Can you name the ten largest cities in each New England state?

They are using population estimates from 2008 which would make Connecticut a little tougher to pull off. New Haven has now moved up to the 2 slot and Hartford has dropped to number 3. I still have a tough time giving Bridgeport it's props for being the state's largest city. So much for "city populations" over "metro populations"! I got 41 out of 60, Vermont kicked my butt. It is easy to forget about some of the the suburb/satellite cities and the timer does put some pressure on you!
 
Last edited:
Once you get past Burlington, Brattleboro, Barre, Montpelier, Rutland I think we're talking about some really tiny places in Vermont.
 
In Massachusetts, I missed Brockton and Quincy ... and was surprised that none of Fitchburg, Leominster, Lawrence, Holyoke, Chicopee, Salem, Somerville, Newton, or Framingham were correct answers.
 
Does this quiz focus on municipal governments or actual urban places? For example, would it consider Worcester bigger than Springfield simply because its municipal boundaries include wide swaths of suburbia, even though Springfield is clearly the larger city? Would it consider municipal governments like Somerville and Chelsea as their own places, or would it recognize that these "cities" are simply Boston neighborhoods that control their own schools, fire, police, sanitation, etc.?
 
definitely municipalities. And while Somerville now has little industry, it was once a major manufacturing city.
 
The same is true of Roxbury, Dorchester, Allston, Charlestown, etc.

Somerville's in-town industry or commerce has never been sufficient to employ all of its residents. Absent the proximity to Boston it probably had less reason for being than most of its neighboring "cities" (Cambridge, Chelsea, Malden, and Medford were all more self-sustaining than Somerville, even though none of them would be as urban as they are absent Boston).
 
I got 40/60. 100% on Massachusetts and Maine. I bombed Vermont (only got 2!) and didn't do so well in NH or CT. I missed two in RI (they surprised me).
 
There some classic smaller New England cities that did not make the top ten in their respective states that are a little surprising to me: Norwich and New London CT, Newport RI, Montpelier VT, Pittsfield MA, Portsmouth NH, and Waterville ME.
 
^ Another reason why this should be labeled "ten largest municipalities". Newport, RI is arguably the 2nd largest urban center in Rhode Island. For it to not make the top 10 in a state this small is a good indication of how meaningless municipal population statistics are
 
That was a fun little quiz, good find. I got 30/60. I got all but one in Maine (Sanford, pfft) and all but two in Mass (Brockton and Lynn). I didn't do well with Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont as I've only been to one of those states and I was too young to remember. Plus, we don't hear a lot about towns like Bristol CT in this neck of the woods.
 
I totally agree with you belmont square, which is why MSA population figures are a much better gauge to determine a city's actual relevance and importance.

A perfect example is Jacksonville, FL which is the largest city in Florida and now the 13th largest in the United States by annexing or consolidating the entire northeast corner of the state during the past four decades and they would tap into southeast Georgia if they could get away with it. It's city population now exceeds 820,000 but it's urban density downtown is a joke compared to say Atlanta which has half as many people.

Indianapolis, IN and Lexington, KY are two other cities that grew substantially through taking over the suburbs and or their respective counties. I do not fault them for this, but it's an apples to oranges dilemma when trying to determine a city's true size. Huge land mass, but a central core that does not match it's population.

And yes, in my opinion, Newport is the second most important city in Rhode Island. No disrespect to Warwick, Cranston and Pawtucket, but they are too clumped in with Providence.
 
Last edited:
Montpelier, Vermont is a tiny place. A state capital with fewer than 8000 people in it.
 
This was fun... I got 51/60, but a few of those were lucky guesses (throwing North in front of Providence), and getting Hartford in Vermont by intending it for Connecticut. I got everything in New Hampshire and Maine, both of which include a lot of suburbs in the #4 slot and below. Some of the ugliest, most place-less, auto-oriented municipalities are now the largest "cities" in New Hampshire.
 
Yeah, Hartford was a nice bonus! Never realized there was one in Vermont. Guess I'll have to visit that Green Mountain hub and check it out someday, not!
 
is appalled that I could not name the third largest city in RI, and even when I learned what it was, had no idea where it was located.
 
Portlander said:
I totally agree with you belmont square, which is why MSA population figures are a much better gauge to determine a city's actual relevance and importance.
Click to expand...

I agree that MSA gives a fairly accurate gauge for what's the most "important" city. However for measuring this particular exercise,I am on the fence about what measurement is best. I'd rather see "urbanized area" (or a similar measurement) used. There's no question that judging the largest cities in each state based on their arbitrary civic boundaries is just plain stupid (like you, I often highlight Boston v. Jacksonville where Boston is a much larger urban area).

