Consbrrcting Cultural and Ethnic Meaningsin the Urban Landscape:

A Case Study of the Lower East Side

Katherine BrowerEnvironmental Psychology2nd Year Field Research PaperOctober 4,1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Lrtroduction

II. A Review Of Selected Literature

A. The Produced and Constructed Urban Landscape

B. Social and Cultural Meanings in the Built Environment

C. Signs, Symbols, hrdicators, Cultural lnformation And Experiencesin the Built Landscape

D. Tourism Within Socially Produced And Contested Urban Landscapes . . . . . . . 10

III. Methodology: Research Questions, Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 13

A. Research Focus 13

B. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 14

IV. The Lower East Side Neighborhood: Setting and Context 1T

V. Ways IÍr Which Residents Define Themselves and Their Identities 2L

VI. Ways In Which Resident Insiders View and Construct Their Lower East SideLandscape 27

A. Neighborhood Characteristics, Qualities and Cultural/ Ethnic Identities 27

B. Lower East Side Places: Resident Meanings and Associations 30

;' ::: ::::: :::::::::::::::: 3?

1

3

c

6

333537

41,

4'1.

M

M5157

VII.

Lower East Side Neighborhood IdentityNew York City ldentityNational and World-Wide Significance

Ways fr\,YtrichThe Urban Landscape Communicates, Conveys, and ReflectsCutturat / Ethnic Identities

A. Places, Spaces, Settings, Landmarks and Objects

B. Phvsical and Social Environmental Ilrdicators

Visible or Vizual MarkersExperiential MarkersSpatial Markers

VIII. Lower East Side Collective Cultural/ Ethnic Geographies 61

lX. Wavs In Which Outsiders View and Construct the Lower East Sidea,Landscape 75

A. Guide Books and Guided Walking Tours: Defining and Charaúenzingthe Lower East Side 75

B. "Portraying" the Lower East Side: Neighborhood Walking Toursand Sites of Attraction

HistoryContemporary Life on the Lower East SideEthnicityShoppingCuriosities / Idiosyncracies

X. Multiple Constructions And Meanings Of A Lower East Side Place

Delancey StreetDelancey StreetDelancey Street ersDelancey Sbeet

XI. Condusions

Appendix A. Breakdown of Landscape Features Photographedby Residentsby Frequenq . . .

Appendix B. Guide Book Lower East Side AttractionsGroupedbyTheme

Bibliography

79

7981828384

87

92949698

101

105

1.09

115

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Photographs (Iaken By Resident Participants)

1. Eldridge Street Synagogue

2. Hua Mei Bird Garden

3. Wall Mural of Hector Lavoe

32

32

34

34

36

36

38

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

lL.

L2.

13.

1.4.

15.

1.6.

77.

Chinese Movie Theater

Seward Park High School

The Seward Park Coops

The Grand Deli

Chatham Square

Hillman Housing Coop Village

Dragon Gate Vendors Market

La Placita Deli and Market

Chinatown Senior Citizen Center

Dragon Gate Vendors Market

The Cibao Restaurant

Chatham Square

East Side Mikvah

38

47

ß49

49

52

54

54

58

58Grand Sheet Transition Point: Between Chrystie and Allen Streets

Maps

1. Lower East Side Study Area 18

2. Jewishcultural/EthnicGeography .. . . 65

3. Chinese/AsianCultural/EthnicGeography ...... 67

4. Latino/Hispanic/Spanish Cultural/Ethnic Geography . . 69

5. Italiancultural/EthnicGeography .... 77

6. hrter- And Multi-Cultural/ Ethnic Geography . . . . . 73

Tables

1. Places, Spaces, and Things Photographed by Resident Participantsby Landscape Feature Type and Frequency 42

2. Breakdown of Landscape Features Photographed by ResidentParticipants by Frequency . 'l'07

Diagrams

1. The Physical Places and Place Meanings of Delancey Street . . . 88

2. The Construction of Place Meaning . . . 89

3. The Multi-Vocal Layers of Place . . . . 90

Collages

1. Delancey Street Physical Places

2. Delancey Street Visible Markers

3. Delancey Street Experiential Markers

4. Delancey Street Spatial Markers

Lists

1. Guide Book Lower East Side AttractionsGroupedbyTheme 1'1'1

92

94

96

98

Constructing Cultural and Ethnic Meanings in the Urban landscape:A Case Studv of the Lower East Side

Abstract.

The notion that places and landscapes communicate or reflect something about people'scuftural ethnic identities and experiences is accepted by visitors and residents alike as well asby the institutions and industries that support them. Yet the ways in whidr the urbanenvironment reveals cuttural identities and meanings for people and the complexities of theserelationships are not understood nor contemplated by these groups, public policy makers, orurban planners. This research seeks to make "visible" and identifiable aspects of the physicaland social urban environment that people use to mark their own cultural identities andmeanings and that of others. hrformation is collected from a small sample of residents of variedculturalthrough sthat thecommunicate culfure, and processes by which the landscape is produced and contested.Knowledge about the "stuff' of a culfural and built environment can inform the tourismindustry, public policy makers and urban planners about ways in which these types ofenvironments canbe encouraged, enhanced, and vitally maintained.

I. Introduction

One of the reasons that many people travel is to experience a culture different from their own.

Many people choose to have ethnic experiences in their neighborhood as part of their everyday

lives. The notion that places communicate and reflect something about peoples' cultffal, ethnic

identities or connections and experiences is accepted by these types of travelers and residents

as well as by the institutions and industries that support them. Yet ways in which the urban

landscape conveys cultural connections or identities and meanings for people are not well

understood. The complexities of these relationships are even less explored. What are the r¿ìnge

of meanings and identi[es that residents and outsiders associate with neighborhood places?

I¡Vhat physical elements of a place or building communicate cultural or ethnic information to

someone? What types of social activities, interactions or uses in the landscape convey cultural

or ethnic information? What visible, audible and sensory elements communicate cultural

experience? Furthermore, how do these indicators function in an environment where people of

different cultffal backgrounds hve and work? Understanding relationships between the builtenvironment, cultural identities and experiences reveal complex ways in whiclr people identifythemselves culturally and ethnically as well as multiple ways in which the same landscape can

be coded and constructed withindividual and shared meanings.

The Lower East Side of Manhattan is a good area to examine these iszues given that it has

historically been a first place to settle for successive waves of newly a¡rived immigrants to New

York City since before the 1880's. Today, the Lower East Side is a neighborhood that continues

to draw new residents as well as serve as a home to more long ternt residents. Residents and

non-residents alike associate a wide range of historical and current meanings and identities withplaces in the neighborhood, whether or not the actual buildings or places still exist.

This research seeks to make "visilble" ways in which individual and collective cultural and

ethnic identities, experiences and meanings are solidified in and nourished by the physical

forms of the built environment. This paper examines a range of multiple meanings and

identities that are associated with urban fonns, public and private spacet and discrete places

by a small sample of resident insiders and by outsiders represented by a sample of guide books

and sightseeing tours.

Examining ways in which resident insiders and outsiders associate meanings and identify with

places within the same neighborhood provides insight into the tyPes of relatronships and uses

that both groups consider important and why. Given that tourism plays a crucial role in the

economy of most cities around the world today, knowledge about what these different grouPs

value canbe useftil in creating and maintaining places and neighborhoods that can

accommodate both groups. The packaging of culture and the built environment for tourism has

implications both for the people and environments being packaged (residents) as well as for the

visitors who experience them. For example, the use of select informatior¡ sites to visit, and

arranged or conholled interactions with people in a setting can reinforce as well as create social

and economic inequities between locals and visitors. Numbers of tourists, buses,

accommodations and arrangements can also alter the everyday life experiences and

environment for the people who live in a place visitedby large numbers of others.

Understanding the complex ways in which people talk about their own cultural identities,

personal connections, experiences, and associations with places, sPaces, settings and activities

in the built environment, canbegin to give one a sense of what a cultural environment consists of

to the people who live in a place. Ways in which the environment is portrayed and

characterized by outsiders provides a view into what a cultural environment consists of for

visitors and what aspects they most value. Knowledge about this "stuff' of a cultural and built

environment and how it is multiply valued can inform the tourism industry, public Policy

makers and urban planners, about ways in which these types of urban environments can be

encouraged, enhanced, and vitally maintained.

II. A Review Of Selected Literature

In order to better understand and guide my research into these complex issues, I examined the

literature centering around the following themes: 1) Ways in which urban landscapes are

produced and contested;2) Ways in which meanings are constructed and associated wíthplaces within the built environment; 3) Ways in which the landscape communicates or conveys

cultural information and experiences; and 4) Relationships between the development and

production of tourism within socially produced and contested urban landscapes. The research

on these topics is drawn from a variety of disciplines and perqpectives within the social

sciences, including: Anthropology, Geography, Sociology, Urban Planning, Architecture,

Archeology, Performance Sfudies, Cultural Studies, andTourism, Leisure and Recreation

Studies.

A. The Produced and Constructed Urban Landscape

Literature addressing this topic theorizes about the social, cultffal historicaf political, and

economic forces that shape the built and spatial form of the urban environment. Emphasizing

one or two particular forces as the tool for analysis, the literature examines the urban

environment from a broad range of sizes, from whole societies, cities, specific cities, and

neighborhoods. For the purposes of this researcþ gaining a better understanding of a

neighborhood as a product of broader city, state and global contexts and networks provides a

more complex framework through whictr to view local culturaf ethnic, racial group and dass

identities within the built environment.

Basic premises about the form of the built environment across cultures is presented by King(1980) and Harvey (1990). Taking a sociological and historical perspective, King (1980)

considers the built environment a product of social needs and cultural values, as well as a

reflection of the distribution of power. He presents a preliminary framework for understanding

how the built environment evolves over time and between different cultures by examining how

the ideas, values, beliefs, activities, relationships and forms of social organization of

institutions are reflected in the actual form and design of the buildings. King's approach is

useful in that it links types of building form and design withbroader social and cultural

functions and institutional organizations.

Harvey (1990), alternatively, links the form of the urban environment more specifically to the

structure of the economy. Taking a political-economic perspective, Harvey links the shift from

modern to postmodern society to a restrucfuring of capitalism via flexible accumulation, and

discusses the impacts that this restructuring has had on shifting social, cultural, historical,

economic and political preferences, values and patterns of behavior. New urban forms and

shapes have emerged through: building design (with the collage of references to historical

architectural styles); urban planning (the new urbanist agenda of neotraditional towns and the

rise of gated communities); and spatial use of the environment þy people of different socio-

economic classes and racial groups). Capitalism, in the form of fleúble accumulatiorç and

production and labor relations have changed the shape of the urban landscape and in so doing,

have reinforced socioeconomic class divisions by widening the gap between those who have the

ability to consume and those who produce the goods for consumption.

On a neighborhood levef Lin (1998), in his study of New York City's Chinatown examines

ways in which community dynamics and the urban landscape are tied to larger local, state,

federal and global processes. Combining a political-economic and cultural studies perspective,

Lin considers ways in which structural and semiotic constructions of urban places, race and

ethnic categories are interconnected. His focus on community dynamics and ways in which they

are socially constructed and affected by economic, political, cultural, and historical processes

provides a linkbetween community identity and landscape dynamics.

Smith (1996) more specifically considers the urban landscape as a site of contestation between

economic classes and racial groups that is facilitated through the process of gentrification.

Smithls conception of gentrifîcation as a process of transferring Power and control to middle

and upper middle classes as well as a process of re-differentiating the cultural, social and

economic landscape through consumptionpatterns is useful in that it puts forward the notion

that the landscape is a site of contesting social, economic and cultural identities of a more

powerful economic class over another. These themes have also been explored by others zuch as

Duncan (1990), Mitchell (1996), Mitchell (1993) Anderson (198n and Hayden (1995).

Zukin (198n provides a more specific picture of the gentrifying class as individual actors in an

effort to better understand neighborhood, class and racial interactions as part of the process of

gentrification. Zukin,like SmittU describes gentrification as "a process of spatial and social

differentiation "(p. 131), yet conceives of it as a cultural practice as well as an economic one.

Gentrifiers seek cultural validation of their property, through avenues such as historic

preservation, as a means to valorize their housing invesbnent. Culturally validated

neighborhoods also provide middle class gentrifiers with a collective identity and the social

credentials that they seeþ ensuring social reproduction (p. 142, cf. Logan & Molotch 1987¡r.

Furthermore, as gentrification most often occurs with certain gpes of buildings,"...

gentrification connotes both a mode of high-status culfural consumption and the colonization of

an expanding terrain by economic institutions associated with the service sector" (p.1M).

Zukin (1991) further considers the landscape as a culturat product of spatial decisions made by

social and economic powers (p.22). Landscape mediates "... symbolically and materially

between the socio-spatial differentiation of capital ...and the socio-spatial homogeneity of

labor..."(p. 16). Landscape is the product of a series of social and economic compromises

made in specific places between people with different interests: workers and employers;

developers and consumers; entrepreneurs and creative personnel (p.22).

While Smith s views the neighborhood landscape as a battle ground between social and dass

relations, Zukin considers the landscape as a culfural construct of social and economic

compromises. Both examine the physical shape of the landscape as a product of social,

economic and cultural practices. They are useful in that they consider the broader context of

forces within which individuals and their individual decisions are a part. What they are

missing, however, is the meaning of landscapes for individuals who experience them.

Low (1996), in her work on qpatializing culture in public space in Costa Ric4 brings together

broader social, economic, ideological and teclrnological factors that shape and produce the

physical environment with socíal interactive, individual or phenomenological and sFmbolic

experiences of space as part of an analytic strategy. Conceiving of broader forces that shape

the physical environment as the social production of space, Low, similar to Smith arrdZrskin,

considers this emphasis on the material setting as "... useful in defining the historical emergence

and political and economic formation of urban space" (p. 861). Low terms the

phenomenological and s¡rmbolic experiences of the physical environment (iszues that Rodman

(1992) and Richardson (L982) also raise) as the social construction of space, where qpace is

transformed through " ... people's social exchanges, memories, images, and daily use of the

2 Reference as cited in Zukin (1987), Logan, J. Molotch" H. 1987. Urban Fortunes.Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

5

material setting - into scenes and actions that convey symbolic meafúng" (p.862).

Conceiving of the landscape as a product of broader social, economic, political, historical and

cultural forces provides the context within which to consider ways in which certain types of

places, spaces, buildings, etc. are produced and contested by particular grouPs of people. This

broader context of landscape provides a framework for interpreting the shape and meaning of

the built environment on a sociallevel. Another framework is needed in order to understand the

multiple meanings of place for individuals and grouPs of individuals.

B. Social and Cultural Meanings in the Built Envfuonment

Research that focuses on understanding ways in which meanings and values are constructed

and associated with forms within the built environment explores ways in whichindividuals and

groups of people value and assign meaning to buildings, places, and spaces in their urban

environment. Literature addressing this topic considers meaning of the built environment from

the perspective of how different groups of people use, personalize and design spaces; the

interaction between how people perceive physical distinctions between sPaces and buildings

and ways in which the physical environment in turn communicates information; and ways in

which meanings of place are multiple being based on people's experiences and social, historical,

cultff al and geographical constructions of space.

Rapoport (1982) highlights the importance of considering the meaning the built environment has

for the people who inhabit and use it, as opposed to the meanings attributed to the built

environmentby design professionals, such as architects and planners. He notes that there are

many meanings that canbe attributed to the built environment since "...meanings,like the

environments that communicate them, are culture specific andhence culturally variable"(p.21).

Meanings for Rapoport come through ways in which users personalize their environments:

"through taking possessiorç completing it, changing lt" (p.21).

Rapoport characterizes the environment as a series of relationships between things and things,

things and people, and people and people, and identifies four elements that are organized as

part of the process of designing environments: space, time, communication and meaning. He

chooses to focus on the relationship between communication andmeaning, defining

communicahon as "vetbaTor nonverbal communication among people" - who communicates

with whom, under what conditions, how, when, where and in what context and situation; and

defining meaning as "commurúcation from the environment to people"-- signs, materials, colors,

forms, sizes, furnishìngs,landscaping, maintenance, and by people themselves (p. 181). Using

these two elements, he develops a framework for the importance and meaning of the builtenvironment as an outcome of the interaction between ways in which people perceive meaning

by distinctive and noticeable physical cues and ways in which people øssociøterneaningby

decoding the meaning of elements through their associations with use and behavior, the context

and the situation. Rapoport's perspective is useful in that it brings together ways in which the

landscape communicates meanings through environmental cues as well as individual

interpretation and association of meanings.

Brower (1988), altemately, considers ways in which groups of people, in this case,

residents and outsiders, look at the environment in different ways and see different things.

Brower finds that while the two groups have differing priorities, expectations, and ways that

they use to evaluate a residential neighborhood, they are not in opposition. Designprofessionals

tend to view these environments more like outsiders. Given this finding, it seems that the

meanings and values that residents and outsiders assign and hold for the same places wouldvary.

Ofïering a perspective that connects local and individual meanings of place to broader

processes, Rodman (1992) considers the individual experience of the landscape in tenns ofmeanings of place rooted in social, cultural, geographical and historical contexts. She examines

social and spatial meanings of place by incorporating the idea of a politicized landscape,by

arguing that places ate "...politicized, culturally relative, historically specific, local and multipleconstructions" (p. 641). Rodman develops the concepts of multilocality and multivocality as a

way to "empower place" by gaining more complex insights into the meanings of places for

people and for understandings of spatial meaning as social constructions.

Places have multiple and local meanings for each individual. A place incorporates many

meanings of place generated by different individuals. Multilocality is a \May of experiencing

those and other places. Building on work by Giddens (1990) and Marcus (1989), Rodman sees

multilocality as having a number of dimensions: 1) the viewpoints of others, both non-westem

and eurocentric, recognizing that there are no "others";2) within a context of actors who are

part of a network of connections within a system of places; 3) self-reflective relationships that

people have with places, such as viewing a new landscape in terms of a former landscape with

which a person is familiar; and 4) different expenences of a single place by different people at

the same time. All of these dimensions of meaning are based on relationships and interactions

between different places and different people in different geographical, cultural and historical

contexts (p.0+V.

Multivocality of place incorporates the voices and perspectives of different people by

considering how they construct, contest and ground their experience in place. By joining

multilocality to multivocality, Rodman says we can look "through places, explore the links of

places with others, consider why they are constructed as they are, see how places represent

people, and begin to understand how people embody places"(p.652).

Rapoport, Brower and Rodman offer differenÇ yet valuable perspectives on the complexities

within which places and urban environment have meanings for individuals and groups. What

all make clear in one way or another is that there are multìple meanings to a place or urban

environment depending upon the perspective of the individual.

