The Washington Monument in the Capital of US - Research Paper Example

Washington Monument (Washington DC) The development of important construction projects is related to a series of issues. The potential of the projects’ designers to develop plans that are feasible and effective is depended not only on the designers’ competencies but also on the social and economic conditions of the particular era. The Washington Monument was constructed in a period rather difficult for the US: it was the period before and during the Civil War. Despite the adverse social and economic environment the monument has become a key element of US history highlighting the principles and values on which US has been based. The analysis of the monument’s terms of constructions reveals that the developers of this project had many challenges to face: still, within low-cost material and equipment they’ve managed to create a monument which is still unique worldwide. Washington Monument (Washington DC) The use of monuments for highlighting the importance of an event or for showing respect and honor to an individual is a common phenomenon in societies worldwide. In this paper a monument which is closely related to the history of US is presented: the Washington Monument, in the capital of US. It was 1848 that the construction works for the development of this monument started; however, the monument was completed quite later, in 1884 (Craven, par.1). LOCATION The monument reflects the commitment and the loyalty to the country, principles that have been highly promoted by George Washington, the ‘first President of US’ (Nobleman, 5). In fact, the Washington Monument has been constructed as ‘an honor to G. Washington’ (Nobleman, 5). For this reason, Washington has been chosen as the most appropriate place for this monument: for the capital of US the surname of G. Washington has been used. In this city also, a monument should be constructed in his memory (Nobleman, 5); no other area would be appropriate for such monument. MATERIALS In terms of the monument’s materials, emphasis has been given on ‘marble, granite and sandstone’ (Washington DC, par.1). This choice has been rather based on these materials’ ability to keep their consistence even under extremely adverse climate conditions. Having such quality, these materials would be appropriate to highlight Washington’s ‘strength as a leader’ (Nelson, 11). Also, such materials could secure the resistance of the monument in time. Materials which are critical in modern construction projects, such as metals and aluminum, were still produced at quite low volume in US (Cody 7) and their cost was quite high, a fact that has discouraged the engineers involved in the construction of Washington Monument from using such materials. SOCIAL/ CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT In the period in which the construction of the monument began the performance of America’s economy was rather low; despite this climate citizens in Washington decided to start a campaign for gathering the funds required for such monument (Washington DC, par.3). The willingness of people to support this effort was notable; by 1835 an important amount, about $28,000 was gathered; Robert Mills won in the competition organized for the specific project (Washington DC, par.3). The co-existence of many racial and ethnic groups in the US territory has been another phenomenon that characterized US in the 19th century (Barney 253). Moreover, in the period of the monument’s construction, i.e. in the mid 19th century, people in US were still trying to settle themselves in their country. The Civil War that took place from 1861-1865 (Hamby 70) was a critical period for US, as a state; that period was followed by strong social conflicts and by limitation of the state’s potential to support its citizens (Barney 253). It should be noted that the construction of the Washington Monument has been an initiative organized and monitored by the ‘Washington National Monument Society’ (Murray, 7), an organization the members of which have been dedicated to the establishment of a monument that would honor G. Washington (Murray, 7). Also, the construction of the Washington Monument, as an idea, initially appeared in 1783; it was then that the Congress of US promoted an order, in the form of the resolution, for the construction of a monument for honoring G. Washington (Binkzewski, par.2). However, in the years that followed no activity developed for the realization of this idea. It was just at 1848 that the construction of the monument finally started (Craven, par.1). The above fact indicates the oppositions and conflicts that characterized the society of US at that period, i.e. the late 18th and the early 19th centuries, even in regard to an individual who has been related to the establishment of US as an independent state. In other words, the Washington Monument is an indicator not only of the economic and technological status of US in the early 19th century but also of the characteristics of the American society in the above period. Due to its high relevance to US’s history, the Washington Monument is quite important for understanding the political, social and economic development of this country. In particular, the above monument is an indication of US’s social and economic environment in the period that followed the country’s independency, i.e. the early 19th century. The study of the terms of construction of this building could help to understand America’s culture and ethics and to decide whether the monument has actually managed to respond to the demands of its role. In any case, the importance and the