2000, 13; ?27
th
 Annual
Report to the Council of the District of Columbia,? Historic Preservation Review Board,
District of Columbia Office of Planning, March 2006, 27.
196
 ?27
th
 Annual Report,? 27.
96
restaurants and shops on the ground floor with apartments above, named for U
Street?s most famous resident.
Even for newcomers to the area who have not bought apartments in buildings
like the Ellington, U Street?s history has been an incentive to move there.  The same
1993 Washington Post article that cited attractions such as trendy boutiques and
nightspots also claimed, ?But the biggest draw by far to the community, say those
who live there, is its rich cultural heritage.?
197
  This is a common theme in articles
detailing U Street?s transformation, that is, the story of residents drawn to the area
because of its history as an African American community.  Noted one newcomer,
who bought and restored a 100-year-old townhouse in 1998, ?I definitely like the idea
of living in a historic neighborhood. This was the Black Broadway. This was an
African American neighborhood.?
198
  Quotes such as this are testimony to the
strength of U Street?s reimagining: the image of ?Black Broadway? has become
solidly attached to the neighborhood.
What has been the effect of these newcomers, and the area?s increased
popularity, on long-time area residents and businesses?  A 2001 Washington Post
article titled ?Going Upscale on U St.: Wave of High-Priced Housing Developments
Brings Praise, Concern for Once-Blighted Neighborhood? discusses the diversity of
viewpoints surrounding the gentrification of the neighborhood.
19
  While some area
residents and businesspeople, real estate agents, and developers celebrate U Street?s
                                                  
197
 Brenner, E1.
198
 Linda Wheeler, ?Recovering a Part of D.C. History,? Washington Post, 3 October 1998,
G01.
19
 Daniela Deane, ?Going Upscale on U Street: Wave of High-Priced Housing Developments
Brings Praise, Concern for Once Blighted Neighborhood,? Washington Post, 24 March 2001,
H01.
97
development as a trendy, premiere place to live and work, others worry about the
impact of these changes on the older, more working-class residents, and the mom-
and-pop businesses.
These concerns are well founded.  Evidence suggests that U Street?s
development as a site of expensive housing and retail spaces has taken its toll on
residents who cannot afford U Street?s new cost of life.  Transportation historian
Zachary Schrag discusses the ?accelera[tion] of the transformation? of the U Street
area by the construction of the Green Line in 1991: ?While a boon for the
neighborhood, the Green Line has been a threat to the neighborhood?s residents.?
20
More recently, a 2004 Washington Post article discusses the case of a small
apartment building located on 14
th
 and W Streets NW.  Condemned by the city,
ownership of the building was turned over to the former tenants, in the hopes of
enabling them to renovate the building.  However, these tenants, including some
immigrant, non-English speaking families, found it too difficult to navigate the
complex process of restoration, and elected to sell the building to a developer.  The
former tenants were paid $114,000 for each apartment; the developer has decided to
sell the entire building, for an asking price of $4.4 million.
201
  This example is
reminiscent of the speedy and dramatic turnaround of the Bell?s Court alley dwellings
in Georgetown.
U Street?s gentrification has also affected area businesses.  One notable
example is that of Sisterspace, a bookstore and community gathering place that was
located at 15
th
 and U Street until 2004.  Faced with a huge increase in rent,
                                                  
20
 Schrag, 218.
201
 Debbie Wilgoren, ?Ex-Owners Aghast at NW Building?s Turnaround,? Washington Post,
12 January 2004, B01.
98
Sisterspace?s owners entered into a protracted legal battle with the owners of the
building and finally were evicted from their retail space.  While a 2004 Washington
Post article points out, ?Because most of the new construction [on U Street] is on lots
that were vacant for years, few businesses have been displaced,? the eviction of
Sisterspace demonstrates the potential damage that gentrification of the area can have
on local businesses.
202
Issues of race underscore these concerns about the displacement of area
residents.  To be precise, some area residents feel that even as the cultural tourism
promoters and city boosters proudly (and loudly) celebrate the area?s African
American heritage, the area?s current African American residents are being forced
out, or at the very least, that the area is losing its African American identity.  U
Street?s demographics are indeed changing: census data indicate that the percentage
of the area?s residents claiming African American heritage has declined steadily over
the last quarter-century, particularly in the last fifteen years.
203
  While some applaud
the multicultural, multiracial demography of the New U, others have voiced ardent
concerns about the loss of the core African American population.
                                                  
202
 Debbie Wilgoren, ?U Street Bookstore Eviction Set; Owners Denounce Corridor?s
Yuppification, Vow to Resist,? Washington Post, 27 June 2004, C01. See also Paul
Shwartzman, ?In Shaw, Fighting Eviction, Change; Co-Owner of Cafe Protests a Loss of
Black Culture, Spirit,? Washington Post, 15 December 2005, T03.