C. Signs, Symbols, Indicators, Cultural lnformation And Experiences in the Built Landscape

Ways in which the landscape communicates or conveys culturat information and how one

experiences culture in the built environment can be based on a variety of factors: the structure

and meanings associated with the built environment, individual interactions, vizual dues such

as items for sale, signs, behavior of others; and sensory dues such as food language and music

sounds. The relationship between environmental experience and shared cuttural and ethnic

identities is a complex one, not explored by many.

While Rapoport (1982), as mentioned earlier, discusses ways in which colors, signs, etc.

communicate meaning and information to people, another way of viewing the landscape is in

terms of physical elements that make it visually identifiable. Lynch (1960) introduces the

notion of environmental image, describing them as public images "the common mental pictures

carried around by large numbers of the city's inhabitants..." (p.7).He identifies five basic

elements of physical form that he found to be part of the city images of the people he

rnterviewed: paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks. These elements are those physical

features that serve as channels along which people move, boundaries or barriers between areas/

areas of the city that have some coûtrnon characteristic, and points or places where there are

concentrations of activity that serve as focal points. The idea of distinct landmarks and images

of built forms within a city that a-re memorable to people and in some way serve to represent a

city identity provides a useful framework to consider what makes neighborhood places firnction

as suctr as well as how people experience and perceive them.

Both Edholm (1995) and Jarman (1995) deal with ways in which the physical form and design

of the environment are used to structure and control one's experiences. Edholm considers ways

in which the public realm of streets and boulevards of Paris in the 1880's functioned as ordered

and controlled spaces that were gendered- and class-determined (p. 165). Differing experiences

of public space reinforce the ways in which the same spaces are experienced djfferentþ bygroups of people according to social advantage and disadvantage. Jarman looks at ways inwhich ideological con-flicts between male dominated groups in Belfast have manifest themselves

in the physical environment. Segregated communities divided by dass and faith and

fragmented by the physical landscape (p. 110). Physical barriers and forms of resistance

create, mark, and serve to strucfure ways in which people interact and experience the urban

environment.

Another examination onhow one experiences the built environment focuses on cultural

experience. This perspective is best dealt with by Richardson (1982) who proposes three

analytically distinct components involved in the process of incolporating material culture into

the definition of situation: a material componenÇ an interaction componen! and an image

component. The material culture or physical setting provides a preliminary definition of the

situation that people "tead" and respond to through features such as the context, arrangement

and thematic featu¡es. These features help people to distinguish one setting from other settings

in the community. The interaction component refers to the interpretive responses that people

have in the setting through interactions with other people, and their own understanding of what

is going on around them defined and facilitated by the material setting. The material image is

the objectification of the sense of "what" is going on in the situation emerging out of people's

inte¡pretive responses to interactions with others upon the "where" of the specific physical

setting itself. It is through this process that Richardson believes that people move from being

there physically in the setting to "being-in-the-world."

The material setting and the interaction within it ceate a situation and social reality. The

incorporation of the different material setting into different realities anchors the divisions in

physical space, which further enhances the distinctiveness of one setting from one another.

Cultures are composed of multiple social realities that are juxtaposed against one another as a

way to make them distinct from and define one another.

Richardson's concepts provide a guide for considering the individual experiences and

interactions within places and spaces and the physical setting in the landscape as social

realities that are part of constructing culture(s). The perspectives of Edholm and Jarman on

ways in which the physical environment functions as a means to control interaction between

groups of people as well as a means by which groups of people actively exPress group identity

and power provide a broader context to keep in mlnd as part of the individual experiences.

Lynch provides perspectives on landscape distinctiveness and image, while Rapoport

focuses on environmental elements that serve to communicate meaning to groups of people.

D. Tourism Within Socially Produced And Contested Urban Landscapes

Tourism often takes place in and focuses ilts gaze upon particular buildings, places, and spaces

of the urban landscape. Nanatives and meanings related to the import of these segments of the

built environment are both selected and constructed by the tourism industry. Select pictures

and objects of culture, ethnicity, social relations and the landscape are presented, symbolized

and collapsed by guide books, tours and other information developed for tourists into cohesive

narratives thatmay deny contestation and the continued dynamism of individuaT agenry;

reinforcing existing social structures. The commodification of culture and the urban landscape

attempts to fix the built environment in time and space.

Within the sociological literature, research has focused on tourism as a phenomenon of modem

society as well as on typologies of tourism and of tourists. MacCanne[ (1976) zuggests that "...

the empirical and ideological expansion of modem society .. (is) .. intimateþ linked in diverse

ways to modernmass leisure, eqpecially to intemational tourism and sightseeing" (P. 3). He

develops the notion that the tourist is motivated to seek a deeper involvement with, insight into

and perhaps connection to society and culture. Sightseeing is a way to provide coherence to the

discontinuity und disparate experiences of modern life (p. 10, 13). This idea is also discussed

by Stewart (1988) an anthropologist, as context for a culture of nostalgi4 in which she

identifies nostalgia as a cultural practice that has arisen in response to a similar de-centering

10

and fragmenting of modemlife experience. While MacCannell does not give much consideration

to how culture is defined in terms of who is represented, the social interactionbetween tourists

and the local inhabitants, or the impacts of tourism on altering the inherent and distinctive

social quallties of a place, his identification of tourism and the tourist as a phenomenon and

process of the modern social experience provides a broad social and theoretical context.

Another area of research on tourism focuses on ways in which places are consumed: ways inwhich places are marketed and valued to attract visitors; ways in which places are consumed

as commodities by visitors. The value of larger places, such as neighborhoods or cities, can be

intertwined with any number of things, such as the historic character of its buildings, the visual

quafiry of its skyline, accoÍìmodations and attractions for tourists, or the well being of its

residents, health of the economy, and the quatity of education available.

Unry (1995) proposes that places, in the larger sense, are consumed in several different ways: 1)

as centers for consumptionby providing the context within which goods and services are

compared, evaluated, purchased and used; 2) as places themselves, particularly visually,

helped by the provision of consumer services for both visitors and locals; 3) through overuse

and depletion of resources/ such as the things that people take to be significant (industry,

history, buildings,literature, environment); and 4) by conzuming one's identity to the point of

becomingall-consuming (emphasis in the original) for visitors as well as for locals (p.1-2).

Another way to conceive of place value is in terms how it is marketed to attract invesbrrent,

industry, and tourism. Kotler, Haider and Rein (1993) identify four major marketing factors

found in every place: 1.) place image and quality of life; 2) attractions; 3) in-frastructure; and 4)

people. These marketing factors canbe turned into marketing strategies that canbe used by

places to attract visitors, residents and workers, build the place's business and industrial base,

and increase exports. These marketing factors are in essence aspects of a place that are valued

or considered desirable by the people who the place seeks to attract, known as the target

markets.

h)kn (1995) discusses ways in which culture serves as a cofirmodity in cities, while Dorst

(1989) takes a close look at one town, Chadds Ford, and ways in which it has constructed and

marketed itself as a tourist attraction and commodity.

11

Other aspects examined from the perspective of architecture and planning consider tourism as a

tool for economic development to generate tax revenue and to revitalize urban areas, elements

of design that attract and accommodate visitors, the physical and social impacts of tourism

development on public and private spaces as well as on the functioning of contemporary urban

places. Boyer (1992), for example, identifies three gpes of city tableau that are common in

many American and European cities: 1) historic quarters whose form and preservation are

regulated by law; 2) special districts with strong visual or historic identity and regulated by

zoning or design guidelines; and 3) new development of residential enclaves, shopping malls,

festival markeþlaces and theme parks with a managed or staged visual decor and atmosphere

(p. 188). She points out that while the intent of these historic tableau is to compensate for the

failures of modern life- by invoking history and nostalgia as a way to generate coherence and

counter the decomposition and sense of non-place in cities- these tableau themselves are non-

places:

" ... hollowed out urban remnants, without connection to the rest of the city or past,waiting to be filled with contemporary fantasieg colonized by wishful projections, andturned into spectacles of consumption' (p. 191).

While Boyer does not mention that these places are highly popular among tourists and may not

be what the tourist experiences, her concern is for the impact of these developments on the built

form and the social and cultural fabric of the urban environment. Boyer echoes MacCannell

and Stewart in the notion that tourism is a response to a fragmented modern society, except

that she is examining tourism from the architectural point of view. In her view, the tourist,

architectural, and spatial forms of "historic tableau" work toward isolating people even more

from the problems and issues of real life, social interaction and the stuff urban life is made of.

The structures are designed to escape reality and function only as special places to be

experienced during leisure time.

Boyer's notion of the non-place highlights inceased separation between the haves and have nots

as well as the disintegration of the urban spatial and social fabric. These consequences of

tourism are related to Sandford's (198Ð suggestion that tourism serves as a direct or indirect

contributor to the process of gentrification, resulting in the pushing out of residents as the value

of real estate increases due to pressure from people outside of the neighborhood to buy

property. Sorkin (1992) and Smith (1992) refer to these issues in relation to urban forrn,

planning and the social construction and production of space.

1,2

III. Methodology: Research Questions, Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

A. Research Focus

This research is organized around the following question: How do residents and outsiders of the

Lower East choose to identify and construct visible cultural and ethnic identities in the

landscape of their neighborhood? Supporting questions include: a.) What are the visible

elements of the physical and social environment that people choose as cultural markers of

themselves and of other groups in an envjronment where there are people of many cultural and

ethnic backgrounds? To which groups are these markers assigned and why? Are there markers

that are shared by more than one resident or group?; and b.) Do residents associate similar,

different or multi cultural/ethnic identities to the same buildings, spaces or places in the builtenvironment? Are there conficts between groups of people over identities or use of this

landscape? What form do these conflicts take, if any?

Built into the research is an assumption that the same urban environment often holds a range of

different associations for people and groups. Culture and ethnicity are conceptualized as

meaningful and shared sets of behavior, physical objects or environments, symbols and

identities among groups of people. While both have visible and invisible ties thatbindpeople

together, the degree to which they are shared varies among people since every individual

constructs a cultural and ethnic identity of his or her own. This research investigates visible,

public, elements of cultural and ethnic identities of select individual residents from different

cultual, ethnic and racial bacþrounds as they connect with or are marked by the landscape of

their Lower East Side neighborhood.

The term landscape is conceived of as a physical and social envfuonment that is produced

through social, cultural, political economic, and historical processes. Con-flicts between groups

of people ocflÍ over choices of building fotms, geographic locations, the types of use and

activities that occur thete, as well as ways in which certain groups use buildings, space, and

land. Urban landscapes are, then, not only produced, but contested. Elements of the physical

and social environment that I have chosen as data to inform my study about the construction of

the Lower East Side as a multi-cultural landscape include: specific buildings; architecfural

details, types of signage or groups of buildings, lots, gardens or playgrounds; landmarks,

places, spaces or temporary constructions; merchandise for sale; specific smells, sounds, and

73

experiences; and any activities that take place in the area.

Given these assumptions and conceptualizations, I was interested in identifying, comparing and

contrasting the variety of associations that people from different cultural and ethnic grouPs

have for the physical places, spaces, objects, experiences, and social and cultural activities that

take place in the Lower East Side area. I was also interested in identifytng the associations that

a sample of guide books and sight seeing tours hold to be culturally and socially important and

connected to same area in order to provrde an alternative Perspective on it.

The purpose of the study was to reveal relationships between associations or meanings that are

held to be important by local residents of different cultural/ethnic grouPs and those cultural

associations that are communicated more broadly to visitors. It is hoped that this information

can contribute to understanding, and shaping solutions to, the complex issues involved in the

desire of communities, such as the Lower East Side, to attract visitors to help sustain the local

economy; to incorporate a more culturally aware and meaningful experience for visitors; and at

the same time, to maintain the distinct cuttural vitality and meaning of the neighborhood for the

people who live there.

B. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

Information was gathered from a sample of five residents consisting of two men and three

women from Jewistu Chinese, Puerto Rican, and Italian backgrounds with varied social and

economicbad<grounds2. All participants lived within the same area of the Lower East Side

Area.

A first interview induded open-ended questions about how the resident participants defined

themselves, their culfural backgrounds, and who the other cultural/ ethnic groups in the

neighborhood were. Resident participants were asked to identify and locate on neighborhood

maps that I provided those buildings, architectural details, spaces, places, sounds, smells,

activities, and geographic boundaries that they associated with their self-defined identities,

cultffal backgrounds, and with the other groups they mentioned in the neighborhood.

2 It is important to point out, of course, that residents are made up of individuals with varied

interests and senses of value so that attempts to categorize people into broad groups are

problematic especially with such a small sample.

t4

Each resident was then given a 27 exposure disposable camera and asked to go out into their

Lower East Side neighborhood and take a series of twenty-four photographs of places, spaces,

or things. They were asked specifically to take eight photographs of things, places, spaces, etc.

that were important to them personally and that they associated with part of who they are;

twelve photographs that showed the cultural identity of the neighborhood; and four

photographs of whatever they wished. The remaining three photographs were for their own

private use.

A second interview asked participants to describe in more detail the places that they had

chosen to photograph and asked broader questions about what the set of photographed places

as a whole indicated about neighborhood characteristics and identities. Participants were also

asked to map their weekly use of the neighborhood and the location of the places that they

chose to photograph.

ht sum, three types of information were collected from the resident participants: verbal

interviews; maps of place locations, routes, and boundaries; and photographs. The resident

interviews provided explanations, definitions, meanings, experiences and details that were not

possible to record using the visual methods. The mapping of the locations of the sites and the

boundaries of cultural and ethnic identities provided a spatial and geographic element to the

information. The photographic method added descriptive visual information about the spaces,

places, settings, etc.; indicated some of the physical qualities of the environment through the

transforrration and viewing of the environment as an objectin aphotograph; and stimulated

discussion about a range of experiences in the environment that the residents may not have

thought about during their firstinterview.

A fourth set of data was collected through a review of a sample of thirteen commercial guide

books 3 of New York City and two guided walking tours of the neighborhood. This data was

3 Two of the books included in this review differ in character to the others. One of the booksincluded in this review is not technically a guidebook. Entitled: Newcomey'sHandbookForNew York City, the book is aimed at people who are moving to New York and making thetransition to living and working here. Included in my review is the section that discussesManhattan neighborhoods in terms of boundaries, characteristics and qualities, and usefuladdresses. The other book: Guide to New York City l^andmarks, is a document and guide toNew York City's officially designated landmarks and historic districts. This book providesinformation about individual landmarks, interior landmarkg scenic landmarks, and historicdistricts throughout the city that are considered to be significant by the New York City

15

collected to provide a sense of what visitors are encouraged to see and experience of the Lower

East Side. These fifteen souïces were reviewed in terms of how they defined the boundaries of

and characterized the Lower East Side. A list of the sites deemed as "most important" to see

on the Lower East Side was generated from the text of the guide books and the verbal narrative

givenby the guides of the walkjng tours to provide. the data for analysis.

Landmarks Preservation Commission.

16

IV. The Lower East Side Neighborhood: Setting and Context

The Lower East Side of Manhattan is a good area to study issues of place meaning and

cultffali ethnic identity given that it has historically been a multi-ethnic neighborhood. Working

class people have long lived there as well as waves of newly arrived immigrants who have

settled there since before the 1880's. Today, the area still functions as a point of entry for

newly arrived immigrants. While historically, the area was inhabited by people from Italy,

Ireland, Germany, and many countries within Eastern Europe, today the mix of ethnic, cultural,

racial and religious groups reflects the shift toward more recent immigrants from countries inAsia, as well as Central and South America.

The area of study is a section of the Lower East Side located south of Houston Street to the

East River, extending from East River Park and the F. D. R. Drive on the east to Lafayette,

Center, Baxter, and Catherine streets on the west (See Map 1). Many of the streets in this area

are lined with solid streetwalls of tenement buildings, grr.ing one a sense of what the area was

like in the early L900's. The population is of varied racial and cultural bacþrounds, and

countries of origin, including: Chinese; Malaysian; Puerto Rican; Dominican; African-American;

Jewish; among others. tn1990, seventy-nine percent of the population over the age of 5 ye¿ìrs

spoke a language other than English at home and the income per capita was approximately

$9,000.4

Since 1990, howeveç an increase in residents with higher income brackets can be noted through

the increase in residential and commercial rents in the area, types of stores, bars and

restaurants, and a renewed interest in real estate inveshnents. The process of gentrification has

begun, although it is dearly more prononnced in certain sections, eqpecially the area around

Ludlow, East Houston and Orchard streets. One New York Times artide describes the area

roughly bound by Houston Street, Delancey StreeÇ the Bowery, and Suffolk Street as ".... a littledowntown bohemia" (Pareles, 1997, p. L). According to the article, the area "...is in the

promising part of a pattern that's familiar from SoHo and the East Village: the transition from

rundown neighborhood to artists' hangout to hip destination to overload" (Pareles, 1997, p.1).

4 Figures represent a portion of the study area contained within six census tracts (14.01 ,1.4.02,16,1.8,30.01, and 36.01.) This data is taken from the 1990 Population and HousingCharacteristics by Census Tract generated by the New York Department of City Planning. Thesources for this data are the 1990 U.S. Census STF1A.

17

EEl-l

0 s00 100Û

-F

Map L. Lower East Side Study Area

Souroe of Data: COGIS Release 984 Z ILINE 1998

@ lÐ8 City of New York Department of CiÇ Planning

FEET

LEGEND

l,#il nto¿<s in study Area

18

Orchard Street, which has served historically as a destination for discount prices, ethnic foods,

clothing and Sunday pedestrian shopping, has seen the opening of new kinds of stores that

another article in the New York Times calls hip. The article, entitled "Hipification Reaches The

Street Where Peddlers Once Pushed Catt" describes the transition taking place on Orchard

Street in these terms: "...the Lower East Side's classic destination for Sunday bargain shoppers

is the latest frontier for the young and groovy" (Abramovitch, 1997, p.1). ThÍs young and

groovy group, also termed as "the hip" are described as " -.. the new pioneers, invoking the same

entreprenenr energy as their predecessors" (Abramovitch, 7997, p.6). The hip are

characterized as artists, designers and "hipsters." The article also indirectly references the

gentrification trend by noting that "the hip new businesses" ate anextension of the spread of

the new bohemia from Soho and south from the East Village.

Not only are new $pes of goods being offered for sale to attract a different sort of consurner,

examples of Smith's middle class consumption patterns (Smith, 1996), but cultural, educational

and business institutions or associations are defining and constructing identities and attributing

meanings to the buildings and other elements of the landscape to appeal to particular types of

visitors. Local institutions or associations zuch as the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, the

Eldridge Street Project, the Educational Alliance, the Henry Street Settlement, the Lower East

Side Bargain District and the South Manhattan Development Corporation organize a variety of

educational and cultural activities, walking tours and festivals to athact people to the

neighborhood. Walking tours focus on shopping, Jewishlife, and multi-ethnic food among other

things. Smaller art and theater groups also present performances and exhibits about the area.

