Chung 1
Little Italy Lost
Rejecting the pervasive “assumption by most Americans that…the changing
demographics of American cities are simply a continuing saga of ethnic successions”
(656), historian George J. Sanchez highlights continuity and multiracial cooperation in
the process of community change. While counterintuitive to the segregationist
reconfiguration of space that seemingly dominates in the enclavement discourse, in preWorld War II Los Angeles, ethnic integration existed between Jews and Mexicans in
Boyle Heights. The extent to which such cooperation existed and degree to which
continuity between successive groups was maintained in community transitions, varied in
the experiences of minority-group communities across the Southland. Whether the Boyle
Heights multiracialism was demonstrative of—or exceptional to—the experience of what
the rest of Los Angeles was facing in that era, becomes clearer when compared against
the socio-geographic legacies of other historic enclaves in the city.
This paper focuses on the transformation of modern-day Chinatown in Los
Angeles by studying the social history of a resident establishment—the former Little Joe’s
Italian-American Restaurant at 900 N. Broadway. I examine whether the region’s
evolution from an Italian- to Chinese- immigrant enclave was an instance of discrete
ethnic succession, or one of a gradual symbiotic transition. Furthermore, in this age of
globalization, wherein ethnic identity has taken a backseat to ideology, I propose
ideological succession as a more practical system for explaining community shifts
today—superceding the discursive function ethnic succession once served.
Little Joe’s: A Vestige
Today, though Little Joe’s Italian-American Restaurant still stands at the corner of North
Broadway and College Street, the building is boarded up and fenced off; its cement grounds—
fissured and overtaken by unruly weeds. Having closed in 1998 after 71 years of continuous
operation, it has since lain in abandonment and disrepair.
What follows is a history of Little Joe’s, presented within the larger context of Los
Angeles history. It is composed of an interweaving of interpretations from the perspectives of
former owner Robert Nuccio—great-grandson of the founder of the original grocery store that
eventually became Little Joe’s—various authors of Los Angeles past; as well as a historian I
spoke with at the El Pueblo de Los Angeles Monument Visitor Center.
Beginnings
In the late nineteenth century, Italian immigrant Charlie Viotto opened a grocery on Fifth
and Hewitt, near the Los Angeles Plaza. Serving the city’s growing Italian immigrant
community, which in 1900 numbered approximately 2,000 people (Crosby 40). The market sold
imported goods from the motherland. In 1916, after Viotto’s death, his son-in-law Robert Nuccio
took over, renaming the store the Robert Nuccio Grocery Company. Nuccio added a delivery
service that distributed goods to regional farmers. By 1920, having made his fortune, Nuccio
sold the business to Glendale-born John Gadeschi and Joe Vivalda, who renamed the store the
Italian-American Grocery Company. Meanwhile, Nuccio took his fortune, briefly returning to
Italy before eventually coming back to California.
In this time, Los Angeles underwent the boom of the twenties—attracting migrants and
foreigners. Immigrant workers flooded the Plaza, where the Italian community was originally
Chung 2
centered. As a result, the Italian Quarter migrated northwards, towards St. Peter’s Italian Church
by Lincoln Heights and Elysian Park—part of modern-day Chinatown. In 1927, hot on the tracks
of this ethnic community, Gadeschi and Vivalda relocated the grocery to 900 N. Broadway,
where the store—and eventually, restaurant—would permanently remain.
900 N. Broadway
In 1927, the Italian-American Grocery Company moved to the corner of North Broadway
and College Street, into a three-story Victorian establishment, built in 1886. Gadeschi and
Vivalda leased the ground floor. Above them was a hotel, and around them, construction was
transforming Los Angeles into a premier city. Workers laying the foundation for the modern city
frequented the grocery at lunchtime to buy meats and bread for making sandwiches. By 1933,
Gadeschi and Vivalda leased the space next-door and opened the Italian-American Restaurant. In
the next decades, as the restaurant outgrew the grocery, the establishment would undergo a series
of renovations and expansions, gradually repositioning the business from grocer to full-service
restaurant.