203
 The U Street area encompasses two D.C. census tracts, 4300 and 4400; between 1990 and
2000, the population of African American residents residing within these two census tracts
declined by 19% and 14%, respectively. NeighborhoodInfo D.C., ?D.C. Census Tract Profile:
Tract 4300,? and ?D.C. Census Tract Profile: Tract 4400
<http://www.neighborhoodinfoDC.org/>
99
Concluding Remarks
As I have discussed, the public perception of Washington?s U Street
neighborhood has shifted dramatically over the course of the twentieth century.  This
perception, which includes a distinct historical narrative, has been created through a
variety of forces, all of which have shaped and molded it into what it is today: the
most celebrated example of Washington, D.C.?s African American past.  City
planners and politicians, non-profit and community groups, cultural tourism
professionals, and real estate brokers have all contributed to this redefinition.
Ironically, the recent popularity of the area, the product of the new acclaim of U
Street as ?Black Broadway,? now threatens long-time residents who were part of this
historical moment.
As I alluded to earlier in this chapter, the most pressing question in
understanding the revitalization of U Street is, why was it imagined in this particular
way?  Why was this particular thread?the social and cultural life of U Street?s
African American residents during the 1920s and the 1930s?teased out to be
featured above all others?  The answer to this question has much to do with both
America?s and D.C.?s racial politics at the turn of the twenty-first century.  To begin,
I argue that this overwhelming attention to U Street?s African American past, much
like the recent efforts to uncover Georgetown?s ?hidden? African American history, is
the result of widespread awareness of and interest in African American history over
the past fifty years.  With the cultural, social, and political changes wrought during
the 1960s and 1970s, it has become evident that to ignore African Americans in
interpreting American history is to miss a critical piece of the puzzle.  Furthermore,
100
not only have already established historic sites begun to investigate this, but also new
sites have developed?have ?become historic??precisely because they are part of the
African American narrative. Such is the case of U Street.
This has particularly been the case with the recognition of D.C. as a
predominantly African American city.  Drawing on the legacy of Washington?s
African American intellectualism and activism of the early twentieth century, African
American activists centered in Washington in the 1960s and 1970s forced politicians
and the general public to recognize the size of the African American population along
with its particular needs and history.  This awareness has grown with the advent of
home rule, under which D.C. has been guided by African American mayors.  These
historical conditions have created a political and cultural atmosphere within which U
Street?s African American past could not be overlooked. Thus, Mayor Sharon Pratt
Kelly?s comment, in the context of the restoration of the Lincoln Theater, ?At last we
see our history restored and beautified again.?
204
In addition, the story of U Street?s African American past has proven a
marketable one.  Contributors to the revitalization of U Street, from Washington Post
writers to realtors to city officials, realized that U Street?s story?both its
revitalization and its history?could capture the public?s interest.  D.C. residents of
all ethnicities and backgrounds have been attracted to U Street because of its African
American past, whether or not they are intending to live, work, or just visit the area.
In other words, U Street?s past became a marketable commodity to potential
residents, visitors, and entrepreneurs.  Whether or not U Street patrons are jazz
aficionados making a pilgrimage to U Street?s jazz clubs, young working
                                                  
204
 See note 170.
101
professionals looking to live somewhere besides a cookie-cutter suburban
subdevelopment, or African Americans seeking to experience a place they identify
with their history, U Street?s history has become a draw.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, U Street has been constructed in this
particular way because it adheres to the image of D.C. as embodying a national
narrative.  This last point deserves more extensive commentary, and will be explored
in further detail in the Conclusion.
102
Conclusion
This thesis has examined how two Washington, D.C. neighborhoods came to
be known as historic areas.  In the case of both U Street and Georgetown, there was
more to making these places historic than the official recognition of them as such by
the city and federal government.  As I have discussed, to achieve this distinction
involved the work of a variety of forces: popular press coverage, historic
preservation, cultural tourism, and other commemorative activities.  In the case of
both of these neighborhoods, how these areas were defined as historic varied
according to the social, economic, and cultural conditions of the time period.  This is
particularly obvious in the relationship between these historic districts and their
African American populations.  As I have demonstrated, the twentieth century has
seen both the erasure and embrace of African American history as part of
Washington, D.C.?s historic landscape.  Whereas the definition of Georgetown as
historic hinged on the removal of African Americans, this was the opposite case along
U Street, which became historic because it was deemed an important African
American community.
The question remains, then, why?  I argue for the primacy of timing in
explaining the commemoration of Georgetown and U Street in this particular way.  In
the 1930s, when ?Historic Georgetown? was beginning to develop, the category of
race was not a factor of historical analysis or commemoration.  Virtually
categorically, American history was understood in solely white terms.  However, by
the late 1980s, in understanding the history of a place, it was no longer socially,
103
culturally, or politically acceptable to ignore the issue of race or the achievements of
African Americans.  Consequently, historic sites throughout the country began to
incorporate African American history into their interpretative framework: sites as
traditional in their approach and interpretation as Colonial Williamsburg started to
note the presence and history of African Americans.  These interpretations were not
without weaknesses?indeed, some would argue that they were deeply flawed.  On
the whole, though, their presence at all is indicative of change; as Jeffrey C. Stewart
and Fath Davis Ruffins explain, ?By 1980, for the first time in American history, a
positive image of the black past had become a fixture in public expressions of
American culture.?
