Will Worcester ever be a good place to live? (Lowell: low income, rentals)

[traffic_lover]

Originally Posted by ormari

You honestly think massive investment by deep pocketed investors with tight political connections was made in the corridor back in the 90s? I'd love to see your evidence of this.

I lived in that corridor in the 90s, and I don't recall evidence of this at all.

Madam, my premise was why the project will PROCEED now, not who thought it up 100 yrs ago. Cheers!

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by traffic_lover

Madam, my premise was why the project will PROCEED now, not who thought it up 100 yrs ago. Cheers!

It will proceed now because they really have no choice for it to proceed. The agreements were signed and are in place. They can either invest the money in the project and complete it, or they can lose than money in court costs and penalties for violating the agreements that were made.

Would you prefer one over the other? I'd prefer, if the money is going to be spent anyway, to actually do the project.

[Dave120]

Originally Posted by traffic_lover

I think both sides of this argument are right:
-Former struggling cities with redeeming history & attributes like new bedford, lowell, providence are rising fast as the urban middle class spills in. Millenials, artists, etc. Those cities have seen a renaissance of late.

Just curious about the mention of New Bedford. Is it really "rising fast"? I just don't get that feeling from what I've read (but full disclosure, I don't really have much first hand experience with that city). It seems like Lowell and Worcester are on a completely different level when it comes to their outlook. Even Springfield, with its numerous upcoming major investments and projects (Union Station renovation, Springfield-Hartford Rail, MGM's entertainment complex, UMass and Baystate's new medical school, and others) looks a lot more promising in the near term at first glance. But I'm wondering from people who know the city better if there's something that some of the headlines might not be catching on to.

[traffic_lover]

Originally Posted by Dave120

Just curious about the mention of New Bedford. Is it really "rising fast"? I just don't get that feeling from what I've read (but full disclosure, I don't really have much first hand experience with that city). It seems like Lowell and Worcester are on a completely different level when it comes to their outlook. Even Springfield, with its numerous upcoming major investments and projects (Union Station renovation, Springfield-Hartford Rail, MGM's entertainment complex, UMass and Baystate's new medical school, and others) looks a lot more promising in the near term at first glance. But I'm wondering from people who know the city better if there's something that some of the headlines might not be catching on to.

I went there to party downtown & it blew my cajones off. Really trendy bars, revamped waterfront. You wouldn't recognize it

[Whatsnext75]

Originally Posted by traffic_lover

I went there to party downtown & it blew my cajones off. Really trendy bars, revamped waterfront. You wouldn't recognize it

that is surprising because there is a lot of crime there still.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by traffic_lover

I went there to party downtown & it blew my cajones off. Really trendy bars, revamped waterfront. You wouldn't recognize it

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by timberline742

It will proceed now because they really have no choice for it to proceed. The agreements were signed and are in place. They can either invest the money in the project and complete it, or they can lose than money in court costs and penalties for violating the agreements that were made.

Would you prefer one over the other? I'd prefer, if the money is going to be spent anyway, to actually do the project.

Exactly right, and I suppose it's obvious from my posts in this thread that I agree.

[traffic_lover]

Originally Posted by ormari

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Right!! Alls I'm saying is I was PLEASANTLY surprised. Looking good & I hope it becomes a true comeback player of the century award. VERY pretty city with a rich history out of a book (literally).

Now...would I wander down an unknown street off the beaten track at 1 am? Um no

[Leenme]

If the original poster actually examined Worcester he would have known what to expect. He didn't apparently.

The City is built-out, like most of the cities around there, so if reconstruction takes place the cost includes removing what it already in place. It would probably included infrastructure alterations, like water and sewer and new traffic adjustments...my point is that it's more expensive to build there, than say in newer cities with room for expansion built in, or fresh ground.

In Florida they're building new cities because retirees don't want to live in the old traditional retirement places with all their social issues. Complexes like the Villages https://www.thevillages.com/ are being build and leaving the old cities to up and coming generations who think crime at 3 x the national average is common and exciting. Where eating in someone else's dining room is how success is measured.

Boise has a larger population but it has little diversity, the local Indians have a reservation of their own. There is a lot of conflict in diversity, there are winners and losers on larger scales. Where Worcester has 3x the national crime level, Boise is 50% below. If you weren't forced by job or educational need to move from Boise to Worcester the rational choice would have been to stay there. Me. I prefer Ketchum, Whitefish, or Riggins ID for things to do. Sun Valley, one of my faves, has great skiing and food with parties 24/7.

What gets me is poster's saying there's nothing to do. There's a lake at the bottom of Bell Hill, go sailing, boating, fishing. Worcester had plenty of music venues, and no shortage of booze if that's your thing. Dirt bike or snowmobile at Rutland State park. Hand Gliding at Mt Wachusett, Sky Diving at Orange Airport.
As far as parties go, they're everywhere.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Leenme

The City is built-out, like most of the cities around there, so if reconstruction takes place the cost includes removing what it already in place. It would probably included infrastructure alterations, like water and sewer and new traffic adjustments...my point is that it's more expensive to build there, than say in newer cities with room for expansion built in, or fresh ground.

This is a problem lots of places. There need to be more programs to help reclamation of properties and lands. There is no way we should be cutting trees and paving green spaces to build when there are vacant or underutilized areas everywhere that have already been built on. Yes, there are a host of environmental contaminant issues at times, but this is the job of government to step in.