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.
Which city do you think is in better Shape?
In My opinion it is Brockton, it has more wealth than Lawrence, even though its not concentrated inward, but on the outskirts of Town. Lawrence kept its urban fabric together more, but is in much worse shape economically.
Which city do you think is in better Shape?
In My opinion it is Brockton, it has more wealth than Lawrence, even though its not concentrated inward, but on the outskirts of Town. Lawrence kept its urban fabric together more, but is in much worse shape economically.
both places are hell holes but i would say Lawrence is the worse. it has the most corrupt idiotic leadership who have constantly steal millions of dollars from the coffers and send it to the Dominican republic.
Lawrence is horrific because the police are corrupt as hell and it is a city run by thieves.
Which city do you think is in better Shape?
In My opinion it is Brockton, it has more wealth than Lawrence, even though its not concentrated inward, but on the outskirts of Town. Lawrence kept its urban fabric together more, but is in much worse shape economically.
I agree with your assessment. However, if I'm picking one to live in, I'd choose Lawrence mostly because it has a better urban core and I see more potential there. With a job in Boston, I could live in/near downtown Lawrence and get the train into town (though the same could be said for Brockton).
If the question is "which town is better off now economically," it's Brockton. However, Brockton's economic strengths are suburban development along Route 24. Downtown Brockton is a shell. It's easily my least favorite city in Massachusetts and that's saying a lot.
Lawrence, at least, has great urban bones. It's hurting big time, but there's a lot of potential there. You have great architecture in the city center, the Merrimack, canals, good parks, and nice density. Brockton has no water feature, no decent downtown parks, big gaps in the streetwall (and seemingly little effort to fix them), and a downtown that has seemingly been ripped apart to better accommodate the automobile.
But again, if I'm renting/buying, I'd take Lawrence over Brockton any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
When I'm taking photos I might be more worried about the waterways and other aesthetics, but if I'm going to live somewhere I want security and the piece of mind that I could one day sell if I want to move. Things like taxes/stability of city government and auto insurance are important as well (Lawrence has the highest claims rate in the state). If I'm gonna be awake all night due to booming woofers and have my vehicle broken into, it doesn't comfort me that much knowing that the downtown has potential somewhere in the far future. If I had to pick one of the two cities, it would be the west side of Brockton (central corridor is no better than Lawrence and possibly worse). Having to pick between those 2 towns is not a position I would ever want to be in, however; nor would I wish it on my worst enemy.
Which city do you think is in better Shape?
In My opinion it is Brockton, it has more wealth than Lawrence, even though its not concentrated inward, but on the outskirts of Town. Lawrence kept its urban fabric together more, but is in much worse shape economically.
listen there are cities in much better shape in the merrimack valley and massachusetts as a hole.
Boston has great areas, Newburyport, Salem Mass, Salem NH, Manchester NH, Lowell has better areas than lawrence and Brockton put together, Methuen, Haverhill Mass all these places are 10 times better than Brockton or Lawrence. If you are hard working and law abiding then go to one of the places listed above.
Not to say there are not Hardworking and law abiding people in Lawrence and Brockton there are and i know them there are wonderful people in these areas still.
But the scum bag ratio is to high and the corruption and crime is to high.
like i said the mayor lantigua of lawrence mass will take your tax dollars and steal them and send them abroad. if yo uwant your tax dollars to support DR then move to DR
When I'm taking photos I might be more worried about the waterways and other aesthetics, but if I'm going to live somewhere I want security and the piece of mind that I could one day sell if I want to move. Things like taxes/stability of city government and auto insurance are important as well (Lawrence has the highest claims rate in the state). If I'm gonna be awake all night due to booming woofers and have my vehicle broken into, it doesn't comfort me that much knowing that the downtown has potential somewhere in the far future. If I had to pick one of the two cities, it would be the west side of Brockton (central corridor is no better than Lawrence and possibly worse). Having to pick between those 2 towns is not a position I would ever want to be in, however; nor would I wish it on my worst enemy.
How aesthetics are weighed against the other factors are really a matter of personal preference. I think I weight aesthetics a little more heavily than you. That's not to say I'd choose Lawrence over, say, Weston simply because I think Lawrence has potential and a better urban core. Assuming in this fantasy that prices are comparable, I'd take Weston easily although Weston is not my ideal place to live (If I'm spending Weston money, I'd have a place in the South End, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, etc. Even a "suburban" place in Marblehead).
