Best State Capitols

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

not true. illinois, kansas, texas, and west virginia have traditional domed capitol buildings that rise taller than the US capitol in DC

Don't know where I read that. Whoops.

not true. The US capitol in DC does not sit on flat ground, it sits atop a very noticeable hill. you may have heard of it before: "Capitol Hill"

Of course, that's what I said "pretty much flat". "Capitol Hill" is a pissant berm compared to what the Wisconsin Capitol sits on. Madison resembles San Francisco in some places due to it's dramatic glacial terrain. Madison's Capitol Hill in particular plunges towards the lake on both sides as it's a glacial drumlin created by the washout from the melting glacier that formed the lakes and deposited the moraine that forms the Isthmus.

Also, "Capitol Hill" is an entire area of raised land that the Capitol happens to sit on the edge of, it's an entire neighborhood. In Madison everything rises to two points: Madison's Capitol Hill and Bascom Hill.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Of course, that's what I said "pretty much flat". "Capitol Hill" is a pissant berm compared to what the Wisconsin Capitol sits on.

a pissant berm? hardly.

i've visited both the US capitol in DC and the wisconsin state capitol in madison. the difference in the hills the two buildings sit atop is nowhere close to as large as you're making it out to be.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Madison resembles San Francisco in some places due to it's dramatic glacial terrain.

ladies and gentlemen, i present to you, Madison, WI


source: http://www.cepolina.com/photo/Americ...ls_traffic.jpg



dude, i love madison, it's a great town, and indeed one of the most picturesque cities in the midwest, but don't kill your point by making absurd comparisons.

[Nowhereman1280]

[QUOTE=Steely Dan;5535936]a pissant berm? hardly.

i've visited both the US capitol in DC and the wisconsin state capitol in madison. the difference in the hills the two buildings sit atop is nowhere close to as large as you're making it out to be.[QUOTE]

Just looked on Google Earth and the elevation change is about double between the two. It's only about 50' from the Mall to the top of the Capitol steps while it's nearly 100' between the Capitol and the lake in Madison.

Also, the US Capitol is not "on top" of Capitol hill at all. It's on the side of it and the hill continues up quite a ways from where the Capitol sits. In fact the Capitol sits barely half way up the "hill" at about 60' in elevation (The Mall is 10' elevation at the very lowest) while some buildings such as the library of congress and Supreme Court sit at nearly 100' above sea level. I would hardly call 50' of the way up a 90' "hill" "on top of the hill"...

But as I said before, Captiol Hill is barely a hill at all. It's slope is extremely gradual (80' over 2/3 of a mile) and it is pretty much just a gradual slope towards the river, more the side of a valley than a "hill". Then again, coming from a place where things like Ridge Ave, Stony Island, and Rock Island get passed off as hills, I wouldn't expect you to notice.

ladies and gentlemen, i present to you, Madison, WI

My point is not that the hills in Madison are as tall as they are in San Francisco, but they certainly are as nearly as steep in areas. Then again, knowing that is a lot to expect from someone who has never lived in a city with a max elevation change greater than 25' like Chicago. Clearly you'd be impressed at how Capitol Hill dwarfs Blue or Stony Island. Besides, since when did the definition of the word "resembles" change to mean "literally identical"?

You know damn straight the meaning of the sentence and chose to ignore it to make what I was saying sound absurd. There certainly many places in Madison that, though not literally mountainous with 300' drops, resemble what you see in San Francisco. There are places where you must use your emergency brake or your car is liable to slide out of it's parking spot. There are also places where switch backs have been built into roads (like observatory drive) because the hill is too steep for cars to drive straight up.

Capitol Hill in DC on the other hand is basically the edge of a higher area of land that happens to be next to a slightly lower area of land. Madison's hills drop straight down in all directions to lakes or places were once swamps. If you haven't noticed the dramatic difference between the terrain in the two cities then you obviously haven't spent enough time in either.