Other organizations are more focused on shaping the image, fabric and function of the Ordrard

Street area for the residents themselves. Organizations such as University SettlemenÇ the

Forsyth Garden Conservanc/, Asian Americans For Equality, Roosevelt Park Community

Coalitioru and Manhattan Neighborhood Renaissance are involvedinneighborhood

improvements, community gardening, educatiorç housing, and smallbusiness development and

improvement. As part of their varied interests, all of these organizations are, in fact, defining,

interpreting and constructing pas!'current and future meanings of the area'sbuilt environment

for others.

79

0z

V. Ways In Which Residents Define Themselves and Their Identities

Resident participants were asked how they would describe who they are to someone they just

met. They were also asked if they feel a part of or identify themselves with any cultural, ethnic

or racial groups or organizations. The cultural, ethnic, racial and other identities and

connections associated with each resident in this studv are thus derived from these self-

described responses.

The two men and three women who participated in the sfudy described themselves in a number

of different ways, namely by: personality traits; religious beliefs; cutturat or ethnic traits, beliefs

and practices; racial groups; country of origin or family heritage; type of profession/occupation;

marital status; connections to family and friends; organizations or groups that they associate

themselves with; and their connections to the Lower East Side.

The following is a brief portrait of the five participants as they have described themselves.

Avrohom

Awohom is a thirty-folr yeil old man who has lived on the Lower East Side for about eight

ye¿ìrs. He moved to the neighborhood justbefore he gotmaried and works as a driver and

caterer at a jewish restaurant and deli in the neighborhood. He describes himself in this way:

"I am an orthodox religious Jew. I work in catering and sales. I am divorced and have asix year old daughter with whom I spend most of my weekends and holidays..."

Awohom associates himself with orthodox Jews as a group and with one religious organizatiorç

in particular, a synagogue in the neighborhood:

"I am Jewish by birth so I do associate myself with orthodox Jewish people ...There isone synagogue I go to on pretty much a regular basis on the weekends and I wouldassociate myself with them it is the Eldridge Street Shu1........"

He remains li .i.g inthe neighborhoodbecause of his daughter, who was quite young whenhe

got divorced three years agø and because he considers the neighborhood to be very homey:

"...as we say in YiddistU 'hamishe' and that means homey, it feels like family. A

21

lot of people are close and everybody is worried about everyone else's concernsand they ieally do help each other and everything like that..."

Sophia

Sophia is a 28 year old woman who grew up and has lived on the Lower East Side since the age

of ten when she and her family immigrated from Hong Kong. She is an urban planner by

profession and at the time of the interview worked for a low income housing development

organization. Her family still lives in the same apartment where she grew up. They continue to

stay there because the rent is low, it is under rent control, and the three bedroom apartment is a

decent size. It is convenient to shopping and amenities. "I could choose to live elsewhere, but I

stay to live with my parents."

She describes herself in this wav:

nigrant and I consider myself to have a lot of:his country and sort of also at the same time I

the same age as I am. I cameand a lot of people have lost. I try to keeþ up with the

that, but I'm trying to keep up with that. So it isr askme. How I define myself, I am like a twoor one side is American and the other side is

Chinese."

While Sophia says she doesn't identify herself muctr with organizations, she does see herself as

part of a hard working generation of Chinese immigrants:

"I identi is hard working, thatcame to ts and garmentfactories who have done to their best to giv for their ctrildren. Ithink I can identity myself with that group and generation."

22

Millie

Millie is a thirty-three year old woman who has lived her whole life on the Lower East Side,

with the exception of moving away for three years to live in the Bronx. She teaches dasses inEnglish as a Second Language (E. S. L.) at a neighborhood-based community center and service

organization on the Lower East Side. She is married and has two children. Millie describes

herself in this wav:

"....Well,I would say that I'm someone who wants to share in my community. I'msomeone who loves to learn, new things everyday about everybody, not just my culture,but every different culture, specially since I'm teaching. I enjoy learning about whatmakes other people tick and where they come from. I consider myself fun. Fun to bearound... and a very, uh, sensitive person. Mostly to, like anyone in need, I'm realsensitive when it comes to that.....So, usually I, I think I 'm one of those people who'salways trytng to heþ someone/ and I feel good doing it, I feel good doing it."

Millie feels a part of the American as well as the Puerto Rican culture, but finds herself

balancing both. She sees her children trying hard to be American while at the same time she

feels strongly that they need to understand their own culture. Her own cultural group identity is

questioned by both groups: with her blond hair and green eyes she doesn't look like a typical

Latina:

".... I identify withboth the American culture (and the Puerto Rican culture).rdhen I sayAmerican, I mean I was born and raised here in New York. Although my parents, uh,were immigrants from Puerto Rico, so I identify with that culture too. My Hispanicheritage is very important to me and I've made sure that although I lived my whole life inNew York that I'm raising my childrenhere as well that they also know about theirculture, theirbad<ground. Where they come from, who they are. The music, youknow, Iwant to make sure that my children are rictr with their other culture. I think sometimesmany kids, many childrenlook down on them cause they're, I guess, trying so hard to,excuse me, to be American, you know. That they kind of push everything else and Ithink its important to kind of know where you come from, you know, what's yourbackground, why do you look the way you look. For me, eqpecially, because I'm usuallygiven a pretty hard time by either culture in terms of I don't looklike your typical l^atinawomÍìn. You know you don't see, many, although there are many of us, but I think othercultures don't identify Latina women having light features and light eyes and... So, Iguess in the Hispanic culture I'm looked at as, oh no, you know, you know, you lookAmerican, or you look this or you look that. But I don't know that I am so easilyaccepted, I'm always questioned, no you're not. No, you're just, you're a wanna be ormaybe you just learned Spanish in school, that type of thing. They give me a really hardtime. And by the same tokerç again, when I meet people from other places, I'm veryproud to say, yes, I am, you know, Hispanic, or I am Latina and (that) usually takespeople aback."

23

Anna

A¡na is a woman, who is most likely in her early forties. She has lived on the Lower East Side

since 1983 in a building which was formerly a factory building. The building was converted into

a co-op in the 1970's. A few ye¿ìrs ago, she and her husband began cleaning up and gardening

an area in a park across the street from them that was run down and dangerous. The lovingly

gardened spaces include a garden used by Chinese men as place to bring their song birds as well

as several other areas in which they have carefully selected specific varieties of plants and

flowers. Anna is the president of a community-based organization that works to maintain and

advocate for the improvement of a section of a local park. Of Italian background, Anna is an

artist by training and has been working on a documentary video about community gardening.

She describes herself in several different ways: as a person involved in her community; of Italian

heritage; an artist; a political activist; a volunteer; a Lower East Sider; and a New Yorker:

.... I've been very involved withmy neighborhood, uh, I think cause it had a lot oftrouble, it was iir deterioratiorç and a lot ol uhm, criminal activity and it just seemedthat the whole city neglected it. And I said, should I leave or should I do something?And I started doing something, so I guess I would describe myself as a person whothinks they should do something to support their community. I think I never knew thisabout myself I guess that's why right now, maybe, that how I describe myself.

..... some people are su¡prised that I'm fromwho wasbornin ltaly, uh, said its odd that Ibring their song birds. So I guess I would deØù aú;tst, and I guess the interview is makiryourself, maybe because I have so much trotbird garden.

And that another way I guess, I'm su4>rised to describe myself I never thought I'dbethat involved to fight inthe political arena, and I think all of that has added to thisinterest now in making documentaries about people that want to do all these things.Uhm, I guess, I could ilescribe myself now as ã volunteer and I thinkthat very oddnow.I just diã it very naturally and nów I question in capitalist society why people wouldvolunteer when it seems the message is everything is about money.

but I speak English well so they have to see that I iln some sort of American or NewYorker.

24

Paul

Paul is a man who is retired now, but held positions both as a state senator and a judge. He isstill active in a law firm. He was born, grew up and still lives on the Lower East Side. Hisparents and grandparents also lived on the Lower East Side. He is the president of anorthodox synagogue. Maried, the father of three, and a grandfather, PauI describes himself inthis way:

I am a Jew born in New York City of American born parents. I am married. I am afather of three. I studied in parochial school. I also studied at Jesuit schoof college andlaw school. I am a graduate of .....Law School and I was a graduate student in theschool of Public Administration........ I've held va¡ious political offices, includingmembers of county committee, judiciary delegations, national delegations, state senator,judge, an assistant administrator to the judicial conference for the administrative courts,senator on the disciplinary committee for physicians and lawyers whictr was interestedin either addressing grievances or bringing grievance complaints against lawyers ordoctors. That is a brief ilmmary.

..... I identify with the Lower East Side with what once was the premier Jewishcommunity and it still retains a vestigia of the past and as we sit here at the EldridgeStreet Shul which represents from its inception five generations of a continuum of myfamily affiliation from my matemal grandfather, parents, my generatioru my children,my grandchildren when they visit. So we identify with the entire period of the existenceof this synagogue. Immediately, to the ... actually its to the nortþ the building next tothe synagogue was where my grandfather in 1882, an immigrant from what is nowLithuania, founded the first uh, Jewish Hebrewbookstore and Judaica store in theUnited States. His name was P a s t o r¡ Calvan Paston and that was my mother'sfather. My mother was born here in this location. He was one of the founders of thissynagogue. He was also the founder of the first Jewish Yeshiva in New York, The RabbiJacob Joseph School" whictr I attended.

Paul also notes that he is mainly involved political and religious organizations:

"... political organizations and... synagogues are my primary concerns. I'm alsoinvolved with some other synagogues on the Lower East Side."

25

9Z

VI. Ways In Which Resident Insiders View and Construct Their Lower East Side

Landscape

A. Neighborhood Characteristics, Qualities and Culturat/ Ethnic Identities

Residents characterized their neighborhood as made up of places that express: 1) a richness,

diversity and coefstence of people of different cultures that is representative of what New

York City is all about;2) a degree of neighborhood continuity and stability in the physical

landscape; 3) the length of time the Jewish community has been part of the neighborhood and

the more recent transition andrezurgence of the neighborhood with Chinese and Puerto Rican

businesses and populations; and 4) the process of destruction of the neighborhood's history

and culture.

The residents'responses present a varied and contradictory sense of what the neighborhood

has been in the past and what it is presently about. While their comments dearly indicate

respect for and value of the neighborhood's history, residents have different characterizations

of what the past was and how it has changed. They also, not surprisingly, have mixed feelings

about the changes taking place in the neighborhood. Paul characterizes the neighborhood" for

example, in terms of its history, its relatively unchanged built landscape, and his own memories

of these places. Neighborhood change forhimis indicatedby the composition of the people who

currently live and work in the neighborhood and their lack of connection with the

neighborhood's historic landscape:

Paul: ..... (I)t (the Lower Eøst Side) has more meaning to me because I canassociate with each of the photographs, uh, not too many people pay attentionor have the recollection of what it (the Luper East Side) represents, so you mayhave people who can pick out pieces that maybe they do recognize or knowsomething of itsbad<ground....... (There is) a degree of stability in tenns of the,uh, geographic setting, (but) iYs not stability in terms of the uh, the people thatinhabit, because that has changed over the ye¿ìrs from a predominantþ Jewishdistrict, to a multi-ethnic district.

Awohom, on the other hand, characterizes the neighborhood in terms of its changing builtlandscape, business ownership, populatioru and religious practices. The new Chinese and

Puerto Rican businesses and resident populations are indicative of a positive revitalization of

theneighborhood:

27

Awohom: There is a lot of Jewish religion here that's been here for eons andthat's still here and that there is a resurgence of....

Kat es : Religiorç Jewish religion?

Awohom: Uh huh, there is a resurgence of that and there is also a resurgence ofbusiness. Not necessarily Jewish mostþ, uhm, Puerto Rican and Chinese,predominately Chinese.

-There's also Chinese religion gglng onhere and Chinese

iesidents, uhm, which I also wanted to take pictures of and I didn't.

Anna also characterizes the neighborhood in terms of a changing built landscape. She sees

change as an unconsidered negative consequence of investment, resulting in a loss of

neighb orho od culture, community expression, and spe cial places:

Anna: ... it seems like history is being destroyed. Utu via úanging use withoutlre historical figures live, uh, destroying1s... to be the theme. That the purpose ofventhinking about the meaning of it. It; the most important feature. And bySide is going to lose all its culture. It

tll losing.

The diversity of people in the neighborhood was mentioned by Awohom, Millie, and Sophia as

a positive aspect to be valued in the neighborhood. Different aspects of the neighborhood's

diversity and cultural identities were expressed through comments about how people of

different cultures coexist with small enclaves of particular groups, how the stores and languages

change block by blocþ and that the variety of people in the neighborhood get along well with

one another.

Sophia: [ts, diverse, everybodyHtfle enclaves vou tnowbf litê ccommunity here, Italian, CLLinethere are like different, there aryou know, there's a uh, uh, Malaysian population here...

Kate: Malaysian?

ifs

ï

walk around, you know, so they'te not, you know, foreign to me, they're, youknow, not far away. They are what I consider part of my neighborhood.

28

5 The author and researcher.

When asked specifically about the cultural identities of the Lower East Side, Paul talked about

the value of the neighborhood in terms of its historic role in the immigrant experience, the

development of social services and the sense of sharing and community that efsted among the

Jewish populations who lived here.

Sophia mentioned the increasing economic power and job opporfunities for the Chinese groups

as signaled by the changing types of businesses being located in Chinatown, from the older main

stays of garment factories and restaurants to newer opportunities in banking and beauty shops

for the younger generations. These newer gpes of business uses were for her an indicator of

higher economic stafus and perhaps social acceptance.

While Awohom and Millie discussed the cultural diversity of the neighborhood as an advantage

not enjoyed by all neighborhoods, Anna commented upon the use of cultural identities to gain

ter:ritorial advantages within the neighborhood:

Anna: I think it's a myth. I think even the people, kind of like Calvin Lee, heclaims that he's Chinese and he uses it as a way to his advantage to get awaywith things, but I think a lot of the cultures here do the silne. Like the Italiansand the Jews do it a lot. I don't even know if they are aware of it, like theItalians got they were able to have all these tables on the street, you know thesespecial favors, like constant, they use their culture to get an advantage, but theydontuse the culture to give anythingback

ht sum, residents had varied characterizations of their Lower East Side neighborhood. The

neighborhood was characterized as a place with a much valued history that was reflected in the

places and buildings in the landscape. The neighborhood was also characterized as one that

was in the process of changing, that couldbe seenin the newer populations that were living inthe neighborhood and who had no connection with the past landscape, the evidence of different

places of religious worship, and the appearance of new and different land uses and business

ownership. While neighborhood changes were seenby some residents as helping to revitalize

the neighborhood and as an indicator of increased Chinese economic power social acceptance,

other residents saw the changes as destroying important neighborhood places and buildings.

The neighborhood was charactenzed as having diverse cultffal identities that were seen, for the

most parÇ as a positive feature. Different parts of the neighborhood were generally considered

to be identified with people of different cuttural groups, yet the boundaries were conceived as

being fluid. While two residents discussed the cultural diversity of the neighborhood as an

29

advantage not enjoyed by all neighborhoods, one resident commented upon the use by different

groups of their cultu-ral identities to gain unfafu political advantages.

B. Lower East Side Places: Resident Meanings and Associations

Resident participants associated a range of meanings, connections and identities to specific

buildings and landmarks, storefronts, spaces, places, streets, blocks, architectural details,

signage, statues, symbols, merchandise for sale, specific uses and activities that take place in

the area. They talked about colors, language, ways in which people dress and behave, specific

foods, and other experiences as part of the ways in which they associate meanings, connections

and identities. They identified the location of these Lower East Side places in relation to one

another as well as within the neighborhood as a whole.

Participants spoke about the Lower East Side buildings, places, spaces, landmarks, and things

that they chose to photograph as markers of a range of different meanings, connections and

identities. These meanings or valuing of place can be grouped into five main categories: L) those

relating to personal or individual connections and experiences; 2) those relating to cultural/

ethnic connections to or identities of different groups of people on the Lower East Side; 3) those

related to the identity of the Lower East Side neighborhood; 4) those related to or connected

with the identity of New York City; and 5) those that are of national and or world-wide

significance.

Personal Connections And Experiences

Meanings or values related to participants'personal connections and experiences included

those that they associated to specific spaces, places or things through: their work experience or

place or work their habitual practice or activity of prayer; the closeness of the place to where a

person lived; their knowing a foiend, family or acquaintance who was connected to the place

through work, ownership, use, or in some other way; and their knowledge about the place

through personal use and experience, and personal memories. Paul expressed his connection to

a particular synagogue (See Photograph 1) through several family generations:

Paul: The Eldridge Street Synagogue has been associated affiliated with myfamily for five generations. My grandfather was one of the founders of thesynagogue and he also, uh, started the first, uh, Hebrew Judaica bookstore whictr

30

was immediately next door to the synagogue where *t -"Täiåì-'ffå "Vtwithme. Sowehave

its inception which is 1896

or 97.

Anna discussed her involvement in creating a garden (See PhotographZ) frequentedby older

Chinese men with their birds:

Cultural/ Ethnic Connections Or Identities

Meanings or values relating to cultural/ethnic connections or identities were those that

particrpants associated to djfferent groups of people on the Lower East Side. These induded:

certain activities that different groups of people shared; use of sPaces by particul¿ìr grouPs;

space, place and buitding ownership; religious affiliation, specific tyPes of cuisine or food

preparation; certain behaviors, practices, values, beliefs and racial characteristics. Most

corffnon cuttural/ ethnic connections mentioned included: Jewisþ Latino / HisPanic, Chinese,

Asian, Italian, Catholic, kosher food, and the specific distinct level of observance such as

orthodox Jewish. Millie talked about her associations of Puerto Rican identity with a wall

mural of a well known Puerto Rican singer (See Photograph 3) in this way:

Millie: ....(f)he mural of Hector Lavoe. And he is a famous,. very famous Puerto

Rican salsa singer, who was most popular, I would say in the 70's, that was his

31

1. The Eldridge Street Synagogue. 12Eldrrdge Street, between Canal and DivisionStreets. Plrctograph taken by resident participønt Pøul.

The Hua Mei Bird Gatden. Located within the Sara Delano Roosevelt Park on thesouth side of Delancey Street between Forsyth and Christie Streets. Photogrøph taken byr esident p articip ant Anna.

