the place he designed is a relatively tiny little area and all the streets are pretty.... french, maybe. clearly not designed for efficiency. Anyway, those points have been there all along
Well, thanks for saving me the time.
Anyway, I don't really agree. It makes sense to give extra thought to areas of extra importance. Like say, the White House.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that it was intentional. It was a government endeavour, after all, and how often do you see governments doing something that makes sense, just for a start
Anyway - To me, it just looks like regular old modernish city design - Lay it out on a grid, and then provide major throughfares that cross large parts of the city as best you can according to the lay of the land. On top of that, looking at the more detailed maps on google earth, it seems that a LOT of roads lead directly to the white house area or grounds, or very close to, as one of the focal points of the city. Same with the capitol building. Also, from the maps you've provided, the area below the white house seems to not be an area intended for residential or business, it seems to be a lot of green-belt land, thus making sense that the area upward of the white house would be more of a focal point for through fares, and one of the first things there once you get off the park area is the white house - and certainly, the only one that makes sense to have a focal point near.
Occam's razor - More likely it was simply smart design of throughfares and streets(a useful, practical, and sensible purpose), rather than any particular picture intending to be drawn(an impractical purpose, and there is not many shapes you can make while not deviating enough from the design to make a difference to the way it works.).