Behav. Sci. 2014, 4, 341–351; doi:10.3390/bs4040341
behavioral
sciences
ISSN 2076-328X
www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci
Review
Commodification of Transitioning Ethnic Enclaves
Kathryn Terzano
Department of Geography and Regional Planning, Westfield State University, 577 Western Avenue,
Westfield, MA 01086, USA; E-Mail: kterzano@westfield.ma.edu; Tel.: +1-413-572-8314;
Fax: +1-413-572-5470
External Editor: Jack L. Nasar
Received: 27 April 2014; in revised form: 20 August 2014 / Accepted: 9 September 2014 /
Published: 29 September 2014
Abstract: This literature review examines the changing roles of ethnic enclaves, the
question of their authenticity, and their value as commodified spaces, giving special
attention to Little Italy neighborhoods in the United States. Understanding the roles of
ethnic enclaves requires some understanding about immigrants’ identities. For some
theorists, immigrants become blended into society over the course of generations; for other
theorists, descendants of immigrants sometimes retain their cultural heritage and traits,
helping form a multicultural or pluralist society. In the traditional sense, ethnic enclaves
consist of both ethnic residents and ethnic businesses (such as restaurants, shops, and
grocers). One way that ethnic enclaves change is when the area experiences a demographic
shift, and people from outside the ethnic group move their residences and businesses to the
neighborhood, resulting in the area becoming diversified in people and businesses. A
second way that an ethnic enclave changes is when the ethnic group shrinks, but the shops
and other businesses remain, resulting in the area becoming diversified in residents but not
businesses. This latter situation may encourage commodification of the neighborhood’s
ethnic identity, where a municipality or business association seeks to preserve an enclave’s
ethnic reputation for tourism purposes. This commodification has implications for many
individuals and groups within the enclave as well as outside of it.
Keywords: ethnic enclaves; branding; commodification
OPEN ACCESS
Behav. Sci. 2014, 4 342
1. Traditional Role of Enclaves
Prior to the late 19th Century, ethnic enclaves in North America were seen as temporary places as
immigrants assimilated into the host society [1]. Classic assimilation theorists were concerned with
how immigrants adapted over time to fit into American society and, furthermore, these theorists saw it
as necessary—And inevitable—For immigrants to eventually shed their ethnic identities to become
American themselves [1,2]. Regardless of whether one agrees with classic assimilation theory, it is
helpful to look at these theorists’ work because they studied how immigrant communities are formed
and the purposes that ethnic enclaves have served. As immigrants arrived in the U.S. and Canada, they
settled in areas where their compatriots lived. This process, referred to as chain migration, gave
newcomers easier access to housing, jobs, and socializing, particularly when they spoke little or no
English. As the number of immigrants grew, communities rose up around them. In enclaves,
immigrants could find familiar culture–grocers that sold ethnic food; churches and schools where the
immigrants’ native language was spoken; and businesses that were based on skills and goods for which
the immigrants were well known. In their new country, immigrants recreated the amenities of their
former countries and in doing so, created communities [1–4]. This trend of ethnic enclaves providing a
landing pad for recent arrivals continues today—What has changed is the ethnicity of the groups
creating new ethnic enclaves; rather than new Little Italies being formed, today’s newly created
enclaves are created by recently arrived immigrants from Southern and Southeast Asia, the Caribbean,
and Latin America [1].
2. Changing Enclaves
2.1. Demographic Changes
Most research on ethnic enclaves discusses either the formation of the enclave or the economic
benefits to members of it in the form of ethnic enclave economies [3]. Little attention has been paid to
the dissolution of enclaves, and although the Chicago School model would explain that acculturation
has occurred, this is not always accurate since straight-line assimilation into the American mainstream
is not the only explanation for why enclaves fade away [3]. Alternately, some ethnic enclaves were
destroyed during the 1950s through to the 1970s, when urban renewal was a common practice in city
planning departments and one result of this policy was the destruction of many minority
neighborhoods [5]. For example, Boston had a thriving, working-class, Italian-American neighborhood
in its West End, which was destroyed by urban renewal in the 1960s, displacing the residents who had
lived there [6].
