jackiedoherty.org

News, schools, and views from a uniquely Lowell perspective
9th September 2007

Kerouac up; Lowell down (and out)

posted in City Life, In the News |

I always turn first to the Ideas section of the Boston Sunday Globe and, today, found Lowell featured on the front page under the dismal headline:  “What Renaissance?”  The same section features an article about Jack Kerouac’s ‘newly-burnished reputation.’  Yes, the author of On the Road is now ‘in’, having been recently inducted into the Library of America, joining Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck and other literary legends; while, of course, being the subject of much celebration here in town on the 50th anniversary of the publication of his major work.

Lowell, however, is apparently ‘out’.  According to the article, Lowell’s heyday is over, and the ‘Lowell miracle’ is being questioned by many, including our own Bob Forrant, professor of regional economics at UML.  The criticisms seem to be that Lowell’s emphasis has been on large construction projects (such as the Arena, the National park and the stadium) to the detriment of the working class, and that city officials have consistently over-emphasized the city’s gains.   The really damning statistic is that Lowell’s poverty rate went up astronomically between 1980 and 2000, compared with Brockton, Fall River and Worcester.  This is worrying and gives credence to the fear, expressed by city council candidate Darius Mitchell in the last election, that there are ‘two Lowells.’

It might be interesting to graph Kerouac’s reputation alongside of Lowell’s.  Jack Kerouac came out of the post-industrial Lowell.  He was down a long time after his initial success, especially as his reputation was conflated with a generation with which he disagreed vehemently, struggling to disavow the title ‘King of the Beats.’  His talent though was real and is now more widely recognized.  I don’t dispute the points that Bob Forrant is trying to make, but I think the Globe author was stretching to make his point that Lowell is a failure:  the poverty statistics from 2000 are now nearing a decade old, positive events like the opening the Brew’d Awakening Coffee Shop occurred in the last five years, even Middlesex Street (a photo of empty storefronts on Middlesex Street is in the story) is showing some signs of revitalization and the National Park was surely the saving of the city - not in the same league as stadium and arena projects.  In addition, Manager Bernie Lynch had good answers to many of the criticisms raised, including the fact that ‘experimentation is part of the Lowell model.’  Lowell will no doubt continue to have ups and downs, but there is something here that is real and that persists despite the current fashions in urban renewal.

There are currently 6 responses to “Kerouac up; Lowell down (and out)”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

  1. 1 On September 9th, 2007, massmarrier said:

    A thorough reading was not as dour as the head and call-outs. I got that the real criticism was that there had been no sudden Lowell miracle.

    I’m with you on the rebuttals. Plus, Lowell has been serving an important role for the commonwealth. As a staging ground for immigrants—you know, those people who make American strong and diverse—Lowell is vital. For decades, that spot was Boston’s West End. The shameful destruction of that neighborhood may have increased the per-capital income of the city, but it robbed thousands of the chance to become part of America, the chance that previous immigrants had gotten.

    I think you know I’m a Lowell fan. I’m willing to keep visiting, and to give it more time to rebound from such losses as Wang and continue its rebuilding efforts. Viva Lowell!

  2. 2 On September 10th, 2007, Margaret said:

    You’re right, MM, I was just annoyed that the author’s slant seemed way beyond what Bob Forrant was trying to say and also that a lot of the ciriticisms seemed dated. I moved here when Wang tanked in 1992, so I think I got in at a low point. Things are looking pretty good to me right now. Your point about Lowell as an immigration gateway is huge and should have been part of any article about the city!

  3. 3 On September 10th, 2007, Bob Forrant said:

    I’ve been saying for a while that the trick to making things work here in Lowell is the same energy that focuses on arts and entertianment related things and that has been geared to condo development needs a counterpart in employment creation so thta folks who have lived here for generations can afford to live here, not lose their home, and not see their college-educated children run away like earlier jobs did to the south and southwest. Whether we like the metaphor or not, there are indeed 2 Lowells – and wishing this situation away will not help the city out. I live here, work here, go to as many galleries and cultural events as I can, sit on the board of one of the museums, am on the city’s task force to fight homelessness, and always encourage my students to go downtown as much as they can. But, we need a partnership like COOL that works on the job front so that the glut of d’town empty store fronts slows and then ends, so that immigrant owned businesses get the same access to business help as businesses in the d’town, and so that UML and MCC focus a good deal of their energy on figuring out with city leaders and residents where good jobs are going to come from. I hope the Globe article stimulates a lot of people who care about Lowell to voice their opinions on this issue, one central to the future of the city. The city’s economic well being is greater than the opening of another nice restaurant downtown, even though i do love it when this takes place!

  4. 4 On September 11th, 2007, Margaret said:

    Hi, Bob! Is anyone at City Hall listening to your ideas? The COOL type partnership sounds like a good one. I don’t dispute the “two Lowells” viewpoint; through involvement in the public schools, I’ve seen it in action. Many of the middle-class families find a path through the system by knowing whom to call, which teachers to request, and their children come through fine. It’s true that parent involvement is lacking at all levels, but if the more educated, affluent parents don’t become more active in the schools because they don’t see any need (their kids are fine), then the schools will continue to lack a strong parental voice for change and accountability. (I do applaud the parents who are involved, and I think there are more of them than ever which is encouraging). By the way, if you haven’t already, check out the parallel discussion on Left in Lowell; the article is already doing what you hoped it would.

  5. 5 On September 11th, 2007, Bob Forrant said:

    I sent a longish response to the discussion to LIL, but it never got posted. Maybe missing in the either!

  6. 6 On September 15th, 2007, Jay said:

    I too was aghast when I read the Globe’s Ideas section and the apparent re-direction of Lowell’s ‘miracle’ turnaround. I also moved here (1993) as Wang was shipping out, and I have been witness to the renaissance. Living here, I have seen the larger development projects the city has invested in, and I have some reservations about the city’s ability to handle the debt service in the short term. But, as an architect working in this city, I’ve seen the many smaller development projects that make the big ones possible, and I am reminded of the confident spirit of Paul Tsongas, Pat Mogan and the many other courageous Lowellians who had the foresight to lay the foundation of this “economic gamble.”

    Thirty years ago the campus of UML was established here. Created out of two lesser institutions, it has become a force in this region. The plastics program is world class. The nanotechnology center is forming. The office of economic development wants to become the ‘greenest campus’ in the state and is talking about an expansion/development investment in the neighborhood of $260M. I don’t know which of the ‘2 Lowells’ will benefit from that, but it can’t be bad! Yes, Wang left. Then some enterprising gentlemen purchased the building for under $1M and guess what? A few years later, the building was sold for over $100M. Not bad! I don’t know which of the ‘2 Lowells’ benefited from that one either. But man, that’s a lot of taxes!Around 1994-5, Nick Sarris and George Behrakis bought a building right in the middle of the downtown for a song–a lovely old building in a downtrodden neighborhood. Drive down Merrimack Street today and that building is the centerpiece of a very nice stretch of real estate. Perhaps you’ve had dinner at La Boniche or browsed through the Barnes and Noble bookstore.

    Anyway, the point is, economic sustainability depends on many complex variables. If the city is to prosper, we must ultimately bring in more revenue than we spend. We must also attract and maintain the right balance of inhabitants. In the short term, sometimes you’ve got to borrow a little capital to take advantage of an opportunity. I think Lowell has overall leveraged itself pretty well for a dramatically better future. Only time, and the dedicated hard work of those who care, will tell for sure.

  • Blogroll

  • Contact Us

  • Education Links

  • Local Groups

  • Local media