However, MSA numbers are based on boundaries that are essentially just as useless in New England-- Counties. All MSA numbers are is a total combined population of the counties that contain some residents who commute to the principal city(ies) in the metro area. It's fairly inaccurate in many cases nationwide (particularly in areas like the Mid-Atlantic where major metros overlap); but especially so in New England. What's more, is that if you include the entire MSA in many cases, a lot of somewhat autonomous cities are excluded.

For example, if you use MSA, you would exclude Cambridge, which is essentially a continuation of Boston's urbanized area and that's fine. However, you then exclude cities like Lowell, Haverhill, and Brockton. While those cities are certainly "satellite cities" of Boston now, they are still semi-autonomous urban areas. New Bedford, MA is technically part of Providence's MSA, but it crosses state lines and really isn't connected to Providence by unbroken strings of suburbs (Dartmouth, Westport, and Rehoboth are all fairly rural buffers between NB and PVD). I would say New Bedford is one of the more disconnected urban areas in a "metro" in New England.

The Portland MSA is a perfect example. Portland's MSA includes the entirety of York, Cumberland and Sagadahoc Counties. There's certainly no denying that Portland is the principal cultural and economic center for most of that area (Some of the border towns are more aligned with Rochester/Dover/Portsmouth) and the entire state, really (which is why its MSA numbers are fairly close to being accurate).However, Portland's MSA is perhaps the most rural in New England. It covers more than twice the land area of Rhode Island with only 514,000 people. Places like Sanford and even Biddeford are urban areas that are fairly disconnected (in terms of development and suburban sprawl) from the principal city. To take it further, I don't think places like Eliot, the Berwicks, Bridgeton, Shapleigh, Phippsburgh, Newfield, etc. resemble metropolitan or suburban towns by a long shot. Again, Portland is without question, the primary city for the majority of that area. However, when we discuss metropolitan areas, it's usually in the context of a city (or cities) and its suburbs. Using the Portland MSA would exclude Biddeford and Sanford which are small, but notable urban areas in Maine.

Using Urbanized Area which incorporates the principal city with its unbroken string of suburbs would allow us to exclude suburban towns (i.e. Scarborough ME, Warwick RI, etc) and count the semi independent smaller cities that are slightly disconnected from the core of the metro (i.e. New Bedford, Sanford, etc) as well as those much smaller cities that are overshadowed by more spread out suburbs (i.e. Portsmouth NH and Newport RI). Unfortunately, as no system is perfect, places like Biddeford, Lowell, Lawrence, etc... are all included as part of a larger "urbanized area."

FrankLloydMike said:
This was fun... I got 51/60, but a few of those were lucky guesses (throwing North in front of Providence), and getting Hartford in Vermont by intending it for Connecticut. I got everything in New Hampshire and Maine, both of which include a lot of suburbs in the #4 slot and below. Some of the ugliest, most place-less, auto-oriented municipalities are now the largest "cities" in New Hampshire.
Click to expand...

That's pretty impressive. Vermont was just so tough to calculate. To be fair, I think Rhode Island's (not Maine or NH) was the most infested with auto-oriented suburban municipalities. Pawtucket is an urban extension of Providence (much like Cambridge is to Boston), but much of what else is counted around PVD is auto-centric suburbia (most of Warwick, West Warwick, much of Cranston, most of North Providence, a lot of East Providence, and Coventry). With most of Maine and NH, those towns have town centers and some unique characteristics. Many of the RI towns don't. I HATE West Warwick with a passion (had family there while growing up). Pawtucket is kind of cool, but Cranston, Warwick, N. Prov. and East Prov. are "meh." Coventry is fairly rural in character.
 
Last edited:
Ron Newman, there are a few diminutive state capitals out there. Most of the small ones were selected only because of their more central location in their respective states. This was much more important during the era of horse and buggy travel. The following are perfect examples: Montpelier VT, Augusta ME, Pierre SD, Dover DE, and Jefferson City MO. Being the state capital does not always mean much unless you are also the largest city in the state or at least some what respectable in size.
 
Lrfox said:
I agree that MSA gives a fairly accurate gauge for what's the most "important" city. However for measuring this particular exercise,I am on the fence about what measurement is best. I'd rather see "urbanized area" (or a similar measurement) used. There's no question that judging the largest cities in each state based on their arbitrary civic boundaries is just plain stupid (like you, I often highlight Boston v. Jacksonville where Boston is a much larger urban area).

However, MSA numbers are based on boundaries that are essentially just as useless in New England-- Counties. All MSA numbers are is a total combined population of the counties that contain some residents who commute to the principal city(ies) in the metro area. It's fairly inaccurate in many cases nationwide (particularly in areas like the Mid-Atlantic where major metros overlap); but especially so in New England. What's more, is that if you include the entire MSA in many cases, a lot of somewhat autonomous cities are excluded.

