Italian neighborhoods in North America

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by s.davis

While Columbus Park - which was for most of it's history was just called "The North End" - is still the part of town (along with River Market) in which you are most likely to find a concentration of Italian-themed (for lack of a better word) storefronts, along with River Market, KC's Italian (almost exclusively Sicilian) community quickly expanded from the North End to the streetcar suburbs of Northeast, which, as you know, is kind of KC's Queens. And while many of KC's Italians moved into the Northland suburbs in the last 30 years, Northeast remains the most Italian neighborhood in the city, with census tracts that hold the same concentration of Italian-Americans as the Hill.

Obviously, Northeast is a lot bigger than the Hill geographically, as it's really more of a district or collection of neighborhoods, than a single neighborhood, and you are much less likely to find Italian-themed retail, but there's a swath of the city from the River Market due east to the edge of the industrial bottoms of the Blue River that remains largely Italian owned, and if you enter a bar, a bike shop, an auto garage, a slum-apartment building or cut-up rental house, etc., chances are you are entering an Italian-American owned operation in that swath of the city.

It doesn't feel as touristy as the Hill, or as enclavely, it's certainly not a monoculturally-oriented or identified, and I don't think it will be around long-term in the same way the Hill will be, but it's every bit as "Italian".

the greater north end is actually the most st. louis feeling/looking part of kcmo, incidentally. it reminds me of the western hilly neighborhoods oriented to the railyards and industry along manchester avenue and parts of maplewood. physically, the heart of columbus park feels like a slightly denser version of the hill, in a smaller area.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm actually trying to find it on Streetview. Could you give us rough boundaries, because those blocks just east of Broad don't appear to be very Italian, at least judging by the people and businesses. I'm trying to find salumerias, bakeries, social clubs, and other obvious Italian markers.

South Philly, East of Broad, south of the Italian Market, appears to be very racially mixed in the western parts, and looks fairly "tough", but then gets much whiter (and seemingly nicer) closer to the river, it seems. The whiter parts are more Irish, I think. This is just based on Streetview exploration, haven't looked at Census.

Will be in Philly, for work, in a couple of days, and actually want to do some South Philly exploring.

Looking at ZIP codes 19145 and 19148. There are some tracts that are 60%+ Italian ancestry.

http://statisticalatlas.com/zip/19145/Ancestry

http://statisticalatlas.com/zip/19148/Ancestry

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Docere

Looking at ZIP codes 19145 and 19148. There are some tracts that are 60%+ Italian ancestry.

http://statisticalatlas.com/zip/19145/Ancestry

http://statisticalatlas.com/zip/19148/Ancestry

Awesome, thanks. I'll check out these neighborhoods.

It could just be that Philly Italian neighborhoods are a bit less commercial in nature than in NYC, so a bit more "under the radar" for visitors.

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

as far as i can tell, "the hill" in st. louis is the most intact "little italy" in the inland united states.

I think Cleveland's feels more "Little Italy"ish than The Hill, to be honest, and so does Bloomfield in Pittsburgh. I can't think of any street in The Hill that has the feel of a Little Italy like Mayfield in Cleveland (I believe Marconi [?] came close). The Hill seemed a bit more disjointed in terms of feel, much like, say Columbus' Italian Village (though the latter lost all of the Italians/restaurants/bars for yuppie boxes/tapas/craft beer). Cincinnati had a beautiful Little Italy but then they moved to Price Hill and left the old district to a hodgepodge of rich white folks and middle-class blacks.

Woodburn, Cincinnati

[Crawford]

Are you sure that's Cleveland's Little Italy?

I've been there, and it was very nice, but didn't look anything like that. I don't think any street in Cleveland has that type of look. That looks like Over-the-Rhine in Cincy or something, or maybe something in the Northeast U.S.

[ColDayMan]

I don't think you read the last part...

Cincinnati had a beautiful Little Italy but then they moved to Price Hill and left the old district to a hodgepodge of rich white folks and middle-class blacks.

