[EHYank]

First time poster here, long time lurker. One thing that bothers me when I see Hartford compared to many other cities in the US(in those best of/worst of city lists we always see online) when it comes to stats - are we comparing apples to apples here? When I look at the city stats for Hartford it always seems skewed to the negative, but looking at the relative physical size of Hartford compared to other cities in these lists Hartford city proper is small, oftentimes less than a 1/3 or a 1/5 and in some instances even more. Is this a fair comparison?

Seems to me that any comparison with Hartford should consider the square miles as well. So say if you compare Hartford(17.3 square miles) with Cincinnati OH(58.4 sq mi.) its already an unfair comparison. To me you would have to include some of the surrounding towns. A much closer comparison here could include Hartford, and both East and West Hartford too which would bring the sq mi area to 58.38 approx for the 3 towns and the population would be closer too.

Maybe I am missing the point when it comes to these cities best of or worst of lists, but its misleading if just Hartford and its city limits are counted when compared to other cities. Hartford + the surrounding towns would skew those numbers more positive if anything in my opinion.

[JayCT]

This has been discussed here many times. There is a big difference in lists that compare just the city itself verses the city's metropolitan area. In ratings that just compare the city itself, Hartford and other Connecticut cities do not compare well with other cities that have a larger area and are able to include some of their suburban areas within the city limits. This is why western and southern cities rate so high. In comparisons of metropolitan areas though, Hartford would rate very well in comparision given the many great independent suburbs that surround it. This is why you really have to look carefully at these ratings. Jay