Best And Worst Located State Capitals

[Steely Dan]

for all of this talk about where state capitals should be moved to, does anyone here honestly believe that we will actually see a US state capital moved in any of our lifetimes?

the last time it happened was in Oklahoma in 1910, back when the US was still a young nation, settling the western frontier and carving brand new states out of it.

these days, these things seem pretty set in stone to me. all of our state capitals now seem to be established and entrenched enough in their current locations that inertia will most likely keep them where they are for the foreseeable future, IMO.

[Cirrus]

^

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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

That was my first impulse, but I don't like the idea of putting the capital of such a large, urbanized state in a small central valley agriculture-focused city. If Fresno had 4 million people then I'd like it better.

But I guess it's not that different than Harrisburg, which I said was OK. And Fresno would probably add a million people if it actually were the state capital. So maybe that's fine.

Fresno would be my choice under that plan. Bakersfield and SLO seem to have more Southern CA ties, whereas Fresno is more neutral. SLO is too small.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So? Most of the state's population lives in and around NYC. Why should the majority of the population suffer worse representation so a minority can get special treatment? Should France move its capital away from Paris? Should the UK move its capital away from London?

We can disagree on this point, but when I say a state's Alpha city should always be its capital, I say that fully understanding that many capitals were selected specifically to avoid that outcome, and I don't care for perpetuating that anti-urban bias in our governance.

Um yes. One of the foundations of representational democracy is that minorities are protected. Not just minorities you like, but all minorities, including rednecks who refuse to move from their small dead towns.

[Cirrus]

Jtown, rural areas are massively overrepresented in our democracy from top to bottom, and moving the capital would not change that. Suggesting that moving the capital would disrupt the foundation of our democracy is dishonest. It would not.

Steely Dan, no, of course nobody is suggesting any of this will actually happen. It's an academic discussion for fun. In terms of actual serious proposals, Alaska and Florida are the only ones that should even remotely see the light of day. Those 2 really are so terrible that it might plausibly be worth the effort and money to change. The others are not.

[Steely Dan]

As the nexus city of the the 3 great US macro-regions (north, south, and west), the US national capital should've been moved from DC to St. Louis ages ago.

discuss.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

for all of this talk about where state capitals should be moved to, does anyone here honestly believe that we will actually see a US state capital moved in any of our lifetimes?

the last time it happened was in Oklahoma in 1910, back when the US was still a young nation, settling the western frontier and carving brand new states out of it.

these days, these things seem pretty set in stone to me. all of our state capitals now seem to be established and entrenched enough in their current locations that inertia will most likely keep them where they are for the foreseeable future, IMO.

I don't see a capital being relocated to a bigger city, such as Lansing to Detroit. I could imagine capitals being relocated away from bigger cities, such as Atlanta to Macon or something.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

As the nexus city of the the 3 great US macro regions (north, south, and west), the US national capital should've been moved from DC to St. Louis ages ago.

discuss.

It should've just been New York.

[wwmiv]

What does quality of representation have to do with how far away your capital city is anymore? I’m genuinely curious what the logic is in the modern age. I get the historic arguments, and they were appropriate at the time, but...

Unless there are egregious cultural divides that go along with the distance (I.E. a far flung region dominated by a distinct regional minority), I’m not sure location matters empirically from a quality of representation perspective in a first world country (We have modern transportation infrastructure and first rate postal, water, electricity, and telecommunications systems) provided that the region receives equipopulous elected representation and its representatives are active members.

So, perhaps another question could be: what areas of what states, being dominated by such stark cultural divides from the remainder of their state and also geographically isolated from their state, would be better served by becoming their own states and what would those states’ capitals be?

I am all for carving up large states into smaller entities, because of the effect it would have on the United States Senate. Cleave California into two states, North and South; divide New York into three: Upstate, the City, and the rest of Long Island; Yooper statehood; Texas divisionism with Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Austin/San Antonio, El Paso, and the RGV each dominating their own states and the panhandle separate from any of them with a capital in Lubbock; Florida’s panhandle splitting off; statehood for D.C., Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam + Northern Mariana Islands; plus a renewed territorial expansion into the Caribbean with bi-national approved accessions: pick off island by island and make states out of them.

Sounds cray right? That’s because it is cray. Make it about economics, not about the social aspects of colonialism. Make the states more diverse and give new opportunities to people here and there. The cultural differences aren’t stark already anyway. In most of English-speaking Caribbean (and even in non-English speaking areas) American culture is either dominant or a distinct presence already.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It should've just been New York.

Back then it would've probably been Philadelphia.

[Cirrus]

By the time DC was tabbed as capital, NY had already eclipsed Philadelphia as largest city, and was already growing a lot faster. They were, admittedly, still more or less peers.

wwmiv: We're talking about state capitals because that was the purpose of this thread. Carving up the states would also make a fun thread.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

By the time DC was tabbed as capital, NY had already eclipsed Philadelphia as largest city, and was already growing a lot faster. They were, admittedly, still more or less peers.

