[Stylo]

Originally Posted by mrgmrg

Yeah, I doubt larger cities in land area would solve the problems in CT's cities. Particularly with the new state laws that have required busing within school districts--if, say, "New Haven" included Orange, you'd have to have integrated schools under state law and that would basically nullify one of the major reasons why people live in Orange, which is to be sequestered from poor people and minorities. You'd just have people moving further and further out, and greater urban sprawl and suburbanization.

Actually, if New Haven included the towns listed above (which are 2-3x the population of New Haven proper), and truly "mixed" demographics (which would be difficult with the land area - most cities have schools for different regions), then the schools would perform much closer to average, perhaps above average for CT. And it might be good for the "poor people" to be mixed in with more motivated students. It does not necessarily work the way the state does it now, but that's on a small, ineffectual level IMO.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Jumping in because I grew up in Connecticut, although I live there no longer.

In general, the New England town form of government was a terrible one for municipal expansion, because voting consent of all of the residents of a town is needed. AFAIK Boston is the only city in New England which ever successfully expanded past its old "town" boundaries, and even there proposals began being defeated as early as the 1870s (Brookline).

People don't realize how much of municipal expansion happened against the wishes of the local residents in general. Philadelphia, for example, reached its current boundaries through a city-county merger passed by the legislature in 1854. The communities which were not in Philly at this time (many of which were undeveloped rural towns) were given no vote on the matter. Portions of New York City (including the entirety of the Bronx) were assigned to New York with no vote in the legislature. The "North Side" of Pittsburgh was an independent city which was annexed against its will because the Pennsylvania legislature changed the rules to allow a voting majority cumulative of both municipalities (as opposed to each one separately) to be kosher for a brief period.

In the more modern era, sun-belt cities expand easily because county land is unincorporated, and the cities won't allow city utilities unless property owners accede to be annexed. Hence you're stuck with well water and septic tanks, and in rare cases even no fire service. Some states go even further, and allow for the annexation of property without local consent.

Anyway, regarding the OP, I do not think it would make a significant difference in how built up the cities themselves were, since that's more a question of local economy than anything. Networks of smaller cities can become urbanized without being amalgamated - look at the cluster of old small cities north of Boston (Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, etc) or the Hampton Roads area in Virginia. It certainly would matter in terms of national bragging rights however.

I also tend to think the cities wouldn't have fallen as far as they did in real life. After all, the cities all retained small stable portions even in the face of white flight as it was (Bridgeport's North End and Black Rock, Hartford's West End, New Haven's East Rock and Westville, etc). The same dynamic would occur on a larger scale with the suburban fringes of larger Connecticut cities. I even think the school districts wouldn't have fallen on as hard times - there's only so many low-income residents to go around, and the aggregate effect on test scores would be diluted.

Yes, and Boston is more than 4X the area of our biggest cities, Philadelphia is 8X+, NYC 26X+, Pittsburgh 3X.

[mrgmrg]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Actually, if New Haven included the towns listed above (which are 2-3x the population of New Haven proper), and truly "mixed" demographics (which would be difficult with the land area - most cities have schools for different regions), then the schools would perform much closer to average, perhaps above average for CT. And it might be good for the "poor people" to be mixed in with more motivated students. It does not necessarily work the way the state does it now, but that's on a small, ineffectual level IMO.

Sure, this would work, if typical patterns of white flight are ignored.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Downtown Norwalk

This is a picture of Norwalk, Ohio not Norwalk, Connecticut. The route number signs gave it away. There is no Route 13 in Connecticut. Jay

[theguyfrompluto]

Originally Posted by BPt111

New Birtian, Bristol, Meriden, Middletown, West Haven, New London, Norwich

Alright, I don't consider New Britian, Bristol, Meriden, Middletown, West Haven, Norwich, and New London real "cities."

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by theguyfrompluto

Alright, I don't consider New Britian, Bristol, Meriden, Middletown, West Haven, Norwich, and New London real "cities."

I agree. These are large towns and lack many of the characteristics of a city. West Haven? Really?

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by Stylo

In land size, that is.

Often the argument is made that our crime stats being high compared to other cities in the country is the result of the smallness of our cities and the lack of suburban areas to bring the average down. It's true that our cities have comparable crime rates to cities like Detroit and Chicago, yet even our cities' worst areas are nowhere near as bad as theirs.

