Suppose it was decided that each U.S. state had to have two capitals, either to better represent different regions of the state, or for the old-fashioned reasons of centrality and distance, or whatever. Which two cities would you choose?
For each state, imagine two different scenarios: 1) where the current capital must be retained, and 2) where the current capital need not be kept (but it can be, making both scenarios the same in this instance).
I'll start with an obvious one, New York:
1) Albany, New York
2) Syracuse, New York
With Indianapolis being by far the largest city and already in the middle of the state, a second capital wouldn't really make sense, but if you had to do it, I guess Crown Point would be it, being the county seat of the second largest county.
Illinois would certainly benefit from this. A second capital could represent Chicago (and vicinity), while the current one in Springfield would represent the rest of the (underrepresented) state. Connecticut (Delaware, Rhode Island, etc) is too small to need another capital :-D One works for us just fine. :cool: :thumbsup:
Maine: Augusta and Portland
New Hampshire: Concord and Berlin
Vermont: Montpelier and Bennington
Massachusetts: Boston and Springfield
North Carolina: Raleigh and Charlotte
South Carolina: Columbia and Charleston
Virginia: Richmond and Alexandria
I thought I'd advance some to get the discussion flowing. NH and VT were based on trying to get adequate representation in an underrepresented area relatively far from the current capital.
New Jersey:
If retaining the current capital: Trenton & Newark
Better representing the entire state: Morristown & Egg Harbor City. Why those two? Because one would almost always be 60 - 90 minutes away from either capital, regardless of where they are in the state.
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2015, 08:47:25 AM
Suppose it was decided that each U.S. state had to have two capitals, either to better represent different regions of the state, or for the old-fashioned reasons of centrality and distance, or whatever. Which two cities would you choose?
For each state, imagine two different scenarios: 1) where the current capital must be retained, and 2) where the current capital need not be kept (but it can be, making both scenarios the same in this instance).
I'll start with an obvious one, New York:
1) Albany, New York
2) Syracuse, New York
I'd use New York City as a capital. If you want to better represent different regions of the state, the most populated city in the entire country should be represented.
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on September 02, 2015, 09:00:36 AM
Connecticut (Delaware, Rhode Island, etc) is too small to need another capital :-D One works for us just fine. :cool: :thumbsup:
Well, of course it is. :-) But, for whatever reason, the decision is made that you have to have two; which do you pick?
iPhone
Rhode Island: Providence and Newport
Is this like how Germany did it during the cold war? how West Germany still technically had west Berlin as the Capital, but they really used Bonn Germany as the head of government.
For New Jersey i would have the main capital stay Trenton, and have the secondary one be Jersey City. Trenton is close enough for the shore towns to flock to, and Jersey City would serve as oversight on the more populated section of the state.
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2015, 09:22:01 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on September 02, 2015, 09:00:36 AM
Connecticut (Delaware, Rhode Island, etc) is too small to need another capital :-D One works for us just fine. :cool: :thumbsup:
Well, of course it is. :-) But, for whatever reason, the decision is made that you have to have two; which do you pick?
iPhone
Okay. Here goes:
Connecticut: Hartford/New London (East CT is not very well-represented)
Rhode Island: Providence/Newport
Delaware: Dover/Wilmington
For Wisconsin, I'd keep Madison as one capital. But I wouldn't go with Milwaukee as the second capital just because it's the largest city in the state. I'd pick Green Bay or Wausau to better represent the northern half of the state.
PA:
Current: Harrisburg & Pittsburgh.
Option to pick new: Philadelphia & Pittsburgh.
Texas:
Austin and Midland
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2015, 09:29:34 AM
Is this like how Germany did it during the cold war? how West Germany still technically had west Berlin as the Capital, but they really used Bonn Germany as the head of government.
For New Jersey i would have the main capital stay Trenton, and have the secondary one be Jersey City. Trenton is close enough for the shore towns to flock to, and Jersey City would serve as oversight on the more populated section of the state.
The interesting thing about the shore points: Generally speaking, there's no great route to Trenton, compared to Jersey City. Doing some quick travel times, getting to Jersey City is only 15 - 30 minutes longer from any shore point between Belmar and Cape May. North of Belmar, the difference is even less! Even from Belmar, the difference is only 18 minutes, and that includes Belmar being basically one straight road to Trenton!
DE: Dover, and a data center in some warehouse just outside of Dover.
MD: Annapolis and Cumberland
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2015, 09:29:34 AM
Is this like how Germany did it during the cold war? how West Germany still technically had west Berlin as the Capital, but they really used Bonn Germany as the head of government.
Interesting question; I'll let you decide. Do you pick two capitals that have approximately equal status? One central capital with a satellite elsewhere in the state (esp. for scenario 1)? Or one de facto and one de jure or ceremonial capital? Or even divided by branch of government, á la South Africa (but with only two choices)?
iPhone
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on September 02, 2015, 09:35:37 AM
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2015, 09:22:01 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on September 02, 2015, 09:00:36 AM
Connecticut (Delaware, Rhode Island, etc) is too small to need another capital :-D One works for us just fine. :cool: :thumbsup:
Well, of course it is. :-) But, for whatever reason, the decision is made that you have to have two; which do you pick?
iPhone
Okay. Here goes:
Connecticut: Hartford/New London (East CT is not very well-represented)
Rhode Island: Providence/Newport
Delaware: Dover/Wilmington
No different choices for option 2 (not retaining the current capital)? It seems that with such small states, you'd definitely want the two as far apart as possible–unless you're choosing them by a different rationale, of course.
iPhone
Quote from: tchafe1978 on September 02, 2015, 09:49:12 AM
For Wisconsin, I'd keep Madison as one capital. But I wouldn't go with Milwaukee as the second capital just because it's the largest city in the state. I'd pick Green Bay or Wausau to better represent the northern half of the state.