Little Joe’s
Just as the Italian-American Grocery Company and Restaurant was expanding, world
events would transform the socio-political climate of Los Angeles—bringing about monumental
repercussions for ethnic Italian businesses and community. In the Second World War, the
perception of Italians took a turn for the worst when Mussolini sided with Nazi Germany. A
wave of persecution against Italians in the United States led many to publicly deny their ethnic
identity and members of the community were under great pressure to prove their allegiance and
assimilation to white-American lifestyle. In 1939, these world developments led to the renaming
of the Italian-American Restaurant to Little Joe’s—after co-owner Vivalda—as a way to distance
the business from its ethnic roots. Furthermore, the community that once constituted the Italian
Quarter dispersed to avoid targeted anti-Mussolini wrath.
This transformation gave way to a reconfiguration of human geography. Another group
of foreigners who had settled in Los Angeles by this time were the Chinese—who had formed a
Chinatown near El Pueblo. But as World War II raged on, Los Angeles continued to expand on
defense investment. American migrants seeking economic opportunity were arriving by rail. In
accommodating domestic newcomers, old-Chinatown residents were driven out for the
construction of Union Station. Like the Italians before them, the Chinese traveled northwards,
resettling in the recently vacated Little Italy.
Under New Management: Back to the Nuccios
After the war, former owner Robert Nuccio’s son John married Gadeschi’s daughter
Marion and proceeded to work at the restaurant. In 1951, following Vivalda’s death, John bought
out his wife’s share of Little Joe’s. Partnering with his father-in-law, John ran the business—now
back under Nuccio management. Soon after, the restaurant was remodeled—its Victorian design
replaced by a more modern style. In 1960, following Gadeschi’s death, John continued to
manage Little Joe’s. For the remainder of its existence, Little Joe’s would prove to be a locus of
civic and community involvement, as well as pop-culture gatherings which, along with its
constancy—a respectable and exceptional trait in this “ephemeral city”—solidified and
legitimated its evolution into a Los Angeles institution.
Chung 3
Fig. A, B: Little Joe’s ca.1920s (left); ca. 1960s (right).
A Community Gathering Place
While it served unambiguously Italian-American fare, the record left by Little Joe’s in the
Los Angeles Times Historical Archives reveals that the eatery was a wholesome, All-American
hang-out and meeting place. It served as the official meeting location and banquet hall for social
events held by various civic clubs and community groups. Even when events were not held in
presence at the Chinatown establishment, the restaurant often catered—especially to the social
functions of upper echelon suburban housewives. In 1963, Little Joe’s prepared an ItalianAmerican menu for Mrs. Charles Coffyn to host the Sierra Guild’s “Florentine Fiesta” at the Elks
Clubhouse in Arcadia, where members invited their husbands to a night of dancing to benefit the
Los Angeles Children’s Hospital (Los Angeles Times, 20 Jan. 1963). Aside from organized social
events, the restaurant also served as a public forum for intellectual and civic engagement. On
June 18, in another calendar happening announced by the Times, the Pilot Club of Glendale
hosted speaker Coleman Lieber’s talk on “The Bill of Rights.”
As Robert Nuccio remembers of his restaurant in the ’50s to ’80s,
Little Joe’s and the Chinatown area was the place to be in Los Angeles.
Everyone ate there—politicians, financial experts, lawyers, judges, Hollywood
producers, studio execs, movie stars and professional athletes could be found in
the restaurant and bar regularly. Everyone you can possibly name, from Ronald
Reagan to W.C. Fields; John Wayne to Charlton Heston to Barbara Streisand;
Walter O’Malley and Sandy Koufax to Tommy Lasorda, Mike Scioscia and
Fernando Valenzuela. Honestly, just name anyone, and they frequented the
restaurant.
Chung 4
In fact, MLB player Fernando Valenzuela signed to the Dodgers at Little Joe’s. Of this
special event, team Vice President Al Campanis remarked, “This is truly an international event.
We signed an outstanding Mexican pitcher at an Italian restaurant in the middle of Chinatown
(Los Angeles Times, 16 Feb. 1986).” When the Olympics came to town in 1986, the Nuccios
installed a big screen television and satellite dish. Thereafter, the restaurant again repositioned
itself, this time as a local-sports bar. With this move, Little Joe’s was further established as a
Dodgers-fan institution, becoming the place for fans to watch and discuss games and forge an
Angeleno identity rooted in Dodgers baseball.
A truly popular institution in every sense of the word, Little Joe’s was an urban hangout
that defied the physical and geographic interpretations of ‘community.’ Despite the sprawl and
class segregation that divided Los Angeles both physically and socio-economically, the
restaurant served as the quintessential Apple-Pie American establishment where citizens
converged. When owner Gadeschi passed away in 1960, his rosary—held, of course, at St.
Peter’s Church—was open to the public and publicized in the Times. That the local papers
mourned Gadeschi’s death is a testament to the significance of Little Joe’s to the city. In one
story, the business is described as “a favorite haunt of newspapermen and sports and political
figures for 40 years” (25 Sept. 1960).
Decline
In 1992, the L.A. Riots shook Los Angeles with an intense wave of crime and violence,
effectively scaring suburban Angelenos from venturing into the urban center. As Nuccio
recalled, “That hurt Dowtown L.A. People did not want to go downtown; people did not want to
go to Dodgers games; people started to stay closer to home.”
By 1998, the dated Little Joe’s restaurant was found in violation of building codes. The
Nuccios were posed with the tough decision to either retrofit the establishment to get it up to
code, or get shut down by the city. Considering that business was on the decline, the cost-benefit
of retrofitting was economically prohibitive. After 101 years in business as an Italian-American
grocer-turned-restaurant, Little Joe’s was closed. Of its ultimate end, the Los Angeles Times
noted the establishment’s decline, remarking that it had “lost its pizzazz” by the 1990s before
finally “[closing] its doors with little fanfare (7 March 2009).”
Blossom Plaza
As business at Little Joe’s crumbled, the Metro Gold Line from Pasadena to Chinatown
was starting to take form. Shortly after its 2003 opening, the Bond Company bought up Little
Joe’s and its adjacent properties and announced a mixed-use development to replace the site.
According to developers, plans included “262 residential units and approximately 43,000 square
feet of commercial space…[and an] 18,000 square-foot Asian inspired outdoor cultural plaza.”
As a transit-oriented project, the ultimate goal of Blossom Plaza was to feed and feed off of the
adjacent rail-station. In addition, slated to become the enclave’s first, long-awaited taste of the
city’s Downtown Renaissance initiative, which began in the 1960s with the Community
Redevelopment Agency (Avila 55-64), the development was expected to attract visitors back
into Chinatown—which drew ambivalent reactions from residents.
Since its announcement, however, the project has faced various funding-related setbacks,
and ground has yet to be broken. In March 2009, facing economic hardship, developers filed for
bankruptcy to protect against foreclosure. Construction never officially began—though a large
Chung 5
sum of money has already been invested by shareholders and the public1—and progress has been
halted indefinitely. Meanwhile, Little Joe’s still stands, and in addition to St. Peter’s Church and
Italian Hall, serves as a testament to Los Angeles’ once celebrated Italian colony.
Los Angeles’ Little Italy
With Los Angeles’ large, heterogeneous population, despite its opportunity for
multiracial integration, the social geography remains sharply fragmented into ethnic
concentrations. And despite the people’s ability to at least tolerate coexistence amongst different
groups here, there exists a segregationist sentiment that—while perhaps not explicitly
expressed—is nonetheless present and internalized amongst Angelenos, such that “promiscuous
mixing” (Avila 3) of cultures is looked upon with suspicion and incredulity.
Before it closed in 1998, Little Joe’s Italian-American Restaurant was one such
intercultural anomaly, salient for its distinction as a non-Chinese establishment in Chinatown. A
bewilderment to many, the presence of Little Joe’s in a homogeneously Chinese business district
in fact points hauntingly to the former, now essentially forsaken, presence of a vibrant Italian
immigrant community that once existed in present-day Chinatown, during the late nineteenth,
early twentieth century. As we shall see, various factors undermined the coalescence of a strong
Italian ethnic community in Los Angeles that developed in New York City and Chicago.
