If you could annex a town (or towns) to Boston, what would it be (Worcester: neighborhoods, live)

[John Rose]

Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Revere, Everett make the most sense to me. I also voted for Newton, Watertown and Quincy. I live sort of where Cambridge, Watertown and Belmont meet, and I find I'm closer to a lot of things in Boston (Allston/Brighton) than in the rest of Cambridge. It'd be cool to have a beach area like Revere Beach as part of Boston and the T connection is already there. Brookline, Cambridge and Somerville feel like part of Boston already. I've seen tourists think they're in "Downtown Boston" when they're in some of the more urban parts of Cambridge.

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I'd go the other direction. Let's devolve Boston back into all its original cities and towns.

Wow. Just wow lol. I've heard of people saying this with bigger cities, but in Bostons case, you'd literally be making Boston a small town basically. A small town with skyscrapers.

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Missing a "none" option here.

So I assume you don't live in Boston then.

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

It's worth noting that Boston's "smallness" isn't unusual. Of the top 25 MSAs in the US, the fraction of largest city population to total MSA population isn't out of range for Boston. The average is (0.22±0.13) among those top 25, and Boston sits at 0.14. Miami (MSA #7) is 0.07, Atlanta (MSA #8) is 0.08, Tampa (MSA #18) is 0.12, and Orlando (MSA #22) is 0.11. New York City (MSA #1) is the real outlier on the East Coast with 0.43. All the other centralized MSAs are in the South and West (San Antonio leads the way with 0.59).

In fact, Bostons smallness is very unusual. Only San Francisco is similarly tiny and a huge city at the same time.

[KoNgFooCj]

Fun fact. This was going to happen in 1912, but Boston was just about the most prejudiced and nimbyest Metro Area back then. Everything within 10 miles of the State House was to become Boston. Over 300 square miles. Larger than New York City. Today would be 5th largest in population with ~2.1 million people.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

It's worth noting that Boston's "smallness" isn't unusual. Of the top 25 MSAs in the US, the fraction of largest city population to total MSA population isn't out of range for Boston. The average is (0.22±0.13) among those top 25, and Boston sits at 0.14. Miami (MSA #7) is 0.07, Atlanta (MSA #8) is 0.08, Tampa (MSA #18) is 0.12, and Orlando (MSA #22) is 0.11. New York City (MSA #1) is the real outlier on the East Coast with 0.43. All the other centralized MSAs are in the South and West (San Antonio leads the way with 0.59).

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

In fact, Bostons smallness is very unusual. Only San Francisco is similarly tiny and a huge city at the same time.

Why do you say that only San Francisco is similarly tiny and a huge city, when Miami, Atlanta, Tampa, and Orlando are all smaller compared to their metro areas than Boston. I mean, sure, Tampa and Orlando aren't what anyone considers 'big cities', but Miami and Atlanta are both 'real cities' and both are bigger metros.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Why do you say that only San Francisco is similarly tiny and a huge city, when Miami, Atlanta, Tampa, and Orlando are all smaller compared to their metro areas than Boston. I mean, sure, Tampa and Orlando aren't what anyone considers 'big cities', but Miami and Atlanta are both 'real cities' and both are bigger metros.

Square mileage - they have relatively small footprints. San Francisco has 47 square miles and 881,549 people. Boston has 48 square miles and 695,000 people. Miami actually isn't all that much bigger (56 square miles), and neither is DC (63), these are sort of outliers on the square mileage front as most major cities are much larger. Atlanta, Orlando, and Tampa are all well over 100 square miles. New York has 436 square miles, Houston has 637, Philadelphia has 142, Chicago has 227, and Jacksonville has about 875 square miles. Many of these cities grew their footprints through annexation. Boston is a pretty small physical area comparatively.

Even if Boston DID annex Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Everett, and Brookline, it would only be 71 square miles. Still very much on the small end of the spectrum.

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Why do you say that only San Francisco is similarly tiny and a huge city, when Miami, Atlanta, Tampa, and Orlando are all smaller compared to their metro areas than Boston. I mean, sure, Tampa and Orlando aren't what anyone considers 'big cities', but Miami and Atlanta are both 'real cities' and both are bigger metros.

No, you are right about those other cities Vs their metro area, I was just trying to compare Boston to the most similar city population and area wise.

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Square mileage - they have relatively small footprints. San Francisco has 47 square miles and 881,549 people. Boston has 48 square miles and 695,000 people. Miami actually isn't all that much bigger (56 square miles), and neither is DC (63), these are sort of outliers on the square mileage front as most major cities are much larger. Atlanta, Orlando, and Tampa are all well over 100 square miles. New York has 436 square miles, Houston has 637, Philadelphia has 142, Chicago has 227, and Jacksonville has about 875 square miles. Many of these cities grew their footprints through annexation. Boston is a pretty small physical area comparatively.

Even if Boston DID annex Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Everett, and Brookline, it would only be 71 square miles. Still very much on the small end of the spectrum.

Miami's livable area is more like 35 square miles. Compare that to its 6.1 million Metro pop, and it's probably the most extreme case in the country.

[LINative]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I'd go the other direction. Let's devolve Boston back into all its original cities and towns.

Originally Posted by jayrandom

It's worth noting that Boston's "smallness" isn't unusual. Of the top 25 MSAs in the US, the fraction of largest city population to total MSA population isn't out of range for Boston. The average is (0.22±0.13) among those top 25, and Boston sits at 0.14. Miami (MSA #7) is 0.07, Atlanta (MSA #8) is 0.08, Tampa (MSA #18) is 0.12, and Orlando (MSA #22) is 0.11. New York City (MSA #1) is the real outlier on the East Coast with 0.43. All the other centralized MSAs are in the South and West (San Antonio leads the way with 0.59).

I would say what is done is done. But I would not add any more territory to Boston either, especially if it to annex a Town against their will.

Regarding NYC, as an ex-resident of Queens I always thought the creation of the modern NYC to be a big mistake for both the residents of the "Outer Boroughs" as well as politics in New York State as a whole. Manhattan (the old NYC) made like out like a bandit of course.

When I lived in Queens, I felt like I had no local government. The borough presidents are weak and have little power. The Mayor in Manhattan is distant and is more like a secondary governor than a mayor. When residents were asked to vote for consolidation back in the 1890s they were told that New York City was going to be like a metropolitan area with local independent boroughs - a City of Greater New York. But it has turned out to be a huge bureaucratic entity that is remote from its citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Greater_New_York