Capital Cities Ranked from Most Obvious to Most Obscure

[webny99]

I'm sure more than a few people would say Minneapolis is our capital if put on the spot, between the penchant of the media to refer to "Minneapolis-St. Paul"  and most people generally aware that Minneapolis is larger, which for some reason means "capital"  in many minds even though the capital and largest city are only the same in probably about 1/5 of states...

St. Paul was also tough to rank. It's obvious to me, as someone who's spent a bit of time in Minnesota, and I figure most people would correctly identify the capital as being in the Twin Cities area, even if they forget which is the capital, or even forget that St. Paul is the other twin. 
St. Paul also sounds like the capital. If you gave the choice of Minneapolis or St. Paul in a vacuum, I would pick St. Paul, 100%.

Also, Austin isn't "mid-sized"  - isn't is second to Phoenix in state capital population? It just gets lost in the shuffle somehow between the more famous San Antonio and all of Texas's other massive cities.

Right... the reason it's not ranked higher is that it's not that well known nationally, has only recently exploded in population, and is far from the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Texas.

[webny99]

Olympia, Washington, could easily be placed in the "mid sized, centrally located" category.  It doesn't empty down to nothing when the legislature's not in session.  It's in the middle of the I-5/Pacific Highway corridor, the most populous corridor in the state.  It's accessible by water, in small to medium sized boats.

But unless Wikipedia is incorrect, it's the #24 city in Washington. No other capital city is below #15. 

And being part of the larger Seattle corridor is partly what makes it so obscure.. it's indistinct, location-wise, and doesn't really have its own identity, certainly not nationally.

[kphoger]

I'm sure more than a few people would say Minneapolis is our capital if put on the spot, between the penchant of the media to refer to "Minneapolis-St. Paul"  and most people generally aware that Minneapolis is larger, which for some reason means "capital"  in many minds even though the capital and largest city are only the same in probably about 1/5 of states...

St. Paul was also tough to rank. It's obvious to me, as someone who's spent a bit of time in Minnesota, and I figure most people would correctly identify the capital as being in the Twin Cities area, even if they forget which is the capital, or even forget that St. Paul is the other twin. 
St. Paul also sounds like the capital. If you gave the choice of Minneapolis or St. Paul in a vacuum, I would pick St. Paul, 100%.

Also, Austin isn't "mid-sized"  - isn't is second to Phoenix in state capital population? It just gets lost in the shuffle somehow between the more famous San Antonio and all of Texas's other massive cities.

Right... the reason it's not ranked higher is that it's not that well known nationally, has only recently exploded in population, and is far from the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Texas.

I think most people unfamiliar Saint Paul would guess Minneapolis as the capital.  However, considering it's one of the Twin Cities, it's also not at all obscure.  For example, if you replied, 'Actually, it's the other "twin",' it's not like they'd be all that surprised.

And I both agree and disagree that Austin isn't well known nationally.  I think a lot of people know about Austin as an up-and-coming city with a lot of entertainment and stuff.  But that doesn't mean people would guess it's the capital.

[Brandon]

Discussion in some other threads got me thinking about capital cities, and how some are so obvious, while others are real head-scratchers.
So I thought I'd rank them from most obvious to most obscure, and maybe this could be an opportunity to discuss the history of our state capitals and what caused them to be located where they are. So, without further ado:

35. Tallahassee, FL

Tallahassee was chosen as it was midway (there's interestingly enough a town called "Midway" that's a Tallahassee suburb) between Pensacola, then the capital of West Florida, and St. Augustine, then the capital of East Florida.  Very few lived south of Gainesville at the time.

[sprjus4]

32. Raleigh, NC    Right in the middle of the state in a large metro area.  Off the beaten path?

It's not on any major long-distance corridors. I-95 bypasses the metro far to the east, whereas I-85 runs through the western tip of Durham and requires connections through other routes to reach Raleigh which is on the other side of the metro.

I-40 connects Raleigh to I-95 South and I-85 South, I-87 / US-64 connects Raleigh to I-95 North, and the future I-885 and East End Connector will connect it to I-85 North, along with a planned upgrade of US-1 in the next decade.

Yes, I-40 runs through Raleigh, though the only real through traffic would be from Greensboro / Winston-Salem and points northwest bound to Wilmington and vice versa.

[Roadgeekteen]

32. Raleigh, NC    Right in the middle of the state in a large metro area.  Off the beaten path?

It's not on any major long-distance corridors. I-95 bypasses the metro far to the east, whereas I-85 runs through the western tip of Durham and requires connections through other routes to reach Raleigh which is on the other side of the metro.

Yes, I-40 runs through Raleigh, though the only real through traffic would be from Greensboro / Winston-Salem and points northwest bound to Wilmington and vice versa.

