Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I voted in complete haste and I guaranty that's what most people are doing. It's so easy to say without actually thinking it through that Little Italy, in Manhattan of all places, is the most authentic Italian enclave in America, and frankly while that's the title of the thread, that's not particularly the OP's questions he wants discussed.
When I saw the thread title (and the poll question) I thought to my self oh no this is not going to be good, but yes when you actually read the OP's questions it is a very reasonable comparison when considering the neighborhoods and not just as 'authentic Italian enclaves'.
As I previously wrote, no matter what someone writes, a few formers will just "change the goalposts". Now, having failed to answer any claim as to why North Beach is comparable to Little Italy, the comparison is now between 40 blocks in SF and 2 blocks in Manhattan, conveniently ignoring the fact that Manhattan's Little Italy was historically huge.
And the previous list of restaurants was just completely wrong. None of the three Little Italy restaurants I have been to are on that two-block strip. The best Little Italy restaurant, by far, Torrisi, which is a hipster Italian restaurant not on that two-block strip, (along with neighborhood spinoffs like Parm) is not even included.
So, yeah, when you compare 2 blocks in NYC to 40 blocks in SF, then you aren't exactly making an apples-to-apples comparison.
As I previously wrote, no matter what someone writes, a few formers will just "change the goalposts". Now, having failed to answer any claim as to why North Beach is comparable to Little Italy, the comparison is now between 40 blocks in SF and 2 blocks in Manhattan, conveniently ignoring the fact that Manhattan's Little Italy was historically huge.
And the previous list of restaurants was just completely wrong. None of the three Little Italy restaurants I have been to are on that two-block strip. The best Little Italy restaurant, by far, Torrisi, which is a hipster Italian restaurant not on that two-block strip, (along with neighborhood spinoffs like Parm) is not even included.
So, yeah, when you compare 2 blocks in NYC to 40 blocks in SF, then you aren't exactly making an apples-to-apples comparison.
And as I pointed out, it was not the only one.
Is North Beach SF's only Italian area? I genuinely don't know. Again, I didn't even know SF had a notable Italian area.
Because NYC has more than Little Italy, areas that today are true Italian, and not just that were historically. You need to go to the outer boroughs to really find them. NYC has multiple, does SF? My question is, is this comparison purposely skewed if North Beach is SF's only notable Italian area, therefore its most authentic, while Little Italy is only chosen because it's most famous/iconic, but not necessarily the best in the city?
Manhattan isn't even the best choice for New York. Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx would be better (in no particular order), even Queens. Manhattan is the most famous borough in general to pretty much everyone internationally, so in that sense it makes sense to compare Manhattan, but the Italians started leaving in droves decades ago. Little Italy is not even close to the incredible neighborhood it used to be (speaking in terms of authenticity and liveliness).
Manhattan Little Italy has far more Italian restaurants and stuff- goalposts change to "who cares about this stuff; it's for tourists".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
Can you prove that Little Italy has far more Italian restaurants? It's 2.5 blocks! How many restaurants can there even be there?
You did not, and still have not. So I attempted, and got all of my information from the Little Italy website, which probably isn't as comprehensive as it could be.
Your point was clear - it's no competition. All I did was to point out that there are easily as many Italian businesses/restaurants in North Beach as Little Italy. Earlier in this thread you also made this ODD statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111
Little Italy in Manhattan, while kitschy and touristy, is a real Little Italy. Tons of restaurants, bakeries, shops, even the Italian American museum.
North Beach in SF has almost none of this.
/thread
Which is patently absurd. Now you're making the following claim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111
Now, having failed to answer any claim as to why North Beach is comparable to Little Italy, the comparison is now between 40 blocks in SF and 2 blocks in Manhattan, conveniently ignoring the fact that Manhattan's Little Italy was historically huge.
So, yeah, when you compare 2 blocks in NYC to 40 blocks in SF, then you aren't exactly making an apples-to-apples comparison.
The vast majority of businesses I listed are in about 6-8 city blocks, and they are intermingled with other businesses, as well, though it's obvious to ANYONE who has been to North Beach that Italian businesses are by far the most common ethnic business there is to the point of making it obvious that it's an Italian neighborhood (or once was).
Little Italy makes its boundaries painstakingly obvious. LES, much of today's Chinatown, and many surrounding areas WERE also mostly Italian (some still are). Those areas are not Little Italy, though. Little Italy is 2-3 blocks, and the definitions of the boundaries are abundantly clear...more clear than they are with any other Italian enclave, most of which bleed more subtly into surrounding areas, North Beach no exception. There is a friggin sign over the road that welcomes visitors to Little Italy. I guess to you this is why Little Italy is more "authentic".
