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.
Eh, I just spent a few days in West Oakland for a music festival. Fun place, but damn, the homeless tent cities are just off the chain. It's sad. Worcester doesn't have anything like that, but its also far cheaper.
But its hard to compare these. Oakland is right next to (well, the bay) SF and next to Berkeley, Hoboken to Manhattan is what? 30-45 min? Pretty tough comparisons.
Hobioken is immediately across the Hudson River from the Greenwich Vilage and Chelsea neighborhoods of Manhattan. It is one single PATH subway stop away from Manhattan (into Greenwich Village) and continues on in Manhattan up to 33rd St. & 6th Ave. (aka Herald Square). It is not, as you stated, 30-45 minutes away from Manhattan but more like a 4-5 minute subway ride away . . . and the PATH Subway system running between Newark, Harrison, Jersey City, and Hoboken (New Jersey) and various points in the lower half of Manhattan runs 24/7/365.
From the heart of Worcester to the heart of metro Boston, MA is + or - 40 miles.
It's about an hour from Springfield as well. NYC is a harder argument to make because in terms of population bost and worcester are the two largest cities in the state and two of the largest in the region. The 128 belt and 495 are obviously rings around Boston.
Eventually the rail will be fixed to Springfield and the loops will finally be closed.
40 miles might sound significant and it is but it's directly liked with rail and highways.
Figured I would hop in here as I grew up in one of the directional-boroughs east of Worcester and currently live in Hoboken. In terms of the article, I did get a chuckle with the comparison for many reasons. We love Hoboken, but it hasn't been an "it" town since Maxwell's was cranking and Yo La Tengo was the town's house band in the late 80's /early 90's. Today it is more or less 100% yuppied out, and has been for a long time (Maxwell's closed ~ 3 years ago as the owner said the current demographic can no longer support a rock club.) Aside from that, it is a great place to live and weve chose to raise our children here. But mostly because it is directly across the river from our jobs in Manhattan, offers walkable convenience and is fully of leafy urban streets & parks. It all comes at a cost though, as almost everything always does.
When I was growing up, we would rarely ever venture into Worcester (actually, in HS we would drive in to buy bootleg albums at Al Bums and then to a nearby headshop that didn't card.) There just wasn't much there, so whenever we wanted to escape metro west we would just go into Boston. Even after I moved away and came back for holidays, I would always take visiting significant others into Boston for dinner/drinks, even if it took almost an hour on the train. However, the past few years we have started going into Worcester for dinner, especially now that were dropping the kiddos off with my parents. Hoboken has nothing that remotely compares to Armsby Abbey, and while I havent yet been to Deadhorse Hill would assume the same there. But, I would assume the restaurant scene in Oakland blows away both Worcester and Hoboken.
Anyway, guess I didn't really have a point other than these 3 cities are not really comparable, at all. If anything, Worcester would be a better compare to Newark and Hoboken to Cambridge/Somerville. But it's awesome to see Worcester getting better and I'll happily root for it from afar.
Figured I would hop in here as I grew up in one of the directional-boroughs east of Worcester and currently live in Hoboken. In terms of the article, I did get a chuckle with the comparison for many reasons. We love Hoboken, but it hasn't been an "it" town since Maxwell's was cranking and Yo La Tengo was the town's house band in the late 80's /early 90's. Today it is more or less 100% yuppied out, and has been for a long time (Maxwell's closed ~ 3 years ago as the owner said the current demographic can no longer support a rock club.) Aside from that, it is a great place to live and weve chose to raise our children here. But mostly because it is directly across the river from our jobs in Manhattan, offers walkable convenience and is fully of leafy urban streets & parks. It all comes at a cost though, as almost everything always does.
When I was growing up, we would rarely ever venture into Worcester (actually, in HS we would drive in to buy bootleg albums at Al Bums and then to a nearby headshop that didn't card.) There just wasn't much there, so whenever we wanted to escape metro west we would just go into Boston. Even after I moved away and came back for holidays, I would always take visiting significant others into Boston for dinner/drinks, even if it took almost an hour on the train. However, the past few years we have started going into Worcester for dinner, especially now that were dropping the kiddos off with my parents. Hoboken has nothing that remotely compares to Armsby Abbey, and while I havent yet been to Deadhorse Hill would assume the same there. But, I would assume the restaurant scene in Oakland blows away both Worcester and Hoboken.
Anyway, guess I didn't really have a point other than these 3 cities are not really comparable, at all. If anything, Worcester would be a better compare to Newark and Hoboken to Cambridge/Somerville. But it's awesome to see Worcester getting better and I'll happily root for it from afar.
