New Jersey vs Connecticut vs Maryland vs New York vs Florida vs Massachusetts vs Pennsylvania (beach, beautiful)
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.
yes but agreeing that Worcester is just kind of average, and nobody of means would ever want to live there is not the same statement.
Worcester is just fine. Its not particularly remarkable, but its not a place people would avoid.
Well
1. I think we all know people who would and do avoid Worcester for right or wrong.
2. No middle-class people of means are not trying to move to Worcester unless they're a student or health care worker who literally has to live there, and even then rarely is it permanent. The overwhelming majority of Worcester's growth since 1990 has been of low-income international migrants. That's just a fact. They are responsible for filling in vacant storefront and apartments, and even some SFH neighborhoods. And it's not controversial to say as much.
3. I don't appreciate my entire argument being boiled down to Wroecster when I gave examples of many cities. It's disingenuous to the situation at a state level.
4. I'd rank Worcester (the shining gem of gateway cities) as somewhat below average due to it being much much more expensive than Altoona or Jackson, the poor quality and ag of housing, and its relatively low income relative to its surroundings. Because everything is relative.
Worcester Poverty Rate 2000-17.9%
Worcester Poverty Rate 2019 ('best economy' in over 50 years)-20.0%
1. I think we all know people who would and do avoid Worcester for right or wrong.
2. No middle-class people of means are not trying to move to Worcester unless they're a student or health care worker who literally has to live there, and even then rarely is it permanent. The overwhelming majority of Worcester's growth since 1990 has been of low-income international migrants. That's just a fact. They are responsible for filling in vacant storefront and apartments, and even some SFH neighborhoods. And it's not controversial to say as much.
3. I don't appreciate my entire argument being boiled down to Wroecster when I gave examples of many cities. It's disingenuous to the situation at a state level.
4. I'd rank Worcester (the shining gem of gateway cities) as somewhat below average due to it being much much more expensive than Altoona or Jackson, the poor quality and ag of housing, and its relatively low income relative to its surroundings. Because everything is relative.
Worcester Poverty Rate 2000-17.9%
Worcester Poverty Rate 2019 ('best economy' in over 50 years)-20.0%
What you are saying is pretty much true for every midsized/small city in the country that is not
a. a State Capital (Indianapolis, OKC), b. Home to a flagship state University (Athens, GA, Knoxville, TN) or c. a very large federal investment (Huntsville, El Paso, Colorado Springs), or d. a combination of those things (Austin, TX, Columbus OH)
It is in no way distinguishable between Massachusetts and other states, unless like you do, ding New Bedford for daring to be within an hour and a half of one of the wealthiest metros in the entire world.
The gap between Boston and the smaller cities are more pronounced than say the Twin Cities vs Duluth or Atlanta vs Columbus more on the Boston is very very wealthy end, not the other cities are particularly crappy end.
there's a lot of places that are even worse off than MA cities is the point. They call Boston the hub of the universe and it sponges up all the money in the state. MA residents with options either live in Boston, "quaint" seaside cities like Newburyport, or "quaint" seaside towns like Orleans.
All the medium sized cities in the state are extremely bland compared to Boston. However they aren't objectively worse than cities in other parts of the country.
Places like Hazelton, PA Toledo, OH, Niagra Falls NY, Huntington WV, Stockton CA, Shreveport LA, Albany GA to name a handful. There is a huge list of small and medium sized cities that are poorer, more remote, higher crime, more abandonment etc than MA gateway cities.
there's a lot of places that are even worse off than MA cities is the point. They call Boston the hub of the universe and it sponges up all the money in the state. MA residents with options either live in Boston, "quaint" seaside cities like Newburyport, or "quaint" seaside towns like Orleans.
All the medium sized cities in the state are extremely bland compared to Boston. However they aren't objectively worse than cities in other parts of the country.
Places like Hazelton, PA Toledo, OH, Niagra Falls NY, Huntington WV, Stockton CA, Shreveport LA, Albany GA to name a handful. There is a huge list of small and medium sized cities that are poorer, more remote, higher crime, more abandonment etc than MA gateway cities.
Not sure why folks are telling me what I already know.... What's going on in Stockton CA doesn't change this fact about what I said
"these small rundown cities in Mass are depressing. NO ONE middle class would ever consider them to live for 5+ years unless they were raised there or in a similar New England city."
Elevated poverty rates and the bolded portion of your own comment attest to this.
Just because Brockton isn't the worse place in the entire country doesn't mean people of means want to live there, they don't. So enough with the random cities as a point of comparison.
But its this apathy/indifference and complacency that will leave these cities where they are. Same as any other issue in MA really.
Also for another point, the COL in relation to income means the poverty rate in these cities is likely higher than it read on paper but I won't go any further there.
Not sure why folks are telling me what I already know.... What's going on in Stockton CA doesn't change this fact about what I said
"these small rundown cities in Mass are depressing. NO ONE middle class would ever consider them to live for 5+ years unless they were raised there or in a similar New England city."
Elevated poverty rates and the bolded portion of your own comment attest to this.
Just because Brockton isn't the worse place in the entire country doesn't mean people of means want to live there, they don't. So enough with the random cities as a point of comparison.
But its this apathy/indifference and complacency that will leave these cities where they are. Same as any other issue in MA really.
