Shame, shame, shame: shame on Little Italy

[Nathan]

huh?

we weren't talking about Arthur Avenue.

there are no Italians left in Little Italy/NoLIta/Chinatown...except for a few senior citizens.

the largest blocs of residents today in NoLIta are Europeans and Australians....and none of them are over 40. people who live there flee the festival. what are you talking about?

edit: there's a reason why the neighborhood has asked for the festival license to be revoked. no one local wants it there (and it's really bad for the local businesses).

Edited April 24, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

Any ethnic neighborhood is bound to be a magnet for restaurants featuring the indigenous cuisine. If that cuisine is globally popular — as Italian food clearly is — the neighborhood will draw tourists.

The trouble with Little Italy is that, because almost all the native Italians left (for reasons having nothing to do with food or tourism), there was no centripital force to keep the restuarants interesting, or even authentic. If it was good enough for the tourists, it was good enough.

Now some tourists, obviously, really do know the difference between excellent Italian food and the merely adequate. But Italian restaurants can go anywhere. So, if you're a serious chef looking to make a mark in Italian cuisine, why put your restaurant in a place where you're but one of many dozens? I'm sure Mario Batali could have gotten a storefront in Little Italy if he wanted one. There was no reason for him to go there.

So with serious Italian chefs having the whole city available to them, and no indigenous population to keep the Little Italy restaurants honest, those restaurants went into decline. The best practitioners of Italian cuisine set up shop in other parts of town.

I think Frank Bruni once made a similar point about One if By Land, Two if By Sea. If you're packing them in while serving mediocre food, what incentive is there to be good? It may be that Little Italy is no longer packing them in, but it was for a long time, and in the meantime the great Italian cuisine migrated elsewhere.

There is no good term to describe visitors with unambitious dining interests. Yeah, there are people who cross bridges and tunnels to dine at Per Se and Jean-Georges. But I think they are outnumbered by the ones who line up in Times Square at Olive Garden, Bubba Gump, and ESPN SportsZone. You can call them tourists, B&T, or just unambitious diners.

Edited April 24, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

I wonder: when was the last time Little Italy had a one-star restaurant per the Times? How about two stars? Or three?

I'm not saying that stars always correspond to quality, but it's the only concrete measuring system we have, and it has been around since the 1960s — a period long enough to cover the decline that we're talking about.

[Sneakeater]

All I can tell you is that I remember in the early 80s that someone -- maybe it was Seymour Britchkey -- was making a big fuss about how good Grotto Azzura was.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[rooftop1000]

All I can tell you is that I remember in the early 80s that someone -- maybe it was Seymour Britchkey -- was making a big fuss about how good Grotta Azzura was.

←

I went there a few times in the 80s it was pretty good...of course I was in my late teens

You are forgetting about those of us that get dragged to Little Italy to see where Aunt whats-her-name lived right next to John Gotti's place....at which point some guy leaning on a wall overhears dear Auntie's name and spends an hours telling you about how she was best friends with his mom and of course we remember Cousin so-and-so

the marinated carrots at Benito II are amazing

except last time I was eating there someone parked at the curb opened their door and held a naked toddler out to pee on the sidewalk

tracey

wheres my bridge?

[docsconz]

While not in Little Italy, but nearby in Greenwich Village, has anyone been to Il Mulino lately? There was a time that it was my very favorite restaurant.

[plk]

I think that part of the explanation of what's going on lies in how these neighborhoods were formed in the first place. "Ethnic enclaves" don't just happen because similar people choose to move to the same neighborhood. Some of that happens, yes, but there has historically been a whole lot of racial steering involved which limits where people can live, who can buy property at all, and where. I would guess that NY Italians are a lot less less ghettoized than they were in the past and have a lot more options of where to live and what they can do. This is not the case with every immigrant group, and I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Italian immigrants (like other European immigrant groups) are now commonly considered to be "white." They weren't always, and their ghettozation reflected it. So, sure, Chinatown might be considered to be a more successful neighborhood by having better and more authentic restaraunts, but there's a price for that.

