New Capital (better, compared, places, Atlanta) - City-Data Forum

chikid · 02-05-2011, 11:00 PM

So let's say all of a sudden D.C. just disappeared or got blown to pieces for whatever reason a new city had to be selected to become the nation's next capital. What city would you pick?

My three choices:

1. Chicago - Put all the federal buildings, monuments, memorials, etc. on the south side to help revitalize it. Also since Chicago is more towards the center of the country it makes it much easier to be protected if there was ever a war coming from either coast. There is plenty of room to build on the south side.

2. Detroit - This would bring so many jobs to this city and help revitalize the city what it once used to be. Detroit would deserve it more than Chicago. Detroit also has more than enough room and open space to build the new buildings.

3. Denver - You really want to make a city unreachable to enemies and centralized geographically? Denver would be the one. Denver is isolated from most other large cities. It would kind of be like Brasilia. I also think it would give Denver that extra umph that it lacks.

What about you? Explain.

HtownLove · 02-05-2011, 11:03 PM

Somewhere in either Nebraska or Kansas to be centrally located

chikid · 02-05-2011, 11:04 PM

But it would be have to be an already existing city. Maybe Kansas City? Even though it's in Missouri it is right on the Kansas border.

Poseidon704 · 02-05-2011, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikid

But it would be have to be an already existing city. Maybe Kansas City? Even though it's in Missouri it is right on the Kansas border.

Dammit, you said it before I could.

iknowftbll · 02-05-2011, 11:37 PM

Why ruin any of these great cities by locating the federal government there? Why not just build them a tent city in the middle of the Mojave Desert?

dtownboogie · 02-05-2011, 11:59 PM

this thread

Thomas R. · 02-06-2011, 12:02 AM

Cabool, Missouri. It's located in the county that is now the "Center of US population." In Presidential elections it's quite Republican, but locally it's more Democratic. It's also fairly small, but by Missouri definition I think it does count as a city, and should not overwhelm the Congresspeople with its outlook or nightlife or whatever.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Cabool-Missouri.html

cwkimbro · 02-06-2011, 12:56 AM

If we go with central location... I think it should be more centrally located in relation to the population. You might also want to consider cities that already have extensive amounts of federal gov't infrastructure to make for a better/quicker transition (I'm assuming if this ever actually happened it would be without much notice and during a time of crisis).

Most of the federal governments organizations have regional, secondary, or auxiliary offices. It would be an easier transition to locate the headquarters for those respective federal organization where the secondary, regional, or auxiliary office could take over. In which case, the formal heads of government (presidency, the capital, and the supreme court) could locate the location with the highest concentration.

I think it should also be located near an a major air hub. It is much harder/more expensive for most the country to access Kansas than it would be Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte, NYC, etc...

This article also helps show where the federal gov't has a high concentration of offices (Top Metros for Federal Government Jobs in 2008 - GovCentral.com).

However, they also need to consider what specifically is there. Can the local/regional headquarters be more easily upgradeable in city x vs city y... etc...

Personally, I think Atlanta would be a good option for many of the reasons above. I just hesitate saying it, because it seems as it I'm pulling for the hometown, but I do it out of legitimate reasons. Atlanta has a wide degree of regional office headquarters (FBI/homeland security, FTC, Fed reserve bank, District court, District appeals court, etc.. and national headquarters for some entities (CDC, FAA east coast). (One of the reasons the southside of our downtown is so bland looking compared to the north side is the high number of government buildings, which includes several federal buildings)

You also should consider places with a higher degree of military support/protection. Proximity to military bases/air force bases for air defenses against the city. Atlanta has that, but many others do as well. It should be considered.

I'm a little curious about San Antonio. I don't know the particulars about it, but they have a high number of federal employees. Does any one know details of what is there? It is a little too close to Mexico's boarder for comfort though. The site needs a good cushion of U.S. airspace (we need the ability to attack potential threats earlier rather than later, even if they aren't from Mexico itself) but still... there is a big presences there and I'm curious now

DANNYY · 02-06-2011, 01:04 AM

Baltimore & Atlanta. Baltimore because its already just right there. Atlanta because it already sustains a large segment of government related jobs.

BigCityDreamer · 02-06-2011, 07:28 AM

Washington DC has a very distinguished history as the U.S. capital for 220 years. The city's monuments, museums, iconic architecture and institutions stand the test of time and have gained the world's attention.

So if another city were to take its place, it should be an equally if not more worthy city. I pick New York City, Boston or Chicago. That's about it. Any other city will not garner respect or have the necessary sanctity.