Should Any U.S. State Capitals Move?

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by CrazyAboutCities

If California even decide to split up its state into two states (North California and South California)... I am sure Sacramento will continue being state capital for North California but what about South California? San Diego?

I would say it would be either a compromise city b/w Los Angeles and San Diego geographically between them (somewhere in Orange County) or Los Angeles would have the population to just impose itself as capital.

[Quadrilateral]

The best balance is a capital that's in a major city, but not the largest major city in the state. Maybe the second or third largest.

St Paul, MN
Raleigh, NC
Austin, TX
Richmond, VA

The only time it should be the largest city is if the state only has one major city that dominates.

[papa_spaz]

Originally Posted by Quadrilateral

The best balance is a capital that's in a major city, but not the largest major city in the state. Maybe the second or third largest.

St Paul, MN
Raleigh, NC
Austin, TX
Richmond, VA

The only time it should be the largest city is if the state only has one major city that dominates.

I agree. The Louisiana state capital used to be in New Orleans but people thought that would give to much power to New Orleans. So it was moved to the second largest city in Louisiana Baton Rouge.

[papa_spaz]

Originally Posted by Quadrilateral

The best balance is a capital that's in a major city, but not the largest major city in the state. Maybe the second or third largest.

St Paul, MN
Raleigh, NC
Austin, TX
Richmond, VA

The only time it should be the largest city is if the state only has one major city that dominates.

I agree. The Louisiana state capital used to be in New Orleans but people thought that would give to much power to New Orleans. So it was moved to the second largest city in Louisiana which is Baton Rouge.

[1772]

Originally Posted by weava

Kansas City, Kansas has a Nascar track and an MLS team, its not exactly an unknown town.....

It is actully pretty strange that part of Kansas City isn't in Kansas. What is the story behind that?

[weava]

Originally Posted by 1772

It is actully pretty strange that part of Kansas City isn't in Kansas. What is the story behind that?

The Kansas River name goes back to at least 1781, a river which ends at the Missouri river at the border of the two cities and states.

Two entirely different cities.
Kansas City, Missouri was founded in 1838(before the state of Kansas existed)
Kansas City, Kansas was founded in 1868.

The state was founded in 1861, started as a territory in 1854.

So as you can see, KCMO was the original named after the river. Then the adjacent state took the name as well, then the 2nd city was formed. So you can blame the state of Kansas for all the naming confusion since they weren't original enough to come up with another name.

[1772]

Interesting! Definetly have to go visit one day.

[alama]

Don't know why Juneau remains the capital of this state. There are actually more state employees residing here than in Juneau. Approximately 6,800 state employees work in Anchorage compared to about 3,800 in Juneau. And it's a very small town and it can't expand because it's completely surrounded by mountains and flat land is gone.

[Manitopiaaa]

Read my first post. It's about Juneau and how the capital should move to Anchorage

[jcastro805]

Originally Posted by BTA88

Wait, so you think the capitol should be moved to the largest city in each state except in PA? Why is that?

Also, Houston is the largest city in Texas, followed by Dallas, then Austin.

Actually, it is Houston, then San Antonio, then Dallas, then Austin...followed closely behind by Fort Worth...

[bozenBDJ]

Should Any U.S. State Capitals Move?

yes, for just about every state Capital city/town for which, in the state, the State Capital is the most populated city/town.

the following U.S. states that has to move are as of the following:.
AZ, AR, CO, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, MA, MS, OH, OK, RI, SC, UT, WV, and WY.

[jcastro805]

Economically, no, most capitols should not move. It would be a huge expense to relocate personnel and set up shop in a new city, would have a huge negative impact on the old region's finances, and if the new capitol is in the state's largest city, likely wouldn't improve the city's overall finances very much. Furthermore, many capitol cities (especially in the west) tend to be historical and cultural hubs, such as Olympia, Sacramento, Carson City, and Salem, and tie the state's capitol with the state's history.

Oh, and if California broke up, I would suggest the SoCal capitol be established in a well-planned city, such as Irvine. Perhaps on the land where the El Toro Marine Corps Base was. It is a good location between San Diego and Los Angeles.

[alama]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Read my first post. It's about Juneau and how the capital should move to Anchorage

It really should.

[UrbanMyth]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

For Anchorage's new Capitol Building, I do like the Anchorage Mormon Temple. It looks very Alaska-y to me:

Link: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/anch...on-temple1.jpg

Looks like a Stalin-era building in eastern Europe!

[UrbanMyth]

Originally Posted by BTA88

Of the top 5 largest cities in the country, none are state capitols. I think this is a good thing. In PA, NY and Illinois, the largest cities do not properly represent the people of the state. PA is much different than Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, NY state is much different than NYC, and Illinois is much different than Chicago. These are all rural states with disproportionately large population centers not reflective of the state as a whole.

As a Philadelphian living in rural PA, I can see that it'd be bad news for the rest of the state to have the center of power based in Philadelphia. I think it's better to have the state's center of power located in a small city than a large city, because it's easier to protect liberty that way.

I don't know about the impact on "liberty"... I live in rural Virginia and I don't believe that we rural residents would could be trusted to do a better job of representing "all" our fellow state residents any better than urban residents represent us now.

But an interesting point about state capitals dominating states... There are only a few that dominate an entire state more than Georgia's...