[docsconz]

I think that part of the explanation of what's going on lies in how these neighborhoods were formed in the first place.  "Ethnic enclaves" don't just happen because similar people choose to move to the same neighborhood. Some of that happens, yes, but there has historically been a whole lot of racial steering involved which limits where people can live, who can buy property at all, and where.  I would guess that NY Italians are a lot less less ghettoized than they were in the past and have a lot more options of where to live and what they can do.  This is not the case with every immigrant group, and I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Italian immigrants (like other European immigrant groups) are now commonly considered to be "white." They weren't always, and their ghettozation reflected it.  So, sure, Chinatown might be considered to be a more successful neighborhood by having better and more authentic restaraunts, but there's a price for that.

←

That is certainly one explanation and may be an element in the development of immigrant ethnic "enclaves" although I think it is a relatively minor one. That is not to deny that "racial steering" has occurred and may still occur or that recent immigrants may have difficulty entering the American mainstream. I think the main reason sizable numbers of recent immigrants create "enclaves" is that they are more comfortable in a culture that is familiar with ready access to their own cultural needs. More important even than restaurants are the shops such as the small food markets that sell familiar products that lend comfort and access to financial and other sources geared specifically towards them. As the recent immigrants children begin to assimilate into the American culture at large, they begin to disperse. So long as the immigration pattern remains strong the ethnic neighborhoods will thrive. Once that dissipates it only becomes a matter of time for the ethnic neighborhood to deteriorate. I think this clearly happened to Little Italy and similar Italian neighborhoods. A more generalized discussion of this phenomenon is probably beyond the scope of this topic unless it relates directly back to the deterioration of Little Italy as discussed here.

[oakapple]

Today's Metro New York has an article called Milan on Mulberry, subtitled "Can Armani save Little Italy."

It talks about a proposal to lure Armani, Bulgari, Fendi, "and other luxury Italian brands" into NoLIta, reclaiming space that was once considered part of Little Italy itself. The article also mentions that 185-189 Grand Street is going to become a new Italian American Museum.

One could envision a scenario (still a long way off) that the luxury stores lure more sophisticated visitors into the neighborhood, and the fine restaurants follow. But for now, it's just a glimmer in someone's eye.

[docsconz]

Today's Metro New York has an article called Milan on Mulberry, subtitled "Can Armani save Little Italy."

It talks about a proposal to lure Armani, Bulgari, Fendi, "and other luxury Italian brands" into NoLIta, reclaiming space that was once considered part of Little Italy itself. The article also mentions that 185-189 Grand Street is going to become a new Italian American Museum.

One could envision a scenario (still a long way off) that the luxury stores lure more sophisticated visitors into the neighborhood, and the fine restaurants follow. But for now, it's just a glimmer in someone's eye.

←

Interesting idea. It might be "little." It might be "Italian" and it might even be very nice, but it can never regain the character of a great ethnic Italian neighborhood.

[Nathan]

Today's Metro New York has an article called Milan on Mulberry, subtitled "Can Armani save Little Italy."

It talks about a proposal to lure Armani, Bulgari, Fendi, "and other luxury Italian brands" into NoLIta, reclaiming space that was once considered part of Little Italy itself. The article also mentions that 185-189 Grand Street is going to become a new Italian American Museum.

One could envision a scenario (still a long way off) that the luxury stores lure more sophisticated visitors into the neighborhood, and the fine restaurants follow. But for now, it's just a glimmer in someone's eye.

←

There are, of course, no fine restaurants in the neighborhood.

Peasant, The Tasting Room, Cafe Falai, Bread (now greatly expanded), Epistrophy, Xicala, Balthazar, Fr.Og, Public, Eight Mile Creek, Barossa, NoLIta House, 24 Prince, and a bunch of others are all fast food joints.

In addition, NoLIta is not filled with luxury boutiques and has not become one of the most famous high-end shopping areas in the world (literally) over the past five years.

If your point is that none of these places is on Mulberry Street, that's true...but historically speaking, Little Italy encompassed Elizabeth, Mott and Prince....arguably the most saturated restaurant and boutique streets in New York today.