In the traditional sense, ethnic enclaves consist of both ethnic residents and ethnic businesses (such
as restaurants, shops, and grocers). One way that ethnic enclaves change is when the area experiences a
demographic shift, and people from outside the ethnic group move their residences and businesses to
the neighborhood, resulting in the area becoming diversified in people and businesses. One notable
study looked at this kind of gentrification in Little Portugal, Toronto [7], where non-Portuguese-Canadians
are moving in and displacing the Portuguese population. In this particular neighborhood, demographic
change has resulted from Portuguese and Portuguese-Canadian residents moving out of the neighborhood
combined with an in-movement of new arrivals from Africa, Asia, and Latin America [7].
Behav. Sci. 2014, 4 343
A second way that an ethnic enclave changes is when the ethnic group shrinks, but the shops and
other businesses remain, resulting in the area becoming diversified in residents but not businesses. In
this situation, the ethnic group may have shrunk because members have died off, moved away, or some
combination of the two. This situation may encourage commodification and branding of the
neighborhood’s ethnic identity because this ethnic identity may give the neighborhood coherency and
may be widely regarded by city officials, neighborhood residents, and area business owners as a
drawing factor for local tourism.
The emergence of a new kind of ethnic enclave, the so-called ethnoburb, because of its location in
the suburbs of cities, has attracted some attention [8]. In certain instances, ethnoburbs arise because of
new immigrants to the area, but in other cases ethnoburbs form when urban residents move from
existing ethnic enclaves to these suburban locations [8]. In this sense, the emergence of ethnoburbs can
be seen as related to the dissolution of urban ethnic enclaves. The development of ethnoburbs relates to
the overall trend of suburbanization in North America, and has been observed among multiple ethnic
groups and in various cities [7–9]. These ethnoburbs may represent the future of ethnic enclaves,
especially in cities where low-rent properties are increasingly rare.
Enclaves and Changing Ethnicities
Occasionally, instead of the neighborhood becoming more diverse in its population and businesses,
a second minority ethnic group displaces the original ethnic group, and the enclave transitions into a
different ethnic enclave. As an example, Little Italy in Manhattan has contracted over the years as
Italians and Italian-Americans have moved out and neighboring Chinatown has increasingly expanded
into Little Italy [10]. The result is that some streets that have been part of Little Italy, historically, are
now culturally affiliated with Chinatown [10].
In Little Portugal, Toronto, the pattern of one ethnic group being replaced by a subsequent, second
ethnic group is related to suburbanization and gentrification [7]. Other ethnic groups, such as Jewish
and Italian groups, have increasingly moved to the suburbs, but the Portuguese relocation to the
suburbs has coincided with this area of Toronto (West-central Toronto) experiencing increased
gentrification since the 1980s [7]. Murdie and Teixeira [7] cover this topic of gentrification of ethnic
enclaves extensively in their article, using key informants and focus groups to report on differences of
perceptions of gentrification among Portuguese (including Portuguese-Canadians), non-Portuguese
recent immigrants, and British (including British-Canadians). Murdie and Teixeira’s study [7] treats
new residents as a group (“gentrifiers”) that is displacing the Portuguese-ethnic population rather than
diversifying the population of the neighborhood. Although Murdie and Teixeira discuss certain
positive impacts from gentrification, such as the potential for stabilization of a declining area, the
emphasis of the findings is on the negative impacts of gentrification [7].
