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.
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.
My original intention in creating this thread was essentially to find an analogy between the most urban, most famous Italian neighborhood in City A (New York) and in City B (San Francisco). This was mainly due to their being the densest Italian enclaves in their respective cities and their proximities to the core. I am aware that New York, as a whole, would absolutely decimate San Francisco in terms of sheer numbers and authenticity in the Italian population as a whole. However, one must also acknowledge that someone simply visiting either city would find it quite out of the way or obscure to navigate (for instance) from Lower Manhattan to Dyker Heights. Likewise, a person visiting San Francisco would not bother to visit whatever other Italian neighborhoods the Bay Area would have. (Which is to say that there are no other Italian neighborhoods in the Bay Area, sadly.) I did not, by any means, purposely compare these neighborhoods which have both eclipsed their heydays simply for the fact that Little Italy "skews" New York's representation of the ethnicity in general. Thank you for your comprehension, though. I find this to be a fascinating topic as well, and, for the most part, this thread has been very insightful as to the background of both locations.
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 find a winner or loser, 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:
I do understand why Little Italy was chosen. As for the comments about a comparison/competition, this whole thread is a comparison, it is less of a competition but by nature is competitive. I am responding to the question regarding the comparison and any thread that's a "vs" is bound to turn into a sort of competition. I assumed you weren't directing your post at me only, but I do want to make it clear that I did not even vote and only joined this discussion to talk about Little Italy's history and the general Italian history in Manhattan and lesser, the rest of New York. I have said that Little Italy is no longer a good representation of Italian-ness in NYC, but that areas in the outer boroughs are. As for this comparison, I do understand it and really see no problem with it, but I can't ignore the fact that Little Italy is not the best representation (anymore) of Italian culture in NYC, while North Beach is the only representation of Italian culture in SF. That is really where I start to veer off in this comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyjohnyang
My original intention in creating this thread was essentially to find an analogy between the most urban, most famous Italian neighborhood in City A (New York) and in City B (San Francisco). This was mainly due to their being the densest Italian enclaves in their respective cities and their proximities to the core. I am aware that New York, as a whole, would absolutely decimate San Francisco in terms of sheer numbers and authenticity in the Italian population as a whole. However, one must also acknowledge that someone simply visiting either city would find it quite out of the way or obscure to navigate (for instance) from Lower Manhattan to Dyker Heights. Likewise, a person visiting San Francisco would not bother to visit whatever other Italian neighborhoods the Bay Area would have. (Which is to say that there are no other Italian neighborhoods in the Bay Area, sadly.) I did not, by any means, purposely compare these neighborhoods which have both eclipsed their heydays simply for the fact that Little Italy "skews" New York's representation of the ethnicity in general. Thank you for your comprehension, though. I find this to be a fascinating topic as well, and, for the most part, this thread has been very insightful as to the background of both locations.
I understand, really I do. I understand it is about the most famous Italian neighborhood in each city, which is a valid comparison itself. See what I have written above in regards to this. I do think this has been a good conversation so far, and it has educated me on SF's Italian neighborhood, that I didn't even know existed to be honest, which I will be sure to visit one day. It is a nice idea for a thread, I am not criticizing, only sharing my opinion. And I am impressed it has remained relatively civil. We all probably know how most "vs" threads in this forum can turn out. This is far less of a p!ssing contest than usual.
Was searching for information related to current demographics of each neighborhood, I'm not trying to be biased at all, was trying to actually find articles on Italian decline in North Beach to see if there were any counts for the neighborhood. NYT ran a piece on Little Italy, perhaps because it matters more to New Yorkers, many of whom are Italian, than North Beach's Italian decline matters to San Franciscans, only a small minority of which are even Italian...
In 1950, nearly half of the more than 10,000 New Yorkers living in the heart of Little Italy identified as Italian-American. The narrow streets teemed with children and resonated with melodic exchanges in Italian among the one in five residents born in Italy and their second- and third-generation neighbors.
By 2000, the census found that the Italian-American population had dwindled to 6 percent. Only 44 were Italian-born, compared with 2,149 a half-century earlier.
A census survey released in December determined that the proportion of Italian-Americans among the 8,600 residents in the same two-dozen-square-block area of Lower Manhattan had shrunk to about 5 percent.
And, incredibly, the census could not find a single resident who had been born in Italy.
