For this documentary style photography project, I will focus on the multi-cultural environment of Koreatown, an inner-city, ethnic community representing at one level, a historical ethnic enclave, at another level, a global nexus of economic restructuring tied to South Korea, and even at another level, a non-transnational, real-local space for non-Korean minorities. The following section will describe the history of this fascinating space of identity practice and contest, and in what ways outside investment interests have become embedded into Koreatown’s local cultural mosaic.

Early Koreatown

Passage of the 1965 immigration act was the catalyst for the population growth that helped build the Koreatown where it is located today. However, earlier immigrants began to move to Los Angeles as early as the beginning of the century. The first wave of 7,400 immigrants arrived to the states – most in Hawaii – between the years of 1903 and 1905 to work as sugar cane laborers (Kang, 2013). While most Korean immigrants came to Hawaii, some arrived in Los Angeles by 1904. These immigrants started the first Korean gathering on Magnolia Avenue near the University of Southern California to practice Christianity and learn English. By 1906, another group of Koreans started the first Korean Presbyterian church in Downtown L.A. (Kang, 2013).

Koreans began to immigrate again to the United States in 1924. Most of these immigrants represented political refugees, activists, and “picture brides” – women sent from Korea to marry single migrant workers. These activists established political movements in the United States to protest Japanese colonization, the first organizations starting in San Francisco would represent the first political movement for Korean Americans (Kang, 2013). By 1930, the Korean American community had moved to Los Angeles where there were more job opportunities (Kang, 2013).

During this period, Korean Americans began building establishments, starting with a grocery store, a laundry, and a shoe repair shop. By the end of the decade, more establishments were built and approximately 650 Koreans lived in the area occupying Adams Boulevard to the north, Slauson Boulevard to the south, Western Avenue to the west, and Vermont Avenue to the east, south of the I-10 freeway (Kang, 2013). It is important to note why this area was occupied. The area was an older part of the city, it was racially mixed, the rental prices were less expensive, and most importantly, race restrictions were not as strongly enforced. This area would be the primary Korean American settlement until the 1960s following an increase in Korean immigration and an easing of race restrictions that would allow second generation Koreans to move out of the community (Kang, 2013).

The Immigration Act of 1965

The end of the 1960s marked an enormous increase in Korean immigration. Within the two years of 1968 and 1970, the Korean American population had doubled from 25,000 to 50,000 with 8,811 living in Los Angeles County (Kang, 2013). This rise in population is attributed to the Immigration Act of 1965 that followed from the Civil Rights Movement, opening the door to thousands of immigrants previously barred from entry to the United States due to racist policies. The act favored the highly educated but most importantly, it provided a means towards family reunification. Following the Korean War, it was expected that since the majority of the population was White, most new immigrants would be of European descent (Chi, 2012). The Korean War claimed 1.3 million South Korean casualties and approximately 2 million North Korean casualties, separating millions of families many of whom would make their way to the states.

During the end of World War II, Korea was released from Japanese colonization following their defeat, and the Soviets entered Korea from the North while the U.S. entered from the South. Both sides agreed to have the United Nations conduct elections that would determine who would lead the newly independent Korea. However, neither side trusted each other, and the elections were delayed (Chi, 2012). As a result, the country was split in half at the 38^th parallel. Between June 25, 1950 and July 27, 1953, the country engaged in a civil war after the North attempted to invade the South. The war ended in a stalemate leaving approximately 10 million families separated (Chi, 2012).

Due to the fortunate timing of the Immigration Act of 1965, three main groups would make up the bulk of the second wave of Korean American immigration. Harry and Bertha Holt established the Holt Adoption Program in 1956 after they had made national headlines for bringing 12 GI babies to the United States. Many GIs and GI families stationed in Korea would adopt orphans before returning home (Chi, 2012). Child abandonment was increasing and had reached its height in 1964 at 11,000. Meanwhile, back in the states, people were struggling to find white babies to adopt, so they saw Korean ethnic babies as a viable option (Chi, 2012). By 1961, The Holt foundation had overseen the adoption of 2,587 Korean babies.