Other ethnic enclaves appear to experience coethnicity, or what Luk and Phan [11] argue are multiple
ethnic groups coexisting within a single ethnic enclave, leading to an enclave that is an amalgam of two
or more ethnicities. In their case study of Chinatown West, they focus on the businesses in the
neighborhood and document the increasing presence of Sino-Vietnamese businesses [11]. They discuss
how these Sino-Vietnamese businesses are replacing the departing Hong Kong Chinese businesses,
and they characterize this change as a transition, but they also argue for the recognition that one
Behav. Sci. 2014, 4 344
enclave can have multiple ethnicities—As opposed to defining an ethnic enclave as being composed of
one ethnic group only [11]. This line of thinking is in agreement with earlier work by Harney [12],
who finds that ethnic enclaves often have more than one ethnic group present, as well as with Wei [8],
who finds that suburban ethnic enclaves are generally multiethnic. However, this conflicts with at least
one recent study [13]. In this study, Zhou offers a case study of Koreatown in Los Angeles—Where, at
the time of writing, Latinos (mainly Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans) comprised about
two-thirds of the population and Koreans comprised only about one-fifth of the population—But notes
that such a multiethnic enclave is unusual [13].
2.2. Commodification and Branding
When members of an ethnic group move out of the enclave or their numbers within the enclave
thin, but the municipality or others decide to preserve the enclave’s ethnic reputation for tourism, the
ethnic identity has been turned into a commodity. Sometimes this commodification is evident through
physical identifiers in the enclaves, such as banners that advertise the enclave’s name, posters, and
other forms of traditional advertisement [14].
Consider Chinatown in Washington, D.C. It is no longer where a majority of ethnic Chinese in the
District lives; yet, the city uses the marketing of Chinese restaurants and ethno-cultural diversity for
tourism dollars [15]. The area is artificially preserved through the actions of city planners and a
handful of Chinatown business owners, who began their efforts to reinvigorate Chinatown after the
neighborhood experienced population loss following the race riots of the 1960s. For example,
Washington, D.C.’s Office of Planning has design review criteria for new businesses in Chinatown that
include the “contribution of building design, including signage and awnings, to the Chinese identity of
Chinatown” [16]. These shops and restaurants attract tourists who value the cultural or ethnic other,
and whose spending offers support for the preservation of the area, as well as generating revenue
through the city [15]. Tourists, in this sense, refer to both local residents who live outside the enclave
as well as people visiting from other cities. A similar argument that commodification is taking place
could be made for Koreatown in Los Angeles, whose Korean population, as noted above, is smaller
than its Latino population, yet the neighborhood continues to be branded as Koreatown [13].
Occasionally, this ethnic identity is perpetuated by outsiders as well. In the case of Little Italy, New
York, a peculiar phenomenon exists where Albanian Kosovars pass themselves off as Italian [17].
These Albanian Kosovars largely work in the restaurant industry and market both their own ethnic
identity, as well as the restaurants’ associated ethnicity, as being Italian, even adopting Italian and
Italian-American nicknames and using common Italian phrases, such as for greetings [17]. To
outsiders, such as tourists to Little Italy, these Albanian Kosovars appear to be Italians.
2.2.1. The Role of Enclaves for Outsiders
Mainstream America has held various views of ethnic enclaves over the years. Prior to around
World War II, enclaves were seen as necessary to keep ethnic and non-white individuals separated
from white Americans [1]. For some ethnic groups, such as northwestern European groups, enclaves
developed wherever the groups chose to settle with few restrictions. For groups seen as non-white
(including Jews and Italians, historically), geographical choices were more limited, especially on the
Behav. Sci. 2014, 4 345
city level, as spatial discrimination through practices such as redlining kept racial and ethnic groups
separated [1,18,19]. These non-white enclaves, particularly Asian enclaves, came to be seen as exotic
with the hint of danger, crime, and illicit activities (e.g., prostitution, opium dens), which
simultaneously repelled and intrigued white America [1,20].
Although everyday residents of enclaves have generally been unsupportive of marketing efforts
toward outsiders, business owners in enclaves realized long ago they could make a greater profit by
attracting these outsiders to their businesses [20,21]. Rodriguez notes how, during the 1930s, business
owners in Chinatown, San Francisco, supported installing “Chinese-style storefronts”, and some
Chinatown merchants required their shop employees to wear traditional Chinese clothing during
festivals [20] (p. 72). These decisions were made as part of a larger marketing strategy to attract nonChinese
tourists to the neighborhood.
