The experience of immigrant neighborhoods in U.S. cities over the past century suggest that neighborhoods may be very effective economic development and employment generators by virtue of the entrepreneurial energy, mutual support, and trust of their inhabitants.

Michael Tietz, 19891

Sunset Park, Brooklyn exemplifies the recent demographic and economic transformations of many New York City neighborhoods.  Once a vibrant community comprised largely of white ethnics employed in maritime and manufacturing-related industries along its two-mile waterfront, the late 1960s through the mid-1970s marked a period of deindustrialization, disinvestment, rising poverty, and white out-migration.  The aftermath of the 1965 Immigration Act which eliminated restrictive quotas and initiated a renewed influx of immigrants contributed to Sunset Park’s economic revitalization.  Unlike previous immigrant waves, these newcomers arrived from Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America.  The residential concentration of Asian and Latino immigrants and the establishment of numerous small businesses facilitated its social and economic transformation leading some to refer to Sunset Park as New York City’s third Chinatown as well as a “full” Latino neighborhood2 (Winnick 1990, Waldinger 1990, 1996).

Several studies on Sunset Park have focused on the processes and consequences of Asian and Latino immigrant-driven neighborhood succession.  Louis Winnick’s 1990 study, New People in Old Neighborhoods applies a neighborhood succession framework in his historical documentation of immigrant settlement and community formation in Sunset Park.  As part of this study, Roger Waldinger conducted a survey of the growing numbers of immigrant-owned businesses.  Based on interviews with 80 Sunset Park storeowners, Waldinger described the factors that facilitated self-employment including the interaction between predisposing individual and cultural characteristics, and the opportunity structures created by specific local market conditions.  Mercer Sullivan’s 1993 study on Puerto Ricans in Sunset Park examined the role of community institutions in mediating the impacts of economic restructuring on Puerto Rican poverty.  Recently, Jan Lin’s 1998 study on Chinatown examined the formation of a “satellite” in Sunset Park as a result of the saturation of Manhattan Chinatown’s housing stock as well as the role of public transportation linkages in community formation patterns.  These studies on Sunset Park present a dynamic and evolving multi-racial immigrant neighborhood evident in the lively streetscapes that reflect the ethnic-specific services and products, and cultural institutions and social practices of its diverse population.

Building on these past studies, my research on Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy offers new contributions in our understanding of the impact of post-1965 immigration on urban development in several key areas.  The projection of residential and economic enclaves as ethnically homogenous concentrations has lead scholars to note the presence or absence of enclave formation among various racial and ethnic groups.  For example, enclaves are noted among Cubans, Koreans, and Chinese while they are considered absent among Mexicans and African Americans (Logan and Alba 2000).  With the exception of historic enclaves, immigrant enclave neighborhoods are typically ethnically diverse.  Sunset Park is a multi-ethnic and multi-racial neighborhood with prominent immigrant economies.  Sunset Park’s example emphasizes the need for a new typology of immigrant neighborhoods that encompasses the increasing arenas of cross-racial interactions in local labor markets, public spaces, residential areas, and local institutions.

A second contribution pertains to related characterizations of enclave neighborhoods as insular, self-sufficient, and institutionally complete (Zhou 1992, Marcuse 1997).  By focusing on internal social and institutional arrangements, the linkages between immigrant neighborhoods and their enclave economies to the regional economy are less well researched and developed.  These relationships, however, are becoming especially important to the future viability of immigrant economies largely based on low-wage, low-skill service, and manufacturing industries -- niches that are increasingly irrelevant to the growth trajectories of a “post-industrial” city (Wang 2000).  While economic development proponents argue that a neighborhood is not an economic concept particularly since the problems of jobless and working poverty are beyond the scope of local or regional agencies, they nonetheless promote a view of “immigrant exceptionalism” for ethnic enclaves (Tietz 1989).  However, the position of many immigrant enclaves suggests the need for a theoretical framework that links the immigrant neighborhood and regional economy especially in the context of a restructuring global economy.  Such a framework would contribute to a comprehensive approach to the production, consumption, and social reproduction roles of immigrant enclave neighborhoods within the regional economic system (Wiewel et al 1989).