Green Bay is the "religious" capital of Wisconsin anyway. Every fall, hordes of people descend religiously upon Green Bay on certain Sundays, and the occasional Monday night.
For California, you can probably keep Sacramento to represent Northern California, and some of the Central Valley.
I suppose LA would be the capital of Southern California.
Here are ten ideas of my own:
FL: Tallahassee and Miami
GA: Atlanta and Savannah
KS: Topeka and Wichita
MI: Lansing and Detroit
MO: Jefferson City and St. Louis, or Jefferson City and Kansas City
NV: Carson City and Las Vegas
OH: Columbus and Cleveland, or Columbus and Cincinnati
OK: Oklahoma City and Tulsa
TN: Nashville and Memphis
WA: Olympia and Spokane
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2015, 08:47:25 AM
I'll start with an obvious one, New York:
1) Albany, New York
2) Syracuse, New York
Wouldn't be more obvious to have NYC as one capital just since most of the population either lives there or has to drive through there to get to the current capital?
In general, I wish more states would go the Brasilia route of capitals- create an entirely new city with modern infrastructure rather than jury-rigging existing built-up cities from the 1800s to fit current requirements.
Jackson is rather centralized. Since a lot of the state's power structure has been concentrated in north Mississippi, I'd make either Oxford or Tupelo the Capitol for that part of the state.
Quote from: Henry on September 02, 2015, 11:59:19 AM
Here are ten ideas of my own:
MI: Lansing and Detroit
I would choose Lansing and Marquette.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 02, 2015, 11:59:55 AM
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2015, 08:47:25 AM
I'll start with an obvious one, New York:
1) Albany, New York
2) Syracuse, New York
Wouldn't be more obvious to have NYC as one capital just since most of the population either lives there or has to drive through there to get to the current capital?
In general, I wish more states would go the Brasilia route of capitals- create an entirely new city with modern infrastructure rather than jury-rigging existing built-up cities from the 1800s to fit current requirements.
Some of these states chose their capital in the 1800s that way. Columbus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus,_Ohio) and Indianapolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indianapolis) come to mind. Lansing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansing,_Michigan) was chosen that way as well (nothing but a sawmill existed there at the time). And Madison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison,_Wisconsin) was planned to be the capital from the start. Of all the Old Northwest states, only Illinois shoehorned a capital into a preexisting city, Springfield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield,_Illinois).
I'm sure some other states did likewise.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 02, 2015, 11:59:55 AM
In general, I wish more states would go the Brasilia route of capitals- create an entirely new city with modern infrastructure rather than jury-rigging existing built-up cities from the 1800s to fit current requirements.
You could make the next Brasilia, but you run the risk of making the next Naypyidaw instead.
For Virginia, it should be Richmond and somewhere in Northern Virginia. But with the way things work here, Richmond and Roanoke would be more likely. :angry:
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 02, 2015, 11:59:55 AM
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2015, 08:47:25 AM
I'll start with an obvious one, New York:
1) Albany, New York
2) Syracuse, New York
Wouldn't be more obvious to have NYC as one capital just since most of the population either lives there or has to drive through there to get to the current capital?
Well, no, I don't think that would be more obvious for a situation where each state needs to have two capitals...
And to be honest, if we were talking about moving the (single) capital, I'd be considering Syracuse about as much as NYC, because I do feel that geographic centrality is still about as valid a criterion as population centrality, if merely for symbolic purposes.
So no, in my view NYC is still not necessarily more obvious; not the point of exclusion, anyway.
iPhone
Quote from: vdeane on September 02, 2015, 01:13:36 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 02, 2015, 11:59:55 AM
In general, I wish more states would go the Brasilia route of capitals- create an entirely new city with modern infrastructure rather than jury-rigging existing built-up cities from the 1800s to fit current requirements.
You could make the next Brasilia, but you run the risk of making the next Naypyidaw instead.
I'm not sure even Brasilia is a good model. Yeah, it got brand-new infrastructure, and the urban planners had a field day writing on a blank slate (guess what I think of urban planners and their fantasies?). But physical infrastructure is only one factor, and probably not among the most important.
I like the idea of having a capital city that is also a major commercial center, and has a lot of other things going besides government. Else you risk having the capital turn into an in-bred "company town", isolated culturally (and sometimes geographically) from the rest of the state or country. I think the theory behind some of our state capitals' locations was that they would not be infested with big-city sin and corruption; instead, we got small-city sin and corruption. (Those of you living in states where the capital is also the major commercial center -- such as Hawaii, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut -- can comment on this.)
For that reason, if Alaska had to have a second capital, it should be Anchorage, as much as the rest of the state is suspicious of that city (and I'm not a fan either), rather than putting it in Willow or some other undeveloped place. Anchorage is already a de facto second capital, with some state functions run primarily out of Anchorage rather than Juneau.