It's Woodburn in East Walnut Hills, about 3 miles northeast of Over-the-Rhine. I edited for clarification.

[tech12]

There's a good amount of people of Italian ancestry in SF and the bay area, but like most other places, they're mostly assimilated and are all diffused throughout the region now. North Beach wasn't the only Italian enclave in SF. The mission was one as well, as were other areas to a lesser extent, such as noe valley, the sunset, and the excelsior. For example, the excelsior is only 3% Italian these days, but there's still holdovers, such as an Italian social club.

[SPonteK]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

the greater north end is actually the most st. louis feeling/looking part of kcmo, incidentally. it reminds me of the western hilly neighborhoods oriented to the railyards and industry along manchester avenue and parts of maplewood. physically, the heart of columbus park feels like a slightly denser version of the hill, in a smaller area.

Tend to agree.

[SPonteK]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

I think Cleveland's feels more "Little Italy"ish than The Hill

Yeah, I don't. I don't know that it feels any more "Little Italy"ish, but it' due hard to argue that the Hill is not a legitimate Italian American enclave (and a legit neighborhood to boot) of a pretty rare breed for the Midwest.

It also seems a little bigger than Murray Hill, or more like you can walk all over the neighborhood and bump into Italian retail business, unlike Murray Hill which seem more like 1 main drag. Maybe I'm wrong, I had a college buddy who lived in Murray Hill, but I don't know that I've been to that part of Cleveland in a while, whereas I'm in the Hill waaaayyy to much, to the exclusion of a lot of other StL neighborhoods I love to spend time in...

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

I think Cleveland's feels more "Little Italy"ish than The Hill, to be honest, and so does Bloomfield in Pittsburgh. I can't think of any street in The Hill that has the feel of a Little Italy like Mayfield in Cleveland (I believe Marconi [?] came close). The Hill seemed a bit more disjointed in terms of feel, much like, say Columbus' Italian Village (though the latter lost all of the Italians/restaurants/bars for yuppie boxes/tapas/craft beer).]

it's true that the hill really isn't a branded "little italy," and its disjointed feel owes to the fact that it is a neighborhood of corner commercial intersections on residential blocks instead of main commercial strips segregated from residential blocks. hell, i still sometimes get a bit lost in it walking a block or two too far for a certain intersection that i should have already cut over for! its a bit of an odd duck in its layout, but very walkable. i should have said that its a very intact real-deal italian-american neighborhood, i mis-spoke in ever comparing it to a classic branded "little italy" strip. its certainly a rare kind of neighborhood in the midwest, however.

[Docere]

The ZIP code that includes The Hill has 1,807 Italian Americans (10.9%) and 115 (0.7%) Italian speakers.

http://statisticalatlas.com/zip/63110/Ancestry

What this site defines as the Hill has 1,095 (44.8%) Italian Americans - not quite the 80% figure we hear about - but impressive nonetheless for a city that doesn't have a particularly large Italian population.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is probably all true, though I would also add that the Northeastern U.S. seems to also be the most ostensibly "ethnic" part of the U.S. in terms of self-identification.

It's hard to explain, but people are really into their ethnic roots, sometimes to a fault. You see Puerto Rican and Dominican and Israeli and Italian and Irish flags on homes, bumper stickers and the like, and I don't get quite that sense of "rah rah" ethnic identification in other parts of the country, even in areas with similar levels of diversity.
.

You see a decent amount of that in the West too. In the bay I've seen Mexican, Taiwanese, Salvadoran, Puerto Rican, Palestinian, Jamaican, Italian, French, British, irish, Brazilian, isreali, etc flags. I just saw two Italian flags in SF...they're around.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Docere

The ZIP code that includes The Hill has 1,807 Italian Americans (10.9%) and 115 (0.7%) Italian speakers.

http://statisticalatlas.com/zip/63110/Ancestry

What this site defines as the Hill has 1,095 (44.8%) Italian Americans - not quite the 80% figure we hear about - but impressive nonetheless for a city that doesn't have a particularly large Italian population.