Raleigh is quite a major city though, and it has an NHL team.

[sprjus4]

32. Raleigh, NC    Right in the middle of the state in a large metro area.  Off the beaten path?

It's not on any major long-distance corridors. I-95 bypasses the metro far to the east, whereas I-85 runs through the western tip of Durham and requires connections through other routes to reach Raleigh which is on the other side of the metro.

Yes, I-40 runs through Raleigh, though the only real through traffic would be from Greensboro / Winston-Salem and points northwest bound to Wilmington and vice versa.

Raleigh is quite a major city though, and it has an NHL team.

Agreed, my point is that it's not on a major through corridor in the state like I-95 or I-85. It has relatively easy connections to these routes though through other interstates and freeways.

[Roadgeekteen]

32. Raleigh, NC    Right in the middle of the state in a large metro area.  Off the beaten path?

It's not on any major long-distance corridors. I-95 bypasses the metro far to the east, whereas I-85 runs through the western tip of Durham and requires connections through other routes to reach Raleigh which is on the other side of the metro.

Yes, I-40 runs through Raleigh, though the only real through traffic would be from Greensboro / Winston-Salem and points northwest bound to Wilmington and vice versa.

Raleigh is quite a major city though, and it has an NHL team.

Agreed, my point is that it's not on a major through corridor in the state like I-95 or I-85. It has relatively easy connections to these routes though through other interstates and freeways.

Right, but it's not exactly "off the beaten path" like say, Pierre, SD. And don't forget about future I-87 from the west.

[briantroutman]

Harrisburg certainly punches above its weight in terms of being a strategically located, major crossroads. But I just couldn't put it in the same league as Albany and Lansing because it really is not that well known nationally and is even under 50K in population.

I assumed you went down the rabbit hole of "...t can't be that important...look at how low the population is" . But that also doesn't take into account the fractious nature of municipalities in much of the East and in Pennsylvania in particular. Harrisburg itself may be just under 50K, but it anchors a metro area of 575K. For comparison: Lansing metro - 464K, Montgomery metro - 373K, Springfield (IL) metro - 211K...etc. etc.

[SEWIGuy]

32. Raleigh, NC    Right in the middle of the state in a large metro area.  Off the beaten path?

It's not on any major long-distance corridors. I-95 bypasses the metro far to the east, whereas I-85 runs through the western tip of Durham and requires connections through other routes to reach Raleigh which is on the other side of the metro.

I-40 connects Raleigh to I-95 South and I-85 South, I-87 / US-64 connects Raleigh to I-95 North, and the future I-885 and East End Connector will connect it to I-85 North, along with a planned upgrade of US-1 in the next decade.

Yes, I-40 runs through Raleigh, though the only real through traffic would be from Greensboro / Winston-Salem and points northwest bound to Wilmington and vice versa.

So it is on a major e/w interstate in I-40, and both I-85 and I-95 go through its metro area.  But it is off the beaten path?  In a metropolitan area of over a million people?

[sprjus4]

Right, but it's not exactly "off the beaten path" like say, Pierre, SD. And don't forget about future I-87 from the west.

I-87 would connect Raleigh to I-95 North and to the Hampton Roads region, though still wouldn't be a major through corridor itself for long distance interstate traffic. It serves more as an intrastate route for traffic originating / destined in Raleigh.

It could see traffic coming through from the east headed to the I-85 corridor though.

So it is on a major e/w interstate in I-40, and both I-85 and I-95 go through its metro area.  But it is off the beaten path?  In a metropolitan area of over a million people?

I-40 mainly serves traffic from the Piedmont-Triad bound to Wilmington more than anything, not necessarily long distance traffic in the sense that I-95 and I-85 do. It just happens to be on the eastern end of the cross-country I-40 corridor which picks up long distance interstate traffic largely west of I-26 and Asheville, then taking in long-haul I-81 traffic in Tennessee where it merges into it. East of there, it's pretty much in-state traffic.

I-95 does not run in or near the metro. You have to connect via I-40 (to the south) or I-87 / US-64 (to the north).

I-85 slivers through the edge of Durham on the west side of the overall Raleigh-Durham metro, but does not actually run through Raleigh.

In the original interstate system, Raleigh was not served by an interstate highway. I-40 originally terminated at I-85 in Greensboro. In 1968, an extension eastwards overlapping I-85 to Durham, then following a new location routing through Raleigh down to I-95 was approved. In the 1970s, it was to either extend further east to either Morehead City or Wilmington, then Wilmington was chosen as the preferred path. It was not completed through Raleigh and to I-95 until the late 1980s and completed to Wilmington in phases from the 1980s until after 1990. Today, US-70 serves the Morehead City routing never built, and will over the next decade be replaced with the newer I-42.