[Steely Dan]

I let you keep your little madison = san francisco fantasy if you really want, but to those of us who have been to the 3 cities in question - DC, SF, & madison - we all know which one is the outlier is when it comes to topography.

please, PLEASE post a picture of madison that the average joe might confuse for san francisco.




and for the record, i have lived in st. paul, MN which definitely has elevation changes larger than 25 ft.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I let you keep your little madison = san francisco fantasy if you really want, but to those of us who have been to the 3 cities in question - DC, SF, & madison - we all know which one is the outlier is when it comes to topography.

please, PLEASE post a picture of madison that the average joe might confuse for san francisco.

Way to continue to build a straw man. I never said Madison = San Francisco. I said PARTS of Madison RESEMBLE San Francisco. There is a massive difference between the two statements.

I guess I cannot say "Parts of Milwaukee's downtown resemble Chicago" without you immediately claiming that I think Milwaukee has 1200 skyscrapers and a half dozen supertalls... Despite the fact that portions of downtown Milwaukee unquestionably resemble Chicago.

PS: Here's and example of what I'm talking about:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=old+go...55.01,,0,27.03

Not quite as BIG of a hill as San Francisco, but the hills are similarly steep (Google maps doesn't do it justice. Pan around. Behind that sweet modern office building is a 50' cliff into the lake. There's a similar drop off into the park. The hill rises at least 40' or 50' in the block between where I located the streetview and the top. Oh, and for added effect, notice the Civic with it's wheels intentionally turned in towards the curb so it doesn't slide down hill. Again, I'm not saying they are identical, but the fact that you have to park with your wheels turned and have steep dropoffs all over the place certainly RESEMBLES San Francisco, albeit on a smaller scale. Then again I'm sure you are now going to point of the lack of palm trees now...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I guess I cannot say "Parts of Milwaukee's downtown resemble Chicago" without you immediately claiming that I think Milwaukee has 1200 skyscrapers and a half dozen supertalls...

if the comment was made in the direct context of comparing the skyscrapers of the two cities, then yes, such a statement would be absurd, just as it would be absurd to mention that madison resembles san francisco in the direct context of comparing the two cities' topography.

madison is FAR more similar to DC in topography than it is to SF.


just post a pic of the parts of madison that resemble san francisco and i'll let it go.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I just linked to streetview.

How would that be absurd to say the the skyscrapers along Wisconsin Avenue in Milwaukee resemble the skyscrapers of Chicago? If you actually believe they don't RESEMBLE them then you're crazy, but I know you don't actually believe that and are just saying it to try discredit what I'm saying.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resemble

Look it up, resemble doesn't mean "is exactly the same" it means similar to. The sentence they use is perfect. If you say a son resembles his father, it doesn't mean they are genetically identical, it means they share some similar characteristics.

Same goes for Madison's terrain. Is it identical to San Fran? NO. Does it have some similar characteristics? Certainly. It has areas that are similarly steep, it has drop offs that are just as vertical. There are bluffs along the lake for christsake. They literally have an undefined slope because they go straight down. Does it have roads (like Observatory Drive) that require haripin switch backs for cars to climb them? Yes.

So yes or no Steely. Does Madison's terrain have traits in common with San Francisco's in places? I just listed several. You have to answer yes. If you answer yes, then by the very definition of the word "resembles", my statement was true and you're ridiculous hyperbole is a load of shit.

[Steely Dan]

^ i firmly believe that comparing madison to SF in terms of urban topography (or most any other term for that matter) is absurd. if you refuse to accept that, it's not my problem.

we'll likely never see eye to eye on this one, so it's probably best to just agree to disagree at this point.



now, let's get back to beautiful state capitol buildings.

[vid]

Duluth is the only Midwestern city that even vaguely resembles San Francisco.

[rockyi]

Originally Posted by vid

Duluth is the only Midwestern city that even vaguely resembles San Francisco.

Duluth is the only Midwestern city you've ever been to.

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by vid

Duluth is the only Midwestern city that even vaguely resembles San Francisco.

I'm presuming the Midwest ends at the Indiana border.

[texcolo]

Omaha's not a state capitol, but it is hilly and it's probably in the Midwest.

I'm just sayin'.

[THE BIG APPLE]

I would have to say NY State Capitol Building, and it's not because I live in NYS. It's just all around beautiful, and something different from the usual domed capitols.