The Illinois State Capital (Springfield ... or Chicago?)

little egyptian · Dec 17, 2007#12007-12-17T19:56+00:00

Here is the direct quote from the Post-Dispatch story (on his everyday Chicago/Springfield flights) from Gov. Blagojevich's spokesman, Abby Ottenhoff:

The governor's headquarters is in the Windy City, not the state capital, so he may fly tax-free to Springfield and back when business calls him there.

Wow.

I don't want to start a political discussion here, so let's keep it on the topic of the Illinois State Capitol, and its proper location (i.e. nothing about Gov. Rod). Would people be against moving it to Chicago? Clearly, much of the business of Illinois is moving that way as this current governor is attempting to conduct much of his business out of Chicago and now labels it "headquarters." So, what is the difference between state headquarters and state capitol? How long do we see the capitol staying in Springfield if this becomes the new precedent of having a pseudo-capitol in Chicago. How long until they just start conducting business exclusively out of Chicago?

If we were to move it, should we go all the way to Chicago, or just to Joliet-ish? Remember, Illinois has a history of moving its capital northward. First Kaskaskia, then Vandalia, and now Springfield?

southsidepride · Dec 17, 2007#22007-12-17T23:21+00:00

If I'm correct Chicago was little more than a village when Springfield became the capitol of IL. It surely wasn't as big as that metropolis at the other end of the state--Cairo!

Actually most state capitols were picked before the largest city in the state became that. Either by design (Jefferson always warned against having the seat of govt. located in a dense city) or by happenstance in most cases the center of population wound up elsewhere. Sure, you do have Boston and Atlanta but in more states than not the capitol is in the hinterlands.

So IL could move it's capitol to Chicago, but will that just spur NY govt. to move from Albany to Manhattan and California to relocated from Sacramento to LA?

I would think Jefferson City would be safe as the state wouldn't want to slight either STL or KC.

shimmy · Dec 17, 2007#32007-12-17T23:36+00:00

People can tell me all day how they love Chicago and how they and their friends always go to Chicago and such, but to me the resent of Southern Illinois towards Chicago is obvious. Little Egyptian, I remember you saying that succession is often discussed in Southern Illinois, and if the capital were to move from Springfield to Chicago then those cries would be deafning. Not to mention that it would murder the city of Springfield.

Politcally I don't think it would make too big of a difference, Chicago already dominates the state.

southsidepride · Dec 17, 2007#42007-12-17T23:55+00:00

states that are dominated by a large city often talk of secession. Upstate NY talks of wanting to secede from NYC. Downstate IL wants to break away from Chicago.

But for as much as they can't stand the big cities getting the limelight what would you have if Southern IL became it's own entity? It would basically be South Dakota (heavily agricultural with one city over 100K)

And Upstate NY would be a smaller Ohio, some industry and mostly rural and agricultural. When it comes right down to it losing those cities knocks them down a bit on the food chain.

The only state that could pull it off is California splitting between the LA dominated Southern part and the Bay Area dominated north.

little egyptian · Dec 18, 2007#52007-12-18T00:22+00:00

I am not saying I like this, I am just saying it is a reality we need to consider.

To add more fuel to the fire:

The James R. Thompson Center.

The James R. Thompson Center (JRTC) (also known as Clark & Lake due to its CTA Blue Line stop) is located at 100 W. Randolph Street in the Loop, Chicago, Illinois and houses more offices of the State of Illinois than can be found in the state's capital, Springfield. The building opened in May 1985 as the State of Illinois Center. It was re-dedicated in 1993 to honor former Illinois Governor James R. Thompson. The property takes up the entire block bounded by Randolph, Lake, Clark and LaSalle Streets, one of the 35 full-size city blocks within Chicago's Loop.

I know a couple people that work th ... be over.

shimmy · Dec 18, 2007#62007-12-18T01:20+00:00

southsidepride wrote:states that are dominated by a large city often talk of secession. Upstate NY talks of wanting to secede from NYC. Downstate IL wants to break away from Chicago.

But for as much as they can't stand the big cities getting the limelight what would you have if Southern IL became it's own entity? It would basically be South Dakota (heavily agricultural with one city over 100K)

And Upstate NY would be a smaller Ohio, some industry and mostly rural and agricultural. When it comes right down to it losing those cities knocks them down a bit on the food chain.

The only state that could pull it off is California splitting between the LA dominated Southern part and the Bay Area dominated north.

That's true that the state of Southern Illinois would not have such strong influence, but speaking for the majority of Southern Illinois, what say do they have now in the national picture? Very little.

little egyptian · Dec 18, 2007#72007-12-18T01:57+00:00

Personally, I would be happy with Southern Illinois = South Dakota. I compare Southern Illinois to Arkansas or West Virginia more often, though. It is much more populated than South Dakota. The Metro East alone almost equals the population of South Dakota and considering their land mass, Southern Illinois has much more people per square mile.

