Downtown this morning is really awesome.
Dude playing catch in the common with his kids. Two street vendors on Front St, one selling flowers the other selling jewelry and incense. Another vendor, who is selling hot dogs in front of City Hall, told me there was TV coverage this morning on the street vendor issue.
My favorite thing going on this morning though?
In a transformation of space that should embarrass City Hall, there is a busker singing and playing guitar in the foyer of the old Paris Cinema on Franklin St. Seems to be cleaning up too.
VIBRANCY!!!!
Friday, July 11, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Neighborhoods 2
Let's face it. Worcester doesn't know whether it is coming or going when it comes to neighborhoods.
If you look around the internet you will find all sorts of different info on the neighborhoods of Worcester. Over at Buy Worcester Now they list the city as having 26 different neighborhoods. If you go to the city council website you will find that according to the city each district councilor represents about 12-15 different neighborhoods. At 5 districts that's about 75 neighborhoods. We all know Worcester doesn't have 75 different neighborhoods of course. My favorite breakdown of the neighborhoods and the one I feel to be the most correct is supplied in the Worcester Housing Study. The study breaks Worcester down into 15 submarkets along with maps that clearly define each of the submarkets.
Beaver Brook
College Hill
Downtown
East Side
Great Brook
Green Hill
Green Island
Greendale
Main South
North Side
Oak Hill
Piedmont
South East
South West
West Side
This is my favorite simply because I agree with it. I feel the way they have seperated the neighborhoods is correct culturally as well as the overall feel of the neighborhoods. There's a couple things I would change. I would extend the downtown neighborhood all the way to Chadwick Sq. I would leave the natural boundaries of Green Island intact and include the whole Canterbury St area with the rest of Main South. That is only two off the top of my head.
So why all this neighborhood talk?
I feel it's important.
I think there is a need to define Worcester's neighborhoods. To give them distinct boundaries. To profile them. To let the world know about them. To give people an expectation of what they will find when they visit them. To give people a bit of a guide as to what it is like to walk down the streets in these neighborhoods. If you are a Worcester resident or someone familiar with the city ask yourself this. If someone where to want to move here and they were to ask you where they should move, what would you say? If you asked them questions as to what kind of neighborhood they were looking for would you be able to give them an idea based on their response?
Simply put, if you break the city down into neighborhoods and then look at it that way it is easier to tackle some of the problems that ail it and feel good about some of the progress that it is making.
I think it is very easy to think of Worcester and think of it as just one big neighborhood. I know for a fact that is how a great deal of people who know of Worcester but don't KNOW Worcester feel about it.
Imagine a guide that broke down all the neighborhoods, what housing was like there, what the schools were like there, talked about the parks and the shopping and the nightlife or lack of in each of the neighborhoods. I think if there was something out there that did this and did it comprehensively I think the neighborhoods would really start to take shape. It is an insider's city. If I was to come here to live and not know anyone odds are I would end up in the wrong neighborhood. There is nothing telling me anything about any of the neighborhoods in the city online. This is something else that ails our urban core too. We are an old mill town. I feel we can get to the point where the city is asthetically pleasing but it is going to take a lot of time and we are already way behind in getting there. If you don't know the city the entire urban core most likely appears to you to be a train wreck that you are better off stearing clear of.
Maybe this is something the city could work on. Defining the neighborhoods. Fostering strong neighborhood associations who will take the reigns in the marketing of their neighborhoods. I know I would love to see it.
If you look around the internet you will find all sorts of different info on the neighborhoods of Worcester. Over at Buy Worcester Now they list the city as having 26 different neighborhoods. If you go to the city council website you will find that according to the city each district councilor represents about 12-15 different neighborhoods. At 5 districts that's about 75 neighborhoods. We all know Worcester doesn't have 75 different neighborhoods of course. My favorite breakdown of the neighborhoods and the one I feel to be the most correct is supplied in the Worcester Housing Study. The study breaks Worcester down into 15 submarkets along with maps that clearly define each of the submarkets.
Beaver Brook
College Hill
Downtown
East Side
Great Brook
Green Hill
Green Island
Greendale
Main South
North Side
Oak Hill
Piedmont
South East
South West
West Side
This is my favorite simply because I agree with it. I feel the way they have seperated the neighborhoods is correct culturally as well as the overall feel of the neighborhoods. There's a couple things I would change. I would extend the downtown neighborhood all the way to Chadwick Sq. I would leave the natural boundaries of Green Island intact and include the whole Canterbury St area with the rest of Main South. That is only two off the top of my head.
