Saddest State Capitol?

[Smuttynose1]

Most state capitol buildings are impressive structures that add a great deal of architectural might to the cities they call home. However, a few state houses are just, well, a bit sad-looking.

Here's a few nominations.

HAWAII
The Hawaii State Capitol, built in 1969, is as welcoming at Boston's City Hall


ARIZONA
The original Arizona State Capitol, built in 1898, is a bit underwelming, but not half bad looking. The real problem is the heinous legislative office buildings, built in the 1960s and 70s, that closely surround it.


DELAWARE
The Delaware State Capitol, built in 1933, more closely resembles a college campus building than it does a state house.


NEW MEXICO
The New Mexico State Capitol, built in 1966. Enough said.


NORTH DAKOTA
On the up side, the North Dakota State Capitol, built in the 1930s, has a nice green lawn.


ALASKA
This is the Alaska State Capitol, built in 1929. No seriously.


OREGON
The Oregon State Capitol, completed in 1938, was built in the midst of the Great Depression. It honors that legacy by continuing to look depressing looking.

NORTH CAROLINA
Completed in 1840, the North Carolina is certainly historic. But considering North Carolina's size and economic might, it's also a bit sad-looking.


NEVADA
A town hall? A school house? No, it's the Nevada State Capitol, built in 1869.

[fleonzo]

I actually liked some of these...the Nevada one looks like something you'd find in the NE. Bottom line: it's not the State houses that's important but the people running them! I didn't see NY State on your list yet if this was about the people inside the State buildings then NY State would be one of the worst....right up there with CA and NJ!

[WonderlandPark]

Remember, you need to credit the source of the photos.

[CGII]

F on the commentary. Your opinion must be that a state capitol must be formidable, colonial in styling, and enormous; politics, and the politics or architecture, go far beyond that. Why can't a state capitol be modest and humble? Why can't it be progressive and daring? Why can't it be solemn and reposed? Each state wants something unique reflected in its capitol design, perhaps one characteristic is modesty.

In addition, after all that, you didn't even mention unquestionably the most offensively architecturally bad state capitol of them all, Florida.

[sznter]

Mm... the Hawaiian, New Mexican and Oregonian ones are in my opinion far better looking than most State Capitols.

[Peanuthead]

What? The Hawaii one IMO is a fine piece of 1960's architecture...not everything built in that era is horrible!

[llamaorama]

I like Hawaii's, because it is unique, and the smooth, arching concrete complements the simple, lush beauty of the state. It sits above a water feature, and (some of) the grounds around it are like a garden, the kind that could only exist in a tropical place.

North Dakota's is pretty cool, the idea of a art deco skyscraper rising over the plains is so 1930's. I actually like this one the best. Alaska's being a smaller and unassuming building is fitting for the kind of rural small government outlook I imagine most of its citizens have. I do agree about Delaware's looking like a college campus, but its not terrible.

I think the only bad one would be New Mexico's, because it looks like the rec center/arena for a junior college. But then if its functional as a building then its fine I guess.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Ohio's isn't much better, in fact I'd say its actually worse, than some of the capitols already listed.

I kinda like Oregon's. And that's a bitchin' Sirocco parked in front of Delaware's.

Arizona's old capitol building is nice, but is surrounded by characterless 60s kitsch boxes that house the actual governor's office, the House of Representatives and the Senate.

There's a cool museum inside paying tribute to the USS Arizona.

[Smuttynose1]

Originally Posted by CGII

F on the commentary. Your opinion must be that a state capitol must be formidable, colonial in styling, and enormous; politics, and the politics or architecture, go far beyond that. Why can't a state capitol be modest and humble? Why can't it be progressive and daring? Why can't it be solemn and reposed? Each state wants something unique reflected in its capitol design, perhaps one characteristic is modesty.

In addition, after all that, you didn't even mention unquestionably the most offensively architecturally bad state capitol of them all, Florida.

I never said such a thing at all. States like Maryland, Virginia and New Hampshire sport state houses that are modest but elegant and make an impression. Louisiana and Nebraska sport capitols that are untraditional in architecural appearance, but again are eye-catching and attractive.

