“ 20+ Places to Eat, Shop, and Play on 14th Street.” Washington.org. Accessed 24 February 2017.
In this brochure, there is a brief but detailed description of the types of restaurants and other attractions on 14th Street that emphasize an appeal to the younger audience. It argues that the restaurant, bar and other businesses listed collectively are the epitome of DC culture.In other words, there is a focus on “swank” upscale seafood,Belgian cuisine, refurbished cafes, breweries and the sleek and rustic atmosphere. The purpose of the modern rhetoric reflected in this piece appears to emphasize an appeal to the audience through aesthetics, more than substance; but effective use of language also plays as much of a role as it ever has. The photos in this source are very bright, and the captions are brief.This seems to be a reflection of how little reading the modern culture wants to do before making a decision, rather they prefer to rely on imagery. This is very reflective of the internet age. In addition, many of the photos seemed to be up-close pictures of the food. This is a blatant marketing strategy.The intention of some of the restaurants was showing off their “modern” culture, while others showed pictures of the types of people that attended these places.
This source is a very useful for exhibiting the values of DC marketing, and its role in presenting the life of the city. In this day and age, aesthetics are everything. However, I would like to look into how this contrasts with the point of view of those who have lived in DC for a long time. The flashy appeal of the city’s brochure may present 14th Street in a positive light but may provide as much of the skepticism that modern DC deserves. There is a level of complexity to DC. I would like to know more about how this rosy presentation of DC compares or contrasts with the views of those who are fortunate enough to live on 14th today, and those who have seen the city change.
Milloy, Courtland. “Yes, 14th Street may be better these days, but something vital is missing.” Washington Post, 21 July 2015.
In his nostalgic piece “Yes, 14th Street may be better these bays, but something vital is missing”Washington Post, published July 21st, Courtland Milloy states that 14th Street may be full of life, in the sense that it has become more tourist friendly and certainly appeals to the modern audience.However, he feels that there has been a loss in the sense of community, that it once had. He believes that the local, majority black community of the 80’s was once the life of the city, and though it may be more modern now; the charm of the less gentrified, urban mood of past changed, and not necessarily for the better. He believes that those who have occupied the area more recently reflect an air of “aloofness”, “oblivious” to who he feels created the place we now know as modern DC.
I plan to use Milloy’s argument in the dialogue around how 14th street has reflected DC’s change. His point of view is a clear example of nostalgia and does not tell the whole story. Based on common knowledge about the crack epidemic in the 80s, DC may have been a place of comfort for those who lived in the area. However, there is plenty of documentation to show that racial or not, 14th and most of DC were unpleasant to live by ‘normal’ standards. Gentrification may have been an annoyance for those who have lived in DC around the time of the crack epidemic, and nostalgia is obviously a natural feeling; DC, in fact, was not as great by our standard as Milloy makes it out to be. This is crucial in understanding why DC has changed, and how it has affected different individual groups, as well as how this has been reflected in 14th street’s current presentation.