An article by Caplan-Bricker (2018) titled “Inside Worcester’s development: What’s the catch?” discusses the living conditions in Worcester, MA, as they compare to those of Boston. The text touches upon several topics that pertain directly to gentrification. In particular, the article emphasizes how gentrification leads to population displacement and increased business costs while highlighting that high prices are not necessarily the complement of an urban lifestyle.
One aspect of gentrification that the article discusses is how it leads to population displacement due to the increasing living costs in renovated areas. The author notes that the rent prices in the new apartment building at 145 Front Street, starting from $1,000 for a studio and $2,100 for a two-bedroom apartment, are relatively high for Worcester (Caplan-Bricker, 2018). However, she also notes that these prices are exceedingly low for the living conditions offered by Boston standards. This was not always the case: for instance, Boston’s South End offered similar prices at the turn of the millennium (Caplan-Bricker, 2018). Yet gradual gentrification increased living costs in a matter of decades, up to the point when it would be hard to find an average one-bedroom apartment for less than $2,400 (Caplan-Bricker, 2018). As a result, the population is tempted to move from Boston to Worcester, as they perceive a longer commute to and from the workplace as an acceptable tradeoff for considerably lower rents. This population displacement pattern is one of the effects of gentrification highlighted in the text.
Another related aspect of the article is the impact that gentrification has on the costs of doing business. While population displacement is a notable effect in its own right, businesses also experience the rent increase in renovated neighborhoods. As a result of increased prices, some enterprises choose to relocate to cheaper locations that provide roughly the same clientele. Caplan-Bricker (2018) gives an example of Deadhorse Hill, a restaurant that moved to Worcester to cope with the increasing rent prices in Boston. According to the business owner, this relocation transferred directly to better service, as the company is now able to focus on “the menu, the drinks, caring about the people who walk in the door” rather than brooding over rent (para. 20). By using this example, the article showcases how gentrification leads to increased costs if doing business and may even drive the enterprises from a pricy renovated neighborhood.
Yet another point discussed in the text is that gentrification and the resulting increase in rent are not required for providing the experience of living in a vibrant and modern city. While Worcester may not be Boston’s competitor in innovation or education, it, nevertheless, is a pleasant place to live in, with all the facilities one might reasonably expect from a modern city. Its administration is working tirelessly to attract new businesses and improve infrastructure. The result, in Caplan-Bricker’s (2018) words, is that Worcester can “provide a hip, urban lifestyle at prices the hip, urban center to the east can no longer offer” (para. 8). Thus, the article stresses that gentrification is ultimately not necessary for creating and providing such experiences.
In conclusion, the article touches on numerous topics related to gentrification, be that population displacement of the business relocation. Yet whatever the topic is, it points to the same conclusions: gentrification does not seem to benefit either the population or businesses. At the end of the day, it is not necessary to provide a wholesome experience of living in a modern city – and, in the light of this fact, one may wonder whether it is right at all.
Reference
Caplan-Bricker, N. (2018). Inside Worcester’s development: What’s the catch? Boston Magazine. Web.