The Connecticut colony should have included Springfield.If you don't want growth in numbers of people, you should still care about what kind of people you have. Losing high income earners and gaining welfare recipients would make the state's environment less desirable for those who remain.
As for density, well, Connecticut is less dense than Rhode Island or Massachusetts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density). It could grow in population density a bit and still be a very nice place to live. I like Massachusetts better than Connecticut, it's not bad having a densely populated city around as long as you can escape it, which you can in Boston.
The traffic in the Boston area is too much. Now I understand why Bostonian drivers are reckless. Boston is a major city. Connecticut never had a city that truly rivaled Boston. New Haven and Hartford are the closest we came, with Hartford being the richest city in the country between the Civil War and the Great Depression. That Colt building made Hartford very wealthy. But Connecticut cities definitely have lots of architecture that represents wealth from the 1800s and 1700s and even 1600s. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia were the beginning of the English colonies here.
Connecticut has a future in tourism. Boston bay area can only handle so much.
Last edited:
