# Why do the capitols of American States don't have many inhabitants?



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

If we take a more Canadian approach, the numbers are going to be lower, but not by a significant margin.

In the U.S. an urban area is defined by a set of contiguous block groups and blocks with a density of at least 500 people per square mile. Any county that has at least 5,000 people living in an urban area (assuming there isn't another larger urban area with at least 10,000 people) is considered a core county of a metropolitan area. Any surrounding counties that send at least 25% of their population to the core counties are added to the metropolitan area.

Now, let's bump up the definition of an urban area to include only block groups that have a density of 1,000 people per square mile. Let's include only the counties where at least 50% of the population lives within the urban area, and add additional counties only if 50% of the population commutes to the core county.

So basically:

urban areas: 500 ppsm ----> 1,000 ppsm
core counties: 5,000 people ----> 50% of the population
secondary counties: 25% of the workforce ----> 50% of the workforce

This is more in line with the Canadian method.

Now, let's take Atlanta. In 2000, the Atlanta MSA had a population of 4,247,981. That was spread over 28 counties totaling 8,374.3 sq. mi. If you use the Canadian method, the number drops down to 3,671,465 spread over 13 counties totaling 3,800.4 sq. mi. That's a drop of less than 14% in total population, however, the land area fell by 55%. In 2006, that same 13 county "Metropolitan Area" had an estimated population of 4,435,149.

In comparison, the Toronto CMA had a population of 5.1 million people in nearly 2,300 sq. mi. in 2006.

So, while Atlanta (generally considered America's most sprawled metro area) covers about 1,500 sq. mi. more than Toronto despite having about 700,000 less people, the method for defining them is virtually the same, and therefore the two are comparable.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Another example is Detroit, where the 2000 MSA population was 4,452,557 spread over 6 counties covering 3,914.1 sq. mi. However, using the Canadian approach, the population was 4,043,467 spread over 3 counties covering 1,967.1 sq. mi.

So, despite a population drop of only about 9%, the total land area fell by over 50%.

It should also be noted that Detroit could include Essex County in Ontario, Canada using the above methods. That would bring the 2000 total to about 4.4 million in roughly 2,680 sq. mi., with the 2006 estimated population being virtually the same.


----------



## PD (Jun 11, 2007)

European cities are generally more strict in the way they calculate their metro populations than New World Cities.

However New World cities generally have greater freeway systems which enables people who may be considered by some to be outside the metro area to be more integrated with the central core than in an Old World city.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

I think the original idea was also to try and keep power in the country un-centralized. They didn't want to put the capitols in the huge cities, they wanted something more in the middle of the state and dispersed.

Kinda why they made Washington DC the new capitol, it was more south, in a swampy area. Most people lived much farther north than DC. It was also to keep the country together. The southern states didn't trust a capitol that was placed in a far northern state. DC wasn't a very big city until WWII either - and the federal government didn't become the huge power it is in the country until the 20th century. In the 1800's the federal government and president were much less dominating. Hence how there use to be farm animals on the front lawn of the White House, and most anyone could walk up and knock on the door. Until the 1860's, the city only had a few thousand residents, many of whom abandoned the city during the hot summers.


----------



## columbusguy (Sep 12, 2005)

Columbus, 711,000 (one of the largest US state capitols) and one of the only to also feature the main state university, Ohio State University
That one was not put in bold, Maybe cause the poster is from MichigaN?


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

It wasn't bolded because Columbus doesn't have the largest metropolitan area in the state.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

Basically, nobody wanted another London in their state or even for the nation.


----------



## Somnifor (Sep 6, 2005)

columbusguy said:


> Columbus, 711,000 (one of the largest US state capitols) and one of the only to also feature the main state university, Ohio State University
> That one was not put in bold, Maybe cause the poster is from MichigaN?


The Twin Cities have both in the same metro with the capital in St Paul and the university in Minneapolis (part of the university is in St Paul too).


