This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/ChinaTown Final Report_Archicture_Page_07_Image_0001.jpg 2021-04-12T09:08:45-07:00 Architecture 35 image_header 2022-04-05T11:36:19-07:00

  Making Place:

  In the 1860s, the first wave of Chinese-American immigrants to Los Angeles moved in to the Calle de los Negros and packed into the single-story adobe homes owned by well-off Mexican Californios and white landlords. Colonnaded verandas in front of these homes provided narrow, shaded walkways. There was little the Chinese immigrants could do to make the neighborhood theirs, however, because the contracts of their rented properties proved unstable. Therefore, what characterizes the architecture of Chinatown at this period is impermanence. All the Chinese immigrants could do at first to distinguish themselves architecturally was to put up ornamentation: a red banner here and there, some lanterns, Chinese characters to announce the names of the residents, but there was little room for enduring self-expressive architecture: "the immigrants learned not to invest too much money in improving their rented premises, however. In the decades to come, the City of Los Angeles would repeatedly uproot their community in the name of civic progress" (Zesch, 13-14). 

  Displacement and liminality characterized the lives of this first wave of Chinese immigrants: they were packed into rented adobe homes, sometimes fifteen to a room (Zesch, 14), and were socially marginalized by the dominant Anglo Los Angeles of the time. They were faced with the task of “making place,” the process of forming relationships with one’s environment by mapping one’s cultural beliefs, values, and aesthetics onto it and in turn deriving one’s feelings of belonging and identity from it. Carving out spaces that allowed for the expression of cultural identity and the free exchange of ideas and stories was paramount not only in establishing a Chinese-American community in Los Angeles, but in establishing forums through which Chinese-Americans could speak out against the racist, oppressive systems which confined and subjugated them. What can an investigation of the architecture (here understood broadly as the built environment) of Old Chinatown tell us about how the Chinese communities living there “made place”? How are the mechanics of displacement and civic erasure that the community was subjected to evident in the architectural vestiges (largely photos and oral accounts) we now have access to? Can we find ways in which the architecture of Old Chinatown reveals practices of community building, political organization, and celebration of heritage despite the forces that sought to subjugate and eventually displace the Chinese community? 

  Real Estate:

  
  The old Chinatown was a hub of civil unrest. When China had a population boom in the 19th century, many people looked toward the United States to escape famine and land shortages that they were experiencing in China. They began to migrate to the U.S. and settled in the oldest part of Los Angeles/Chinatown: El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument. This transition, however, was not smooth. It was accompanied by racial discrimination, sometimes overt and sometimes thinly veiled by accusations that the Chinese immigrants would take American jobs. There was constant opposition and heightened levels of anti-Chinese sentiments which even resulted in violence. Ultimately, this barred the Chinese people from certain neighborhoods and they were restrained by the landlords in terms of where they could live (Ohanesian, 2019).
  
  The restraints were not just limited to where they could live but extended to other facets of life which diminished their socioeconomic status. To begin with, the Chinese people were pushed into working low-paying jobs, resulting in or living conditions. It is startling to know that the median income for Los Angeles county is $56,000 as compared to just $19,500 for Chinatown. This is due to the inaccessibility of economic opportunities and a lack of education attainment. Only 28% of the Chinatown population has an economic degree which is a direct result of previously poor living conditions for the Chinese people which are being passed down through generations. It then goes to say that only 6% of Chinatown populace are homeowners and a majority of the remaining 94% have trouble paying rent. The housing quality is also significantly low which in turn impacts lifestyle, educational outcomes, and depletes mental & physical health. Ultimately, this resulted in a self-perpetuating cycle of depleting socioeconomic status stemming from the poor housing and architectural conditions and needed resolution in form of the New Chinatown (Mai & Chen, 2013).

  Monuments of Old Chinatown:

  The Garnier building (currently located at 419 N Los Angeles Street) is the only architectural and monumental vestige of Old Chinatown. It was built in 1890 by French businessman Phillipe Garnier and leased to Chinese tenants. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries it housed Chinese shops, schools, and religious organizations: cultural centers which provided a hub for community and political organization. "According to Chinese tradition, the upper floors of the building are closer to heaven and to the gods, and thus more appropriate for housing temples, schools, or organizations that exert authority. While commercial customers were located on the ground floor and mezzanine levels, Chinatown’s leading fraternal and social organizations, schools, and religious institutions occupied the second floor.” The building housed "the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (Chung Wah), which served as an umbrella organization for the community, fought anti-Chinese legislation and mediated disputes; the Sun Wing Wo Company (1891-1948), a popular general merchandise store which also served as a social center for Chinatown residents; the Chinese American Citizen's Alliance (1895-present), who were active in opposing discrimination and in registering Chinese American citizens to vote; the Wong Ha Christian Chinese Missions School (1897-1905); the Chinese Mission (1901); the Chinese Chamber of Commerce (1912-present); the China Empire Reform Association (1913); the Chinese English School (1913); and the Chinese Laundrymen's Association." (http://camla.org/the-building/)