[oakapple]

If your point is that none of these places is on Mulberry Street, that's true...but historically speaking, Little Italy encompassed Elizabeth, Mott and Prince....arguably the most saturated restaurant and boutique streets in New York today.

←

Whatever the point may be, it was the article's, not mine.

But you are over-romanticizing those streets and misconstruing the patch of real estate that the article is referring to. Balthazar, for instance, is at the corner of Spring & Crosby, which is considered SoHo by any definition I've ever encountered.

[oakapple]

Interesting idea. It might be "little." It might be "Italian" and it might even be very nice, but it can never regain the character of a great ethnic Italian neighborhood.

←

No neighborhood is ever going to be what it was in the distant past. The most one can envision is that the neighborhood becomes relevant again, though not in the way it formerly was.

[Nathan]

If your point is that none of these places is on Mulberry Street, that's true...but historically speaking, Little Italy encompassed Elizabeth, Mott and Prince....arguably the most saturated restaurant and boutique streets in New York today.

←

Whatever the point may be, it was the article's, not mine.

But you are over-romanticizing those streets and misconstruing the patch of real estate that the article is referring to. Balthazar, for instance, is at the corner of Spring & Crosby, which is considered SoHo by any definition I've ever encountered.

←

then the article was written by someone who's never been downtown.

Balthazar was the one iffy mention because it depends upon whether you define the western boundary of NoLIta as Lafayette or Broadway.

as for "over-romanticizing those streets", take a stroll down Elizabeth between Houston and Spring sometime. it's only the hippest shopping street in NY.

or try reading a European Vogue when they talk about shopping in the U.S......or Wallpaper...or an American Vogue or GQ or Esquire for that matter.

edit: for example, the two most talked-about men's stores in NY are both on Elizabeth -- Seize Sur Vingt and Barker Black. Duncan Quinn and Lord Willy's are less than a block away.

for kids -- Trust Fund Baby, etc.

for women -- Mayle, Henry Lehr, Tory Burch, Tracy Feith, Sigerson Morrison and many, many, many more.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

Balthazar was the one iffy mention because it depends upon whether you define the western boundary of NoLIta as Lafayette or Broadway.

Fr.Og. too. I haven't bothered to check the addresses of all the others.

as for "over-romanticizing those streets", take a stroll down Elizabeth between Houston and Spring sometime.    it's only the hippest shopping street in NY.

I have, and it's no such thing. A formerly very gritty area, with some up-and-coming storefronts alternating with a number of still-dilapidated ones. Within, say, a 2-block radius of Public, just count the number of storefronts, the condition they're in, whether they're open in the evening, etc., etc. Hip, of course, depends on who's doing the counting. Some people think West Chelsea is hippest. Others think it's Williamsburg. The Lower East Side can probably make a case. It's hard to think of a more overworked and less meaningful word.

But in any event, whatever the merit of those streets and their current tenants, the one indisputable point is that it's not especially Italian any more. The article's 1 and only point, is that someone is trying to make the area not just relevant, but also Italian again.

Whether they succeed or not is, of course, speculative. About 90% of such ideas are never implemented. But it is at least notable that a few people who are Italian, and have deep roots in the area, and still live there, are trying to do something about it.

[Nathan]

Balthazar was the one iffy mention because it depends upon whether you define the western boundary of NoLIta as Lafayette or Broadway.

Fr.Og. too. I haven't bothered to check the addresses of all the others.

as for "over-romanticizing those streets", take a stroll down Elizabeth between Houston and Spring sometime.    it's only the hippest shopping street in NY.

I have, and it's no such thing. A formerly very gritty area, with some up-and-coming storefronts alternating with a number of still-dilapidated ones. Within, say, a 2-block radius of Public, just count the number of storefronts, the condition they're in, whether they're open in the evening, etc., etc. Hip, of course, depends on who's doing the counting. Some people think West Chelsea is hippest. Others think it's Williamsburg. The Lower East Side can probably make a case. It's hard to think of a more overworked and less meaningful word.

But in any event, whatever the merit of those streets and their current tenants, the one indisputable point is that it's not especially Italian any more. The article's 1 and only point, is that someone is trying to make the area not just relevant, but also Italian again.