Umbach and Wishnoff specifically address the split between the merchant elites and the everyday
residents of Manhattan’s Chinatown. They discuss three city planning initiatives between 1950 and
2005 that, they argue, were attempts to “fashion an urban space that exploited exoticized notions of the
quarter and its residents” [21] (p. 214). However, while the everyday residents may have resisted these
initiatives, the merchants were in favor of these schemes going forward. Furthermore, each of these
planning schemes involved physical changes to Chinatown to highlight the Chinese ethnic character of
the neighborhood. Umbach and Wishnoff [21] refer to these physical changes as “faux-Chinese
architecture” throughout their article, and describe how this kind of exoticized architecture was
thought to attract tourists, whose spending benefits the merchants. Umbach and Wishnoff [21] are
careful to make the distinction between the merchants and everyday residents. They report on how the
everyday residents generally opposed the three planning schemes. For example, one of the planning
schemes proposed installing a Chinese-style arch in 2005, but the residents opposed construction that
appeared to be directed to tourists and not Chinatown residents.
Mazumdar et al. [22] discuss a different perspective through their examination of Little Saigon in
Westminster, California (which is in the Los Angeles area). In their study of this enclave, they found
via interviews that residents supported having Vietnamese-style architecture in their neighborhood.
Whereas residents in Rodriguez’s San Francisco Chinatown and Umbach and Wishnoff’s Manhattan
Chinatown found the Chinese-style architecture to be inauthentic, this was not the case in Little
Saigon. Instead, Mazumdar et al. [22] see the physical construction of ethnic identity to be an
important component alongside the social construction and maintenance of Vietnamese identity within
the enclave. They argue that Little Saigon’s Vietnamese-style architecture “communicates its Asian
heritage, reaffirming ethnic identity, expressing nostalgia for places left behind, and ‘engraving’ on the
new landscape memories from the past” [22], (p. 323). They further contend that the Vietnamese-style
architecture announces the Vietnamese community to outsiders, serving as a welcome form of
marketing about the goods and services available within the neighborhood.
2.2.2. The Question of Authenticity
Several studies have examined the role of ethnic enclaves for outsiders—Their commodification of
the ethnic identity for business or tourism purposes—And have connected this concern with whether
these neighborhoods, when commodified, are authentically ethnic [6,7,9,15,20,21,23]. When ethnic
Behav. Sci. 2014, 4 346
enclaves retain their residential component, they may also be seen as retaining their ethnic identity in
an authentic way. For example, Hackworth and Rekers [9] discuss four Toronto neighborhoods that are
also Business Improvement Areas. Each of these neighborhoods is branded as an ethnic enclave,
having a strong commercial ethnic identity associated with it, and elite merchants and the city have
purposefully maintained these commercial ethnic identities to increase tourism dollars [9]. Thus, it is
the commercial identity that attracts tourists, not the residential identity.
Hackworth and Rekers’ research attempts to describe markers of authenticity in an ethnically
identified neighborhood. One marker concerns the residential component of the neighborhood. If the
residents of the neighborhood identify with the same ethnicity as that of the neighborhood identity, the
neighborhood is thought by the authors to be more authentically ethnic. Additionally, if residential real
estate in the neighborhood is comparably priced to other neighborhoods in the metropolitan area, this
is another sign of authenticity. Hackworth and Rekers differentiate between two commercially
Italian-ethnic neighborhoods in Toronto, one of which maintains an Italian residential component and
is thought of as authentic, whereas the other neighborhood is only commercially Italian and is thought
to be less authentic.
Hackworth and Rekers [9] argue that an increase in the number of restaurants and a decrease in the
number of grocers is another sign of an ethnic neighborhood that is catering more to tourists than its
own residents. In turn, a neighborhood that focuses on attracting tourists more than serving its own
residents is thought to be inauthentic as an ethnic enclave. Hackworth and Rekers go as far as to claim,
“Ethnically labeled BIAs (Business Improvement Areas) package and reproduce ethnicity for
consumption, primarily for tourists and nonresident ethnics in the region.” [9], (pp. 231–232). Thus,
having organizations in place to manage ethnic enclaves, they argue, is partially what is leading to the
commodification of these same enclaves.
