Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Politicians arent oblivious to crime.. DC may not be as bad as detriot in 2011 but it defintely was as bad or if not worse than detrioit in the 80's, 90's, ealry 2000's.. this was known as the murder capitol people and it still has one of the highest homeless rates.. the politicians see whats going on and peple struggling.. **** i work for the government.. its homeless folks outside my building rite now..its a homeless camp under a ramp just next to the capital building that i drive past everyday
but anyways to answer the question.. if it was to move it should be in the middle of nowhere and build its own city.. strictly government, no private sector and the only people who can live in the city limits are federal employees and family
That's interesting. As bad as poverty and homelessness is, at least politicians can't avoid seeing reality every day. If you had a new city for bureaucrats and their relatives only, they would probably be even more detached from reality than they already are today
Take down the United Center, Make a new arena somewhere in the South Loop
Redevelop the area into nice park space and build the Capital building there and other Government Buildings
White House could be in that empty land on Roosevelt and Clark
I voted St. Louis because it is near the center of the country.
And I read somewhere that there was a government deterance, and evacuation plan back in the 50's/60's to have important officials (The President and Congress) moved to St. Louis, but that was before M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) was a probable reality.
I think the country should be split up into about 6 countries.
I say keep DC, then make Chicago, Denver, Sacramento, Dallas and Atlanta all capitals of their respective regions.
I think the country should be split up into about 6 countries.
I say keep DC, then make Chicago, Denver, Sacramento, Dallas and Atlanta all capitals of their respective regions.
Well that is just the beginning of it. I would still want some type of over arching military protection and currency. But as far as social type laws and culturally development, I think it would end up working out better.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,025,008 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata
Right now it seems far fetched, BUT if our country continues having large population growth it is possible at some point that a new capitol could be built to reduce the strain on East Coast infrastructure. Several countries have built new capitol cities from scratch - Brazil, Pakistan, and Nigeria included
That's about as likely as the US replacing it's flag or becoming communist. None of those cities you mention were purposed built-capitals. D.C. WAS the Brasilia, Islamabad etc of the US back in like 1800, remember? It was a purpose built capital city with all the infrastructure for government. As time goes on geographical location will become less and less important anyway.
Well that is just the beginning of it. I would still want some type of over arching military protection and currency. But as far as social type laws and culturally development, I think it would end up working out better.
There's social and cultural differences within those regions too.
For those of you who think the U.S. capital should be moved, consider these points:
Our current capital was mandated by the U.S. Constitution in 1787. It has been the capital continuously for over 220 years. Nearly all the presidents, senators, congress persons, supreme court justices in U.S. history have served in Washington, D.C.
It is the city of and named after GEORGE WASHINGTON, the founding father of our nation. He personally inspected various building sites, including the White House and Capitol Building. George Washington's actual home is just 15 miles south of Washington, D.C. in its metro area.
The White House and Capitol Building were burned by the British during the War of 1812. And yet these buildings were repaired and are standing to this day.
Washington, D.C. was the capital of the Union (the winning side) during the entire Civil War. It survived the bloodiest war in U.S. history and the Confederacy was never able to capture the city.
Washington, D.C. was the capital during World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War and came out winning and stronger after each of these major challenges to our nation and its allies.
Washington, D.C. has the most well-known and iconic monuments and memorials anywhere of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr.
Washington, D.C. is the location where Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote and delivered his "I have a dream" speech, which is one of the most widely known speeches in U.S. history.
Washington, D.C. is the location where the first African American president took the oath of office.
Now, given the above facts and perspective, do you STILL think there's another city that would be able to compete as a more appropriate location for the U.S. capital? If so, on what basis would that be? :-)
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 12-20-2011 at 10:18 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