Whether they succeed or not is, of course, speculative. About 90% of such ideas are never implemented. But it is at least notable that a few people who are Italian, and have deep roots in the area, and still live there, are trying to do something about it.

←

nope. despite what Eater says, Fr.Og is not on the same block as Balthazar.

as for the others...I only lived in the neighborhood for three years...I've seen almost everyone of those first appear...and the rents in the hood become some of the highest in NY (fact).

yes, the storefronts are gritty. that's the point!

but ask any monied under-40 downtown NY'er if NoLIta is "hip"...especially women.

edit: as to the larger point, Italian boutiques will only move in to the extent that NoLIta becomes fashion mainstreamed...which is happening unfortunately (see the Ralph Lauren store). modern Italians really don't feel much connection with Italian-Americans and I don't see them picking an area just for sympatico reasons. they're not going to deal with Mulberry and the San Gennaro festival..etc.

sure, Prada, Fendi, Dolce & Gabbana etc. may well move east over time....but that'll just be part of the mainstreaming of NoLIta.

my real problem though, is with YOUR statement here:

"One could envision a scenario (still a long way off) that the luxury stores lure more sophisticated visitors into the neighborhood, and the fine restaurants follow. But for now, it's just a glimmer in someone's eye."

with all due respect, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Peasant, The Tasting Room, Bar Marche, Barossa, Public, Cafe Colonial and Xicala are on Elizabeth. Cafe Falai is on Lafayette. Bread is on Spring between Elizabeth and Mott. Epistrophy is on Mott. (there's nothing Italian about any of these of course...and certainly not Peasant.)

there are quite a few restaurants on Prince.....one of the most well-known sake bars in the city, etc. etc..

edit2: I agree that unfortunately, no four-star restaurants are going to open in NoLIta anytime soon...but this has nothing to do with "sophistication"....heck the Koolhas Prada store didn't bring four star restaurants to SoHo either.

it's not going to happen because the semi-geriatric crowd needed to keep those restaurants profitable aren't going to deal with the "grittiness"

Edited April 25, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[docsconz]

Interesting idea. It might be "little." It might be "Italian" and it might even be very nice, but it can never regain the character of a great ethnic Italian neighborhood.

←

No neighborhood is ever going to be what it was in the distant past. The most one can envision is that the neighborhood becomes relevant again, though not in the way it formerly was.

←

You are correct. I wasn't trying to be overly nostalgic, just noting that what was will no longer be - for better or worse.

As for the talk about Spring Street and Houston and that general area - that has never been Little Italy - at least not in my lifetime so far as I know. That was always SoHo and so far as I can tell still is. The construct of "NoLita" is relatively recent. If I recall correctly the area of SoHo began gentrifying in the 1960's. Prior to that it was pretty industrial. The Italian immigrants and their accompanying cultural institutions including markets and restaurants skirted the area of Soho with residential enclaves in Little Italy and Greenwich Village.

[JohnL]

We are now talking about neighborhoods as defined by geography.

not ethnicity.

Because people change more readily than buildings and streets, in the end, geography usually prevails.

[Nathan]

Interesting idea. It might be "little." It might be "Italian" and it might even be very nice, but it can never regain the character of a great ethnic Italian neighborhood.

←

No neighborhood is ever going to be what it was in the distant past. The most one can envision is that the neighborhood becomes relevant again, though not in the way it formerly was.

←

You are correct. I wasn't trying to be overly nostalgic, just noting that what was will no longer be - for better or worse.

As for the talk about Spring Street and Houston and that general area - that has never been Little Italy - at least not in my lifetime so far as I know. That was always SoHo and so far as I can tell still is. The construct of "NoLita" is relatively recent. If I recall correctly the area of SoHo began gentrifying in the 1960's. Prior to that it was pretty industrial. The Italian immigrants and their accompanying cultural institutions including markets and restaurants skirted the area of Soho with residential enclaves in Little Italy and Greenwich Village.