ÔL

2.

time, the 70's arrd, uhm, he really wrote great songs, I mean really great songsabout,like [ife. And, uhm, he always has this love for "his people" what healways called "his people". And he was like a real people person. He was veryproud of who he was and what he stood for. And uhm, he died, he died ofAIDS. He was one of those, uh, I guess one of the first in the Latino communitythat died of AIDS. And I think it is importanÇ really important actually,because I thjnk it hits home. That this man although he was in a sense a zuperstarto a lot of people, by the same token he was a real down tc earth person and if itcan happen to him, he was such a superstar, in the eyes of the people, it canhappen to anyone. He had a taste of the good life in a sense and then at thesame time it all came cnrmbling down. And that was real, that was somethingthat people connect to.

Kate.: So do you think that, that mural was fairly meaningful to people in theneighborhood, as a symbol?

Millie: Absolutely, but especially, again to Puerto Ricans. The first thing you seeis the Puerto Rican flag, and again you see the hands of God. Religion is a bigpart of most Latino families.

Sophia spoke about the important role a movie theater (See Photograph 4) has had for Chinese

immigants:

Sophia: This used to be and still is one of the few Chinese Movie theaters left inChinatown. It is called Musical Theater, I thhk. hr its heydav, artd when I was ateenager, I used to come here to watchmovies. It shows iforig Kong movies....Now the theater is not doing very well because you c¿u:t get it on videotape. Thetheater had problems with crimes, gangsters, (and) shoolngs inside. So it is on itsway to become part of history. But actually, this one survived, it is the only onethathas survived so far. There were 3 or 4 Chinese movie theaters in Chinatown,and this is the only one left. I don't know for how much longer, ...... This issignificant, you know, .... because these kind of Chjnese theaters, in Chinatowr¡if you are a new immigrant, you don't have much entertainment, you know, andyou don't speak Englisþ (you) cannot venture out, where do you go? Think aboutiÇ if you are a waiter, yot;- don t have any place to hang out, in the sufiuner....(You) (c)ango to a theater and watch a movie and in those days you were able toget 2 movies for one price, usually double features. Maybe they still do, I haven'tbeenthere for along time.

Lower East Side Neighborhood Identity

Meanings or values related to the identity of the Lower East Side as a neighborhood were those

that participants expressed through: cofiunon knowledge and use by Lower East Side residents;

length of time in the neighborhood; locaüon within the neighborhood; and association of the

aaJJ

3. Wall Mural of Hector Lavoe. On a building wall on Ridge Street at Stanton Street.Photogrøph taken by resident participant Millie.

4.

Musical Theater Chinese Movie Theater.Hester Street at the Bowery. Photographtaken by resident participønt Sophin.

place to the Lower East Side by non-residents. An example of these $pes of meanrngs is

expressed by PauI in this way:

Paul: Seward Park High School is still there. I never attended that school, butSeward Park High School had a gymnasium that we used and they also had alarge assembly hall, which was rented out on occasion. We me looking right at itas we sit here, the building and, uhm, a lot of prominent people, even in showbusiness, are graduates of the school, but I didn't (attend) that school. Uhm, butthere were many functions that were run in that schoof you know, uh,community sponsored functiong and to this day, there áre some functions wherethey utilize the auditorium. But people would remember that building, notnecessarilv in connection with me, but thev would remember it because its stillhere, its súJl fun.Uoning, its still ahigh school and, uh, its one of the, in a sense,landmarks of the Lower East Side (See Photograph 5).

New York City Identity

Meanings or values related to or connected with the identity of New York City as a whole were

those that participants associated to specific places or things, based on: its value as a

landmarþ length of time in the neighborhood and city; developmenf ownership/ or management

by the city; an activity or use that was connected to the city's economy or economic resurgence;

association with the ct$ by non-residents; and the connection of the place's activity, use or

ownership to city political decisions and processes. An example of these types of meanings is

expressed by Awohom:

Awohom: Seward Park Coop, I took this picture because I wanted you to seesome of the Coops, you know, what the Coops look like.... There are four coops.There is Seward Park, Hillman, there is Amalgamated, and there is East River,and of course we will have to mark that on the map....And its been around since,like right after the War they built these buildings. Uhm, until the sixth floor you'llhave mostþ orthodox Jews...

...(I)t's partially funded by the city, it was until now, its not going to be for toolong because they made it public sort of-- really private- now people will beable to sell their apartments on the open market within 5 years. Even before thatthey will be able to do that but they will have to go through the board, uhm.Before it was not like that, before if you wanted to sell your apartment you hadto sell it back to the coop, now because it was partially funded by the city, therent is very reasonable. I am paying a little more than my rent cause I sublet myapartment as you know and you've seen my apartment and I pay 350 dollars amonth including utilities, you can't find that anywhere, even out of the city, evenin Harlem you couldn't find that. So that is very much part of the culture of this

35

5. Seward Park High School. Grand Street between Essex and Ludlow Streets.Photographtaken by resident pørticipønt Paul.

The Seward Park Coops. Between Grand Street and East Broadway, Essex, Clìnton,and Samuel Dickstein PIaza (Pitt Street). Photograph tøken by resident participantAarohom.

6.

36

neighborhood because jf you go to Madisknõw the Chinatown that is part of the Iare not expensive. On Madison Street, sare city projects, and the rent is very/ verinformahon tit<e this from anyone else !! t

National and World-Wide Significance

Meanings or values related to or connected with national and or world-wide significance were

those attributed to have historical importance nationally, as well as known or used by among

people beyond New York and the United States. Meanings were also expressed that referred to

national and international economic, social, political and cultural trends and processes. These

values were expressedby Awohom in this way:

Awohom:The Grand Deli. This has aninteresting story, first of all asyou know I

work there....rhere are a lot of people -å",flïl',i""t"å ,qi1fl #iiff,.,,r able tó see exactlv what it says on therd like I said the cóoks are Chinese, allrme from all over, and I mean all over,

we doJersey,worlil. (See PhotograPhT)-

Sophia tied meanings of Chatham Square (See Photograph 8) to transnational Processes/

economic trends, and Chinese social acceptance in this way:

inthe(she isaloto earealotofPacific businesses moving into the cofim ulation here' The

new immigrants here, so"that turns to nr stocks, trading and

banks. A lot of commercial businesses.

37

7. The Grand Deli. Grand Sheet between Essex and Clinton Streets. Photogrøph taken by

r esident p ar ticiP ønt Aarohom'

8. Chatham Square. The intersection of Park Row, the Bowery, Mott, Doyers, Divisionand Oliver Streets. Photograph taken by resident particþønt Sophia.

3B

Kate: When was that built (the naa Kmnah bønkbuilding)?

Sophia: I think maybe....(ln) t}:re last 5 years. It is very new, and in the middlehere is a Chinese Veteran Memorial (Arch). So on Veteran's Day you see picturesin the newspaper, this is where they honor Chinese Veterans. It is also aninteresting transition point because from this point forward ... is City Hall.Looking this way is Chinatown and this way is City Hall.

t:l sum, residents were found to value places, spaces, buildings and things according to:

personal or individual connections and experiences; cultural/ ethnic connections to or identities

of different groups of people on the Lower East Side; Lower East Side neighborhood identity;

New York City identity; and national and world-wide significance. Places tended to be

associated with more than one value.

Places were valued, in essence, upon identity with a number of different types of social and

cultural/ethnic groups and upon different physical geographies. The r¿ìnge of different social

and cultural/ ethnic groups included: an individual or group identity defined by the resident himor herself; a more established racial, cuttural or ethnic grouping such as Chinese, lewish, latino,etc; and broader social groupings such as people who live in the City; and those who live

throughout the country and beyond. Different physical geographies induded: a resident's

particular use of the neighborhood; a section of the neighborhood in which a particular group

lived, the entire neighborhood, New York City, and the world beyond.

The social and cultural/ethnic identities together with the geographic value assigned to the

places by the resident participants were tied into broader characterizations and concerns about

the neighborhood's past current changes, or trends. Some places were associated to the past

history of a particular cultural/ethnic groups/ even though the group still remains in the

neighborhood. The Eldridge Synagogue is an example of this in that it was associated more

with the past orthodox Jewish community even though there is still a curent orthodox Jewish

community in the neighborhood that makes use of the sanctuary. Other places, combine social,

cultural/ ethnic/ geographic and neighborhood concerns. An example of this is a Chinese food

market that was Chinese owned (Chinese identity), passed regularly by a resident several times

a week (individual and geographic- a residents particular use of the neighborhood), and was

located on a block that used to contain Jewish owned businesses (indicative of current change,

39

(

I

{

and economic resurgence of the neighborhood). Another example is the way in which Ctratham (

Square and Chinatown are tied into larger transnational economic and immigration ffends, and r

more national and local processes of Chinese social acceptance. t

I

I

I

{

i

(

I

t

I

(.

I

40

VII. Ways In Which The Urban Landscape Communicates, Conveys, and Reflects Cultural/Ethnic Identities

Another focus of the research was on ways in which the built and social landscape,

communicated or conveyed cultural/ethnic identities, associations and connections. Ír other

words, were there physical and social or other environmental indicators or cues that resident

participants made use of in determining or associating a place to have certain cultural/ ethnic

identities or connections. This section first examines what types of places, spaces, settings,

landmarks and objects that resident participants chose to photograph. The discussion then

focuses on the types of visible, experiential and spatial markers in these places that were found

to act as indicators of cultural and ethnic life.

A. Places, Spaces, Settings, Landmarks and Objects

Ir total, resident participants took 120 photographs of buildings, places, landmarks, and other

features of the Lower East Side landscape. In many cases, residents discussed or remarked

uponmore than one feature in each of the photographs they took so that there were many more

landscape features mentioned than actual photographs taken. Out of the 120 photographs, 182

different landscape features were identified. These landscape feafures were grouped into nine

general categories: buildings; signage; storefronts; sites of fonner uses; streets; public spaces;

architectural details; people/acûrity; and objects. Table 1. shows the break down oflandscape features by type and frequeng. (See Appendix A for a detailed breakdown of the

qpecific elements within each landscape feature type and frequenry).

47

Table 1. Things/ Places/ Spaces Photographed By Resident ParticipantsBy Landscape Feature Type And Frequency

LANDSCAPEFEATURE TYPE

TOTAL # % OFTOTAL

Buildings 51 28%

Sigrnge 32 77%

Storefronts 29 t6%

Sites of Former Uses 76 e%

Streets 1.6 e%

Public Open Spaces 13 7%

Architectural Details 13 7%

People/Activity 8 4%

Objects 4 2%

Total 182 roo%

Buildings made up the highest percentage of all the landscape features mentioned Q8%).

Within this catego{, about two-thirds of these buildings were institutions. Almost half of these

institutions were religious in nature, while others included community, recreational and cultural

centers, schools, libraries, hospitals, and a museurn. Residential and commercial buildings made

up less than a quarter of the buildings mentioned, respectively. Of the 51 total buildings

identified, two were noted as being adaptively reused, one was newly consblucted, and one was

vacant.

Signage represente d 18 % of the landscape features photographed. Just under two-thirds of the

signs were commercial store signage, diqplayed on the storefront enbance to a store. Wall

murals or blacktop drawings made up over a quarter of those mentioned, followed by sheet

nilne and place signs. A bulletin board and banner made up the smallest number.

Storefronts made up 16 % of ttte landscape features mentioned by participants. While all of the

storefronts were cofiunercial in nature, they were roughly divided into three $Pes. Almost a

third were food markets, restaurants and bakery establishments. Another third specialized in

clothing toys and other goods, and the third grouP were of mixed uses.

42

Nine percent of the landscape feafures were identified as sites of former uses. These sites were

deemed important because of the building, use, or activity that used to occupy the site. More

than half of these former uses were institutional in nature and induded synagogues, schools, a

sculpture garden, a firehouse, and a health facility. About a fifth of the former uses were

commerciaf while a smaller number were publicly-owned open spaces, recreational, and office

USCS.

Interestingly, just under a third of the uses that replaced the former uses on these sites are

vacant land or buildings. hrstitutions make up about a quarter, while residential make upanother quarter of the uses on the sites. Another quarter of the current uses are commercial uses

and public spaces. Furthermore, on over half of these sites, the buildings in which the former

uses were housed were still standing and had been adapted or converted to new uses. Only one

of the sites has been redeveloped with a new building, while another has been paved over,

landscaped with a few trees and turned into a concrete traffic triangle.

Streets, including sidewalks, street block frontages, street intersections and bridges represented

another 9 % ol the landscape features mentioned by residents, while public open spaceg such

as parþ gardens, playgrounds, squares/hiangles and markets made up about 7 /o. Speahc

architectural details including windows, doors and entrance ways, sculptural details, rooves,

and religious symbols also made up 7 % of the features. Another 6% of t}:re identified

landscape features were specific people and people engaged in activities, such as shopping and

car traffic, and objects like statues, sculpfures, monurnents and things that serve as

representations.

It:l $rm, resident participants photographed features of the landscape within nine categories:

buildings; signage; storefronts; sites of former uses; streets; public spaces; architectural details;

people/activity; and objects. Buildings, signage and storefronts were most frequentþ chosen as

places reflective of personal identity, cultural and ethnic connections or identities, neighborhood

identity, New York City identity, and national and world wide significance. Within these

categories, institutionalbuildings (many of whichwere religious), commercial signs, and

commercial storefronts (selling food, clothing and other retail, and mixed uses) were the most

coÍrnon indicators.

An interesting category of landscape features was found to be sites considered important

43

because of the former uses they supported. This choice indicates that several of the buildings

and uses that resident participants considered meaningful personally and to the neighborhoods

identity no longer exist. Given this loss, it is understandable why some residents felt mixed

about the changes taking place in their neighborhood. While more than half of these former uses

were institutions, others were former commercial businesses, publicly-owned oPen spaces/

recreational space or buildings, and offices. Just under a third of these former uses are now

vacant land or buildings. The remainder of the sites are being used for institutional, residential,

commercial, and public space purposes.

B. Physical and Social Environmental Indicators

Resident participants were asked to describe the physical and social characteristics of the

places they photographed that they associated with part of who they were or with

cultural/ ethnic identities of the neighborhood. They were also asked how these elements

communicated" conveyed or indicated these identities. Ways in which resident par[cipants

talked about these places reveal three general categories of markers: L) those elements of the

built and social envìronment that were visible and visual,2) those elements that were part of

their individual experiences of the environment; and 3) those elements that had to do with the

location of the place or spatial context within the neighborhood.

Visible or Visual Markers

Visible or visual markers refer to those aspects of the environment that were in some way

noticeable by eye and that functioned for people as an indicator of cutturat and ethnic life.

These kinds of markers induded:

¡ the use of specific colors, images, symbolg written words or lettering in signage;

. buildingfrontage;o street names or monuments;

. people's ways of dress;

. use of a place by particular groups of people;

. architectural details such as religious symbols, bulletin boards with listing of specific

types of cultural or social activities;

. particular ways in which stores display merchandise; and

44

specific types of merchandise such as food, religious objects, clothes.

Sophia, for example, made reference to the fact that the name of a particular street had been

changed to honor a member of the Jewish community. The name of the person on the street sign

reflected the Jewish population that lived in that section of the neighborhood. She also

photographed the sign of a large housing complex (See Photograph 9) which is populated

predominantly by the neighborhood's Jewish population, and noting that there was a orthodox

Jewish man in the photograph, commented on the distinctive way of dress that is part of the life

of many orthodox Jews:

Sophia: This picture didn't come out very well, but my intention was to capturethe sign. The sign says Hillman Housing Coop Village..... because, you know,that area has a large housing project... I associate that area ...(u¡ith) the Jewishcommunity. Like this gentleman here (she points to a man in the picture) I mean onSundays you see more of them around and families come out in their traditionalHasidic Jewish garments and clothing. So ifs important because it illustratesanother ethnic group in the community.

Sophi4 along with Awohom, photographed store signs along Essex Street, noting the hebrew

letters and religious merchandise as a visual indicator of the Jewish presence. Ír a photograph

he took of an outdoor Chinese vendors market (See Photograph 10), Awohom identifies

business ownership and shopping activity as another type of visible cultural indicator:

Awohom: Well the East Side- llÐ is known that Chinatown is part of the East Side. Asfar as I remember there were always Chinese here and it just shows that they are part ofthe neighborhood and that they are also doing business...

Millie commented on the particular way Latino stores display their wares on the street (See

Photograph 77),by describing particular types of merchandise and a way of shopping. She

also relates the Latin way of display to that of the Chinese:

Millie: La Placita Deli and Meat Market. This is important because, uhm, this isa place that people come/ mostþ again in the Latin community, this is a placethat you come to find things that usually ... are imported like from the DominicanRepublic or Puerto Rico, things that are always not that easy to find in yourregular Key Food or places like that. You find a lot of vegetables that are grownon the island. Maybe fruits that are grown on the island. Uhm, spices, things likethat, that you wouldn't find in a regular store. They are displayed for you soyou can pick it yourself and..

Kate: Is it displayed differently?

45

Millie:Than...

Kate: Than... In some other Place?

Millie: Sure. I meant I think you canmarket. Cause they put it out there fsupermarket, sometimes stuff just cc

at all. And here you have a choice olyou want, right? I mean, the important thing is finding it'

Anna described the significance of a red door to a Chinese senior citizen's center (See

Photograph 12) as key to a sacred place:

Anna: Number nine is the Ctrinatown Senior Citizen Center. And I find this to bethe most authentic, I should say one of the most authentic places intheneighborhood, meaning Chinafown. Where Ilive, itgl{. you don tknowif itsChinatown or the Lower East Side, its like, so I think the issue interests me a

lot....The entrance is almost like a secret door, but it is red- it is obvious.

.... And the reason as I say that I framed the picture this way is strange, its justlike an a17ey way, in the back you have that beautiful Chinese r_ed good luck doorand then when you go in there its just like such a secret place, the first tryng yogask when you go t$t yvay,.yhjch is not the front door, is the Chinese Classicalmusic, musicians... Its beautiful... ri o1ri, like (word not cleør). You feel like youare really entering a Chinese culture, very strong. Stronger than all therestaurants and all the stores on that same block.

46

9. HillmanHousing Coop Village. 530 Grand Street, between Willet and Lewis Streets.Photograph taken by resident participønt Sophia.

47

10.

prag

o¡ G

ate

Ven

dors

Mar

ket

Loca

ted

with

in S

ara

Del

ano

Roo

seve

lt pa

rk o

n G

rand

ni;T

r:,i,

,*ee

n F

orsy

th a

nd C

hris

rie s

rree

ts.

phot

ogrø

pi l

àr'n

uy

,rria

üiþr

üi"lp

r"t

rÈ oo

11,. La Placita Deli and Markel on clinton street at Rivington street.Photograph taken by resident participant Millie.