So why all this neighborhood talk?
I feel it's important.
I think there is a need to define Worcester's neighborhoods. To give them distinct boundaries. To profile them. To let the world know about them. To give people an expectation of what they will find when they visit them. To give people a bit of a guide as to what it is like to walk down the streets in these neighborhoods. If you are a Worcester resident or someone familiar with the city ask yourself this. If someone where to want to move here and they were to ask you where they should move, what would you say? If you asked them questions as to what kind of neighborhood they were looking for would you be able to give them an idea based on their response?
Simply put, if you break the city down into neighborhoods and then look at it that way it is easier to tackle some of the problems that ail it and feel good about some of the progress that it is making.
I think it is very easy to think of Worcester and think of it as just one big neighborhood. I know for a fact that is how a great deal of people who know of Worcester but don't KNOW Worcester feel about it.
Imagine a guide that broke down all the neighborhoods, what housing was like there, what the schools were like there, talked about the parks and the shopping and the nightlife or lack of in each of the neighborhoods. I think if there was something out there that did this and did it comprehensively I think the neighborhoods would really start to take shape. It is an insider's city. If I was to come here to live and not know anyone odds are I would end up in the wrong neighborhood. There is nothing telling me anything about any of the neighborhoods in the city online. This is something else that ails our urban core too. We are an old mill town. I feel we can get to the point where the city is asthetically pleasing but it is going to take a lot of time and we are already way behind in getting there. If you don't know the city the entire urban core most likely appears to you to be a train wreck that you are better off stearing clear of.
Maybe this is something the city could work on. Defining the neighborhoods. Fostering strong neighborhood associations who will take the reigns in the marketing of their neighborhoods. I know I would love to see it.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Cities and Towns
Inspired Mike Benedetti's post over at Worcesterite the other day I went to the city council website to write Phil Palmieri about the street vendor issue. While I was there I noticed that all of the councilors have their addresses up right on their profiles. I was curious.
Paulie over at Paulie's Point Of View has really been making a point to enlighten us about the fact that only one of our eleven city councilors actually lives within the urban core of Worcester, that one being District 4's Barbara Haller. Since I think it is pretty loosely defined and I am sure there will be some questions asked, I define the urban core pretty much by squares running from Chadwick Sq down Park Ave to Webster Sq down Cambridge St into College Sq, down 146 and up Providence St into the Rice Sq area and down Plantation across the hill to Lincoln St and Brittan Sq. That to me that is urban Worcester. You live within those boundaries and you are living in the city of Worcester. You live outside of that and you are living in the town of Worcester. Worcester really does exist on two different levels. You get outside of that urban core and it really is hard to tell you are in a city. Most people would say that is a plus, and I guess they are right. Here is the kicker though and here is the crazy crazy thing I found out.
I opened up map quest and threw all eleven of the councilor's addresses in there to find out if this was in fact true. It really is only the queen of district 4 that lives within the dirty scary filth that is Worcester's urban core. It is a fact. What I also found out though was even more disturbing.
Six of our councilors , more than half, live less than a mile from the end of the Worcester city limits. Along with Barbara, only Phil Palmieri (District 2), Paul Clancy (District 3), Gary Rosen (at large) and our Mayor Konnie Lukes (at large) live more than a stones throw of getting the hell out of Worcesterville. The other six councilors barely live in Worcester. BARELY! That's right Mike Germain, Joe Petty, Rick Rushton, Kate Toomey, Joff Smith, and Bill Eddy, I am talking to you.
See here is the thing. I lay my head down every night in the City of Worcester. When I walk outside to my car I do it in the City of Worcester. I probably spend about 120 hours a week in the City of Worcester. At least Mr. Palmieri and Mr. Clancy live a stones throw from the urban core, just outside of Brittan and Rice Squares respectively. Mayor Lukes and Mr. Rosen live on the West Side but in the most vibrant part of the West Side close to Chandler St and Tatnuck Square. The other six can't possibly know what my day to day is like. How I can't find a place to get a quick bite to eat in the downtown of the second biggest city in New England past 7pm. How people will not come into my neighborhood because they think it is "scary." How when I got mugged a few years ago on Beaver St a cop actually advised me that it would be better if I "just moved to the West Side." I like city living. Scratch that. I love city living. I live in a city however that just so happens to be two entities. A city and a town at the same time. Most of the money and influence resides in the town. It also happens to be run by an 11 member city council form of government, 10 of which don't actually live in the city.
