Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think Worcester is that bad, the area south of 290 could use work ( Directly across from Downtown)
One think I think Brocton has over Lawrence is it can reinvest the money they get from outer developments and focus it inward Lawrence has no such income growth.
IOne think I think Brocton has over Lawrence is it can reinvest the money they get from outer developments.
And if only they would...
Seriously though, I think that is what keeps Brockton from becoming even worse than it otherwise would did it not have all the business tax base on the West Side along with all the middle-class housing. I know they have tried very hard with their schools, and I'm sure the reason they've performed better than places like Lawrence has at least something to do with this source of funding.
Brockton is trying to uplift itself. It still has a way to go, but as other posters have said, it has some definite pluses -- West Side tax base (they've updated the Westgate Mall), pockets of solidly middle-class neighborhoods, and the consistently improving schools. Their government also seems to be more on track and not as shifty as, say, Lawrence's.
I haven't been in the Lawrence area for years. I used to live in the Merrimack area, and even back then people stayed away from it as far as possible. It is a shame because, as somebody mentioned upthread, it has great enough bones to evolve the way Lowell has.
Taunton is a diamond in the rough. I have friends who live there, and it's hard to believe they're actually within the city limits because they're in one of the more rural areas.
I think it has more to due with it being it's state's largest city as well as this state's culture of incompetance (see airport) and historic neglect of it's secondary cities.
I don't think state government can do much to improve the fortunes of secondary cities. State government had nothing to do with the growth and prosperity of these cities, before the 1929 market crash. All the effort at the state level has come since then, and it has had some benefit. Worcester has benefited from the state situating its medical college there, among other things. Lowell benefited from a state-backed historical park in the mills which then became a federal park; also from the growth of the state university there. North Adams benefited from public investment in a museum opportunity. Still, it's a range of economic factors that explain 90% of any given city's economic condition. Why does Connecticut have such lame cities? Don't you think that CT, with all its wealth, would turn its cities around if it could? New York has one famously prosperous city and a dozen or so sad sacks, which so far have resisted efforts at the state level to revive them. Providence's relatively good fortunes don't have much to do with state or city government's influence. It's not that the influence is bad, or inept or incompetent; it's just that state government hasn't much leverage against unfavorable economic factors. Holyoke was the most prosperous city in the nation a hundred years ago. The state had nothing to do with making it so and hasn't been able to do much to reverse its decline. The state put in a historical park there too, built a new community college, and built an interstate highway spur right into the downtown section. None of those things have helped much. It's like President Obama's stimulus--things would have been worse without it, but because things aren't so good one assumes it's a failure.
There are millions of factors (big and small) that go into what makes cities succeed and fail. One of the biggest issues with MA's secondary cities is that they are one dimensional. They boomed as textile/manufacturing centers and when that industry died out, we were left with shells. It's similar to what has happened in Detroit with auto manufacturing more recently. Boston is the opposite. Boston had industry and manufacturing, but it was also the government seat for the state, a transportation hub (both passenger and freight rail, air, and sea), an educational hub, a medical hub, a finance hub, a technological hub, and an entertainment hub. It is diversified which keeps it relevant and fairly safe from suffering too badly in the face of an economic downturn (Boston weathered the recent/current recession better than most places for that very reason).
Even though so many elements play into the resurgence of a city, I think there are three big factors at play in MA's success stories. 1) Location 2) some Government help 3) Active private sector. Without all three of these factors, MA's secondary cities can't rebound. In each of the more successful secondary cities, you can easily point out where each of these factors have helped. And finally, while all of these factors are important, the private sector is the one I'd put the most weight on.
While each secondary city declined due to the exodus of industry and their lack of ability to compensate for that loss with other strengths, the few that are rebounding are doing so for different reasons. The three factors listed above are the crux of any ongoing renaissance in MA's secondary cities. The three easiest examples (for me, anyway) to look at are New Bedford, Worcester, and Lowell. These are all cities where almost everyone would agree that noticeable improvement has been made.