Within a quarter mile of this 2-3 block stretch in most directions, yes, there are so many more Italian businesses not counted. The same can be said of North Beach...Italian restaurants are all over Fisherman's Wharf, into the Financial District, and up into Nob Hill. As a whole, NYC has a far greater concentration and number of Italian establishments as that goes with the territory. Should we count the whole city as Little Italy?
Your claim that I'm using 40 square blocks of SF is plain false. I think there were 3 restaurants listed on Washington St on the other side of Broadway in adjacent Jackson Square (which is my old hood...5 minute walk to North Beach, 3 minute walk to the financial district). Probably 90-95% of my list falls within ~8 square blocks, and if you'd like, I'll MAP IT. Have no problem doing so because you're making such unfair false arguments against me, personally.
If you want to start counting SoHo or LES with Little Italy, be my guest. Then I'll concede that there is no competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111
None of the three Little Italy restaurants I have been to are on that two-block strip. The best Little Italy restaurant, by far, Torrisi, which is a hipster Italian restaurant not on that two-block strip, (along with neighborhood spinoffs like Parm) is not even included.
Bold claims from a non-resident! This restaurant did not enter any "best of Little Italy" list I found in my research, and I looked at lists "from residents for residents". It might be a best Italian restaurant in the city, but isn't on any Best of Little Italy lists. Below is the Google Street View of where you're referring to:
You can go up and down that block and Torrisi is clearly the only Italian establishment. There are some yuppie boutiques, a 24 Hr Fitness, etc. No kitschy Little Italy stuff, either. On surrounding blocks/streetfronts, there are Italian businesses (in higher than normal concentration compared to the US avg of course) given the area demographics (really, NYC as a whole). However, Italian businesses do not make up the majority of businesses, not even close. In North Beach, for much of the neighborhood Italian businesses at least make up a majority of businesses. The difference to Little Italy is that 100% of those businesses (not counting all the touristy trinkety shops) are Italian owned or run, but we're talking 2-3 blocks, not a whole neighborhood.
Your restaurant is on the north side of NoLita, near Houston, approaching the Bowery and NoHo. All of this area is quite Italian, definitely noticeably moreso than SF, but not moreso than North Beach SF and it's clearly not part of "Little Italy".
Finally, you love to throw around that phrase "changing the goal posts". Go back and read the OP please.
I reiterate straight from a local's mouth:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
At the time (1880-1930), I think Little Italy would "win" this poll but now, it is not very Italian at all (and I know absolutely nothing about SF's). It is like a tourist attraction that allows visitors to remember the time when it was a predominantly and authentic Italian area. Now, it barely exists (Chinatown is creeping in) and there are barely any Italians left. Food's still good, though, and the San Gennaro Feast is fun.
In the days of the immigration boom to NYC, Manhattan also had other Italian enclaves, including Italian East Harlem, and Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx had many outposts as well. People quickly started moving out of Little Italy but it still remained pretty strong until the 60s, and is by far the most famous. Staten Island didn't become Italian (or anything really) until the VZ Bridge was built in the 60s, but today it is extremely Italian still. Go to the outer boroughs if you want true Italian, it blows SF out of the water. As a whole NYC is much more Italian, it's really no contest, but comparing the touristy Italian neighborhoods is kind of pointless because they are not nearly as authentic as either they used to be, or the non-touristy areas that are very Italian but get little attention. What are we comparing, really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Right, but the problem with this poll is, why Little Italy? Just because it's the well-known attraction doesn't mean it best represents NYC's Italian-ness. In the past, sure, but now? No way. It just happens to be the most well-known.
And the answer is what I just said - because it's the attraction. It's where everyone will go, thinking they will find a true Italian area like what existed in 1900, and say, "hmm, this actually isn't very Italian at all." No, it's not anymore. You want Italian, go to Brooklyn. Go to Staten Island, go to the Bronx. Go to New Jersey, Long Island, some parts of upstate.
Need I remind you that initially I didn't read the OP or give this thread much though, and voted as below:
Overall, I think you're being ridiculous. You're not making any arguments whatsoever, simply saying mine are ridiculous and not actually offering any substantive reason as to why mine are ridiculous. So you're being baseless and unreasonable.
Is North Beach SF's only Italian area? I genuinely don't know. Again, I didn't even know SF had a notable Italian area.
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Because NYC has more than Little Italy, areas that today are true Italian, and not just that were historically. You need to go to the outer boroughs to really find them. NYC has multiple, does SF? My question is, is this comparison purposely skewed if North Beach is SF's only notable Italian area, therefore its most authentic, while Little Italy is only chosen because it's most famous/iconic, but not necessarily the best in the city?
