town

All of us in Massachusetts know that we aren't exactly the biggest state in terms of land size. In fact, compared to the rest of the states in the U.S., we are the 7th smallest state in the U.S. The state covers only 10,554.39 square miles. And of that, approximately just 7,800 square miles is actual land (shoutout to the Atlantic Ocean for its help). Despite that bizarre fact, we have some relatively decent sized towns and cities, land-wise. But there is a town and a city that have to take their respective titles of the tiniest in the state due to the fact that their land size is crazy small.

Let's be honest, there's no city or town in Massachusetts that deserves this distinction. Nor does any spot anywhere ever want the notoriety of having this particular tag. However, there is a city in Massachusetts that was given this unfortunate title as there was some place that had to be named 'ugliest city in the state'.

The New England states are among the most densely populated throughout the country. This happens to include our densely populated state of Massachusetts. You might expect any town throughout the New England states to have a relatively decent population. In fact, throughout New England, there are 236.9 people per square mile on average, which is much higher than the national average of 79.56 people per square mile. However, despite being the most populated of all the New England states, Massachusetts has a town with a population that is even less than the national average of people per square mile.

Massachusetts town and city names are some of the most unique in any state. Oddly enough, as soon as we hear and/or read the name of any of those towns or cities, even if we have no idea where it is, MA residents seem to know if that is a town in the Bay State. It just so happens that if you were to mention any town that ends in 'ham', there's a really good chance that town actually exists somewhere in Massachusetts due to the fact that there is an absolutely absurd amount of towns here that end as such.

Anyone in Massachusetts knows it's not exactly the biggest state in terms of land size. In fact, compared to the rest of the states in the U.S., it is the 7th smallest state in the U.S. The state covers only 10,554.39 square miles. And with that, approximately just 7,800 square miles of that is actual land (thanks, Atlantic Ocean). Despite that odd fact, we have some relatively decent sized towns and cities, land-wise. But there is a town and a city that have to take their respective titles of the smallest in the state to no fault of their own.

Rockport, Massachusetts is a popular tourist destination known for its coastal attraction and local shops.

The New England states are some of the most densely populated throughout the country. This, of course, happens to include our densely populated state of Massachusetts. You might expect any town throughout the New England states to have a relatively decent population. In fact, throughout New England, there are 236.9 people per square mile on average, which is much higher than the national average of 79.56 people per square mile. However, despite the fact that Massachusetts has the highest population of all the New England states, one of its towns has a population that is even less than the national average of people per square mile.

If you're familiar with Massachusetts whatsoever, you know it isn't exactly the biggest piece of land. In fact, when compared to the rest of the states in the U.S., it is the 7th smallest state in the country. The state itself, covers just 10,554.39 square miles. And with that, approximately just 7,800 square miles of that is land (thanks, Atlantic Ocean). Despite that fact, we have some relatively decent sized towns and cities, land-wise. But there is a town and a city that have to take their respective titles of the smallest in the state.

There is no city or town in Massachusetts that ever wants the notoriety of having this particular distinction. Nor is there any city or town anywhere else, that wants to be known as this. However, unfortunately, it had to go to some place in the Bay State.

If you're familiar at all with Massachusetts, you know it isn't exactly the biggest piece of land for any state. In fact, when compared to the rest of the states in the U.S., it is the 7th smallest state in the country. The state itself, covers only 10,554.39 square miles. And with that being the case, approximately just 7,800 square miles of that is actual land (thanks, Atlantic Ocean). Despite that strange fact, we have some relatively decent sized towns and cities, land-wise. But there is a town and a city that have to take their respective titles of the smallest in the state.