Which city is going to serve as capital city?

[Cranberry]

As it appears, a few buildings and offices are located in La Paz (Infrastructure ministry, National Library...). Does this mean we can count that as de-facto capital? Or do we want another city to fulfill that role (I wouldn't mind Buenos Aires)? Certainly not the most important question to answer, but maybe something to think about?

[Cranberry]

I'd rather reject some quite unknown city in, to use Mr. Simfan's words, the "rural hinterland". Given there is quite a number of better known, still quite centrally-lying, bigger and maybe also more historic cities - Bogota, Caracas, Quito, Lima, La Paz, Santiago, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Ascension, Montevideo; to name just a few.

I'd far more prefer La Paz or Buenos Aires; Rio de Janeiro being quite interesting as well.

[Cranberry]

I'd rather reject some quite unknown city in, to use Mr. Simfan's words, the "rural hinterland". Given there is quite a number of better known, still quite centrally-lying, bigger and maybe also more historic cities - Bogota, Caracas, Quito, Lima, La Paz, Santiago, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Ascension, Montevideo; to name just a few.

I'd far more prefer La Paz or Buenos Aires; Rio de Janeiro being quite interesting as well.

Well I wasn't really giving a preference for any place in particular, but just pointing out that we can spread out around the place.

Oh, spreading out a bit is fine for me, still, the city housing the parliament and the presidential palace will eventually be the de-facto capital.

[Cranberry]

But if we can build a nice new government quarter at Coochawhatever, and throw in some decent cultural venues and restaurants I think I can survive. Just don't get Zaha Hadid to do it.

Oh yes, this Cochabamba town definitely would need some improvements; I don't really get your dislike for Zaha Hadid however?

[Cranberry]

One Zaha Hadid building may be nice. An entire city, on the other hand, would almost certainly be utterly unbearable.

You do have a point with that. If we keep her far off parliament and the presidential palace, but rather some ministry or some cultural venue (Museo Nacional del Arte Moderno?), that should be fine, though.

[Cranberry]

One Zaha Hadid building may be nice. An entire city, on the other hand, would almost certainly be utterly unbearable.

You do have a point with that. If we keep her far off parliament and the presidential palace, but rather some ministry or some cultural venue (Museo Nacional del Arte Moderno?), that should be fine, though.

Sure. I'm all for pilasters, pediments, and domes, boulevards, pedestrian paths, and dense cities. I will be fighting the corner of New Urbanism, transit, and traditionalism. Neo Herrerian or Spanish Baroque, anyone?

I'll compromise on the architecture if I must  (I'll still oppose everything being in glass and steel), but the urban model is unegotiable.

I could see some (not too much obviously) neo-classicism, or even neo-gothicism if we want to be especially bold, thrown in; broad boulevards and pederstrain paths are a must have. I don't know if this is of your taste, but some sort of greenland / extensive park area in and around government buildings, with some canals and/or other river ways thrown in - think the area surrounding the Reichstag and the Bundeskanzleramt in Berlin?

[Cranberry]

I am absolutely all for green space of all kinds and water, and canals where viable. Ideally they could also serve practical purposes as channels for storm overflow. We will have to study the geography and climate of the city to determine what is practical.

Yes indeed, and since we are operating on a living city, we will always have to follow the highest precept of intervening with the least impacts to get the maximum effects.

The grounds of the Bundestag, when I visited them, were beautiful in my opinion.

They are gorgeous, aren't they?

[Cranberry]

Yes. We must strive to be compact, but at the same time, we must provide for a comfortable, lively, and dignified, capital. Working with an existing city, we can add transport, incentivise and facilitate upzoning and densification, increase walkability, add parks, and provide for a government zone. I would take one section of the city, put in the necessary facilities, and work around those, rather than append a new zone in the city's periphery.

Yes indeed, building in the centre of the city would make far more sense than creating something from the scratch out in the periphery.

Enhancing public transport is also a very prudent measure - we could work with all kinds of subways, rails, trams, (e)-busses - our creativity shall only be limited by the technically possible.