However, we're comparing Brockton and Lawrence. For the most part, all of the bad things in either city are comparable and, to a degree, negligible. Are the odds of booming subwoofers and a vehicle break in really that much higher in Lawrence than they are in Brockton? I know neighborhoods make a difference and even Lawrence has some decent spots. There are places in Lawrence(and in Brockton) where I can buy a historic single family home with off street parking, a small yard and within walking distance to the center of the city for fairly cheap money. When it comes to crime and noise, the neighborhood concerns me more than the city. And if the stats are even remotely close then things like perceived potential and aesthetics play a much bigger role. Stability of Government is important and Lawrence is the worst in the state. No argument there.
Resale value, especially given where Lawrence and Brockton are doesn't mean too much to me. My priority is to buy a place that I like. Real estate is pretty low in both cities and so values aren't really a risk to drop too much below their current status. I do see Brockton with a little more potential growth in the immediate future, for what it's worth. Still when we're talking about these two cities, I'm not buying because I think I'm going to make a lot of money on a big real estate boom.
Finally, I think I see potential differently than you. I don't choose Lawrence because I'm going to sit around and wait for things to maybe improve. I'd prefer to be part of the improvement. Many people choose to wait and see what happens. However, places improve because other people choose to make those improvements. Sometimes that means opening up a small business that's not a convenience store, pawn shop or check cashing store. Sometimes it's as simple as going a little out of your comfort zone and living in/near downtown in a depressed city or neighborhood and shopping and dining there. I'd much rather do that in Lawrence because Lawrence already has a better downtown area than Brockton. And I think it will get better whereas I see next to zero potential for downtown Brockton. I would choose Lawrence not because I hope it will improve but because I'd have fun being a part of that improvement.
For what it's worth, I am willing to wager that the vast majority of the people reading this thread feel the same way as you do. I don't blame them and I certainly don't think you're wrong (nor do I think I'm wrong). I just see it as a matter of preference. I'm currently house hunting in New Bedford. It's a city I love and I know very well. Many friends think I'm crazy, and I feel the same way about them. I'm looking at gorgeous homes in nice neighborhoods that were built in the mid/late 1800s for under $200,000 with nice little yards, detached garages within walking distance of the harbor and downtown entertainment. Meanwhile, they're looking at spending much more than that (at minimum) to get a ranch built in 1970 in an OK neighborhood outside of the city. Different strokes, I guess.
*edit*
In spite of what I've said here, I would rank Lawrence very near the bottom of the list of cities in MA I'd want to live in. The bottom spot belongs to Brockton and Brockton alone. Holyoke comes next and Lawrence is probably right after that. It's not as if I love Lawrence and hate Brockton; it's just that if I had to choose, I'd take Lawrence by a hair.
The bottom spot belongs to Brockton and Brockton alone. Holyoke comes next and Lawrence is probably right after that.
What happened to Springfield?
It's funny. While I was at first thinking how ridiculous these threads are (which of the worst is the VERY worst), here in the MA forum we see far more "which is better, Weston or Wellesley?" or "who has better schools, Newton or Needham?". While those may be relevant for one with money who is actually in the position to move to one of thoes places, the threads are extremely tedious to the rest of us watching on the sidelines.
So in a sense, this is somewhat refreshing.
I think more interesting might be asking what the biggest underachievers are?
Mine (for a larger city) would definitely be Worcester. It may not be quite a Providence (although it matches it or bests it in some categories), but it should certainly be kicking Manchester's behind (which it isn't).
For a smaller city (turned suburb), it would have to be Taunton. The place gets no mention or respect, while it has a beautiful downtown and much of it well preserved.
These are 2 cities that have long been their own worst enemy.
You know... I don't hate Springfield. I'd probably stick it right above Lawrence on that list. Mostly because it's bigger and has more going on and has some gorgeous residential neighborhoods. But still, it's not high on my list.
Quote:
It's funny. While I was at first thinking how ridiculous these threads are (which of the worst is the VERY worst), here in the MA forum we see far more "which is better, Weston or Wellesley?" or "who has better schools, Newton or Needham?". While those may be relevant for one with money who is actually in the position to move to one of thoes places, the threads are extremely tedious to the rest of us watching on the sidelines.
