Would they ever move a state/provincial capital?

[ThePhun1]

Seems pointless these days with modern technology and to uproot government workers but who knows, just throwing it out there.

[craigs]

Apparently, half the US states have moved their capitals at least once, but it hasn't happened since 1910, when Oklahoma City became its state capital.

[Steely Dan]

This happened A LOT back in the olden days, but nowadays these things seem pretty set.

Interesting question: when was the last time a US state moved it's capital?

EDIT: craigs apparently got the answer. So it's been over a century, I doubt we'll see it again.

[ThePhun1]

Exactly. And a few more places (Pensacola, for example), would be much more prominent if they had been chosen or remain. So much status comes from it.

[JManc]

Given sprawling modern state bureaucracies, I'd think it would be so cost prohibitive outside some unforeseen natural calamity.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Hasnt Alaska been trying for years to move the capitol from Juneau to Anchorage?

Juneau is a gorgeous city, but difficult to reach...

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Hasnt Alaska been trying for years to move the capitol from Juneau to Anchorage?

Juneau is a gorgeous city, but difficult to reach...

Well I have to agree with that

Juneau can't even be reached by road or rail for ever

It hasn't been the largest city for about a century.


Juneau sounds cool but is it no way where a capital should be

Anchorage is really the only real minor city in the entire gigantic state that is Alaska.

[vid]

Some of the states and provinces with multiple cities have decentralized the government to spread jobs around (all of Ontario's birth, death and wedding certificates are processed in my city, for example) so they've kind of done that, but the process of actually relocating the legislature itself to another city, short of a catastrophe that destroys the existing one, is an expense that is nearly impossible to justify today.

But on that note, Canada's parliament is currently sitting in a different location than its parliament buildings while that undergoes a total restoration. The house of commons is sitting in the renovated (and covered) courtyard of a neighbouring building while the senate is sitting several blocks away in a renovated train station. I actually think the new buildings are much nicer than the old one was but it's not permanent, only for a decade or so while the existing building is essentially rebuilt from the inside out.

Juneau is Alaska's capital because the US needed justification for that region being part of the US. The UK claimed it for BC at the time. In the end it was the privy council in the UK itself that gave the US everything they'd asked for.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by craigs

Apparently, half the US states have moved their capitals at least once, but it hasn't happened since 1910, when Oklahoma City became its state capital.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

This happened A LOT back in the olden days, but nowadays these things seem pretty set.

Interesting question: when was the last time a US state moved it's capital?

EDIT: craigs apparently got the answer. So it's been over a century, I doubt we'll see it again.

Which states are at least considering it? It's a possibility in FL (which is more than we can say for the typical state/province, where it's simply not happening.)

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2019/08/0...state-capital/

I'd assume, at least AK too?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

... but the process of actually relocating the legislature itself to another city, short of a catastrophe that destroys the existing one, is an expense that is nearly impossible to justify today.

Depends. In some cases, if the capital was chosen at a time where population distribution didn't look anywhere like it does today, maybe it's financially advantageous to move it.

For example, if Ontario's capital was Thunder Bay, it might make sense to pay (as a one off expense) whatever it takes to move it to the GTA once and for all, and then there'd be a bunch of recurrent operational savings (and probably economic gains due to efficiency) from the fact the capital is where the people are.

If it pays for itself in 10 years or less, it's a good move.

[ThePhun1]

Canada's capitals are pretty much universally in the province's largest or second largest city.

[iheartthed]

I doubt any will move within my lifetime unless there is some type of disaster, but I think it would make sense for a couple to be moved to the big city. I think New York's capital should be in the city, and Illinois's capital probably should be in Chicago. Those two states are so overwhelmingly tilted to the largest city that it seems extremely inefficient to have the capital located in another place.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I doubt any will move within my lifetime unless there is some type of disaster, but I think it would make sense for a couple to be moved to the big city. I think New York's capital should be in the city, and Illinois's capital probably should be in Chicago. Those two states are so overwhelmingly tilted to the largest city that it seems extremely inefficient to have the capital located in another place.

