Did ANY artificial capital become a major commercial hub?

[toadspittle]

Inspired by the DC/Baltimore thread:

(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=43844)

Has any artificially "mandated" capital city achieved a high level of commercial, cultural, etc., success?

DC sure hasn't, and being a Pennsylvanian, I can say that Harrisburg DEFINITELY has not. What about in other states or other young nations?

[ElvisL1ves]

Columbus is now the largest city in Ohio. Its economic success is due more to the service economy than industry, though.

[CalMeacham]

Not sure if this counts, but how about Atlanta, Georgia. Atlanta isn't on a bay, confluence of rivers, etc. It is a big city solely because of its position as a railway hub. But I don't know exactly when that was mandated. It is certainly a big and important city, now.

Of course, according to many residents of Boston, it's not a cultural city. There was a flap in the Letters column of the Boston Globe about this last week.

[cmkeller]

Well, first of all, I'd disagree with your contention about Washington, DC. With the Smithsonian's many museums there, I'd say it is something of a cultural center now.

I think that Tel Aviv, which only became Israel's capital because the Israelis didn't control Jerusalem at the time, has become the cultural center for secular Israel.

[Olentzero]

Let's not forget St. Petersburg. First built in 1703, the only city besides Moscow in which there was a lot of heavy foreign investment under the Tsars, and designed to be Russia's 'window on the West'. It was meant to be a cultural and commercial jumping-off point.

[scratch1300]

IIRC, Denver was just a jerkwater railroad stop when it was declared the capital of Colorado.

[Arken]

Indianapolis, while not much culturally, has a high level of commercial success. Remember, it's the "crossroads of America" and LOTS East/West and North/South shipping goes through it.

[Johanna]

Washington is situated just below the Great Falls of the Potomac (when you hear "Great Falls" put Niagara out of your mind--they're just a set of rapids).

Trenton. Philadelphia. Washington. Richmond. Raleigh. Columbia. Augusta. Along the Eastern Seabord, most of the main cities (New York and Boston excepted) grew up along the Fall Line. This is the edge of the hard crystalline rocks of the Appalachians/Piedmont, where the rivers encounter softer sedimentary rock of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and erode it much more quickly. This causes falls and rapids. Boats cannot navigate upriver past there without portage or canals.

So when you're taking a boatload of cargo upriver, it's natural to unload it just below the falls. This favors commercial activity centering on those locations. Also, the falls provide hydro power.

Washington's location was no accident. There was bound to be a major city there, capital or no capital.

[tomndebb]

Columbus and Indianapolis are both located on the National Road (the first section of which was surveyed by old George W., himself). As such, I wouldn't consider either of them "artificial." For that matter, at the time that those two cities (and Denver) were set as capitals, there weren't really any serious cities in the territories that clearly had a better claim. (Cincinnati might have made a claim, but there was no guarantee, at the time, that Clevelend would be any bigger than Sandusky or Toledo. The original Ohio capital was Chillicothe--go find that on a map.)

A better example of the OP might be Lansing, MI. Like Columbus, Denver, and Indianapolis, it was picked for its basically "central" position in the state (ignoring as Michigan legislators tend to, the U.P.). I'm not sure that it developed much more than government through the nineteenth century (although the aggie college was built a few miles east of town), but R.E. Olds built an auto plant there and made it a manufacturing center through the twentieth century.

I'm not sure whether Brasilia has actually attracted industry, as intended, or whether it has simply crested the wave of westward development that the increasing Brazilian population has driven.

[Saint Zero]

Jackson, MS. :)

Back in the dim and misty, Natchez was the center of 19th century American industry. No Kidding. Cotton was king, and the King held court in Natchez.

But in 1817, when MS became a state, they decided to be fair and locate the permament capital nearer to the center of the state. Which ended up being along the Pearl river, at a place called LeFleur's Bluff back then. It started expanding when the railroads came (being in the center of the state) and when highways came, it got even bigger. But it really took off in the beginning of the 20th century.

Now we have a reasonable sized Metro Area here. I-55 and I-20 cross paths here, along with rail and air travel.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by ishmintingas
Washington is situated just below the Great Falls of the Potomac (when you hear "Great Falls" put Niagara out of your mind--they're just a set of rapids).

Trenton. Philadelphia. Washington. Richmond. Raleigh. Columbia. Augusta. Along the Eastern Seabord, most of the main cities (New York and Boston excepted) grew up along the Fall Line. This is the edge of the hard crystalline rocks of the Appalachians/Piedmont, where the rivers encounter softer sedimentary rock of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and erode it much more quickly. This causes falls and rapids. Boats cannot navigate upriver past there without portage or canals.

So when you're taking a boatload of cargo upriver, it's natural to unload it just below the falls. This favors commercial activity centering on those locations. Also, the falls provide hydro power.

Washington's location was no accident. There was bound to be a major city there, capital or no capital.

