I’m bothered slightly by the question asked by Sullivan: “Does the enclave help or hinder?” From the examples given, from Little Havana, to Chinatown, to Mexican enclaves in Lost Angeles, it becomes clear that all immigrants and communities have a unique experience. Though trends can be extrapolated by comparing the economic, social, and cultural details of each environment, overall success/failure of each enclave is highly subjective and not so straightforward. What do help/hinder or success/failure truly denote? This is a multi-faceted issue that should take into account not just economic success, geographic dispersal, or socioeconomic “mobility”; there are strong social and cultural features to one’s experience that cannot be quantified, even into social capital.
This is the problem too with Bloomberg’s plan in Willets Point. He simply looks at the economic benefits and numbers behind the development of the land, and not the underlying dynamic in the community. His utilitarian – “the most number will be better off”—approach fails to acknowledge the well-established community that has not only deep economic, but social ties. People have built their own ways of life that cannot be easily given up, even with monetary compensation. One cannot quantify or evaluate living situation of an entire community so superficially.
In this way, an enclave can’t simply be seen as “helping” or “hindering” its inhabitants. This is not a black and white issue.