It can be said that Hoboken (as well as Jersey City, Bayonne, West New York, Weehawken, and Fort Lee) all function as what is called "edge cities" to New York City. That is, they are each right across the Hudson River from New York City proper. This doesn't mean they have nothing going for them in-their-own-right but that, for all intents and purposes, they each function like an appendage to New York City.
I wouldn't necessarily state the same about Newark. It can reasonably be said that Newark "holds its own" as a city in its own right and isn't situated directly-across-the-river from New York City like the other named ones are (though it is connected to New York City via 24/7/365 PATH Subway access . . . so it isn't hardly any disadavantage to not be situated directly-across-the-river from Manhattan, as PATH access between them is fast enough and runs around-the-clock).
As to Worcester, MA:
It is interesting that Worcester has, for a long-enough time, been referred to as "the second largest city in all of New England (after Boston, MA)" yet it hardly seems as well-developed all-in-all as Providence (RI) and Hartford (CT) . . . and perhaps we can even debatably throw in New Haven (CT), Stamford (CT), and Portland (ME) (???). If is IS, in fact, "the second-argst city in New England", this must mean is population only within the city proper but certainly not in its level of development. There hardly seems to be any standout skyiine and density like you see in those other cities (especially Providence and Hartford). When you pass those cities even from a good distance, they grab your attention with their bustling city characteristics. Yet even when passing directly through Worcester itself on the highway, it hardly (all-in-all) seems like more than a small city or large town. And most certainly, if you are passing by more on the outskirts of Worcester (i.e., outside all the hills that surround it), you don't even know that there is a city there AT ALL (and one that is called "the second largest city in New England") . . . for the hills wholly obscure any view of the skyline and features of Worcester. Worcester never seemed to take it upon itself to build up its mass and bulk (so that it can be seen even from a distance away on a passing expressway) . . . not that it is obligated to. How many times i've passed in the near-vicinity of Worcester going to or from New York City via car or bus and I couldn't see anything at all. The first time I did so, I asked "So where is the city of Worcester?" and was told "We already passed it." I'd say "We DID???? Where? I didn't see anything at all!!!" Whereas you can be situated miles away from Providence or Hartford (for instance) and perhaps even New Haven and Stamford and New London and most certainly would notice the features of those cities and metro areas even miles away.
So Worcester appears to be a city that, historically, planned itself (thus far) to be low-key, low-level, not standout-ish in the height and density of its skyline (or, let's say, hardly any more than a well-developed town would be). It didn't seemingly to ever try to be something more analogous to analogous to Providence or Hartford. This isn't served up as a critique of it but just an interesting observation about it.
It is interesting that Worcester has, for a long-enough time, been referred to as "the second largest city in all of New England (after Boston, MA)" yet it hardly seems as well-developed all-in-all as Providence (RI) and Hartford (CT) . . . and perhaps we can even debatably throw in New Haven (CT), Stamford (CT), and Portland (ME) (???). If is IS, in fact, "the second-argst city in New England", this must mean is population only within the city proper but certainly not in its level of development. There hardly seems to be any standout skyiine and density like you see in those other cities (especially Providence and Hartford). When you pass those cities even from a good distance, they grab your attention with their bustling city characteristics. Yet even when passing directly through Worcester itself on the highway, it hardly (all-in-all) seems like more than a small city or large town. And most certainly, if you are passing by more on the outskirts of Worcester (i.e., outside all the hills that surround it), you don't even know that there is a city there AT ALL (and one that is called "the second largest city in New England") . . . for the hills wholly obscure any view of the skyline and features of Worcester. Worcester never seemed to take it upon itself to build up its mass and bulk (so that it can be seen even from a distance away on a passing expressway) . . . not that it is obligated to. How many times i've passed in the near-vicinity of Worcester going to or from New York City via car or bus and I couldn't see anything at all. The first time I did so, I asked "So where is the city of Worcester?" and was told "We already passed it." I'd say "We DID???? Where? I didn't see anything at all!!!" Whereas you can be situated miles away from Providence or Hartford (for instance) and perhaps even New Haven and Stamford and New London and most certainly would notice the features of those cities and metro areas even miles away.
So Worcester appears to be a city that, historically, planned itself (thus far) to be low-key, low-level, not standout-ish in the height and density of its skyline (or, let's say, hardly any more than a well-developed town would be). It didn't seemingly to ever try to be something more analogous to analogous to Providence or Hartford. This isn't served up as a critique of it but just an interesting observation about it.
Worcester is the 2nd largest in city population. Providence and Hartford both have higher levels of employment, larger "daytime populations", are state capitals, serve larger metros, and are just more important cities in general. But yes, the fact that it is surrounded by hills also contributes to its lack of prominence. Some similarly sized cities down south (thinking Knoxville and Chattanooga) are similar in that regard, you have no idea there is a city there until you cross whatever ridge.
