6 replies to this topic

[Lowerdeck]

On the front page of Yahoo this afternoon, an article in Forbes about the best value cities in America.  Ranks average salaries, unemployment rate, crime rate, culture.  Worcester was ranked fourth in the nation on the list, ranking top in culture and 9th in avg. salary.

I guess it forgot to mention cost of living, but then again Worcester is a far better bargain than Boston.

Nice to have some recognition for Worcester.  However it counts the entire MSA in the survey - so if it's Worcester or all of Worcester County (including Webster, Leominster, Fitchburg, etc...) is another question.


Top on the list was Manchester, NH.  The only other New England city was Springfield at 46.

http://www.forbes.co...eap-places.html

[oliver]

Thats wicked funny. I wonder if the forbes guys who wrote this ever visited Worcester (or maybe they have real estate for sale there). I cannot imagine any place on earth less disirable to live in than Worcester Mass (and I lived there for almost 9 years).

- Population: 783,800 - thats not Worcester, thats about whole New England
- Average salary: who cares, there is nothing in Worcester to spend your money on. No shops downtown, nothing to do at all. To spend your money you have to drive at least to Boston or better to NYC.
- Crime: I don´t know, I found the city pretty scary considering its small size.
- Culture??? Is there any culture in Worcester at all. Oh yes, there is a small art museum, which is to be honest surprisingly nice for a town like Worcester. But visit it and you´ve seen it. Afterwards its again, driving to Boston or better NYC for culture

They forgot to talk about the climate, isn´t it snowing in Worcester 300 days a year? Honestly I wouldn´t call Worcester a city. Its a town and definitely not a nice one. It is no walking city at all. It has a small downtown, but nobody in his right mind walks there. They are talking about rebuilding the downtown for the last 2 decades, but would that project turn it into a city. I doubt it.

[Lowerdeck]

oliver, on Jul 20 2009, 06:28 PM, said:

Thats wicked funny. I wonder if the forbes guys who wrote this ever visited Worcester (or maybe they have real estate for sale there). I cannot imagine any place on earth less disirable to live in than Worcester Mass (and I lived there for almost 9 years).

Detroit?

Quote

- Average salary: who cares, there is nothing in Worcester to spend your money on. No shops downtown, nothing to do at all. To spend your money you have to drive at least to Boston or better to NYC.

~

- Culture??? Is there any culture in Worcester at all. Oh yes, there is  a small art museum, which is to be honest surprisingly nice for a town  like Worcester. But visit it and you´ve seen it. Afterwards its again,  driving to Boston or better NYC for culture

~

Honestly I wouldn´t call Worcester a city. Its a town and definitely not a nice one.

Your personal opinion.  Granted I haven't explored as much of Worcester as I could, but there's something going on if I chose to do something in Worcester.  Granted there's more, and usually better in Boston and NYC - but they are larger and by default more buzzing cities.  And let's face it, people in Worcester County make more money than in many other parts of the country.  Also a higher cost of living, high property values, high taxes.  But that just comes with the territory.  When you're in or near a popular big city (Boston), of course everything is gonna be high cost.

By the sounds of it (forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm only assuming here): you only seem to want to be in premier, world known cities like Boston, New York, Miami, DC, Chicago, etc...  That's fine and dandy, personal opinion.  Even the Forbes article is the opinion of someone.  Worcester isn't going to be for everyone, nor is wherever you are, or wherever I am.

And as for the "nice" comment: of course, it's an old mill town that hasn't quite figured out how to become something different in the 21st century world.  There's all the colleges and the biomed industry yes, but there is more that could be done.  There are crummy parts of town few should venture into, but that's common sense and in most cities.  Worcester's got Main South, Great Brook Valley, and handful other spots that most with any clue of the city know better to keep away.

Quote

It is no walking city at all. It has a small downtown, but nobody in his right mind walks there. They are talking about rebuilding the downtown for the last 2 decades, but would that project turn it into a city. I doubt it.

This is the only legitimate criticism you made in the entire post.

Yes, Worcester is not perfect.  There have been better days, and there are many flaws.  Its own history shows it has never really been one coherent unified city.  Then the lack of it being a walking city, lack of culture compared to other places, downtown being mostly vacant outside business hours, the food cart rules, the crime riddled parts of town, the snail like pace of redeveloping the Common Outlets site, etc...  But Worcester isn't going to be one of those places where things change on the snap of the fingers.  

But well... there's no point of even finishing this argument.  We're just gonna disagree anyway.  You don't like the place, we get it.  Fine.  I was born in Worcester, spent many a time there, want to see the place do better and want to actually be there more often for when things are going on.  So I want to have some optimism toward the place.

Edited by Lowerdeck, 20 July 2009 - 10:38 PM.

[oliver]

[quote name='Lowerdeck' date='Jul 20 2009, 11:33 PM' post='1080122']
Detroit?