←

according to wikipedia, Little Italy extended from Lafayette to Bowery and up to Bleecker. which makes sense, since Elizabeth Street was part of Little Italy into at least the late 20th century (if I recall correctly, Robert DeNiro grew up on Elizabeth). heck, my old apartment building on Spring and Elizabeth still had a couple Italian-American senior citizens left...who had lived in the neighborhood all their lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Italy,_Manhattan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoLIta%2C_Manhattan

edit: I can't confirm that about DeNiro, but Scorcese grew up on Elizabeth and it was considered part of Little Italy:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:l33jz...lnk&cd=16&gl=us

Edited April 25, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[JohnL]

I think that part of the explanation of what's going on lies in how these neighborhoods were formed in the first place.  "Ethnic enclaves" don't just happen because similar people choose to move to the same neighborhood. Some of that happens, yes, but there has historically been a whole lot of racial steering involved which limits where people can live, who can buy property at all, and where.  I would guess that NY Italians are a lot less less ghettoized than they were in the past and have a lot more options of where to live and what they can do.  This is not the case with every immigrant group, and I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Italian immigrants (like other European immigrant groups) are now commonly considered to be "white." They weren't always, and their ghettozation reflected it.  So, sure, Chinatown might be considered to be a more successful neighborhood by having better and more authentic restaraunts, but there's a price for that.

←

People tend to live where they feel comfortable and in the case of most ethnic enclaves which are populated by people immigrating from another country where friends and family are already settled.

In many cases new arrivals have no sense of their new country other than where fellow immigrants have settled. Most of these people are poor regardless of their racial make up and don't have the resources, language mastery or the economic sufficiency to live anywhere other than these so called enclaves. the Chinatowns and Little Italy's are really support groups.

Interestingly, there are "enclaves" of Asian Americans in wealthy areas like Scarsdale and Englewood, consisting of highly skilled wealthy people who either got started in less wealthy enclaves like Chinatown and improved their skills and education or arrived with these skills from their countries of origin. these people could afford to live anywhere but choose to live where they do but gravitate towards others in their socio economic and racial group.

So, these neighborhoods need replenishment as their inhabitants obtain skills and money to move out of them. There is no longer an influx of poor immigrants from Italy to replace the populations that have moved out. Keep in mind, the fact that immigration is also driven by conditions in the countries of origin. The great famines drove many of the first wave of Irish immigrants for eg. Poverty and oppression in the country of origin are probably the most critical factors.

[JohnL]

huh?

we weren't talking about Arthur Avenue.

there are no Italians left in Little Italy/NoLIta/Chinatown...except for a few senior citizens.

the largest blocs of residents today in NoLIta are Europeans and Australians....and none of them are over 40.  people who live there flee the festival.  what are you talking about?

edit: there's a reason why the neighborhood has asked for the festival license to be revoked.  no one local wants it there (and it's really bad for the local businesses).

←

That is my point.

In recent years these festivals in Manhattan and the Bronx were attended by locals as well as tourists (who were there because of the locals).

Manhattan's Little Italy has been dying slowly over the years as there were fewer and fewer locals who were Italian and more and more tourists. In the end when the tourists realize there are few locals who are italian it will be over.

[Nathan]

huh?

we weren't talking about Arthur Avenue.

there are no Italians left in Little Italy/NoLIta/Chinatown...except for a few senior citizens.

the largest blocs of residents today in NoLIta are Europeans and Australians....and none of them are over 40.  people who live there flee the festival.  what are you talking about?

edit: there's a reason why the neighborhood has asked for the festival license to be revoked.  no one local wants it there (and it's really bad for the local businesses).

←

That is my point.

In recent years these festivals in Manhattan and the Bronx were attended by locals as well as tourists (who were there because of the locals).

Manhattan's Little Italy has been dying slowly over the years as there were fewer and fewer locals who were Italian and more and more tourists. In the end when the tourists realize there are few locals who are italian it will be over.

←

agreed

[Leonard Kim]

I wonder: when was the last time Little Italy had a one-star restaurant per the Times? How about two stars? Or three?

I'm not saying that stars always correspond to quality, but it's the only concrete measuring system we have, and it has been around since the 1960s — a period long enough to cover the decline that we're talking about.