12. Chinatown Senior Citizen Center. On Mulberry Street at Bayard Street.Photograph taken by resident pørticipant Anna.

49

09

a

a

a

Experiential Markers

Experiential markers refer to those aspects of the physical, social, historical, economic, and

political environment that were behavioral as well as sensory and contributed to the way the

individual connected to or experienced the place as having cultwal or ethnic identrtres. These

kind of markers included:

current and past interactions with other people at the place;

activities the individual resident engaged in while at that place; and

place associated smells, sounds (such as language, music, noise levels etc.) and tastes.

Experiential markers were shown to greatly in-fluence one's perceptiorU associations and

identities with a place. While both Anna and Awohom identify the vendor's market with the

Chinese population (See Photographs 13 and L0, respectively), Affia's interactions and

experiences with people in and in relation to the Chinese market have resulted in her associating

different cultural and ethnic perceptions to the same Chinese market than Awohom. Anna

attributes the Chinese in this space with a lack of concetn and respect for public space, whleAwohom attributes the use of the space by the Chinese as business aflrnen and neighborhood

belonging. Anna's comments reflect a political struggle in the neighborhood over the private use

of public space. This struggle recently resolved itself, however, in a victory for the anti-market

forces:

Anna: This is a picture of the vendors' market.... It represents what divides theneighborhood. Chinese business people, Chinese, Jewish, Italian..., social serviceagencies, Community Board 3, Councìl member Freed, Chinese manpower, andthe police created this site. It is one of the ugliest testimonies in the-neighborhood, it represents, again, what divides the neighborhood. It shows thecultural concept of public space: Chinese, Jewish, Italian and other groups,especially goverfinent, the power brokers, all of them have something in common,these people, because they have agreed that this is how the public space shouldbe used. It explains that they have (ø) conunon adoration of the dollar. Wherethere (once) was a park wading pool..., now its become this market... I took apicture of this place because I have very strong feelings about it... how certainpeople beautify public space and others it seems, when they have to make aprofit, ...... they make it ugly... I thhk...this does show a lot how the Chinese,their concept of merchandizing and when they rent something, that doesn't meanthat they abide by the contract, it means they own it. I think that shows a bit ofa (cultuial) differénce, because what is interesting is that lt's (the markct ls) in anopen space... everyone can see it and there doesn't seem to be much hidirg aboutwhat they're doing there. They put structures permanentþ fixed to the gróund

51

13. Dragon Gate Vendors Markel Located within Sara Delano Roosevelt Park on GrandStreet between Forsyth and Christie Streets. Photograph taken by resident participøntAnna.

52

and they buìlt hrgh ones... and they have junk there, thats never cleaned up. Itsalmost like because they rent there they can do anything they want.

Millje's cumulative experiences in the Cibao Restaurant (See Photograph 14) since she was a

teenager, the ambiance inside and the music are some of the experiences that feature in her

associations with the restaurant, ìn addition to the visible markers. Interestingly, both the

visual and experientral cultural and ethnic markers are located inside of the restaurant:

Millie: The Cibao Restaurant. My goodness this has been around forever and aday. This restaurant, like, has been around for a long time, I think that when theDominican population started growing this is like a symbol of that.... I rememberbeing ... a teenager and growing up and coming to eat here.....

Kate: So this is really a symbol of the Dominican community?

Millie: Uh huh. Cibao in Santo Domingo is the countryside.

Kate: Oh.

Millie: Countryside. If you're from Cibao, you come from the country almost,and I hate to say, cause some people get offended by the word hìJlbilly, but reallythat is what (it) means, more or less. If you were born and raised in el Cibao,you come from the country.

Kate: \Mhat ate some of the physical things about this place that, is thereanything about how this place looks physically that gives you some indicator?

Millie: Not on the outside... but as soon you walk rç the first thing you see is ahuge Dominican flag, huge, which I think I mentioned to you before... theDominican whether it be a grocery store, whether it be a salorU whether it be awhatever, restaurant,.... a record store, anything ... that is owned by a Dominicanfamily or whatever, usually has a huge picture or the flag itself or something. Andthen the second indication is the music. You will ... walk into,let's say aDominican bodega or a restaurant or something of that nafure and yõu'll alwayshear the Merengue, always. You will always hear Meringue playrng or Bachata.(Another indicøtor is)... it sounds like a hen house. This is not just for Dominican,this is for all Latino folks, we just chatter a lot, thats our nature.

Paul's political experiences in Chatham Square (See Photograph 15) inform his perspective of

the square as having Chinese cultural meaning and identity. His knowledge, and possible

personal experiences, of the Square's past function as a cross point on the elevated subway line,

tie the square for him into the economic, historic, and social life of the city as a whole:

53

flrliii' n'ot

14. The Cibao RestauranL On Clinton Street at Rivington Street.Photograph taken by resident pørticipant Millie.

15. Chatham Square. Located at the intersection of Park Row, the Bow_ery,, Mott, Doyers,

Division u11d^ Olirr.r Streets. Photograph tøken by resident pørticipant Paul'

54

Paul That's Chatham Square or a portion of it which you see and (the)monument that is in the center of the picture is Kim Lau a Chinese-AmericanLieutenant who was killed in World War II and the Chinese community put thatmonument up. Once a y eff they have dedications serving there on MemorialDay, but the square itself was a scene of some rather large political rallies,including the one I recall when Senator, well he wasn't senator therç he wasruxning for the senate, Robert F. Kennedy, when he ran for senator in New York.Some 20,000 people assembled in that area, but there were many political ralliesin that area and uh, at that time I was pohtically active and I attended thoserallies so it has that connection... to mô. [r so far as other people havingknowledge of it they know of Chatham Square because its the foot of Ctrinatown,and.. its á well knownplace. The people who would recall that before it was thisbig Chatham Square it was a cross point, it was the major... station there whichwãs Ctratham S(uare but the elevated line ran there and in one sectiorL branchedoff up Thfud Avenue, one section went down Park Row and another section wentdown below to South Ferry. So it was a well traversed area, it was a centralpoint for people haveling ín Ure city. LIh, today of coutse, it doesn't have that,there is no longer an elevated line there and there is no zubway in that immediatearea, but... people still know Chatham Square.

55

99

Spatial Markers

Spatial markers refer to those aspects of the environment that are related to the location of a

particular place in the neighborhood, the location of a place relative to other places in the

neighborhood, and to other places in the city or country. These markers also functioned as

boundaries or served to demarcate areas of particular identity or meaning, such as:

places or areas of the neighborhood that were particularly Latino, Jewisþ Chinese,

Italian; those that served as dividing points within the neighborhood;

those that connect to other neighborhoods within the city or elsewhere; and

places of personal or group significance.

Spatial markers highlighted different ways to examine the cultural and ethnic function and

definition of the neighborhood. Paul, for example, commented on the role of a mìkvah in the

Jewish community (See Photograph 16):

Paul: Alright, the mikvah as you see depicted in this picture is a ritualarium,which Jewish men are required to attend on certain occasions like the eve ofholidays, and women monthly attend there and uh, there is no orthodoxcommunity where you don't have a mikvah and this mikvah is, uh, identiÉied tothis day. If you show it to anyone who has been on the Lower East Side or hadever lived here or who comes through the East Side, they would be familiar thatthis building is the, uh, the East Side Mikvah. And its still there and its stillfunctioning and they justrehabbed the interior.

Awohom spoke about the location of the Grand Deli (See Photograph Z) in connection to the

past kosher restaurants existing in that exact spot as well as the Deli's relationship to another

famous Chinese-Kosher restaurant named Bernstein's, now no longer in existence:

Awohom: The Grand Deli is not the first Kosher restaurant here, there have beenmany, many kosher restaurants here, way, way bacþ I'm talking about at least10 or 15 years ago, there was a place called Edna's Deli or Restaurant....they'renow in Brooklyn.... (B)efore Edna's there was a place called Sam's there. Sam'swas very famous, so this place was always a restaurant. In the last 5 yearsthough, there were people before the Grand Deli and they were not successfulwith it..... So, everybody was zuccessful, the other ones were successful, but onlythe ones right before thé Grand Deli, and it was too bad before the Grand Deli.

-

There were 3 guys before the Grand Deli and they were not successful at all,because they did not do outside business, like we do, they did not do catering,

57

16. The East Side Mikvah, Ritularium. 311-313 Grand Street, at East Broadway.Photograph taken by resident pørticipant PauL

17. Grand Street Transition Point. Grand Street between Chrystre and AllenStreets.Pfto tograph taken by resident participant Soplùa.

5B

like we just did a wedding I told you for 600 people... that's the way to makemoney.... We need a few jobs like that. Two to three jobs like that a week andwe'd be alright. So that is the story of the Grand Deli, it has always been in thisplace, in this particular place.

.... (I)he Grand Deli is inits right place, in the right positiory the east side, whereit is supposed to be because Bernstein's was always over there and now theGrand Deli is there and the Grand Deli is supposed to be the same thing, so its inits right qpace, its inits right place, and everybody knows that where it shouldbe."

Sophia looked at a two block stretch (See Photograph 17) as a marker of transition and

crossing over of boundaries by the Chinese into an area that had been Jewish in the past:

Sophia: This is a transition point from my point of view. From Chrystie andForsyth to Allen - these 2 blocks used to be Jewish occupied commercial areadominated by upholstery, interior decorating stores. I noticed one of the interiordecorating store signs says established since 1894. IÍr the past decade theneighborhood has really changed it is now dominated by Chinese stores .

Chinese commercial stores- household stores, restaurants, pharmacies, furniturestores. Really serving the people who are lilring in this part.

... This is not the center of Chinatown, it is the periphery, but it shows to me thatChinatown is expanding into other ethnic groups territory, but it is a peacefulone. I think it is due to economics.The Jewish stores that were there, I guess werenot doing well, maybe some of them were closed down for a while and thebuildings just sat there until the Chinese immigrants, this new wave, witheconomic power and there was enough population to zustain this kind ofbusiness so all kinds of business(es) flourished.

Kate: They serve the local populatiorç the people who really live there?

Sophia: Yeah, they're local.

59

hr sum, visible/vizual, experiential and spatial markers worked as indicators of physicaf

social, historical, economic, and political aspects of the cultural and ethnic life. They were also

found to stimulate ways in which resident participants attributed cultural and ethnic identities

and character to particular places. These three types of markers draw from environmental

elements of design, behavior, people activity/use, and symbols (visible/visual); personal

interactions, perceptions, sensory experiences (experiential); and location/geography, context,

social relations, and social history (spatial) to construct place meaning and value. Combining

visible/vizual, experiential and spatial markers together with the types of places resident

participants ctrose: buildings, signage, storefronts and "former-use" sites, reveal evidence of the

produced and contested urban landscape discussed by Low (1996), Zuklr. (1991,,1995), Smith

(1996) and others.

60

vIII. Lower East Side collective cultural/ Ethnic Geographies

Taking the notion of qpatial markers further, this sec[on examines the cultural/ ethnic qpatial

geographies of the neighborhood as d.efined by the qpecific places identified by resident

participants collectiveþ. Lr other words, where qpecific places associated with the same

cultural/ ethnic groups and identities are spatially located wittún the geography of the Lower

East Side neighborhood. While an earlier section detailed the types of meanings that residents

related. to culturat/ethnic connections or iden[ties, this section focuses on the locations of those

places and spaces to examine cultffal/ ethnic identity from a spatial and geographic

perspective.

places attributed by resident participants as having cultural/ethnic identities were grouped into

five general cultural/ethnic categories: Jewish, Chinese/Asian, Latino/Hiqpanic/SPanlstt,

Italian, and those inter- or multi-cultural. The places within eactr cultural/ethnic category were

then located on a map of the Lower East Side neighborhood (See Maps 24).The maPS

incorporate those places, spaces, buildings, etc. that resident participants identified with the

lewish, Chinese/Asian, Latino/Hispdc/Spanisþ and Italianpopulations and communities

either through activities and use, religious ¿ffiliation, ownership, or in some other way. A fifth

map locates those places, qpaces, etc. that resident participants associated with more than one

cultural/ ethnic populatiorL making those places and spaces inter- or multi-cultffal in identity

and nature. Those places that were affiliated with more than one group were also included

ürithin the maps of the individual cultural/ethnic categories of whidr they were a part.

The kinds of places and markers that resident participants noted as producing the geographies

of the four cultural/ ethnic gloups included the following:

. Synagogues, temples, ctrurches, symbols, and other buildings affiliated with religious

activity and observance;

¡ Restaurants, delis and other food shops selling kosher, Chinese, Spanish, and ttalian

food and produce;

o Services, and businesses catering to a Jewisþ Chinese, and Latino populations/ markets

. Residentialbuildings withpredominantpopulations of Jewisþ Chinese, Latino

residents;

o Stores, building, etc. under Iewish, Chinese, and Latino ownership;

61

. places, streets, squares and monuments named for Jewisþ Chinese, and Latino people;

. Buildings, spaces and places that were formerþ used for Jewish, Chinese, Latino, Italian

religious and non-religious activities and events or ownedby people who were Jewish,

Chinese, Latino, and Italian; and

o Street names, signage with Hebrew, Ctúnese, and Spanish lettering, and murals with the

nilne of a Jewishbusiness, a Latino singer, Chinese s)¡mbols;

o Outdoor open spaces such as parks, gardens, markets that the Ctúnese, Latino

populations makes use of;

r Areas of transition / territory of Jewish, Chinese, Latino, Italian ownership, busìness,

activity;o Chinese style arctritecture;

. Ways in which buildings, spaces and places formerþ used by one culfural/ ethnic

population have been adaptively reused by another;

. Spaces with which the lewish, Chinese, Latino and Italian populations are associated

through political means.

Places identified by resident participants as having Italian identity or association were the least

in number and specificity of the four groups. Places of particular note were stores selling Italian

goods and merdrandise not catering to an Italian population/ market, but to tourists and

visitors instead. Also of note was the large amount of Chinese property ownership within the

Italian identified geographic area.

Apart from the sorts of things and spaces associated with specific cultural/ ethnic groups, the

Lower East Side's inter- and multi-cultural/ethnic geography (MaP 6) incorporated:

¡ Public facilities, heatth, educational, recreational, and community facilities catering to

more than one cultural/ethnic population;

o Streets that contain businesses owned by more than one cultural/ ethnic population;

and

o Streets, such as shopping streets, that are frequented by more than one cultffat/ ethnic

population.

62

Not surprisingly, public and community facilities, public sPaces, and areas with mixed

ownership and businesses targeting different populations are the places that attract a mixfure

of people from differentbackgrounds and cultural/ ethnic grouPs.

The mapping of the Lower East Side's cultwal/ ethnic geographies shows that there are distinct

sections of the Lower East Side neighborhood identified with each of the four cultural/ ethnic

grolrps as well as areas that are seen as being inter-and multi-cultural associated \Mith more

than one group. The main concentration of Jewish identity was found to be south of Delancey

Street. The Chinese/Asian spatial geography was dense west of Orchard Street, while the

Latino/Hispanic/ Spdsh population was identified with the area north of Grand Street. The

Italian population was the most spatially compact of all the groups, being confined to the area

on Mulberry Street above Canal Street. The areas of the neighborhood identified as inter-and

multi-cultural were located along the length of Delancey Sheet and segments of Orchard, Alleru

and Grand Streets. These inter-and multi-culfural areas tended to occur where large numbers of

retail storet restaurants, and other businesses were owned or frequented by more than one

group. Public spaces and community facilities serving more than one population were also

associated with inter-and multi-cultural identities.

For resident participants, the Lower East Side is a neighborhood associated and characterwed

most prominently by places of personal identity; distinct cultural/ ethnic group use and

identity; places that serve to represent the inter-and multi-cuttural identity of the neighborhood

population itself; and places of city-wide, national, and world-wide significance.

While they identified areas and places within the neighborhood that cater to and were primarily

used by residents of specific cultffal/ ethnic groups, resident participants felt these area

,,boundaries" to be fluid and comfortable to move through. The presence of multiple cultural/

ethnic resident groups was considered a positive neighborhood feature by all resident

participants. Changes and transitions within the neighborhood as marked by socio-economic

and cultural/ethnic groups werenoted, however, withmixed feelings about the neighborhood's

past, current and future identities.

While they may not be knowledgeable about or frequent certain areas or places within the

neighborhood, all resident participants found areas and places that they identified themselves

with, found significant, and made use of on a regular basis. Resident participants conveyed

63

;

neighborhood,ptace meanings and cultural/ethnic group identities through the details and j

experiences of their everyday lives and observations of neighborhood activity over time. These

details ultimately translated into how relevent the places were for the neighborhood's r

culturat/ethnic life as well as for its historic and contemporary life. I

t-

:

I

f

64

Lffi

'l 0 i

500

1000

l¡F

EE

T

I

LEG

EN

D

:

@ S

ite

ffi B

lod<

Fro

ntag

eG

eogr

aphy

99

Map

i3.

Chi

nese

Low

er E

ast

Sid

e

0i

5m

1000

FE

ET

LEG

EN

D

I

@ is

it"

ffi

Blo

ckF

ront

age

'6G

eogr

aphy

I

89

tffi

lm,

ilffi

ffiI

[Ðr

til

ffiffi

ffi,iF

Map

4.

Latin

o Lo

wer

Eas

t S

ide

Geo

grap

hy,

I oi

soo

looo

lfF

EE

-T

I

LEG

EN

D

@ s

ite

ffi B

lodc

Fro

ntag

e

Õp

!É QE

<o g8 rg ËE Ïl g3 !> :c uz .gE Ë!

OL

LEG

EN

D

@ S

ite

ffi B

lods

Fro

ntag

e

ffi ffi

I hffi

Geo

grap

hy

7 @ F ! )

zt

E(

FE

E-T

LEG

EN

D

I

@ is

ite

ffi lB

lock

frun

tage

VL

IX. Ways In Which Outsiders View and Construct the Lower East Side Landscape

A. Guide Books and Guided Walking Tours: Defining and Ctraracterizing the Lower East Side

Guide books describe and define the neighborhood of the Lower East Side in various ways. The

most commonly noted boundaries of the Lower East Side are south of East Houston and east of

the Bowery as far as the East River. The Lower East Side is commonly described as home to

the largest number of immigrants beginning in the 1850's until the early L900's. While some of

the books do not go into much detail about, or even in a few cases make mention of, the early

residents in the 1850's who included Blacks who had been freed from slavery and immigrants

from heland and Germany, or the immigrantsin the 1860's and L870's from Italy, Greece and

Turkey, atl the books emphasize the arival of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe by way

of Ellis Island during the late 1880's to early L900's. The cramped and cowded lir.ing

conditions and the tenement buildings in whidr people lived are commonly mentioned in

reference to the imnrigrant experience and as part of what still make up the distinctive ctraracter

of the neighborhood.