I wouldn't know if it's purposely skewed, as unlike some other posters I don't purport to know people's motives, if there are any. However, yes, I would say quite because North Beach is basically IT for SF, and Little Italy is essentially reserved for the tourists while NYC is filled with actual existing Italian neighborhoods, that it's almost unfair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Manhattan isn't even the best choice for New York. Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx would be better (in no particular order), even Queens. Manhattan is the most famous borough in general to pretty much everyone internationally, so in that sense it makes sense to compare Manhattan, but the Italians started leaving in droves decades ago. Little Italy is not even close to the incredible neighborhood it used to be (speaking in terms of authenticity and liveliness).
Agreed wholeheartedly. That's why I don't get why people are jumping on me and calling me a homer for saying that North Beach is more authentic, now at least, than Little Italy!
If this were New York or even Tri-State vs SF or Bay Area Italian history/culture/overall neighborhoods, it would be a silly comparison. I think in a way, even this comparison is silly, but more reasonable, and I think for exactly what you've stated it's not that hard to subjectively say (and even objectively) that North Beach >= Little Italy.
I wouldn't know if it's purposely skewed, as unlike some other posters I don't purport to know people's motives, if there are any. However, yes, I would say quite because North Beach is basically IT for SF, and Little Italy is essentially reserved for the tourists while NYC is filled with actual existing Italian neighborhoods, that it's almost unfair.
Agreed wholeheartedly. That's why I don't get why people are jumping on me and calling me a homer for saying that North Beach is more authentic, now at least, than Little Italy!
If this were New York or even Tri-State vs SF or Bay Area Italian history/culture/overall neighborhoods, it would be a silly comparison. I think in a way, even this comparison is silly, but more reasonable, and I think for exactly what you've stated it's not that hard to subjectively say (and even objectively) that North Beach >= Little Italy.
Ok, I figured so as SF is very small.
I think purposely skewed isn't exactly the right words now that I think about it… it's hard to convey what I mean. Basically, what I'm saying is, while Little Italy is today not nearly what it was 100 years ago, it is certainly not NYC's only Italian area, though it is the most famous. Therefore, I'm assuming its fame is why it was chosen for the poll… while other neighborhoods that today are more Italian would probably beat North Beach. Maybe the OP doesn't know Little Italy isn't like it used to be, so I'm not accusing the OP of anything, it's just a bit of an odd poll choice I guess, for someone who lives in the area at least.
I agree that this comparison is a bit silly, and what I've said so far is kind of why. Sure, if we pick one of NYC's many Italian neighborhoods (Little Italy), it may be less authentic today than North Beach and than it was a century ago, but NYC has a lot of others than are more authentic and in the modern days, probably some of the most Italian places you can find in this country. This is why I kind of think this thread is pointless… sure, the shrinking Little Italy may be less authentic, but come on… this is New York City. Italians have dominated the city and region for over a century, this is not the only Italian enclave and it is no longer the best. Again, I assume Little Italy was chosen in this poll simply because it is the most famous. As I said in an earlier post, Little Italy wasn't even the largest NYC Italian neighborhood when Italian immigrants dominated the city - Italian Harlem was. Yet Little Italy has retained its Italian-ness, and has become the most famous. Granted, it was the first.
I think in also going back to the OP, the basis for comparison:
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyjohnyang
Little Italy in Lower Manhattan and North Beach in San Francisco are two prime examples of Italian enclaves that were formerly populated with their respective name sakes but are now seen as prominent tourist areas in their cities. Both are near the water, border Chinatown, and are very densely populated in comparison to surrounding neighborhoods.
is reasonable.
But the specific questions asked definitely easily skew to North Beach for reasons both you (Jerseygirl) and I have hit on:
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyjohnyang
have a few questions for people familiar with them: which enclave is seen as more authentic in terms of restaurants, bars, boutiques, and other businesses? Which is more of an epicenter for the area's Italian population? Which locale offers a more pleasurable walking experience and is more frequented by locals? Thank you,
garyjohnyang
"Pleasurable walking experience" is clearly inviting a subjective response. I got hammered for mentioning a park, tree covered sidewalks, year round mild weather, fewer throngs of tourists, active church bells ringing, etc. But all of that stuff makes anywhere, imo, a more pleasurable walking experience.
I think purposely skewed isn't exactly the right words now that I think about it… it's hard to convey what I mean. Basically, what I'm saying is, while Little Italy is today not nearly what it was 100 years ago, it is certainly not NYC's only Italian area, though it is the most famous. Therefore, I'm assuming its fame is why it was chosen for the poll… while other neighborhoods that today are more Italian would probably beat North Beach. Maybe the OP doesn't know Little Italy isn't like it used to be, so I'm not accusing the OP of anything, it's just a bit of an odd poll choice I guess, for someone who lives in the area at least.