Lowell: Lowell can credit government help for some of its revitalization spark. For starters, a state college is located just outside of the city center and a community college is right in the city center. Regardless of the economic environment that promises people living and working in the area. The state also pushed for National Historic Park (NHP) status in the city center. That designation means that a good degree of maintenance and upkeep as well as some beautification is a certainty. That is very important to residents and business owners. Finally, Lowell has a commuter rail connection to Boston. This is important because Lowell is no longer an independent city and it doesn't have a local economy that can sustain its population of 100,000+ people (let alone the suburban communities nearby as well). The connection to Boston makes Lowell an attractive option for Boston commuters looking for cheaper urban living. It also makes jobs in Boston easier to access for those already living in Lowell. Business like to locate near rail stations because they promise a good deal of guaranteed foot traffic. Boston's proximity is definitely a good thing for Lowell.
Worcester: Worcester's biggest advantage is it's fairly centralized location. Many conventions and events are held in Worcester because it's a similar commute from most corners of the state. Worcester is at a crossroads for major roadways and railways. It also benefits from having a number of colleges and universities right in town. Because it's centrally located, it's also a bit of a commercial and economic hub for the central part of the state. Having passenger rail connectivity to Boston and beyond certainly doesn't hurt Worcester either. If Amtrak realizes its goal to have high speed rail pass through Worcester, you'll see added economic benefit.
New Bedford: Like Lowell, New Bedford should credit a lot of its recent revitalization to government sparks. Both UMass Dartmouth and Bristol Community College have emphasized downtown New Bedford as a focal point for expansion. Again, this is one way of assuring that you will have pedestrian traffic in your city center. UMass and B.C.C. have also revitalized some historic structures for class space which improves the aesthetic. Also like Lowell, New Bedford has a fairly new National Historic Park. Even at age 27, I remember what that neighborhood looked like before it was a National Historic Park. It had potential, but the park designation has cleaned it up quite a bit. It's now a very appealing neighborhood for residents and businesses. New Bedford doesn't have rail (yet), but it does have a huge geographic advantage. Being a deep water port with access to some of the best fishing grounds in the U.S. It's for this reason that New Bedford has had the highest grossing fishing fleet in the entire U.S. for the past decade. It's also the reason that New Bedford has a growing marine transport economy. It's perhaps the only old mill city in MA that has that advantage (Fall River is coastal, but much further inland and it doesnt have the infrastructure that NB does). All of these factors have combined to jump start New Bedford's revitalization.
Of course, all of these government boosts and incentives would be for not if the private sector didn't come in, take the baton and run with it. Lowell's schools, rail and national park are useless unless private developers convert old mills into luxury apartments and condos. Business owners needed to create restaurants and shops to create an inviting urban environment beyond the parks and museums itself. Same goes for New Bedford. The piers and wharves are useless without the private fisheries and shipping companies. The museums and schools are nice, but they need the galleries, shops, bars and restaurants to make the area a destination. Worcester's infrastructure and location are useless without private companies operating professional sports and hosting conventions in town.
Government can't single-handedly change the fortunes of these cities. What it can do is recognize the potential of a place and provide some assistance to allow the private sector to realize that potential. It also can't provide that assistance alone. The major government funded projects in Lowell, New Bedford and Worcester are good examples of that working successfully. Holyoke is an example of government incentives not helping (much). Even with good bones, and a concerted effort by the state government to draw business and traffic into the city center, Holyoke remains deeply depressed. Poor location (in competition with Northampton, Amherst and larger cities like Springfield and Hartford) and as a result, lack of private sector interest combine to keep Holyoke down.
I am a big supporter of good government investment in our secondary cities if it will lead to more private sector growth. Transportation investments, college/university expansions, and infrastructure improvements are good investments. Even thriving cities like Boston need government investment (if we just let the transit network and roads crumble in Boston, the economy would take a hit). However, we can't rely solely on government investment to fix our secondary cities. At the end of the day it's the citizens and businesses that take a city from a "place with potential" to a "place to be."
