Another Capital City?

[iheartthed]

For New York, I'd leave it in Albany. If it makes sense to change anything, it would be that the downstate region should become its own state.

For Michigan, the capital should be in Detroit.

[UrbanImpact]

Florida should change its capital. From here in Fort Lauderdale, Tallassee is 7 hour drive! Also North Florida is a totally different animal than South Florida culturally with the North being more in line with "The South".

[hipster duck]

In states that have a capital city that is very central, yet far away from the big city and the action, does the state government have trouble recruiting people - especially younger people?

Like, let's say you're 25, and you've just graduated with an MPA from one of the Midwest's public Ivies. Would you want to move to take a job in Springfield, IL?

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Apache Junction

Haha. I will say a state capital building nestled up against the Superstitions would look pretty striking.

It would have been great if Arizona's capital would have stayed in Prescott--briefly the territorial capital in the 1860s-1880s. The weather and topography are beautiful. Practically, I don't know that it has enough water to support a metro the size of Phoenix. But then again, Phoenix doesn't have enough water to support Phoenix without the CAP, so if that had been run to Prescott instead of Phoenix...might have worked.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eixample

While there is certainly some sense in moving the capital to the geographic center of the state, I couldnt get behind moving the capital to a less convenient place for the average Pennsylvanian. Not all that many people live in the northern third of the state. The bottom portion of the state has more people and is also what's growing, particularly the Harrisburg area and the Philadelphia area. State College would be worse for them. And a little worse for Pittsburghers, I assume. Maybe the Lehigh Valley (another growing area) would benefit since it would be a straight shot down I-80.

According to the Census Bureau, the population center of PA in 2010 was about 10 miles north of Harrisburg and it certainly didn't move to the North or West in the last 10 years.

Yeah, I fully understand Pennsylvania's layout. I'm just not a believer in any necessity to have a state capital closest to the state population center. Convenience for the many should have nothing to do with it.

Harrisburg was only made the capital because Philadelphia wanted the government center within arm's reach. Philadelphia historically was always highly insular and never considered the rest of "Penn's Woods" with too much interest... to the great detriment of the state as a whole, from an national importance perspective at least. New York, by contrast, took the opposite view of its state and subsequently blew Philly out of the water, relegating it to ugly stepchild status.

I believe it should have been as close to the geographic center of a state as possible. But as I previously noted, I'm not much for state capitals anyway at this point, considering that they've become largely ceremonial drains on the pocketbook. If State College (or whatever name it would have been called at the time) was capital, it would be Pennsylvania's version of Columbus. Ohio did it right, and you generally get a better dispersion/equality of size and power.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

In states that have a capital city that is very central, yet far away from the big city and the action, does the state government have trouble recruiting people - especially younger people?

Like, let's say you're 25, and you've just graduated with an MPA from one of the Midwest's public Ivies. Would you want to move to take a job in Springfield, IL?

I don't get why people would want to work in Albany or Trenton, to say nothing of capitals that are even more isolated like Springfield or Lansing.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't get why people would want to work in Albany or Trenton, to say nothing of capitals that are even more isolated like Springfield or Lansing.

No one wants to move to Harrisburg either. Though it has greatly improved. But people do in order to cut their teeth in gov't. and then head to Philly or Pittsburgh, for the most part.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't get why people would want to work in Albany or Trenton, to say nothing of capitals that are even more isolated like Springfield or Lansing.

With Trenton, you're basically in the Philly suburbs, though. With a relatively quick train ride to NYC. So, I can't see it being too much of a detractor.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

If State College (or whatever name it would have been called at the time) was capital, it would be Pennsylvania's version of Columbus. Ohio did it right, and you generally get a better dispersion/equality of size and power.

not necessarily, PA could've alternatively ended up with its own version of Springfield, IL.

just because you place your state capital near the geographic center of the state, that does not guarantee that it will develop into a major city.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't get why people would want to work in Albany or Trenton, to say nothing of capitals that are even more isolated like Springfield or Lansing.

I wouldn't call Lansing isolated, it's not that much of a drive from Detroit. Certainly not more isolated than Albany.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

not necessarily, PA could've alternatively ended up with its own version of Springfield, IL.

just because you place your state capital near the geographic center of the state, that does not guarantee that it will develop into a major city.

With Philadelphia and Pittsburgh equidistant on opposite ends, just like Cleveland and Columbus are in relation to Columbus, the likelihood is far greater.