Similarly, if California had to have a second capital, I'd press for three, and have San Francisco and Los Angeles as "second capitals". A lot of state functions are run mainly out of those cities, rather than Sacramento. For example, the state supreme court mainly shuttles between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and doesn't spend much time in Sacramento.
Of course, I live in one of those planned out capital cities, Indianapolis. Moving the capital was much easier back in the 1820s when the population was already moving north. It's probably much harder now when the population patterns are already set into place. If Indianapolis didn't exist and there were two capitals for Indiana, I would have a Northern Indiana capital of Kokomo or Peru and a Southern Indiana capital of Bloomington or Bedford.
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2015, 11:22:43 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2015, 09:29:34 AM
Is this like how Germany did it during the cold war? how West Germany still technically had west Berlin as the Capital, but they really used Bonn Germany as the head of government.
Interesting question; I'll let you decide. Do you pick two capitals that have approximately equal status? One central capital with a satellite elsewhere in the state (esp. for scenario 1)? Or one de facto and one de jure or ceremonial capital? Or even divided by branch of government, á la South Africa (but with only two choices)?
iPhone
I would have one actually be the capital on paper. Trenton would remain it, but the seat of government could be moved elsewhere away from that home. For example, the county seat of Burlington County NJ is based in Mt Holly. But they have offices for human services and unemployment in nearby Westampton Township.
Trenton: Ceremonial stuff is done there, some offices but nothing requiring tons of space.
South Brunswick/Ewing/Hamilton/other nearby town: Majority of the office workers are based and most of the work is really done.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2015, 09:52:02 AM
PA:
Current: Harrisburg & Pittsburgh.
Option to pick new: Philadelphia & Pittsburgh.
So you don't care about Northern and Southern Pennsylvania? :confused:
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 04:07:35 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2015, 09:52:02 AM
PA:
Current: Harrisburg & Pittsburgh.
Option to pick new: Philadelphia & Pittsburgh.
So you don't care about Northern and Southern Pennsylvania? :confused:
Pennsultucky would be a new state.
KY: Bowling Green and Frankfort
OH: Keep it as one capitol. Columbus is basically the center of the state, if required then Columbus and Clevland or Akron.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2015, 04:20:59 PM
Pennsultucky would be a new state.
Pennsylvania and Kentucky together? :wow:
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on September 02, 2015, 04:24:47 PM
KY: Bowling Green and Frankfort
OH: Keep it as one capitol. Columbus is basically the center of the state, if required then Columbus and Clevland or Akron.
Cincy and Cleveland. Nuke Columbus and be done with it. :spin:
Quote from: Brandon on September 02, 2015, 04:34:32 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on September 02, 2015, 04:24:47 PM
KY: Bowling Green and Frankfort
OH: Keep it as one capitol. Columbus is basically the center of the state, if required then Columbus and Clevland or Akron.
Cincy and Cleveland. Nuke Columbus and be done with it. :spin:
Or just remove Columbus as a capitol, that way we don't have to rebuilt I-70 and I-71. :nod:
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on September 02, 2015, 04:25:27 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2015, 04:20:59 PM
Pennsultucky would be a new state.
Pennsylvania and Kentucky together? :wow:
No thanks, I don't want Boone County of Northern Kentucky with us.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 04:56:52 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on September 02, 2015, 04:25:27 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2015, 04:20:59 PM
Pennsultucky would be a new state.
Pennsylvania and Kentucky together? :wow:
No thanks, I don't want Boone County of Northern Kentucky with us.
Also how would KY connect with PA to form PY?
Pennsyltucky is a derogatory nickname for rural PA guys...........
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2015, 09:08:54 AM
New Jersey:
If retaining the current capital: Trenton & Newark
Better representing the entire state: Morristown & Egg Harbor City. Why those two? Because one would almost always be 60 - 90 minutes away from either capital, regardless of where they are in the state.
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2015, 08:47:25 AM
Suppose it was decided that each U.S. state had to have two capitals, either to better represent different regions of the state, or for the old-fashioned reasons of centrality and distance, or whatever. Which two cities would you choose?
For each state, imagine two different scenarios: 1) where the current capital must be retained, and 2) where the current capital need not be kept (but it can be, making both scenarios the same in this instance).
I'll start with an obvious one, New York:
1) Albany, New York
2) Syracuse, New York
I'd use New York City as a capital. If you want to better represent different regions of the state, the most populated city in the entire country should be represented.
NYC as the capital? I suspect most of upstate would secede. Isn't there a feeling of resentment upstate that NYC already gets the bulk of money and attention?
Quote from: spooky on September 02, 2015, 09:25:52 AM
Rhode Island: Providence and Newport
Taking as a cue, of course, the fact that this was the case until 1900.
How about a second capitol OUTSIDE of the state?
Someplace NICE, where everyone would like an excuse to go visit ??
:-D
Kentucky -- Beaver Dam and Campton. Seriously. The previous suggestion of Bowling Green and Frankfort has one capital too far south and the other too centralized.
Other places I've lived:
New Jersey: Morristown and Glassboro
Florida: Orlando and Ft Lauderdale
Oklahoma: Oklahoma City and Muskogee
Quote from: Jardine on September 02, 2015, 05:10:05 PM
How about a second capitol OUTSIDE of the state?
Someplace NICE, where everyone would like an excuse to go visit ??