Performances of an ethnic identity, such as Albanian Kosovars using Italian nicknames, or the
wearing of traditional Chinese clothing to help create a desirable ambiance for a shop in Chinatown, may
call into question whether these are authentic spaces [17,21]. Sharon Zukin [24] argues authoritatively
that although the concept of authenticity can be contentious since cities are dynamic places, there is a
loss of authenticity as immigrant neighborhoods experience gentrification. While an explicit discussion
of authenticity is notably absent from Murdie and Teixeira’s study on Little Portugal, Toronto, the
authors discuss how without a continued influx of Portuguese-ethnic residents, the neighborhood will
cease to be a “complete enclave”, even if a commercial axis continues to thrive [7] (p. 79).
Furthermore, authenticity may be more accurately described as a matter of subjective perception,
where the authenticity of any given neighborhood, or even a single store, may be perceived differently
among different groups or individuals [24]. McClinchey [25] mirrors this argument, asserting that
relative authenticity allows outsiders to have their own interpretations of whether a place is authentic.
Even when a place is ostensibly fake (or inauthentic) through performances of a culture, such as, again,
when 1930s San Francisco Chinatown employees were made by their employers to wear Chinese-style
clothing, visitors may experience existential authenticity [20,23,25]. This concept of existential
authenticity began as a philosophical one, originated by Heidegger to explain how individuals form
meaning through experiencing and simply being (existing) [23,26,27]. Thus, individuals may visit a
store or watch a parade in an ethnic enclave and have experiences that are authentic for themselves,
Behav. Sci. 2014, 4 347
and perhaps shared among their group (termed intragroup existential authenticity), regardless of
whether the culture being enacted would be considered authentic by others.
Existential authenticity, in turn, relates to ethnicity as a social construction, which is to say that society
creates an understanding of what ethnicity means, rather than ethnicity having a fixed meaning [28–30]. By
extension, how ethnicity continues to be created and recreated, enacted in settings or through events,
and interpreted as part of one’s own self-identity, is very much a subjective experience. The potential
differences in interpretation of authenticity may lead to intragroup and intergroup conflicts when some
stakeholders perceive a place to losing its authenticity while other stakeholders celebrate the marketing
of the neighborhood.
2.2.3. Commodification in Italian Ethnic Enclaves
Commodification has also happened with Italian ethnic enclaves, in addition to the example already
given above of Little Italy, New York [9,31]. In Little Italy, Toronto, most of the Italian-ethnic
residents moved to the suburbs and a different Italian-ethnic neighborhood (Corso Italia) by the 1980s.
To a large extent, Portuguese, Chinese, and Vietnamese immigrants repopulated the neighborhood,
constituting about half the population of the area by 2005 [9]. However, the city has bolstered the
neighborhood’s Italian identity by investing in a streetscape improvement plan, including thematic
street signs that feature the Italian flag. Even though few Italians or Italian-Canadians live there, the
area remains home to popular Italian restaurants [9].
In Little Italy, Cleveland, prominent residents and business owners commissioned the Little Italy
Redevelopment Corporation in 1994 to improve and preserve the neighborhood, partly in response to
fears of losing the neighborhood’s homeowners to the suburbs. The goals of the Little Italy Master
Plan are reminiscent of the commodification of ethnic neighborhoods [9,15]. The master plan sought to
market the unique character, enhance the public space, and to promote ethnic diversity and attract
consumers [32]. The fact that business owners have sought to reinvigorate Little Italy is similar to how
enclaves in other cities have been marketed [33].
San Diego, California, offers another example. In the early 20th century, Italian fishermen and their
families lived in an ethnic enclave, but this neighborhood was largely destroyed by 1962 with the
completion of an urban renewal-era highway through the neighborhood [34,35]. The area continued to
decline until the 1990s, when the city invested money into branding the area as Little Italy, which
included installing a large, metal “Little Italy” street sign and building Amici Park [23]. New
condominium buildings were given Italian-sounding names [35]. However, Kayzar calls the Italian
theme of the neighborhood an “illusion”, citing how the area is predominantly commercially Italian
while few residents are Italian or Italian American [23] (p. 135).
2.2.4. Positive and Negative Impacts from Commodification
Cities can benefit from commercialized or commodified enclaves through increased tourism and
taxes where local and out-of-town visitors to the enclave spend money at neighborhood businesses.
An ethnic enclave may also serve as a cultural reservoir, preserving the history of the community
through architecture, elements of the streetscape (such as sidewalk pavers), and the stores and restaurants
Behav. Sci. 2014, 4 348
themselves. Cultural festivals, a prominent feature of many ethnic enclaves, may also serve an important
role in preserving the heritages and traditions, while simultaneously bringing in tourists [25].
Previous research has examined the motivations of the visitors or tourists as being an attraction to
the cultural or ethnic “other” who visit enclaves to experience the food, language, customs, or
overall culture of people different from themselves, and, thus, have their own existentially
authentic experience [23,26,27,36,37]. Sometimes, social preservationists–outsiders who move to the
enclave–encourage long-term residents to remain because those long-term residents add to the
legitimacy of the enclave [38]. These long-term residents may also benefit from healthy profits
on the sales of property, to the extent that commodification occurs alongside gentrification [7].
However, value might also exist for members of the associated ethnic group beyond the financial
benefits from entrepreneurship or home sales. Even when the area is only commercially ethnic, it can
still function as a place where members of an ethnic group can go to meet like members, buy specialty
groceries or other goods, and, in some cases, converse in a non-English language. In the case of
Chinatown in Washington, DC, the restaurants and shops form a node for Chinese people that they
cannot find in a residential area [15,28].
Furthermore, an ethnic enclave may benefit those who have relatively weaker ties to their ethnicity
identity. Gans coined the term symbolic ethnicity to describe “nostalgic allegiance to the culture of the
immigrant generation, or that of the old country; a love for and a pride in a tradition that can be felt
without having to be incorporated in everyday behavior” [39] (p. 9). He describes the grandchildren
and great-grandchildren of immigrants as being largely disconnected from their ancestral country of
origin, but, rather, enacting their ethnic identity symbolically [39]. This is situational ethnicity, where
people voluntarily enact their ethnicity at the time and place of their choosing but can also choose to
ignore their ethnicity [40]. An important distinction is that symbolic ethnicity is largely only available
to those perceived as White; for others, ethnicity may be ascribed to them whether they desire the
ethnic label or not. However, for an American grandchild of Italian immigrants, visiting an Italian
ethnic enclave may have personal meaning, even if that person does not choose to live in Little Italy,
eat Italian food any more frequently than other Americans, or marry another Italian American [39,40].
On the negative side, and as discussed above, the primary negative impact with commodification
is the possible loss of authenticity or even a blurring of the lines between authentic and
inauthentic [6,7,9,15,20,21,23,28]. A loss of authenticity represents a negative social or cultural
impact, but negative economic impacts are also possible. Whereas commodification can help revitalize
an economically struggling enclave through renewed interest in the area by entrepreneurs and visitors,
some lower-income residents, including new immigrants, may be priced out of the neighborhood [7].
Additionally, the increased presence of tourists and visitors can exacerbate tensions between cultural
groups, leading to intergroup conflict [7,40]. This may be particularly evident during festivals and
parades held in the ethnic neighborhood, where members of the associated ethnic group may be
affronted at the representation or depiction of their culture [25]. Lastly, some of the new entrepreneurs’
restaurants and other businesses may displace preexisting businesses–which again could lead to
increased intergroup conflict–perhaps especially when the replacement businesses are purportedly but
falsely and inauthentically ethnic [7,9,40].
