Where Would the Capital Be?

Capital City Selection

Where the Heart of a Nation Should Beat

Every nation needs a capital. A place where power resides, where laws are made, where ambassadors present credentials and protesters gather on the lawn. The choice is never neutral—it shapes national identity, distributes economic benefits, and declares what the country values.

South Alberta inherits an embarrassment of riches: two current provincial/state capitals, multiple world-class cities, and no obvious answer.

This isn't just about where politicians sit. It's about who we are.

THE CANDIDATES

Six serious proposals have emerged. Each has advocates. Each has problems.

CALGARY

The Economic Engine

The case for Calgary:

Calgary is where the money is. The city hosts the headquarters of virtually every major Canadian oil and gas company, plus a growing tech sector, financial services hub, and the infrastructure that comes with being Alberta's economic center. Calgary International Airport (YYC) offers direct flights to major global destinations. The Calgary Tower, the Stampede grounds, the downtown skyline—this is the city the world pictures when it thinks of Alberta.

Population: 1.3 million metro Airport: Major international hub Existing infrastructure: Olympic legacy facilities, convention centers, corporate headquarters

Arguments in favor:

• Economic centrality attracts talent and investment
• International connectivity matters for a new nation seeking recognition
• Business community would embrace capital designation
• Modern infrastructure already exists
• Symbolizes South Alberta's energy-economy identity

Arguments against:

• Edmonton is the current capital—moving feels like demotion
• Calgary is perceived as corporate and conservative; may alienate progressive constituencies
• Housing costs already strained; capital designation worsens affordability
• Texas cities may feel Alberta is claiming dominance by choosing an Alberta city
• The Flames/Oilers rivalry doesn't need this additional fuel

Calgary's pitch: "We're already the city that runs things. Make it official."

EDMONTON

The Incumbent

The case for Edmonton:

Edmonton has been Alberta's capital since 1905. The Legislature Building stands ready. The provincial civil service—thousands of employees with institutional knowledge—already lives here. The University of Alberta provides research capacity and an educated workforce. Government doesn't need to be glamorous; it needs to function. Edmonton functions.

Population: 1.1 million metro Airport: International service, though smaller than Calgary Existing infrastructure: Legislature, provincial ministries, established bureaucracy

Arguments in favor:

• Continuity matters; why rebuild what already exists?
• Civil service retention—moving the capital means losing experienced staff
• Legislature Building is architecturally significant and practically ready
• Lower cost of living than Calgary makes government salaries stretch further
• "Gateway to the North" connects South Alberta to resource hinterlands

Arguments against:

• Edmonton is provincial-scale; South Alberta needs national-scale presence
• International connectivity inferior to Calgary, Dallas, or Houston
• Cold. Very cold. Texan legislators may rebel.
• Choosing Edmonton feels like South Alberta is really just "Greater Alberta with Texas attached"
• The city's identity is wrapped in being Alberta's capital; sharing that identity with Texas may feel diminishing rather than elevating

Edmonton's pitch: "The government is already here. Don't fix what isn't broken."

AUSTIN

The Cultural Statement

The case for Austin:

Austin is weird, and proud of it. The Texas capital has transformed from a sleepy government town into a tech hub rivaling Silicon Valley, a music mecca hosting South by Southwest, and a cultural beacon that attracts young, educated, creative workers. Choosing Austin says South Alberta is forward-looking, innovative, and unafraid to break from tradition.

Population: 2.3 million metro Airport: Austin-Bergstrom International (growing rapidly) Existing infrastructure: Texas State Capitol, established state bureaucracy, tech sector

Arguments in favor:

• Signals that South Alberta is a genuine merger, not Alberta dominance
• Tech sector presence aligns with 21st-century economic development
• Cultural cachet attracts international attention
• Young demographic and progressive politics balance Alberta's conservatism
• Already a state capital; governing infrastructure exists
• "Keep Austin Weird" becomes "Keep South Alberta Interesting"

Arguments against:

• Distance from Alberta makes governance awkward—2,500 km from Edmonton
• Cost of living has skyrocketed; affordability is worse than Calgary
• Austin's identity is distinctly Texan; may resist becoming capital of something "Canadian-adjacent"
• Weather inversion: now Albertans must travel somewhere hot for legislative sessions
• The tech bro culture may not mesh with Alberta's blue-collar resource economy

Austin's pitch: "Choose the future, not the past."