So in a sense, this is somewhat refreshing.
Agreed. I'm not in a position to live in one of those places (live well, anyway) so those threads are fairly irrelevant to me. I also think people lump all of the other (non-Boston area) cities in together into one big group. While they definitely have similarities, they do have there differences and some are definitely better than others.
Quote:
I think more interesting might be asking what the biggest underachievers are?
Mine (for a larger city) would definitely be Worcester. It may not be quite a Providence (although it matches it or bests it in some categories), but it should certainly be kicking Manchester's behind (which it isn't).
Yeah, I'm surprised Worcester hasn't kicked it up a notch. It's not too far from Boston, it's on a commuter rail line and Amtrak lines, it has a bunch of colleges right in town as well as a number of decent attractions. In theory, it should be doing better than Manchester (a city that's quietly doing quite a bit better). Maybe it's just that Worcester doesn't have any of the major features that make a city go beyond "functional" and become a destination. Providence has the great riverfront, Federal Hill, and beautiful East Side. Portland Maine has the Old Port and the waterfront. Lowell even has the Canals. What does Worcester have? It could just be that Worcester at it's best will be merely OK. Similar to an Omaha, Des Moines, Little Rock, etc. I still think Worcester can be better than OK, but it could be the rose colored glasses I'm wearing.
Just to add another city to the discussion, I'd pick Springfield. I think being situated on the Connecticut River at the base of the Berkshires, with great architectural bones, a lot of history, and some real attractions (Big E, Basketball HOF, Six Flags, Museum Complex, Mass. Mutual Center, etc.) would really give it a boost. Moreover, it's further from the Boston area which means that there's more chance for it to be a regional hub (though competing with Hartford and the NoHa/Amherst area isn't easy).
Quote:
For a smaller city (turned suburb), it would have to be Taunton. The place gets no mention or respect, while it has a beautiful downtown and much of it well preserved.
Definitely. Taunton has tons of potential. The Green is really nice (I go to El Mariachi for Mexican when I'm in the area) and there are great historic homes right next to it along and just off of 44 and 140. What a lot of people don't even realize is that Taunton covers a relatively large land area and that a lot of it isn't even urban. Much of it is suburban and rural. Taunton covers an area from as far West as Rehoboth, as far East as Lakeville and Middleborough, and as far North as West Bridgewater and Mansfield.
I think that even though South Coast Rail is nicknamed, "Fall River/New Bedford Rail." Taunton stands to gain the most when/if that project happens. For starters, Taunton is located at Route 495 (some parts are even inside the 495 belt) and is much closer to Boston than the other two cities. Also, because the route will split in Berkley, MA with one spur continuing to Fall River and the other to New Bedford, Taunton stations will have double the train frequency of Fall River and New Bedford. The smaller size of Taunton (compared to Brockton which is almost twice as large) and more picturesque location and layout will be goot to it. Still, Taunton is vastly underperforming. I went to the Galleria Mall a few weekends ago and couldn't believe how many vacant storefronts there were. The place was dead on a Saturday during the holiday season. It's sad because that was my mall growing up and I remember being parked in the satellite lots this time of year due to the crowds.
Maybe it's just that Worcester doesn't have any of the major features that make a city go beyond "functional" and become a destination.
Well having 9 colleges/universities in town, the Worcester Art Museum, Higgins Aromory, Ecotarium, Antiquarian Society, minor league hockey (and until this year baseball, which will hopefully come back before not too long), an airport (see baseball), major employers like UMASS Medical and Hanover Insurance, many great restaurants and bars scattered throughout (although the club scene is pretty weak), and oh yeah the DCU Center, Hanover Theater, Palladium, a top notch public library, and being New England's 2nd largest city should be enough to take on at least Manchester. Even the examples you gave like Des Moines would be both achievable for Worcester and respectable should it ever reach that status. I guess you're right in that those things alone don't make for a destination as is being proven right now. Are all those new mill lofts and downtown revival in Manchester due to it having the Merrimack there? Possibly it helps, but I don't think so much. 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. Likewise, there is no reason why New Bedford should not be at least in competition with Portland, ME. Again, one happens to be in the "right" state and the other not so. On the good side of things, Worcester is actually in the process of uncovering parts of the Blackstone Canal (that area has a lot going on). Quinsigamond isn't too shabby either. But will waterways make it more of a destination? I'm afraid a bigger thing to overcome is the fact that it is Worcester, "Massachusetts".