Lot's of problems with this:
1) While you are right that the Fall Line was the impetus of several major cities on the East Coast, the major factor in city location in this part of the U.S. has been ocean, not river, ports. New York, Boston, Baltimore, Savannah, Philadelphia, Wilmington, etc. are all ocean ports. (BTW, Philadelphia is not a Fall Line city - it's actually downriver of Trenton, which is near the Fall Line. Philadelphia is not directly on the ocean, but the Delaware River below Philly is deep enough for ocean-going vessels, so it serves as an ocean port).

2) While D.C. is near the Fall Line, by no means was it bound to be a major city. First of all, most of it was a malarial swamp. Second, the originally habitable area, Georgetown (which, BTW, was an existing town when the District of Columbia was created), rests on relatively high cliffs above the river, which creates difficulties in using the hydro power of the river, as well as a portage site. Third, the Potomac's usefulness as a shipping route is overshadowed by the Chesapeake Bay, with all of the other useful shipping routes nearby created by its tributaries.

The proof is in the pudding. In all its existence, even with the impetus of the federal government, D.C. succeeded in creating only one successful manufacturing industry. That industry, when you think of it, is the obvious one: paper ;). It never became a commercial or trading center (I can't recall if D.C. even has a stock exchange. If it does, I never heard of it in 8 years living there.

V.

[ElvisL1ves]

There probably wouldn't be much on the site of Ottawa if Queen Victoria hadn't decreed that Canada's capital would be there.

[scratch1300]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
(BTW, Philadelphia is not a Fall Line city - it's actually downriver of Trenton, which is near the Fall Line. Philadelphia is not directly on the ocean, but the Delaware River below Philly is deep enough for ocean-going vessels, so it serves as an ocean port).


I've heard that Philadelphia is an ocean port. When does the water stop being sea and start being river? Officially, IIRC, it's a matter of how far up the tide reaches, and therefore Philadelphia is officially on the Atlantic.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
There probably wouldn't be much on the site of Ottawa if Queen Victoria hadn't decreed that Canada's capital would be there.

Actually, Ottawa's a perfect example. It was chosen as capital as a compromise between Lower and Upper Canada (Quebec and Ontario today) because the other obvious choices - Montreal, Toronto or Kingston - angered one side or the other. (Ottawa sits right on the border between the two, which is the Ottawa River.)

Ottawa had no compelling reason for being the capital aside from being on the border and being more defensible than Cornwall.

Ottawa is now a fairly major commercial center, including Canada's main hub of dot-com and telecommunications enterprises, and has a thriving cultural presence.

[tomndebb]

I had thought that Ottawa had a pretty good start as a transportation hub, with the Rideau and Gatineau rivers and the beginning of the old portage/river trail from Lower Canada to the fur trade in Upper Michigan (they used to skip Lakes Erie and Huron and go across country using the rivers and lakes).

However, the Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,59107+1+57667,00.html?query=ottawa%20ontario) agrees with ElvisL1ves that the city only gained stature because Victoria settled the feuding of the major cities by ignoring all of them.

[egkelly]

This is a national capital that is more than 300 miles away from the nearest major city. It is also far inland, in the middle of a sparsely populated plateau. It is not astride any river, nor does any railroad line connect with it. thus, the only practical way to get in or out is by air!
I have always wondered what drove the brazilians to blow $200 billion+ on this VERY artificial city, out in the middle of nowhere! Of course, Washington DC was sort of the same situation, 200 years ago.
I always thought that Rio de janiero was a much nicer place for a capital..Brazilia is BORING!

[Akatsukami]

toadspittle asks: Has any artificially "mandated" capital city achieved a high level of commercial, cultural, etc., success?
Constantinople.

[scratch1300]

Belmopan, Belize will be the Paris of the 21st century.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by egkelly
I have always wondered what drove the brazilians to blow $200 billion+ on this VERY artificial city, out in the middle of nowhere!
I always thought that Rio de janiero was a much nicer place for a capital..Brazilia is BORING!

I understood that the decision was made because Rio, for all its charm, was the colonial capital. Keeping it there would have been a constant reminder of Brazil's previous subservience to Europe, its role as simply a supplier of raw materials to be shipped from the big port city. By moving the capital inland, the national identity was supposed to come to be identified with the country's own economic independence, its pre-colonial (i.e. "pure" Brazilian) culture, and so forth.

Still sounds like a grandiose boondoggle, I agree. The only other post-colonial country I know of that has moved its capital, Nigeria, did so for similar reasons.

[scratch1300]

Well, besides Nigeria and Belize, there's the Ivory Coast -- Abidjan to Yamassoukrou. Turkey might be considered a "post-colonial" nation to have done it also; except Turkey did it because they lost their extranational territories, and sudenly Istanbul was a city on the periphery.

[black rabbit]

Indianapolis is the nation's leading producer of industrial grade boredom.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by ishmintingas

Washington's location was no accident. There was bound to be a major city there, capital or no capital.

Well, there was a major city there, or at least two minor ones...Alexandria and Georgetown, on opposite sides of the river.

[Captain Amazing]

Another "manufactured" capital that became a major commercial hub was Alexandria (Egypt)...wasn't it built as the capital of Macedonian Egypt?

