For the record, Ottawa, at the time a small, out-of-the-way logging town, was chosen as the capital of Canada to settle an ongoing and often violent dispute between Toronto and Montreal as to which was to be capital.
Quebec City became the capital of Quebec instead of Montreal by being there first.
Victoria, BC, I have no idea about. Nor Fredericton, NB (instead of Saint John) or Regina, SK (instead of Saskatoon).
I’m no Canadian, but I believe Regina got the nod in Saskatchewan because it was built for the Trans-Canadian Railway.
Perhaps Victoria was chosen as BC’s capital because it has nicer weather than Vancouver.
Perhaps becoming a capital city prevents the further growth of the city.
I work here in Washington, DC, and I’m modestly familiar with Richmond, VA (BobT, you are too kind toward that city–no, really). One thing the two have in common is that both governments are extremely invasive in local affairs. For example, John McCain wants to let an airliner fly over my apartment once every 45 seconds day and night, so he can fly direct back to Arizona.
A great amount of legislation is directed toward the legislators’ comfort while in town, but the governments are out of session a good proportion of the year, which may disturb the natural economic rhythms of a city. Just a guess on my part.
Another related thread may be of interest: Why are capital cities of countries usually so small compared to other
cities?
The topic broadened into a discussion of state capitals in addition to national capitals.
Victoria became the capital in 1868, and Vancouver wasn’t even incorporated until 1886. Vancouver owes its importance to the fact that it is the Pacific terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
An error we’re still paying for. The capital of Canada should have been Montreal. Imagine the problems we might have avoided; Canada probably would have been a bilingual country from 1840 on, and we might have been spared the separatist movement.
there first.
Fredericton was chosen as the capital in 1785, for the simple reason that it’s harder to attack than St. John.
Victoria was chosen as capital because, at the time, Vancouver Island was its own province. (Really!) There was no such thing as a province of British Columbia; Vancouver Island was the first province in the West. British Columbia was formed a few years later when the gold rush had boosted the mainland population enough to merit colony status. Since it seemed absurd for the two to be separate colonies, they mere merged in November 1866, with Victoria as capital. Vancouver was a much smaller city than Victoria then.
Regina was the first city ever incoporated in what was then the Northwest Territories, so it was named capital of the Northwest Territories. It therefore remained capital when Saskatchewan was formed as a province.
The original capital of mainland BC was New Westminster. That only lasted for a few years though; when the Crown Colony of British Columbia was joined with the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island, Victoria stayed on as the capital of the combined colony.
Exactly. When Juneau was made the territorial capital of Alaska in 1906, it looked like that would be the busy spot. The projections never panned out.
Anchorage wasn’t more than a tent camp until 1915, when it began to grow steadily, thanks to the railroad and the military. Anchorage is now the center of over 60% of Alaska’s population, while Juneau’s 20,000-odd residents are cut off from the rest of the state.
This is a bit different - backwards, in fact - from the new, small capital being established separately from an already-large city.
Well many Capital are among the 50 largest cities. Phoenix is number 5. Austin, Sacromento, Denver, Oklahoma City, Boston, Atlanta, Nashville, Columbus, Indianapolis, are among the top 50 largest cities.
State capitols were established as
A) Central Locations (Pierre, Bismark, Springfield, Madison, Montgomery, Jackson etc…)
B) Compromises between two larger cities (Jacksonville and Pensacola were the large cities in Florida. The only other city of real importance was Key West. Most of FL south of those cities was conidered a swamp. So halfway was BOOM Tallahassee. Jefferson City between KC and Saint Louis. Frankfort between Lexington and Louisville)
C) To balance one city states (I know I’ll get lot of arguments here but…) Chicago dominated Illinois. If you put the capitol there what else would there be…
NYC dominates NY State. Although there are many big cities the enromous population of NYC. Almost as big as the next three larges cities in America would be too dominant.
The counter argument is small states both physically (Boston and Providence…The state is so small why bother moving it) and population wise Utah…Idaho that it made no sense as central areas of those states were not really habitable. (at the time)
Then of course the Western and Southern state have experienced population booms. Phoenix didn’t have 100,000 in 1940 today it has 1.3 million. Austin and Sacromento are other good example of massive population booms.
State capitals don’t suffer the population declines that traditionally large cities do. For example Pittsburg isn’t even in the top 50 cities any more. Cleveland and Saint Louis have bled people. Cinicinnati will likely fall behind Toldeo by next census.
I can only think of a few capitals that have lost a bit. Salt Lake City, Providence, Atlanta but they have lost their people to their suburbs and the drain hasn’t been massive.
Tallahassee is the capital of Florida… Compared to Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and Jacksonville, it’s a dot on the map.
We’ve got about 250,000 in the COUNTY, no freeway system, one 4 lane interstate that brushes the northern edge, and Few signs of development. The capital building is 22 stories, and it is by far the largest building in town… I believe there is an ordinance that no building can be taller.
To those who have seen the Florida Capital, it looks like a 22 story set of male genetalia, with the senate in one nut and the house in the other.
Isn’t that where all cities have been losing people, to their suburbs? I doubt that there’s many mtripolitan areas in the country that have shrunk.
Re Regina, Saskatchewan: The original NWT capital was Fort Livingstone, then Battleford. When the government picked a southern route for the CP RR, the quaint town of Pile of Bones got picked to be a rail center and was clearly then going to be the largest city in Saskatchewan. It got anointed the new capital, and was given a more respectable name as well.
Battleford got screwed again when the CN RR did take a northern route, but on the other side of the Battle River. It’s now a suburb of North Battleford. Lo, how the mighty are fallen.
The above cite tells the story of the Edmonton-Calgary tussle when Alberta was created and needed a capital. Feelings apparently are a little touchy even today.
I relize this is old news now, and may have been cleared up elsewhere besides, but as a longtime Canadian prairie dweller, I feel obliged to clear this up.
While it is true that Regina grew out of the town of Pile of Bones, which was picked to be a terminus for the CPRail, the name was not changed because of that. It refers to the Queen, also known as Windsor Regina. (pronounced Re-jean-ah, not rhyming with anything that Americans seem to find so amusing:)). She crossed Canada in the early years of the CPRail, and the name was changed in honour of her passing through town. It became the capitol because it being not the capitol would have been seen as a snub to Her Royal Majesty (a thing not taken lightly here in the frozen north). Still a bone of contention between Saskatoon and Regina, believe me.
As for Battleford, if you’ve spent any time in the vast dust bowl that is Northern Saskatchewan, you would see why this place is no threat to…well, pretty much anywhere.
Just my 0.02!