:-D
Georgia: Atlanta and Tblisi
Nebraska: Lincoln and North Platte
Iowa: Des Moines and Cedar Rapids
South Dakota: Pierre and Sioux Falls
For awhile after the Civil War, both Atlanta and Milledgeville dueled over which town would eventually be the capital of Georgia. General Sherman and the Union forces favored Atlanta after 1864. Nonetheless, the post-Civil War Constitutional Convention of 1865 met in Milledgeville. In 1868 during the Reconstruction era, another Constitutional Convention met in 1868, but instead Atlanta was favored. Georgia was the last Confederate State to be readmitted to the Union in July 1870.
The capital question was finally settled by an Ordinance of the state Constitutional Convention in August 1877 and validated by a public vote in December 1877. The Old Capitol in Milledgeville became a "surplus" building and was donated by the State to a local Board of Trustees to create Georgia Military College in October 1879. :wave:
For Arizona: Phoenix and Prescott.
Quote from: DandyDan on September 02, 2015, 05:56:22 PM
Nebraska: Lincoln and North Platte
Iowa: Des Moines and Cedar Rapids
South Dakota: Pierre and Sioux Falls
I'd prefer Kearney over Lincoln.
I think Des Moines is good enough.
I think Pierre is fine.
Washington needs one per side of the Cascades. Olympia and Spokane/Tri-Cities/Yakima/Wenatchee (they can fight a bloody war over the capital referendum).
Minnesota I would go with Rochester being an important center in the healthcare industry. Duluth is really just a tourist mecca with the front of being an inland port, which really doesn't sustain the city because that's how Duluth initially went to shit in the second half of the 20th century anyway when shipping declined.
I would think in New Jersey, Trenton would remain the capital solely because of the history. I couldn't think of what a second capital would be. Newark makes sense given it's layout, but it's too close to New York City in my opinion... Morristown sounds nice though.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 02, 2015, 06:58:10 PM
I would think in New Jersey, Trenton would remain the capital solely because of the history. I couldn't think of what a second capital would be. Newark makes sense given it's layout, but it's too close to New York City in my opinion... Morristown sounds nice though.
I'd say New Brunswick for its location, and then Vineland for Southern NJ. Sorry Trenton.
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2015, 11:25:37 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on September 02, 2015, 09:35:37 AM
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2015, 09:22:01 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on September 02, 2015, 09:00:36 AM
Connecticut (Delaware, Rhode Island, etc) is too small to need another capital :-D One works for us just fine. :cool: :thumbsup:
Well, of course it is. :-) But, for whatever reason, the decision is made that you have to have two; which do you pick?
iPhone
Okay. Here goes:
Connecticut: Hartford/New London (East CT is not very well-represented)
Rhode Island: Providence/Newport
Delaware: Dover/Wilmington
No different choices for option 2 (not retaining the current capital)? It seems that with such small states, you'd definitely want the two as far apart as possible–unless you're choosing them by a different rationale, of course.
iPhone
What do you mean by option 2?
Quote from: Bruce on September 02, 2015, 06:50:55 PM
Washington needs one per side of the Cascades. Olympia and Spokane/Tri-Cities/Yakima/Wenatchee (they can fight a bloody war over the capital referendum).
Hell, the need is so strong, I'm still staggered that we're one state, seeing as how politically independent each side of the Cascades is.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 02, 2015, 08:45:47 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 02, 2015, 06:50:55 PM
Washington needs one per side of the Cascades. Olympia and Spokane/Tri-Cities/Yakima/Wenatchee (they can fight a bloody war over the capital referendum).
Hell, the need is so strong, I'm still staggered that we're one state, seeing as how politically independent each side of the Cascades is.
Once years and years pass of staying together, it's inseparable. You can't separate Washington, no way, no how.
Quote from: Brandon on September 02, 2015, 12:17:20 PM
Some of these states chose their capital in the 1800s that way. Columbus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus,_Ohio) and Indianapolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indianapolis) come to mind. Lansing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansing,_Michigan) was chosen that way as well (nothing but a sawmill existed there at the time). And Madison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison,_Wisconsin) was planned to be the capital from the start. Of all the Old Northwest states, only Illinois shoehorned a capital into a preexisting city, Springfield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield,_Illinois).
I find it rather hilarious that Lansing was chosen out of political spite. I never knew that.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 06:39:16 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on September 02, 2015, 05:56:22 PM
Nebraska: Lincoln and North Platte
Iowa: Des Moines and Cedar Rapids
South Dakota: Pierre and Sioux Falls
I'd prefer Kearney over Lincoln.
I think Des Moines is good enough.
I think Pierre is fine.
I would probably go with Iowa City instead of Cedar Rapids. More accessible, has the University, and it's been capital before. But yeah, Des Moines is good enough.
As for the other states I know well, I'll agree with others and say that Chicago and Marquette (MI) are the best ways to go. For Indiana, I'd probably say South Bend or Fort Wayne to represent the northern half of the state.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 09:02:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 02, 2015, 08:45:47 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 02, 2015, 06:50:55 PM
Washington needs one per side of the Cascades. Olympia and Spokane/Tri-Cities/Yakima/Wenatchee (they can fight a bloody war over the capital referendum).
Hell, the need is so strong, I'm still staggered that we're one state, seeing as how politically independent each side of the Cascades is.
Once years and years pass of staying together, it's inseparable. You can't separate Washington, no way, no how.
