How about in Rand McNally?
I like the concept, but looking at the satellite image , I’m not sure it would be the most convenient place to build an assumedly large new city.
I would have said–Reykjavík, because HEY! Who hates Iceland, yaknowwhatImean?
But, between money owed & volcanos…sorry, Iceland.
My own personal opinion is that it’s the inability to work out simple things like this (or what the official language should be, or the currency, or who should be ON the currency, or who gets to open the first official session etc etc) that will stop a world government ever happening, and not our ability or lack thereof to actually form a functioning world government.
It should be HuManchester, obviously.
It’s called “bikeshedding”. Personally, I don’t see why it has to be colocated with any existing city. Find a suitable piece of land or island, get the country exercising sovereign rights over the land to cede them, then build it there.
Jerusalem can be ceded to the World Gov., killing two birds with one stone. Three if it brings about the end times.
A world government implies that there are no more sovereign nations. Therefore the point of whoever owns the property is moot. I would suggest two main capitals with a few smaller zone/administrative capitals. One on the American continents, the other located somewhat centrally in the Eurasian zone. In both cases, you probably ought to use a location that has relatively good road access but not a lot of existing development. Building new things would be a good symbol of a “fresh start”, and not carry historical weight or have to deal with the problems of a large, non governmental population. I suggest somewhere in the Rockies for the Americas capital and Central Asia closer to the European side for the Eurasian zone maybe in the Ukraine? The smaller zone capitals ought be located in cities that reflect the cultural heritage of the areas overseen. I would suggest possibly Ascuncion, Paraguay for S. America, Quinghai, China for the Far Asian zone, Antananarivo, Madagascar for Africa, and lastly Wellington, New Zealand for the pacific rim.
I agree, this is the most logical, equitable answer. By contrast, the OP’s suggestion of Santiago is the closest major city to the antipodes of said world population center, the place (near Easter Island) *farthest *from the most people in the world.
When Washington, DC was chosen as the site for the U.S. capital, it was near the center of U.S. population in 1790. (Nowadays, that would be in Rolla, Missouri-- I am *not *suggesting we move it to Rolla!)
Switzerland ? Nothing like that. We want our functionality, tranquility and pride (and our banks). Besides, we don’t have any room.
Bilderberg Group.
Bilderberg Meeting - Wikipedia. And the meeting location moves around the world from year to year.
Perhaps you’re also thinking of the annual Davos conference held in davos Switzerland… World Economic Forum - Wikipedia
Our banks can beat up your banks. 
If we’re building from scratch, how about the Canadian arctic? It’s going to be quite nice there in a couple of decades.
What’s wrong with Europe, Curtis?
When relations between the US and the UN were at their lowest ebb during the Bush years, the mayor of Montreal floated a trial balloon of inviting the UN to set up shop instead. We already host a couple of international agencies (such as ICAO), although obviously nothing quite on that scale.
The obvious answer is London. We’ve already done it once.
seems like the logical choice to me, at any rate it should be one of the world cities so either London, New York or Tokyo.
Nope. It shouldn’t be situated in a country that has a relatively recent past of imperialism/world dominance, IMO. In fact I think that all western nations should be excluded, even the most peaceful ones (say, Denmark) because symbolically, it would look like a continuation of their domination.
Galapagos!
Yes! Political cartoonists would appreciate it.
Did anyone say Madagascar yet? At least you know the leaders will be safe from infection.