I understand Southern Illinois gets a lot of benefit from the rest of the state (i.e. Chicago), but I would imagine most people in Southern Illinois would be just fine without it. Most people in Southern Illinois don't identify themselves as Illinoisans, they specifically identify themselves as Southern Illinoisans, or if from the Metro East, Saint Louisans. I have never really heard anyone tout the fact they live in the same state as Chicago. It is usually said with some degree of embarrassment.

Anyway, I agree there would be massive protests, but if Springfield is moving bit by bit to Chicago, who is going to notice? I bet most people are unaware that the majority of the State of Illinois' offices are in Chicago. Just as most people were unaware the Governor lives in Chicago until this whole airplane flap occurred. People may still consider Springfield the capital, but if the center of power is in Chicago and the decisions are made in Chicago, its a pretty hollow distinction. Perhaps there is a reason that we have not built a new capital in Springfield since 1868. We don't need it. All the new offices the State of Illinois generates are in Chicago.

And remember, the vast majority of votes (both legislative and popular) reside in and around Chicago. They could move the capital any time they wanted to and there is nothing the rest of us could do to stop it. They are just permitting the capital to be in Springfield. If they ever took a notion, they could change it at anytime.

framer · Dec 18, 2007#82007-12-18T05:18+00:00

I've always felt that state capitals should be in the geographic center of the state. Therefore, Springfield gets my vote.

brickandmortar · Dec 18, 2007#92007-12-18T15:17+00:00

Chicago is the economic capital of the state. The reason why they seem to get all the money is because that area generates most of the state revenue. Trust me they complain about their money going downstate.

Bart Harley Jarvis · Dec 18, 2007#102007-12-18T22:08+00:00

Framer wrote:I've always felt that state capitals should be in the geographic center of the state. Therefore, Springfield gets my vote.

I've always felt that Peoria could make a great case to be the next Capital of Illinois. It has a central location (I've often wondered if Springfield is in the center of the state, since Southern Illinois tapers off to a point.), close to 2 large state universities (UIUC & ISU), driveable to Chicago (after an Interstate is built to connect Peoria to Chicao or at least I-55 to the NE), closer to Rockford & the Quad-Cities, which are both larger than Springfield (as is Peoria) and it is a bit more isolated within Illinois (unlike Springfield, which is like the step-cousin to St. Louis).

I think Bloomington-Normal would also make for a perfect new capital for most of the same reasons. I don't think we will ever see Chicago become the State Capital. Where would there be room for new buildings?

migueltejada · Dec 19, 2007#112007-12-19T02:00+00:00

Shimmy wrote:People can tell me all day how they love Chicago and how they and their friends always go to Chicago and such, but to me the resent of Southern Illinois towards Chicago is obvious. Little Egyptian, I remember you saying that succession is often discussed in Southern Illinois, and if the capital were to move from Springfield to Chicago then those cries would be deafning. Not to mention that it would murder the city of Springfield.

The cries would only be deafening because we'd be straining so hard to hear them! Chicago doesn't dominate Illinois' economy, IT IS the Illinois economy. If the state was a see-saw, chicago would be a 80 ton weight and the rest of the state would be a fat guy in overalls.

But yes, moving the state capital would kill springfield. Peoria is a nice idea, but then why not Champaign? Better highway access, more open space, larger visibility, just as central etc. Peoria is a one industry town anyways (Caterpillar), just like Bloomington-Normal (State Farm). Champaign is dominated by the university, but if there would be a relocation, Champaign would make more sense than Peoria.

Unless we'd like to trade one dying city for another, then the state should move to Decatur

threeonefour · Dec 19, 2007#122007-12-19T20:01+00:00

How many Illinois offices were located in Chicago before the James R. Thompson Center was built? Did it siphon offices from Springfield, or did it merely offer a central, consolidated location for state offices already located in the Chicago area?

Also, didn't Gov. Blagojevich begin the practice of commuting by air between Chicago and Springfield? Last time I checked, there's a Governor's Mansion adjacent to the State Capitol. And as far as I know, he's the first governor to make a practice out of not living in it.

Politics aside, as it doesn't matter whether he bleeds blue or red, I just think this is absolutely ridiculous. I've heard Blagojevich wants to be close to his family and didn't want to pull his daughter out of the school she loved. As admirable as that is, living in Springfield should come with the territory if you're governor IMHO. (And how much do state taxpayers fork over for this daily commute?) Like Framer, I believe states are best served by capital cities near the geographic center of the state, regardless of their size. Springfield is actually a relatively vibrant small city, but it would not have its level of activity or prosperity without the capital. I would expect Blagojevich's commute to be an issue in the next campaign for potential candidates in both major political parties. Do enough people care? Probably not, since the majority of Illinois' population is in Chicagoland. I don't see how it's benefiting the state, though, and I simply think a governor should have to reside in the capital city (even though it seems like our president spends as much time on his ranch in Texas as he does in Washington).