Also for another point, the COL in relation to income means the poverty rate in these cities is likely higher than it read on paper but I won't go any further there.
I guess it comes down to what could really be done to turn them around? If you are familiar with Alex Morse the mayor out in Holyoke it sounds like he has done a whole lot to improve the city's quality of life and economy from a grassroots level. However that is quite rare, the city is still undesirabe to most, there is a good amount of money and investment from local schools, and it's a tiny city to begin with.
To have a working class groundswell of support big enough to turn these cities around is incredibly difficult and usually requires more than just the interests of the locals.
As we both know, usually the thing that really fundmentally turns around cities is a ton of outside people moving in, remote investors flooding money and changing the city completely in the process.
The only realistic thing I can see changing MA cities with only minimal to moderate distruption to their local culture would be if WFH becomes common enough that some middle class Boston office workers decide to live in these places because commute becomes a nonissue, while they still want convenient weekend access to the city. Probably not enough people would do this to replace the current populations, but it could potentially add just enough income and investments to the cities to lift them up.
Why does it seem like every thread on City-Data now spirals into a bunch of posters from Massachusetts arguing amongst themselves about minor details having to do with Massachusetts that no one else on this forum even cares about in the slightest? Get a clue. You're breaking and boring the forum.
LOL point taken the funniest part is half the time we dont even live in MA anymore or havent in years but it always seems to be people who came from there who are doing this myself included
Why does it seem like every thread on City-Data now spirals into a bunch of posters from Massachusetts arguing amongst themselves about minor details having to do with Massachusetts that no one else on this forum even cares about in the slightest? Get a clue. You're breaking and boring the forum and have been for a while now.
I guess it comes down to what could really be done to turn them around? If you are familiar with Alex Morse the mayor out in Holyoke it sounds like he has done a whole lot to improve the city's quality of life and economy from a grassroots level. However that is quite rare, the city is still undesirabe to most, there is a good amount of money and investment from local schools, and it's a tiny city to begin with.
To have a working class groundswell of support big enough to turn these cities around is incredibly difficult and usually requires more than just the interests of the locals.
As we both know, usually the thing that really fundmentally turns around cities is a ton of outside people moving in, remote investors flooding money and changing the city completely in the process.
The only realistic thing I can see changing MA cities with only minimal to moderate distruption to their local culture would be if WFH becomes common enough that some middle class Boston office workers decide to live in these places because commute becomes a nonissue, while they still want convenient weekend access to the city. Probably not enough people would do this to replace the current populations, but it could potentially add just enough income and investments to the cities to lift them up.
Well no one would decide to live in these places because they're really boring You can live in an adjacent boring suburb with better schools and more space This is less so the cas in Worcester because its 37 square miles-half of which is very suburban-not an option in Hartford or Lawrence.
With the urban bones these have they should all be more lively akin to Providence which while still poor (if not poorer) has a much better rep. The puritanical restrictive nature of CT and MA legislature does a disservice to their urban areas. Which other wise might see more private investment, recreational options or outside efolks moving in.
Holyoke was easily the worst city in MA, by a long shot, when he became mayor. Now it's only as bad as other bad cities basically. I don't say that to be rude, it's actually a legit improvement. The marijuana business has recently helped convert many old Holyoke mills into manufacturing and processing plants as well as retail stores.
LOL point taken the funniest part is half the time we dont even live in MA anymore or havent in years but it always seems to be people who came from there who are doing this myself included
yea I don't even live in MA anymore. It's just an interesting place and people from MA are prone to have discussions like this. If other states don't, IDK, that's them. Nothing stopping other folks from doing the same-seems they just care less-not my problem.
1. Florida because of the climate. I prefer warm weather. Fortunately, I currently live in Jacksonville, FL and enjoy 9 months of warm outdoor weather. Yes, it's hot and humid in the summer but I'd rather deal with that than cold. And at least I have a private inground pool in my yard to enjoy on those days.
2. New York. It's just a beautiful, scenic state all around with so much diversity in the landscape, cities and towns. I was born there and also lived in NYC for a couple years after college.
3. Massachusetts. I love all the quaint beautiful towns and cities. I'm not a big city guy but Boston is great to visit and is aesthetically appealing to me. Great schools, top notch healthcare and great scenery and activities, too.
4. Connecticut. My home state. It's just beautiful almost anywhere, safe, clean, great schools and healthcare. You have the beach, small mountains, plenty of outdoor activities, world class casinos, excellent food. The state balances rural and urban living very well. It's not really any more boring than surrounding states; at all. Unless you're a big city person. People are actually friendly, though reserved.
5. Pennsylvania. It's a beautiful state all around, similar to New York. Charming little cities and towns scattered everywhere and beautiful countryside. Cost of living is reasonable. Not sure about education or healthcare.
6. Maryland. I don't know much about it but outside of the Baltimore area, I think it's quite scenic in the mountains to the west and the oceanic areas to the southeast.
7. New Jersey. Honestly, I don't see the appeal of this state too much. I don't care for beaches. There's nothing too spectacular about the scenery within the state, although the northwestern portion is nice. The state lacks it's own major metro area. It's just kind of invaded by the NYC and Philly metro areas, which is bizarre. South Jersey seems boring, flat, run down and backwards.
But I would live in any of these states because I enjoy living anywhere and making the best of things.
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.