beautifulness of the monument as an art creation, not just a construction project, cannot be doubted (Figure 1). The monument’s height is estimated to 169.24m, a height that had made this monument the highest of its era (Washington DC, par.1) Figure 1 – The Washington Monument (Soniak, par.1) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS In order to evaluate the Washington monument, as a construction project, it would be necessary to refer to its construction details. These details have been identified through studies published in the literature but also through reports and articles published online, as these sources offer critical information on the various aspects of the particular monument. Images and graphs have been also employed, as available, for explaining clearly the technical characteristics of the monument and its changes through the decades. Also, the visual resources help to understand the progress of the monument, from its design phase up to its completion. Another important advantage of images, as sources of research, is the following: images/ photos show the position/ contrast of the monument, as part of a specific place. In this way, it is easier to assess whether the place chosen for this monument has been appropriate or not. In case of a negative answer, the effectiveness of the monument to achieve the target set by its constructors is significantly reduced. MATERIALS As already noted, the Washington Monument has constructed using, mostly, three materials: the monuments internal has been based on ‘sandstone and granite’ (Washington DC, par.1) while for the exterior marble has been preferred, as a firm and aesthetic construction material (Washington DC, par.1). Moreover, steel has been used but at quite limited levels, a fact that has been related to the high price of this construction material, as also of steel, in the mid 19th century (Soniak, par.2). In fact, steel has been used just for supporting the other construction materials, so that the stability of the monument is secured (Soniak, par.2). Due to its design, the monument had to end to a capstone which would have the form of a pyramid. The material used for this part of the monument has to be carefully chosen, if taking into consideration the monument’s height. After reviewing the options available, such as ‘copper and platinum-based plated brass’ (Soniak, par.4) the engineers involved in the project decided to prefer aluminum, due to its low price, at least compared to the materials mentioned previously (Soniak, par.4). The placing of this aluminum pyramid on the top of the monument had been a challenging part of the construction project (Figure 2). Figure 2 – Engineers try to set in place the last parts of the monument (Soniak, par.5) Actually, it was just in the monument’s cap that aluminum was used, since this material was rather costly, compared to other materials, especially because its production was quite limited, and rare, at that period of time. Due to this reason, the engineer who was responsible for the completion of the last phase of the construction project, L. Casey, communicated with the ‘only aluminum producer of that time, W. Frishmuth’ (Binczewski, par.7, Figure 3) and ordered the cap. Figure 3 – The letter of Casey to Frishmuth (Binczewski, par.8) In 2011, August, a strong earthquake hit areas near Washington. Many buildings in the capital suffered damages. In the Washington Monument damages have not been avoided: cracks appeared ‘near the top of the monument’ (Ribas, par.4). Engineers were asked to check the monument, as of its stability, while visitors were prohibited to reach the monument, a prohibition that lasted for a long period of time (Ribas, par.4). The fact that had impressed engineers had been the following: how a structure based only on ‘stone and mortar’ (Ribas, par.9), with the exception of an internal ‘iron staircase’ (Ribas, par.9) could have achieved such high level of stability? The particular region, which the monument has been constructed, has experienced several and strong earthquakes but the monument has escaped critical damages, or, worst, the fall (Ribas, par.9). Figure 4 – Types of marbles used in the exterior of Washington Monument (USGS, pars.5-7) The review of the monument in 2011, as developed by structural engineers, has verified the monument’s strength, as a structure, but it has also set concerns for the monument’s potentials to remain firm and stable in the future. In regard to this issue, one of the engineers who participated in the monument’s technical review noted that the cracks appeared in the monument after the particular earthquake reveal the ‘vulnerability of non-reinforced masonry’ (Ribas, par.13), a construction method that has been used in the particular monument. It should be noted that cost has been a critical factor when choosing the materials for the monument. For example, marble from Texas has been initially chosen for the monument’s exterior; however, by 1854, when the first period of the construction was finished, there were no funds left for the continuation of the project (USGS, par.6). After extensive efforts, funds were retrieved and the monument’s construction could be continued; it was 1876 (USGS, par.6). At this point of the project, a different marble was preferred due to its lower cost; the Sheffield marble (USGS, par.6). The monument was completed using Cockeysville marble which was even cheaper (USGS, par.6, Figure 4). METHOD The development of the Washington Monument started by a competition made in 1836 for the identification of the monument’s design; after rejecting certain design ideas due to the cost