Gentrification has undoubtedly displaced and affected the operations and lives of many Chinese Americans and immigrants residing in San Francisco’s Chinatown district. But gentrification’s consequences are more rooted than just in the economic or physical change, but also in a deeper transformation of culture, authenticity, and heritage. Chinatown, historically, is a place of refuge for many Chinese Americans, symbolic of the community’s resistance and battles won. Such developmental plans erase the grueling work of Chinese immigrants in building this historic place, destroying a physical embodiment of culture and symbolism. Neighborhoods in San Francisco’s Chinatown are tied to immigrant community life, everyday cultural practices, and even the fascinating history of “bad” tongs in Chinatown; gentrifications threaten these cultural traditions.
Physical Presence
The most evident example of this erosion of culture is the notable decline in Chinese/Asian populations in San Francisco’s Chinatown, reducing a physical anchor of culture in the neighborhood. According to the Center for Community Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley, “Combined declines in family households, average household size and overcrowding are often associated with the process of gentrification, and changes in Chinatown’s racial/ethnic composition, further reinforce that possibility. Between 1990 and 2013 , the share of Asian households in the neighborhood decreased by 11 percentage points, corresponding with a growth of 5 percentage points in the share of white households” (Zuk and Chapple).
With fewer Chinese and Asian residents being able to call Chinatown home, the neighborhood faces a significant loss of the cultural identity that defined the community with the displacement of the very individuals that it thrived for. This demographic shift shows how in place of Asian residents, foreign, more wealthy white households have forced Asian Americans out, reflective of the larger societal emphasis on luxury development and modernization rather than preservation of culture and heritage. Elderly immigrants who have lived in Chinatown for decades find themselves displaced and forced to move out, leaving the social networks that surrounded them for most of their lives. This displacement interrupts an intergenerational sharing of culture, tradition, language, and customs that occur in Chinatowns and such interconnected communities. Where Chinese children once grew up in a cultural environment that gave them a diverse background in language and tradition, the same experiences are diminished, and Chinese individuals are less likely to observe traditional practices in their daily lives or be closer to their heritage.
Authenticity to Chinatown
This transitions nicely to authenticity and what that means for San Francisco’s Chinatown. Historically, the authenticity of Chinatown comes from the community’s collective experiences together; a shared struggle of adapting to a new landscape, of resisting decades of discrimination and exclusion, and living, working, and raising families within the small space of Chinatown. Authenticity is not defined by the popularity of restaurants and businesses, but what it means for the residents. Unfortunately, according to a survey for Chinese residents of San Francisco’s Chinatown, “Chinatown has become more prosperous and famous, physical Chinese-style features were maintained, particularly in and around several main streets. Yet, a closer examination, particularly referring to inhabitants’ perceptions, reveals that beneath the surface, the crowded streets and most remaining historic buildings simply provide empty shells for souvenirs and dining…most local touristic business is quite homogenous and insufficiently represents local history and culture….Worse still, the wellbeing of a vulnerable population is sacrificed. Along with the displacement of local businesses, residents’ daily lives, social bonds, and sense of belonging are interrupted, which leads to authenticity fading away and further generates a detrimental effect on social sustainability” (Xie and Batunova). This term of a “empty shells” rather than genuine cultural representation can be encapsulated as the “disneyfication” of Chinatown. What remains may look like Chinatown from the outside, but it functions as a stage for performance, rather than a genuine, authentic home. Restaurants may serve Chinese food, but they cater to non-Chinese palates and social media rather than its creators. This transformation represents a shift from authenticity rooted in generations of traditions to a performative authenticity meant to give foreigners a sense of “exoticness” within Chinatown.
Beyond an erasure of genuine authenticity in the modern era, we have seen similar changes made to San Francisco’s Chinatown in order to pander to foreigners in the past. When Orientalist stereotypes and views were at an all time high, and Chinatown was devastated after the 1960s earthquakes, developers who sought to rebuild created an idealistic, exotic image of Chinatown. They incorporated elaborate pagoda style roofs, dragon motifs, and other architectural designs that reflected Western fantasies of the “mysterious Orient” rather than the actual architectural traditions that the Chinese immigrants from the Guangdong province brought over. Because this community had little rights and support in the United States, many had to accept and even participate in the commodification of their culture. This historical precedent is just one example of the pattern of the West creating caricatures of Chinese culture and heritage. Even after this gentrification, as Chinese immigrants fight to take back Chinatown as a space for them without external forces forcing them to change, modern gentrification has continued to shape the neighborhood’s function by catering to what outsiders want to see, rather than by what the community needs or chooses.