Little Italy is becoming Littler Italy. The encroachment that began decades ago as Chinatown bulged north, SoHo expanded from the west, and other tracts were rebranded more fashionably as NoLIta (for north of Little Italy) and NoHo seems almost complete.
The Little Italy that was once the heart of Italian-American life in the city exists mostly as a nostalgic memory or in the minds of tourists who still make it a must-see on their New York itinerary.
The only streets that really feel like they belong to Little Italy, Mulberry and Grand, are still crammed with venerable Italian restaurants and shops. But Chinese-language advertisements for reflexology spas pepper the sidewalk, a poster announces the Lunar New Year celebration, and a “for rent” sign hangs on a new seven-story condominium building at 182 Mulberry.
Conversely, according to the 354 page book From Italy to San Francisco, the Immigrant Experience, most SF Italians were northern Italians, who differed from the southern Italians that came to E Coast cities in that they more quickly assimilated from the get-go, and had no problem doing business with other ethnic groups.
35 pages of reading available for free at the link.
Apparently North Beach has always broken down ethnic/cultural barriers such that even in the 1800s, SF Italians were mingling and doing business with the Irish, Germans, Chinese, and other groups. This could explain why the Beats (a cultural, non-ethnic group which coincidentally had an Italian forefather from North Beach) found a home in North Beach and why the area is home (perhaps even then, too) to a venerable range of non-Italian businesses.
The NYT piece makes a big deal of Chinese flyers being distributed on Little Italy sidewalks, however, from my reading, it sounds like Chinese flyers have probably been distributed on North Beach sidewalks since its inception as a neighborhood, despite the dominant Italian immigrant community. Those are stark differences between their two histories and communities.
Being that SF Italians were northern Italians, most came from fishing communities. That makes total sense - probably why SF's most famous dish, Cioppino, is an Italian seafood stew. Makes sense why Fisherman's Wharf also has a lot of Italian businesses, mainly seafood shops. It could also explain why the Mob never had a large presence in SF like it did on the E Coast and in the Midwest. Sicily is southern Italian, and is where many E Coast Italians originated from, as well as LCN. Sardinia, where many SF Italian immigrants came from as well as northern mainland, was not LCN territory.
Also, SF does actually have other Italian communities, apparently, in the Richmond and Outer Mission/Exelsior, though I can't say I'm familiar with them and I doubt they serve as any sort of focal point (maybe they are like much smaller versions of today's outer Borough neighborhoods). The Richmond is very ethnically diverse, though, with a Russian area, Greek area, apparently an Italian area, an even better Chinese area than Chinatown, and other communities. I suppose it's like Queens or parts of Jersey in that regard
There are only 50,000 or 60,000 Italians in San Francisco, but they are such an aggressive and progressive group of citizens that they have made an impression upon the life of the city itself. If it is true that the Italian race leads all others in numbers in the city of San Francisco, it is more noticeable in other counties that they have a large lead over the nationalities represented. The figures for the State of California in round numbers are as follows:
Los Angeles, 18,000; San Joaquin, 15,000; Alameda, 10,000; Sacramento, 10,000; Santa Clara, 10,000; Fresno, 5,000; Sonoma, 5,000; Napa, 4,000; Humboldt, 3,500; San Diego, 3,500; Contra Costa, 3,000; Santa Barbara, 3,000; Tulare, 2,500; San Mateo, 2,000; Amador, 1,000; Marin, 1,000; Mendocino, 1,000; Merced, 1,000.
These are the counties with a population of over 1,000 Italians.
It is naturally the most Italian State in the Union. The Italian immediately takes hold here as nowhere else outside his own country. He finds the climate and the soil, the sunshine and the sea, the vineyards and the fishing grounds, to which he and his father have become accustomed through many generations.
You have only witness a Columbus Day celebration in San Francisco to realize that this is regarded as virtually a new Italy. Columbus was an Italian. Italy made one mistake in not financing his expedition which resulted in the discovery of a new continent, but the Italian people have made no similar mistake since. They have followed up his voyage of discovery until their footing in the new world is as strong, probably, as that of any other nationality.