DALLAS-FORT WORTH

The Metroplex Powerhouse

The case for DFW:

If we're serious about South Alberta being a major nation, the capital should be in a major city. Dallas-Fort Worth is a metroplex of 7.5 million people—larger than Alberta's entire population. DFW Airport is a global hub with connections everywhere. Corporate headquarters from AT&T to ExxonMobil already call this region home. This is where the economic weight of Texas actually sits.

Population: 7.5 million metro Airport: DFW is a top-10 global hub Existing infrastructure: Massive corporate presence, convention facilities, sports venues

Arguments in favor:

• Scale communicates seriousness; South Alberta would have a capital rivaling established nations
• Airport connectivity is genuinely world-class
• Business infrastructure means corporate lobbying... er, "engagement"... is convenient
• Splitting Texas governance (Austin as state, Dallas as federal) maintains balance
• Central location between Alberta and the Gulf Coast

Arguments against:

• Dallas is not a capital of anything currently; no governing infrastructure exists
• Building new government facilities in an expensive metroplex costs billions
• Dallas doesn't need capital status; it's already dominant
• The city is perceived as aggressively corporate—not a symbol of democratic governance
• Fort Worth might feel snubbed if Dallas proper gets the designation

DFW's pitch: "Go big or go home."

THE ROTATING CAPITAL

Fairness Through Motion

The case for rotation:

Why choose at all? A rotating capital—perhaps three months each in four cities, or alternating years between north and south—prevents any region from feeling subordinate. The European Union rotates its Council presidency. Medieval kings held court in different castles. The modern age has videoconferencing; does every legislator need to be in the same room?

Proposed rotation: Calgary → Edmonton → Austin → Dallas/Houston → repeat

Arguments in favor:

• Maximum political fairness; no city "wins"
• Each region hosts the nation periodically, spreading economic benefits
• Forces legislators to experience all parts of the country
• Symbolic commitment to unity over dominance
• Modern technology makes distributed governance increasingly feasible

Arguments against:

• Logistically nightmarish; government staff cannot relocate quarterly
• Embassies need permanent addresses; foreign diplomats won't follow a moving target
• Cost of maintaining four sets of government facilities is prohibitive
• Institutional memory suffers when location constantly shifts
• No city develops true capital identity or infrastructure
• The EU rotates presidency, not physical location, for good reason

Rotation's pitch: "The capital belongs to everyone, so it should be everywhere."

THE PURPOSE-BUILT CAPITAL

Start Fresh

The case for building new:

The boldest proposal: build a new capital from scratch, somewhere that belongs to neither Alberta nor Texas—perhaps along the Oklahoma border, on land that symbolizes the union of north and south. Brasília did it. Canberra did it. Islamabad, Abuja, Naypyidaw—nations have built purpose-designed capitals throughout modern history.

A new city could be designed for 21st-century governance: sustainable buildings, integrated technology, housing for government workers, no legacy infrastructure constraints. It would belong to South Alberta alone—not repurposed from a previous identity.

Proposed location: Southern Oklahoma Panhandle / Northern Texas border region (would require territorial arrangements)

Arguments in favor:

• Total neutrality; no existing city gains advantage
• Purpose-built means optimized design for governance
• Creates economic development in an underserved region
• Symbolic fresh start for a new nation
• No existing population to displace or existing politics to navigate
• Long-term investment in something permanent

Arguments against:

• Cost: Brasília's construction consumed 3-4% of Brazil's GDP for years
• Time: Purpose-built capitals take decades to become functional cities
• The Oklahoma Panhandle has essentially nothing currently—no airport, no infrastructure, no workforce
• Workers must be convinced to move to an empty landscape
• Brazil's experience: Brasília is functional but soulless; government workers flee to Rio on weekends
• South Alberta may not survive long enough for a 30-year capital construction project

The new capital's pitch: "If we're building a new nation, build a new city."