In Georgia, the state capital IS the state...by nearly every measure. Nearly all of Georgia's growth in the past 30 years has been in one city, the state capital...it's stunning. 6 million of GA's 10 million residents are located in that one metro. No other city in Georgia even comes close. Boston and Massachusetts are similar. Can't think of another...certainly not PA, NY, North Carolina, TX, FL, CA, OH...

[UrbanMyth]

Originally Posted by Quadrilateral

The best balance is a capital that's in a major city, but not the largest major city in the state. Maybe the second or third largest.

St Paul, MN
Raleigh, NC
Austin, TX
Richmond, VA

The only time it should be the largest city is if the state only has one major city that dominates.

Good examples... Columbus, OH....biggest city, but not the biggest metro in Ohio.

[milquetoast]

Sacramento to Los Angeles.

[CNB30]

How About to San Francisco

[Manitopiaaa]

It's been 6 months since I posted the first state that (in my opinion) should move its capital. Time for #2




Nevada, the 36th state of the union (and one of the most beautiful)
Population: 2,758,391 (July 1, 2012)
Population in 2011: 2,723,322
Population in Clark County: 1,969,975
% of Nevadans living in Clark County: 72.3%

2. Nevada: Carson City (55,439) to Las Vegas (589,317)


Nevada is one of the nation's most enigmatic states. It's people run the gamut from Mormon Cowboys to SoCal transplants to Moonlite Bunny Ranch prostitutes. It's people are ideologically and ethnically diverse making Nevada a second-tier (though pivotal) swing state in Presidential elections. If you asked the average American to name Nevada's capital you'd probably get Las Vegas as the most common answer. It makes sense, no? The Las Vegas Valley after all holds nearly 3/4 (and growing) of the state's population. It has a strong brand known internationally and is the linchpin of Nevada's economy. Long gone are the days of silver mines and pioneer settlers. Nevada's main industries now are all grounded in Las Vegas: gambling, services (hospitality, retail), foodstuffs, etc.

The real answer to that question (What is Nevada's capital?) is the relatively unknown city/county of Carson City, Nevada
.

Here's a map of Nevada:

Source: http://sierracyclesmith.com/rides/Ne...evada-map2.gif

Nevada is 7th largest state in the union by area at 110,622 sq. miles and as I previously mentioned the capital is Carson City and 3/4 of the population is in Las Vegas. So what? If we take into account that people should live near their representatives and elected officials, we now have a situation where 3/4 of Nevadans live more than 7 hours away by car from their political center! Flying to Carson City is an even more laborious task that requires going to Reno then renting a car or dealing with Carson City's own miniscule airport. In other words, Carson City is too isolated from its subjects to be an effective political center. For that reason Carson City should lose its status as Nevada's Capital. In the 1850s Carson City made sense since the population was grounded in the area due to silver mines. Carson City and Virginia City boomed from the 1850s to the 1870s from mineral extraction and serving as transport and commercial hubs for settlers bound for California. Railroads became a mainstay of the economy and Nevada's population and economy revolved around the Carson City-Reno-Virginia City triangle. Take these population figures for example. In 1870 (5 years after Nevada's statehood), the populations of Nevada's biggest cities were:

Carson City (3,042); Las Vegas (0) In 1900, Las Vegas clocked in at 25 (25 people that is, not 25,000); Reno (1,035); Virginia City (7,048)

Taking into account counties in 1870 we get:
NORTHWEST NEVADA
Carson City (3,042)
Douglas County (1,215)
Lyon County (1,837)
Storey County (11,359)
Washoe County (3,091)

LAS VEGAS AREA (2,985) Lincoln County then included Clark County

The State in 1870 had 42,941 people and 20,544 (48%) lived less than 100 miles from the capital. Another 40% lived in NE Nevada from Elko County down to Esmeralda County and Goldfield. The far south of Nevada was an empty barren landscape with a few mostly Spanish pueblos and some frontier towns with fewer people than you have fingers. So it made sense to have the capital in Carson City. It had great transportation links, proximity to booming California and was central located among the four biggest cities at the time. Now it doesn't really make sense.

Nevada remained a sparsely populated state well into the 1900s. In fact, the entire state of Nevada in 1970 had 488,738 people (less than just Las Vegas city proper has today!). Since then the growth of Las Vegas has made it the effective political, social and economic hub of the state. Holding the capital in Carson City for historic affinity or tradition means keeping the vast majority of Nevadans isolated from their citizens. It wasn't until 1970 that Clark County topped 50% of Nevada's population (100+ years after statehood) yet it is now the crux of Nevada and should be closer to its political leaders. Does that mean that Las Vegas will control the entire state? No! Clark County is a deeply divided political county with suburbs deeply skeptical of the city proper. The Clark County Commission is an effective balance against Las Vegas City Hall and let's not forget that Reno's Washoe County has 15% of Nevada's population as well. What moving the capital will do, however, is give the vast majority of Nevadans a better say in their government than they have right now.

THE NEW STATE CAPITAL
Nevada's current state capital in Carson City is one of the ugliest (if not the ugliest) in the nation. Here's the current State Senate:


I would like the old Post Office and US Courthouse in Las Vegas (now the Mob Museum) to become the new state capitol:


Source: http://www.neonparadise.com/siteimag...2012%20343.jpg

If not the Strip has many buildings, especially this one:


VIVA LAS VEGAS!!

Source: http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/med...onal-hotel.jpg

All pics used throughout not cited were obtained through Wikimedia Commons

[pistola916]

Originally Posted by CNB30

How About to San Francisco

How about Sacramento?!

Sacramento is a fine capital city. LA and SF need to stop hogging all the attention.