"This," said the Italian Consul, looking out from his offices, through the vista between Russian and Telegraph hills across the bay, "is to us an Italian city. It is like Genoa, Livorna, Naples and those cities which view the Mediterranean. San Francisco has the best of the Italian population that has migrated. Those of less money, less education and less ambition may have stopped when they reached the eastern coast, but it is the aim of the Italian who leaves his native land to reach California eventually. The Italian fishermen, the vineyardist and the fruit grower especially are at home here. Those who live in the cities find little difficulty because the Italian is industrious and energetic and needs only the opportunity offered by the wonderful resources of this new country."
Today's demographics:
Little Italy
2010 Census:
7,817 People (-12% growth since 2000 Census...gentrification?)
105,739 ppsm
White - 29% (32% growth since 2000 Census, apparently...hmm Italians moving back??)
Asian - 64% (-26% growth since 2000 Census, Chinatown not encroaching as much as we though?) Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com
North Beach...3 tracts overlap to encompass all of North Beach, part of Telegraph Hill, and part of Chinatown
2010 Census:
14,031 People (-5% growth since 2000 Census...likely gentrification)
57,821 ppsm
White - 36% (1% growth since 2000)
Asian - 56% (-9% growth since 2000) Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com
Overall similar ratio of Asians/Whites, but no telling what the breakdown of origin is for the white population for either Census Tract (apparently the NYT knows). Similar population, as well. Similar amount of businesses. Nobody is wiping the floor with the other.
Going back in time, though, it appears that from the start of Italian immigration to both cities in the 1800s through the end of Italian immigration, there were two completely different sets of Italians that went to either, and that has led to long term differences in local Italian culture and neighborhood feel.
Jsimms, yes, regarding Little Italy's Italians and assimilation, it is true that the large majority of NY Italian immigrants were from Southern Italy, and were poor peasants, usually illiterate and unskilled farmers. This contributed to why they lived where they lived and why they and their children and children's children moved out of the area they lived in, explaining why Little Italy is no longer very Italian.
Manhattan's Lower East Side, comprised of a much larger Little Italy from 1880- the 1920s-ish, was teeming with poverty and tenements. It was an immigrant area (also very Jewish, and earlier, Irish) where people lived in awful conditions and worked factory or construction jobs for extremely low wages. Tenements were dirty, unsafe, small, and literally built for poor immigrants. City officials barely cared about the conditions and efforts were not made to improve tenements until around 1900 and later. Once the Italians started earning money and saving, they began moving out of Little Italy uptown, where conditions were improved but not by much. As they continued to prosper and get onto their feet, they moved out of Manhattan, into less crowded neighborhoods in outer boroughs with better housing options, and as mass transit grew, easy commutes to their Manhattan jobs. Basically, Little Italy and its surrounding area was perfect for extremely poor new arrivals to stay in for the years it took them to begin to prosper in their thriving (despite the poverty) neighborhoods. It was all they could afford and was close to their factory jobs, because the manufacturing industry was prominent in Lower Manhattan. Once they earned money, it was time to move to better neighborhoods, and that process kept up until most were out of Manhattan and in the outer boroughs, commuting to work. This is why Little Italy is no longer a true Italian area - there is no need for them to live there anymore, and there hasn't been that need for decades. Resistance to assimilation was strong at first, but as the years went on this also loosened so it was okay to leave their initial outposts and move on, especially for the second and third generation Italian-Americans.
Regarding assimilation, initially, Manhattan Italians did not want to integrate into American life. Little Italy functioned as a more Italian neighborhood than an American one. There was a lively market, Italian churches, patron saints on every corner, in every home, and at every market stand, there were saint festivals every saint day, there were Italian schools and businesses, etc etc. Outsiders were not welcomed, and were few and far between, even as the Italians began to move uptown to Harlem, they managed to keep their neighborhoods strictly Italian for many decades. This is one reason why Little Italy and other Italian neighborhoods thrived, and remained so strong despite the poverty. They stuck together, really supported one another, and were pretty happy people. If it weren't for the terrible living conditions, it would probably be a good time for us in modern days to go back and visit if time travel were possible.
I've only been to two "Little Italys". North Beach and Little Italy in Baltimore. The one in Baltimore is pretty interesting. Lots of restaurants and visitors from out of the neighborhood as a result, but I got the feeling that the people who lived there were actually Italians. I walked up and down almost all the streets there and you see neighbors talking with each other on their stoops and it seemed they'd know each other a very long time from the snippets of conversation I heard. After I got home I looked it up on the internet and it seems that most homes in the area are sold word-of-mouth and not listed in MLS or other real estate venues so it stays a cohesive Italian-American community (which has about a thousand residents).