Many mid size cities in this country range in the 200-300 square mile vicinity, while our cities (Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford) hover around 15.

So, do you think our cities would have fared any differently if they covered a greater area?

Let's take New Haven for instance. The original New Haven colony was made up of modern day West Haven, part of Orange, part of Woodbridge, Bethany, North Haven, East Haven, Hamden, Branford, North Branford, Meriden, Wallingford, and Cheshire. Roughly 200 square miles and a current population of about 470,000. That would rank it at about 35th for all US cities, with a population greater than Atlanta, Miami, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Newark, etc. And likely a rather low crime rate.

Would our cities have gotten more attention and developed differently had they been on the national radar as one of our "biggest" cities? Would the resulting lower crime rate due to annexed suburbs improve perception and increase interest?

I certainly think the competition with Boston and New York would've prevented any kind of a mega city, but who knows. Bridgeport and New Haven did have decent ports.

I find it an interesting topic for one of the few highly developed states in the nation without a signature big city. Much of that has to have something to do with how the colonials divvied our cities up.

Thoughts?

Yes. Absolutely. Connecticut doesn't have big cities. Our biggest cities can barely be called mid size cities. Hartford does have a similar Metro population to New Orleans, which is considered a big city, but Hartford is not because it's city population is substantially smaller.

I think if Connecticut had just one city that stood out from the rest in population, say around 250,000 (coincidentally the combined populations of West Hartford, Hartford, and East Hartford) it would make the state more desirable on the national stage. People are always looking for big cities to move to to fill their urban niche. Hartford and New Haven don't cut it in most respects, although they are great small/mid size cities.

Cities are by definition supposed to be large. I consider it very unprogressive to have major cities with such small boundaries. It gives too many opportunities for racist elite whites to live just outside the city in pristine neighborhoods while minorities in poor urban neighborhoods are left to suffer. Small boundaries also enable fighting between municipalities over taxes, schools, housing, transportation, you name it. The same problem exists in greater Boston.

[GeoffD]

This is nonsense. The Connecticut problem isn’t size. It’s that the cities are mostly slums and private money isn’t going to invest in slums. Construction booms don’t happen in slums. You don’t build luxury apartment towers and condos in sketchy food deserts.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

This is nonsense. The Connecticut problem isn’t size. It’s that the cities are mostly slums and private money isn’t going to invest in slums. Construction booms don’t happen in slums. You don’t build luxury apartment towers and condos in sketchy food deserts.

Well they kick the sketchies out first, then they invest in it.
That's what they did in lower Stamford and South Norwalk starting back in the 80s. New Haven right now is probably in the Stamford mid 90's stage.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

Well they kick the sketchies out first, then they invest in it.
That's what they did in lower Stamford and South Norwalk starting back in the 80s. New Haven right now is probably in the Stamford mid 90's stage.

In my life experience, it's not "kicked out", it's priced out. It gentrifies a block at a time as middle/upper middle class urban pioneers priced out of anything else buy and move in. Certainly with Hartford, that won't ever happen because prices in the gold plated suburbs are affordable compared to other high COL places. Even with the nutty property taxes, West Hartford is still affordable, particularly west of Trout Brook & south of Farmington. Why would you urban pioneer in a Hartford slum? The Hartford west end with the good housing stock, sure but that has been middle class for a long time. Adding commuter rail made it even more unlikely since you can now get to an office tower job no matter how bad the traffic gets if you live along I-91. Same for the bus lane parallel to I-84 west of Hartford.


New Haven might be different from Hartford. Walkable/bicycle to Yale or a medical job must have a lot of value. It's easier to imagine a block-by-block gentrification there.


My college roommate in the mid-1970s was from the Boston South End. Back then, that was a tough, gritty place. I had a girlfriend who bought a newly gutted/rebuilt condo there a decade later. She had a job in the Hancock tower so she walked to work. It was pretty much unrecognizable compared to 10 years earlier. The cars parked on the streets went from beater Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles with coat hanger antennas to European sedans. Other than a housing project, all the Section 8 people had been bought out as developers bought buildings to do condo conversions.