I agree that this comparison is a bit silly, and what I've said so far is kind of why. Sure, if we pick one of NYC's many Italian neighborhoods (Little Italy), it may be less authentic today than North Beach and than it was a century ago, but NYC has a lot of others than are more authentic and in the modern days, probably some of the most Italian places you can find in this country. This is why I kind of think this thread is pointless… sure, the shrinking Little Italy may be less authentic, but come on… this is New York City. Italians have dominated the city and region for over a century, this is not the only Italian enclave and it is no longer the best. Again, I assume Little Italy was chosen in this poll simply because it is the most famous. As I said in an earlier post, Little Italy wasn't even the largest NYC Italian neighborhood when Italian immigrants dominated the city - Italian Harlem was. Yet Little Italy has retained its Italian-ness, and has become the most famous. Granted, it was the first.
But then a thread about a neighborhood that is one "of the most Italian places you can find in this country" vs North Beach would be even sillier wouldn't it?
I don't see a problem with this comparison, maybe because I also don't look at it as some kind of frivolous competition that needs a winner and a loser. Once again, if you read the OP, it isn't even asking for that.
I think in also going back to the OP, the basis for comparison:
is reasonable.
But the specific questions asked definitely easily skew to North Beach for reasons both you (Jerseygirl) and I have hit on:
"Pleasurable walking experience" is clearly inviting a subjective response. I got hammered for mentioning a park, tree covered sidewalks, year round mild weather, fewer throngs of tourists, active church bells ringing, etc. But all of that stuff makes anywhere, imo, a more pleasurable walking experience.
Good points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalAtheist
But then a thread about a neighborhood that is one "of the most Italian places you can find in this country" vs North Beach would be even sillier wouldn't it?
I don't see a problem with this comparison, maybe because I also don't look at it as some kind of frivolous competition that needs a winner and a loser. Once again, if you read the OP, it isn't even asking for that.
Yes, that is kind of what I'm saying… one neighborhood was picked, maybe at random (considering how Italian NYC is) but likely not since Little Italy is so well-known, and compared to another. New York would probably win in any category involving "Italian-ness" in the US, historically and today. I DO understand the comparison, and I really have no problem with it, but it still feels kind of pointless to me. Sure, if you're comparing just Little Italy to North Beach, North Beach may win, but Little Italy is not the most Italian part of NYC anymore, so why pick it in the first place? That's my point.
I don't care about who "wins" or "loses", either. I am willing to go to SF tomorrow and hang out in North Beach and experience it (who wants to pay for my flight?! ). I bet I'd enjoy it. I simply enjoy this discussion. It's pretty civil, I personally am not being combative with other posters, nor am I stirring the pot, so please explain why it seems you think this means so much to me, as a "frivolous competition"? I just happen to know a lot about the Italian history in NYC specifically, so I can share. I majored in history in college, so I definitely like sharing and talking about this type of thing. It's an interesting conversation. I actually didn't even vote in this poll. I came in a couple pages back to share what I know about the Italian history in Manhattan and how Little Italy has changed.
The second half of that wasn't necessarily directed at you. Even though you do kind of keep setting up the comparison as some sort of competition by either not understanding why anyone (in this case, the OP) would pick Little Italy as one of the two neighborhoods for this thread, saying how you don't understand the choices and that it is a silly / pointless comparison to make as if the OP can't just be curious about these two specific areas. I don't get why the OP can't pick two neighborhoods of his choosing that he is interested in and ask for some help in the answering of his questions. Not as some sort of ulterior motive or to crown a winner, but for information. I admit the addition of a poll & the poll question is somewhat off putting (but even so, when viewed as a competition, it definitely favors Little Italy & NYC as Little Italy is widely known & NYC is widely known as having a strong Italian presence so..), but this is actually from the OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyjohnyang
I have been to both fairly recently, and have a few questions for people familiar with them: which enclave is seen as more authentic in terms of restaurants, bars, boutiques, and other businesses? Which is more of an epicenter for the area's Italian population? Which locale offers a more pleasurable walking experience and is more frequented by locals?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). I bet I'd enjoy it. I simply enjoy this discussion. It's pretty civil, I personally am not being combative with other posters, nor am I stirring the pot, so please explain why it seems you think this means so much to me, as a "frivolous competition"? I just happen to know a lot about the Italian history in NYC specifically, so I can share. I majored in history in college, so I definitely like sharing and talking about this type of thing. It's an interesting conversation. I actually didn't even vote in this poll. I came in a couple pages back to share what I know about the Italian history in Manhattan and how Little Italy has changed.
