Another Capital City?

[Barney Greengrass]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Juneau is such a bad spot that a member of the Alaska State Senate can't even go to the Capitol anymore because she was banned by Alaska Airlines for COVID non-compliance and there are no roads into the city: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...-airlines-ban/

Boats get there just fine, or she could saddle a cetacean. But yeah, Juneau as a capital is a relic of a bygone era.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

ditto for Illinois and its original capital city of Kaskaskia.

but it was WAY too prone to mississippi river flooding to make a long-term play as state capital, which is why the capital was soon moved inland to Vandalia, IL.

still though, purely from a naming perspective, "Kaskaskia" is a billion times cooler than the woefully generic "Springfield".

It would also have the unique distinction of being the only state capital that you can only reach by traveling through another state, since it lies on the western bank of the Mississippi now.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by badrunner

And here's the approximate elevation of the capital grounds in each city:

Annapolis - 30'
Boston - 93'
Providence - 56'
Olympia - 110'
Juneau - 85'
Honolulu - 24'
Sacramento - 17' (with levees that are about 30' high)

Looks like most of them will be safely above water. Sacramento and Annapolis are the most vulnerable.

For Annapolis, the State House is at one of the higher points of the city, on a hill, so it's not as bad as it looks.


https://www.srlt.org/wp-content/uplo...apeake-bay.jpg

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

It would also have the unique distinction of being the only state capital that you can only reach by traveling through another state, since it lies on the western bank of the Mississippi now.

It wouldn't be more unique than Juneau since it could be reached by boat or plane while staying over/inside Illinois.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Juneau is such a bad spot that a member of the Alaska State Senate can't even go to the Capitol anymore because she was banned by Alaska Airlines for COVID non-compliance and there are no roads into the city: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...-airlines-ban/

Fun Facts Below

Juneau is closer to the California/Oregon border, Great Falls MT, and Saskatoon than to the farthest point on Mainland Alaska

And if you really want a mindfuck, Juneau is closer to all of the following than it is to the farthest island in Maritime Alaska:

-Everywhere in: CA, NV, UT, WY, ND, SD, MT, ID, OR, WA, BC, AB, SK, MB, Yukon, and Northwest Territories
-Parts of: Baja California, Sonora, AZ, NM, OK, CO, KS, NB, IA, MN, WI, MI, ON, QB, Nunavut, Greenland, and 4 Russian subdivisions (republics, territories, etc)
-Some specific examples:
--The mouth of the Colorado River
--Both coasts of Baja California
--The Sonoran Coast
--Phoenix
--Albuquerque
--Omaha
--Eau Claire WI
--Houghton MI
--Thunder Bay ON
--Quebec coasts on both James bay and Hudson bay
--All or parts of every island in the Canadian Arctic

From the opposite perspective, Attu Island, the furthest point in AK, is closer to the following than to Juneau:
-5 of the Midway Islands
-Tokyo
-North Korea
-China
-10 russian subdivisions
-Mackenzie River Delta

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

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.

yes, but marietta is in the very southeast, so not sited well from jump street. chillicothe is still central, if still a bit too southern.

and yeah the best name of the three for sure.

honestly though, its actually in the right spot already right in the middle of the state in columbus at broad and high aka the crossroads of ohio. especially so for a state that is so diversified between cities, rural and suburban.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by Thirteen Mile

For Michigan Detroit as the capital but with downriver added as a borough so Grosse Ille can be rebuilt as a with well planned avenues and square for public buildings while chalk full of mid and high rises like a mini Manhattan. Heavy industries could relocated from the riverfront and rebuilt in the urban prairie around the new 94 industrial complex. That’s how it’s done. Oh and throw in the Pointes as another borough to give the city some true big water coastline.

As for Toronto the Golden Horseshoe is on its way to becoming a Torontoland put a new cap in between the oh so important border crossings with Metro Detroit in between the outer reaches of the GTA and the greater Detroit-Windsor region. Toronto can be the NY of Canada without being the capital of Ontario but putting government in London closer to the neglected industrial centers such as Wallaceburg and Sarnia and near quickly growing Chatham-Kent could help calm the political scene and truly develop Canada’s most important trade corridor.

Not to mention it would likely jump start growth on the Windsor-Essesx peninsula. Detroit having a proper Canadian twin would be dope If Detroit is remade as MI’s Cap you could reclaim some land on Boblo Island expand it and bam you can have another high density island bridge that bitch and connect em.

