[Bears Armed]

For what it's worth, I have been bouncing back and forth between the idea of Democracity being just an administrative center and being a full fledged city. I really have nothing wrong with the idea of it being a planned city like D.C. With that said, regardless of what which option we go with, it is still my opinion that Democracity should be attached to another nation instead of just floating in the middle of the woods (or possibly a desert, given the latitude and location). Think about D.C., for example. The suburbs of D.C. stretch all the way down into Virginia and all the way up into Maryland. You would need some sort of suburban area to support the city (As Laeral wisely pointed out). I personally think it's best to move these into a bordering nation than to make them part of the city-state/international zone (What terminology are we going with?) in order to reduce costs for the city's establishment (whenever it was established). Additionally, having Democracity border a pre-existing nation makes transportation of goods to and from the city a far simpler affair, with only miles, instead of hundreds (if not thousands) of miles, of track having to be placed to support fully functioning railway lines. Being a mid-to-large sized city, Democracity probably also has its own international airport, capable of supporting A380s and 747s.

But then, what if that other nation CTEs?

:b2: