Long a College Town, Worcester Now Looks the Part (Boston: apartments, loft)

[G1..]

Originally Posted by scoobydew

You missed my point. It's about smart growth and change. There are varying degrees of medium between Detroit and Boston. And there are many reasons why Detroit died that in no way relate to Boston.

I"m guessing you think Boston and Detroit are two completely different situations , you think Boston to survive sold out to a more elitist group instead of trying to keep the Blue collar roots that you say Boston is known for ,I get it .What I'm saying is Detroit did not and they are paying the price for that ,yes I agree they are different reason why Detroit crumble but not why Boston has succeeded .
People want Worcester to develop but without the elite and not to loses it's "old town" charm , sometimes compromise's have to be made an as I said places need to change to keep from dying .

[parried]

I prefer Providence over Worcester. Providence would be bursting at the seams if it wasn't for the HORRIBLE economy that has plagued the state of RI for so long. It's a curse that won't go away. This economic curse has spilled all over the south shore of MA as well. That's what happens when you focus on one place (Boston) and ignore everywhere else. Stupid people in MA think that if they just keep voting for the same old tried and failed policies that next time around things will change. What will it take for MA voters to realize that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again?

Just imagine if the situation in MA was in TX? All economic activity centered in Houston, while San Antonio, Dallas and Austin were left to rot? The difference is the people down there would actually do something about it unlike the people here.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by parried

I prefer Providence over Worcester. Providence would be bursting at the seams if it wasn't for the HORRIBLE economy that has plagued the state of RI for so long. It's a curse that won't go away. This economic curse has spilled all over the south shore of MA as well. That's what happens when you focus on one place (Boston) and ignore everywhere else. Stupid people in MA think that if they just keep voting for the same old tried and failed policies that next time around things will change. What will it take for MA voters to realize that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again?

Just imagine if the situation in MA was in TX? All economic activity centered in Houston, while San Antonio, Dallas and Austin were left to rot? The difference is the people down there would actually do something about it unlike the people here.

Yes, because Mass should be investing in Providence, right.

Mass as a whole (and we've posted the stats) is doing great. Really great compared to the rest of the country. Are there places that are/were doing poorly? Yup, what does the State do? It invests in those. A tremendous amount of money is being invested in the New Bedford port terminal project. Money was invested (via the Umass system) in Lowell, and it changed the entire vibe. There are numerous examples of this. Some places, like Springfield and Lawrence really might be lost, but it isn't due to lack of money being put in.

[Dave120]

"Are there places that are/were doing poorly? Yup, what does the State do? It invests in those. A tremendous amount of money is being invested in the New Bedford port terminal project. Money was invested (via the Umass system) in Lowell, and it changed the entire vibe. There are numerous examples of this. Some places, like Springfield and Lawrence really might be lost, but it isn't due to lack of money being put in."

Perhaps that's the case with Lowell, New Bedford, even Worcester (re, money being invested by the state), but it appears to me that Springfield is relatively neglected when it comes to investment in big projects. It seems like the MA government is just leaving the investment up to MGM when it comes to that part of the state.

[scoobydew]

Originally Posted by G1..

I"m guessing you think Boston and Detroit are two completely different situations , you think Boston to survive sold out to a more elitist group instead of trying to keep the Blue collar roots that you say Boston is known for ,I get it .What I'm saying is Detroit did not and they are paying the price for that ,yes I agree they are different reason why Detroit crumble but not why Boston has succeeded .
People want Worcester to develop but without the elite and not to loses it's "old town" charm , sometimes compromise's have to be made an as I said places need to change to keep from dying .

The first two words in your post are accurate. The rest is just rambling blather. I think nothing of the sort. Boston was never anywhere near becoming a Detroit for a host of different reasons. And I'm not sure how you can read my posts and reached the conclusion that I'm arguing for "no elites." Maybe you can explain that to me. Indeed, I spoke about smart growth which means a good diverse balance. Detroit's problems were far deeper than any problems Boston ever had nor would any of the gentry/young professionals take hold in the city because there was never anything there for them to grab on to. If you know anything about what happened to Detroit, and if you know anything about Boston prior to 15-20 years ago, then you know the differences between the two cities. But rather than try to guess what people you don't know are thinking, perhaps you should just stick with what's there on the page.

[scoobydew]

Originally Posted by Dave120

"Are there places that are/were doing poorly? Yup, what does the State do? It invests in those. A tremendous amount of money is being invested in the New Bedford port terminal project. Money was invested (via the Umass system) in Lowell, and it changed the entire vibe. There are numerous examples of this. Some places, like Springfield and Lawrence really might be lost, but it isn't due to lack of money being put in."

Perhaps that's the case with Lowell, New Bedford, even Worcester (re, money being invested by the state), but it appears to me that Springfield is relatively neglected when it comes to investment in big projects. It seems like the MA government is just leaving the investment up to MGM when it comes to that part of the state.

I agree with much of what you say and I'll add that Lowell had a lot of Federal money through Paul Tsongas when it was designated a National Park. And it's still not back. I think it will be tough to get any of these non-port cities back until we get more manufacturing back. A Springfield has little to offer to professional people from outside the area, even if the state did invest in it. Port cities have much more to offer from the start so a Springfield has to work even harder to attract people including having good public transit options available, decent schools etc. Boston attracts people despite it crappy schools, but a Springfield needs to do better than that because it lacks in other areas.

[parried]

Smith & Wesson?

[G1..]

Originally Posted by scoobydew

The first two words in your post are accurate. The rest is just rambling blather. I think nothing of the sort. Boston was never anywhere near becoming a Detroit for a host of different reasons. And I'm not sure how you can read my posts and reached the conclusion that I'm arguing for "no elites." Maybe you can explain that to me. Indeed, I spoke about smart growth which means a good diverse balance. Detroit's problems were far deeper than any problems Boston ever had nor would any of the gentry/young professionals take hold in the city because there was never anything there for them to grab on to. If you know anything about what happened to Detroit, and if you know anything about Boston prior to 15-20 years ago, then you know the differences between the two cities. But rather than try to guess what people you don't know are thinking, perhaps you should just stick with what's there on the page.

Look at post #18 in this thread , and for the record jr I know a boat load more about Boston than you think , so disagree with me fine but keep the smart ass stuff to yourself .

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by parried

I prefer Providence over Worcester. Providence would be bursting at the seams if it wasn't for the HORRIBLE economy that has plagued the state of RI for so long. It's a curse that won't go away. This economic curse has spilled all over the south shore of MA as well. That's what happens when you focus on one place (Boston) and ignore everywhere else. Stupid people in MA think that if they just keep voting for the same old tried and failed policies that next time around things will change. What will it take for MA voters to realize that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again?

This is the problem with RI as well. Everyone complains about the economy, taxes, etc. What do they do? Vote back in the same people, the same party, and the same policies. I'm not blaming this on political party lines, but the philosophy just doesn't change. I understand some of this is demographics as well. RI has almost 15% of its population at 65 or older and another 25% who will be of retiring age in the next two decades. The population as a whole is steady or slightly declining, which isn't helping.

[CaseyB]

What does any of this have to do with Worcester?