I'm sure both sides would be happier if separated, even if the west loses a large agricultural region and the east loses access to the Seattle metro area's wealth and influence.
Heck, I'd be happy with the Seattle metro area splitting from the rest, after the debacle that was the last legislative session. Having to ask to tax ourselves over transit AND being blue-balled by politicians who are not directly involved at all pissed off everyone.
Quote from: 1 on September 02, 2015, 05:48:24 PM
Quote from: Jardine on September 02, 2015, 05:10:05 PM
How about a second capitol OUTSIDE of the state?
Someplace NICE, where everyone would like an excuse to go visit ??
:-D
Georgia: Atlanta and Tblisi
Tblisi ? Nah, how about Quindaro ?
:wow:
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 02, 2015, 09:05:22 AM
Maine: Augusta and Portland
New Hampshire: Concord and Berlin
Vermont: Montpelier and Bennington
Massachusetts: Boston and Springfield
North Carolina: Raleigh and Charlotte
South Carolina: Columbia and Charleston
Virginia: Richmond and Alexandria
I thought I'd advance some to get the discussion flowing. NH and VT were based on trying to get adequate representation in an underrepresented area relatively far from the current capital.
So, you wouldn't do any versions where the current capital is not kept? Like Manchester/Berlin, NH or Bennington/Burlington, VT, etc.?
Quote from: Henry on September 02, 2015, 11:59:19 AM
Here are ten ideas of my own:
FL: Tallahassee and Miami
GA: Atlanta and Savannah
KS: Topeka and Wichita
MI: Lansing and Detroit
MO: Jefferson City and St. Louis, or Jefferson City and Kansas City
NV: Carson City and Las Vegas
OH: Columbus and Cleveland, or Columbus and Cincinnati
OK: Oklahoma City and Tulsa
TN: Nashville and Memphis
WA: Olympia and Spokane
Same question: always keeping the current capital, no matter what? For example, St. Louis/Kansas City, MO would seem to jump out as an obvious way to go.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 06:39:16 PM
I think Des Moines is good enough.
I think Pierre is fine.
OK, so you keep Des Moines and Pierre for your option 2; what are the second cities you'd pick?
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on September 02, 2015, 08:40:17 PM
What do you mean by option 2?
That's the second version you can come up with, the one where you don't have to keep the current capital. In option 1, one of the cities has to be the current capital; for option 2, you can pick two new cities, or elect to keep it the same as option 1.
For example, my option 1 for New York was Albany (the current capital) and New York. My option 2 was Syracuse and New York.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2015, 09:08:54 AM
Quote from: empirestate on September 02, 2015, 08:47:25 AM
I'll start with an obvious one, New York:
1) Albany, New York
2) Syracuse, New York
I'd use New York City as a capital. If you want to better represent different regions of the state, the most populated city in the entire country should be represented.
So would I; that's why I included it in both of my versions. :-)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 02, 2015, 05:05:32 PM
NYC as the capital? I suspect most of upstate would secede. Isn't there a feeling of resentment upstate that NYC already gets the bulk of money and attention?
Well, that's why there would be two, isn't it? I'm sure there are plenty of folks who would like to see this hypothetical exercise come to actual fruition, for this very reason. :nod:
Going with a separate post to add a few more examples of my own:
Massachusetts:
1) Boston, Northampton. I like the idea of a not-quite-biggest city for the western capital.
2) Plymouth, Northampton. This gets Cape Cod a little closer to the action, though in truth I don't think I'd really opt to move the second capital out of Boston.
New Hampshire:
1) Concord, Littleton. Kind of an arbitrary choice; for some reason I want one of the capitals to be in the Connecticut Valley.
2) Littleton, Manchester. Again, moving out of Concord just because I can, but I don't think an option 2 is really necessary here.
Vermont:
1) Montpelier, Rutland. (Bennington's a little too non-central, even just for southern VT.)
2) Rutland, Burlington. (Though I like the idea of St. Johnsbury, too.)
Connecticut:
1) Hartford, Stamford.
2) Stamford, Norwich. (New London is obvious here, but I wanted one of them to be inland.)
Rhode Island:
1) Providence, Newport.
2) East Providence, New Shoreham. Just kiddin'. :-D
Maine:
1) Augusta, Presque Isle.
2) Portland, Bangor. (Or maybe Portland, Millinocket.)
New Jersey:
1) Trenton, Morristown.
2) Morristown, Hammonton.
Pennsylvania:
1) Harrisburg, Pittsburgh.
2) Pittsburgh, Reading.
Delaware:
1) Dover, Wilmington.
2) Wilmington, Milford.
Quote from: 1 on September 02, 2015, 05:48:24 PM
Quote from: Jardine on September 02, 2015, 05:10:05 PM
How about a second capitol OUTSIDE of the state?
Someplace NICE, where everyone would like an excuse to go visit ??
:-D
Georgia: Atlanta and Tblisi
Oregon: Salem and Zaragoza :bigass:
For Alabama, I'd say Montgomery and either Birmingham or Huntsville.
In Delaware, Wilmington is already the second capital. More day-to-day state work occurs there than at Dover.
Some Western thoughts:
Washington: I'd move the executive branch to some south King County suburb, like Kent or Federal Way.
Oregon: Executive branch moves to Portland. I know way too many people who drive 100 miles a day to go to work in Salem.