Don´t know Detroit, if so, I am glad I don´t, but Springfield MA and Harford CT aren´t much different either.



Your personal opinion.

Don´t think so, as I am a foreigner and was new in the US naturally most of my friends where foreigners or at least people from other cities. Everybody disliked it and one of the main topics was how to get away as soon as possible (one reason I always had to look for knew friends as everybody who by accident moved in was on the way out again.

By the sounds of it (forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm only assuming here): you only seem to want to be in premier, world known cities like Boston, New York, Miami, DC, Chicago, etc...  That's fine and dandy, personal opinion.  

Thats true and it is a personal choice, I lived in Madrid, Berlin, now in Mexico City, yes I do prefer wold known cities, just because of the choice they have to offer. But there are plenty of beautiful small cities, most of them in Europe, but many examples as well in the Americas. But to stay close, Providence is smaller than Worcester and Providene is a nice place, I see why people choose to live there.


But Worcester isn't going to be one of those places where things change on the snap of the fingers.  

Yep, and thats exactly the problem I have with Worcester. Because of its small size it should be easy to change fast, it is a lot more difficult to reinvent something big. I´ve lived in Worcester for about 9 years and I disliked it from the beginning. But then you heard about all these projects that never happened and you were thinking. Yes, maybe it will change, maybe it will get better. But it seemed like for every good thing happening, 2 things were closed (think about the only alternative cinema, that disappeared). When I left Worcester finally it wasn´t a bit better then when I moved there in the first place. 9 years and nothing, but nothing happened (besides a few new pharmacies, which Worcester must have one per 10 residents). In 9 years cities that were destroyed by war or earthquakes have been rebuilt, Worcester needs 50 years to rennovate a shopping mall.

But well... there's no point of even finishing this argument.  We're just gonna disagree anyway.  You don't like the place, we get it.  Fine.  I was born in Worcester, spent many a time there, want to see the place do better and want to actually be there more often for when things are going on.  So I want to have some optimism toward the place.

I am generally an optimistic person and I sure hope that Worcester one day will be different, I may visit it again in 15 years, lets see if it will have changed or if it just will have 15 new pharmacies.

[cloudship]

oliver, on Jul 23 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

Don´t think so, as I am a foreigner and was new in the US naturally most of my friends where foreigners or at least people from other cities. Everybody disliked it and one of the main topics was how to get away as soon as possible (one reason I always had to look for knew friends as everybody who by accident moved in was on the way out again.

That is an interesting point about Worcester. It is of two minds, really. One is a small town, local yokel blue collar kind of people, the other is a heavily immigrant population, more upper lower class or low middle class immigrants who move to Worcester first and then spread from there. So while it has population, it is not really such a city except in terms of being a dense collection of triple deckers.

oliver, on Jul 23 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

Thats true and it is a personal choice, I lived in Madrid, Berlin, now in Mexico City, yes I do prefer wold known cities, just because of the choice they have to offer. But there are plenty of beautiful small cities, most of them in Europe, but many examples as well in the Americas. But to stay close, Providence is smaller than Worcester and Providene is a nice place, I see why people choose to live there.

Providence is not really smaller than Worcester. Area wise, population maybe, but Providence itself is more of a city. Worcester is much looser - more of a collection of people than a real city mindset.

[oliver]

cloudship, on Jul 23 2009, 07:55 PM, said:

Providence is not really smaller than Worcester. Area wise, population maybe, but Providence itself is more of a city. Worcester is much looser - more of a collection of people than a real city mindset.

I agree 100%. I was talking smaller concerning the population. Providence of course is much more of a city.
Just compare Shrewsbury street to Federal Hill. Even though everybody in Worcester prefers to Shrewsbury street as Worcesters "restaurant district" it is not more than an arterial road with a collection of restaurants (OK, now they planted some trees).

The only collection of nice buildings with somewhat the feel of density is around Main street downtown. I hope for Worcester that the demolition of the Mall (if it ever happens) can bring some life back to the city center. Thats the only possibility it has to become at least an average small city. Final having a canal in the "canal district" of course would help a lot as well, but I doubt if this ever happens.

[Lowerdeck]

CVS and Walgreens are everywhere, and strangely enough always near each other.  On Stafford St., they're down the street from each other.  On Lincoln St., they're across the street.  Park Ave., same thing.  You'd think they could separate a little more.  But they grow like weeds.  But that is anywhere...

CVS was next to the Price Chopper in Webster, then Walgreens moved in to a new building where Kunkel Buick once was... the next block over from the CVS.  So CVS had to get their new shiny stand alone store.

A little further south, they're building a CVS in Putnam.  I'm expecting a Walgreens to sprout up shortly nearby.  And in Dayville just the opposite.  Walgreens is being built now, but I wouldn't be surprised if CVS took the old McDonalds on Route 12.

The pharmacy problem is everywhere, as New England continues to succumb to the box store philosophy that plagues the rest of the country.