Between the cosmopolitan and the parochial: the immigrant gentrifier in Koreatown, Los Angeles

Abstract

This paper questions the currently lopsided relationship between the cosmopolitan and the parochial, in which the former is favored both conceptually and empirically. In response, we propose a relational framework for bringing them into conversation, simultaneously recasting and re-animating longstanding debates via three framing devicesthe process of relationality/territoriality, disposition, and spaces of encounterembedded in and through the subject of the immigrant-gentrifier in Koreatown, Los Angeles, itself a novel category that has hitherto eluded systematic research. We present the results of 25 interviews of Korean immigrant-gentrifiers and 10 key informant interviews. The results constitute a parochial critique that emerges as a series of conflicted paradoxes but also productive tensions: between an ostensibly transnational process compromised by a profoundly homegrown, parochial set of investors and outlooks; between a set of dispositions that seek inner-city diversity and density, yet simultaneously sheltered from its spillover costs; and spaces of encounter marked by a gap between the promise of truly open spaces and the reality of guarded and self-segregated ones. Ultimately, this paper does double dutyconceptually rebalancing the cosmopolitan-parochial relationship, but in doing so empirically elevating the emergence of the understudied immigrant-gentrifier category.

Reversing the dominant directionality: Evidence of the East Asian model of gentrification in LA's Koreatown

“…Rather, the Koreatown reality was a mix of localised LA tendencies and an unevenly‐emulated East Asian model. The “big picture” interviews confirmed this further – that Koreatown gentrification is transnational only to a point, with a lot of home‐grown capital from well‐established, first‐generation Korean immigrants that create a hybrid landscape of Seoul and LA (DeVerteuil et al., ). The results showed both absence and presence of the model within an enclave arguably receptive to it (especially given 30 years of Korean investment, although much of it by first‐generation immigrants themselves), but one that must bump up against the incremental and modest nature of the redevelopment and gentrification model in LA.…”

“…In effect, Latinos are the majority population according to the 2010 census, while Koreans were around 25% of Koreatown's population. Gentrification has come only recently to Koreatown, as it has more generally to LA (DeVerteuil, , ; Marr et al., ), and certainly not via the typical model of Anglo‐American incremental upgrading of an existing built environment (DeVerteuil et al., ).…”

“…This paper has moved beyond the usual suspects of gentrification theory and its narrow set of anchors in Western cities, to consider evidence of East Asian‐style gentrification in Western cities, namely Koreatown in LA. While there was certainly evidence of explicit emulation, particularly in terms of density and new‐build, there was counterbalancing evidence of a more hybrid, LA‐centric model in terms of scale, scope, and pace that was remarkably bounded and parochial (DeVerteuil et al., ). In effect, while the East Asian model via Seoul breached its own territoriality, it had to confront the idiosyncrasies and immobilities of the Koreatown territory, yielding an incremental gentrification.…”

“…The census data showed patchy gentrification (measured as zip code median price per square foot increasing at a higher rate than the City and County of Los Angeles) in Koreatown, mostly along Wilshire Boulevard in the 90010 zip code. At $503 in 2013, its median price per square foot was well above County values ($260) and the City of Los Angeles ($326), and its increase of 93% between 2003 and 2013 was far greater that the County (18%) and City (32%) (DeVerteuil et al., ). The big picture interviews were also used to confirm pockets of gentrification so as to identify specific buildings from which to sample gentrifiers, rather than relying purely on the quantitative/real estate data which is too coarse for the subsequent sampling.…”

“…This rebalancing is particularly timely, given 30 years of sustained capital export from East Asia to the Global North, especially Australia, Canada, and the USA (Ley, ). We then seek evidence of this East Asian gentrification model in Koreatown, Los Angeles (LA), which as a Korean‐American enclave undergoing gentrification (DeVerteuil et al., ; Sims, ) may be especially receptive. However, our approach does not assume, nor does it follow, the East Asian model as a mobile policy.…”