New York's capital doesn't need to be in NYC. NYC already has a lot of their own agencies separate from rest of the state; for example I was born upstate so my birth certificate was issued by NYS but was married in NYC so my marriage certificate was issued by NYC (on behalf of NYS). The governor and various other agencies have offices in NYC. Plus NYC dominates the NYS government as it is.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think New York's capital should be in the city, and Illinois's capital probably should be in Chicago. Those two states are so overwhelmingly tilted to the largest city that it seems extremely inefficient to have the capital located in another place.

inefficient or not, the state of illinois just dumped $50M into renovating and modernizing this edifice last decade.


Illinois State Capitol by Larry Senalik, on Flickr



safe to say, illinois' capital won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

New York's capital doesn't need to be in NYC. NYC already has a lot of their own agencies separate from rest of the state; for example I was born upstate so my birth certificate was issued by NYS but was married in NYC so my marriage certificate was issued by NYC (on behalf of NYS). The governor and various other agencies have offices in NYC. Plus NYC dominates the NYS government as it is.

They have found ways to placate everyone, but it's still inefficient. NYC should be the seat of the state government.

[ThePhun1]

Albany makes perfect sense as it's close enough to NYC but also reasonably close to the rest of the state, including Upstate/Western New York. NYC might as well be in New Jersey geographically from much of the state.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They have found ways to placate everyone, but it's still inefficient. NYC should be the seat of the state government.

New York is not like Illinois where most of the population is overwhelming in Chicagoland; there's two other metros with over a million and three over 500k in upstate.

Plus, it's only two and a half hours to Albany from Penn Station. Less than Chicago to Springfield.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

New York is not like Illinois where most of the population is overwhelming in Chicagoland; there's two other metros with over a million and three over 500k in upstate.

Plus, it's only two and a half hours to Albany from Penn Station. Less than Chicago to Springfield.

I think they're both about the same ratio. Albany is closer to NYC than Springfield is to Chicago, but that's tangential to my point. Almost 60% of New York State's population lives south of the Bronx/Westchester County line. Another 10% of the state's population lives between the Westchester County line and the outermost reaches of New York City Metro. The population center of population in New York State is nowhere near Albany. It is somewhere in the either northern five boroughs or Westchester County.

It made sense to put the capital in Albany when it looked like New York State might eventually look more like California, with two or three major population centers. What eventually happened is that NYC became the major population center and left the other parts of the state behind.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think they're both about the same ratio. Albany is closer to NYC than Springfield is to Chicago, but that's tangential to my point. Almost 60% of New York State's population lives south of the Westchester County line. Another 10% of the state's population lives between the Westchester County line and the outermost reaches of New York City Metro. The population center of population in New York State is nowhere near Albany. It is somewhere in the either northern five boroughs or Westchester County.

It made sense to put the capital in Albany when it looked like New York State might eventually look more like California, with two or three major population centers. What eventually happened is that NYC became the major population center and left the other parts of the state behind.

True. Upstate has been emptying out albeit as not as fast as it was while NYC is at its largest in history. Still, Albany is a pretty accessible from all areas of the state; I90/I87 plus the redundancy in NYC and it's a pretty interesting area in its own right.

[tayser]

Doubt any Australian state or territory would move (in this case, I'm only talking about the Northern Territory & Darwin, not the Australian Capital Territory that houses both the national capital and.... the territorial capital because everyone in the ACT lives in Canberra!). As it is, Canberra is a bastard-love child of Melbourne & Sydney because neither Victoria or New South Wales could decide if Melbourne or Sydney could be the national capital post-federation in 1901 (despite Melbourne being the national capital for 26 years while a site was chosen, a territory created and what we now call Old Parliament House was being built in Canberra).

Similar to the Canadian examples above, there's been varying degrees of bureaucracy decentralisation within metro areas, and to some extent regional cities, but I don't see any advantage of moving Parliaments elsewhere - as it is, the overwhelming majority of people who have seats in each state parliament are commutable distance from their electorates - thanks to each state capital being the largest city and therefore hosting the most amount of seats in each state parliament. Moving a parliament to a regional city would mean the majority of reps wouldn't be spending as much time in their local communities.