I could see a lot of government types loving the warmer weather in southern most Canada where you can even grow a windmill palm in your back yard if you so desire since this is a thought exercise might as well go for a double pie in the sky pipe dream.

Windsor-Essex (now metro Windsor) is already growing the fastest it has in over 30 years, estimates are about 430K or so now, and it’s also more of a sister city to Detroit as opposed to a proper twin.

[badrunner]

I don't see any good reason why a state capital needs to be close to a big city or the state's center of population. Many of them seem to be deliberately placed away from population centers.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I don't see any good reason why a state capital needs to be close to a big city or the state's center of population. Many of them seem to be deliberately placed away from population centers.

Leaving the capital in far flung areas seems to do exactly the opposite of why they were put there in the first place. Some states chose centrally located regions of the state for to make the capital more accessible to people in an era when most people lived in rural areas. Now that populations have overwhelmingly coalesced in/around cities, that exact thing has happened.

[mrnyc]

sure it would be old-fashioned to put a capital in the center, it doesn't have to be nowadays, but it would still be more practical and physically convenient for all residents and so wise to do.

[badrunner]

I like the idea of service in state government being a kind of purgatory in the middle of nowhere, far away from the influence of big city machine politics.

[hipster duck]

State capitals in the hinterlands can provide white collar employment in a place that would be struggling otherwise, but their impact can only go so far.

The Albany area has all these white-collar state employees, a very decent research university (RPI), and has very nice natural surroundings. Hell, its urban bones, and those of towns around it like Troy and Schenectady are top notch.

Yet, despite all these advantages on paper, Albany hasn't exactly rocketed to success or national prominence like, say, Austin.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

State capitals in the hinterlands can provide white collar employment in a place that would be struggling otherwise, but their impact can only go so far.

The Albany area has all these white-collar state employees, a very decent research university (RPI), and has very nice natural surroundings. Hell, its urban bones, and those of towns around it like Troy and Schenectady are top notch.

Yet, despite all these advantages on paper, Albany hasn't exactly rocketed to success or national prominence like, say, Austin.

true, but i think that can be better explained in general terms of population. that nys loses residents, but texas gains. so its more than albany vs austin. both are hurt or benefit by population movement in and out of their states.

if nys gained a lot of people like texas insteading of bleeding them off to florida or wherever, i wonder if albany and it's bones would be more attractive?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

State capitals in the hinterlands can provide white collar employment in a place that would be struggling otherwise, but their impact can only go so far.

The Albany area has all these white-collar state employees, a very decent research university (RPI), and has very nice natural surroundings. Hell, its urban bones, and those of towns around it like Troy and Schenectady are top notch.

Yet, despite all these advantages on paper, Albany hasn't exactly rocketed to success or national prominence like, say, Austin.

Austin's draw is the university, not the state capital.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Austin's draw is the university, not the state capital.

actually its both. those provided stability and thus drew financial capital while the state boomed, so its natural austin did as well. similar thing for columbus for ohio. there are other reasons, but those two, the big state college and the state capital, are the bedrock.

[10023]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I don't see any good reason why a state capital needs to be close to a big city or the state's center of population. Many of them seem to be deliberately placed away from population centers.

This comes from an 18th century British aristocratic fetishization of the bucolic countryside over the filthy cities filled with poor people. And of course the people who founded and let the early United States, wrote its constitution, and decided the placement of its capital were, essentially, British aristocrats.

[10023]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

State capitals in the hinterlands can provide white collar employment in a place that would be struggling otherwise, but their impact can only go so far.

The Albany area has all these white-collar state employees, a very decent research university (RPI), and has very nice natural surroundings. Hell, its urban bones, and those of towns around it like Troy and Schenectady are top notch.

Yet, despite all these advantages on paper, Albany hasn't exactly rocketed to success or national prominence like, say, Austin.

But why is it desirable to “engineer” white collar employment in a place where it doesn’t actually make sense?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Yet, despite all these advantages on paper, Albany hasn't exactly rocketed to success or national prominence like, say, Austin.

NYC is just a mega-strong magnet. No matter where a capital city was located in the state of New York, it would never be able to gain enough momentum to vault it into greater national prominence. NYC is just too dominant.

Originally Posted by mrnyc

actually its both. those provided stability and thus drew financial capital while the state boomed, so its natural austin did as well. similar thing for columbus for ohio. there are other reasons, but those two, the big state college and the state capital, are the bedrock.

Austin was an electronics technology hub by the 1950s. That is the main reason Austin possesses its level of national prominence today. UT and state capital status are certainly major components in building that.