A few of the buildings featured above have so outlived their usefulness that they are really only state houses in name only. For instance the Nevada and North Carolina legislatures no longer meet in their state houses, but in office buildings.

Second, the building you spotlight is a part of Florida's capitol complex, but I believe they still consider the historic and far more attractive domed structure their actual state capitol. That said, the complex does unfortunately overwelm the capitol and it could certainly be considered for the list.

[JDRCRASH]

Sorry, but North Dakota is just plain...

[Soaring_Higher]

North Dakota was my pick. Some of these are not too bad at all.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Smuttynose1

I never said such a thing at all. States like Maryland, Virginia and New Hampshire sport state houses that are modest but elegant and make an impression. Louisiana and Nebraska sport capitols that are untraditional in architecural appearance, but again are eye-catching and attractive.

When you say a building should leave an impression, though, you are hinting at an architectural objective. This is inappropriate when considering the various needs, images, and desires of the governments these buildings are designed to house.

Originally Posted by SmuttyNose1

Second, the building you spotlight is a part of Florida's capitol complex, but I believe they still consider the historic and far more attractive domed structure their actual state capitol. That said, the complex does unfortunately overwelm the capitol and it could certainly be considered for the list.

No. The newer building is the Capitol, the old building is the 'Old Capitol' and does not function as the state capitol. When people in Florida reference the Capitol building they reference the modern tower.

[vid]

Not in the states, but:


Legislature of Nunavut, built 1999

Nunavut has a consensus government, everyone is elected without a party affiliation and the premier is chosen from among them by secret ballot. (NWT does the same.)


Legislature of Yukon. (Government of Yukon photo.)

Canada really took to brutalism. Even as a brutalist building, Yukon's legislature (which uses a party system) looks more like a dumpy office park than a seat of government. There are many brutalist city halls in this country that are much more well done than that building.

[dimondpark]

Oregon's reminds me of a Mormon Temple.

[hauntedheadnc]

North Carolina's is by far the ugliest historic state capitol building. Some of the modern ones are much worse, but you just can't find a worse historic capitol than ours. It might be impressive as a city hall, but as a capitol?

It dates from an era when North Carolina was an underperforming economic backwater with nothing much to offer, so it really can't be helped, I suppose. Unfortunately, even though that's no longer the situation, we're stuck with that dreary little building to remind us of our unpleasant past.

[dimondpark]

Sure it looks like a University Library, but the Hawaii one is starting to grow on me.

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

That Florida capital looks like it might have been designed by Edward Durrell Stone, since the low rise part (sans tits) resembles the dormitories at UofK deisgned by him.

Of the orginal list...New Mexico. Gee whiz. Not even a good copy of trad architecture.

I used to despise Oregons toothed gear dome, but looking at it again maybe its OK for that art deco sci-fi thing going on. For Sci-Fi they could use the Hawaii capital as set for some Star Trek Planetary Federation HQ as it does have a sort of zappy, Jetsons quality to it.

Alaskas' looks like it could be a city hall, but it's bland not "bad".

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

Ohio's isn't much better, in fact I'd say its actually worse, than some of the capitols already listed.

Doric severity. I wonder if the drum dome was the inspiration for Oregons.

[WonderlandPark]

I voted Hawaii at first, but is somehow growing on me...

I actually think New Mexico is the worst, tries to be something, says nothing, in no way tries to tie into the rich history of the state, just bleh.

If Alaska was built in 1929, than its intention to be a territorial capitol seems fitting.

I've been to Bismark and liked the capitol there. Delaware is fine, Arizona is a nice little building, the two others around it are not terrible by any stretch.

yep, New Mexico is the worst of the lot. What were they trying to do there?

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_Dayton

That Florida capital looks like it might have been designed by Edward Durrell Stone, since the low rise part (sans tits) resembles the dormitories at UofK deisgned by him.

Yep. Ed Durrell Stone was certainly a hit or miss architect.