Behav. Sci. 2014, 4 349
2.3. Areas for Future Research
A longitudinal study following the changes in a specific enclave over a period of years or even
decades would provide valuable information. A greater understanding of the responses of enclave
residents and business owners would also be useful, including their perceptions of change,
authenticity, and overall satisfaction with their neighborhood. Much of the existing literature on ethnic
enclaves is in the form of cases studies employing surveys, focus groups and interviews, sometimes
supplemented by demographic data from census records [7–9,11,15,17,21,22,38]. As always, a
limitation with case study research is the inability to generalize the findings; a larger study of ethnic
enclaves that does not rely on case studies would help provide breadth to the existing research. Finally,
to the extent that further case studies are needed, a greater geographic diversity could be helpful, as
enclaves in Toronto, Ontario, are already well represented, ostensibly because of the diverse
population of the city and the prominence of its ethnic enclaves [3,7,9,11,12,25]. Case study research
on an enclave in a city that has only a few ethnic enclaves may yield interesting differences from case
studies on enclaves in cities that have many ethnic enclaves (e.g., Toronto, New York City).
3. Conclusions
When the ethnic group associated with an ethnic enclave diminishes over time, but the commercial
aspect remains, city officials and business owners in the neighborhood may seek to commodify the
neighborhood’s ethnic identity. This commodification has implications for many individuals and
groups within the enclave as well as outside of it. These implications include both benefits and
consequences, and in this way commodification can be similar to the experience of gentrification in
other types of neighborhoods. However, given the sensitive nature of capitalizing on an ethnic identity
and the potential interpersonal and intergroup conflicts that may arise from it, this issue is deserving of
its own focus and would benefit from further study.
Acknowledgments
This article was originally prepared as part of the author’s doctoral dissertation research. The author
would like to acknowledge the work of her dissertation committee at The Ohio State University:
Jack L. Nasar (Chair), Maria Manta Conroy, and Reanne Frank.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1. Alba, R.; Nee, V. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary
Immigration; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003.
2. Portes, A.; Rumbaut, R.G. Immigrant America, 2nd ed.; University of California Press: Berkeley,
CA, USA, 1996.
Behav. Sci. 2014, 4 350
3. Qadeer, M.A. Ethnic segregation in a multicultural city. In Desegregating the City; Varady, D.P., Ed.;
State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 49–61.
4. Waldinger, R. The ethnic enclave debate revisited. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 1993, 17, 444–452.
5. Sampson, R.J.; Wilson, W.J. Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. In Crime and
Inequality; Hagan, J., Peterson, R.D., Eds.; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 1995.
6. Zukin, S. Reading The Urban Villagers as a cultural document: Ethnicity, modernity, and capital.
City Community 2007, 6, 39–48.
7. Murdie, R.; Teixeira, C. The impact of gentrification on ethnic neighbourhoods in Toronto: A
case study of Little Portugal. Urban Stud. 2011, 48, 61–83.
8. Wei, L. Beyond Chinatown, beyond enclave: Reconceptualizing contemporary Chinese
settlements in the United States. GeoJournal 2005, 64, 31–40.
9. Hackworth, J.; Rekers, J.; Ethnic packaging and gentrification: The case of four neighborhoods in
Toronto. Urban Aff. Rev. 2005, 41, 211–236.
10. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, United States Department of the Interior.
Available online: http://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/asia/2010/NYChinatownLittleItalyHD.pdf (accessed
on 24 May 2014).
11. Luk, C.M.; Phan, M.B. Ethnic enclave reconfiguration: A “new” Chinatown in the making.
GeoJournal 2005, 64, 17–30.
12. Harney, R.F. Ethnicity and neighbourhoods. In Gathering Place: Peoples and Neighbourhoods of
Toronto, 1834–1945; Harney, R.F., Ed.; Multicultural Society of Toronto: Toronto, Canada, 1985;
pp. 1–24.
13. Zhou, M. Revisiting ethnic entrepreneurship: Convergence, controversies, and conceptual
adjustments. Int. Migr. Rev. 2004, 38, 1040–1074.
14. Ward, S.V. Selling Places: The Marketing and Promotion of Towns and Cities 1850–2000;
Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1998.