----------



## Yardmaster (Jun 1, 2004)

TalB said:


> Basically, nobody wanted another London in their state or even for the nation.


Is this what it was really about?

If you ask me (and I'm not an American) this thread raises a real issue. It's not about how you count the size of a metropolitan area, since, however you do it, Sacramento will never be larger than San Francisco or Los Angeles; Carson City larger than Los Vegas, Olympia larger than Seatlle, or Albany larger than New York. I could go on, and of courses, there are exceptions ... most notably in Phoenix, in Denver, and in Atlanta.

What is being asked here is: why is the centre of political power being positioned away from the centre of population, business or whatever, and/or how did that arise.

Americans should recognize that this is is a fairly unusual situation: certainly in Europe, the Government in each case lies in the largest metropolis, and elsewhere in the world, where the capital lies adrift from the major cities (consider Brazil, Australia and Pakistan, for example) there are specific reasons why this displacement has come about.

What's more curious from outside of the USA is why tiny places like Bismarck would be state capitals: perhaps this is the wrong example, since there is no-where larger to nominate. But Sacramento, Olympia, Carson City?


----------



## Yardmaster (Jun 1, 2004)

OMH said:


> well i think its because the capitals of the states where already planned as capitals...and they didn,t want them to be the biggest cities,but just politically important.But i dont think thats a good think actually because this cities have no flair(as opposed to european capitals)!


The question is: why was it so? Why did all our capital cities here in Australia also turn out to be major metropolises?


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

In short - most capitals (yes, not all, I don't need examples) are placed in the central part of the state to try and get equal access to everyone who lives in the state - somewhat regardless of population centers.

Hence Springfield, Illinois is more or less in the center of the state, even though 75% of the people live up north in Chicagoland.

Cities grew based on the economic and geographical reasons that led to their success. Usually this had nothing to do with the cities position in that specific state. Chicago, Detroit, LA, San Diego, New York City, Houston, Miami, Philly....none of them are capitols of their states. They're also not centrally located in their respective states, which is what many officials were trying to focus on when they created state capitals. You can see places where portions of the state were just literally not hospitable for development by 1800's standards. Nevada, Texas, Florida...their capitals aren't in the center of the state - but back 200 years ago large sections of these states were just too hot, dry, humid or swampy to really be concerned with at the time. There was also a concious decision to get away from the super-centralized capitals of Europe, where the main seat of government/monarchy was the dominant force and also largest city in the country.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

Yardmaster said:


> What's more curious from outside of the USA is why tiny places like Bismarck would be state capitals: perhaps this is the wrong example, since there is no-where larger to nominate. But Sacramento, Olympia, Carson City?



I think that the reason many capitols are in those cities is becasue they wanted capitols to have a central location within the state,with exceptions like St. Paul, Tallahasse, topeka, ect., but im not really sure

BTW, the largest city in North Dakota is Fargo, so there is a larger city to nominate


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

I know a lot of international people hear about the "Federal Government of the United States" or "Washington" because they're in charge of foreign affairs, but people WITHIN the United States don't deal with the federal government much at all in their daily lives.

The Federal Government is in charge of national defense, the economy, and foreign affairs, but most everything else is left up to the states. Each state has a uniquely written State Constitution, form of Government, Congress, Courts and Governor. 

When the United States was formed, it was done so as a collection of separate states that were joined together under the much broader umbrella of the federal government. The federal government functions to make sure that the individual states are all working together as far as a unified economy and common defense. Washington DC was actually a much weaker, smaller city and government until the Great Depression and WWII. These two issues vastly increased the power and finances of the Federal Government. First to pump billions of dollars to that states during the Great Depression to get people working, and secondly during WWII when the defense of the USA geared the economy up and gave more power to the government. Then with the Cold War, the power and financial expenses expanded even further. This has greatly increased the pressure of the United States around the world, but not quite as much within the actual country itself.