Italian Community
For the Italians, settling in Los Angeles was a relatively easy adjustment, as McWilliams
observed,
This new middle class were intimidated by the thought of the Atlantic crossing.
Italy, France, and Spain seemed forbiddingly remote. They wanted an Italy
nearer to home—an Italy without the Italians, an Italy in which they could feel at
home, an Italy in which, perhaps, they might settle and live out their days in the
sun (96).
And speculators of the latter nineteenth century had no reserves about boosting the city as “The
American Italy,” “The Better Italy,” “Our Italy”—and as Crosby would argue, rightfully so.
The special features of Los Angeles and Southern California—its similarity to
Italy, the land and climate, an agricultural economy, an isolated and remote
location only recently discovered by American-born migrants, a relatively smallforeign born population and spectacular growth accompanied by residential
dispersion—resulted in an Italian settlement that differed from most other Italian
settlements in the United States (40).
Like other immigrants coming to Los Angeles in the nineteenth century, the Italians made
their first settlement on the Plaza, where they found economic success in managing many
businesses on Olvera Street. As historian Jean Bruce Poole noted, “Seven of the thirteen
buildings on Olvera Street were either built or used for long periods by Italians, and the Pico
House rented or owned by them for more than half a century.” The Italian Hall, which still exists
1
In January 2007, based on its proposal to offer affordable housing, the City of Los Angeles agreed to subsidize
Blossom Plaza. However, in July 2008, after developers at the Bond Companies reported conflicting figures of
expected profit—11% versus 42.3%--the Community Redevelopment Agency halted progress and moved to
decrease public funding for the project if it returned more than 11% to investors (Los Angeles Times, 18 July 2008)
Chung 6
on Olvera Street, was once a cultural center for Italian immigrants and is currently under
renovation to be turned into an Italian-American museum.
In nineteenth-century Los Angeles, besides shop-keeping, agriculture was still a major
part of the economy. Italian immigrants found great success in wine-making. Olvera Street,
before its renaming, was Vignes Street. Today, an obscure placard at El Pueblo acknowledges
the Old Winery that existed on Olvera and Alameda from 1870 to 1914. While many vineyards
and wineries were either taken over or relocated further up California by the early twentieth
century, the San Antonio Winery—still located in Downtown—remains a reminder of Los
Angeles’ earlier history with Little Italy.
By the late nineteenth, early twentieth century, the Italians had moved to where
Chinatown is now situated. Here, they fashioned a flourishing ethnic community. The anchoring
presence of St. Peter’s Italian Church served as cultural center and the basis for the geographic
shift of Italian Los Angeles from the Plaza to North Broadway.
Italian Identity
Today, Los Angeles is home to more than 1.4 million people of Italian ancestry (Bitetti
7). The first presence of Italian immigrants is recorded in 1828; by 1930, this population had
reached 107,000 (Gonzalez 220). How such a large group of immigrants so seamlessly integrated
into the white-American socio-geographic landscape, leaving few traces of its former ethnic
concentration is uncanny. Looking at a multitude of variables, this section examines the factors
that encouraged rapid assimilation into white American identity.
While the Italians who populated Southern California in the nineteenth century were
indeed immigrants to America, many were migrants who had come to Los Angeles by way of
other American cities—like New York. Citing data indicating different birthplaces for children
within a family, Crosby found a transmigration pattern. “In some families, birthplaces of
individual children indicate as many as four stops in the transmigration to California (45).” As
such, migratory patterns must have had the effect of undermining cultural identity.
With the 1877 establishment of the Italian Mutual Benevolence Society, the 1894
establishment of local Italian publication L’Eco della Colonia2, the 1904 establishment of the St.
Peter’s Church and the 1907 construction of the Italian Hall, the Los Angeles Italian community
had begun to take shape, with its members carving out a definitive, cohesive ethnic identity. Still,
“when compared to Jewish and Mexican residential patterns in Los Angeles, Italians were far
more dispersed” (Crosby 42). This observation led Sensi-Isolani and Martinelli to note that
“because it lacked the large, concentrated Italian neighborhoods that typified San Francisco, Los
Angeles presented a different type of Italian community.”
