We all know that Massachusetts isn't exactly the biggest land mass. 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 land (thanks, Atlantic Ocean). Despite this, 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.
We all know that Massachusetts isn't exactly the biggest land mass. 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 land (thanks, Atlantic Ocean). Despite this, we have some relatively decent sized towns and cities, land-wise. But there is a town and city that have to take the title of the smallest in the state.
We all know that Massachusetts isn't exactly the biggest land mass. 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 land (thanks, Atlantic Ocean). Despite this, we have some relatively decent sized towns and cities, land-wise. But there is a town and city that have to take the title of the smallest in the state.