If you are reading this and live within the urban core of Worcester do me a favor, next election vote these people out. If you enjoy city living and want your quality of life to be better, vote these people out and vote people in who actually live in the urban core. The Suburban 6 do not know what city living is all about. They for all intents and purposes live in the suburbs and you know what their dirty little secret is?
Go to any other desirable city in the US and take note of where the good parts are and where the bad parts are. Really all you have to do is take a look at where the bad parts are. They are on the outskirts. They are not in the center. The city part of Worcester is being left to die by people who have no stake what so ever in seeing it succeed. It would sure be nice and all but it is not even close to a priority for them. Look how long it takes to get stuff done! The one thing Worcester has in spades that every other city has is the negatives. The crime, the drugs, the homelessness, the grime, the pollution. The general unsightliness. This stuff is kept tightly inside the urban core. When was the last time you walked out of the White Hen at the corner of June and Chandler and someone asked you if you had any change? Worcester is being kept from sprawling within it's own city limits. You want to really give people who can only afford low income housing a nice place to live? Build them a nice high rise on the shores of Lake Quinsigamond or Indian Lake. Stop screwing my neighborhood up. Please! I am begging you!
VOTE THEM OUT!
Paulie over at Paulie's Point Of View has really been making a point to enlighten us about the fact that only one of our eleven city councilors actually lives within the urban core of Worcester, that one being District 4's Barbara Haller. Since I think it is pretty loosely defined and I am sure there will be some questions asked, I define the urban core pretty much by squares running from Chadwick Sq down Park Ave to Webster Sq down Cambridge St into College Sq, down 146 and up Providence St into the Rice Sq area and down Plantation across the hill to Lincoln St and Brittan Sq. That to me that is urban Worcester. You live within those boundaries and you are living in the city of Worcester. You live outside of that and you are living in the town of Worcester. Worcester really does exist on two different levels. You get outside of that urban core and it really is hard to tell you are in a city. Most people would say that is a plus, and I guess they are right. Here is the kicker though and here is the crazy crazy thing I found out.
I opened up map quest and threw all eleven of the councilor's addresses in there to find out if this was in fact true. It really is only the queen of district 4 that lives within the dirty scary filth that is Worcester's urban core. It is a fact. What I also found out though was even more disturbing.
Six of our councilors , more than half, live less than a mile from the end of the Worcester city limits. Along with Barbara, only Phil Palmieri (District 2), Paul Clancy (District 3), Gary Rosen (at large) and our Mayor Konnie Lukes (at large) live more than a stones throw of getting the hell out of Worcesterville. The other six councilors barely live in Worcester. BARELY! That's right Mike Germain, Joe Petty, Rick Rushton, Kate Toomey, Joff Smith, and Bill Eddy, I am talking to you.
See here is the thing. I lay my head down every night in the City of Worcester. When I walk outside to my car I do it in the City of Worcester. I probably spend about 120 hours a week in the City of Worcester. At least Mr. Palmieri and Mr. Clancy live a stones throw from the urban core, just outside of Brittan and Rice Squares respectively. Mayor Lukes and Mr. Rosen live on the West Side but in the most vibrant part of the West Side close to Chandler St and Tatnuck Square. The other six can't possibly know what my day to day is like. How I can't find a place to get a quick bite to eat in the downtown of the second biggest city in New England past 7pm. How people will not come into my neighborhood because they think it is "scary." How when I got mugged a few years ago on Beaver St a cop actually advised me that it would be better if I "just moved to the West Side." I like city living. Scratch that. I love city living. I live in a city however that just so happens to be two entities. A city and a town at the same time. Most of the money and influence resides in the town. It also happens to be run by an 11 member city council form of government, 10 of which don't actually live in the city.
If you are reading this and live within the urban core of Worcester do me a favor, next election vote these people out. If you enjoy city living and want your quality of life to be better, vote these people out and vote people in who actually live in the urban core. The Suburban 6 do not know what city living is all about. They for all intents and purposes live in the suburbs and you know what their dirty little secret is?
Go to any other desirable city in the US and take note of where the good parts are and where the bad parts are. Really all you have to do is take a look at where the bad parts are. They are on the outskirts. They are not in the center. The city part of Worcester is being left to die by people who have no stake what so ever in seeing it succeed. It would sure be nice and all but it is not even close to a priority for them. Look how long it takes to get stuff done! The one thing Worcester has in spades that every other city has is the negatives. The crime, the drugs, the homelessness, the grime, the pollution. The general unsightliness. This stuff is kept tightly inside the urban core. When was the last time you walked out of the White Hen at the corner of June and Chandler and someone asked you if you had any change? Worcester is being kept from sprawling within it's own city limits. You want to really give people who can only afford low income housing a nice place to live? Build them a nice high rise on the shores of Lake Quinsigamond or Indian Lake. Stop screwing my neighborhood up. Please! I am begging you!