The Italians’ unique conception of group identification instead forced attention on the
fact of how “the ideology of the physically based community does not pay enough attention to a
sense of ethnic community based on social networks, rather than physical proximity [emphasis
mine]” (216-217). In fact, the Southland’s geography itself at the time encouraged loosely-based
communities. “In Los Angeles, for example, Italians escaped the evils of congestion. In 1900,
Los Angeles had an essentially suburban configuration” (Crosby 42-43). And by 1935, the
settlement was observed as “a rather meager Italian section to the north (Los Angeles Times, 9
Dec. 1935).”
With the Italian community thus rooted in social relations rather than geographic
concentration, it would be safe to assume that, without a concrete foundation, the community
2
In 1908, L’Eco della Colonia became L’Italo Americano, which is still published today.
Chung 7
was arguably more vulnerable to dissociation in the case of identity conflict. Mussolini’s alliance
with Hitler during World War II resulted in a massive identity upheaval that swept across Italian
communities in America. Precisely because the Italians had never established a strong
geographic enclave, ethnic identity was relatively more negotiable and adaptive. In a time of
such conflict, it was easier for Italians to repudiate their inconvenient heritage.
In addition to the geographically dispersed character of its ethnic community, in general,
it was easier for Italians—as Europeans—to assimilate into American culture simply by adapting
the language. Based on appearance, Italians had an easier time “passing” for white-American.
Indeed, as Avila and other scholars have pointed out, ethnic European identity in Los Angeles
coalesced into a single white-American identity (43), where a monolithic ethnic, European
identity prevailed. Perhaps best signified by the Times coverage of the French colony’s Bastille
Day celebration in 1905, “A number of German societies have been invited and have signified
their acceptance, so that no matter what’s doing between Willhelm and Loubet on the other side
of the water, Latin and Teutonic blood will mingle in peace in this town (14 July 1905).”
Essentially, the multiple ethnic identities that existed separately in Europe underwent a process
of collective “whitening.” And as Robert Nuccio describes of his own family’s culture and
upbringing, “My grandfather, Robert Nuccio, raised his kids to be American. He wanted them to
have pride in their Italian heritage, but they were Americans.”
The waning of the Italian colony, while heavily influenced by the loss of ethnic identity,
was also brought about by the arrival of industry. As Crosby observed, “Land and its products
were intimately tied to what most Italians did for a living in Los Angeles (47).” By the twentieth
century, factories and rapid growth overtook Los Angeles’s agricultural landscape, forcing the
Italians affected to either relocate their wineries up north, or seek jobs elsewhere.
Little Italy, Chinatown & Cross-Cultural Contact
Just as the Italian enclave diffused into the suburbs, the Chinese—whose Chinatown next
to the Plaza was razed for the construction of Union Station3—were searching for new
settlement. Most businesses and residents from Old Chinatown began organizing relocation to
North Broadway, moving into the fractured and weakly associated community of Little Italy. In
June 1938, after the Chinese celebrated the dedication of the New Chinatown (Cheng and
Kwok), they worked hard at reestablishing themselves into this new region. As the Chinese
expansion eventually overshadows the slight Italian presence at the time, the Italians found
themselves in a newly alien environment—with the few remnants of Italian occupation carrying
on as minority institutions. For the Nuccio family and Little Joe’s, “As far as Chinatown goes, it
just sort of grew up around our business.”
Anytime a space undergoes dramatic historical change in cultural identity—like Boyle
Heights and Chinatown—impassioned discourse over the idea of ethnic succession inevitably
arises. In his study, Sanchez argues against the simplistic view of ethnic succession, and instead
idealistically reminisces of the progressive multi-racial cooperation between Jews and Latinos,
before the Jews had assimilated into the white American identity. Meanwhile in Chinatown,
categorization of whether the area’s progression from an Italian to Chinese enclave constitutes
ethnic succession rests upon the extent of Italian-Chinese contact and interaction.
While not as visibly manifested as the activist coalition forged between the Jews and
Latinos in Boyle Heights, the Chinese and Italians’ extensive economic collaboration in
3
Restrictions against Chinese land ownership essentially rendered them powerless to resist displacement during the
construction of Union Station.
Chung 8
Chinatown effectively characterizes the community development as an instance of ethnic
evolution rather than succession. That Little Joe’s and St. Peter’s Church stayed in Chinatown
rather than vacate following Chinese occupation of Little Italy, is a testament that reveals at least
tolerance—if not active cooperation—between the Chinese and Italians.
In fact, Nuccio recalls a mutually beneficial economic relationship between his restaurant
and the surrounding Chinese businesses. With each attracting a different segment of patronage,
Little Joe’s customers were drawn to explore the surrounding Chinatown, and vice versa.
Furthermore, direct business relations reveal regular interaction and exchange between the two
groups. Rather than punctuated, discrete succession, business dealings linked the transition from
Little Italy to Chinatown. According to Nuccio, when the Italians moved out of Little Italy, many
did not sell their property, but instead rented to Chinese businesses.
The Chinese community always liked us. They are excellent business people and
they realized we were good for their businesses. By the ’70s, it was common for
some of the Italians and the Chinese to actually go into business together. A good
example of this is East West Bank. It was founded by my father; another Italian
family, the Pocino’s; F. Chow Chan, owner of Phoenix Bakery; and a couple of
other Chinese families.
Addressing Blossom Plaza: A Proposal for Ideological Succession
While my research is not focused on Blossom Plaza, I would still like to address some
concerns that arise in debate over the future of the site of Little Joe’s if Blossom Project fails,
and what implications such decisions will have on the direction of Los Angeles’ growth.
From my perspective, in this era of globalization and increasing cosmopolitanism,
discourse of race and ethnic identity have arguably become less inflammatory as topics of debate
than in centuries past. Instead, the new battle tends to be between opposing ideas and ideals.
Throughout my research of Little Joe’s, prevailing dichotomies represent an underlying tension
between ideologies in the context of the city’s growth. And the discussion of Blossom Plaza
readily incites emotional debate on two salient issues: revitalization and reclamation.
Fig. C, D Little Joe’s ca. 2000 (left); Blossom Plaza rendering (right).
Since its announcement in 2003, Blossom Plaza has been a controversial subject drawing
mixed reactions within the community. Strong views over whether Chinatown should enter the
folds of the city’s Downtown Renaissance forestalled construction on the mixed-use
Chung 9
development long before financial woes halted progress. The line was drawn fairly clearly
between residents and businesses on either side of bringing the high-density, urban lifestyle into
quaint Chinatown.
At odds here is also opposing sentiments for progress and history. As one of the few
remaining vestiges of Little Italy, until it is demolished, Little Joe’s will serve as a reminder of
and link to the past. “The original person who bought it from our family wanted to leave a small
restaurant/bar there called Little Joe’s with some old memorabilia in it, as a link to the past and
the Italian heritage of the neighborhood,” said Nuccio. “But I’m sure that this is no longer in the
plans for Blossom Plaza.”
Conclusions
Various scholars have noted that history in Los Angeles irrelevant. As Norman Klein, in
The History of Forgetting,
Along Sunset Boulevard, the stone staircases of former Victorian houses now
lead to nothing at all. Virtually no ethnic community downtown was allowed to
keep its original location: Chinatown, the Mexican Sonora, Little Italy…New
plans for revitalization have failed to revive much. Business streets immediately
west of Olvera Street remain as dead as a violated graveyard—a warning that
downtown will be forgettable even while it continues to be built. (1)
But despite that in this city, memories are short-lived, and Chinatown can replace Little Italy
with barely a ripple, this social history of Little Joe’s uncovers Chinese-Italian collaboration that
proves histories, even in Los Angeles, are never discontinuous and social links are inextricable.
