Well we won't agree then because I love the park and have half season tix lol.
Worcester Infill and Developments
- Thread starter stick n move
- Start date
Well we won't agree then because I love the park and have half season tix lol.
Blackbird
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,132
- Reaction score
- 1,603
I feel like “a lack of charm” is Worcester’s whole aesthetic. It’s a city that aims more for “industrial chic” and should be judged as such.
The old brick building I work in has a little TOO much charm, leaky roof, squeeky floors. tiny old bathroom single occupany shared by other tenats
Architecturally it's an F.
which Is subjective. I enjoy the atmosphere and layout of it, and appreciate the homage to worcester's industrial nature of train yards full of corrugated boxes haha. Like I said, I can already tell we wont agree on what is cool and what is not. Like I definetely think the home i'm building in Worcester is cool, but not everyone would
found5dollar
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 400
just a smattering of "cool" things from the not so distant past in Worcester that I can think of off the top of my head:
-The Hanover Theatre Conservatory
-Brickbox Theater
-The Grid district
-Carroll Plaza revamp
-Worcester Common renovation w/ skating rink
-growth of stART on the Street
-WRTA Hub building
-Canal District streetscape improvements
-Union Station Center Platform addition
-Blackstone Heritage Corridor Visitor Center
-Courthouse Lofts
-Edge at Union Sq
-Kelley Square Market
-MCPHS campus
-Worcester Art Museum new entrances and accessibility improvements
Yes there are tragic instances of churches being torn down, but there is also a ton of wonderful things, and wonderful developments, in Worcester.
So it seems like the only thing actually good is the repurposing of old buildings, rather than tearing the entire city down. That's all well and fine but it isn't new. There isn't a new build in the last 40 years that appears to have any sort of architecture significance. 5 over 1's don't count, ever. Every suburb of Boston is adding that garbage. At this point even the Waltham's and Watertown's of the world are becoming more interesting "cities" than Worcester.
It's sad because it does feel like, outside of the immediate Boston bubble, 85% of the rest of the state is dead dead dead. What's the next most thriving place outside of the 128 belt? Maybe Lowell?
It's sad because it does feel like, outside of the immediate Boston bubble, 85% of the rest of the state is dead dead dead. What's the next most thriving place outside of the 128 belt? Maybe Lowell?
Several things in that list are new construction, not refurbs
Which ones are the new construction that are superior to a 5 over 1?
Well first of all Alta is 4 on 1 and and SOMA is 5 on 2 technically but recent developments other than those listed above are WRTA, the Public market. Carrol plaza and Rockland trust plaza, the new visitors center, the union station expansion. The new Kelley square.. pretty. Much everything Clark and wpi has built recently
Polar park is not a 5 on 1 and it's a unique design so whether you think so or not I consider it significant
So it's been confirmed, nothing noteworthy. It always used to amaze me that Worcester was somehow New England's "2nd biggest" city. Then I compared the square miles against some of the cities behind it and it all made sense.
I don't think I'd put Worcester in my Top 10 New England cities. If I included all of Boston' inner suburbs separately, I'm not sure it would be a Top 10 Massachusetts city. My closest comparison is Durham, North Carolina. There's no reason to ever set foot in either place again.
I don't think I'd put Worcester in my Top 10 New England cities. If I included all of Boston' inner suburbs separately, I'm not sure it would be a Top 10 Massachusetts city. My closest comparison is Durham, North Carolina. There's no reason to ever set foot in either place again.
found5dollar
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 400
I'm worry of feeding the troll but I think it is worth noting that the Pritzker Prize last year went to Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal, architects known for their reuse and refurbishment of existing buildings. Bringing an existing building back to life is more sustainable and more practical then tearing it down to construct something new. We can't both be decrying tearing down churches to build new buildings then also getting mad that the city is reusing the buildings it has instead of tearing them down to build new ones.
The only thing that has been confirmed is that your opinion alone does not make it so. Seems right now the note worthless are winning 2-1. Majority rules, sorry.
Also, Portland Maine is twice the square mileage of Worcester. Springfield, the number 4 city, is about the same size
I'd also add I like the design of the Unum building as far as office buildings go. And the design the the mercantile restaurant
Last edited:
I think DZH22 might be one of those folks that think nothing is significant unless it is very tall.