To better understand the nature of small businesses in immigrant neighborhoods, I have conducted a survey of Sunset Park firms.  Contrary to the projected “exceptionalism” of immigrant economies, my study finds that while Sunset Park has community assets in the form of numerous micro-businesses, it is lacking in community wealth defined as economic equity, livable wages, and good working conditions.  My study of Sunset Park illustrates how the future prospects of immigrant economies require community development strategies that cultivate entrepreneurship linked to regional market opportunities rather than niches in marginal and mature industrial sectors.

II. Data and Methodology

I utilize several methodologies; (1) data analysis, (2) a firm survey, and (3) in-depth interviews to profile Asian and Latino immigrant economic activity in Sunset Park.  Based on economic censuses, I present a comprehensive socioeconomic profile of Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy including firm number and types, and labor market characteristics.  Descriptive data from the 1990 PUMS, 1999 Housing and Vacancy Survey, 1990-1997 Immigration and Naturalization Services, 1997 County Business Patterns, as well as the New York State Department of Labor Apparel Industry Task Force, substantiates Sunset Park’s transformation from a white ethnic blue-collar neighborhood to an Asian and Latino immigrant enclave.

This past summer, my research assistants and I conducted a business inventory of firms in the core commercial areas of Sunset Park located along Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Avenues between 45th and 65th Streets.  Since the Southwest Brooklyn Industry Development Corporation (SWBIDC) has an updated business directory for the waterfront area at Third Ave and below, and the Sunset Park Fifth Ave Business Improvement District (BID) has compiled a directory of businesses located along Fifth Ave, I did not conduct an inventory along these avenues.

In addition to the business census, a two-page firm survey on business size and type, employee hiring practices, improvement needs, sources of start up capital, and business support and information, was developed and translated to Chinese and Spanish.  I presented this neighborhood economy study to several elected officials and community leaders who agreed to endorse the study by including their names in a cover letter that explained the research project.3  Based on the compilation of businesses located on Fourth through Eighth Avenues between 45th and 65th Streets, over 700 surveys which included a return self-addressed stamped envelope were mailed out to local firms.4  In-depth interviews with business owners, industry representatives, community leaders, and elected officials supplemented the firm survey findings.5  A synthesis of these various data sources as well as the interviews provide a rich ethnographic base to examine community assets in a neighborhood where small business ownership is common but the goals of equity, resource development, and community wealth remain elusive.

III. Ethnic Enclaves, Neighborhood “Opportunity Structures”, and Immigrant
Incorporation

The seminal work on immigrant incorporation by Alejandro Portes and his colleagues developed the concept of a “context of reception” to describe the key mechanisms which shape the economic incorporation and outcomes for new immigrants (Portes 1981, Portes and Bach 1985, Portes and Rumbaut 1990, Portes and Zhou 1992).  Immigration is a social process facilitated by ethnic-based networks and these largely informal networks also promote a particular set of conditions for socioeconomic integration in the host country though the formation of occupational niches and immigrant enclaves (Portes and Bach 1985, Portes and Rumbaut 1990, Tilly 1990, Waldinger 1996).  Economic outcomes are not solely a result of individual skills or ambitions but are determined by the social context in which immigrants are received (Portes and Bach 1985).  A critical component of this context of reception is the establishment of an ethnic community especially one with a large co-ethnic entrepreneurial base.  The formation of an enclave defined as “spatially clustered networks of businesses owned by members of the same minority” promotes an alternative strategy for economic incorporation resulting in mutual gains typically not accrued through immigrant employment in the general labor market (Portes 1995, 27).