205
This was particularly the case in Washington, D.C., because (as I explored in
Chapter One), D.C. was?and continues to be?envisioned as representative of the
nation. D.C.?s local history was constructed in accordance with the idea of
Washington as the national city.  The stakeholders who participated in the
reimagining of Georgetown did not consider the presence and achievements of
African Americans to be a serious part of the neighborhood?s, or the nation?s,
historical narrative.  Though ostensibly Georgetown was positioned in opposition to
Washington, its sense of history was drawn from its connections to the history of the
District; it was still seen as very much a part of D.C.  In the 1930s, for a
neighborhood defined as part of the national city, African Americans did not and
could not enter the picture.
However, in the post-Civil Rights era, in the age of the multicultural nation, it
was no longer possible for the ?national? city to ignore its African American residents
                                                  
205
 Stewart and Ruffins, 333.
104
or its African American history.  By the 1980s, African Americans had achieved full
status as citizens; African American contributions to American culture, society, and
history were widely recognized.  As I discussed in Chapter One, Washington, D.C.
has had to contain certain things in order to satisfy the vision of it as the capital city,
as representative of the country.  In the early twentieth century, this meant awe-
inspiring architecture and monuments and memorials to (white) citizens and
accomplishments.  In today?s American society, in addition to these traditional facets
of the capital, this has meant a more inclusive commemorative enterprise.  In other
words, this has meant celebrating the achievements and historical narrative of a range
of particular groups, namely African Americans.  Stewart and Ruffins argue, ?Black
people were once thought to be marginal to the main story of the American past, but
now we know that they are central to it.?
206
  This centrality has been recognized to
such an extant that in today?s world, in an age when Martin Luther King?s birthday is
a national holiday, to ignore the African American past of the national city would be a
grave sin indeed.  Thus, U Street?s history was commemorated with an eye to its
African American past?or, arguably, as singularly African American.
Two new structures?planned but not yet built?to be located on the National
Mall are indicative of this incorporation of African Americans into Washington?s
?commemorative capital,? to use Rudy Koshar?s phrase.  Just as African Americans
are now recognized in D.C.?s local history, so too are they commemorated on the
National Mall.  November 14, 2006 marked the groundbreaking ceremony of the
National Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial, to be located along the edge of the Tidal
Basin, near the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial and facing the Jefferson
                                                  
206
 Stewart and Ruffins, 506.
105
Memorial.  King will be the first African American, as well as the first private citizen
(besides the figurative representation of American soldiers) to be commemorated on
the Mall.
207
  As well, the newest Smithsonian Museum, the National Museum of
African American Culture and History, is to be located on the Mall adjacent to the
Washington Monument and is slated to open in 2016.  The interpretations that these
memory sites will convey remains to be seen; however, the decision to locate them
within such a symbolic space is indicative of change along the National Mall.
In a sense, however, the commemoration of Georgetown and U Street in this
way?in the image of the Washington as the capital city?effectively extends the
metaphorical, symbolic space of the Mall to include the entire city of Washington.
The boundaries of the space defined as the Mall have always been malleable; they
were first pushed outwards to include first the Lincoln Memorial, and then newer
memorials such as the Jefferson and FDR Memorials (and now the King Memorial).
Based on my analysis of the commemoration of Washington?s local history (in the
form of the Georgetown and U Street neighborhoods), I argue that the entire city of
D.C. acts as a memory site.  Thus, we see the achievement of the McMillan
Commission?s vision of the city, as a place where Americans go to remember the past
and honor their country.
The Presence of the Past
What have been the effects of the reimagining of these areas?  To begin, as
Georgetown and U Street came to be known as historic, they became increasingly
                                                  
207
 Petula Dvorak and Robert E. Pierre, ?In King?s Honor, A Dream Achieved,? Washington
Post, 14 November 2006, A01.
106
desirable places to live and work.  This increased desirability led to the displacement
of long-time residents and businesses.  In the case of Georgetown, this segment of the
population was largely African American; in the case of U Street, this process is still
evolving, but evidence seems to point to a similar outcome.  Thus, the reimagining of
these areas had concrete repercussions for real people: a concept that seems quite
academic meant that people could no longer afford to live in a certain area.  The past
played an obvious and concrete role in defining the conditions of the present. In short,
these case studies demonstrate the power of historical narratives to shape the
trajectory of communities and of residents? lives.
