How is downtown Springfield? (Boston, Worcester: 2014, crime rates, evictions)

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Salaries aren't always lower in western mass as it depends on what you are doing it for. Lawyers are pretty common and medical workers. Savings can be put towards private school, a second house (many coworkers I have have second houses on the cape), invested or retirement.

No one is alien to the fact that there is a high poverty level. But at this point.... so what. Jobs come back and eventually this attracts more people. Sure there are some huskster/shyster poverty pimps out there but at the end of the day most want prices to go up. Increased values means more tax revenue locally meaning more of a say locally. Work or leave is pretty much the option.

Yeah, but every physician I know lives in the 'burbs. Longmeadow and Northampon, mostly. Hartford is the same way.

The factory jobs that pay middle class wages are gone forever no matter how many red hats you hand out at campaign rallies. The problem we have in the United States is that the state-administered safety net means that poor people aren't mobile. In Syria, everybody fled to Europe. In the failed cities, they're locked in place with Section 8, Medicaid, TANF, food stamps, and the rest. If they leave the state to go where the jobs are, they lose those benefits. The people who leave are the middle class.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

You do have the quadrandgle (museums) that are still in existence and you do have access to culture in Northampton. Probably the Bostonians would laugh but there's a great art scene in Northampton. If that's not enough, you can always visit NYC. WMass provides access to the great outdoors and plenty of open space, things that you can't usually get in Boston. Boston is not the end all and the be all.

If you can find a job, then it might be okay to live in Springfield or Holyoke. But I would be extremely concerned about crime. And I would not be looking forward to having a casino plopped down in the middle of things. Born in Springfield, lived there until I was 7 yrs old, to see it now= . If you don't know how it used to be, maybe it's worth a try. But it would need to be safe.

Come on. Providence has a good restaurant scene, and music scene, etc too. I live there. But it's still crap compared to Boston or NY, and Providence is WAAAY better than Northampton and Springfield in those respects, still, everyone is going weekly to Boston for culture/music/etc, at a minimum.

And as a nature person, the access to Boston trumps access to nature to most cities its size.

Boston isn't the end all and be all, other than well, it and Cambridge completely economically support the entire state.

[in_newengland]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Come on. Providence has a good restaurant scene, and music scene, etc too. I live there. But it's still crap compared to Boston or NY, and Providence is WAAAY better than Northampton and Springfield in those respects, still, everyone is going weekly to Boston for culture/music/etc, at a minimum.

And as a nature person, the access to Boston trumps access to nature to most cities its size.

Boston isn't the end all and be all, other than well, it and Cambridge completely economically support the entire state.

Just as I thought. Lots of people won't settle for anything but Boston or NYC for culture. Most of the rest of the country does fine without it. I like world class museums as much as anyone else, but since I can't afford/don't want to live anywhere near a huge city, I get by pretty well with what the small cities like Northampton can offer. Unlike people in most locations in the country, I can get to those world class museums a few times a year.

Nature? In Boston? I wouldn't know. In WMass it's all around you.

Boston and Cambridge also may suck the life out of the rest of the state. Maybe if the two of them sink into oblivion, the rest of the state might stand a chance. Just JOKING.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

Just as I thought. Lots of people won't settle for anything but Boston or NYC for culture. Most of the rest of the country does fine without it. I like world class museums as much as anyone else, but since I can't afford/don't want to live anywhere near a huge city, I get by pretty well with what the small cities like Northampton can offer. Unlike people in most locations in the country, I can get to those world class museums a few times a year.

Nature? In Boston? I wouldn't know. In WMass it's all around you.

Boston and Cambridge also may suck the life out of the rest of the state. Maybe if the two of them sink into oblivion, the rest of the state might stand a chance. Just JOKING.

Northampton isn't a "small city" despite having a mayor and city council. It's only 28,000 population. It's a college town with a thriving Main Street.

If you look at the problems other post-industrial high population density states are having, be grateful for metro-Boston. All that corporate and individual income tax props up the rest of the state. Half the budget goes to Medicaid and Education. The poor western Mass towns would look like Appalachia without all the state money. Be happy that vital economic engine is far enough away that you don't have to drive in it and you don't have the incredibly high real estate prices.

[FCMA]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Northampton isn't a "small city" despite having a mayor and city council. It's only 28,000 population. It's a college town with a thriving Main Street.

That’s why I used the term “smaller dense towns” as beneficiaries of the middle-class diaspora alongside second and third tier cities in a recent post. It’s a major stretch to call towns in the Connecticut River valley like Northampton, Greenfield, and Brattleboro cities. They do benefit though from being central towns just outside the orbit of any major metro area, in the manner that county seats serve in the rest of the country outside the overpacked eastern megalopolis. By being away from the amalgamated nowheres of suburbia where towns that size are commonplace but lacking vitality, a central town without other nearby destinations for the rural inhabitants makes it the only place to head for culture or a decent restaurant meal, etc, elevating Northampton over the substantially more populous suburban nowhere of Billerica for example. The college aspect then amplifies this effect dramatically.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Northampton isn't a "small city" despite having a mayor and city council. It's only 28,000 population. It's a college town with a thriving Main Street.

If you look at the problems other post-industrial high population density states are having, be grateful for metro-Boston. All that corporate and individual income tax props up the rest of the state. Half the budget goes to Medicaid and Education. The poor western Mass towns would look like Appalachia without all the state money. Be happy that vital economic engine is far enough away that you don't have to drive in it and you don't have the incredibly high real estate prices.

Yup.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Come on. Providence has a good restaurant scene, and music scene, etc too. I live there. But it's still crap compared to Boston or NY, and Providence is WAAAY better than Northampton and Springfield in those respects, still, everyone is going weekly to Boston for culture/music/etc, at a minimum.

And as a nature person, the access to Boston trumps access to nature to most cities its size.

Boston isn't the end all and be all, other than well, it and Cambridge completely economically support the entire state.

Weekly, that's bull****, I know people in Lowell who go to Boston once a year for Red Sox games.

Worcester and Springfield to have several large companies too you know.

Also you have to realize that even though infrastrture spending goes out West in many cases it's for Boston, you think that anyone in WMass uses the Mass Pike to get anywhere when there are 3 exits in its last 50 miles? No although it's seen as tax money "subsidizing" Western Mass infrastructure it's for Boston not for Western Mass

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

Weekly, that's bull****, I know people in Lowell who go to Boston once a year for Red Sox games.

Those were my thoughts too...

I would be surprised if most people in Providence even take advantage of the music/food, etc IN THAT CITY on a weekly basis. As for Boston, I mention I'm I come from Boston to someone down there and I typically get a "oh I was in Boston once 10 years ago, I went to a Sox game..."

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

The poor western Mass towns would look like Appalachia without all the state money.

You say that like it is a bad thing? Knoxville, TN is a far healthier and self-sufficient city than Springfield. Some of the rural parts of Appalachia are pretty bleak, yes. But, they don't have the fortune of being a backyard playground for wealthy NYers like Western MA does. For the natives trying to scrape by in either place, I don't think one is really superior to another.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Yup, I'm sure that's great. But, jobs. It's all about jobs. Or mostly, culture is huge to a lot of people too.

Between jobs and culture I would say jobs are far more important. Income is a lifelong necessity. Many elements of culture, especially the big city attractions fall under the BTDT (been there done that) principle.