[Mu Mu]

DC, Brasilia, Canberra

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by scratch1300
Originally posted by SuaSponte
(BTW, Philadelphia is not a Fall Line city - it's actually downriver of Trenton, which is near the Fall Line. Philadelphia is not directly on the ocean, but the Delaware River below Philly is deep enough for ocean-going vessels, so it serves as an ocean port).


I've heard that Philadelphia is an ocean port. When does the water stop being sea and start being river? Officially, IIRC, it's a matter of how far up the tide reaches, and therefore Philadelphia is officially on the Atlantic.

All I can say off the top of my head is that Philadelphia is on the Delaware River and is approximately 30 miles away from the head of the Delaware Bay. The Delaware River is freshwater as it passes Philly. I would analogize it to London, which is on the Thames but also is deep enough to serve as an ocean port. 'Course, I could be wrong.

Sua

[kanicbird]

Tokeio??? (I know the spelling is wrong)

[capybara]

I don't think Tokyo (this is what you meant, right) should count, as it was a huge commercial center before it was the capital (which was still in Kyoto), and they moved the capital there later (long story. . .).
How about Berlin? That place was a little nothing-burg for ages.

[JRDelirious]

As someone who was involved in starting this discussion in another thread, I repeat here my comment that I see a difference between moving the capital to an *existing* though so far less important town, and creating one from scratch. With the latter, you face a bigger challenge in creating some sort of real economy for the new city, other than services for government agencies (specially if it's a free-market system and you can't *command* business to relocate). At least if a center of *some* trade, industrial or agricultural activity exists, the move of the government there will give a big boost to that economic activity.

jrd

[muffinman]

Tallahassee, FL, though not anything spectacular commercially, is an educational center. There are two universities (Florida State and Florida A & M) and two community colleges (Tallahassee Community -my school- and Keiser College). The whole economy here runs around consumer goods and state bureaucracy. I'd guess a good 60-70% of residents are state employed. THe rest (such as myself) work for consumer industries.

It's a really crummy place to build a city though. There's no river until about 5 miles out of town on the west side, which was damned to form a hydro-electric plant and thus is not navigable. It's a 30 mile drive to the coast, and nearest major point is 180? miles away in Tampa. The area around it is pretty devoid of urban centers. Jacksonville and Pensacola are the nearest cities (save for Albany, Thomasville, and Valdosta in Georgia, and Dothan in Alabama) and the only interstate is I-10. If we were at the I-10 -- I-75 interchange (1.5 hours away), we'd be much more developed.

[even sven]

I might venture to say that being a major metropolitan area is a DISADVANTAGE for a capital. Capitals have lots of government workers and lots of dull government building. State capitals have a lot more middle class state workers than most cities, and need to accomodate them.

[poohpah chalupa]

Boise, Idaho
The center of the cultural universe

[Johanna]

The greater Washington area (especially the Dulles Corridor and other parts of Fairfax County, Virginia, as well as parts of Montgomery and Prince George's County, Maryland) has recently blossomed into a hi-tech IT mecca, the biggest in the country outside Silicon Valley.

[quasar]

Originally posted by scratch1300
Belmopan, Belize will be the Paris of the 21st century.

Wanna back up that prophecy with sound reasons/facts?
I am just curious, you know.

[Markxxx]

The sources I have read say Brasilia was made the capital of Brazil because Brazil wanted to open up the Amazon and by locating a capital there SOMETHING would have to develop.

Brazil was independent since the Napoleonic era, so I believe, so I hardly think they would've waited
like 100 years to move the capital.

Atlanta was an important city BEFORE it was the capital. Sherman burned it and it wasn't the capital then. It was a railroad center.

THE BRITISH moved India's capital from Calcutta to Delhi to relieve overcrowding and then to a new city NEW DELHi when (old) Delhi became to crowded.

Pakistan buildt Islamabad for a similar reason (remember they also moved their capital from Karachi to Rawlapindi(sp?). But they also founded Islamabad to let India know there intention to Kashmir. (Locate the nation's capital near a disputed area sends a strong message)

Argentina was going to move its capital but funding (like when Alaksa was going to move its capital to Willow) seemed to stop this.

[Slithy Tove]

The general trend in the modern world is to site capitals in otherwise undesirable locations. State office buildings sit on land that don't generate tax revenues, so it's against the state's interest to take good locations out of the commercial sector's hands.

[Tristan]

Well, I did a fair amount of growing up in Montana, and the capital, Helena, is pretty small. It does have the distinction of being one of few cities wherin the cheif emloyer is the State. A majority of the folks that live in Helena, work for the state of Montana, either directly or through sub-contracting (janitors, etc.)

Also, Sacramento is the capital of California. We're so lame our own Supreme Court doesn't even live here, it spends it's time in LA. Sacramento is forever cursed to be considered a "backwater country-hick town" by wanna-be global youth. When I tell them that Sacramento is the other end of the spectrum, I usually get the typical response along the lines of "Well, I only do my shopping in The City (San Francisco)."

I hate that.

[curwin]

How about Jerusalem, my capital? It was pretty much a nothing town until King David established it as the capital.

[quasar]

NYC is the baseball capital of the world. Isn't that reason enough to make it the capital of New York? :D

Seriously, why is Albany the capital instead of New York City? It just doesn’t add up.