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.
I was wondering if it would bring the federal government closer to people again if the capital were not on the East Coast, but instead somewhere in the heart of the US. After all, the population density has changed quite a bit across the country. The West and the central South are much more important than they used to be. Plus, it would inhibit those elitist Ivy League connections on the East Coast that many people don't trust.
The new capital would also be closer to all the people on the West Coast in terms of time zones.
Where should the capital be located?
I think Kansas City or St. Louis would be interesting, the latter even located on the border between the east and west, i.e. the Mississippi river.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,041,021 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I was wondering if it would bring the federal government closer to people again if the capital were not on the East Coast, but instead somewhere in the heart of the US. After all, the population density has changed quite a bit across the country. The West and the central South are much more important than they used to be. Plus, it would inhibit those elitist Ivy League connections on the East Coast that many people don't trust.
The new capital would also be closer to all the people on the West Coast in terms of time zones.
Where should the capital be located?
I think Kansas City or St. Louis would be interesting, the latter even located on the border between the east and west, i.e. the Mississippi river.
I like the creativity in your thread, but many will point out it's never going to happen. Which is true it really never is going to happen.
But Omaha is in the center of the country (almost).
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.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,468,595 times
Reputation: 12187
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
I'm against moving it mainly because it's a waste of money. If it were to be placed in the middle of the country based on population, it would still be towards the North East (but still not in it) I think it would wind up (if I remember correctly) somewhere in south of maybe Indianaish?
The Center of Population of the USA is in Missouri somewhere so St. Louis wouldnt be that bad of a choice. But I am against the capital moving for so many reason. I like DC and the location and
I voted for Denver. The Denver area is home to the 2nd highest concentration of federal offices after DC.
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.
