Ethnic heritage preservation is tricky
Tags: asian pacific district, chinatown, cultural exploitation, ethnic communities, heritage preservation, immigration, richmond, san diego, union tribune, Vancouver
Ethnic enclaves are always a difficult issue to wrangle, whether you’re a planner or anyone else in the community. In Vancouver’s Chinatown, an aging population combined with the emergence of Richmond as the chosen destination for many Chinese British Columbians has raised difficult questions about the neighborhood’s future. Achieving a balance between the historical importance of Chinatown and the desire not to tokenize that history remains a question without a clear answer. Still, Vancouver has one of the most notably functional Chinatowns in North America. This is to say that it remains a living place, rather than a cultural relic or a temple to a bygone history.
But what about historical ethnic communities that have largely since dispersed?
In San Diego, where I spent the better part of my childhood, plans are underway to beef up the Downtown Asian Pacific District, which was formally recognized in 1987. Since that time, the district hasn’t seen a whole lot of historical refurbishment. Dare I say, people walk through it everyday without the slightest idea that it once served a thriving Chinese immigrant community. According the the Union Tribune, new plans could perhaps include a district gateway guarded by lions and “asian-style” lighting. All-in-all, $2.5 million has been put aside for the project. To be clear, the Asian Pacific District is to honor not only Chinese immigrants, but all people of Asian and Pacific Island descent.
This is where they lose me…
San Diego has undoubtedly benefited from the contributions of Asian Pacific immigrants from all over, and there was indeed a historical presence for some of these communities in the Asian Pacific District. My issues are: A) the district is no longer a hub for Asian immigrants, B) unfortunately, most of the ethnic contributions to the built environment are no longer around, and C) that the district is supposed to represent all of Asia drips of tokenism.
Allow for some elaboration:
Regarding A)
I do not mean to suggest that a district to honor the history of an important immigrant group is a bad idea, simply that genuine ethnic districts are constructed organically by community members and not synthesized by city development corporations. If restoring some of the original buildings to provide historical context is on the docket, I’m all for it, but creating ornate structures that weren’t there in the first place seems to exploit immigrant history rather than to honor it.
Regarding B)
Because many of the original Asian structures are no longer standing, refurbishing the area to reflect its historical past would require an incredible commitment of resources from the city. Given the value of real estate in Downtown San Diego (even in the current market), large-scale rebuilding of the district is likely unrealistic. This leaves the choice of improving what little remains in the district or, as previously mentioned, synthesizing cultural contributions to the built form.
Regarding C)
Though the city is surely stronger due to the contributions of immigrants from all over Asia and the Pacific Islands, the truth is that the district was not a historical landing point for Khmer or Indonesians or Bhutanese. Further, how all of these vastly different cultures could be represented in a single district is beyond my comprehension. It is true that Japanese and Filipino immigrants also settled the area, but just reconciling the differences in urban design between Japanese and Chinese would prove challenging enough. That the city has lumped all Asian and Pacific Island immigrants together in this case indicates less a concern for the history of the area than a token gesture… or, worse still, a marketing opportunity.
Overall, I’m supportive of those who would honor the history of their ancestors, but maintain some skepticism when cities propose omni-ethnic districts. The question of heritage preservation v. heritage exploitation is something that inevitably arises in these circumstances. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Pat Chan said:
Jun 28, 09 at 5:56 pmWhat are some of the views from San Diego’s Asian communities (Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, etc)?
Being from Vancouver as well, I find Richmond to be more “Chinatown” in the contemporary sense because it expresses what being Asian (Chinese in particular) is: it is changing. Chinese-ness does not have to mean dragon gates, red lanterns and dirty back alleys, but can be found in contemporary architecture and urban design. If there was a participatory design process done when designing the various spots in Richmond, then even better, as this shows how Asian-ness is more than a visual effect. Asian-ness can be the way Asians act and play a role in the place-making.