I don't think DT Providence is that much larger than DT Worcester, although like you said it does have bigger high rises.
Worcester is the 2nd largest in city population. Providence and Hartford both have higher levels of employment, larger "daytime populations", are state capitals, serve larger metros, and are just more important cities in general. But yes, the fact that it is surrounded by hills also contributes to its lack of prominence. Some similarly sized cities down south (thinking Knoxville and Chattanooga) are similar in that regard, you have no idea there is a city there until you cross whatever ridge.
I don't think DT Providence is that much larger than DT Worcester, although like you said it does have bigger high rises.
The city of Hartford outside of the core with the office towers is a ghetto. 125,000 people. Tied for dead last with Camden, NJ for highest percentage of children in single parent households. There are maybe 5,000 (childless) white collar people living in the core co-located with the office towers but that's not critical mass to have viable grocery stores & retail.
The flip side is that metro Hartford, with 1.2 million people, is #8 nationally for per-capita income. Hartford is a hell hole slum but it has some extremely prosperous suburbs. The poor people are segregated to Hartford. If you're doing the suburban baby factory thing with the high paying white collar job in the office tower, the low housing costs in the top 'burbs make metro Hartford very attractive. The property tax rate is really high but the property tax bill is lower than a comparable metro Boston 'burb because the housing costs so much less.
The Providence metro area includes the Massachusetts South Coast cities so it includes economic wastelands New Bedford & Fall River along with Cranston & Warwick. There are little pockets of suburban prosperity but the metro area is not particularly economically vital. Providence is a much more vital place than Hartford where everyone who can flees at 5pm. The fallout of having an Ivy in the city and it gives you a much more thriving after hours dining/bar/club/entertainment scene. Rhode Island also dumped a huge amount of money into urban renewal so you have things like Providence Place that don't exist in Hartford.
So if you're looking to live and work in a city, I'd rank them Providence, Worcester, and Hartford a distant third. I'm a sailing/salt water guy so for suburbia, I'd pick Barrington or East Greenwich over the Hartford 'burbs and the prosperous 'Worcester' suburbs all look towards the 495 belt jobs and identify Boston rather than Worcester. The Indian engineer in the giant plastic box house in Westboro doesn't go to Worcester very often even though it's only 10 miles.
Personally, I think that applying technology to commuter rail would make a big difference for Worcester. Autonomous electric trains. Higher speed. 24x7 frequent service. 30 minute Express service at rush hour. You would have the influx of white collar commuters to drive the economy in the city center. You then hit critical mass where Worcester attracts the white collar office tower jobs.
Worcester is the 2nd largest in city population. Providence and Hartford both have higher levels of employment, larger "daytime populations", are state capitals, serve larger metros, and are just more important cities in general. But yes, the fact that it is surrounded by hills also contributes to its lack of prominence. Some similarly sized cities down south (thinking Knoxville and Chattanooga) are similar in that regard, you have no idea there is a city there until you cross whatever ridge.
I don't think DT Providence is that much larger than DT Worcester, although like you said it does have bigger high rises.
You're right about all this, but I think the gap is pretty large. Worcester has slightly (about 5,000) more people in more than double the land area (37+ square miles to Providence's 18). Neighboring Pawtucket (pop 71k) and East Providence (pop 47k) add nearly 120,000 people in a combined 22 square miles. So there are about 115,000 more people when you draw Providence's borders out to a comparable size to Worcester's. That still doesn't include Cranston (another 81k), North Providence (32k), Warwick RI (82k), and all of the MA cities and towns which are part of PVD's metro area. The city proper population is irrelevant in this case. Providence is the larger urban area by a significant margin. And that's still not factoring in, as you pointed out, the fact that Providence is a state capital and larger employment center. The "2nd largest" stuff is misleading. Worcester is functionally a lot smaller than Providence. Saying Worcester is larger is like saying Jacksonville or Charlotte is bigger than Boston - in terms of city proper population, sure. But functionally? Not even close.
Personally, I think that applying technology to commuter rail would make a big difference for Worcester. Autonomous electric trains. Higher speed. 24x7 frequent service. 30 minute Express service at rush hour. You would have the influx of white collar commuters to drive the economy in the city center. You then hit critical mass where Worcester attracts the white collar office tower jobs.
High speed, electrified, double/triple tracked throughout the route is a no-brainer. It should be done on both the Providence and Worcester lines to start, and on the S Coast if that ever becomes a reality (that project totally worthless without).
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.