If metro areas existed back then, Philadelphia would've been the biggest at the time of the first census. And it was the capital for 10 years until the official move to D.C.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

As the nexus city of the the 3 great US macro-regions (north, south, and west), the US national capital should've been moved from DC to St. Louis ages ago.

discuss.

Yes! St. Louis in 2021 makes the most absolute sense.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

As the nexus city of the the 3 great US macro-regions (north, south, and west), the US national capital should've been moved from DC to St. Louis ages ago.

discuss.

There was also a movement for this a while back. It’s also close to what was the most urban settlement in North America north of Mexico during the Precolumbian era ( Cahokia I believe).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It should've just been New York.

i disagree.

for a continental-sized nation like ours, a more central location would've been better IMO, especially as the west has filled in with population growth over the centuries.

after the civil war, if the capital had been moved west to St. Louis in 1870, St. Louis would have likely sucked A LOT of wind out of chicago's late 19th century growth sails, and today could be an MSA of 10 million people, more than big and urban enough to negate the dreaded "rural bias".

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i disagree.

for a continental-sized nation like ours, a more central location would've been better IMO, especially as the west has filled in with population growth over the centuries.

after the civil war, if the capital had been moved west to St. Louis in 1870, St. Louis would have likely sucked A LOT of wind out of chicago's late 19th century growth sails, and today could be an MSA of 10 million people, more than big and urban enough to negate the dreaded "rural bias".

I don't think having the federal district in St. Louis would've changed Chicago's trajectory at all. D.C. (metro) didn't really explode in growth until the postwar era, and Chicago's current fate was well set by then.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think having the federal district in St. Louis would've changed Chicago's trajectory at all. D.C. (metro) didn't really explode in growth until the postwar era, and Chicago's current fate was well set by then.

perhaps.

but even without the national capital, St. Louis was still able to grow to be the 4th or 5th largest city in the country in the late 19th century. so it was a sensible geography for a big transportation/commerce hub in a way that DC was not.

IF it had been made into the national capital shortyl after the civil war, THEN it might have usurped chicago's position as the rail center of the nation, and then all bets would've been off in terms of its growth from there.

pile a post-war boom (ala DC) onto that, instead of a post-war (relative) fade, and St. Louis could have been a huge deal.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So? Most of the state's population lives in and around NYC. Why should the majority of the population suffer worse representation so a minority can get special treatment?

We can disagree on this point, but when I say a state's Alpha city should always be its capital, I say that fully understanding that many capitals were selected specifically to avoid that outcome, and I don't care for perpetuating that anti-urban bias in our governance.

Knowingly or not, you're advocating for what ends up as a de facto "city-state" form of governance.

The issue in the US state system is that states have more than one city. With the state's "alpha" city receiving the lion's share of funding for those matters which develop and maintain the urban environment, the state's other cities then have to fight over the scraps for urban infrastructural development funding in all its various forms. This displays far from equitable representation, allotment, and implementation... and results in a state's smaller cities and metro areas failing to urbanize commensurately.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So? Most of the state's population lives in and around NYC. Why should the majority of the population suffer worse representation so a minority can get special treatment? Should France move its capital away from Paris? Should the UK move its capital away from London?

We can disagree on this point, but when I say a state's Alpha city should always be its capital, I say that fully understanding that many capitals were selected specifically to avoid that outcome, and I don't care for perpetuating that anti-urban bias in our governance.

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.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

perhaps.

but even without the national capital, St. Louis was still able to grow to be the 4th or 5th largest city in the country in the late 19th century. so it was a sensible geography for a big transportation/commerce hub in a way that DC was not.

IF it had been made into the national capital shortyl after the civil war, THEN it might have usurped chicago's position as the rail center of the nation, and then all bets would've been off in terms of its growth from there.

pile a post-war boom (ala DC) onto that, instead of a post-war (relative) fade, and St. Louis could have been a huge deal.

The culture of the country was still very much against having a large federal government at that time, so I think it would've been extremely controversial to center the rail network on the nation's capital. And the period between the Civil War and the first World War would've probably been the worst time to do it, since most of the South was still very suspicious of federal authority.

This also touches on why New York would not have worked as a national capital in the way that Paris and London work for their countries. France is not a federal system at all, and the U.K. is a hybrid between unitary and federal, but mostly skews towards unitary. England is like 85% of the U.K., so the capital of that country will never be anywhere else but England.

In order for New York City to be the capital, it would have had to de-annex from New York State. And if NYC de-annexed from NYS, I'm not even sure the city would've grown like it did. It's probably critical that NYC not be the federal capital in order for it to become the mega-city that it did.

[SFBruin]

The US Capital will never be moved out of Washington, DC.