What lessons can be learned through this examination of the creation of these
historic areas?  The displacement of Georgetown?s African American population
offers a clear-cut example of the consequences of neighborhood revitalization without
reflection.  In the years since the revitalization of Georgetown, certain measures have
been put into place in hopes of preventing the whole-scale elimination of a
community in the name of progress: for example, laws that require the convening of a
public hearing before a neighborhood can be declared a historic district.
208
  However,
as the example of U Street?s gentrification demonstrates, these provisions do not
always prevent urban revitalization from affecting an area?s long-standing population.
In the case of U Street, while the District of Columbia city government may have
celebrated the history of the area, this was done as a means of encouraging real estate
development and public investment in the area.  The city?s main emphasis has been
on establishing U Street as a safe, crime-free place to live, work, and visit.  This
                                                  
208
 The 1960s ?urban renewal? of the Southwest quadrant of the city, which resulted in the
near-total destruction of the community there, served as an additional spur to more
responsible urban planning and revitalization. See Gillette, Jr., Between Justice and Beauty.
107
bottom line has meant privileging real estate development?which has been a main
deterrent of crime?over the maintenance of U Street?s core community.  While the
city has indicated an investment in preserving the historic structures located on U
Street, that is, in its physical fabric, this commitment to protection has not been
extended to include the actual residents of these buildings.
There is no easy solution to the problem of protecting neighborhoods that
have been established as ?historic? from gentrification.  However, gentrification is
not the inevitable outcome of this process.  To begin, though, city officials must take
the displacement of long-time residents seriously, without shrugging away the
problem as ?just the way things are.?
209
One hundred years ago, few people could have imagined Georgetown as the
home of the rich, the famous, and the politically powerful?and almost entirely white.
Similarly, residents of ?Black Broadway? during the 1920s surely would gasp at the
idea of their neighborhood as the site of million-dollar condominiums.  These
changes illustrate the inherent dynamism of Washington, D.C.?s sense of place.
However, it remains unclear as to whether or not this dynamic nature will eventually
lead to shifts in the current understanding of Georgetown and U Street. Will
Georgetown?s African American past truly be popularly understood and recognized?
Will U Street?s multiethnic past, or its possible status as a vice district, come to light?
Adding new dimensions to the historic narratives that have become embedded in
                                                  
209
 In a 2001 Washington Post article, Milton Bailey, director of the D.C. Department of
Housing and Community Development, affirmed the city?s commitment to affordable
housing in the U Street area but allowed, ?The unfortunate reality is that some residents will
be displaced.? Deane, ?Going Upscale on U Street,? H01.
108
these neighborhoods will take concerted, self-conscious efforts on the part of public
and academic historians, the popular press, and residents of the areas themselves.
This much is certain: as the twenty-first century progresses, other
neighborhoods in Washington will be subject to a similar set of pressures as U Street
and Georgetown.  How the histories of these places will be defined, and whether or
not this process of definition will lead to the displacement of long-time residents,
remains to be seen.  However, the first step toward reversing the precedent
established by Georgetown and U Street is the recognition of the process and
consequences of how these areas were made ?historic.?
Concluding Remarks
In his exploration of the European collective memory of World War I, Jay
Winter remarks, ?Remembrance is part of the landscape,? referring specifically to the
landscape of postwar France.
210
  I would edit Winter?s sentence to make a more
general statement: ?Remembrance is part of landscape.?  Collective memory,
solidified in physical form, is all around us, even if we are far removed from the war
memorials and cemeteries of northern France.  Washington, D.C. offers a remarkable
example of this.  As an urban landscape, it contains layer upon layer of the physical
remnants of the past; as the capital city, these layers are configured in particular ways.
What I see in my walks around the city?not to mention the fact of my decision to
explore or venture into particular parts of the city over others?is informed by the
                                                  
210
 Jay Winter, Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural
History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 1.
109
public interpretation of Washington?s history.  In Washington, D.C., the twentieth
century has seen a proliferation of ?capital constructions,? the creation of historic
areas that are necessarily the products of both greater societal conditions as well as
the understanding of D.C. as representative of the nation. Awareness of the process
through which these constructions were created reveals a greater understanding of
Washington.  The project of this thesis has been to unravel the process of these
constructions, in order to better understand this symbolic city, and the social, cultural,
and political conditions that have made it the way it is today.
110
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Travel Guidebooks
American Automobile Association. Guide to America: A Treasury of Information
About its States, Cities, Parks and Historical Points of Interest. Washington:
Public Affairs Press, 1953.
Ellis, John B. The sights and secrets of the national capital: a work descriptive of
Washington City in all its various phases. Chicago: Jones, Junkin & Co.,
1869.
Federal Writers? Project, Works Progress Administration. Washington, City and
Capital. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1937.
Fleming, Thomas. Around the Capital with Uncle Hank. New York: Nutshell
Publishing Co, 1902.