Guaranteed, no. But considering that PA is one of the first US states and with Philly and Pittsburgh being two of the nation's most important earlier cities, the seeds were already present. A capital city at State College's geographic site would have pulled from both and likely would have resulted in the state developing in a far different manner. Instead, Philadelphia kept everything close and never took advantage of the rest of the vast resources of the state... and Pennsylvania never really achieved its apex status that was once thought to be a foregone conclusion.

The comparison with Illinois' situation doesn't seem too relevant in comparison to Pennsylvania's situation though, since Springfield was made capital of a largely unpopulated state back then, I imagine (I'll admit I don't know much about Illinois history). Was Chicago even founded at that point?

[mrnyc]

it would be impractical, but interesting to move the ohio state capital back to chillicothe.

however, it would be more reflective of who is in charge these days to move it to some cheeseball modern suburb creation like dublin or brunswick.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i mean i’d rewind the clock and re-establish the missouri territory with st. louis as capital again. y’all can do whatever you want just send the money to st. louis.

actually i could see the national capital in dc moved to st louis. it would be more practical for all.

[badrunner]

Denver is the shadow capital according to my reptoid friends

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Apache Junction

Why Apache Junction?

Arizona should build a new capital in the high country and abandon that little library building in Phoenix.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

With Philadelphia and Pittsburgh equidistant on opposite ends, just like Cleveland and Columbus are in relation to Columbus, the likelihood is far greater.

maybe.

but as a counter-example, look at MO with STL & KC at opposites side of the state.

they put the capital in the middle of the state between the two big cities at jefferson city, and it didn't amount to much.

Originally Posted by pj3000

The comparison with Illinois' situation doesn't seem too relevant in comparison to Pennsylvania's situation though, since Springfield was made capital of a largely unpopulated state back then, I imagine (I'll admit I don't know much about Illinois history). Was Chicago even founded at that point?

i wasn't trying to draw direct parallels to the development histories of IL & PA (they're quite obviously different for a whole host of reasons), I was merely pointing out that purposely placing the state capital near the geographic center doesn't always lead to a major city developing there.

even in very similar, largely unpopulated interior states of the early 19th century, sometimes that plan panned out (Indianpolis, IN), and sometimes it didn't (Springfield, IL).



as to how big illinos and chicago were when the capital was moved to springfield in 1839, the state had 476,183 people (1840 census) and chicago had 4,470 people ( 1840 census).

chicago was founded in the 1780s, but it remained a very tiny frontier village surrounding a US army fort (fort dearborn) for many decades, with real growth not coming until the 1830s.

it was first incorporated as a town in 1833, and then reincorporated as a city shortly thereafter in 1837, just before the capital was moved from vandalia to springfield in 1839.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Denver is the shadow capital according to my reptoid friends

oh right -- hq under the denver airport!

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

it would be impractical, but interesting to move the ohio state capital back to chillicothe.

It was originally Marietta, which made a lot of sense at the time. Then Chilicothe made sense for its time.

Now, Columbus and Indianapolis might be the two state capitols that are pretty much at the exact center of their respective state's population. Atlanta might be in that club as well.

If I ever start my long-rumored youtube channel, that would be a good video concept.

Sacramento made a ton of sense back in the 1800s since most of Southern California was a wasteland and nobody believed that it would ever be home to a significant population.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Now, Columbus and Indianapolis might be the two state capitols that are pretty much at the exact center of their respective state's population. Atlanta might be in that club as well.

here's a post of mine last spring, when we last discussed the issue of state capital locations:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

here's a link to a really cool map that shows the distance of all 50 US state capitals from their states' geographic and population centers.

http://www.bytemuse.com/post/central...tate-capitals/


nothing comes close to touching alaska for the greatest distances, but in the lower 48, california, nevada, wyoming and florida all seem to have capital cities that are the greatest distances from both of their centers.

indiana, arkansas, tennessee, south carolina and many of the tiny NE states have their capitals located pretty damn close to both centers.

michigan, oregon, and nebraska seem to be the most extreme examples of states being located close to their popualtion centers, but way off from their geographic centers.

and then there's illinois which has a capital located pretty close to the geographic center, but is far away from the population center because of the state's woefully lopsided population situation with chicagoland.

[TWAK]

For The State of Jefferson (unrecognized) I suggest Redding since it's centrally located for the the various rebellious Northern California/Oregon counties.