[CTartist]

Originally Posted by Stylo

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

Yes.

Look at Stamford the city I was born and raised in. It is urban in the south, suburban in the mid section and I would say kind of rural north of the Parkway with a much larger land mass. (population and crime from city-data)

Stamford........population: 130,824.......crime: 128.....SQ Miles: 52
Bridgeport......population: 146,579.......crime: 303.....SQ Miles: 19
Hartford.........population: 123,400.......crime: 481.....SQ Miles: 18
New Haven.....population: 131,014.......crime: 427.....SQ Miles: 20

Boston...........population: 685,094.......crime: 275......SQ Miles: 90
New York........population: 8,622,698....crime: 216......SQ Miles: 302

Originally Posted by Stylo

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?

You are probably right about the colonists and the way they divided the cities and towns.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by Stylo

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. 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.

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.

Originally Posted by eschaton

I tend to think the cities wouldn't have fallen as far as they did in real life... 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.

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

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.

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.

Interesting discussion over six years. OP raised a good question. I took the trouble to quote a variety of responses because they're all reasonable points of view. I do think schools have a lot to do with how fixed the town lines have become. Consolidating city and suburb into one municipality is hard for lots of reasons but the suburban "gold plated" school district privilege makes any possibility of consolidation a non-starter. Stylo points out that NH and Hartford were way bigger originally. Breaking up into smaller towns was easy; putting them back together practically impossible. What if they hadn't broken up to begin with? Then Hartford and its school district would include W. Hartford, E. Hartford and Manchester. New Haven's would be as Stylo describes. Those cities could more likely have absorbed the 20th century in-migration of poor people of color without becoming "mostly slums." They'd be cities with some poor/rough neighborhoods but lots of middle class and wealthy neighborhoods too, just like Columbus OH or Indianapolis. The school systems would have a broader cross section of society to draw from, not just the poor folks inside the current municipal boundaries. There wouldn't be the same stigmatizing of CT cities as ghettos run by corrupt politicians. There could be more real estate investment and development because the cities wouldn't suffer from that stigma or a starved tax base and the gold-plated school district logic wouldn't have the same force it has today.

[Stylo]

The 2014 comment on apartment booms in "slums" is interesting now that New Haven has had a construction boom.

[Connetquoter]

Speaking of Stamford,

Stamford is surrounded by affluent towns Darien, New Canaan, Greenwich and even North Stamford on all sides.
So I doubt if it is even possible to merge nearby towns and make the city larger.

But if they do
1) Since the towns can't have bigger things like a Convention center/Concert place/Sporting venue because of zoning restrictions, they can invest in stamford south, west or east ends. And Stamford gets its Convention center which is being talked about since few decades.
May be one of new york's finest or not so popular teams will call stamford home.

2) The city officials can finally have the motive to expand downtown limits (with increase in area and population) and more commercial investment flows in.

3) Cove island park will be much larger merging in the weed beach in Darien and the adjoining trust lands which are not put to use right now.
May be a Jetty in the cove beach and the boardwalk/recreational area on Holly pond which currently needed funds will be in order.

The whole hospitality scene will change on the current stamford side near WWE building earning the newly expanded city more revenue.

4) Bigger institutions like Hospital/Police station/Museum or zoo.
Mill River Park will be renamed to Stamford Central Park as it is in the center of Stamford downtown.

[Stylo]

Stamford would probably benefit the least since like you said it's already pretty large, and it has that urban/suburban mix.

New Haven, Bridgeport, or Hartford are the obvious ones.

A New Haven that annexed East Haven might even have a real airport by now!

Hamden, New Haven, East Haven, and West Haven combined would have a population of about 280k. Putting it on par with Newark, and more populous than Buffalo, Richmond, Salt Lake City, Madison WI.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Stamford would probably benefit the least since like you said it's already pretty large, and it has that urban/suburban mix.

New Haven, Bridgeport, or Hartford are the obvious ones.

A New Haven that annexed East Haven might even have a real airport by now!

Hamden, New Haven, East Haven, and West Haven combined would have a population of about 280k. Putting it on par with Newark, and more populous than Buffalo, Richmond, Salt Lake City, Madison WI.

By that thought, Bridgeport would too if it annexed Stratford. Jay

[JGBigGreen]

So wanting to have a good education for your kids and the financial ability to live in a suburban town makes one a racist elite? What if you live in New Haven but send your kid to school at Foote? Are you still racist?

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

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.

[Connetquoter]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Stamford would probably benefit the least since like you said it's already pretty large, and it has that urban/suburban mix.

New Haven, Bridgeport, or Hartford are the obvious ones.

A New Haven that annexed East Haven might even have a real airport by now!

Hamden, New Haven, East Haven, and West Haven combined would have a population of about 280k. Putting it on par with Newark, and more populous than Buffalo, Richmond, Salt Lake City, Madison WI.

Agree with all the points except for the Stamford one.

Stamford is big but more than half of the 52 square miles is North Stamford, which is ecologically sensitive and marshy area. Probably it will be zoned as is for a long time.

To put in perspective, Greenwich is bigger than Stamford at 68 square miles.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

So wanting to have a good education for your kids and the financial ability to live in a suburban town makes one a racist elite? What if you live in New Haven but send your kid to school at Foote? Are you still racist?

News flash. People socioeconomically self-segregate. People with children tend to prioritize the gold-plated school system and a social peer group with similar values for education/work ethic. If you don't have children, you can live wherever you want.

[JGBigGreen]

I agree and know this and think it is ridiculous to call people racist for this behavior.

Originally Posted by GeoffD

News flash. People socioeconomically self-segregate. People with children tend to prioritize the gold-plated school system and a social peer group with similar values for education/work ethic. If you don't have children, you can live wherever you want.