  Thinking of the building not merely as a hollow and static geometrical space, but rather as a dynamic agent that actively conditioned the forms of community and cultural activity that took place within it can help us to truly appreciate the importance of the Garnier building to the cultural landscape of old Chinatown. To gain this kind of understanding, we must learn about its history of construction, its stylistic resonances, and most importantly how it was used and thought of by the Chinese community. We look at the ways in which architecture “acts on us” and “conditions human behavior” as described in Leland Roth’s comprehensive Understanding Architecture: Its Elements, History, and Meaning, in order to understand the Garnier’s symbolic and aesthetico-political valances (Roth, 4-5). This building, as the only remaining building from Old Chinatown, provides an important model for memorializing the Old Chinatown community. Its permanence and endurance give it a monumental quality, but its active use as a museum today attest to the historical ways in which the space was used.

  New Chinatown and Neo-Pagoda Architecture:

  
  The New Chinatown was built in the late 1930s with cultural exchange as one of its central premises. Whereas the Old Chinatown separated the city’s Chinese residents from the others, the New Chinatown would invite others in, as a kind of local, authentic tourism.
  
  Peter Soo Hoo, a professional engineer and USC alum, became one of the most important figures in the neighborhood's development. As a Chinese-American who spoke fluent Mandarin and English, and alum of a prestigious US university, Soo Hoo was in an ideal position to unify Chinatown to the larger Los Angeles.
  
  The New Chinatown boasted strongly symbolic architecture throughout. The plazas are marked by “neo-pagoda” architecture, as described by the LA Times. The buildings are characterized by vibrant colors– especially red, a Chinese symbol of good luck– and the stories are demarcated by sets of tiled roofs that converge into sloped peaks.
  
  If it seems fake or excessive, it might be because its original designers were borrowed from the movie studios of Hollywood (Tsui). Experienced set designers were employed to envision the tourist attractions that are the New Chinatown’s plazas. 

  Nightlife:

  
  As the most diverse city in America with a rich food history and culture, restaurants in Los Angeles are a window into history. Chinese restaurants in Chinatown are specifically relevant because they demonstrate the Americanization of both food and architecture. The restaurants in Chinatown epitomize the “neo-pagada” architectural trend in New Chinatown. The implementation of so-called “Chinese” motifs brought attention to Chinese Immigrants’ past while also using it as a method to bring in tourism. Restaurants made up a large portion of commercial property and consequently became more prevalent in the everyday life and nightlife of Chinatown. Restaurants in Chinatown also exemplify the new culture of “chinese Americans” by serving americanized versions of traditional Chinese cuisine like Chop Suey.
  
   

  Conclusions:

  
  Aseem:
  I learned that the Old Chinatown wasn’t a temple of peace but rather a hub for destruction. However, not all destruction is inherently bad. Any creative venture inadvertently destroys the old ways of being as was the case in Chinatown. Civil unrest is never welcomed, but it did serve as a playground for a Disneyfied Chinatown to arise. Ultimately, I learned that architecture is not only shaped by us but it ends up shaping us, in the sense that it influences how we live.
  
  Jamie:
  Through this project, we were able to discover a story of a place that is not at the forefront of Los Angeles’ history. We were able to tap into aspects of Los Angeles’ “memoy” and “amnesia”. The destruction of Old Chinatown also points to a larger narrative of the destruction of historical buildings, neighborhoods and communities in Los Angeles at large. For example after the neighborhood of the Chavez Ravine was redlined it was destroyed to make way for Dodger Stadium, displacing the entirety of the Mexican community living there. 
  
  Janis:
  Through this project, I was able to glimpse into an oft forgotten story of people making a place for themselves here in Southern California. I found awe in visiting spaces equipped with a prior understanding of their histories and the speculative act of recreating the places of the past in my spatial imagination proved to foster a greater connection with people of the past and present.