involved, the design of architect’s R. Mills was chosen (Wiss and Mar, 4). According to its initial design, the monument had to be 600 – foot, in terms of height (Wiss and Mar, 4). As set in Mill’s design, the monument would have the form of an obelisk, with a structure like a pyramid at its end (Wiss and Mar, 4). The structure of the monument has been designed appropriately, so that its stability is secured (Figure 5). Figure 5 – Structure of the monument, as of its interior (Wiss and Mar, 8) The end of the obelisk has the form of a pyramidion, a structure which is supported by 12 elements, made of marble (Wiss and Mar, 7); these elements are called ribs and have been used for supporting the pyramidion, the height of which reaches the 55 feet (Wiss and Mar, 7). The pyramidion of the monument, as supported by the ribs, is presented in the graph in Figure 6. Figure 6 – The pyramidion of the Washington Monument (Wiss and Mar, 8) Due to its design, the Washington Monument has been related to an important challenge: emphasis should be given to the monument’s stability, especially since the use of metal elements in the structure has been quite limited, due to cost issues as explained above. The above problem, i.e. stability, could be resolved by using quite thick walls: instead the walls of the monument begin from 15 feet, at lower levels where extensive support needs to exist, up to the 18 inches for the higher parts of the monument (Craven, par.1). When completed the monument reached the 555 feet, a unique achievement for a structure of such type, i.e. for a structure based on stone-masonry (Craven, par.1). Reference should be also made to the following fact: due to its size the needs of the monument in regard to material were extensive. However, because the funds required for securing the necessary material were difficult to be identified a method of voluntary offer was introduced: people and organizations across US were asked to offer materials, such as stones and marble, depending on the availability of these materials in their regions (Washington DC, par.8). The response of people was impressive leading to the significant limitation of the project’s final cost (Washington DC, par.8). The construction of the monument has lasted a long, nearly four decades, as internal social and political conflicts in the USA, meaning especially the Civil War, have obliged the constructors to stop their work periodically (Washington DC, par.1). The location of the funds required for the project’s completion has been proved a quite difficult task (Washington DC, par.1). Because of the above problems, the construction of the above monument has taken place in two, key, periods: ‘1848-1856 and 1876-1884’ (Washington DC, par.1). A photo form the first period of the monument’s development appears in Figure 7. In other words, the construction of the monument was gradual, according to the funds available and the social/ political conditions of that period. Figure 7 – A photo from the first period of the monument’s construction (Washington DC, par.2) EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS At the time when the Washington Monument was built the technology available for supporting major construction projects, like the development of such monument, was quite limited. The difference in the technological support of the specific construction project is made clear if comparing the photo in Figure 7, where the construction site of the Washington Monument is presented, with the photo in Figure 8, which shows the construction site of the Spire of Dublin. Moreover, the tools/ equipment used in the Washington Monument have been of quite simple form and functionality, as also made clear through the sketch in Figure 2 that shows the workers and engineers who work in the construction site of the monument. Still, the effectiveness of the relevant equipment/ tools to support the needs of the particular project, as set in its design, cannot be doubted. LABOR FORCE In US the participation of foreign workers in the development of construction projects has been always significant. In fact, it has been proved that foreigners constitute the high percentage of the country’s labor force in the particular sector (Applebaum, 150). In the mid 19th century a similar trend would exist. In that period of time, the construction sector of US would be mostly supported by minorities, especially Mexicans, but also by black people who have just gained their freedom and who they were trying to secure their income. IF THE MONUMENT WAS BUILT TODAY If the monument would be built today, two aspects of the monument would be reviewed: a) its design and b) its materials. As of the first aspect, emphasis would be given to the following fact: the specific monument had to promote specific principles, such as freedom, integrity and strength of character, as these principles characterized G. Washington. The design of the monument should be aligned with this need. In general, the current form/ design of the monument cannot be characterized as non-effective, based on its role. Indeed, as already noted the design of the specific monument has been based on the rules of ‘Ancient Egyptian architecture’ (Craven, par.1), as reflected to pyramids. In the Ancient Egypt pyramids were used for honoring kings, the Pharaohs. In the case of Washington monument a similar scope existed: people wanted to honor their leader, G. Washington, who had helped them to secure their independency. In other words, the form of the Washington monument showed the desire of US people not just to establish a memorial, an initiative that can be taken for any