Haverhill, now a typical New England manufacturing city, in its three hundred years' history has developed from a hardscrabble frontier village to its present high position in the industrial world. - Massachusetts; a guide to its places and people, written and compiled by the Federal writers' project of the WPA (1937).
Before we get started on today’s post, let’s play a game I like to call “pronouncing New England towns.” I want you to say the name “Haverhill” aloud with what you think is the most likely pronunciation.
Now, come up with a backup pronunciation, just in case you’re wrong.
Got them? OK… It’s “HAY-vrull”. Thanks for playing! Better luck next time.
Haverhill’s Economic Context
Like its pronunciation, the problems in Haverhill may appear more straightforward than they really are. Although it’s not as diverse or populous as other Gateways it contains a number of unique economic challenges.
One of the original three Gateway cities in the Northeast, Haverhill has been overshadowed in terms of media coverage and popular familiarity by Lowell and Lawrence. This is good and bad: Haverhill certainly has less of a negative image than Lawrence, but from the state perspective it doesn’t come to mind easily. To give you an idea: when someone says that they live in Haverhill, they don’t get the immediate raised eyebrow that “I live in Fall River” or “I live in Lawrence” does. At the same time, most Massachusetts residents are probably only aware of it as a highway exit on the way to the Maine or New Hampshire coast.
The problems in Haverhill are also a bit more idiosyncratic – or depending on your perspective, quotidian – than the most disadvantaged Gateway Cities. It borders New Hampshire, which has lower taxes and against which it must fight to keep businesses and shopping centers. It’s spread over a large area, which makes service provision more expensive but also brings in different types of industries and business.
Despite these factors, Haverhill is undoubtedly one of the better positioned Gateway Cities. Recent MassINC analysis showed that Haverhill is one of the only Gateway Cities to add a substantial number of jobs in the past ten years, and the one least dependent on the health care sector. Haverhill’s job growth profile matches Boston much more than Springfield or Worcester, which have replaced declining jobs in other sectors with job increases in health services, especially jobs treating people living in poverty.
The feel of the city is quite comfortable. The nicest parts are something to be very proud of. Unfortunately – and this is something that I’m sure almost all residents would acknowledge – the edges to the best places in the city are sharp and clear. You can drive down the main drag past beautiful brick facades and upon crossing a dividing street, enter into an unmistakably downtrodden and drab area.
Although as a Gateway City Haverhill necessarily has a higher poverty level than the average Massachusetts town, I don’t get the feeling that overwhelming poverty is the issue. It’s that the assets are not evenly spread around the city. This is totally natural – every city has a concentration of attractive elements in one part of town – but holds special problems for small and mid-sized cities.
In a way, my experience in Haverhill provides a more complete picture of what I observed in New Bedford – that revitalization of a favored sector is a necessary first step but has to catalyze greater change throughout the city.
Haverhill’s Big Plans
The city has a number of big developments that they hope will create the conditions for change, although most are fairly embryonic. The strategy centers largely around the river and waterfront.
Foremost among these is Harbor Place, a new development replacing a long abandoned Woolworth’s building that has become an eyesore in the eastern part of downtown. The new building will provide commercial space and a satellite campus of UMass Lowell. The design strives to incorporate outdoor space and placemaking, both of which are sorely needed on the street.
The western half of downtown, from the convenient commuter rail stop to roughly Essex street, is well developed and charming. The eastern half, from Essex to the bridge adjacent to Harbor Place, has a lot of work left. Haverhill plans to use Harbor Place as leverage to change how the neglected half of downtown looks and feels.
Not a bad strategy overall, although it follows a “downtown first and the rest will follow” approach similar to New Bedford. The city has attracted a lot of public investment in this area specifically, and I understand why small cities without much economic development capacity have to focus on their core in this era of downtown revitalization. One hopes, though, that city leadership is focused on improving the other areas of town alongside it.
Haverhill has started taking an interesting approach to making the city more livable. Beyond the beginning of a bike loop and boardwalk, they’re trying to make it a boating destination from Newburyport and the Atlantic. I know as little about boating as I do about Massachusetts town pronunciation, so I don’t know how viable this is, but it seems like an interesting, outside the box line of thinking.
The centrality of the river to the city’s development plans is an interesting case study for all Gateway Cities. As Haverhill tries to move forward on new projects, it’s caught in a battle against its historical self, a question that comes up consistently across the state: what do we take from our past, and what do we leave behind?
The Merrimack River and the Gateways’ Connection to the Past
For a city, connection to the past can be a double-edged sword. Although it gives a city some comfortable precedent to cling to, it can also stop the place moving forward. At some level, all the Gateway Cities face a similar challenge: although they have a troublesome past of disinvestment and “legacy industries,” most of their greatest assets are also a result of their history.
Towns that grew in the 18th/19th century all have some similar problems. In cities like Haverhill, the river was first used by industry in a way that makes no sense for the town as it exists today. Whether for mills or factories, the water was at best the equivalent to a modern highway, moving goods in and out. At worst, it was a dump that conveniently kept pollution flowing. Physical construction of the city is based on a time when the incentives were exactly backwards. People unfortunately had to be near the river, so they built with their backs to it.
While the river used to be something to avoid and pollute, now it is quite picturesque. If the city was founded today, the riverside area would represent the highest value property in the city. In this case, blindly following historical precedent – turning away from the river – would be disastrous.
Here’s where the history of the city has thrown us an interesting curveball: as far as an existing city goes, an underutilized waterfront is as blank slate as it gets. It would be impossible to have pockets deep enough to buy land for development projects if many established businesses were already in the area; Haverhill is only able to build their redevelopment plan around Harbor Place because the area was neglected for so long.
Whether in industry or land use, cities turn to what brought them success in the past but often the past has put us on the totally wrong track. Occasionally it brings an unexpected consequence that has huge relevance today. Gateway Cities have to hold these two trends in tension.
This is not to suggest that cities ought to neglect their assets in the hope of future opportunities. When small cities do act, they tend to rush to copy what’s hot right now, without giving thought to whether their local character, environment, or citizens will support it. If ten years ago Haverhill had torn down all the blighted buildings and built new river-facing condos, it might have met immediate needs, but an area only has the sense of place it needs if it spends some energy preserving its character.
Community Planning for the Past, Present and Future
Preserving historical character while embracing forward thinking is not very controversial advice. But in practice it’s difficult to get real commitment to these principles. It requires the development of an economic and land use strategy and the involvement of citizens in the planning process. Some of Haverhill’s nearby neighbors (a Portsmouth, New Hampshire or a Newburyport, MA) have cultivated a quaint colonial look that promotes a lot of tourism and comfortable quality of life, but Haverhill would have difficulty dropping those strategies in from the top down. The city’s just not built for it and would have to compete against these towns that have higher quality assets.
It takes a lot of soul-searching for a city to come to its economic strategy, but there’s just no alternative. The places like Haverhill that do a good job preserving the historical while moving forward are the places where the future will be brightest.
In Harbor Place, Haverhill has the start of a good plan. Now it’s about implementing it. I look forward to seeing the results.