Being that SF Italians were northern Italians, most came from fishing communities. That makes total sense - probably why SF's most famous dish, Cioppino, is an Italian seafood stew. Makes sense why Fisherman's Wharf also has a lot of Italian businesses, mainly seafood shops. It could also explain why the Mob never had a large presence in SF like it did on the E Coast and in the Midwest. Sicily is southern Italian, and is where many E Coast Italians originated from, as well as LCN. Sardinia, where many SF Italian immigrants came from as well as northern mainland, was not LCN territory.
This is a great point, and one most people outside the area are unaware. SF's Italian-Americans are much different than those you find on the East Coast, but no less Italian in their heritage.
Manhattan's Little Italy really does feel like an "ethnic theme park" so it's quite probable that North Beach is more "authentic" at this point and that it's more of a central gathering place for Bay Area Italians. But the Italians in the Bay Area seem to be a lot more assimilated than in the Northeast. Are there any other Italian enclaves at all - equivalents not only to Italian neighborhoods in the outer boroughs but also suburban concentrations in Long Island and New Jersey?
Here's a piece written by an Italian American scholar at Berkeley. She notes that Italian American culture in the New York area is much more prevalent than in the Bay Area and points to a few differences:
1) Sheer numbers: much bigger in NY/NJ than in CA and thus more of a critical mass for Italian culture.
2) Postwar immigration: Almost completely ignored by scholars of the Italian American community who give a linear history that assumes immigration completely stopped in 1924. However while more modest than the earlier wave the wave of the 1950s and 1960s wasn't trivial and it reinvigorated Italian communities where they settled in good numbers. This immigration was much more skewed toward the Northeast and didn't really settle in California. Thus they were significant in the New York area but not in the Bay Area.
3) Residential concentration: Reinforced by 1) and 2). In the New York area they formed new concentrations in the suburbs after WWII while in the Bay Area they moved to less "ethnic" suburbs which would have been more generic white American in composition.
Regarding the postwar immigration though, I don't think it really impacted Manhattan at all. Little Italy was already on the decline in the 1920s - this was when Manhattan's population was declining as the Jewish and Italian populations were moving out of Manhattan and following the subway lines into Brooklyn and the Bronx. By the time of the new immigration, Little Italy had long ceased to be an Italian settlement area, so they moved to working class Italian neighborhoods in the outer boroughs such as Bensonhurst, Brooklyn; Morris Park, Bronx; or Ridgewood/Middle Village, Queens.
Last edited by King of Kensington; 06-07-2014 at 06:11 PM..
Manhattan's Little Italy really does feel like an "ethnic theme park" so it's quite probable that North Beach is more "authentic" at this point and that it's more of a central gathering place for Bay Area Italians.
That doesn't make any sense. It's true that Manhattan Little Italy is an "ethnic theme park" but SF's North Beach has ceased even this. North Beach was an "ethnic theme park" similar to Manhattan Little Italy 40 years ago. It isn't even an obvious Italian neighborhood anymore. If you walked through tonight, you would have no idea it used to be a Little Italy.
In contrast, Manhattan Little Italy, while extremely touristy, is also very obviously an Italian ethnic enclave. Anyone not blind could not mistake its Italianness if you walked down Mulberry Street.
It may very well be the case that North Beach is even less authentic than Manhattan's Little Italy. But I'm not sure that the one in Manhattan is so "obviously an Italian ethnic enclave" if the census couldn't find a single resident born in Italy.
It may very well be the case that North Beach is even less authentic than Manhattan's Little Italy. But I'm not sure that the one in Manhattan is so "obviously an Italian ethnic enclave" if the census couldn't find a single resident born in Italy.
You're just making this up. The Census did no such thing.
And again, you're just changing the goalposts no matter what anyone says. The fact is that, for all of Little Italy (Manhattan's) theme park feel, North Beach lacks even this. It isn't an identifiable Little Italy anymore (and hasn't been since the 70's).
So you're comparing an Italian area to an non-Italian area on Italianness, which is silly. When anyone points this out, you change the goalposts, and claim that North Beach has better seafood or parks or architecture or other such irrelevant nonsense.
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.
And I am impressed it has remained relatively civil. We all probably know how most "vs" threads in this forum can turn out. This is far less of a p!ssing contest than usual.