Technically I've been in both. Brockton isn't bad, it's certainly come a long way from where it was in the past. The high school is doing a great job. The rest of the system does need help. The principal who is retiring has done a great, great job. I hope she does consulting for some of the other school districts in the state because if she can turn around other places the whole state would be better off.
The issue with Brockton that some have is frankly it's been a city for well over 100 years a now although the original name was North Bridgewater! It's a city in the sense of population and how it is incorporated and while it hasn't grown that much in the past few decades the areas around it have. Eventually I'd argue maybe in another 50-60 years you'd see the population amounts be the same. Is the crime amount higher than surrounding areas? Well yeah but that would happen with any city of 100k vs a town of 30k, that's just basic probabilities right there.
With regards to Holyoke the electrical costs brought in the computing center as it would have cost 2x the price to operate it on Boston. There can be a compelling argument that in many regards businesses that have not already gone overseas pretty much missed the boat and it would be better to simply operate in the urban areas in the USA. The value of the Chinese currency (yuan) has increased 30% since 2005. Add in some higher shipping costs, different government regulations, translation issues and some have decided to expand domestically.
I'd argue that the problem in some communities is that development is lopsided and sometimes this creates a divide. Brockton and Holyoke both have malls which are well run and the area around them is more affluent. Then the further you go it gets more urban and not as well kept up. They also tend to not use their names in various areas. The Brockton Enterprise is just called the Enterprise, Brockton Chamber of Commerce is the "Metro South" Chamber of Commerce, in both areas there has been a decline in various media outlets (print and radio), it's the Holyoke Mall "at Ingleside"
"However, we can't rely solely on government investment to fix our secondary cities. At the end of the day it's the citizens and businesses that take a city from a "place with potential" to a "place to be."
Strongly agree. I don't believe in bad places. There's just bad people that can make a place bad. A triple decker has never given me a hard time.
I don't think state government can do much to improve the fortunes of secondary cities. State government had nothing to do with the growth and prosperity of these cities, before the 1929 market crash. All the effort at the state level has come since then, and it has had some benefit. Worcester has benefited from the state situating its medical college there, among other things. Lowell benefited from a state-backed historical park in the mills which then became a federal park; also from the growth of the state university there. North Adams benefited from public investment in a museum opportunity. Still, it's a range of economic factors that explain 90% of any given city's economic condition. Why does Connecticut have such lame cities? Don't you think that CT, with all its wealth, would turn its cities around if it could? New York has one famously prosperous city and a dozen or so sad sacks, which so far have resisted efforts at the state level to revive them. Providence's relatively good fortunes don't have much to do with state or city government's influence. It's not that the influence is bad, or inept or incompetent; it's just that state government hasn't much leverage against unfavorable economic factors. Holyoke was the most prosperous city in the nation a hundred years ago. The state had nothing to do with making it so and hasn't been able to do much to reverse its decline. The state put in a historical park there too, built a new community college, and built an interstate highway spur right into the downtown section. None of those things have helped much. It's like President Obama's stimulus--things would have been worse without it, but because things aren't so good one assumes it's a failure.
I disagree, but for different reasons than you have so far discussed. I think that what state one finds itself in plays a huge role in a city's fate. We have already noted the contrast between Worcester, MA and Manchester, NH as well as New Bedford, MA vs. Portland, ME. In many aspects the 2 MA cities have more assets and potential to rise again, yet the later 2 are currently winning. I think a huge reason is due to state boundaries, and it is much more than simply a matter of the state throwing money at the older cities hoping that will revive them. Yes, infrastructure improvements and new campuses and museums are nice as well as necessary for a city's economic success. Much more important are some other factors at least IMO:
1. Taxes:
Massachusetts ranks the highest or up near the top in things like Unemployment taxes, Health Insurance and Capital Gains. Industries that Greater Boston specializes in like Life Sciences and Education are less affected by these than the bluer-collar industries that MA has been bleeding to other states. This puts our secondary cities at a huge disadvantage.
