Worcester’s nothing fancy. It’s a midsize stop on a map, you might say, a city of stable opportunity whose resource is its people — and a pretty lucky place to land.
For many, now and in history, Worcester is where better lives are built.
That makes it worthy of the difficult work facing today’s leaders and residents: How, despite changes and challenges, do we keep Worcester’s legacy alive and make it the best home it can be?
Stirring our musings is that the city was the setting of an article in the New York Times Magazine last week. It also served as the interesting main character.
As vividly brought forth in the piece by Adam Davidson, “unlovely” Worcester has quietly and consistently provided the right ingredients to diverse generations of workers and strivers. Especially during the United States’ 100-year heydey of busy local factories and an economy that produced affordable goods as it expanded and empowered the middle class, Davidson writes, Worcester was a place where those who worked hard could create some success for themselves and pass it on.
Log in or subscribe to read the entire story. Only $2. No recurring charges.