McCabe, James D. Behind the Scenes in Washington. New York: Continental
Publication Co, 1873.
Pepper, Charles M. Every-day life in Washington. New York: The Christian Herald,
1900.
Stafford, Wendell Phillips. Introduction to The Nation?s Capital, by James Bryce,
1-16. Washington, D.C.: B.S. Adams, 1913.
Newspaper and Popular Magazine Articles
?District Within A District.? The Economist, 28 May 1960: 867.
?Only Eight Prerevolutionary Houses Left Standing in Georgetown Today.?
Washington Post, 14 August 1933, 8.
?Washington?s U Street.? Newspic, April 1946, unpaginated.
Battiata, Mary. ?Landscape: U Street.? Washington Post Magazine, 1 February 1998,
W13.
Beall, William D. ?Georgetown Resident Recalls Noted Homes.? Washington Post, 3
July 1932, M7.
Bermpohl, Charles. ?Georgetown Honors a Rich African-American Legacy.?
Northwest Current, 19 February 2003, 27-29.
111
Brenner, Joel Glenn. ?On U Street, A U-Turn to Renewal.? Washington Post, 6
November 1993, E1.
Burruss, Jessie Nimnom. ?When Georgetown Was On the Wrong Side of the
Tracks.? Washington Post, 23 July 1987, J1.
Clare, Elizabeth S. ?In the Presence of the Past.? Washington Post, 16 February 1990,
N6.
Conroy, Sarah Booth. ?Finding the Soul of a Place: A Black History of Georgetown.?
Washington Post, 23 February 1992, F1.
Cummings, Jon. ?Glory Days Recaptured in Washington, D.C.? Inside Arts: The
Magazine of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, 1 June 1995, 26.
Deane, Daniela. ?Going Upscale on U Street: Wave of High-Priced Housing
Developments Brings Praise, Concern for Once Blighted Neighborhood.?
Washington Post, 24 March 2001, H01.
Dvorak, Petula and Robert E. Pierre. ?In King?s Honor, A Dream Achieved.?
Washington Post, 14 November 2006, A01.
Elder, Charles. ?Video Traces Era When Georgetown was Poor, Black, Neighborly.?
Washington Post 16 February 1989, J1.
Henry, Neil. ?Reviving U Street with the Sounds of Jazz and Soul.? Washington Post,
3 August 1978, D.C.3.
Kinney, William A. ?Washington?s Historic Georgetown.? National Geographic,
April 1953, 513-542.
Knight, Athelia. ??Nice Lady?  Beaten to Death: Murder Shocks Neighbors in NW.?
Washington Post, 12 April 1980, B1.
Metcalft, John. ?Black Guide to Georgetown.? Washington Citypaper, 4 August
2006, 18.
Millen, William A. ?Condemned Slum in Georgetown Alley Goes High Hat As
Homes Redone.? Washington Evening Star, 14 September 1951, B1.
Milloy, Courtland. ?River of Darkness: 14
th
 Street: Once a Mainstream, Recently a
Backwater, Flowing Strong Again, Always a Frontier.? Washington Post
Magazine, 23 November 1980, 14.
Mitchell, Pauline Gaskins. ?Growing Up Black In ?The Village? West of Rock
Creek.? Washington Post, 23 July 1987, J1.
112
Oulahan, Richard V. ?Georgetown Holds Old-Time Prestige.? New York Times, 25
December 1927, E1.
Pianin, Eric. ?New City Building Only Half the Battle.? Washington Post, 16 August
1984, DC1.
Pringle, Henry F., and Katherine. ?Georgetown on the Potomac.? Saturday Evening
Post, 20 March 1948: 33, 172-176.
Proctor, John Clagett. ?Old Georgetown and Early Settlers.? Washington Sunday
Star, 7 December 1930, 12.
Proctor, John Clagett. ?Old Georgetown in History of District.? Washington Sunday
Star, 27 March 1932, 16.
Raspberry, William J, ?Negro Business Looks Bearish.? Washington Post, 17
October 1965, E2.
Roberts, Roxanne. ?The New Jewel of U Street: Lincoln Theatre?s Gala Return.?
Washington Post, 2 May 1994, G1.
Shaffer, Ron. ?Georgetown: Fewer Than 250 Blacks.? Washington Post, 8 January
1972, B1-B7.
Shwartzman, Paul. ?In Shaw, Fighting Eviction, Change; Co-Owner of Cafe Protests
a Loss of Black Culture, Spirit.? Washington Post, 15 December 2005, T03.
Slacum, Marcia. ?Masons Want U Street Named For Founder.? Washington Post, 5
December 1983, D5.
Stephen, Andrew. ?Georgetown?s Hidden History.? Washington Post, 16 July 2006,
B01.
Teeley, Sandra Evans. ?City Center is Gleam in Vision of 14
th
 and U Changes.?
Washington Post, 10 July 1983, C1.
