What if the US moved its Capitol

In fact Washington was something like the two aforementioned cities when it was first established, wasn't it? A new, purpose built city in a swampy previously unimportant area.

Yes, although there were hopes that it would evolve into a commercial as well as a political center. There was a plan to build a canal linking the Potomac River, which Washington D.C. is situated on, with the upper Ohio River via a canal. It was hoped that Washington would become a major transshipment port because it is located about as far up the Potomac as seagoing ships could travel.

The canal was actually built as the Chesapeake and Ohio (C&O) canal, and it was a pretty impressive piece of engineering. Unfortunately, it was a commercial failure. It had lots of locks and tunnels and was fairly slow to navigate, and most Midwesterners preferred the traditional Ohio Mississippi route, or the Erie Canal further north. Then, the Baltimore and Ohio railroad delivered the final blow by providing a much faster means of transportation between the Ohio river valley and the coast of Maryland. The railroad ended up buying the canal, in fact. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_and_Ohio_Canal) The failure of the canal and the fact that the main railroad went to Baltimore pretty much killed hopes for Washington becoming a major trade/commercial center in the 19th century.
 
The result was a lovely planned city with no logical rationale for existence. I'm told it's a rather crap place to live since no one lives there who doesn't have to.
That could describe Ottawa, too, y'know. Tho "lovely" maybe not... It's been said the best part of Ottawa is the railway out of town.:eek::D

On moving the U.S. capitol,:p anybody have any thoughts about moving from Washington to Philadelphia, or staying in Philadelphia to begin with (or do I have that wrong?)?
 
Now for the topic at hand. There is an example of a capital being moved to an undeveloped part of a country's hinterland, that's Brasilia, but, as impressive a feat of architecture and urban planning as it was, it didn't achieve the intended objectives. And it's not like Washington isn't a suitable capital already.

Madrid was a useless backwater that was chosen as the spanish capital because it was on the middle of the country. It would depend on when the change happened; an older city has time to evolve and turn lively, unlike Brasilia or Camberra.

Exactly when did the US turn into a nation than spanned the entire continent, coast to coast?
 
The only thing that would happen is that the senators living in the luck state or near it wouldn't have to own two homes. Like congressman from Maryland.
 
The planners wanted a place where no undo influence could come from the citizens in that place. Obviously that failed as we debate D.C.s voting rights for the umpteenth time. As much as I hate that museum on the Potomac, the only way to move the capital would be for congress to purchase land big enough for a modern city, spend the money to build said city with buildings big enough and grand enough to serve the purpose, and declare it a district and seperate entity from the state/states land it sits on. I for one vote to put it smack dab in the middle of the bad lands or lose it in Iowa, never to be heard from again...
 
Actually,Brasilia fullfiiled its role of bringing people to the almost desert Btazilian center,plus made a land conection with the extreme north possible(Belém-Brasília highway,before the construction of Brasilia people and goods could only get to the norht by ship or plane.Brasilia did fulfill the role of national integration planed to it.Said that, i am totttaly against it,it was unbeliveble expensive to built,they had to carry bricks in airplanes to built it!Can you Imagine:eek:.There was no roads linking it to anywhere.As a city i do not like it,it is boring and it is like a fantasy island in the midle of Brazil,politicians are completly out of reality there.
 
So would everyone consider Washington a major, commercial city now? I can see it today, but it still feels out-of-place compared to New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit...
 
Said that, i am totttaly against it,it was unbeliveble expensive to built,they had to carry bricks in airplanes to built it!Can you Imagine:eek:.There was no roads linking it to anywhere.As a city i do not like it,it is boring and it is like a fantasy island in the midle of Brazil,politicians are completly out of reality there.

I totally agree with it.

Actually,Brasilia fullfiiled its role of bringing people to the almost desert Btazilian center,plus made a land conection with the extreme north possible(Belém-Brasília highway,before the construction of Brasilia people and goods could only get to the norht by ship or plane.Brasilia did fulfill the role of national integration planed to it.

I'm not even sure about the role of Brasilia in it. Ok, it made many people going to live in the center of Brazil, but the colonization of the Central-West and the Cerrado region was made basically by farmers (first from the South, later followed by people from Northeast and São Paulo) who went there to plant soya beans. The populational pressure in their home lands would still exist without Brasilia, and the lands in the Cerrado would still be cheap and ready to be filled. Personally I think that this expansion of the soya plantations would still be enough to colonize the region, maybe a bit less without Brasilia, but not that much.
And for the Belém-Brasilia, and the airport too (since a lot of people says that Brasilia was important to connect the regions by plane as well), if the government wanted a connection center they could have chosen to invest in Goiania, they didn't need to create that waste of concrete.:p
 
Last edited:
Gonzaga,i totally agree with you,they should have chosen Goiana instead of building Brasilia,i would be enormosly cheaper.But as we are talking about brazilian politicians,for Brasilia was the best option to fill their pockets,i can hardly imagine about the "propina" and overcharged prices paid.All the reasons(strategic,economic,populatione etc) to build Brasilia you could have with Goina exept the astronomic handouts the politicians received.But Brasília did provide the infrastructure and the extra stimulos for the assentment of the region,although as you sad,Goiana could have done the same thing.Brazil is hardly explainable!
 
Gonzaga,i totally agree with you,they should have chosen Goiana instead of building Brasilia,i would be enormosly cheaper.But as we are talking about brazilian politicians,for Brasilia was the best option to fill their pockets,i can hardly imagine about the "propina" and overcharged prices paid.All the reasons(strategic,economic,populatione etc) to build Brasilia you could have with Goina exept the astronomic handouts the politicians received.But Brasília did provide the infrastructure and the extra stimulos for the assentment of the region,although as you sad,Goiana could have done the same thing.Brazil is hardly explainable!

Also, if Brasilia is never built then the inflation and the economical crisis of the late 50's would be much smaller, maybe enough to make Jânio Quadros not being able be elected, and the marshal Lott could be the president instead. With a marshal as president, and a politician who believed in democracy, the whole situation that led to the 1964's coup never happen, and the Brazilian democracy is spared, at least for some years more.
 
Don´t forget that RIo the Janeiro would not have decaied,it would stiil be the shining capital.Not building \Brasilia would have a lot of butterflys.
 
The only way I can see the US capital moving is to have a CSA wins TL. Then the US almost has to move it's capital. DC is right on the border of Maryland and Virginia. It could get very uncomfortable if your capital were situated on the border of a foreign country. Otherwise I don't see the capital moving short of its destruction. If your goal is simply to have a US capital that is not DC, the best bet would be to stop it from being located there in the first place.
 
Top