←

Just a crude search here, so may well have missed some:

Bryan Miller gave Taormina one star on 5/5/89 writing, "While Mulberry Street's fading Old New York image still lures the tourists, New Yorkers from other parts of town no longer consider it the epicenter of authentic Italian cuisine. In recent forays to Mulberry Street, I found five-year-old Taormina to be one of the more consistent and congenial spots on the block"

He downgraded it to Satisfactory on 10/16/92, writing, "When out-of-town visitors ask advice about Italian restaurants, my suggestions rarely include Little Italy, which with few exceptions has evolved into a garish Mediterranean sideshow where marinara sauce flows from the faucets. When diners insisted on eating around Mulberry Street, I often suggested Taormina." The downgrade appears mostly on account of service, "The last time Taormina was reviewed, in 1989, it was praised for the warmth and efficiency of its staff. Lamentably, that has not held up."

Mimi Sheraton gave two stars to a place called Giorgine Carmella on 8/5/83, writing, "Little Italy has never before seen quite this level of sophistication, neither in food nor decor. Both would be more at home in SoHo or Greenwich Village." She has several Littly Italy restaurant reviews to her name including ** to the upthread-mentioned Benito II (Grotta Azzurra, btw, got two Diner's Journal mentions, but no review) and a mass "theme" review of 6 Littly Italy restaurants (one **, two *, two zeroes, one "too soon to rate") dated 3/26/76.

John Canaday gave ** to G. Lombardi in 1976, but wrote that he, "would without question be giving the place a third star except that we were favored customers on both of our visits."

Sokolov gave *** (and three triangles) to Villa Pensa in 1972.

(Reichl gave Onieal's Grand Street one star in 1996, making it the most recent review I could find of a restaurant in Little Italy, but I don't think it's the kind of restaurant under discussion.)

[plk]

That is certainly one explanation and may be an element in the development of immigrant ethnic "enclaves" although I think it is a relatively minor one. That is not to deny that "racial steering" has occurred and may still occur or that recent immigrants may have difficulty entering the American mainstream. I think the main reason sizable numbers of recent immigrants create "enclaves" is that they are more comfortable in a culture that is familiar with ready access to their own cultural needs. More important even than restaurants are the shops such as the small food markets that sell familiar products that lend comfort and access to financial and other sources geared specifically towards them. As the recent immigrants children begin to assimilate into the American culture at large, they begin to disperse. So long as the immigration pattern remains strong the ethnic neighborhoods will thrive. Once that dissipates it only becomes a matter of time for the ethnic neighborhood to deteriorate. I think this clearly happened to Little Italy and similar Italian neighborhoods. A more generalized discussion of this phenomenon is probably beyond the scope of this topic unless it relates directly back to the deterioration of Little Italy as discussed here.

←

Well, if you look into the sociological and demographic research done on cities, including NYC, you'll find that the research supports what I'm saying about the formation of ethnic neighborhoods. Structural constraints limit where people can settle more than their preferences do. There are a lot of studies on this, but I'll just quote this bit from the abstract of the first one that came up for me (From "Race and Ethnicity in Housing: Turnover in NYC, 1978-1987"):

The findings suggest the presence of structural constraints in the housing market which effectively channel racial/ethnic groups to separate neighborhoods. The overall results are reminiscent of early studies of neighborhood transition by Duncan and Duncan (1957) and Taeuber and Taeuber (1965), and show that little progress has been made in achieving equality in housing or informal social contact between racial/ethnic groups.

And that's just one study, that's a bit old at this point. Anyway, I think it's widely known by those who study cities that this is what happens much more often than people freely choosing which areas they want to live in. But the reason I want to point out how this happened in the first place is to say that segregated neighborhoods with a bunch of ethnically-similar restaraunts are not a sign of progress, but of problems and inequality. That is directly related to the issue of ethnic neighborhood deterioration because, well, should we really be trying to encouage segregation? It seems a bit to me like getting nostalgic about colonization or other unsavory periods and practices in US history.

[Fat Guy]

Wait, are you saying that people who live in ghettos don't really want to live that way? I thought those people were just, well, more comfortable around their own kind. At least, that's what I overheard in a private men's club in the 1920s.