Wheeler, Linda. ?A Whole New U: Businesses Spring Up Along Historic Street in
NW.? Washington Post, 26 December 1995, B01.
---. ?D.C. to Finish Lincoln Theatre Restoration.? Washington Post, 15
August 1991, C1-C4.
---. ?On U St., Blacks Created a Powerful Symbol.? Washington Post, 19 January
1999, A1.
113
Wheeler, Linda. ?Nightmare on U Street: Metro Work Puts Up Barriers to Business.?
Washington Post, 15 April 1987, B1.
---. ?Shaw, Old and New: City?s Last Frontier. Washington Post, 15 June 1980, A1.
---. ?Recovering a Part of D.C. History.? Washington Post, 3 October 1998, G01.
---. ?True Grits: Shaw Merchants Start to Cash In on the Green.? Washington Post, 18
November 1991, B3.
Wilgoren, Debbie. ?Ex-Owners Aghast at NW Building?s Turnaround.? Washington
Post, 12 January 2004, B01.
---. ?U Street Bookstore Eviction Set; Owners Denounce Corridor?s Yuppification,
Vow to Resist.? Washington Post, 27 June 2004, C01.
Williams, Juan. ?14
th
 and U: When Being There Meant Something.? Washington Post
Magazine, 21 February 1988, W23.
Young, Gayle. ?Historic Cottage in Georgetown To Be Museum.? Washington Post,
1 September 1984, E1-E9.
Zibart, Eve. ?Trendy Signs for U Street.? Washington Post, 10 June 1994, N13.
Archival Records
Georgetown Citizens Association. Papers. Peabody Room, Georgetown Branch of the
District of Columbia Public Library.
?News Release.? Office of Business and Economic Development, Government of the
District of Columbia, 13 March 1992. ?Shaw? vertical file, Washingtoniana
Division, District of Columbia Public Library.
Historic Preservation Review Board, District of Columbia Office of Planning. ?21
st
Annual Report to the Council of the District of Columbia.? March 2000.
Historic Preservation Review Board, District of Columbia Office of Planning. ?27
th
Annual Report to the Council of the District of Columbia.? March 2006.
Electronic Sources
Citizens Association of Georgetown. ?About CAG.?
<http://www.cagtown.org/aboutcag.html> (accessed 31 October 2006).
114
Cultural Tourism D.C. ?About Us?Overview.?
<www.culturaltourismDCorg> (accessed 31 October 2006).
NeighborhoodInfo D.C. ?D.C. Census Tract Profile: Tract 4300.?
<http://www.neighborhoodinfoDCorg/> (accessed 7 November 2006).
NeighborhoodInfo D.C. ?D.C. Census Tract Profile: Tract 4400.?
<http://www.neighborhoodinfoDCorg/> (accessed 7 November 2006).
Cultural Tourism D.C. ?Outdoor Sculpture.?
<http://www.culturaltourismDCorg/index.htm> (accessed 24 September
2006).
African American Heritage Trail Database, Cultural Tourism D.C. ?True Reformer
Building.?  <www.culturaltourismDCorg>  (accessed 31 October 2006).
Secondary Sources (Books, Pamphlets, and Scholarly Journal Articles)
Tourism Handbook: Putting Virginia?s History to Work. Richmond, VA:
Department of Historic Resources.
?Twelfth Street Young Men?s Christian Association.? National Historic Landmark
Registration Form, May 1994.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. 2
nd
 ed. London: Verso, 1991.
Barber, Lucy G. Marching on Washington: The Forging of an American Tradition.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
---. ?Marches on Washington and the Creation of National Public Spaces, 1984 to the
Present.? In Berlin-Washington, 1800-2000: Capital Cities, Cultural
Representation, and National Identities, ed. Andreas Daum and Christof
Mauch, 285-304. Washington, D.C.: German Historical Institute, 2005.
Beauchamp, Tanya Edwards. ?Georgetown Historic District.? [brochure].
Washington, D.C.: District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office, 1998.
Benson, Susan Porter, Stephen Brier and Roy Rosenzweig, eds. Presenting the
Past: Essays on History and the Public. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1986.
Blackburn, Luci. ?Lincoln Theatre.? National Register of Historic Places Registration
Form, 27 October 1993.
115
Borchert, James, Alley Life in Washington: Family, Community, Religion, and
Folklife in the City, 1850-1970. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1980.
Brown, Dona. Inventing New England: Regional Tourism in the Nineteenth Century.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996.
Brown, Letitia Woods.  Free Negroes in the District of Columbia, 1790-1846. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Buckley, Christopher. Washington Schlepped Here: Walking in the Nation?s Capital
(New York: Crown Journeys, 2003).
Cherkasky, Mara. ?For Sale to Colored: Racial Change on S St. NW.? Washington
History 8:2 (1996): 40-57.
Chauncey, George. Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the
Gay Male World, 1890-1940. New York: BasicBooks, 1994.