Worcester has a lot of basic things to fix before it goes shooting for some grand architectural relevance, but the good news is the city is actually making tangible progress in that regard, which is not something you could say a decade ago. Polar Park won't win any design awards, and I'm still not comfortable with public money spent on stadia, but it's become a hit and the first time I can recall something people really want to come into town for. The downtown area is creeping slowly into being more welcoming. Housing options are improving - if I was young and single I'd be taking a serious look at the area by Union Station.
This stuff takes time and so much of Worcester's past has been littered with grand schemes that ultimately fell flat. The more measured growth it's seeing now may actually be sustainable and that will get it to a place in the future that allows better for shooting for the moon.
This stuff takes time and so much of Worcester's past has been littered with grand schemes that ultimately fell flat. The more measured growth it's seeing now may actually be sustainable and that will get it to a place in the future that allows better for shooting for the moon.
For Worcester, 10+ floors.
Bringing the existing buildings back to life is a critical way to revitalize a moribund city like Worcester. Nobody is denying that. However, FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDPOINT that also makes it the most boring phase of the process. Nothing new or different is being added. Basically, you're taking an old building where the original use has run its course, and updating it to make it viable today. That's an awesome thing! It also adds nothing architecturally! The same buildings are still there. The city essentially LOOKS the same, although certain old buildings went from their last legs to a new life (typically as residential).
So the way I see it, most of what's happening doesn't fill in any new blocks or empty lots, or visually change the city. Those buildings that do fill in are the same 4-7 story pieces of junk that are popping up in literally every suburb inside 95 or on 495. Multiple beautiful old churches can't avoid the wrecking ball and are replaced with complete junk.
Now look at a city like Portland, filling in small lots downtown, densifying its footprint, even putting up a new tallest. There's an exciting city in a serious growth phase. The "half our city is comprised of abandoned buildings that need to be converted" phase is over. At this point every year that city seems to get bigger. If I go back to Worcester in 40 years, what will I find? Still all the same buildings, except maybe a few new stores and restaurants? No more beautiful old churches? No new buildings over 10 floors in a 40 year span? Add in that the downtown layout makes walks boring and predictable, and doesn't seem to attract interesting development so really hasn't improved since I first went 20+ years ago. Unless I want to watch minor league baseball or attend a specific event there's no reason to go to Worcester.
I guess that's the main source of disagreement. You don't need to be tall to be architectural significant. Hell some of these architecturally significant churches that were torn down aren't 10 strories..
Also being tall doesn't make something architecturally significant either. Lots of what is built in Boston is soulless and no more unique than a 5 on 1. Just glass and lacking in life or warmth. You can be tall and "meh"
Being tall makes it visible. Being tall means it gets added to the total city view. 4-7 story landscrapers do not fit this bill. Worcester's downtown looks the same as it did 30 years ago (only worse due to the destructive policies) because nothing tall enough to stand out has been built since then.
If you want to be overly proud about the types of developments that we regularly pan when they're built by Alewife, that's your prerogative. It's also the reason why Worcester is a complete waste of time and energy for most people on this board. A single visit to see the remaining historical structures is all that's necessary, and then the city has given no reason to ever go back (except minor league baseball I guess).
The one thing we can agree on is that height isn't the end-all be-all for a city. If it was, I wouldn't have Worcester so far behind other New England cities like Portland, Lowell, Portsmouth, and Salem. It's just that when you already have such a lame downtown then the only thing that's going to make me want to revisit is building something of architectural significance. Instead Worcester chooses to regularly go in the other direction. It feels like the city still hasn't recovered from 1953.
Then why is it at 14% growth rate while every other city around is around 7% . The Canal area barely looks the same as when I moved here 5 years ago let alone when I visited the city decades ago. Had no foot traffic, barely any roads or sidewalks, a few small businesses. Very few residents, no ice center, no market, no ballpark, old vacant buildings and old vacant lots. No Saturdays and Sundays of people crowded the shops and restaurants.
When you focus on nothing but the height of buildings in a downtown. You miss what actually makes a city interesting for residents and visitors. Building a tall building will not save a city
I focus first on walkable neighborhoods and I wouldn't want to walk anywhere in Worcester beyond the downtown. I'm not going to drive 50 miles to see a nice new intersection of 6 story nondescript whatever-type buildings. So as a visitor, if a city's downtown sucks, then the city sucks. That's kind of how it works.
Also, the rest of the growth is because you have so many empty buildings for conversions. Architecturally, preservation is both the most critical as well as most boring step when a city is trying to turn itself around.