individual, but to establish a memorial appropriate for a leader that had been a unique leader: this person had to be honored at the same level as a king, an effort reflected to the monument’s design. It is implied that if it was built today, the particular monument could have a similar form, i.e. the form of an obelisk, as influenced from the shape of a pyramid; b) On the other hand, due to the developments of technology the materials of the monument would be highly differentiated, if the monument was built today. In the modern structures, emphasis is given to the use of materials that are quite firm but which are not quite heavy. For example, stainless steel offers the advantage of long duration and resistance to extreme weather conditions. The steel of this type is highly used today in the construction industry and has effectively replaced materials that were common in the past, meaning especially sandstone and marble. An example of such structure is the Spire of Dublin. The Spire has been developed not for honoring an individual, as the Washington Monument, but just for increasing the attractiveness of a place. The Spire (Figure 8) has a form similar to that of the Washington Monument but it is shorter, reaching the 120m (New Steel Construction, par.1) instead of the 169.29m of the Washington Monument (Washington DC, par.2). In addition, the Washington Monument is thicker, as each side of its base reaches the 55 feet and is decreased at 34 feet in regard to higher levels of the monument (Craven, par.1). The Spire of Dublin has a diameter of 10 feet near the base, being decreased to just six inches at higher levels of the Spire (New Steel Construction, par.1). However, the construction of the Spire has been based on stainless steel, a quite light material compared to stone (New Steel Construction, par.1). In addition, the construction of the Spire has been completed with the aid of advanced equipment, such as that presented in Figure 8). It is made clear that the development of the Spire was quite easier than that of the Washington monument. The latter, even it is not based on advanced materials or technology has still the advantage of size but also of resistance and durability, as proved by its survival up today. Figure 8 – The construction site for the Spire of Dublin (New Steel Construction, par.11) According to the above, if it was built today, the Washington Monument could be based on different materials, a fact that could affect its design, even partially; for example, the construction of the Washington Monument today would not be based on ‘non reinforced masonry’ (Ribas, par.13) as this kind of masonry is no longer used in large construction projects due to its implications in regard to structures’ stability. In addition, if the construction of the Washington Monument would take place today the duration of the process would be significantly shorter due to the availability of advanced technology and due to the increased potential of the country’s government to secure the relevant funds. Works Cited Applebaum, Herbert. Construction Workers, U.S.A. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. Barney, William. A Companion to 19th-Century America. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Binczewski, George. “The Point of a Monument: A History of the Aluminum Cap of the Washington Monument.” JOM 47.11(1995): 20-25. Print. Craven, Jackie. “Wonders of Washington DC.” About Architecture, 2013. Web. 12 November 2014 . Hamby, Alonzo. Outline of U.S. History. New York: Nova Publishers, 2006. Murray, Julie. Washington Monument. Minnesota: ABDO, 2010. Print. Nelson, Kristin. The Washington Monument. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications, 2003. Print. New Steel Construction. “Making the Dublin Spire.” New Steel Construction, 2003. Web. 12 November 2014 < http://www.newsteelconstruction.com/wp/making-the-dublin-spire/>. Nobleman, Marc. The Washington Monument. Minneapolis: Capstone, 2003. Print. Ribas, Jorge. “Why Didnt Quake Knock Down Washington Monument?” Discovery, 2011. Web. 12 November 2014. . Soniak, Matt. “Whats the Point? The Pyramid Atop the Washington Monument.” Mental Floss, 2012. Web. 12 November 2014 . USGS. “Washington’s Geologic Settings.” USGS, 2004. Web. 12 November 2014. . Washington, DC. “Washington Monument History.” Washington, DC., 2010. Web. 12 November 2014 < http://www.washingtondc-go.com/attractions/washington-monument-history.html>. Wiss, Janney and Mar Tipping. “WASHINGTON MONUMENT Post - Earthquake Assessment.” National Park Service, 2011: 1-33. Print. Bibliography Ashabranner, Brent. The Washington Monument: A Beacon for America. Brookfield: Twenty-First Century Books, 2002. Print. Brown, Glenn. Glenn Browns History of the United States Capitol. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2008. Cody, Jeffrey. Exporting American Architecture 1870-2000. London: Routledge, 2005. Fife, Brian and Geralyn Miller. Political Culture and Voting Systems in the United States: An Examination of the 2000 Presidential Election. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002. Hakin, Joy. A History of US: All the People: Since 1945 A History of US Book Ten. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Savage, Kirk. Monument Wars: Washington, D.C., the National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape. California: University of California Press, 2009. Schaefer, Richard. Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. London: SAGE Publications, 2008. Volo, James and Dorothy Volo. Family Life in 19th-century America. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007. Read More