Clark-Lewis, Elizabeth. Living In, Living Out: African American Domestics in
Washington, D.C., 1910-1940. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution
Press, 1994.
Cocks, Catherine. Doing the Town: The Rise of Urban Tourism in the United States,
1850-1915. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.
Cook, Patricia M. ??Like the Phoenix?: The Rebirth of the Whitelaw Hotel.?
Washington History 7:1 (1995): 4-23.
Daum, Andreas. ?Capitals in Modern History: Inventing Urban Spaces for the
Nation.? In Berlin-Washington, 1800-2000: Capital Cities, Cultural
Representation, and National Identities, ed. Andreas Daum and Christof
Mauch, 3-30. Washington, D.C.: German Historical Institute, 2005.
Diner, Hasia R., Jeffrey Shandler, and Beth S. Wenger, ed. Remembering the Lower
East Side: American Jewish Reflections. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press, 2000.
Ecker, Grace Dunlop. A Portrait of Old Georgetown. Richmond, VA: Garrett &
Massie, Incorporated, 1933.
Erhart, Walter. ?Written Capitals and Capital Topography: Berlin and Washington in
Travel Literature.? In Berlin-Washington, 1800-2000: Capital Cities, Cultural
Representation, and National Identities, ed. Andreas Daum and Christof
Mauch, 51-78. Washington, D.C.: German Historical Institute, 2005.
Fitzpatrick, Michael Andrew. ?A Great Agitation for Business: Black Economic
Development in Shaw.? Washington History 2:2 (1990): 48-73.
116
Frank, Stephanie. ??If We Own the Story, We Own the Place?: Cultural Heritage,
Historic Preservation, and Gentrification on U Street,? MA thesis, University
of Maryland, 2005.
Gale, Dennis E. Restoration in Georgetown, Washington, D.C., 1915-1965. PhD
diss., George Washington University, 1982.
---. The Impact of Historic District Designation in Washington, D.C. Washington,
D.C.: The Center for Washington Area Studies, 1989.
Gillette, Howard, Jr. Between Justice and Beauty: Race, Planning, and the Failure of
Urban Policy in Washington, D.C. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1995.
---. ?Washington, D.C. in White and Black: The Social Construction
of Race and Nationhood.? In Composing Urban History and the Constitution
of Civic Identities, ed. John J. Czaplicka and Blair A. Ruble, 192-212.
Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2003.
Gotham, Kevin Fox. ?Urban Space, Restrictive Covenants and the Origins of Racial
Residential Segregation in a US city, 1900-50.? International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 24:3 (September 2000), 616-633.
Green, Constance McLaughlin. The Secret City: A History of Race Relations in the
Nation?s Capital. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967.
Greenfield, Briann. ?Old New England in the Twentieth-Century Imagination: Public
Memory in Salem, Deerfield, Providence, and the Smithsonian Institution.?
PhD diss., Brown University, 2002.
Halbwachs, Maurice. The Collective Memory, trans. Francis J. Ditter, Jr., and Vida
Yazdi Ditter, Introduction by Mary Douglas. New York: Harper & Row,
1980.
Harley, Sharon. ??Working for Nothing but for a Living?: Black Women in the
Underground Economy.? In Sister Circle: Black Women and Work, edited by
Sharon Harley and The Black Women and Work Collective, 48-66. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002.
Hayashi, Robert T. ?Transfigured Patterns: Contesting Memories at the Manzanar
National Historic Site.? The Public Historian 25:4 (Fall 2003): 51-71.
Jones, William H. The Housing of Negroes in Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.:
Howard University Press, 1929.
Koshar, Rudy. Germany?s Transient Pasts: Preservation and National Memory in the
Twentieth Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
117
Kropp, Phoebe. ?In Search of History and Romance On El Camino Real.? In The
Culture of Tourism, the Tourism of Culture, ed. Hal K. Rothman, 38-65.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2003.
Lee, Antoinette J. ?Cultural Diversity and Historic Preservation.? CRM [Bulletin of
the National Park Service, Cultural Diversity] 15:7 (1992): 1-2.
Lesko, Kathryn, general editor and contributing author, and Valerie Babb and Carroll
R. Gibbs, contributing authors. Black Georgetown Remembered: A History of
Its Black Community from the founding of ?The Town of George? in 1751 to
the Present Day. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1991.
Linenthal, Edward. Sacred Ground: Americans and Their Battlefields. 2
nd
 ed.
Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1993.
Luria, Sarah. Capital Speculations: Writing and Building Washington, D.C. Hanover,
NH: University Press of New England, 2006.
Mauch, Christof. ?Capital Gardens: The Mall and the Tiergarten in Comparative
Perspective.? In Berlin-Washington, 1800-2000: Capital Cities, Cultural
Representation, and National Identities, ed. Andreas Daum and Christof
Mauch, 201-216. Washington, D.C.: German Historical Institute, 2005.