After the war, U.S. bases were one of the few places of material abundance. Many women had to care for young siblings and sick and unemployed parents (Chi, 2012). At the time, Korea was in great poverty. Military bases provided means of employment, drawing in poor women, widows, and orphans. Women separated from their families sought refuge in the military stations resulting in the immigration of 100,000 Korean wives of American GIs between the period of 1953 and the late 80s (Chi, 2012).

Finally, following a large-scale nation building program, between 1954 and 1960, the U.S. distributed approximately 2.3 billion dollars to South Korea, $60 million to go towards education programs, making it possible for 15,000 Korean students to study abroad in the United States (Chi, 2012). The programs sent American experts to help train Koreans in the fields of education, medicine, engineering, and other fields, and in turn, Koreans were allowed to enter the United States to study at American Universities. Additionally, those who chose to study in the United States were subsequently rewarded with full-time jobs as faculty in high-level administrative offices in universities and government agencies. Of that amount, less than 10% returned to Korea (Chi, 2012).

These three groups represented a large proportion of new Korean Americans following passage of the Immigration Act of 1965. However, not all immigrants arrived based on the provisions described above. 23.2 percent of Korean immigrants arrived under the occupation categories with an additional 11.6 percent entering as investors (Kwon and Lee, 2009). During that time, Korea was undergoing political instability. After Syngman Rhee’s government collapsed, General Chung Hee Park took control through a military coup. Under his leadership, South Korea became an export oriented economy. Despite economic growth, the number of white collar jobs did not match the number of highly educated Koreans looking for professional and managerial jobs, so many sought employment opportunities in the U.S. (Kwon and Lee, 2009).

Following the massive wave of immigration, the Los Angeles Korean American community grew to 8,811, and during this time, the original settlement began to move north towards Olympic Boulevard (Yu et al., 2004). This area became an attractive niche for the new immigrants as more affluent residents and businesses began to vacate the neighborhood. By 1971, Hi-Duk Lee, a Korean American, had established the iconic Olympic Market, and few elderly Koreans remained in the old settlement south along the I-10 Freeway (Yu et al., 2004).

The 1970s marked further development of the new Korean American settlement with more grocery markets, merchandise stores, banks, restaurants, doctor’s offices, cafes, and night clubs (Yu et al., 2004). In 1973, Hi-Duk Lee and other members of the community started the Koreatown Development Association, initiating a campaign to install Korean language signs on Korean-owned stores. The following year, the organization started the first Korean Street Festival (Kang, 2013). What’s more, the area saw a growth in media organizations in magazines, radio, and television (Park and Kim, 2008). By the late 70s Koreans were operating the majority of local businesses within the boundaries of 8^th Street and Hoover Street, from the North and South, and Western and Vermont, from the West and East. By the 1980s Korean immigration was at its highest, with 15,011 living in Koreatown (Yu el al, 2004).

The 1980s provided additional opportunities for business expansion and Korean American spatial identity development. In 1982, the town was successful in lobbying to install a “Koreatown” sign on the Normandie and Western entrance of the I-10 Freeway, a significant marker of Korean American spatial identity (Park and Kim, 2008). Additionally, large American corporations like Union Bank, Texaco, IBM, and Getty Oil began moving out of the areas containing Wilshire Boulevard and Sixth Street, providing additional vacant lots for more Korean American entrepreneurs to move in (Park and Kim, 2008). During this period, immigrants from El Salvador and Guatemala began to move in to the area as well, escaping wars in their home countries in search for greater opportunities while more and more, second generation Korean Americans began moving out to suburban areas (Sanchez et al., 2012).

Following the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, the Latino population had grown by 34% between the years 1960 and 1980 (Zhou, 2009). The largest influx of Latinos came from Mexico following an economic crisis driven by income inequality. The area also received a large influx of immigrants from Central America, which was experiencing civil wars driven by Cold War policies, most from Guatemala and El Salvador (Smith, 2003). Following their arrival, many Latino migrants became workers in Korean owned businesses, many of whom sought out undocumented migrants as affordable labor. Prior to the arrival of Latinos to the area, Korean business owners relied upon family members as a labor supply (Smith, 2003). As a result, many of the workers moved to the area to live in the affordable rental housing located near their work contributing both, to the areas multiculturalism and also an atmosphere of class antagonism spurred by worker-owner or landlord-tenant relationships (Smith, 2003).