[Konza]

Would have used "no-brainers" instead of "doozies".  All of these cities, with the exception of Boston, are the largest, or at least one of the largest, cities in the state, and are centrally located in the state.

Little Rock and Des Moines probably deserve to be in the top ten, probably at the expense of Atlanta and Boston.

Either the University of Missouri should have been in Jefferson City or the capital should have been at Columbia.  I'd vote for both at Jeff City because it's on the Missouri River.  Ditto with Kentucky.  Capital should have been Lexington.

Austin probably belongs closer to Nashville and Columbus than where it is.  The difference is that instead of being the most centrally located  of three large cities, it's that of five or six.

[Roadgeekteen]

Would have used "no-brainers" instead of "doozies".  All of these cities, with the exception of Boston, are the largest, or at least one of the largest, cities in the state, and are centrally located in the state.

Little Rock and Des Moines probably deserve to be in the top ten, probably at the expense of Atlanta and Boston.

Either the University of Missouri should have been in Jefferson City or the capital should have been at Columbia.  I'd vote for both at Jeff City because it's on the Missouri River.  Ditto with Kentucky.  Capital should have been Lexington.

Austin probably belongs closer to Nashville and Columbus than where it is.  The difference is that instead of being the most centrally located  of three large cities, it's that of five or six.

Little Rock is more important/more obvious than Boston? I'm confused.

[brad2971]

I was told that Connecticut had a split dual capitol of both Hartford AND New Haven at one time.

Montpelier, VT is one of the two smallest state capitols, but still has direct access via I-89. I think Pierre, SD is the smallest state capitol of them all.

Depends upon how one wants to measure smallest. Judging by city limits, Montpelier has 7436 residents to Pierre's 13980 (2018 estimates for both). Keep in mind, though, that Montpelier has a daytime working population of more than 21000 people, and that Washington County, VT (of which Montpelier is the Shire town) has 58409 residents. As opposed to Hughes County, SD (with Pierre as the county seat), which has only 17650 residents.

In fact, one could assemble VT's 9616 square miles around Pierre, and the combined county populations around Pierre would be at least 20000 short of Washington County's population. So Pierre may not be the smallest capital city, but it certainly can be said to be the most remote of all 50 state capitals. Yes, even including Juneau and Honolulu.

[Konza]

author=Roadgeekteen link=topic=26908.msg2501074#msg2501074 date=1589925707]
Little Rock is more important/more obvious than Boston? I'm confused.

Little Rock is (or at least historically has been) the largest city in the largest metropolitan area in Arkansas, and it is almost smack-dab in the center of the state. 

I'd be willing to make an argument for Worcester as the capital of Massachusetts, to centralize the capital geographically within the state, and to get it out of the big city.  It would be kind of like Lincoln and Topeka, and, to some extent, Baton Rouge.

[Roadgeekteen]

Little Rock is more important/more obvious than Boston? I'm confused.

Little Rock is (or at least historically has been) the largest city in the largest metropolitan area in Arkansas, and it is almost smack-dab in the center of the state. 

I'd be willing to make an argument for Worcester as the capital of Massachusetts, to centralize the capital geographically within the state, and to get it out of the big city.  It would be kind of like Lincoln and Topeka, and, to some extent, Baton Rouge.
[/quote] I guess, but Atlanta? Can't think of any other city better for the capital. Maybe Macon.

[hbelkins]

Reminds me of that infamous "gotcha" question: How do you pronounce the capital of Kentucky, "Lewisville" or "Louieville?"



It's surprising just how dead Frankfort can be on evenings and weekends. A good chunk of the state government workforce lives in adjacent counties, and quite a few commute from Lexington, Louisville, and even Harrodsburg or other towns in counties not immediately adjacent to Franklin County.

And isn't Annapolis basically a capital in name only? Aren't most of the state government offices, such as SHA, in Baltimore or environs? I remember being surprised to learn that many of the SHA folks who provided support when Maryland hosted the AASHTO Subcommittee on Transportation Communications (TransComm) conference had their offices in Baltimore.

[webny99]

Reminds me of that infamous "gotcha" question: How do you pronounce the capital of Kentucky, "Lewisville" or "Louieville?"

Indeed. We've come full circle, as this post by kphoger just yesterday, was, in part, the inspiration for this thread in the first place.

[TravelingBethelite]

[...]

Either the University of Missouri should have been in Jefferson City or the capital should have been at Columbia.  I'd vote for both at Jeff City because it's on the Missouri River.

[...]