Most of the guide books mention that the population of the Lower East Side has changed from

being primarily ]ewishhistorically, tobeing comprised of Puerto Ricans, Hispanics or Latin

Americans and Chinese. Some of the books indude more specific references to other grouPs

including A-frican-Americans, Africans, Dominicans, Filipinos, [rdians, Koreans,Asians, as well

as people from Bangladesh and the Caribbean. While a few of the gurde books indicate that

there is still a |ewish community lining in the neighborhoo{ most do not make mention of the

current Jewish community. Curiousþ, one guide book qpecifically indicates that there is no

longer a Jewish communig linios in the area:

Like Little Italy, the Lower East Sideflavor. There is no Jewish communityremain. The people li.ting behind the cruLower East Side are more likely to be yotapartment orlong-tennresideñtsholdiry dapartment (F'llis, 1997, p.97).

Other residents of the Lower East Side mentioned by a few goid. books indude "impoverished"

artists, "funksters," students, and as noted above, young people lir.ing in their first apartments.

75

Another guide book characterizes this other segment of the population in this way:

Guide,1996,P. 97).

Descriptions of the character of the Lower East Side area also indude references by a few guide

books both to a trendy and a seedy element:

Down below Houston lurks the trendilyrub shoulders with heroin dealers and hiin-flux of artists, a seedy element remainsLower East Side has the dubious distinclNew York City (Lets Go Publications, 1998, p.1'42).

Alternate descriptions of the Lower East Side among the guide books range from discussing the

area in conjunction with or within the context of different neighborhoods. Some books define

the area by different boundaries. Not all the books agree on the general character of the Lower

East Side, either. A common presentation of the Lower East Side is in conjunction with a

discussion of Little Italy and Chinatown since these adjacent areas are where Italian and

Chinese immigrants lived. The main boundaries or borders noted between the three areas are

Canal Street between Little Italy and Chinatown, and the Bowery between Chinatown and the

Lower East Side althoughthe Chinese populationhas pushedbeyond Chinatown'sboundaries

into both the Lower East Side and Little Italy. An introduction to the three areas emphasizes

the immigrant history, tenement buildings, and ethnic food and character that tie them together.

One guide entices the visitor to these areas by providing a general sense of their character,

stating:

Chinatown, Little ltaþ, and parts of the Lower East Side are the sorts ofneighborhoods where-you canhave a great time wandering haphazardly about,goiñg nowhere in particular (Bird, 1997, p. 63).

Another gurde includes the Lower East Side, the East Village and the West Village as part of a

discussion and tour of the Villages. The Lower East Side here is generally defined as below or

south of Houston Street. Introduced as possibly the part of Manhattan that the visitor will like

the best, the common elements among the three "vi77ages" ale:

76

Its low rise, densely inhabited and resplendent in diversi$,.. h any restaurant inthis part of Manhattan, the people will be every bit as fascinating as the mealyou eat (Letts, 1997, p.738).

The Lower East Side in this context is noted as:

Once the centre of Yiddish culture in Manhattan, the area now absorbs some150,000 Chinese to the south and Hispanics to the east'Loisada' (patois for'Lower East Side') to the east (Letts,1997, p. 139).

Yet anotherbooþ entitled Newcomer's Handbookfor New York City aimed atheþing to orient

and advise new residents about NYC neighborhoods, defines the Lower East Side area as

bounded by Houston Street and the East Village to the north, the East River to the east,

Downtown to the south, and Broadway and SoHo to the west. Further discussion breaks down

the Lower East Side into three different areas defined as: 1) the old Jewish Lower East Side,

that has become predominately Puerto Rican to the easÇ 2) Chinatown to the southwest that

continues to expand northinto; 3) Little Italy. The guide goes on to mention the following

characteristics about the neighborhood within the context of a reader audience in search of

neighborhoods in which to live:

Infiltration of the Lower East Side by the middle dass has begun. hr fact, its oldLgh to sign leases on The Bowery,The Nau York Times. Now bright bannerstaly and Chinatown....Rents in there unmonied and creative have moved to

Queens (Humlekeç1996, p. 25).

Some other neighborhood boundaries and character descriptions indude one guide book that

describes the Lower East Side as "... spli(ting) neatly into two distinct patts": the areas north

and south of East Houston Street. The two areas have different characters: the area south of

Houston Street being the most respectable, while the area north of East Houstor¡ the section

that abuts the East Village, "... is part trendy Bohemia" with the rest the area being

characterized as ".....predominately ruined and derelict, its houses either boarded uP or serving

as slum residences for the local Puerto Rican population"(Dunford and Holland,7996, P. 88).

While another reduces the size of the current Lower East Side area to be defined roughly by

Houston Street to the north, the Bowery to the west, and Canal Street to the south. (Fodor's

Berkeley Budget Guides, p.91)

77

odor's ew York : What To See If You mentions the

Lower East Side only in a discussion about Chinatown and its expansion over the Canal Street

and Bowery boundaries due to Asian real estate investments and growing populations' The

Lower East Side is mentioned as a neighborhood againbriefly in a section about shopping

neighborhoods, referring to the Lower East Side as "New Yorkers' bargain beat" (Low and

Berger (eds.), 1996, p. L28).

Of the two commercial walking tours of the neighborhood sampled, one defined theboundaries

of the Lower East Side as "always changing" but roughly defined by the Bowery to the wes!

Houston Street or East 1,4th Street, also known as the East Village, to the north; the East River

to the eas! and the F.D.R. Drive to the south. The other tour did not seem to emphasize the

current boundaries of the neighborhood'

hr considering resident and outsider characterizations of the Lower East Side it can be noted

that not unlike the residentso, the guide books/tours differ on their definition of the

neighborhood's geographic boundaries. The guide books/tours and resident participants also

stress the diversity of cultural/ethnic groups who live and work on the Lower East Side, but the

guide books/ tours include some groups that the resident partícipants, for the most part, do

not. The groups most often induded by the guide books were the artists, funksters, hip, and

young student types: people, in many cases, similar to the reader of the guide book. One guide

on a walking tou¡ mentioned in passing the plans for the conversion of a building, the fonner

Daily Forward Building that was zubsequentþ inhabitedby a Chinese Bible company and

sweat shops, into condominiums, suggesting that the neighborhood was currently zupporting a

higher income population. The visitor is presented here with infonnation that both zupports the

increasing marketabilig aod desirability of the neighborhood for the groups that the guide

books/tours mention, while at the same time foreshadows tensions between gentrification and

the neighborhoods working dass/ immigrant identity'

Another difference between the resident participants and the guide book/tours characterization

of the neighborhood's cuftwal/ ethnic groups was the books/ tours predominant discussion of

the Jewish community in connection with the neighborhood historic identity, with little mention,

and in some cases none, of the existing Jewish community. Perhaps the guide books/tours

6 Residents were asked in a first interview to define the boundaries of the Lower East Side on a

map provided for them.

78

consider the Lower East Side's past history of Jewish immigrant life more exotic and less

mainstream than the neighborhood's Jewish cuttural life today.

While both residents and books/tours mention the process of neighborhood change, the guide

books did not convey reservations or mixed feelings about these changes as ü/as found in the

responses of the resident participants. Many of the books/tours mentioned neighborhood

changes in terms of the expansion of Chinatowrfs boundaries by Chinese residents and business

owners beyond Canal Sheet to the north and beyond the Bowery to the east. Neighborhood

ctrange as a result of genhification was mentioned by the guide books/tours, although not

always termed as sucþ through the description of the new bars, restaurants and young and

artistic residents. trterestingly, only one resident noted this gentrification trend going on in the

neighborhood with some alarm, while the others did not associate these changes muctt with their

daily experiences and were not concemed about the implications of the changes taking place in

that section of the neighborhood.

B. "Portraying" the Lower East Side: Neighborhood Walking Tours and Sites of Attraction

The attractions identified in the guidebooks and the guided walking tours of the Lower East

Side areaz highlight or place value upon attractions that illusbate five general themes: 1) history;

2) contemporary life on the L,ower East Side; 3) ethnicity; 4) shopping /bargan shopping; and

5) curiosities or idiosyncracies of the neighborhood. All of the books and tours tend to combine

two or more of these themes in what they have to say and show on the Lower East Side. While

there is some overlap with the themes identified by the resident participants, the perspectives

and objectives differ. These categories will be discussed in turn.

History

All of the tours of the Lower East Side indude at least some references to historical events,

places or statistics. All mention the wide range of immigrants who settled in the neighborhood

beginning around the L850's, and allbut one mention the dense population, poorhousing

TDespite the differing definitions of the Lower East Side in the guide books and tours, this

review focuses on the attractions discussed in reference to the Lower East Side area south ofHouston and east of the Bowery. Although lists were generated of all the sites identifiedwithin Chinatown and Little Italy as well , the large number of sites is not manageable todiscuss in this context.

79

conditions and evolution of tenement buildings. The discussions of history and immigrant life,

however, take different forms. In most cases the historical focus is on the Jewish immigrant

populatiory while in some cases it stresses the multi-ethnic immigrant population over time.

One of these latter guide books, put out under the auspices of the Lower East Side Tenement

Museum, presents six different "heritage touts"of the Lower East Side, focused around the

history of different ethnic or racial groups who lived on the Lower East Side. These grouPs

include: African, German, histu Chinese, Eastern EuropeanJewish, and Italian. Anotherbook,

Guide to New York City Landmarks, specifically focuses on sites of architectural and cultffal

historical significance regardless of ethnic or cultural affiliation.

Sites are assessed to have historic value based on: L) well known activities and events known to

have taken place there or associations with particular historic figures; 2) the site continues to

function as it did in the past and is therefore considered to be a remnant or direct link to the

pasÇ and 3) the site has architectural significance due to the structure of the building itself or

its association to a noted architect.

Lower East Side athactions noted as having historical significance indude synagogues zuch as

the Eldridge Street, Bialystoker, First Roumanian-American, Congregation Ansche Chesed (also

known as Anseh Slonim) and Beth Hamedrash Hagadol. Specific streets and intersections zuch

as Delance/, Essex and Orchard Streets are noted for the past prevalence of peddlers and

pushcarts, and for the stores still actively selling Jewish zupplies, religious articles, and foods.

The intersection of Hester and Essex Streets is attributed with the past significance of being the

"IK:tazzeÍ-Mark (Pig-Market) where workers gathered every morning to get jobs in sweat shops

during the late 1,880's and early 1900's. Buildings that once housed certain banks (Sender

Jar:mulovsþ's Bank), newspapers (the Jewish Daily Forward), restaurants (the Old Garden

Cafeteria) and institutions (the Kletzker Brotherþ Aid Society) are deemed to have historic

social and architectffal value. Food shops and stores that were founded in the late L800's or

early L900's that still exist today, such as Gertel's Bake Shoppe and Schapiro's Winery are

valued as a continuation of that history as are the museums, suctt as the Lower East Side

Tenement Museum, that serve to validate and elucidate the neighborhood's history. A list of

the individual sites noted for their historical significance by the gurde books and guided tours is

included in Appendix B.

80

Contemporary Life on the Lower East Side

The Lower East Side today is portrayed as a neighborhood that is a shadow of its former self'

Having been abandoned by its large Jewish population, it is now an alea populated by a

small or non existent Jewish population, and more predominant Chinese and Latino

populations. Some of the guidebooks and guided tours make mention of the emerging resident

groups often associated with gentrification: hip and trendy singles and couples, in the area

around East HoustorçOrchard, Ludlow, Rivington and Stanton Streets. Students and artists

are other groups mentioned by the guide books and tours as residents in the same area. New

bars, clubs, and theaters attract an active nightlife and galleries and stores of trendy dothing

designers are heþing to draw more of this hip crowd to the area. The existence of gentrification

is notedby some of the books and guided tours along the Bowery and the East Houston

Street/ Ludlow Street areas.

Sites assessed to have contemporary ctraracter value are based on: 1) the current daily use and

reuse of buildings; 2) signs of changes and transitions in the ethnic and racial composition of the

population; 3) the location or evidence of curent activities, events, and fuends that have

recentþ taken place; and 4) the extent to which a place reflects an unusual or quirky aqpect of

cunent life or the population of Lower East Side.

Lower East Side attractions notedby the guides as having contemporary significance indude

buildings, zuch as the one that housed the offices of the Old Daily Forward Newspaper which

has since been replaced by a Chinese Church, and is soon to be replaced by renovated

condominiums. Storefront restaurants such as Katz's Delicatessen are now revalued as the

setting of a scene in the movie "When Harry Met Sally" and stores zuch as Guss's Pid<les and

sheets zuch as Hester Street are noted for their prominence in the film "Ctossing Delancey."

Ratre/s Restaurant is mentioned as a contemporary drance meeting ground during the 1989

Democratic mayoral primary by rival candidates David Dinkins and Ed Koch.

Signs of changes and transitions in population composition are zubstantiated by the gurde

books and tours in the gpes of storeÐ signage and lettering, narnes of businesses, types of

religious institutions, and references to institutions and whom they serve. Signs of the times of

the Jewish community are conveyed throughmentioning the small struggling congregations

existing atthe First Roumanian-AmericanCongregationandthe Eldridge StreetSynagogue.

81

Current activities and trends are notedby rising property and housing prices (gentrification),

new types of stores, businesses and entertainment. Conditions of buildings, bridges, and safety

are figured in determining value of the site for visitors. The Williamsburg Bridge is noted by one

guide book as "...adopted as a shelter by New York's homeless, clustered around oil drums,

emerging occasionally to browbeat motorists into having their windscreens washed for a

fee"(Dunford and Holland, 1996,p.89). East River Park is noted as a place to avoid, while

Allen Street is described as a scruffy boulevard (Bird, 1997, p. 73)-

Some sites, alternativeþ, are noted for their uniqueness, edecticism or danger as a way to reflect

contemporary life on the Lower East Side Life. One guide book points out a pet store that sells

cockroaches 0.8.I. Pet Store), while another comments on the discrepanry between the

inscription on the architecturally significant Bowery Savings Bank Building that ensures

customers of financial stability and the swirl of street vendor activity that currentþ surrounds

the building outside. A list of the individual sites noted for their contemporary significance by

the guide books and guided tours is included in Appendix B.

Ethnicity

Some of the walking tours and sites of attraction focus on the immigrant ethnic groups and

populations who lived historically on the Lower East Side, while others provide a combination

of contemporary ethnic life with an historic view. As mentioned previousþ, the guide book put

out under the auspices of the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, presents '?reritage tours" of

the Lower East Side focusing on six different groups: Eastern EuropeanJewish, Chinese, Italian,

African, hish, and German. A few books and a guided tour focus qpecifically on the Jewish

Lower East Side," while other books combine sites of interest that are rePresentative of Chinese,

and Latino cultffal and ethnic life, as well as some of the other historic and contemporary

ethnic groups. Given the narrow focus of this particular review of sites noted by the goid. books

and guided tours located south of Houston and east of the Bowery, the majority of attractions

tend to focus on the Jewish grouP.

Sites assessed to have ethnic value are based on: 1) historic and/ or contemporary use of a site

by a particular group for a particular purpose; 2) specialty foods, religious and cultural artides

used or originated by a specific ethnic group; and 3) places that require the visitor to adopt

specific ways of interaction that may be different from their own.

82

Lower East Side attractions noted as used by a particular group include the Ritualarium/

Mikvah $ewisÐ, the Ling Liang Church (the Old Forward ¡uilding) on East Broadway

(Formerþ Jewish, now Chinese). Synagogues are often noted as belonging to more than one

ethnic group, not only do they have ethnic value as Jewish sites, but also as sites associated

with the countries from which the Jewish immigrants originated. The First Roumanian-American

Congregation has additional ethnic value as Roumanian, the Eldridge Street Synagogue is also

Russian-PolistU Ansche Chesed (a.k.a. Anseh Slonim) is also German, and the Beth Hamedrash

Hagadol is also Hungarian. Sites that are of ethnic value due to their focus on specialty foods,

indude restaurants and food shops zuch as Katz's Delicatessen, Ratner's Datry Restaurant,

Kossar's Bialys, Gertel's Bake Shoppe, Guss's Pickles, Schapiro's Winery, Yonah Schimmel

Bakery/I(rrishery, and Streifs Matzoh Company, among others. Other ethnic stores include

those selling religious and cultural articles, such as Weinfeld's Skull Cap Mfg.

Streets are also noted as having ethnic value. Orchard Street and the Orúard Street Bargain

District are places that require visitors to adopt the practice of bargaining in order to fully

participate in the "fteel" and experience of the place, thus providing an "ethnic experience."

Clinton Street is noted as "...the central thoroughfare of the Puerto Rican Lower East Side"

(Dunford and Holland,1996, p. 90) containing many cheap Latino retailers, restaurants and

travel agents. East Broadway, the three block circumference around the Manhattan Bridge, is

described by one guide as being the center of the Fujianese community which is indicated by rice

noodle shops, herbal medicine shops, outdoor markets, and hair salons (Bird, 1997, p.65). A

list of the individual sites noted for their ethnic value by the guide books and guided tours is

included in Appendix B.

Shopping

Food is most frequentþ noted for purchase by the guide books as is shopping on Orcttard

Street. While some seek to qualify the validity of this statement, most of the guides refer to

Orchard Sheet as a place where visitors can find bargains. Bargaining is the modus operandi,

and interestingly all guide books mention that Sunday is the most lively day of the week to visit,

but not to buy. The books all recommend that the visitor return another day during the week to

do serious shopping.

Sites assessed to have purchase value are based on: L) those that offer items that are produced

83

on the Lower East Side; or 2) those that offer items that somehow recreate the "experience" or

remind the visitor of what life was or is currentþ like on the Lower East Side.

Lower East Side attractions noted as having shopping significance indude Schapiro's Winery

Streit's Matzoh Company, Gertel's Bake Shoppe, and Kossa/s Bialys due to their longevity on

the Lower East Side, their production on the premises and their Jewish ethnic association.

Restaurants such asKatz's, Ratner's Dalfy Restaurant, additionally provide an environment or

ambiance that help to create an Jewish ethnic exPenence.

Shopping on Orchard Street, especially on Sundays, with the street closed off to traffic, the

merchandise displayed on the streef and the nineteenth century tenementbuilding streetscaPe

virtually intact helps to recreate an atmoqphere of what life was like in the past. The art of

bargaining further adds an element of "otherness" so that one feels that one is in a foreign place.

Visiting the Lower East Side Tenement Museum as well as the tour of the Eldridge Street

Synagogue are also purchases of a sort that serve to illuminate and "reffeate" the past. A list

of the individual sites noted for their purchase value by the gurde books and guided tours is

included in Appendix B.