The Riots

It is easy to believe that Koreatown is primarily a “Korean” space, evidenced by the proliferation of Hangul signage and Korean American commercial dominance. Between the years of 1990 and 2000, the Korean population in Koreatown increased by an additional 11,922, the largest increase that area had experienced. However, Latinos also experienced a similar growth of 11,176 (Yu et al. 2004). Although, commercially dominant and growing, Korean Americans were not the majority population by residence. Between the years 1990 to 2000, the population of Latino residency had grown to 51 percent of the total by the end of the decade with Korean Americans representing approximately 20 percent (Yu et al. 2004). The observation brings to light the lack of social visibility for certain underrepresented populations juxtaposed with a seemingly homogenous environment.

The Los Angeles Riots, referred to by the Korean American community as “Sa-I-Gu” – meaning 4-29, left 52 people dead, 16,000 arrested, and nearly 100 billion dollars in destroyed property. 12,545 people were arrested during six days of rioting between April 29^th and May 5^th, 1992, mostly in the areas of Koreatown (Chang and Diaz-Veizades, 1999). Additionally, 2,000 people were arrested and 1,000 buildings were destroyed (Kang, 2013). Many believed the riots were caused by the acquittal of four white police officers following their highly publicized beating of Rodney King. However, the event was only the spark to a bigger issue. Larger social forces of underrepresentation and spatial contest emerged from the highly publicized but misunderstood unrest.

Tangherlini argued that the riots were really about place and spatial practice. Those who participated in the riots and looting were in fact posing a direct challenge to the spatial practices of a self-defined ethnic community (1999). Koreatown had been undergoing an enormous growth in transnational capital. However, global economic restructuring had contentious implications by promoting a monolithic view of Koreatown. “New kinds of networks – physical and virtual – subvert ‘traditional’ formations, deconstructing and recomposing them in more complex ways… Established forms of urban community, culture and sensibility are disrupted” (Tengherlini, 1999). The ubiquitous Korean signage served to provide a strong impression of a Korean neighborhood. By destroying the institutions that marked the area as homogenous, spatial practices became disrupted as well and by implication, its monolithic identity. Tangherlini writes:

Immediately after the riots, large parts of Koreatown no longer bore the markers that identified area stores and businesses as predominantly Korean American owned or serving a Korean heritage clientele. Instead, landmarks had disappeared from the landscape making previous patterns of circulation and day-to-day navigation irrelevant. (1999)

The riots served as a wake-up call for the Korean American community, sparking a discussion about leadership. Kang argued that the riots were a hard lesson on race relations and a reminder of the interethnic challenges facing Korean Americans, most of whom came from an ethnically homogenous, hierarchically oriented, Confucian society (2013).

Chung argued that years of social isolation from cultural and language barriers that denied them access to outside institutions and their marginal status within American power structures kept their leadership politically detached with a preoccupation with homeland affairs (2007). Three main branches of Koreatown leadership maintained the priorities of a strong connection with the Korean government and economic expansion: (i) presidents of homeland-oriented immigrant organizations worked to maintain the connection with the South Korean government (ii) religious leaders from Christian churches served primarily the middle class (iii) entrepreneurs served the material wealth of immigrant business owners. As a result, the political characterization was oriented more towards the conservative, ethno-nationalistic, and more privileged groups within the Koreatown community (Chung, 2007).

Media usage in the area strongly suggests a greater emphasis on home country connection through the prominence of syndicated stories found in Koreatown’s ethnic newspapers. Through an analysis of 51 ethnic newspapers in Los Angeles, Lin and Song found that in the four dailies they analyzed from Koreatown, 43% of the stories they analyzed were homebound while only 4% of stories were geo-ethnic – stories relating specifically to the ethnic neighborhood, representing the local population (2006). As a caveat, it should be noted that this trend is not exclusive to Korean Americans only. Chinese and Latino newspapers also produced low numbers of geo-ethnic stories with higher numbers in syndicated, home focused stories. The average of the 51 total newspapers analyzed showed results of over half of stories reporting at the international level with more than three quarters of those stories focusing on home countries (Lin and Song, 2006).

In the context of growing global economic restructuring, local life becomes overshadowed. Following the riots, the first generation leadership, contained by the limitations of culture, language, and homeland ties, lacked the political network of the mainstream to address its socio-economic problems. Additionally, the South Korean government was not in the position to lobby for the political interests of Korean Americans (Chung, 2007).  Realizing the inabilities of the first generation, the most significant effect to come out of the riots was the rise of the 1.5 and second generation’s political consciousness as co-class and co-ethnic bridge builders, an implicit affirmation of mixed-cultural orientation.

Several non-profit organizations have cropped up due to a lack of political representation for the local community of Koreatown. Modares and Kitson described bridge organizations as non-profit or community-based organizations that provide the rising demand for local services. They serve as a liason between the immigrant-ethnic groups and other institutions such as health care providers, government agencies, elected officials, and employers (2008).

With the rise of the 1.5 and second generation’s political consciousness, Chung argued that first generation organizations began to look to these younger generation as a way to extend their political reach towards inaccessible networks, using their expertise into their organizations (2007). These members began to take on a more active role in serving local community interests regardless of racial or class orientations. One particularly influential example of a 1.5 and second generation led organization to come out of the riots was KIWA. Originally called the Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates, the organization promptly changed their name to the Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance after more Latinos began to join the organization. Still in service to the community, their primary goal is to empower workers both, Korean and Latino, at the local community level following widely occurring reports of work place abuses in Koreatown and throughout Los Angeles County. KIWA has decentered race and created an alliance based on class to fulfill the needs of its constituents, with members speaking English, Spanish and Korean. Additionally, the organization’s networks extend outside of the boundaries of Koreatown (Chung, 2007).

The riots showed that the disruption of monolithic establishments, the image of a solely Korean space, and thus, its identity affirming practices, was an implied discursive act of re-negotiation and social re-positioning. Additionally, what is clear is that Koreatown is represented by layers of overlapping cultures, in some levels integrated and prominent and in others, overshadowed. The following section will briefly describe contemporary Koreatown as it is experienced today.

From an Enclave to a Nexus

Lee and Park argued that global economic restructuring and transnational practices become embedded in local situations, interacting with the networks of a local community (2008). Particularly with Koreatown, the place has served  as a “social incubator” to gain experience in small business, develop ethnic networks, and accumulate capital for the express purpose of starting one’s own business when the time is right (Lee and Park, 2008). Additionally, following the riots, Koreatown entered a new phase of redevelopment sanctioned by the City of Los Angeles. To this day, several parts of Koreatown are undergoing project phases by developers, both transnational and domestic, to build upscale shopping malls, multipurpose sports facilities, and luxury condominiums (Oh and Chung, 2013).

Current census data shows that between the years of 2001 and 2010, Korean immigration under the provisions of “employment based preferences” surpassed the provisions of family reunification, the early provisions that were responsible for the second wave of Korean American immigration and the early settlement of Koreatown. The census data reported that 89,201 Koreans immigrated under the immigration act of 1965. Whereas, more Koreans now enter under the provisions of E-2 and EB-5 investment Visas. The 2010 census reported 110,630 Korean Americans immigrating to the United States under employment based preferences (Chung, 2012). What’s more, foreign born Koreans outnumber U.S. native Koreans by almost double, 63.7% versus 36.3%, respectively (Chung, 2012).

When South Korean visitors make investments in community infrastructures like residential properties, restaurants, coffee shops, factories, and strip malls, they are then eligible to apply for either the E-2 or the EB-5 investment Visas, depending on how much they were willing to invest (Park and Kim, 2008). The E-2 Visa requires the applicant to have made a “substantial investment”. Earlier figures reported investments at a minimum of $150,000 to $250,000. More current figures require more than $1 million (Park and Kim, 2008). In contrast, the EB-5 Visa requires a minimum of a $500,000 investment but provides the opportunity for permanent residency. The authors report that in 2004, those with E-2 Visas brought over $600 million to the U.S. in investments, a small portion of the $40 billion total in overseas investment from South Korean companies (2008). South Koreans value global investment. However, the authors further note that two-thirds of investments were made by large corporations, with few individual investors.

Contemporary Koreatown now houses a large variety of commercial establishments. Following the riots, Koreatown and mid-Wilshire lost much of its property value, by the end of the decade, Korean American investors owned an additional 3.5 million square feet of commercial property in mid-Wilshire (Park and Kim, 2008). Additionally, eight California-charted Korean banks reside in Koreatown along several blocks of Wilshire Avenue with combined assets totaling $9 billion from 2008 figures, representing a current growth of 295% (Oh and Chung, 2013). Stores and restaurants destroyed in the riots were replaced by a variety of entertainment venues: bars, cafes, pool halls, karaoke rooms, and other nightlife amenities. Local police report over 500 nightlife establishments in Koreatown. Additionally, the authors report that Koreatown has 498 liquor licenses, a 300 percent increase over Beverly Hills. Other luxury amenities create a space that provides the feel of a “mini-Seoul” such indoor golf courses and spas with expensive membership prices. (Kim and Park, 2008).

Additionally, outside domestic developers have begun investing heavily into building luxury condominiums in the area. In 1995, the City of Los Angeles created the Wilshire Center/Koreatown Redevelopment Project area, a general planning framework, which designated Koreatown as a “regional center” that extends from Western Avenue along Wilshire up to the western edge of Downtown Los Angeles (SCAG region, 2008). The plan is meant to encourage high-density, mixed-use development to the area with the goal of attracting wealthy Korean American residents, professionals from other areas of the region as well as further South Korean investment. Between 2000 and 2006, 2,000 luxury condominiums and shopping and entertainment complexes were slated to be built in the area (SCAG region, 2008)

In July, 2014, Capri Capital purchased the Vermont for $283 million, a new high-rise apartment and retail complex in Koreatown. The complex boasts a $1 million dollar chandelier and a 24-hour doorman meant to provide the feel of a high-end hotel with average rental costs between $2000 and $3000 per month. Chairmen of Capri, Quintin Primo chose the area because of its potential to attract young professionals. “Its multiculturalism is increasingly attractive to young people who enjoy things new and different,” said Primo in a Los Angeles Times article (Vincent and Khocri, 2014). Bordering two metro transit lines, one on Western Avenue and another on Vermont Avenue, developers see the area’s potential as transit space providing access to and from other areas of Los Angeles. “Koreatown is one of the fastest-growing, transit-oriented neighborhoods in Los Angeles and proximate to all things L.A. – downtown, Hollywood, and the Miracle Mile,” said Javier Rivera, a property broker of the real estate firm that represented the builder of the Vermont, J.H. Snyder Co. (Vincent and Khocri, 2014).

Although, the recent wave of transnational and domestic investment and attention by outside developers is symbolically positive for Korean Americans as markers of progress, Kang argued that transnational capital is not necessarily sensitive to the economic needs of the multi-ethnic, multi-class community it is transforming (2013). Community residents are in fact suffering on many levels through wage theft, discrimination, lack of affordable housing, and high levels of poverty.

Sanchez et al. reported that nearly half of the Koreatown residential population (46 percent) lives below 150 percent of the Federal poverty line (adjusted for inflation). In the decade of 2001 and 2010 when transnational growth was at its highest, the percentage of working poor increased from 11 to 17 percent, and nearly 40 percent of employed workers between the ages of 25 and 64 were without health insurance (Sanchez et al., 2012).

As Koreatown has seen an increase in renovation, the property value has also increased beyond levels affordable to its residents. As developers build more affluent housing, low-income housing declines and gentrification becomes a looming threat. The authors found that between the 1997 and 2007, there had been a total of 268 apartment demolitions in Central Los Angeles including Koreatown. In contrast, there has been a steady rise in the number of permits authorized to convert apartments into condominiums. In 2002, only four permits were issued to convert apartments into condominiums. In just five years, there were 48 permits issued for conversion (2012).

These domestic and transnationally funded renovations have nearly quadrupled the median home value in Koreatown from $100,764 in 2000 to $420,000 in 2006. Similarly, rental properties have increased in value from $176,800 in 2000 to $519,740 in 2007 (KIWA, 2009). The results of KIWA’s survey of 102 residents living in Koreatown found that 96% of respondents were renters, 41% earned less than $1000 per month, 58% pay half or more of their income on housing, and 47% live in overcrowded housing (2009). Additionally, the authors found that “low income residents experience extreme pressure to move as property values increase along with their rent” (2009).

Additionally, a study by the Korean Youth and Community Center, a local 1.5 and 2^nd generation bridging organization, conducted a study on Koreatown and found that a lack of parks and affordable grocery stores were two major issues for Koreatown families. Based on 2008 figures, they found that the average household income in Koreatown was about one-half of the California median income at $30,558. This number is not far off from current figures (Lopez, 2014). As of 2010, the average income was $33,448 (Oh and Chung, 2013). What’s more, the organization found that those who used the center’s free tax preparation service made on average only $18,000 as of 2013 (Lopez, 2014).

Based on community survey’s they found that public parks played an important role for families as a place to congregate with friends while also providing a safe place for children to play. Currently, Koreatown has only two parks, Seoul International Park and Shatto Recreation Center. However, the two parks combined make up only 0.6% of the total area of Koreatown. With the area’s high density, each acre of park space serves 12,554 residents (Lopez, 2014). What’s more, with approximately 1,278 restaurants, bars, and coffee shops in Koreatown, Lopez found that very few of them provided inexpensive and healthy food for area’s residents. During a 2.4 mile walk along Pico Boulevard from Crenshaw Boulevard to Hoover Street, she found 47 convenience stores and markets with only three of them providing a selection of fresh produce (Lopez, 2014).

The aforementioned authors have shown in contrast to the influx of new development that at the level of social conditions, local life has become overshadowed and embedded by economic and consequently, geographic restructuring by outside interests. It is my aim for this project to use photography to emphasizing the real local community of Koreatown’s multicultural residents and workers.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Chang, E., & Diaz-Veizades, J. (1999). Ethnic peace in the American city. New York: New York University Press.

Chi, S. (2013). The origins of contemporary Korean immigration. In G. J. Yoo (Ed.), Koreans in America, (pp. 47 – 58). San Fransisco: Cognella, Inc.

Chung, A. (2007). Legacies of struggle. Stanford: Stanford University Press

Chung, A., & Oh, S. (2013). A study on the sociospatial context of ethnic politics and entrepreneurial growth in Koreatown and Monterey Park. GeoJournal, 79, 59 – 71

Kang, K. H. (2013). The Seoul of Los Angeles: contested identities and transnationalism in immigrant space. UMI Dissertation Publishing, 1 – 40

Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance (2009). Reclaiming Koreatown: current and future needs of Koreatown residents.

Kwon, H., & Lee, C. (2009). Korean American history. Korean Education Center in Los Angeles.

Lee, Y., & Park, K. (2008). Negotiation hybridity: transnational reconstruction of migrant Subjectivity in Koreatown, Los Angeles. Journal of Cultural Geography, 25, 245 – 262

Lin W., & Song, H. (2006). Geo-ethnic storytelling: an examination of ethnic media content in contemporary immigrant communities. Sage Politics, 7, 362 – 388

Lopez, E. (2014). Koreatown environmental report

Modares, A., & Kitson, J. (2008). Nonprofit organizations as facilitators of immigrant Integration in Los Angeles County, California.

Park, K., & Kim, J. (2008). The contested nexus of Los Angeles Koreatown: capital restructuring, gentrification, and displacement. Amerasia Journal, 34, 127 – 150

Sanchez, J., Aver, M., Terriquez, V., Kim, M. Y. (2012). Koreatown: a contested community at a crossroads.

Southern California Association of Governments. (2008). SCAG region: compass blueprint case study.

Smith, M. (2000). Transnationalism and citizenship. Approaching Transnationalism, 15 – 38.

Tangherlini, T. (1999). Remapping Koreatown: folklore, narrative and the Los Angeles riots. Western Folklore, 58, 149 – 173

Vincent, R., & Khocri, A. (2014). Koreatown luxury high-rise is sold for $283 million. Los Angeles Times

Yu, E., Choe, P., Han, S., & Yu, K. (2004). Emerging diversity: Los Angeles’ Koreatown, 1990 – 2000. Amerasia Journal, 30, 24 – 52

Zhou, M. (2009). How neighborhoods matter for immigrant children: the formation of educational resources in Chinatown, Koreatown and Pico Union, Los Angeles. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35, 1153 – 1179