pettiness

Washington, D.C. is a lumbering and inelegant name, and there isn't much to be said for it, as a name, in comparison to London, Paris, Tokyo, Moscow, Beijing - or even Brasilia, Canberra and Mexico City.  New York City is awkward but has a certain power because of its emphatic spondee-trochee and the flat-out literalness of New and City.

It is easy to say what's wrong with the name Washington, D.C.  First, that it is too long and pointlessly compound.  Why not just Washington or District of Columbia?  Second, that the only distinctive short form is a rough acronym: DC.

Excuses can be made.  First, that there used to be more in the District of Columbia than Washington, which was originally one of two counties in the district, Alexandria being the other, before the Virginia side of the original district was given back.  (That is why the District of Columbia looks like a diamond with a large chunk broken off.  A large chunk was broken off, as unneeded and inconvenient to both federal government and residents.)  Had there not originally been a second and already-populated portion of the district, the name would probably never have become compound.  Second, that we now have Washington State.  Distinguishing the two - and, for that matter, the many other things named Washington - makes mere references to "Washington" unsatisfactory.  Washington State should not been permitted to name itself that - or name itself Columbia, for that matter, after its Columbia River.  (Cascadia or Olympia or something else would have been fine.)  Third, that the idea of an autonomous federal district was innovative and the naming of new things is often cumbersome and technical.

Certainly Columbia would have been a prettier name for our capital, although the derivation from Christopher Columbus would have undermined the attraction.  Even Federal City or Union City would have been ok.