California: Legislative branch moves to Avalon. Because it's beautiful, it's closer to 2 of the 3 population centers, but some sequestration for legislators is good.
Nevada: Move everything but the judiciary to Las Vegas. Carson City gets to keep the courts.
Arizona: Move the judiciary to Tucson, where the law school is.
Utah: Tough one. Utah's so centralized to Salt Lake that they can't even move the prison out of the valley. Not sure there's an improvement to be made.
Idaho: Similar to Utah, not sure there's an improvement to be had here.
Since you put it that way, here are my alternatives:
FL: Jacksonville and Miami
KS: Kansas City and Wichita
MI: Sault Ste. Marie and Detroit
MO: St. Louis and Kansas City
NV: Reno and Las Vegas
OH: Cleveland and Cincinnati
TN: Knoxville and Memphis
WA: Seattle and Spokane
I'd ask the question: given the current state of the telecommunications art, is it actually necessary/relevant to have a designated state capital any more?
Sure, there is presumably a designated place where legislators ought to meet, so the lobbyists know where to schmooze...but it's not strictly necessary for various state agencies to be headquartered in that location, or for the state's executive or supreme judicial officials to be physically located near there.
Idaho: Boise and Lewiston (or Moscow or CDA can fight for it)
Oregon: Salem and Bend (or Portland and Bend if we want slightly more separation distance-wise)
Washington: Olympia and Spokane
For Indiana I would select Indianapolis and Speedway as their both already capitals in one way or another. One is the capital of the state and the other is the racing capital of the world.
Quote from: NickCPDX on September 03, 2015, 02:23:45 PM
Some Western thoughts:
Washington: I'd move the executive branch to some south King County suburb, like Kent or Federal Way.
Oregon: Executive branch moves to Portland. I know way too many people who drive 100 miles a day to go to work in Salem.
California: Legislative branch moves to Avalon. Because it's beautiful, it's closer to 2 of the 3 population centers, but some sequestration for legislators is good.
Nevada: Move everything but the judiciary to Las Vegas. Carson City gets to keep the courts.
Arizona: Move the judiciary to Tucson, where the law school is.
Utah: Tough one. Utah's so centralized to Salt Lake that they can't even move the prison out of the valley. Not sure there's an improvement to be made.
Idaho: Similar to Utah, not sure there's an improvement to be had here.
I'm confused. You say sequestration of the legislature is good in placing them in Avalon, but you keep/move the legislature in/to the largest city/metro in the case of Phoenix/Las Vegas?
I love the visual idea of Avalon as a capital, but in real life it's simply too small/too anti-development (with good reason) to be able to support the infrastructure, even if it's just the legislature. If you're looking for aesthetics, perhaps Santa Barbara or Monterey? Lake Tahoe?
On the other hand, sending the legislature to a resort town seems like a bad idea. I want my elected representatives to want the job, not the perks, so they should be willing to do their jobs in a workaday city. From that standpoint, Sacramento works well, as it has the infrastructure/resources of a large city, but (no offense) is not that glamorous.
Using that logic, if I had to do a second capital, maybe Riverside? Could be a good economic boost for the Inland Empire as well.
Iowa I'm pretty uncertain about because Des Moines is a pretty good location... :hmmm:
South Dakota I'd go with Belle Fourche and Watertown.
Washington: Olympia/Moses Lake. Moses Lake is more centrally located within eastern Washington than Spokane; from pretty much everywhere in eastern Washington you could drive to Moses Lake and back in a day. Land is cheap, and it's big enough to support a government.
Olympia is pretty well located for a western capital. If it had to move, maybe Tacoma or Federal Way. But Olympia isn't bad.
For Alaska I would have to say either Anchorage or Fairbanks. Juneau is just an awful place for a state capital. Most of the state has to drive through a foreign country just to get there. Not to mention you have to take a ferry to get there too. It's just a bad place for a state capital. Fairbanks or Anchorage would make so much more sense.
Since Arkansas loves dual county seats, dual capitals should be right up their alley.
Little Rock is right in the center and should stay. I would put the second in Fort Smith instead of Fayetteville because it's easier to get to for a bigger part of the state.
Mine would be Tallahassee for the Florida Panhandle as that always to me seemed like another state anyway.
The rest of Florida should be Tampa.
In New Jersey it would be Trenton for only Central Jersey. Jersey City for North Jersey, and Vineland for South Jersey.
In Texas it should be El Paso for West Texas, Amarillo for the Panhandle, Dallas for North East Texas, San Antonio for South Central, and Houston for South East.
I know they are all more than two, but if we have two why not more for larger populated states or larger land area.
For Virginia, i'd add a satellite capital in Roanoke or Abingdon to serve the far western parts of the state, which are nearly 6 hours away from Richmond.
California: Sacramento is located pretty well for a northern capital, a southern one could go someplace like Riverside, San Bernadino, or Moreno Valley.
I think Connecticut had a dual capitol of Hartford and New Haven in its past. :hmmm:
Today, they're the two core cities in out TV market.
OK...I checked and I was right. The city (New Haven) served as co-capital of Connecticut from 1701 until 1873. :-P
I think Hawaii hasn't yet been mentioned. Fortunately, it already is evolving a de facto "second capital" -- Kapolei, in the southwestern corner of Oahu, where many state offices have moved into roomier digs from congested downtown Honolulu.
