I was reading about state capitals and how they came to get that status, and some of the examples were interesting. Like Tallahassee was choses, because it was half way between the two big Florida cities (at the time) of St Augustine and Pensacola. And the rivalry between Lexington and Louisville made Frankfort the capital of Kentucky. (Canberra, Australia was built to offset the rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney as well).
Now with technology and money being what they are, it seems unthinkable any state would move it’s capital city due to cost. Alaska voted to move it’s capital from Jueneu to Willow but then refused to allocate funds for the move. In the late 60s there was an attempt to move Florida’s capital to the Orlando area, but that didn’t come about, then Disney built there park there and well that never happened.
So my question is, what do you think of your state capital? Is it in a good place? Could there be a better city in your opinion?
People not in the US feel free to substitute your province or state, like in Australia or Canada or if you are in a unitary state, your national capital.
I live in Illinois and I think Springfield is in a pretty good location. Though it seems pretty far south to us Chicagoans, it’s pretty much in the center, and I think it nicely balances off the dominance of Chicago and the suburbs which contain about 75% of the population of Illinois.
I like Columbia right where it is, because when it was in Charleston everything was in Charleston and that’s an incredibly inconvenient city. So it’s nice, it’s in the middle of the state, which allowed the university to be here too instead of nasty-ass Charleston, and nobody has to go too far to get here.
The Massachusetts capital is in downtown Boston which is an abomination unto the Lord. Boston already overshadows everything else in the state and there is no reason to concentrate both the Boston city government and the state government in the same place. The state capital should be moved west at least to Worcester but preferably to Springfield or the Berkshires. Even New York state had the sense not to put the state capital in NYC but Massachusetts could fuck up a wet dream so that is what we get.
Denver is still the most reasonable place to put in Colorado.
It’s almost exactly at the center of population point (only about 20 miles SSW of capitol building). It is reasonable well centered for the state as a whole. It is by far the best situated town as far as transportion goes. And what about 60% of the state population lives in the greater metro area?
So yeah Denver is really the most logical place for the State Government to situate itself
Ohio is sorta almost a square, and Columbus is pretty much in it’s center. I’m not very fond of Columbus itself - they annexed everything anywhere near the city and became monstrously huge - but, it’s in a great location and it IS nice to have the state’s largest city as our capital.
If memory serves, there was actually an armed insurrection in the early days of the US by farmers in the Western part of Mass. who were pissed their representatives kept missing votes in the State Legislator because it was too hard maintain a farm on one end of the state and keep having to travel to the other end for votes in Boston. Indeed, I’ve heard that that is the reason other states put their capitals in more centrally located locations.
Here in VT we have the opposite case. The capital is centrally located, but there isn’t much to the town beyond that (pop. 8,000 says wiki).
I’ve heard that Montpelier is the only U.S. state capitol that doesn’t have a McDonald’s. Anyone know if that’s true?
As for NJ–Trenton is less than optimal. It’s fairly centrally located from a north-south perspective, which is good…but the city itself? Not so good.
If the city itself wasn’t so awful, it would be fine. I wonder where I’d move it? Maybe New Brunswick.
Oh jeez, downtown Boston is an abomination? It’s one of the nicest cities in the country and the capital building is stunning. Massachusetts is so small I don’t see how anyone could complain about how long it takes to get there. In addition, the vast majority of the state’s residents are in the Boston metro area, so it makes it convenient for them to get there. You can drive, take the bus, the subway, or commuter rail.
Lansing is a nice city and in the central part of the state, if you ignore the northern part (which they do anyway). If it was located in Detroit, the Capitol building would be catching fire several times a year.
Trenton’s not that bad. Wasn’t some 13 year old killed there recently in a drive-by? That’s not quite as bad as the execution-style murders in Newark or the dead prostitutes in Atlantic City. The worst part about Trenton is that I get lost there 100% of the time. I can drive away from it for 20 minutes and still end up in the middle of the city. It’s like a vehicular black hole. Sometimes I end up in Pennsylvania as Hawking radiation.
For shear convenience, Cape May or High Point would be the rational choice for capital.
I’m an Ohioan, and I agree. Although I prefer Cleveland, where I live, Columbus is a nice city, too.
My brother-in-law lives with his family in Montpelier, Vt., and they love it. Not sure about the no-McDonald’s story, but it is the smallest state capital in the country, IIRC.
Minus: Sacramento is in Northern California, and shares that area’s worldviews, which are often at odds with those of the only part of California that matters.
Plus: It’s far, far away from us down here in SoCal, so it’s the perfect place to send politicians we are tired of listening to.
I’ve lived in South Jersey my entire life and I’ve never been to Camden except for the waterfront or to cross the Ben Franklin Bridge. Camden has some things going for it, though. They’ve recently started a $2 shuttle service to the waterfront from Philly, and there hasn’t been a murder in like two days.
It was essentially the mid point between San Francisco and the Gold Country back in the 1850s. The population of the state was pretty well split between the two at the time, and SoCal was nothing but a sprinkling of towns and a big desert.
Then came the railroads, oil, Hollywood, World War II, etc. and SoCal grew to be bigger than NorCal. Maybe the capital should be San Luis Obispo or Fresno these days.
It’s fine where it is, although there seems to be a disconnect between SoCal and Sacramento, I think. Growing up in SoCal, I never really heard anyone talk about Sacramento at all. People in Sacramento and SF seem to be more conversant in things SoCal than vice versa.
I don’t mean that downtown Boston is an abomination unto the Lord although it is in some ways. I mean that it isn’t fair to place the state capital in the state’s largest city especially if there is only one dominating city and it is near the easternmost point. MA is small for a U.S. states but it takes well over three hours to drive all the way from the west into Boston proper. Having the capital in Boston results in inbreeding so bad that they may make a remake of Deliverance based on it some day. Most other states had enough sense to move their capitals so that the entire state is fairly represented. New York has theirs in Albany and the U.S. capital in Washington D.C. was built on neutral ground from scratch in order to be as fair as possible at the time. That is the only fair way to do it.
It does appearthat Montpelier doesn’t have a McDonald’s, though Barre has three, and that’s close enough to count, isn’t it?
I like Quebec City as a provincial capital. It has an officialness to it that Montreal or other cities in the province lack. Montreal gets all the action though; the sports teams, the bands, the tv shows, the large festivals, etc. Too busy for laws and regulations! Both are nearly the same age, but Quebec City is the original.