The problem with this being the University was still almost 20 years from existence when this was being decided, and Jefferson City was chosen for its proximity to the geographic centerpoint of Missouri. The Missouri River was not yet a major route of commerce (aside from heavy fur trade farther upstream), and Jefferson City was still largely surrounded by wilderness as the time, whereas Columbia was located on major overland routes across Missouri, include the Boone's Lick Road and the eastern end of the Great Osage Trail.

[webny99]

Harrisburg certainly punches above its weight in terms of being a strategically located, major crossroads. But I just couldn't put it in the same league as Albany and Lansing because it really is not that well known nationally and is even under 50K in population.

I assumed you went down the rabbit hole of "...t can't be that important...look at how low the population is" . But that also doesn't take into account the fractious nature of municipalities in much of the East and in Pennsylvania in particular. Harrisburg itself may be just under 50K, but it anchors a metro area of 575K. For comparison: Lansing metro - 464K, Montgomery metro - 373K, Springfield (IL) metro - 211K...etc. etc.

The funny thing is, Harrisburg, being the only one of the cities you listed that I've actually been to, certainly has the vibes (and the traffic) of a city quadruple its size. I just can't shake off the feeling that Lansing, Montgomery, Albany, etc. have a more distinct identity, and are more prominent both nationally and in their respective states, and Harrisburg seems like a no-name in comparison. I'd be interested to hear other's perspectives, though.

[Roadgeekteen]

Harrisburg certainly punches above its weight in terms of being a strategically located, major crossroads. But I just couldn't put it in the same league as Albany and Lansing because it really is not that well known nationally and is even under 50K in population.

I assumed you went down the rabbit hole of "...t can't be that important...look at how low the population is" . But that also doesn't take into account the fractious nature of municipalities in much of the East and in Pennsylvania in particular. Harrisburg itself may be just under 50K, but it anchors a metro area of 575K. For comparison: Lansing metro - 464K, Montgomery metro - 373K, Springfield (IL) metro - 211K...etc. etc.

The funny thing is, Harrisburg, being the only one of the cities you listed that I've actually been to, certainly has the vibes (and the traffic) of a city quadruple its size. I just can't shake off the feeling that Lansing, Montgomery, Albany, etc. have a more distinct identity, and are more prominent both nationally and in their respective states, and Harrisburg seems like a no-name in comparison. I'd be interested to hear other's perspectives, though.

Harrisburg also has a surprising number of interstates.

[Flint1979]

Harrisburg certainly punches above its weight in terms of being a strategically located, major crossroads. But I just couldn't put it in the same league as Albany and Lansing because it really is not that well known nationally and is even under 50K in population.

I assumed you went down the rabbit hole of "...t can't be that important...look at how low the population is" . But that also doesn't take into account the fractious nature of municipalities in much of the East and in Pennsylvania in particular. Harrisburg itself may be just under 50K, but it anchors a metro area of 575K. For comparison: Lansing metro - 464K, Montgomery metro - 373K, Springfield (IL) metro - 211K...etc. etc.

The funny thing is, Harrisburg, being the only one of the cities you listed that I've actually been to, certainly has the vibes (and the traffic) of a city quadruple its size. I just can't shake off the feeling that Lansing, Montgomery, Albany, etc. have a more distinct identity, and are more prominent both nationally and in their respective states, and Harrisburg seems like a no-name in comparison. I'd be interested to hear other's perspectives, though.

To me nationally Lansing is an average capital city. As far as Michigan goes Detroit use to be the capital and Marshall was proposed to be the new capital. Lansing was just a farm pretty much when it was chosen as the capital. I think it won over Marshall by two votes. Lansing is a pretty prominent city in the state though.

[webny99]

1. Oklahoma City

"the freebie"
Also the bait to get you to put down Kansas City, KS.

The catch is that you're supposed to put down Kansas City for Missouri, not Kansas. 

[webny99]

So if we were going to sort the capitals into fewer categories, maybe 3 or 4, what would that look like?

One bucket would be all the super-obvious ones.

Then you could have the semi-obvious ones, which kind of breaks down into 2 sub-categories: ones like Boise, Cheyenne, and Jackson, MS that are obvious for their state, but their states just don't happen to be that populous or prominent. And then the ones that make sense location-wise, but are lesser-known because the state has many bigger or similarly sized cities. Springfield, Lansing, and Albany would all fit into this category. I would probably also include some from my 4th category, like Raleigh and Harrisburg, among others.

And then everything else would be considered obscure.

[vdeane]

I'm guessing Harrisburg has a disproportionate amount of the population in "suburb" municipalities.  In terms of metro size, it's not that much smaller than Syracuse, but the city is extremely small (both in land area and population) relative to the rest of the urban area.

In a way it's similar to Albany, except it still follows the central city/suburbs model rather than the Capital District's (which is actually between Rochester and Syracuse in total metro population) several downtowns connected by suburbs.