This article examines an urban centre in the heart of the First World through a critical development lens. It contends that traits of the Third World entail certain characteristics which remain consequential as axes of analysis for a variety of economic, political and geographic settings, including new applications in contexts that are typically excluded from the focus of international development practice and scholarship. The article discusses characteristics of 'third worldality' in relation to Washington DC. It posits that, despite being emblematic as a power centre, the city exhibits many of the characteristics of a Third World city. Highlighting disenfranchisement, socioeconomic inequality, and environmental health issues, the article reveals a paradox: underdevelopment in the heart of the 'developed' world. The article calls for greater recognition of the paradoxes of development theory and practice so as to confront persistent problems of orientalism and lack of selfreflexivity in the field of international development.Every autumn I teach a course for undergraduates called 'Third World Cities'. My students generally take the course just before or immediately after studying abroad in far-away places. They come into the course seeking to make sense of the troubling problems of under-development which they witnessed from an urban development perspective. The course offers students a chance to investigate problems of urban development around the world, but we use Washington DC as an empirical case to explore the topic. This proves jarring on a number of levels: the investigations do not conform to expectations of what constitute problems of the Third World and, moreover, it forces critical inquiry into places which are traditionally avoided by international development practitioners. This article aims to provoke development students, scholars and practitioners alike to critically examine the geographies of development, following calls for greater self-reflexivity from within the development field. In what ways might the field of development reconsider its focus, so that it might avoid falling into the pitfalls of 'othering' and misperceived problems of (and solutions to) poverty Eve Bratman is in the