Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean in square miles. They all do surprisingly well in population despite their tiny areas. I'm talking about Harrisburg, Reading, Wilkes Barre, and Chester in PA, Camden and Trenton in New Jersey, and Wilmington in Delaware. All of these cities are 10 square miles or less. Why is that? Come to think of it, even Philadelphia is the smallest of the 14-16 largest cities by population now (depending on what rank San Francisco is now)
It likely has to do with township incorporation. Meaning, the townships surrounding those cities were incorporated early and prohibits annexation.
City land area is smaller in the Northeast in general. Only NYC and Philadelphia have over 100 square miles and cities such as Raleigh and Charlotte are on par with those cities in land area. Pittsburgh at 55 square miles is the 4th biggest city in the Northeast in land area(Rome NY is 3rd at 74.79 square miles and has urban, suburban and rural areas within it). So, that should give you some idea about the difference in city land area for cities in different regions.
Pennsylvania in general is known for its absurd number of municipalities and fragmentation. Definitely a throwback to a time where land ownership was much more divided and "fiefdoms" were created.
I once lived in a borough outside of Philly (Conshohocken) in which the land area was just over 1 square mile. It borders another borough (West Conshohocken) that is so small that it's measured in acres. That's not unusual across the state.
Doesn't get more parochial than that. It's both charming and annoying.
Pennsylvania in general is known for its absurd number of municipalities and fragmentation. Definitely a throwback to a time where land ownership was much more divided and "fiefdoms" were created.
I once lived in a borough outside of Philly (Conshohocken) in which the land area was just over 1 square mile. It borders another borough (West Conshohocken) that is so small that it's measured in acres. That's not unusual across the state.
Doesn't get more parochial than that. It's both charming and annoying.
What responsibilities do these tiny municipalities have? I would imagine the amount of municipal overhead costs per capita must be sky-high if every little town has paid positions for all sorts of things to cater to a small population.
What responsibilities do these tiny municipalities have? I would imagine the amount of municipal overhead costs per capita must be sky-high if every little town has paid positions for all sorts of things to cater to a small population.
They are. But don't try to tell the luddites that live in some of these communities that. They'll tell you that their small, fragmented governments work well for them, but then 10 minutes later they'll complain about taxes, not realizing the small, fragmented, and redundant government is partially to blame for high taxes.
There is somewhat of a fiefdom mentality in PA, with people in municipality A wanting brighter street lighting, better sidewalks, or an expanded trail system on an abandoned rail line, while people in municipality B (right next door to municipality A) complaining that putting a trail on the abandoned rail line will usher in a transient population. I heard a guy living in a fairly developed suburban community say that "night lights are for kids" when referring to an idea to improve his community's street lighting. It is really amazing how people in these different fiefdoms have such differing opinions as to basic municipal amenities.
I mean in square miles. They all do surprisingly well in population despite their tiny areas. I'm talking about Harrisburg, Reading, Wilkes Barre, and Chester in PA, Camden and Trenton in New Jersey, and Wilmington in Delaware. All of these cities are 10 square miles or less. Why is that? Come to think of it, even Philadelphia is the smallest of the 14-16 largest cities by population now (depending on what rank San Francisco is now)
San Francisco has 49 square miles of land within its city limits; Philadelphia, 135.
What do you mean by "even Philadelphia is the smallest of the 14-16 largest cities by population" given that stat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55
PA and MA, and VA are Commonwealths, apparently giving the townships as much power as cities.
Um, towns in Virginia (Virginia has no townships, and every city in the state is independent of any county) and townships in Pennsylvania do not have powers equal to those of cities (Virginia) / cities and home rule municipalities (which include most but not all of the state's cities; the others can still style themselves as boroughs or townships) (Pennsylvania).
Pennsylvania's municipal code divides cities and townships into classes, and the lower the class, the more limited the municipality's powers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