True, it's on the same island as the existing state capital, and only about 20 miles away on Interstate H-1. But putting a second capital on one of Hawaii's other islands would not really improve access to state government (except for residents of the island getting the second capital), since air connections for the other islands generally go through Honolulu.
A lot of state offices in NY aren't actually in Albany anymore due to the "suburbs" whining that state offices bring economic development (which, in actuality means, a McDonald's may pop up). If Kapolei counts as a second capital for HI, then Colonie and Rensselaer would be 2nd and 3rd capitals for NY. :D
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 11:33:40 AM
A lot of state offices in NY aren't actually in Albany anymore due to the "suburbs" whining that state offices bring economic development (which, in actuality means, a McDonald's may pop up). If Kapolei counts as a second capital for HI, then Colonie and Rensselaer would be 2nd and 3rd capitals for NY. :D
Economic development? The suburbs are themselves the economic development resulting from the industry (state government) of the core city (Albany).
Quote from: empirestate on September 04, 2015, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 11:33:40 AM
A lot of state offices in NY aren't actually in Albany anymore due to the "suburbs" whining that state offices bring economic development (which, in actuality means, a McDonald's may pop up). If Kapolei counts as a second capital for HI, then Colonie and Rensselaer would be 2nd and 3rd capitals for NY. :D
Economic development? The suburbs are themselves the economic development resulting from the industry (state government) of the core city (Albany).
The idea is that if the rich state workers didn't have to commute that they'd stay in the 'burbs and spent their money there...
...except state workers aren't exactly rich and so...congrats on the ribbon cutting for the McDonald's.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 06:39:16 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on September 02, 2015, 05:56:22 PM
Nebraska: Lincoln and North Platte
Iowa: Des Moines and Cedar Rapids
South Dakota: Pierre and Sioux Falls
I'd prefer Kearney over Lincoln.
I think Des Moines is good enough.
I think Pierre is fine.
I would stick with Pierre probably because it's geographically central. Sioux Falls already has the prison, a lot of hospitals, and other stuff. They don't need the state capital.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 03, 2015, 05:30:04 PM
South Dakota I'd go with Belle Fourche and Watertown.
Belle doesn't make much sense if you know Belle. Watertown, maybe. But Belle?
If I had to state the best option for two capital cities in SD, it would be Sioux Falls and Rapid City. But, because I don't like either of those places, I'm going with Spearfish and Yankton. (If I had to keep Pierre, I'd just add Spearfish)
It's hard to say what Montana would be. At one time during its tenure as a territory, Virginia City was the capital up until entering statehood in 1889 with Helena being its central capital.
I guess the most obvious would be Missoula as the western capital, Miles City or Billings as #2. If Helena stays as the central capital, then no doubt Billings would be the #2 capital. Montana is sort of a crapshoot when you come up with a theory of the state having two capitals.
Quote from: SD Mapman on September 04, 2015, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 06:39:16 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on September 02, 2015, 05:56:22 PM
Nebraska: Lincoln and North Platte
Iowa: Des Moines and Cedar Rapids
South Dakota: Pierre and Sioux Falls
I'd prefer Kearney over Lincoln.
I think Des Moines is good enough.
I think Pierre is fine.
I would stick with Pierre probably because it's geographically central. Sioux Falls already has the prison, a lot of hospitals, and other stuff. They don't need the state capital.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 03, 2015, 05:30:04 PM
South Dakota I'd go with Belle Fourche and Watertown.
Belle doesn't make much sense if you know Belle. Watertown, maybe. But Belle?
If I had to state the best option for two capital cities in SD, it would be Sioux Falls and Rapid City. But, because I don't like either of those places, I'm going with Spearfish and Yankton. (If I had to keep Pierre, I'd just add Spearfish)
Belle Fourche on the Goog seems to be the last town on US 85 until a major highway junction with SD 20 up north in Buffalo, then nothing until the ND state line.
New York: Syracuse and New York.
Ohio: Columbus and Athens. The Athens capitol would serve the hillbilly part of the state, while Columbus would continue to serve the big cities and flat farm communities.
Someone said something about having a capitol outside the state? I can imagine Ohio and Michigan both having embassies in St Petersburg, Florida.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 04, 2015, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on September 04, 2015, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 06:39:16 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on September 02, 2015, 05:56:22 PM
Nebraska: Lincoln and North Platte
Iowa: Des Moines and Cedar Rapids
South Dakota: Pierre and Sioux Falls
I'd prefer Kearney over Lincoln.
I think Des Moines is good enough.
I think Pierre is fine.
I would stick with Pierre probably because it's geographically central. Sioux Falls already has the prison, a lot of hospitals, and other stuff. They don't need the state capital.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 03, 2015, 05:30:04 PM
South Dakota I'd go with Belle Fourche and Watertown.
Belle doesn't make much sense if you know Belle. Watertown, maybe. But Belle?
If I had to state the best option for two capital cities in SD, it would be Sioux Falls and Rapid City. But, because I don't like either of those places, I'm going with Spearfish and Yankton. (If I had to keep Pierre, I'd just add Spearfish)
Belle Fourche on the Goog seems to be the last town on US 85 until a major highway junction with SD 20 up north in Buffalo, then nothing until the ND state line.
Spearfish is only ten miles away and is much more suitable due to its higher quality services and centralized location. Also, the water is better.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 03, 2015, 07:34:42 PM
In Texas it should be El Paso for West Texas, Amarillo for the Panhandle, Dallas for North East Texas, San Antonio for South Central, and Houston for South East.