PRECEDENTS WORTH STUDYING

Washington, D.C. (United States, 1790)

A purpose-selected site on the Potomac, chosen as a compromise between northern and southern states. Took decades to develop. Today it's a major city but economically dependent on government—when shutdowns occur, the city suffers disproportionately.

Lesson: Purpose-built can work, but takes generations.

Canberra (Australia, 1913)

Neither Sydney nor Melbourne could accept the other as capital, so Australia built Canberra in between. Often described as boring. Government workers live there; culture happens elsewhere.

Lesson: Compromise capitals solve political problems but may lack soul.

Brasília (Brazil, 1960)

President Kubitschek built a new capital in the interior to develop Brazil's heartland. Architecturally stunning. Socially segregated. Workers commute from satellite cities while elites occupy the planned core.

Lesson: You can build a city; building a community is harder.

Ottawa (Canada, 1857)

Queen Victoria chose Ottawa precisely because it was a compromise—not Toronto, not Montreal, not too close to the American border. It was a lumber town. Today it's Canada's capital but perpetually overshadowed by Toronto and Montreal.

Lesson: Compromise capitals can work but may never become cultural centers.

Pretoria/Cape Town/Bloemfontein (South Africa)

South Africa splits its capital functions: executive in Pretoria, legislative in Cape Town, judicial in Bloemfontein. Expensive and awkward, but manages regional tensions.

Lesson: Functional distribution is possible if politically necessary.

THE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Beyond symbolism, certain practicalities matter:

International connectivity: Embassies need to reach the outside world. Leaders travel. A capital without a major international airport creates friction.

Cost of relocation: Moving a capital isn't free. Estimates for relocating Indonesia's capital from Jakarta to Borneo exceed $30 billion. Even choosing an existing city requires new construction, staff relocation packages, and years of transition.

Climate: This sounds trivial. It isn't. Legislative sessions in Edmonton's January (-20°C average) will feel different than sessions in Austin's January (10°C average). Staff quality of life affects recruitment. Diplomats have preferences.

Housing: Thousands of government workers need to live somewhere. Calgary and Austin already face housing crises. Edmonton is more affordable. A new city needs housing built from nothing.

Security: Capitals are targets. Existing major cities have established security infrastructure. A new capital needs everything built from scratch—at enormous cost.

QUESTIONS FOR THE FORUM:

On the candidates:

• Which city best represents what South Alberta wants to be?
• Should the capital be the largest city, or deliberately not the largest?
• Does choosing an Alberta city signal Alberta dominance? Does choosing a Texas city signal the opposite?

On rotation:

• Is a rotating capital genuinely feasible with modern technology, or a logistical fantasy?
• Could we rotate ceremonial functions while keeping bureaucracy fixed?
• How would foreign embassies handle rotation?

On building new:

• Is a 30-year construction project appropriate for a nation that doesn't yet exist?
• Where specifically should a new capital be located?
• What would you name it?

On process:

• Should this be decided by referendum, by founding legislature, or by expert commission?
• Should the capital decision be permanent, or revisable after 25 years?
• What criteria matter most: economics, symbolism, fairness, practicality?

On what we're really asking:

• Is South Alberta an expanded Alberta with Texas attached, or a genuine merger of equals?
• Does the capital choice reveal—or determine—the answer to that question?

THE UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTION

Every candidate city has partisans. Every choice creates winners and losers. The capital decision will be the first test of whether South Alberta can make difficult choices without fracturing.

If Calgary is chosen, will Texans feel like junior partners in someone else's project?

If Austin is chosen, will Albertans feel their province was absorbed rather than expanded?

If we build new, will anyone actually want to live there?

If we rotate, will anything actually get done?

There may be no answer that satisfies everyone. The question is whether there's an answer that everyone can live with—an answer that feels legitimate even to those who preferred something else.

That's what nationhood requires. The capital decision is practice.