[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?

[Csiko]

Interesting thought and I'm willing to bet that you're right. Very large cities like Atlanta and Minneapolis do have their own large suburbs within, and it's hard to say why they haven't established as their own towns. Due to the time period in which they were established, maybe?

I'm all for the removal of state borders and the emergence of megalopolises in their stead, though. Cutting 50 states down to 7 or 8 territories makes more sense, but would obviously be such a large, daunting task that no one would ever actually get around to doing it unless there was a major, country-wide disaster/war/apocalypse. That might be a little beyond what you mean though, but takes it sort of to its logical conclusion.

[Lalalally]

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?

Absolutely! Old cities and towns = Small cities & towns, and churches played a tremendous role in the development of towns in New England during colonial times, and the town lines/boundaries which we still live within today. Large parcels of land were acquired, settled and incorporated as a single town initially, and then that was usually followed by the further carving out of smaller areas/villages, with a church serving as the hub to those communities. It was all about contraction and not expansion in those days. People needed to be part of a congregation, and close to a church where they could worship every Sunday morning. After time, the settlers started to identify more closely with their congregation than they did to the larger town they lived in, and so smaller towns were carved out and incorporated. It's happened countless times, even the town that I live in, New Fairfield. Pre-1802 New Fairfield consisted of the present day towns of NF and Sherman. It was 14 miles from the southern to northern boundary. Present day NF was known as the "lower 7," served by the Congregational Church; and the "upper 7" (present day Sherman) was served by the North church. In 1802 the town split in two based on the two congregations.
Funny that you bring this up -- I attended a seminar a couple of years ago at a library near our summer house in NH -- discussion was this exact point.

[NewJeffCT]

Originally Posted by Csiko

it unless there was a major, country-wide disaster/war/apocalypse. That might be a little beyond what you mean though, but takes it sort of to its logical conclusion.

The Republic of New England - the last human holdout in the zombie apocalypse.

[theguyfrompluto]

Well, the downtowns of cities will be different. Also, the names. The only "large" cities will probably be New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, Waterbury, Danbury, Hartford, and possibly Norwalk.

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by theguyfrompluto

Well, the downtowns of cities will be different. Also, the names. The only "large" cities will probably be New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, Waterbury, Danbury, Hartford, and possibly Norwalk.

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

[BPt111]

Downtown Norwalk

[laulob]

It depends on how the schools districts would be set up. If Orange for example were part of New Haven and the school districts were combined it would not be the same as it is today and would not attract the same people to live there.

[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.

[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.