Mitchell, Mary. A Walk in Georgetown. Barre, MA: Barre Publishers,
1966.
Morales-Valesquez, Rubil. ?Imagining Washington: Monuments and Nation Building
in the Early Capital.? Washington History 12 (Spring/Summer 2000): 13-29.
Mumford, Kevin J. Interzones: Black/White Sex Districts in Chicago and New York
in the Early Twentieth Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
Nora, Pierre. ?Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire.?
Representations 26 (Spring 1989): 7-24.
Pacifico, Michele. ?Don?t Buy Where You Can?t Work: The New Negro Alliance of
Washington.? Washington History 6:1 (1994): 66-88.
Reps, John W. Monumental Washington: The Planning and Development of the
Capital. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967.
Rothman, Hal K. Devil?s Bargains: Tourism in the Twentieth-Century American
West. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998.
118
Rothman, Hal. K. ?Introduction: Tourism and the Future.? In The Culture of Tourism,
the Tourism of Culture, ed. Hal K. Rothman, 1-12. Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press, 2003.
---., ed. The Culture of Tourism, the Tourism of Culture: Selling the Past to the
Present in the American Southwest. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press, 2003.
Ruffins, Fath Davis. ?Mythos, Memory, and History.? In Museums and Communities:
The Politics of Public Culture, ed. Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and
Steven D. Lavine, 506-611. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press,
1992.
Sandage, Scott. ?A Marble House Divided: The Lincoln Memorial, the Civil Rights
Movement, and the Politics of Memory.? Journal of American History, 80:1
(June 1993): 139-141.
Schaffer, Dana Lanier. ?The 1968 Riots in History and Memory.? Washington
History 15:2 (2003): 4-33.
Schrag, Zachary. The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006, 155.
Skvarla, Diane K. ?Nineteenth Century Visitors.? Washington History 1:1 (Spring
1989): 7-23.
Smith, Kathryn Schneider. Capital Assets: A Report on the Tourist Potential of
Neighborhood Heritage and Cultural Sites in Washington, D.C. Washington,
D.C.: D.C. Heritage Tourism Coalition, 1999.
---. ?Georgetown.? In Washington at Home: An Illustrated History of Neighborhoods
in the Nation?s Capital, ed. Kathryn Schneider Smith, 19-30. Northridge, CA:
Windsor Publications, 1988.
---. From Port Town to Urban Neighborhood: The Georgetown Waterfront of
Washington, D.C., 1880-1920. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company, 1989.
---. ?Remembering U Street.? Washington History 9:2 (1997): 28-53.
Smith, Kathryn Schneider and Marya McQuirter. A Guide to the Historical Resources
of Shaw. Washington, D.C.: The Thurgood Marshall Center for Service and
Heritage, 1996.
Stanonis, Anthony. Creating the Big Easy: New Orleans and the Emergence of
Modern Tourism. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2006.
119
Stewart, Jeffrey C. and Fath Davis Ruffins. ?A Faithful Witness: Afro-American
Public History in Historical Perspective, 1828-1984.? In Presenting the Past:
Essays on History and the Public, ed. Susan Porter Benson, Stephen Brier,
and Roy Rosenzweig, 307-336. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986.
Sturken, Marita. Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic, and the
Politics of Remembering. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Trieschmann, Laura V., Anne Sellin, and Stephen Callcott. Greater U Street Historic
District National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. 31 December
1998.
Ward, Janet. ?Monuments of Catastrophe: Holocaust Architecture in Washington and
Berlin.? In Berlin-Washington, 1800-2000: Capital Cities, Cultural
Representation, and National Identities, ed. Andreas Daum and Christof
Mauch, 155-200. Washington, D.C.: German Historical Institute, 2005.
Weller, Charles. Neglected Neighbors: Stories of Life in the Alleys, Tenements, and
Shanties of the National Capital. Philadelphia: The John C. Winston
Company, 1909.
Weyeneth, Robert. ?The Architecture of Racial Segregation: The Challenges of
Preserving the Problematical Past.? The Public Historian 27:4 (Fall 2005): 11-
44.
Williams, Edward Christopher. When Washington Was in Vogue: A Love Story.
Previously published anonymously as The Letters of Davy Carr in The
Messenger, January 1925-June 1926. Edited by Adam McKible. New York:
HarperCollins, 2003.
Williams, Kimberly Prothro. Greater U Street Historic District. Washington, D.C.:
Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Planning, District of Columbia
City Government, 2003.
Williams, Paul K. and Kathryn S. Smith, City Within a City: Greater U Street
Heritage Trail. 3
rd
 edition. Washington, D.C.: The Historical Society of
Washington, D.C. and Cultural Tourism D.C., 2005.
Winter, Jay. Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European
Cultural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Yuhl, Stephanie. A Golden Haze of Memory: The Making of Historic Charleston.
             Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005.
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page Intentionally Left Blank