Alternate capital for Argentina

Status
Not open for further replies.
A national capital somewhere in the south would have been a heathy development for Argentina. Too much power is concentrated in Buenos Aires, to the detriment to the rest of the country. For one, the railroads would probably never have fallen into the recent state of disrepair. More German immigration to the south as well. On the whole, a more prosperous nation, the undisputed strongest country in South America. Amazing how much a little bit of infrastructure can change the fortunes of a country.
 
Domingo Faustino Sarmiento proposed to build a new city called Argirópolis (literally, 'Silver City') in Martín García Island, in the middle of the Rio De La Plata, to be the capital of the Estados Unidos del Río De La Plata, which, as the name indicates, it was to be based in the United States. It was something of an utopian vision of his (Sarmiento being Sarmiento, it was to be an European utopian state with no Indians or Blacks) and I'm not sure how seriously he took it. In any case, I'm not really sure than Martín García would be a good location for any city; it's 3 x 1,5 kilometers long and the terrain is poor, basically ancient rocky formations and sand and mud from the Rio De La Plata.

Sarmiento concieved Argoropolis as the capital city of a State that would have included Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay: Estados Confederados del Rio de la Plata. I do not know if it had much sense as a capital of Argentina, since it is much closer to Uruguay than the rest of Argentina, and, in the early XIX century, had been subject of foreign occupations.
 
Cordoba gets my vote...

...Pity Ushuaia is too far South - the setting is incredibly beautiful. Cordoba has good wine, I've heard...
 
A national capital somewhere in the south would have been a heathy development for Argentina. Too much power is concentrated in Buenos Aires, to the detriment to the rest of the country. For one, the railroads would probably never have fallen into the recent state of disrepair. More German immigration to the south as well. On the whole, a more prosperous nation, the undisputed strongest country in South America. Amazing how much a little bit of infrastructure can change the fortunes of a country.

So, how far from BA new capital should be?
 
A national capital somewhere in the south would have been a heathy development for Argentina. Too much power is concentrated in Buenos Aires, to the detriment to the rest of the country. For one, the railroads would probably never have fallen into the recent state of disrepair. More German immigration to the south as well. On the whole, a more prosperous nation, the undisputed strongest country in South America. Amazing how much a little bit of infrastructure can change the fortunes of a country.
Not really, the economical power held by Capital federal/BsAs would still be there, jsut that they wouldn't hold all the political power too.
 
Warning
As for location, Rosario seems a good one. The third largest city of Argentina, mostly independent from its province and located in a favorable climate with access to the Paraná and Rio de La Plata and the Pampas region. It was never considered as a capital as far as I know, but I believe some Rosarinos have raised the idea of becoming an Autonomous City like Buenos Aires, since they feel their province (Santa Fe) does not pay attention to them.

Actually, on three occasions (in 1868, 1869, and 1873), Rosario was declared the federal capital by the Argentine government, only for the president to veto it each time. In fact, to this day, the main newspaper in Rosario is known as La Capital.

In addition, some small towns in that general part of Argentina (or heading from there towards the city of Cordoba) were considered around that time for that purpose but ultimately rejected. These include Fraile Muerto (present-day Bell Ville, just inside Cordoba Prov.) and Villa Maria (somewhat deeper inside Cordoba Prov., and declared as federal capital in 1871 by the government before being vetoed by the president).

Just wondering: If Rosario were the federal capital to this day, would that have more likely prevented it from being the present-day leading drug/gang city in Argentina? And/or would have caused Juan Galiffi (1892-1943; the Al Capone of Argentina) to locate his mafia-type activities somewhere else and make that other place the "Argentine Chicago"? And I would imagine that Rosario, as the federal capital, would still be a major industrial, trans-shipment, and port city (albeit perhaps relocating those functions further away from the city centre, at least over time) owing to its location in Argentina?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Actually, on three occasions (in 1868, 1869, and 1873), Rosario was declared the federal capital by the Argentine government, only for the president to veto it each time. In fact, to this day, the main newspaper in Rosario is known as La Capital.

In addition, some small towns in that general part of Argentina (or heading from there towards the city of Cordoba) were considered around that time for that purpose but ultimately rejected. These include Fraile Muerto (present-day Bell Ville, just inside Cordoba Prov.) and Villa Maria (somewhat deeper inside Cordoba Prov., and declared as federal capital in 1871 by the government before being vetoed by the president).

Just wondering: If Rosario were the federal capital to this day, would that have more likely prevented it from being the present-day leading drug/gang city in Argentina? And/or would have caused Juan Galiffi (1892-1943; the Al Capone of Argentina) to locate his mafia-type activities somewhere else and make that other place the "Argentine Chicago"? And I would imagine that Rosario, as the federal capital, would still be a major industrial, trans-shipment, and port city (albeit perhaps relocating those functions further away from the city centre, at least over time) owing to its location in Argentina?
Don't violate the dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top