2. Education:
States that have been successful in reviving their smaller cities have been able to capitalize on anticipated growth in select industries by providing the needed training to workers so they would have the skills needed to do these new jobs. North Carolina comes to mind. Places like Greensboro and Winston-Salem have transitioned themselves to the new economy with much credit to that state's community college system and it's ability to educate for the jobs of the future. I hear things are starting to improve somewhat in MA, but generally our community colleges have been focused on preparing for a 4-year degree and 2-year degrees/certificates for service occupations. That might be appropriate for the Boston suburbs, but it is not what Fall River needs. BCC needs to have an entirely different focus than Mass Bay for example, but we have always had a one-size-fits-all approach. The state needs to take a look at what industries could realistically succeed in particular areas and look at training the locals for those jobs that are expected to exist down the road. It needs a customized economic plan for each little corner of the state.
3. Economic Agenda:
Slightly related to education, the state needs a plan that encourages growth not just in Greater Boston but statewide as well. Over the past few decades, MA has been focused exclusively on things like Biotech, Finance and IT. This has been a winning formula for Boston/Cambridge/128/495 but a loser for everywhere else. Again, get away from the one-size-fits-all approach.
4. Welfare/Housing:
Sorry to keep making enemies, but I'm not sure there is a state that rewards bad behavior/non-productivity on a level of the good old state of MA. Just like Irfox correctly noted the importance of the private sector, it also comes down to the individual. For the state to succeed it needs to retain it's talented, hard working, family oriented people (stopping the brain drain). It also needs to attract these same sort of people from elsewhere. Unfortunately with the state's generous handouts, it acts as a magnet for layabout types who hinder rather than enhance the state's economic and cultural progress. And where in MA do these layabouts usually end up? Yes, where the cheapest housing is available (see secondary cities). Not only are these folk no use to the rest of us, they also drive up costs (also killing our economic competetiveness) through the artificial demand they create. I would rather housing in places like Brockton and Springfield go empty rather than be filled witht those with nothing to give back. A higher vacancy rate will correct the housing prices(probably the biggest competative disadvantage for MA) which may finally spur some real ecomic revival. While some things like utility costs are mostly beyond the state's control, this is something it has some leverage over.
I have to admit my lack of familiarity with the Section 8 program (other than it is a disaster). Obviously it is a federal one, but state and local governments have some sort of control over it's management (not exactly sure how though). I do know that virtually everyone I know from Brockton blames that on the city's demise above everything else (and the city's "fathers" for increasing the inventory within the city in order to fill up the housing). Again, I am not sure how much control the city and state really have over this but whatever that may be they should scale the program back to the bare minimum as it actually hurts lower income people with the way it inflates the rents on all properties (ie. 2 adjacent apartment might only be worth 500/month but the federal govt. will pay 1000/month through the voucher, and if a landlord can get that much he justified in asking 800/month for a non-subsidized apartment. Right? No, let the market take care of itself. One advantage an economically depressed city should have is low costs, but in MA they don't even have that.
What I'm basically trying to get at, is that it's not only tax advantages that NH cities have over our own. It is also the type they attract, and it is the individual that makes a city and it's ability to flourish. NH's stingy welfare benefits have given them a strong advantage. I also heard that down in the NYC area, one of the local welfare organizations is actually trying to lure it's subjects into relocating to the FR/NB area! Is that not a sad reflection on our state or what?
5. Infrastructure:
Already mentioned before, but we all know that it is crap here. It's nice the ideas of new trains and everything, but our current roads/rails are deplorable. It needs to be adressed in order for us to even have a prayer.