For example, if you use MSA, you would exclude Cambridge, which is essentially a continuation of Boston's urbanized area and that's fine. However, you then exclude cities like Lowell, Haverhill, and Brockton. While those cities are certainly "satellite cities" of Boston now, they are still semi-autonomous urban areas. New Bedford, MA is technically part of Providence's MSA, but it crosses state lines and really isn't connected to Providence by unbroken strings of suburbs (Dartmouth, Westport, and Rehoboth are all fairly rural buffers between NB and PVD). I would say New Bedford is one of the more disconnected urban areas in a "metro" in New England.

The Portland MSA is a perfect example. Portland's MSA includes the entirety of York, Cumberland and Sagadahoc Counties. There's certainly no denying that Portland is the principal cultural and economic center for most of that area (Some of the border towns are more aligned with Rochester/Dover/Portsmouth) and the entire state, really (which is why its MSA numbers are fairly close to being accurate).However, Portland's MSA is perhaps the most rural in New England. It covers more than twice the land area of Rhode Island with only 514,000 people. Places like Sanford and even Biddeford are urban areas that are fairly disconnected (in terms of development and suburban sprawl) from the principal city. To take it further, I don't think places like Eliot, the Berwicks, Bridgeton, Shapleigh, Phippsburgh, Newfield, etc. resemble metropolitan or suburban towns by a long shot. Again, Portland is without question, the primary city for the majority of that area. However, when we discuss metropolitan areas, it's usually in the context of a city (or cities) and its suburbs. Using the Portland MSA would exclude Biddeford and Sanford which are small, but notable urban areas in Maine.

Using Urbanized Area which incorporates the principal city with its unbroken string of suburbs would allow us to exclude suburban towns (i.e. Scarborough ME, Warwick RI, etc) and count the semi independent smaller cities that are slightly disconnected from the core of the metro (i.e. New Bedford, Sanford, etc) as well as those much smaller cities that are overshadowed by more spread out suburbs (i.e. Portsmouth NH and Newport RI). Unfortunately, as no system is perfect, places like Biddeford, Lowell, Lawrence, etc... are all included as part of a larger "urbanized area."



That's pretty impressive. Vermont was just so tough to calculate. To be fair, I think Rhode Island's (not Maine or NH) was the most infested with auto-oriented suburban municipalities. Pawtucket is an urban extension of Providence (much like Cambridge is to Boston), but much of what else is counted around PVD is auto-centric suburbia (most of Warwick, West Warwick, much of Cranston, most of North Providence, a lot of East Providence, and Coventry). With most of Maine and NH, those towns have town centers and some unique characteristics. Many of the RI towns don't. I HATE West Warwick with a passion (had family there while growing up). Pawtucket is kind of cool, but Cranston, Warwick, N. Prov. and East Prov. are "meh." Coventry is fairly rural in character.
Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts. My first thought is that I think I remember there being a difference between NEMSA which is county based and then the typical MA which is town and city based for New England states. I'll have to refresh my understanding before writing more, but I also know that there is a difference between metros in the west and south and those in the northeast (which I thought was the other way around, i.e. county based in places like Cali and town based in NE, but I could be wrong).

With Portland's MSA, it is not the entirety of those counties, but you are right that the CMSA is pretty close (and I assume that's what you meant) which includes the micro MA's of Lewiston and Biddeford. Also, parts of York County are included in the Boston CMSA, which also overlaps the Portsmouth micro-MA. I think urbanized area, as you said, is the better indication, which is why being in the Bos-Wash area pretty much says "yep, this is urban." Otherwise it is unclear whether many places are in fact urban. I might have more to say but this is it for now.
 
^From my understanding, the Census Bureau uses counties in New England too for the MSAs. According to the Census Bureau, Portland's MSA has 514,098 people. That just so happens to be the exact combined population of all of York, Cumberland and Sagadahoc County (I just found their populations on Wikipedia). Here's a list of MSAs according to the Census Bureau (Portland is at 101). So when you see that 514,098 number, it is all of Southern and part of Mid Coast Maine's population. It's not far off, considering that just about all of that area (regardless of how urban or rural) would consider Portland to be the cultural and economic hub of their region. They may not consider themselves to be "suburban Portland" (certainly not at the extremes of that area), but it's undeniable that Portland is the most significant city for that area (and beyond). For the record, I'm fairly certain that MSA number does NOT include Lewiston (Androscoggin County).

There are other measurments. New England City and Town Area is a good one. Probably the most accurate of the bunch for our region. Urbanized area gives a good idea of what portion of that Metro/City and Town area is actual urbanized/suburbanized vs. rural.

I think NECTA is most accurate on an individual level, but I would say a combination of MSA, Urbanized and NECTA probably gives the most accurate representation of a city's size and representation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top