15. Pang, C.L.; Rath, J. The force of regulation in the land of the free: The persistence of Chinatown,
Washington DC as a symbolic ethnic enclave. In The Sociology of Entrepreneurship: Research in the
Sociology of Organizations; Ruef, M., Lounsbury, M., Eds.; Elseveir: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2007; pp. 195–220.
16. District of Columbia Municipal Regulations. Chapter 24: Chinatown design review procedures. Office
of Planning, District of Columbia, 2010. Available online:
http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/In+Your+Neighborhood/Wards/Ward+2/Small+Area+Plans+&+
Studies/DCMR+Title+10+Planning+and+Development+Chapter+24+Chinatown+Design+Review+P
rocedures (accessed on 12 September 2014).
17. Becker, E. Little of Italy? Assumed ethnicity in a New York City neighbourhood. Ethn. Racial
Stud. 2014, DOI:10.1080/01419870.2013.868018.
18. Darden, J.T. Race relations in the city. In Handbook of Urban Studies; Sage Publications: London,
UK, 2001; pp. 177–193.
19. Zenou, Y.; Boccard, N. Racial discrimination and redlining in cities. J. Urban Econ. 2000, 48,
260–285.
20. Rodriguez, J.A. Planning and urban rivalry in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1930s. J. Plan.
Educ. Res. 2000, 20, 66–76.
Behav. Sci. 2014, 4 351
21. Umbach, G.; Wishnoff, D. Strategic Self-Orientalism: Urban planning policies and the shaping of
New York City’s Chinatown, 1950–2005. J. Plan. Hist. 2008, 7, 214–238.
22. Mazumdar, S.; Mazumdar, S.; Docuyanan, F.; McLaughlin, C. Creating a sense of place: The
Vietnamese-Americans and Little Saigon. J. Environ. Psychol. 2000, 20, 319–333.
23. Wang, N. Re-thinking authenticity in tourism experience. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 26, 349–370.
24. Zukin, S. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2009.
25. McClinchey, K.A. Urban ethnic festivals, neighborhoods, and the multiple realities of marketing
place. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2008, 25, 251–264.
26. Heidegger, M. Being and Time; State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 1996.
27. Steiner, C.; Reisinger, Y. Understanding Existential Authenticity. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006, 33, 299–318.
28. Bankston, C.L.; Henry, J. Spectacles of ethnicity: Festivals and the commodification of ethnic
culture among Louisiana Cajuns. Sociol. Spectr. 2000, 20, 377–407.
29. Nagel, J. Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Soc. Probl.
1994, 41, 152–76.
30. Allahar, A. More than an oxymoron: Ethnicity and the social construction of primordial
attachment. Can. Ethn. Stud. 1994, 26, 18–34.
31. Halter, M. Tourists “R” us: Immigrants, ethnic tourism and the marketing of metropolitan Boston.
In Tourism, Ethnic Diversity and the City; Rath, J., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2007;
pp. 199–215.
32. Little Italy Redevelopment Corporation. Little Italy Master Plan. Available online:
http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/maps/pdf/LittleItaly.zip (accessed on 30 January 2009).
33. Alonso, G. Selling Miami. In Tourism, Ethnic Diversity and the City; Rath, J., Ed.; Routledge:
New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 164–179.
34. Kayzar, B.A. Analyzing Revitalization Outcomes in Downtown San Diego. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2007.
35. Ford, L.; Klevisser, F.; Carli, F. Ethnic neighborhoods and urban revitalization: Can Europe use
the American model? Geogr. Rev. 2008, 98, 82–102.
36. Zukin, S. The Cultures of Cities; Blackwell Publishers, Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995.
37. Hall, C.M.; Rath, J. Tourism, migration and place advantage in the global cultural economy.
In Tourism, Ethnic Diversity and the City; Rath, J., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2007;
pp. 1–24.
38. Brown-Saracino, J. A Neighborhood That Never Changes; The University of Chicago Press:
Chicago, IL, USA, 2009.
39. Gans, H.J. Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. Ethn. Racial Stud.
1979, 2, 1–20.
40. Conforti, J. Ghettos as tourism attractions. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 830–842.
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).