VOTE THEM OUT!
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
I'd Like to Introduce A Theory
It's a pretty obvious theory, but it's a theory inspired by listening to a 508 podcast from a couple weeks ago. Mike, Brendan and Bruce talk at length about the proposterous perception that downtown Worcester is a scary and dangerous place. Unfortunately, while I do believe this perception to be completely unfounded, I do talk to more people who believe this than don't believe it.
I noticed while spending time in Central Sq in Cambridge a couple weeks ago that there are way way way more scary individuals on Mass Ave then any centralized location in Worcester. This however is where my theory comes in. While there were way more thugs, junkies, homeless, and overall shifty looking people in Central Sq there were also many other different types of people walking around. No matter what type of person you might consider yourself, chances are there were enough of your kind walking around in Central Sq so that you won't feel out of place. Of course there were people who wouldn't be able to take certain aspects of the Sq at all, but chances are these are people who just really don't like cities to begin with.
The theory is that for every upstanding person walking around the common and the general neighborhood of downtown Worcester there are nine shifty looking folks walking around. Now the reality is that these ten people may very well be the only people in the common at any given time, and there in lies the problem.
The city can do what they want to combat this, they can have foot patrols, they can take the benches out of Federal Sq (I am eating a bit of crow on this one I admit), and they can try and shew this population away. Guess what? We live in a city of almost 200,000 people. These people are here to stay. What the city needs to do is get creative and figure out ways to draw a broader range of people downtown so that folks feel comfortable in their own skin. We can criticize Central Massachusetts' citizens all we want for their unjust fear of Downtown, but I think it's only human nature for people to not feel quite right about being a minority, no matter what type of minority you are.
I noticed while spending time in Central Sq in Cambridge a couple weeks ago that there are way way way more scary individuals on Mass Ave then any centralized location in Worcester. This however is where my theory comes in. While there were way more thugs, junkies, homeless, and overall shifty looking people in Central Sq there were also many other different types of people walking around. No matter what type of person you might consider yourself, chances are there were enough of your kind walking around in Central Sq so that you won't feel out of place. Of course there were people who wouldn't be able to take certain aspects of the Sq at all, but chances are these are people who just really don't like cities to begin with.
The theory is that for every upstanding person walking around the common and the general neighborhood of downtown Worcester there are nine shifty looking folks walking around. Now the reality is that these ten people may very well be the only people in the common at any given time, and there in lies the problem.
The city can do what they want to combat this, they can have foot patrols, they can take the benches out of Federal Sq (I am eating a bit of crow on this one I admit), and they can try and shew this population away. Guess what? We live in a city of almost 200,000 people. These people are here to stay. What the city needs to do is get creative and figure out ways to draw a broader range of people downtown so that folks feel comfortable in their own skin. We can criticize Central Massachusetts' citizens all we want for their unjust fear of Downtown, but I think it's only human nature for people to not feel quite right about being a minority, no matter what type of minority you are.
Frickin' Lowell
I am usually not totally ashamed to be from Worcester.
http://www.lowellsummermusic.org/page.php?page=root/home.htm
When Lowell is kicking your ass culturally it is time to seriously reevaluate. I think the best we can come up with is Orleans on Shrewsbury St maybe five years ago? Go to that link. There are some serious names on there.
http://www.lowellsummermusic.org/page.php?page=root/home.htm
When Lowell is kicking your ass culturally it is time to seriously reevaluate. I think the best we can come up with is Orleans on Shrewsbury St maybe five years ago? Go to that link. There are some serious names on there.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Priorities People!
Every once in a while something comes to my attention that makes me realize how messed up the cities priorities are and how time and time again they fail to see the big picture. This memo was left in my door the other day. Check this ridiculousness out.
Attention: Residents of 50, 76, and 82 Franklin Street
Dear Resident,
I am sad to report that the City of Worcester's Director of Parks and Recreation called this morning to inform me that because some of our residents who own dogs do not clean up after their pets, dogs are no longer allowed in the Worcester Commons park, behind City Hall.
Unfortunately, it s necessary to remind our residents that responsible pet ownership includes consideration for others, and cleaning up your pet's waste matter.