In the case of Chinatown, even though the Chinese did essentially “succeed” the Italians
in chronological occupation, business interaction—such as leasing property and forming
partnerships—bridged the gap between the two seemingly disparate communities. Even though
the social history of modern-day Chinatown and its demographic evolution from an Italian to
Chinese community did not display as conspicuous of cooperation as that between the Jews and
Latinos, evidence of cooperation between Italians and Chinese in ventures such as East West
Bank, compels me to agree with Sanchez that ethnic succession is a myth. Though it did appear
particularly fervent there, multicultural cooperation was not exclusive to Boyle Heights, rather, it
existed in all places where cultures contacted.
As the evolution of Little Italy to Chinatown initiates debate of ethnic succession, current
attempts at incorporating Chinatown into the folds of the Downtown Revitalization movement to
transform quaint Chinatown into a modern, vibrant urban center, meanwhile raises issues of
ideological succession.
Chung 10
Works Cited
Acuna, Rodolfo. Anything but Mexican: Chicanos in Contemporary Los Angeles (Haymarket
Series). New York: Verso, 1996.
Avila, Eric. Popular Culture in the Age of White Flight: Fear and Fantasy in Suburban Los
Angeles (American Crossroads). Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
Bingham, Edwin R. “The Saga of the Los Angeles Chinese.” (MA thesis, Occidental
College, 1942)
Bitetti, Marge. Italians in Los Angeles. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2007.
Bowman, Lynn. Los Angeles: Epic of a City. Cranbury, New Jersey: Oak Tree Pubns, 1974.
Cheng, Suellen, and Munson Kwok. The Los Angeles Chinatown 50th Year Guidebook. Los
Angeles: Chinese Historical Society Of Southern California, 1988.
Chung Chen, Wen-Hui. “Changing Socio-Cultural Patterns of the Chinese Community in
Los Angeles.” (PhD dissertation, University of Southern California, 1952)
Crosby, Rosalind Giardina. “The Italians of Los Angeles, 1900.” Struggle and Success an
Anthology of the Italian Immigrant Experience in California: An Anthology of the Italian
Immigrant Experience in California. Eds. Paola A. Sensi-Isolani and Phylis Cancilla
Martinelli. New York: Center For Migration Studies Of New York, 1993.
Gonzalez, Gilbert G. “Factors Relating to Property Ownership of Mexican Americans and Italian
Americans in Lincoln Heights, Los Angeles.” Struggle and Success an Anthology of the
Italian Immigrant Experience in California: An Anthology of the Italian Immigrant
Experience in California. Eds. Paola A. Sensi-Isolani and Phylis Cancilla Martinelli.
New York: Center For Migration Studies Of New York, 1993.
Hise, Greg. "Border City: Race and Social Distance in Los Angeles." American Quarterly 56.3
(2004): 545-558.
"History." Chinatown Los Angeles. 7 May 2009 <http://www.chinatownla.com/index.php>.
Olivia. Personal Interview. 25 Apr. 2009.
Klein, Norman M. The History of Forgetting: Los Angeles and the Erasure of Memory
(Haymarket Series). New York: Verso, 1997.
Lin, Jan, and Christopher Mele. The Urban Sociology Reader. New York: Routledge, 2005.
McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: An Island on the Land. Layton: Gibbs Smith,
Publisher, 1980.
Nuccio, Robert. Email Interview. 23 Apr. 2009.
Nuccio, Robert. Email Interview. 28 Apr. 2009.
Pitt, Dale, and Leonard Pitt. Los Angeles A to Z: An Encyclopedia of the City and County.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
Poole, Jean Bruce. "Italians at the Pueblo." Welcome to Italian Los Angeles. 7 May 2009
<http://www.italianlosangeles.org/index.php?1&153>.
"Project Listings: Blossom Plaza." Bond Companies. 6 May 2009
<http://www.bondcompanies.com/#project_listings.php?uid=1>.
Project, Federal Writers. Los Angeles: A Guide to the City and Its Environs (American Guide
Series). New York: U.S. History Publishers, 1941.
Sanchez, George J. "'What's Good for Boyle Heights is Good for the Jews': Creating
Multiracialism on the Eastside during the 1950s." American Quarterly 56.3 (2004): 633661.