Curiosities / Idiosyncracies

The guide books and tours seem to portray the Lower East Side as a place with some creative

qufuks, and ironic contexts as well as some shange orbizane preferences. Murals, neon signage,

interesting ethnic practices, a political statue out of context, a run down market, and unuzual

pet stores are mixed together as part of the neighborhood. Sites assessed to have idiosyncratic

value are those that are unique, different, unusual, idiosyncratic or strange. These sites serve to

illustrate neighborhood character and me valuable because the are somehow one-of-a-kinds,

something that you might not see anywhere else.

Sites noted as Lower East Side curiosities include: the Bowery Savings Bank, a statue of Lenin

located on the roof of an apartment building, Sammy's Aquarium,I.B.J. Pet store, the Hua Mei

Bird Garden, and a billboard that advertises a company named "Ziot:ttalts" that makes Jewish

prayer shawls. As mentioned earlier, the Bowery Savings Bank is discussed in terms of its

ironic juxtaposition with its suroundings. The statue of Lenin is'presented as a curiosity, while

the Hua Mei Bird Garden is more of an interesting and unusual neighborhood feafure. The two

84

pet stores are examples of the neighborhood's bizarre preferences. An example of this type of

description in one guide book is as follows:

.9r*

hes,most horrible things you can see in theiet for zuchbrutes? Apparently there is,

although the manager admits that his main customers are mostly makers ofschlocËhorror moües and talk show hosts, to whom the cockroaches are rentedout at a modest fee [Emphasis and bold in the original] (Letts, L997, p.1'47-8).

In sum, the guide books/tours tend to place meaning and value upon attractions for the visitor

that emphasize the history and contemporary life of the neighborhood; show and provide

opportunities to see and experience the different cultural and ethnic life of its residents, provide

opportunities for shopping, eqpecially for food; and those that show some of the unusual,

unique orbizarre qualities of the neighborhood and its residents. As with the places selected

and valued by resident participants, most places were associated with more than one value.

Similar to the resident participantg although the associations themselves were quite different,

the guide books/tours considered places to have meaning and value based upon identity with

social and culfural/ethnic groups: well known individuals zuch as movie stars or politicians,

and Chinese, Iewish, Latino groups, among others. Places were also valued according to items

or oþects that the visitor could purchase that would in some way remind them of the Lower

East Side or, more commonly, provide the visitor with a simulation or ery>erience of the Lower

East Side's historic, cuttural/ethnic, or contemporary life. Bargain shopping on Orchard Street

and buying and eating food from Gertel's Bakery or Kossar's Bialys provide visitors with an

experience of what it was like to bargain with shop keepers in the "past" and to "taste" what it

was and is like to be Jewish. Places that provided unique glimpses into historical or

contemporary neighborhood character were also valued by the guide books/ tours.

85

98

X. Muttiple Constructions And Meanings Of A Lower East Side Place

Thus far I have examined the complex ways in whích different resident insiders and guide

books/tours characterize the Lower East Side neighborhood in terms of cultural identities,

types of meanings, and the values they attach to particular places. Ways in which the

landscape communicates cultural/ ethnic identities via visible, experiential and spatial markers

provide the means by whictr people attactr these various meanings. The spatial geographies of

the neighborhood's different cultural/ ethnic identities also act as indicators of meanings and

id.entities to various areas of the neighborhood. How do the varied meanings, identities,

communicative markers and spatial geographies combine and work together to construct a

particular place?

Ctroosing Delancey Street as a place to deconstruct and construct, this section explores vizual

and textual ways in which the different, multiple meanings and communicative markers

expressed by resident participants and by guidebooks/tours combine and work together and

differently to construct a more holistic and complex understanding of place. The intertwining of

multiple meanings and voices form a tapestry of socially constructed place meanings and

values. All of the meanings, values and identities that are attached to the street contribute to

constructing both shared and different meanings of the place of Delancey Street for individuals

and groups of resident insiders and outsiders.

Conceptually, Delancey Street can be conceived, first of all, as a place that is constructed by

many individual physical places. Eactr of these places is associated with meanings that are

shared among groups of people as well as those that are not. Delancey Street, therç can be seen

as a composite of shared and individual meanings, values and identities. Diagram L. illustrates

this basic concept.

87

Diagram 1.. The Physical Places and Place Meanings of Delancey Street

Secondly, Delancey Street is conshucted of individual places with geographic locations (spatial

markers); visible or visual markers that make these individual places unique and identifiable;

and markers of individual experiences and interactions in these places. Drawing from

environmental elements, these markers stimulate ways in whichindividuals and groups of

people attribute cultural/ ethnic use and identity, personal/ individual social, historical,

economic, and political meanings to the urban places on a daily basis. Taken together, these

multiple meanings construct place meaning and value. Building upon Rodman's (1992) concept

of multilocality, Diagram 2. illustrates the multiple meanings involved in constructing the

meaning of places like Delancey Street.

88

ESSEX/DELANCEYINTERSECTION

HUAMEIBIRD GARDEN/ Place

Diagram 2. The Construction of Place Meaning

. First synagogue built by

HistoricarMeanings,lî:îfr:iïä.,*

CulturalÆthnic I dentity. Jewishsynagogue. Garden is used by Chinese

men with birds. Mural depicts a popular

Latino musician. Italian restaurant

PersonaUlndividual Meanings. My mother used to bring me

to shop in the storeson Orchard St. WhenIwasyoung

. A friend of mine owns this building

. I pass by this corner every dayo I buy specialty food items in

this market

. Tenementbuildings

. Orchard Street bargainshopping

o Space is used for one type of

.L*.ti::1"r';I;i'"i;'å;i"i'n*PoliticalMeanings ;:Ï|,Ï:tjtbuildingsand

. Landmarks, special street names,and other sites of formallvdesignated importance

. Site is visited by a politicianPLACE MEANING. Vizual/Visible Markers¡ Experiential Markers. Spatial Markers

Economic Meanings. New building construction. Shopping activity. Types of businesses in the

neighborhood. Working class incomesr Housing rents

Social Meanings. Library. Use of a place/space by several

groups ofpeople. Public space- park, street. Citv recreation center

89

To further complicate matters, perspectives and meanings differ amongst individuals. While

people who associate themselves with particular groups, such as residents, visitors, lewish,

Latino/ Hispanic, Asian, Chinese, Italian, low income, middle income, etc. may agree upon

certain place associations, they also differ given everyone's individual background, context and

perspectives. People's associations with particular groups are also multiply constituted at the

same time, so that an individual may affiliate him or herself with residents, Latinos, and low

income groups. These multiple affiliations are at play for most individuals. All of these

differing, yet equally valid perspectives go into constructing the meaning of a particular place.

Building upon Rodman's (L992) concept of multivocality, Diagram 3. illustrates a multi-vocal

layering of place.

Diagram 3. The Multi-Vocal Layers of Place

Millie

Jewish\

Visitors

High Income

90

What does a constructed place meaning look like? The following series of pages attempts to

construct Delancey Street making use of the concepts presented in Diagrams'1.,2, and 3. That

is to say using the physical places, visible or visual markers, experiential matkers, and spatial

markers, that communicate cultural and ethnic identities, historical, political, economic, social,

and personal/ individual meanings through the voices of the individual resident participants

and the guide books/ tours.

9"1

2.

a

4.

5.

6.

DELANCEYSTREET - a STREET with STOREFRONTS and BUILDINGS on either side leadingtoward and away from the WILLIAMSBURGBRIDGE

a newly constructed COMMERCIAL BUILDING on the corner of ESSEX and DELANCEySTREETS with a MCDONALD,S RESTAIJRANT

an INTERSECTION withESSEXSTREET

a MUSIC STORE called RITMO-LATINO

a GARDEN where Asian and Chinese men bring their birds called the HUA MEIBIRDGARDEN

an OPEN SPACE and GARDEN used for Tai Chi exercises called the TAICHI GARDEN

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

72.

13.

1.

a MUSIC STORE called BATERECORDS

aFOOD MARKET known as LAMARKETA

a painted WALL MURAL of the sign of the RESTAURANT called RATNER'S

a RESTAURANT called RATNERS

OP|ICIAN STORES including one named COHEN'S OPTICIANS

a HAT STORE called STETSONHAT

CHEAP CLOTHING STORES and FAST FOOD IOINTS-u-11t!

I

J

IJ

',,¿

{a/ttlllËc

95

DELANCEY STREET VISIIALI VISIBLE MARKERS

DELANCEYSTREET.,,-' ?-*Yarv'*as o t/t 4lvqo

Avrohim: wellos onOrchord Sl¡ee/, I om bytroin.

evety doy, even on foot becouse lloke the

Avrohim: So lhere are stores on Deloncey Slreef... lhal haveStreet Morket (ond) bolh sides of Deloncey -hêre

long Rotner's hos been here...

and fast-food joints still line it in spots, but like so rn'any streets on tÏe Lower East

feel.r' As you head east on Delancey, you'll pass over Allen St., another

wide, (Bird, 1991997, p. 13);'

Dunford, M. and Holland, J.: " Essex Street leads to Delancey, the horizontal axis of the JewishLower East Side, and to the Williamsburg Bridge- adopted as a shelter by New York's homeless,clustered below around oil drums, emerging occasionally to browbeat motorists into having theirwindscreens washed for a fee. (Dunford, M. And Holland, J. ,1996, p. 89)."

Letts: "it'

asses danglebe told in

over the sidewalk, andextra-Iarge lettering

in case you bump into onethat Cohen's make the

û7t^tL,{.J1ß'

RITMO.LATINO -

(Ritmo Latino) Mea

Let's Go: "Speakingseekers) wil-l wantwest of the Bowery,

of birds, early-risingto take a sunrise strol]at the corne

15 rncongruous.

ornithofogiststo Sara DeLano

(or curiosityRoosevelt Park,St. There,

(Letts , L997 , p.L42) ." Je o'à

This is me. I mostlu listen to latin nt I loae løtin-- høoe eoerything from now (atrrent then (oldies), you

...You zoalk in there ønd the musie i TV scresns urith

number of

distracûion from vice. The men arritheir occupants don't wake too early,gEaqsy areá at the park's northernö'oùerings, and bid their songbirds/good

for eons. The Essex

tnuscnnaideod going on with løtin bands.

HUA MEI BIRD GARDEN.

Anna: This bithere were very few, and-ßhey ül?gld b{t"g!lfC"¡i--was the

could come to I imagine. It was near th-e-þe-tTop and I was very happy when theyked us to green the space for them. So I think it was beyond greening and making

it; 'Â'r ¡atural place{ which allow also the migratory and wild residential birdslL fr,.q!!+r4r Pr4Lq wlrLu ruvYv 4rùv rrrç rurËr4lvrj ï_:-l]-1*r:r::^-i:1.\

".¡,r to reased the nature lifd here. Uh, I think its interesting (that) by

. -oCÐo f L^.,^ ;'-ìiì*;^-cLin .^,ìtlr olão-1., f lrinaco mon flrat T nrnlr.:.irf?u'- crca.r.rux a. spâc€, I have á relationship with elderly Chinese men that I probably^'haclcauseitsamensclub.So,Ievenlikethebirdsnow,sometimeS

I think about getting any kind of bird, and it puts them in a different light.Sometimes I come to the place often, it depends upon having a film crew or if I haveto talk to the bird me t something or rvhen we have a problem like they'reputting a dog run when Ido thatrj.çiV$Fy, 'orget that its a very relaxing spot even you're not a birdperson, even if aren't there...Gentle activitv wit in a highway (of actir¡ity )

Delancey

- an o7d tradition intended as awith birdcages covered in cLoth so thatAfter positioning the cages in a:.gnalL,,¿

the men gingerly remove the 96morning. Tåe men do some streLching

5o,.Jr.J-

andthe

, p.142)."

exercises and socialize as they wait for their birds to warm to thebegin singing. Once sufficienLly bathed in the s¿¡-n's yøHrrth.birds awaken to the day- theirù:---r z- \¿ .i,hea,rd qver tlTfroar-þi tn": 4. (\ \__/TAI CHI GARDEN-

Anna: I asked a friend to make a Chinese exercisewe put

statue (and) he created a baby. Thisw fence thereNow people d

ã{r*rL

much- they look around before they do it....Within our group, there is controversy--many don't like it among the Board of Directors-- it was risky because it is in publicspace. The bird men think it is funny, it does create some sort of comedy, some peoplelike to take pictures of it with their babies.

RATNER'S -

Sophia : I (have) never eat(en) in that restaurant before, bubecause it is set in the middle of the Hispanic stores and obviously th

it is Jewish. lt signifies the mix of two different ethnic groups. Coexist not necessarilyin conflict.

Humleker: "Here you will find Santeria Dristan and plafter saints, clothing and jewelry next tobananas and a one-chair barber ing{Humlek flr, 1997, p. 165). "

v'q.Ll

just the name takes you bøck a zuhole history. Imy father worked with lewish peoplc.... Ratner's is

6/p¿xtpt'c¿serJ'¿t^ Wurman: "All the sÍandard fewiah dairy dirshes¡lìre listed. It's best, however, to soak in the

,hrrt¿ bowl of soupt a plate of,panfÉed'blintzes.(with pot cheese or potato filling), or the(Wurman, 7998, p.42)."

. P¿s¡tle on the L.E.S kttou Bøtes-

?4,6t-*e don't eøt meøt on Fridays-- they haae

n, but this is closer. During Lent, I go therethere a lot otherwise, ( I usually go there) once

cheesecake. It gets most b.ugy fø' lufch ønd dinnet. PeopleI'ae gone there, neuer haã'ri tnenl theie, hrt bought

It used to be aviable olace to be. a lotMproduce - vegetables, fish. lt is very lively, people come ther ¡¿,¡Wurf.L l{

97

Millie: They høoe ø lot of pastries and greøt

D ELANCEY S TREE T EXP ERIENTI AL MARKER S

3.

4.THENEWLYCONSTRUCTEDBUILDING-locatedon the northeast corner of the Essex and Delancey

Street intersection

RITMO LATINO MUSIC STORE - located between

Ludlow and Essex Streets. The store is one doordown from the newly constructed corner buildingon Delancey and Essex Streets

RIVINGTON

ÊJ

Ø

UJ

t-[)

ÉrO

Ii-U)ÍL

UCfoîro)U

ztdIJ

ll¡¡l i

DELAtrlrLt\

ôcr

f

Vo

IIJJ

D

l5BI tlu¡outr tF-^tNtN6a cfNffq

a;9 :

*'" ;. ! DELAN CEy STREET, located between the Williamsburg Bridge and the Bowery

,- L.-- -r

4t9 È:z õ1

BROOME

1. THE TAI CHI GARDEN - located in the Sara DelanoRoosevelt Park on the south side of Delancey Streetbetween Forsyth and Chrystie Streets. The gardenfronts on Delancev Street

THE HUA MEI BIRD GARDEN - located in the SaraDelano Roosevelt Park on the south side of DelancevStreet between Forsyth and Chrystie Streets. Cardenis located directlv behind the Tai Chi Garden

ìltu

1.1JIIollJt

J

li

98

J. LA MARKETA (a.k.a. THE ESSEX STREET MARKET) -

located at the northwest corner of Delancey Street and

Essex Street and extends north along Essex street as faras Rivington street and south along Essex Street as faras Broome Street

WALL MURAL OF RATNER'S - located on the Norfol

Street side wall of the building located on the northeasl

corner of Delancey and Norfolk Streets

RATNER'S DAIRY RESTAURANT - located between

Norfolk and Suffolk Streets

BATERECORDS- located between Norfolk and

õ"iølt Streets. The store is located next door

to Ratnef s Dairy Restaurant'

WILLIAMSBURG BRIDGE- located at the eastern

eni of Delancey Street. The bridge spans between

Manhattan and BrooklYn

Y)L.IY

oz

INTERSECTION OF DELANCEY AND ESSEX STREE'

J. LA MARKETA (a.k.a. THE ESSEX STREET MARKET) -

located at the northwest corner of Delancey Street and

Essex Street and extends north along Essex street as far

as Rivington Street and south along Essex Street as faras Broome Street

99

iÐ1,1:-i 'à'-1¿rÑ

:Lr.P.e

I

a

\a,

DELAAT CEY STR EET SPATIAL MARKER

00I

XI. Conclusions

Places in the urban landscape have multiple meanings, identities, and values. This paper has

examined and attempted to deconstruct ways in which select groups of resider'.ts and outsiders

assign meanings to places on the Lower East Side. It has attempted to understand ways in

whictr the urban landscape conveys and communicates meanings and identities through places

and visual/visible, experiential, and spatial markers. It has mapped ways in which places with

coÍtmon cultural/ethnic identities are spatially defined within areas of the neighborhood.

Finally, it has examined ways in which a specific place on the Lower East Side is constructed of

multiple meanings.

Places hold many meanings and identities resulting in multiple conceptions of place and

neighborhood. People assign meanings to places based upon the way they use them and these

meanings reflect the useds objectives, needs and values. Some meanings are shared among

individuals and groups, others are not, and some conflict with one another.

Patterns of meanings on the Lower East Side are unusually complex because the area caters to

diverse groups of residents and locals as well as to visitors and tourists. Residents and

outsiders were found to share similar, overlapping, and diverse place meanings and they spoke

about these meanings in different ways- residents associated meanings and values to places

based on personal connections and experiences; cultural and ethnic identity; neighborhood and

city identities; and national and world-wide significance. Outsiders associated meanings and

values based on history; reflection of contemporary life on the Lower East Side; ethnic

clraracter; shopping opportunities; and curious and idiosyncratic nature. For residents, the fact

that a place held significance beyond the neighborhood provided broad social validation to the

neighborhood in general. Places that were the product of current or past individual or grouP

efforts and seen as beneficial to the community were valued as part of the neighborhood's

identity. Personal connections to places developed over time also played an important role.

The details of how places functioned, who owned them, how long they hadbeenin the

neighborhood, and who used them added particular value. For outsiders, references to broader

historical and social contexts were valued and aspects of a place that were considered curious,

unique, orbizzare added meaning to the neighborhood as a whole. A certain kind of qpecialty

shopping stood out as an important value associated to place that differed from that

mentioned by the residents. The guide books/ tours attributed value to places that provided

101

items or objects, such as food, religious artides, and dothing that visitors could purchase that

would in some way remind them of the Lower East Side or, more commonly, provide the visitor

with a simulation or experience of the Lower East Side's historic, cultural/ethnic, or

contemporary life.

Multiple meanings can coexist in places that serve residents, locals, and visitors; but they can

also be a souÍce of tension. This tension finds expression in such things as increased tourism,

gentrification, and shifts in the cultufat and social lives of residents. As has been documented

elsewhere (Smith,1992; Smith, ed. "1.989;Boyeg7992; Zukin,1995), tourisln and its coillmon

companion gentrification often bring a host of impacts and problems, that, if left undtecked,

can transform a neighborhood from one that is actively lived in to one that eústs soleþ for

tourists. Processes zuch as these are related to broader trends in a neighborhood's physical,

social, economic, political, and historical environment.