El Paso isn't a center of anything except maybe drug trafficking. As suggested earlier in the thread, Midland would be a far more logical choice for the western part of Texas, being the center of the oil industry.
Quote from: dfwmapper on September 05, 2015, 06:44:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 03, 2015, 07:34:42 PM
In Texas it should be El Paso for West Texas, Amarillo for the Panhandle, Dallas for North East Texas, San Antonio for South Central, and Houston for South East.
El Paso isn't a center of anything except maybe drug trafficking. As suggested earlier in the thread, Midland would be a far more logical choice for the western part of Texas, being the center of the oil industry.
Heh. Let oil run the state. :D
Quote from: dfwmapper on September 05, 2015, 06:44:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 03, 2015, 07:34:42 PM
In Texas it should be El Paso for West Texas, Amarillo for the Panhandle, Dallas for North East Texas, San Antonio for South Central, and Houston for South East.
El Paso isn't a center of anything except maybe drug trafficking. As suggested earlier in the thread, Midland would be a far more logical choice for the western part of Texas, being the center of the oil industry.
I'd vote for Austin and Midland.
Regarding El Paso, while it's a big city that seems like it should be in the middle of something, it's actually in the middle of nowhere. Marfa, which is farther west than most of west Texas, is closer to Midland than El Paso by linear distance, and the road distance to each is about the same. Big Spring, which is well into west Texas, is closer to Austin (and even Dallas) than to El Paso. El Paso is a bit of a geographical oddity, and, since the state narrows toward it, is close to very little of Texas.
I propose an addition to the topic: Where should the administrative boundary between each capital lie? For Austin and Midland, Texas, I propose a line along county boundaries somewhat east of a line from Wichita Falls, Abilene, San Angelo, to Del Rio.
Quote from: wxfree on September 05, 2015, 10:51:52 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on September 05, 2015, 06:44:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 03, 2015, 07:34:42 PM
In Texas it should be El Paso for West Texas, Amarillo for the Panhandle, Dallas for North East Texas, San Antonio for South Central, and Houston for South East.
El Paso isn't a center of anything except maybe drug trafficking. As suggested earlier in the thread, Midland would be a far more logical choice for the western part of Texas, being the center of the oil industry.
I'd vote for Austin and Midland.
Regarding El Paso, while it's a big city that seems like it should be in the middle of something, it's actually in the middle of nowhere. Marfa, which is farther west than most of west Texas, is closer to Midland than El Paso by linear distance, and the road distance to each is about the same. Big Spring, which is well into west Texas, is closer to Austin (and even Dallas) than to El Paso. El Paso is a bit of a geographical oddity, and, since the state narrows toward it, is close to very little of Texas.
I propose an addition to the topic: Where should the administrative boundary between each capital lie? For Austin and Midland, Texas, I propose a line along county boundaries somewhat east of a line from Wichita Falls, Abilene, San Angelo, to Del Rio.
Here's my proposals for capitals in Texas:
West Texas: Abilene or San Angelo
Central Texas: New Braunfels or Austin
North Texas and the Panhandle: Dallas (or Ft. Worth)/Lubbock/Amarillo
East Texas: Texarkana
South East Texas: Beaumont or Houston
South Central Texas: San Antonio
South Texas: Laredo
Quote from: US 41 on September 03, 2015, 05:02:11 PM
For Indiana......the other is the racing capital of the world.
I would argue that Paris, France is the racing capital of the world as that is where the FIA is headquartered, but I digress :p
For NC I would say the current capital Raleigh should represent the rest of the state west of I-95 and the original colonial capital of New Bern should be the capital for the rural eastern half of the state.
Quote from: vtk on September 04, 2015, 09:57:30 PM
Someone said something about having a capitol outside the state? I can imagine Ohio and Michigan both having embassies in St Petersburg, Florida.
Myrtle Beach :)
Quote from: 6a on September 13, 2015, 04:13:13 PM
Quote from: vtk on September 04, 2015, 09:57:30 PM
Someone said something about having a capitol outside the state? I can imagine Ohio and Michigan both having embassies in St Petersburg, Florida.
Myrtle Beach :)
New York would be Boca Raton FL
Quote from: jwolfer on September 13, 2015, 07:09:46 PM
Quote from: 6a on September 13, 2015, 04:13:13 PM
Quote from: vtk on September 04, 2015, 09:57:30 PM
Someone said something about having a capitol outside the state? I can imagine Ohio and Michigan both having embassies in St Petersburg, Florida.
Myrtle Beach :)
New York would be Boca Raton FL
How about Butte, Montana for Kentucky. :colorful:
For Kentucky I would propose Elizabethtown as the second capital - it's essentially the geographic center of the state and located at the convergence of 3 different freeways and 2 US Highways.
Quote from: Henry on September 02, 2015, 11:59:19 AM
MO: Jefferson City and St. Louis, or Jefferson City and Kansas City
The only reason Jeff City is the capital is because it's roughly equidistant between Kansas City and St Louis. If you're going to give one of them a capital, you may as well give the other one too and let Jeff City fall into obscurity.
Alternatively, you can keep Jeff City as a capital and add a second in Springfield, to better serve southwest Missouri (Springfield, Branson, and Joplin).