Lately the Globe has run a few articles worth considering together, all in their own way touching on the usefulness of an economically vital, smoothly functioning and attractive urban center:
1) A comparison between the paths of Providence and Worcester. I thought the article did a great job at assessing the factors particular to each city (e.g. Providence’s role as state capital) while presenting its thesis that the vitality of the downtown has led to the success or lack thereof of these cities.
In many respects, Worcester has done as well or better than Providence in improving schools, supporting neighborhoods, and increasing the number of jobs. But Worcester has yet to find the formula to revive its downtown, while Providence has restored its city center as a place to work, gather, and live.
As a result, Providence has built a reputation as a city on the move, while Worcester is overlooked.
It’s possible to overstate the “creative class” thesis, and I still think that some of Providence’s downtown renaissance is smoke and mirrors. After all, one still can’t find a place to make photocopies downtown, or buy office supplies, and Providence still lacks employment opportunities. But undoubtedly, the revitalization of downtown and central neighborhoods has given the city a boost in its self-image, which counts for something. It sounds like Worcester is finally taking the necessary steps to move toward a vital center city; let’s hope it takes. The same goes for the several “third cities” in Massachusetts: Lawrence, Lowell, Fall River and New Bedford. Each of these have two prime assets — a pre-automobile urban scale and pre-war housing stock — that will only make these places more valuable in the future.
2) A look at Boston’s first “Big Dig”, the construction of the underground subway. This may already be common knowledge, but one of the things that really struck me was the point that the main tunnels of the subway system were completed by 1918. Since then, there have been a couple of additions - I can think of the E line extension in the 1930s, the Red Line Extension to Alewife in the 1980s and a little tinkering with the Green Line from the Big Dig - but in essence all underground tunnels were done over 90 years ago. This might say something about Boston’s economic fortunes during the 20th century, but primarily it’s a statement on public transit in the age of the automobile and high labor costs. We probably can’t count on more substantial underground construction soon, especially after the Big Dig. Still, the Globe’s article is a good reminder at how useful and long-lasting the underground tunnels have been, even in comparison to the above-ground construction of the elevated, which now, with the Big Dig, is no longer extant in Boston.
3) An overview of plans to develop the Mystic River. I generally find the suburban area to the direct north of the city one of the worst laid out and least attractive. It’s encouraging to see a focus on waterfront development and New Urbanism guiding recent changes in the area.
We still don’t know what makes cities function well and what makes certain downtowns work. But at least we’re getting more consensus that policy needs to be directed to encourage the social and market forces that cohere in the city and that are in turn given expression by the city.
No comments have been added to this post yet.