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Just to add another city to the discussion, I'd pick Springfield. I think being situated on the Connecticut River at the base of the Berkshires, with great architectural bones, a lot of history, and some real attractions (Big E, Basketball HOF, Six Flags, Museum Complex, Mass. Mutual Center, etc.) would really give it a boost. Moreover, it's further from the Boston area which means that there's more chance for it to be a regional hub (though competing with Hartford and the NoHa/Amherst area isn't easy).
Springfield has far more to overcome than the other cities in play here. What you speak of is impressive, but most stem from the city's proud past (or what the city was) rather than it's current status or where it could go from here. One thing Worcester has in it's favor is its relative safety and the fact that it has decent neighborhoods all over with just a few areas to avoid. Springfield is far more dangerous and much of it is a crime-ridden ghetto. It reminds me of Boston back in the 90s. Worcester is just much more livable in general than Springfield, and the diversity is more evenly distributed. Another HUGE advantage Worcester has is on the education front. Springfield's colleges/universities don't come close to Worcester's which has probably the 2nd or 3rd best in New England. Of all things, that is probably what makes it the most puzzling why Worcester isn't punching higher than it is.
Springfield's greater distance/relative independance from Boston is an asset to it, but remember that W. MA is really two regions (Berkshires and Pioneer Valley) and the total population is still not very high. Those I know from the Berkshires are more drawn to Albany as their local hub city. The Pioneer Valley outside the immediate Springfield area tends to revolve around Amherst/Norhthampton, and don't forget that Hartford is the economic powerhorse for that whole region. So just like the rest of MA dis-owns W. MA, the rest of W. MA kind of dis-owns Springfield. I have few doubts why. I haven't had to go out there in a while thankfully, but whenever there I walked away with a bad feeling. There seems to be a sort of dark cloud hanging over that city, and a feeling of dispare and a city has just given up on itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
What a lot of people don't even realize is that Taunton covers a relatively large land area and that a lot of it isn't even urban. Much of it is suburban and rural. Taunton covers an area from as far West as Rehoboth, as far East as Lakeville and Middleborough, and as far North as West Bridgewater and Mansfield.
Exactly, you have a city that is largely middle-class with a very attractive downtown and surrounding area. Even the "bad areas" are very nice compared to Attleboro, Brockton, Fall River, etc. It's cheap housing has made it a magnet for riff raff however, and the city just can't seem to capitalize on it's assets. Even Brockton seems to have more pride as a city and trying much harder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I think that even though South Coast Rail is nicknamed, "Fall River/New Bedford Rail." Taunton stands to gain the most when/if that project happens. For starters, Taunton is located at Route 495 (some parts are even inside the 495 belt) and is much closer to Boston than the other two cities. Also, because the route will split in Berkley, MA with one spur continuing to Fall River and the other to New Bedford, Taunton stations will have double the train frequency of Fall River and New Bedford. The smaller size of Taunton (compared to Brockton which is almost twice as large) and more picturesque location and layout will be goot to it. Still, Taunton is vastly underperforming. I went to the Galleria Mall a few weekends ago and couldn't believe how many vacant storefronts there were. The place was dead on a Saturday during the holiday season. It's sad because that was my mall growing up and I remember being parked in the satellite lots this time of year due to the crowds.
While I have been a huge skeptic of the South Coast Rail, I do think that Taunton is one place that will benefit greatly from it (it is the kind of place it would provide a boost to, FR and NB not so much).
Malls in general are hurting. Those of us in the middle-class (the new poor) just don't have the disposable income we had in the past. Rather than mall stores, the current preference is Amazon and the big boxes. The economy in that part of MA is struggling at best, so the problem is far more pronounced there than in Natick for instance. Even once vibrant malls such as the South Shore Plaza have seen a drop off. I do remember at one point like 10 years ago when I lived in between the Galleria and Westgate, I had started going to the Westgate instead. While it is a smaller mall, it had a lower share of scumbag kids (ironically) which made the experience better.
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.