Now that dogs are no longer permitted in Worcester Commons, if you are found walking your dog there, you will be fined $200, and your pet confisacted. Any questions concerning this matter may be directed to management at the leasing office located on the 1st floor of 50 Franklin St.
Now I fully understand that folks need to pick up and dispose of their dogs doggy doo doo. And I also agree that if you don't you are kind of an asshole, but this seems a bit extreme doesn't it? There are quite a few dog owners in the building who are probably here because they have found a building where they can live right in the middle of the city and still have a dog and have a nice place to walk the dog. Has the city thought about putting up bags to dispose of the waste? Maybe they need to conduct a million dollar research study on this that will take 3 years to complete that they will just ignore anyways. Of course we all know that the biggest problem with the lack of attractiveness of the Common is dog shit. What we really really don't need is responsible dog owners who already live here moving the hell out of downtown when their lease is up over something so harmless as compared to the bigger picture of the things that ail our downtown.
I have a memo to send too. It goes something like this.
Attention: Residents of Worcester Massachusetts and surrounding municipalities
Dear Resident,
I am sad to report that the people of Worcester called this morning to inform me that because some of our residents who own human bodies do not clean up after themselves, drunks and junkies are no longer allowed in the Worcester Commons park, behind City Hall.
Unfortunately, it is necessary to remind our residents that being a responsible member of society includes consideration for others and cleaning up after yourself and not being intrusive and intimidating to other people who are trying to use the park.
Now that drunks and junkies are no longer permitted in Worcester Commons, if you are found walking there, and you are a vagrant, you will be fined $200, and your freedom confiscated for 24 hours. Any questions concerning the matter may be directed to the Worcester Police Department, Lincoln Square.
Thank you for your consideration, and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
The Citizens of Worcester, Massachusetts
Attention: Residents of 50, 76, and 82 Franklin Street
Dear Resident,
I am sad to report that the City of Worcester's Director of Parks and Recreation called this morning to inform me that because some of our residents who own dogs do not clean up after their pets, dogs are no longer allowed in the Worcester Commons park, behind City Hall.
Unfortunately, it s necessary to remind our residents that responsible pet ownership includes consideration for others, and cleaning up your pet's waste matter.
Now that dogs are no longer permitted in Worcester Commons, if you are found walking your dog there, you will be fined $200, and your pet confisacted. Any questions concerning this matter may be directed to management at the leasing office located on the 1st floor of 50 Franklin St.
Now I fully understand that folks need to pick up and dispose of their dogs doggy doo doo. And I also agree that if you don't you are kind of an asshole, but this seems a bit extreme doesn't it? There are quite a few dog owners in the building who are probably here because they have found a building where they can live right in the middle of the city and still have a dog and have a nice place to walk the dog. Has the city thought about putting up bags to dispose of the waste? Maybe they need to conduct a million dollar research study on this that will take 3 years to complete that they will just ignore anyways. Of course we all know that the biggest problem with the lack of attractiveness of the Common is dog shit. What we really really don't need is responsible dog owners who already live here moving the hell out of downtown when their lease is up over something so harmless as compared to the bigger picture of the things that ail our downtown.
I have a memo to send too. It goes something like this.
Attention: Residents of Worcester Massachusetts and surrounding municipalities
Dear Resident,
I am sad to report that the people of Worcester called this morning to inform me that because some of our residents who own human bodies do not clean up after themselves, drunks and junkies are no longer allowed in the Worcester Commons park, behind City Hall.
Unfortunately, it is necessary to remind our residents that being a responsible member of society includes consideration for others and cleaning up after yourself and not being intrusive and intimidating to other people who are trying to use the park.
Now that drunks and junkies are no longer permitted in Worcester Commons, if you are found walking there, and you are a vagrant, you will be fined $200, and your freedom confiscated for 24 hours. Any questions concerning the matter may be directed to the Worcester Police Department, Lincoln Square.
Thank you for your consideration, and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
The Citizens of Worcester, Massachusetts
Friday, May 2, 2008
Little Big Wheel, Mike MacDonald and the Widowmakers, and Necktie Party tonight in Worcester!
For a New England state that for the most part is free of tumbleweeds, cowboys, and the wide open range, Massachusetts is developing one hell of an alt country/Americana community. Come see three of it's best as Little Big Wheel and Necktie Party join forces with Boston's Mike MacDonald and the Widowmakers for a night of music any self respecting Uncle Tupelo/Graham Parsons/Wilco fan should not miss.
The Hotel Vernon
1 Millbury Street in Kelley Square
Worcester MA
21+, $5 Cover
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)