136,000 people that define themselves as italian-americans...i'd say that the main italian-american hub is pretty tiny, actually.

[Docere]

As a percentage of the Italian American population in St. Louis...yes.

But a "Little Italy" district still being 45% Italian descent is still pretty impressive.

I'd be surprised if there were more than half a dozen census tracts in the Midwestern metros that are at least 40% Italian.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by tech12

There's a good amount of people of Italian ancestry in SF and the bay area, but like most other places, they're mostly assimilated and are all diffused throughout the region now. North Beach wasn't the only Italian enclave in SF. The mission was one as well, as were other areas to a lesser extent, such as noe valley, the sunset, and the excelsior. For example, the excelsior is only 3% Italian these days, but there's still holdovers, such as an Italian social club.

I think there was about 60,000 Italian Americans in SF ca. 1940.

But when they went to the suburbs they seem to have completely dispersed. They didn't go in a particular direction or concentrate anywhere in particular.

I believe many - if not most - came from northern Italy - not sure if that played any role.

I said earlier that I didn't think there was any "white ethnic" enclaves in SF today (except maybe a Russian one - is that historic or present?).

In fact I can't even think of any "Jewish suburbs" in the Bay Area - which is surprising given its large Jewish population (L.A. certainly has them and even Seattle's Mercer Island is perceived to be quite Jewish).

[memph]

So how common is it for American cities to have "ethnic Euro" clustering in general?

In Toronto, you do have the typical suburbs with relatively few visible minorities and a mix of European ancestries, especially outer suburbs like Ajax and Newmarket, but you do have clustering too especially with Italians, Jews, Greeks, Portuguese and to a lesser extent Eastern Europeans.

Originally Posted by s.davis

It doesn't feel as touristy as the Hill...

Not that touristy is necessarily a bad thing, but can you elaborate a little on what you found touristy about the Hill? In my mind the Hill is about as far from touristy as a place can get. It's mostly residential and the businesses there are primarily small, family-owned restaurants and grocers with a smattering of other types. I can't think of a single chain establishment anywhere in the Hill, actually.

Here's a link to a pretty extensive photo thread that I did on the Hill about 6 years ago:

Saint Louis: "The Family" | July 2010 | ~100 pics

[Citylover94]

I wouldn't use a lack of chain stores to prove a place isn't touristy for example the North End in Boston has almost no chain stores or restaurants and the ones that exist aren't what draws in the tourists same for Beacon Hill. I just don't associate a lack of chains with a place not being touristy in fact i often see that as increasing tourism value, but that is probably partly because I am from New England and part of the tourism draw is the local stores and quaint towns.

[SPonteK]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

Not that touristy is necessarily a bad thing, but can you elaborate a little on what you found touristy about the Hill? In my mind the Hill is about as far from touristy as a place can get. It's mostly residential and the businesses there are primarily small, family-owned restaurants and grocers with a smattering of other types

I didn't mean it in it's perjorative sense. I meant it is a fun place to walk around, discover, sample. Essentially, exactly what you are saying. And specifically, I meant touristy compared to Northeast in KC, which, while it has a very comparable Italian-American population and is a fascinating and very unique (for the Midwest) neighborhood in it's own right, is not the kind of neighborhood that is as rewarding to just stroll around as an out-of-tower and pop into places. I did not mean touristy like Little Italy in NYC, which is pretty disinteresting to me.

Capisci?

[Docere]

Originally Posted by memph

So how common is it for American cities to have "ethnic Euro" clustering in general?

In Toronto, you do have the typical suburbs with relatively few visible minorities and a mix of European ancestries, especially outer suburbs like Ajax and Newmarket, but you do have clustering too especially with Italians, Jews, Greeks, Portuguese and to a lesser extent Eastern Europeans.

It's more common in the Northeast and Great Lakes cities, less so elsewhere.