You mention CT, and I agree. I'm not saying some states aren't worse. It should be noted however that Hartford actually has a very strong economy (thanks to the Life Insurance Industry), with many attractions/big highrises/big highways, etc. It is miles ahead of Springfield. There are huge problems with crime and an impoverished population thanks to it's very small area and having most of the non-poor living outside the city limits. It was really given the short end of the stick when the municipal boundaries were drawn. Although I've only driven through on the highway, it also sounds like New Haven has come along way having a vibrant downtown and a strong economic hub for the whole area. Both those cities seem to have more going on than Worcester and Springfield even though their populations are smaller.
Providence like Hartford has the advantage of being the capital of it's state, but you have to have been living in a cave to give no credit to Buddy Cianci and all he did to spur it's "renaissance" in the 90s. Before that it was a dead zone; and love him or hate him, he did more to bring back his city than virtually any other single politician anywhere in my lifetime. So yes, with the right motivation and ambition the government can do quite a bit.
Why do many people h ate Brockton? Have you been here?? I own a 12 room home, with in-ground pool, on outskirts of a farm . The neighborhood is loaded with wealthy people who are lawyers, doctors, or business owners. The public school system is superb. I have been here 30 years and have had 2 recently graduate from BHS. One is at Dartmouth and the other Boston College. They played sports and competed in drama for a superb school . We have a nice small mall, nature trails galore, minor league baseball, a symphony orchestra, Massasoit and Stonehill Colleges, a 800 acre park, 3 hospitals, 4 golf courses, and many other great amenities. We do have a weak downtown with a crime problem. that is true; we are working on it and a $100 million project has begun there. Brockton is the one Mass city that has retained its white middle class and continues to attract many upper echelon buyers. There are currently new homes that can be had for $500,000 and are in great area.
"Brockton is the one Mass city that has retained its white middle class and continues to attract many upper echelon buyers. There are currently new homes that can be had for $500,000 and are in great area."...
All I read about Brockton is the crime and the shooting, or a runaway truck that careen into a shop or a playground etc. I beg to differ with your statement above. Newton, Cambridge, Somerville, Quincy, and even Lowell all have very solid middle class residents, along with significant upper-middle and the rich too. Brockton is not alone in that respect. But all of the above cities listed have far lower crime rates than Brockton, especially the first four. While cities have greater crime issues than little towns, there is nothing worse than a high crime rate to ruin the reputation of a place.
I don't hate Brockton. But I would not want to live there or own a house there. If you are happy, then that's what matters.
Why do many people h ate Brockton? Have you been here?? I own a 12 room home, with in-ground pool, on outskirts of a farm . The neighborhood is loaded with wealthy people who are lawyers, doctors, or business owners. The public school system is superb. I have been here 30 years and have had 2 recently graduate from BHS. One is at Dartmouth and the other Boston College. They played sports and competed in drama for a superb school . We have a nice small mall, nature trails galore, minor league baseball, a symphony orchestra, Massasoit and Stonehill Colleges, a 800 acre park, 3 hospitals, 4 golf courses, and many other great amenities. We do have a weak downtown with a crime problem. that is true; we are working on it and a $100 million project has begun there. Brockton is the one Mass city that has retained its white middle class and continues to attract many upper echelon buyers. There are currently new homes that can be had for $500,000 and are in great area.
That's (bolded) my problem with Brockton. I don't disagree with some of your observations, but downtown Brockton is really weak for a city of nearly 100,000 people. I think a vibrant downtown area is pretty essential for a semi-independent city to be a great(or even good) city, it needs to have a funtional, cohesive, active downtown. Brockton does not. Brockton is like an urban suburb. It has some nice amenities and nice areas. It's located close to Boston. It just doesn't have a great urban core. That's where it loses major points in my book.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), with many attractions/big highrises/big highways, etc. It is miles ahead of Springfield. There are huge problems with crime and an impoverished population thanks to it's very small area and having most of the non-poor living outside the city limits. It was really given the short end of the stick when the municipal boundaries were drawn. Although I've only driven through on the highway, it also sounds like New Haven has come along way having a vibrant downtown and a strong economic hub for the whole area. Both those cities seem to have more going on than Worcester and Springfield even though their populations are smaller. 