While the findings of this research indicate that tourism, gentrification and a vital cultural and

ethnic residential community can coexist within the same neighborhood, this does not mean that

the situation willbe conflict or tension free in the future. Striking abalance between these three

is precarious; raising questions about the nature of a balance and ways in which a balance can

be attained. At what point, for example, does the balance shift to one where residents no

longer want or can financially afford to live in their neighborhood and visitors become the

objects of their own gaze? Is there an ideal neighborhood mix? Can the balance be planned or

regulated?

Certain types of places tend to be more meaningful to people than others. The study found that

there were specific types of places that conveyed meaning and made the neighborhood

significant for its residents. Residents chose many institutional buildings (many of whidt were

religious), signs, storefronts, and sites where the former uses were important as signifiers of

cuttuffil and ethnic character; personal, neighborhood and city identities; and national and

world-wide significance. Places were also found to convey meaning through visible/vizual,

experiential, and spatial elements of the environment. These environmental markers

contributed to the overall meanings of the place.

Information about the kinds of meanings and identities that places hold for residents and

visitors, the types of places often associated with these meanings, and the ways in which places

t02

convey these meanings is useful to planners for several reasons. First, it can be used to prevent

the inadvertant loss of meaningful places. Residents and other local stake holders can be

involved in identifying meaningful places as part of planning and designprocesses so that they

can be translated into plans, designs, policies and regulations that encourage/ conserve and

nurture these meaningful places. Landmarkregulations can also be expanded to include places

that are meaningful for a broad spectrum of reasons beyond architectural merit.

Second, this kind of information can be used to make places more meaningful. Visible,

experiential, and spatial markers can be incorporated into the design of public and private

qpaces by providing opportunities for residents to "make" their mark or imprint upon the

space. These marks or imprints can take the fonn of murals, tile work, and other forms of art

work. They can be in the form of creating adaptable qpaces that allow for a variety of activities

and interactions, such as festivals, markets, performances, and opportunities for play,

socializing, and spontaneous activities to occur. Marks of a spatial nature can take the form of

locating a space in a certain area of the neighborhood encouraging use by various grouPs/ or

assigning meanings and identities to a particular place providing seeds for the development of

community attachment and ownership. Allowing and encouraging residents to leave their

imprint upon urban spaces and places c¿ìn support existing fonns of cultural life and at the

same time stimulate newer forms and expressions of cuftffal, personal and neighborhood life

and identity to develop.

Thir{ infonnation of this nature can be used to relieve some of the tension among resident

groups, locals, and visitors by ensuring and planning for a range of places that provide meaning

and identity as well as meet the needs and objectives of the different constituencies. People not

only associate meanings with places, but tend to perceive and construct identities of other

groups of people based on what they know about the meaning of a particular place. This can

lead to better understandings of groups that one is not familiar witb it can also add to

tensions. To address this iszue, multiple meanings of places can be expressed as part of how a

place is "presented" or interpreted for residents, locals, and visitors. Equally important is the

expression of con-flicting and contesting meanings as part of place meaning. Not only does this

allow for "mulüdimensional" knowledge that goes beyond stereot¡>es, but it oPens the door

for people to reflect and question broader social issues about the construction of cultural and

social identity.

103

Meeting the needs and objectives of different constituencies of resident grouPs/ locals, and

visitors requires the provision of a range of public and private sPaces that address grouP needs.

This canbe done by identifying needs and developing plans through a community-based

participatory planning process. While it is important to provide sPaces to meet the needs of

these constituenry groups, these spaces can also be used to help to relieve tensions by offering,

where possible, programming that allows interactionbetweenpeople of different cultural

/ethnic, social, and personal identities and associations. It can also help to prevent aspects of

"theme parking" by ensuring that places remain actively "l7vedi7't."

Relying on place gpes and markers to convey cultural and ethnic character, however, raises

critical issues and questions. How do neighborhoods allow for transitions between cultural

meanings and identities from past residents to those of current or new residents? \'\trhen do

places lose their meanings and new meanings take hold? Whathappens when an area is

transformed by new forms of cultu¡al character and identity that are not appreciatedby the old

timers? These questions address iszues about neighborhood preservation and change, kinds of

meanings and identities that are deemed valuable, and the people designated as the arbitors of

these decisions.

Nerghborhoods with cuttural and ethnic dtaracter can not be planned and designed in the

physical sense, although planning and design can help. What ultimately conveys cultural and

ethnic character in the built environment is the gntty stuff of life. Cultural and ethnic life must

therefore be fostered and encouraged through a variety of cultural and ethnic, social, economic

and community activities in neighborhood institutions, public sPaces, and local commercial

areas. Spaces must also allow for residents to make impressions of contemporary life.

At the same time, residents,locals, visitors and other constituencies must actively engage in

caring and maintaining for the spaces that are meaningful to them. Finally, the value of

meaningful places is that they can connect diverse communities of people in the same locality.

t04

Appendix A - Breakdown of Landscape Features

Photographed by Residents by Frequengr

105

90I

Appendix A

Table 2. Breakdown of Landscape Features Photographed by

Resident Participants by Frequency

LANDSCAPE FEATURE TOTAL # % oFTOtAL

Buildings 51 28%"

Residential 8 (16%)*',

Institutional JJ (6e%)

Office 2 (4%)

fümmercial 6 (12%)

Signage 32 77%

Store/ Commercialsrgns

20 (63%)

Street /place name 3 (e%)

Bulletin boa¡d 1 (3%)

Banner 1 (3%)

Wall mural/blacktop drawing d (2e%)

Storefronts 29 76%

Food market/ deli / restau¡ant 9 (37%)

Clothing,toys, music/ othermercnanoße

9 (37%)

Business/ commercial servrces 1 (3%)

Personal services 1 (3%)

Mixed commercial uses 9 (37%)

Sites of FormerUses t6 e%

Commercial 3 (7e%)

Institutional 9 (s6%)

Public space(garderu parþ etc.) 2 (73%)

Recreational 1 (6%\

Office I (6%)

Streets 76 e%

Street/sidewalk 11 (6e%)

Block 2 (73%)

lntersection 1 (6%)

Median 1 (6%)

Bridge I (6%)

1.07

PublicOpenSpaces 13 7%

Pa¡k J (23%)

Garden 3 (23%)

Playground 1 (8%)

Square/ triangle 3 (23%)

Markets 3 (23%)

Architectural Details 13 7%

Window 2 (7s%)

Door/ entrance 5 (38%)

Sculptural detail 1 (8%)

Roof I (1,5%)

$ffi us sfmUol (Cross, Mogen 3 (23%)

People/Activity I 4%

Specific person/ use, ac$vity 2 (25%)

Passersby 1 (73%)

Shopping activity 4 (so%)

Car traffic 1 (13%)

Obiec'ts 4 2%

Representative / SymbolicOblect/Thing

1 (2s%)

Statue/ sculpture / monument 3 (7s%)

Total 782 700%

* Figures in bold are percentages of the main feature type categories based on the total number of

features mentioned and photographed by resident participants.

*" Figures in brackets reflect the percentages of the more specific landscape features within the main

feature type category . For example, within the buildings category, 69% of the features mentioned were

institutions.

108

Appendix B - Guide Book Lower East Side Attractions Grouped by Theme

t09

0tr

Appendix B

List 1. Guide Book Lower East Side Attractions Grouped by Themea

HistoryOrchard Street/ Orchard Street MarketSchapiro's WineryOld Forward BuildingLower East SideTenement BuildingKatz'sEldridge Street SynagogueEast BroadwayCanal StreetEducational AllianceYonah Schimmel BakeryCongregation Ansche Chesed/ Anseh SlonimRatner'sSender Jarmulovsky's BankThe BoweryBowery Savings BankRuss & DaughtersHenry Street SettlementKossalsBeth Hamedrash Hagadol SynagogueRitularium/ MikvahEssex Street MarketDelancey StreetFirst Roumanian-American CongregationBialystoker SynagogueSeward Park LibraryEconomyCandySeward ParkChurch of St MarvWilliamsburg BridgeAllen StreetAbrons ArtCenterBeckensteinWeinfeld's Skull cap Mfg.Khazzer MarkOld Garden Cafeteria

(Attractions Noted By L Guidebook Only)Henry Street Settlement Houses

I Located within the boundaries of the L. E. S. (not Chinatown or Little ltaly).

111

Current/ Present Lower East SideOrchard StreetOld Forward BuildingLower East SideTenement BuildingKatz'sEldridge Street SynagogueEast BroadwayEducational AllianceRatner'sThe BoweryDelancev StreetFirst Roumanian-American CongregationWilliamsburg BridgeEast River Housing ProjectsAllen StreetShakespeare in the parking lotAbrons Art CenterEl Sombrero Restaurant

(Attractions Noted By 1 Guidebook Only)East River ParkM&R BarbOb's BarAtphabet City

EthnicityOrchard Street / Orchard Street Market (Jewish)Schapiro's Winery 0ewish)Old Forward Building (Jewish/ Chinese)Katz's (Jewish)Eldridge Street Synagogue (Jewish)East Broadway (Jewish/ Chinese)Canal Street (Jewish/ Chinese)Educational Alliance (lewish/Chinese, Latin Americans, Blacks)Guss's Pickles (Kosher-Jewish?)Yonah Schimmel Bakery (Jewish)Congregation Ansche Chesed/ Anseh Slonim $ewish)Ratner's (lewish)Russ & Daughters (New Yorkers)Kossar's (Polish)Streifs Mazoh Company (Jewish)Beth Hamedrash Hagadol Synagogue (Jewish)Ritularium/ Mikvah (Jewish)Delancey Street (lewish LES)First Roumanian-American Congregation (Jewish)Essex Street (Jewish)Gertel's Bakery $ewish)Bialystoker Synagogue (Jewish)Seward Park LibraryEconomy Candy flewish)Ludlow CafelBat (Hip nightlife)

11.2

Church of St Mary (Older Jewish couples sit on steps)Clinton Street (Latino)El Sombrero Restaurant (Mexican food/ local LES color)Sammy's Famous Roumanian Jewish Steakhouse (Eastern Europe¿ìn Jewish)Weinfeld's Skull Cap Mfg. 0ewish)Old Garden Cafeteria (Iewish)Kadouri Imports (Middle Eastern)

(Attractions Noted By L Guidebook Only)

Alphabet City (Puerto Rican)

Shopping/ Bargain ShoppingOrchard Street/ Orchard Street MarketSchapiro's WineryKatz'sGuss's PicklesYonah Schimmel BakeryRatner'sRuss & DaughtersKossat'sStreit's Mazoh CompanyEssex Street MarketEssex StreetGertel's BakeryLace-Up Shoe ShopFotman'sEconomyCandyAllen StreetLudlow StreetFishkinA.W. KaufmanBeckensteinFine & KleinSammy's Famous Roumanian Jewish SteakhouseKadouri Imports

Curiosities/ Idios]¡ncraciesGuss's PicklesBowery Savings BankRuss & DaughtersEssex Street Market

(Attractions Noted By L Guidebook Only)Alphabet CityChurch with Murals on 5th Street

betweenC and D

113

Bibliography

General References

Abramovitch,l. (799n. "Hipification Reaches The Street Where Peddlers Once Pushed Cart".Nant YorkTimes. November 16. Section (B) p. 1, 6.

Anderson, K. (198n. 'The Idea of Chinatown: The Power of Place and lnstifutional Practice inthe Making of a Racial Category." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77 (4)1987: 580-598.

Appadurai , A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Pubhc WorldsVolume 1. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis and London.

Boyer, C. M. (L992). "Cities for Sale: Merctrandizing History at South Street Seaport."h Variations on aTheme Park: The Nan¡ American City and the End of Public Space, ed. M.Sorkin, pp.8l-204. Hill and Wang, New York.

Brower, S. (1988). Design in Fømiliar Places: Whøt Makes Home Enaironments Look Good. PraegerPublishers, New York.

Dorst, J. D. (1989). The Written Suburb: An American Site, An Ethnographic Dilemmø. Universityof Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Duncan, I. S. (1990) . The City As Text: The Politics of Landscape lnterpretation in the KandyanKingdom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Duncan, J. and Durcan, N. (1988). "(Re)reading the landscape." Enaironment and Planning D:Society and Spøce, Volume 6,pp. 1,17-126.

Edholm, F. (1993). 'The View Below: Paris in the 1880s." In Landscape: Politics and Perspectiaes,ed. B. Bender, pp.139-1,68. Berg Publishers, Ltd., Providence, R.I. and Oxford, UK.

Gates, I. $993). Peddler's Pack: Memory,ldentity and Performance on Manhattan's Louter East

Side. Unpablished Paper. New York University.

Giddens, A. (1990) TheConsequencesof Modernity. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

Harvey, D. (1990). The Condition of PostModernity:An Enquiry !t9 tle 9r!S:!t of Cultural- Chønge. Blackwell Publishers, hc., Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK.

Hayden, D. (1995). The Pou¡er of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. MIT Press,Cambridge, MA and Londorl England.

Jarman, N. (1993). "Intersecting Belfast." In Løndscape: Politics and Perspectioes, ed. B. Bender,pp. 1,07-1,38. Berg Publishers, Ltd., Providence, R.I. and Oxford, UK.

King, A. (1980). Buitdings ønd Society: Essays on the Social Deuelopment of the Built Enoironment.Routledge, London.

115

Knauer, L. and Tally, B. (1994). The Re-mapping of llrban Neighborhoods: The Louter East Side.

Unpublished paper. City University of New York.

Kotler, P., Haider, D.H., and Rein, I. (1993). Marketing Places: Attracting lnaestment,Industry,ønd Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations. The Free Press, New York.

LirU J. (1998). Reconstructing Chinatoutn: Ethnic Enclaae, Global Change. University of MinnesotaPress, Minneapolis and London.

Logan, J. R. and Molotch, H. L. (1937). Llrban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place.- University of Califomia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Low, S. 1996. "spatializing Culture: The Social Production And Social Construction Of PublicSpace In eosta Rica." American Ethnologist 23 (4): 861-879.

Lynct, K. (1960). The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and London" England.

MacCannell,, D. (7976). The Tourist: A Nøta Theory of the Leisure Class. Schocken, New York.

Marcus, G. (1939). Imagining the Whole: Ethnography's ContemPorary Efforts to Situate Itself.Critique of Anthropology 9 (3): 7-30.

Mitchell, D. (1996). The Lie of the Land: Migrant Workers and the California Landscape. Universityof Minnesota Press, Minneapolis and London.

Mitchell, K. (1993). "Multiculturalism, or the United Colors of Capitalism?"Antipode 25 (4):

263-294.

Rapoport, A. (7982). The Meaning of the Built Enaironmsnt. A Nonuerbal CommunicationApproøch. Sage, Beverly Hills.

Richardson, M. 1982. "Being -In-The-Market Versus Being-In-The-Plaza: Material Culture AndThe Construction Ofsocial Reality hr Spanish America." American Ethnologist 9: 427-436.

Rodman, M. (1992). "Empowering Place: Multilocality And Multivocality."American Anthropolo gist 9 4:640-656.

Rotenberg, R. and McDonogtu G. (eds.) (1993). The CultwalMeaning of Urban Space.Bergtn&Garvey, Wesþort, Corurecticut and London.

Sanford, M. R. (1987). "Tourism in Harlem: Between Negative Sightseeing and Gentrification'"

lournalof AmericanCulture 10 (2): 99-1'05.

Sorkin, M. (ed.) (1992). Variations on a Theme Park: The Nezl Americøn City and the End of PublicSpace. New York Hill and Wang.

Smith, N. (1992). "New City, New Frontier: The Lower East Side as Wild Wild West." InVariations on a Theníe Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space, ed. 'M.

Sorkin, pp.61,-93. New York: Hill and Wang.

116

Smith, N. (1996). The Nant llrbøn Frontier: Gentrifcation and the Reoanchist City. Routledge,NewYork.

Stewart, K. (1988). "Nostalgia- A Polemic." Cultural Anthropology 3 (3):227-247.

Urry, l. (1995). Consuming Places. Routledge, London.

U.S. Census Data (1980, 1990). Social and Economic Characteristics; Population and HousingCharøcteristlcs. New York Department of City Planning

Zukin, S. (1987). "Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core."Annual Reaian of Sociology 73: 729-47.

Zt*,tn, S. (1991). Landscapes of Pozter. University of Califomia, Berkeley.

ZukJin, S. (1995). The Cultures of Cities. Blackwell Publishers, Ú1c., Cambridge, MA andOxford, UK.

Guide Books

Bird, C. (199n. Nao York City Handbook. Moon Publications, Inc., Chico, CA.

Bulkin, R. (1995). Frommer's WalkingTours,ll Memorøble RoutesWith Møps: Nap York.Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York.

Dolkart,A. (1998). Guide to Nap York City Landmarksl Nan¡ York City LandmarksPresen¡øtion Commission Jotur Wiley & Sons, New York.

Dunford, M. and Holland, J. Q996). New YorkRough Guide. Rough Guides Ltd,London.

Ellis, D. (199n. Nøto York City. Lonely Planet Publications, Hawthorn, Vic, Australia.

Fodor's Berkeley Budget Guides (L996). Nant York City '97: On The Loose, On The Cheap, OffThe Beaten Path. Fodor's Travel Publications, Ilc., New York.

Humleker, R. (199Ð. Nap York For The lndEendent Traaeler: Fun Self-Guided Tours With Special

Maps, Step By Step ltineraries And Floor Plans. Marlor Press, hrc., Saint Paul, MN.

Let's Go Publications (1998). Let's Go: Nans York City. St. Martin's Press, New York.

Letts, V. (799n. Cødogan Mønhattan Cadogan Books plc., London'

Limmer, R. (1997). Six Heritøge Tours Of The Luter East Side: AWalking Guide lnColløborationWith NYCs Lower East Side Tenement Museum. New York UniversityPress, New York.

Low, D. and Berger, G. (eds.) (1996). Fodor's Pocket Nat York Çity '97:-What To See And Do lfYou Can'lStay Long. Fodor's Travel Publications, Il:tc., New York.

1.1.7

Merims, B. (ed.) (1996). Nancomer's Handbook For Nant York City. First Books, Il:lc.,

Chicago,IL.

Wurman, R.S. (1998). AccessNanYorkCity. Access Press.

Guided Walking Tours

Emmers, M. (Novemb er 22, t998). lauish Lower East Side Walking Tour. Dt. Phil's Walksand Talks Tours, New York.

pollard, A. (November L5, 1998). Lower East SideWalkingTour. Lower East Side Tenement

Museum, NewYork.

118