Best And Worst Located State Capitals

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JManc

This isn't an 'urban versus rural' thing, New York State had some of the biggest cities in the country until the second half of the 20th century. There are still 2-3 metro areas will a million+ populations.

Albany was/is a good spot for both Upstate and Downstate; it's a two hour drive from Manhattan and within a few hours from anywhere else in the state. Plus again, unlike most states, the city handles a lot of the state's functions on behalf of the state. The governor even maintains an office in Midtown. There's no need for NYC to be the capital.

And as someone who grew up in non-NYC New York, the City has far too much pull as it is on the state government.

The NYC - New York situation is similar (though on a much smaller scale) to the Philadelphia - Pennsylvania situation.

Both are so very unlike the rest of the state in which they reside. Not just from an urban development perspective, but also simply from a geographical location perspective. NYC and Philadelphia are nowhere near the rest of the state.

If the rest of the states were nothing but forests and farms, it wouldn't be much of an issue... but obviously that's not the case in older, highly-populated states that feature other important urban areas, like NY and PA do.

In the case of PA, Harrisburg is close to Philadelphia by design. Not a suburb of Philly, but also not too far away. Having the state government nearby in Harrisburg (and its proximity to NYC and DC) is largely what kept Philadelphia from declining signifcantly once mega industrial production and enormous wealth shifted to western PA and beyond in the decades leading up to and at the turn of the 19th-20th century.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Based on this criteria, I think Bakersfield, Fresno, or San Luis Obispo all make sense for capital of California.

Any criteria used to justify moving California's capital to SLO deserves summary rejection. It's far too isolated and difficult to reach from the state's main population centers. Bakersfield is south of the center of population and, in a state so extensive, just too far from the northern third of the state. Fresno is the only quasi-reasonable alternative, but it doesn't have an east-west interstate freeway or cross-continental railroad like Sacramento does.

The only US state capital move I could see happening in our lifetimes--and it's still unlikely--is from Juneau to Anchorage. My understanding is that there are already more Alaska state workers in Anchorage than there are in Juneau even now.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by craigs

My understanding is that there are already more Alaska state workers in Anchorage than there are in Juneau even now.

there are like 10x more state workers in chicagoland than there are down in little old springfield.

but illinois' capital won't be moving anytime soon.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by (four 0 four)

It really is stunning. I had a picture I took blown up into a photo mural for my bedroom wall.

I love that. Out of curiosity, how much does a giant photo mural like that go for?

[MolsonExport]

^man, that looks awesome!!

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by craigs

Any criteria used to justify moving California's capital to SLO deserves summary rejection. It's far too isolated and difficult to reach from the state's main population centers. Bakersfield is south of the center of population and, in a state so extensive, just too far from the northern third of the state. Fresno is the only quasi-reasonable alternative, but it doesn't have an east-west interstate freeway or cross-continental railroad like Sacramento does.

The only US state capital move I could see happening in our lifetimes--and it's still unlikely--is from Juneau to Anchorage. My understanding is that there are already more Alaska state workers in Anchorage than there are in Juneau even now.

And I might add that most Obispans wouldn't want to be the state capitol...would ruin the small city ambience of the place. The state poly U. is enough. S.L.O. is halfway between L.A. & Frisco and they like that proximity....and distance.

[(four 0 four)]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I love that. Out of curiosity, how much does a giant photo mural like that go for?

It's been up for several years but I think it cost around $300. This one is a thin plastic, similar to shelf paper and has adhesive on the back...basically peel and stick. Other varieties required wallpaper paste. This came in 4 sheets and was easy to install. Being plastic, it was easy to work out bubbles and all but 1 wrinkle with a hair dryer.
Most sites allow you to plug your photo into a program to play with cropping and see how it should look on your wall. The site should also let you know if your photo is large enough to enlarge without being grainy.

[SFBruin]

What California should do is put the capital in Eureka. Oceanfront property, and the shortest distance to the economic powerhouse city of Juneau.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

What California should do is put the capital in Eureka. Oceanfront property, and the shortest distance to the economic powerhouse city of Juneau.

Nah, it should be Crescent City.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

What California should do is put the capital in Eureka. Oceanfront property, and the shortest distance to the economic powerhouse city of Juneau.

Omg 101 would be a disaster and it reminds me of a mini-SF. Sac's location was a problem at first due to flooding, but somebody might have already said that earlier in the thread and I missed it.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Nah, it should be Crescent City.

It should be Arcata, so it's a college town too. It'll become the next Austin!

And the capitol building should be a giant Emerald Pyramid.

[ChiSoxRox]

In the 70s, Alaska voted to move the capital to Willow. North of Anchorage --but then voted down the bonds to fund the move.

Local article about the failed move and modern Willow

[SFBruin]

That's a shame.

If Alaska can't move its capital out of Juneau, then I doubt that any state will move its capital in my lifetime.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

That's a shame.

If Alaska can't move its capital out of Juneau, then I doubt that any state will move its capital in my lifetime.

Yeah. The only likely move is Alaska and if that doesn't happen, it ain't happening in another state beyond maybe a really devastating national disaster that completely wipes out a capital city and forces a move instead of a rebuild (we're talking apocalyptic shit here).

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Yeah. The only likely move is Alaska and if that doesn't happen, it ain't happening in another state beyond maybe a really devastating national disaster that completely wipes out a capital city and forces a move instead of a rebuild (we're talking apocalyptic shit here).

Maybe in Arizona if Phoenix becomes catastrophically uninhabitable decades from now?

So long as the capitol doesn't return to Prescott, I'm good.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by craigs

Any criteria used to justify moving California's capital to SLO deserves summary rejection. It's far too isolated and difficult to reach from the state's main population centers. Bakersfield is south of the center of population and, in a state so extensive, just too far from the northern third of the state. Fresno is the only quasi-reasonable alternative, but it doesn't have an east-west interstate freeway or cross-continental railroad like Sacramento does.

The only US state capital move I could see happening in our lifetimes--and it's still unlikely--is from Juneau to Anchorage. My understanding is that there are already more Alaska state workers in Anchorage than there are in Juneau even now.

Originally Posted by SFBruin

What California should do is put the capital in Eureka. Oceanfront property, and the shortest distance to the economic powerhouse city of Juneau.

Crescent City or Alturas would be even better, or maybe Needles at the other end.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

So long as the capitol doesn't return to Prescott, I'm good.

I vow to never rest until the state of Illinois comes to its fucking senses and moves the capital out of Springfield......


..... and returns it to its rightful home in Kaskaskia!



It's located on one of those oddball pieces of illinois that's now actually west of the mississippi river thanks to changes in the river's channel. Wikipedia says it currently has a population of 10.

Yes, 10.

Is there any former US state capital that has a population lower than 10?

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Crescent City or Alturas would be even better, or maybe Needles at the other end.

Needles would be good. It has the weather down pat. I'm worried that the four hour drive from Los Angeles might be a little too close for comfort.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I vow to never rest until the state of Illinois comes to its fucking senses and moves the capital out of Springfield......


..... and returns it to its rightful home in Kaskaskia!



It's located on one of those oddball pieces of illinois that's now actually west of the mississippi river thanks to changes in the river's channel. Wikipedia says it currently has a population of 10.

Yes, 10.

Is there any former US state capital that has a population lower than 10?

Cahaba, Alabama - population 0

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Cahaba, Alabama - population 0

It's reportedly haunted, so it may actually have a negative population!