I still look to local and state governments for unemployment insurance, infrastructure improvements, transit funding, healthcare, education, police, fire, utility regulations, traffic laws, crime laws, secondary education, the local economy, etc.


----------



## sprtsluvr8 (Aug 5, 2006)

Nashville, Denver, Raleigh, Atlanta, Phoenix, Columbus, Columbia, Richmond, Boston, Little Rock, Hartford, Honolulu, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Providence, Jackson, Charleston (WV), St. Paul...all either the largest city in the state or 2nd largest in the state. 

Any one of these cities that isn't the largest is at least an important large city in its state. That's about half the states in the U.S., correct?


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

You also have to consider the fact that many state capitals were chosen in a time before the largest city became "the largest city".

In the 1830's, when Springfield became the capital of Illinois, Chicago only had about 4,000 residents. Chicago wasn't necessarily the most important city in the state, and it certainly wasn't the most convenient city for the respective legislators to travel to from around Illinois.

The difference between the U.S. and Europe is that the U.S. became a "state" before it became a "nation". In Europe the opposite occured. For example, Paris was the center of "French" culture long before it became the capital of the French state.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Interesting, I just found that the total expenditures by state and local governments in the United States was 2.5 trillion dollars.

The spending by the Federal Government (except the Social Security and Medicare which are distributed to the elderly and disabled/veterans in each state) was 1.3 trillion dollars. Almost twice as much is spent by state/locals.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

hudkina said:


> You also have to consider the fact that many state capitals were chosen in a time before the largest city became "the largest city".
> 
> In the 1830's, when Springfield became the capital of Illinois, Chicago only had about 4,000 residents. Chicago wasn't necessarily the most important city in the state, and it certainly wasn't the most convenient city for the respective legislators to travel to from around Illinois.
> 
> The difference between the U.S. and Europe is that the U.S. became a "state" before it became a "nation". In Europe the opposite occured. For example, Paris was the center of "French" culture long before it became the capital of the French state.


Right, they placed the state capital, and then let the state develop and grow. Springfield didn't really have a reason to become a huge city. Chicago did because of its stratigic location and smart city fathers.


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

here in Indy the metro is about 2 million.


----------



## OakRidge (Mar 9, 2007)

As Sacramento was brought up earlier I will post a bit of history about the city and why it was choosen as the capital.



> The California State Legislature, with the support of Governor John Bigler, named Sacramento as the permanent home of the state capital in 1854 by law, but the city did not physically hold that honor until January 1, 1855. Previously, the capital was located in Monterey, San Jose, Vallejo, and Benicia successively.
> 
> Begun in 1860 to be reminiscent of the United States Capitol in Washington, DC, the Renaissance Revival style California State Capitol was completed in 1874. The legislative chambers were first occupied in 1869 while construction continued. From 1862-1868, part of the Leland Stanford Mansion was used for the governor's offices.
> 
> ...


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Yardmaster said:


> Is this what it was really about?
> 
> If you ask me (and I'm not an American) this thread raises a real issue. It's not about how you count the size of a metropolitan area, since, however you do it, Sacramento will never be larger than San Francisco or Los Angeles; Carson City larger than Los Vegas, Olympia larger than Seatlle, or Albany larger than New York. I could go on, and of courses, there are exceptions ... most notably in Phoenix, in Denver, and in Atlanta.
> 
> ...


Many of those smaller state capitol cities were the most major cities in their respective states when they admitted to the USA's union.

A few examples:

In Nevada, there was literally NOTHING where Las Vegas is now at the time of statehood in the early 1860s - not even a railroad station - while the population center was in the Reno-Carson City area.

Sacramento was California's biggest city when it was granted statehood in 1850. San Francisco was a close second and Los Angeles was barely existing farming community.

Springfield was the undisputed dominant place in Illinois at statehood in 1817, while present-day Chicago was a small military fort with the tiniest of adjacent villages.

Mike


----------