Immigrant enclaves serve as “stepping stone” or “port of entry” communities providing necessary social, economic, and cultural resources to help facilitate the settlement and integration of new immigrants and subsequent generations (Portes and Bach 1985, Portes and Rumbaut 1990, Marcuse 1997).  While the spatial agglomeration of immigrant-owned businesses is an important defining characteristic, the benefits of enclave residence and employment is an outcome of ethnic-based social structures which mediate labor market processes and community institutions (Waldinger 1996).  Enclave economies provide opportunities for social mobility through informal hiring and training practices, flexible work environments, self-employment possibilities as well as protection from interracial competition, discrimination, and government surveillance and regulations (Zhou 1992).  Ethnic-based networks help to import the ethnic community and its social practices into the workplace.  The reproduction of social relations also improves access to information about workers and employers which enhances trust and reduces the risk in worker skill investments (Bailey and Waldinger 1991).  In other words, this literature proposes that immigrant enclave residents "can succeed without learning English and without joining the American labor market" (Kwong 1987, 6).

Proponents of immigrant enclaves contend that the reproduction of these communities do not necessarily indicate the persistence of involuntary segregation, but underscores the capacity of ethnic solidarity and social networks to facilitate economic mobility, community life, and cultural continuity (Zhou and Logan 1991, Li 1999, Zhou 1992).  Enclave residence is not the sole option for new immigrants but rather, a superior one since enclaves provide “a means of enhancing their economic, social, political, and/or cultural development” (Marcuse 1997, 225).

Others view enclave formations on a continuum of urban restructuring rather than immigrant ecological and economic successions (Kwong 1996, Lin 1998, Sassen 1990).  Enclaves represent sites of production and social reproduction that are integral to an evolving landscape of urban inequality.  Immigrant enclaves are concentrated in marginal industries where minimal profits for risk-taking immigrant business owners are based on squeezing labor.  The spatial agglomeration of ethnic resources and institutions does not necessarily promote upward mobility but buffers unemployment and underemployment, and the impacts of working poverty (Ong 1984).  The social isolation of immigrant enclaves enables ethnic institutions to dominate community politics and business development (Kwong 1996, 1997).  Rather than bounded solidarity, class divisions in enclave communities are evident in the degree of labor exploitation found in many workplaces (Light and Bonacich 1988).

The limitations of “neighborhood opportunity structures” in immigrant enclaves were recently examined by George Galster and his colleagues (1999a, 1999b).  They found evidence to suggest “higher residential exposure to other members of one’s immigrant group is associated with greater increases in poverty, and perhaps, smaller gains in employment for that group” (p.123).  This finding highlights the importance of examining the local spatial and economic context of immigrant neighborhoods in order to identify the “neighborhood effects” of enclaves in structuring economic opportunities and mobility strategies (Galster et al 1999).  Recent research elaborates on how ethnically concentrated neighborhoods offer jobs for low-skill workers while they are also characterized by weak schools and poor public services which affects the quality of institutions that shape the life chances of local residents (Mollenkopf, Kasinitz, Waters, Lopez, and Kim 1997).

Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy is comprised of several distinct economies including an industrial waterfront, Asian and Latino immigrant enclave economies, and a service economy anchored by the Lutheran Medical Center and related health services.  While Sunset Park’s revitalization was driven in part by immigrant settlement and small business formation, Sunset Park is now at a critical juncture which raises a question on the future prospects of immigrant economies in urban development.  Through an extensive neighborhood economy based on garment factories, restaurants, grocery stores, and retail shops, small business development and co-ethnic hiring have enabled many immigrants to overcome language and skill barriers.6  Immigrant economies generate low-skill jobs that provide a strategy to "cobble together a living that moves them out of poverty and into the ranks of the working and lower middle class" (Waldinger 1996, 267).  Much of the emphasis on immigrant economies in both the scholarly and policy arenas highlight the positive attributes and outcomes of entrepreneurial activity, ethnic solidarity, and economic growth, and propose to replicate small business development as a strategy for asset-building in other disadvantaged communities.7  While Asian and Latino immigrant-owned retail and manufacturing businesses played a central role in the reversal of Sunset Park’s economic decline, this prosperity is countered by uneven growth systemic of immigrant ethnic economies.  Immigrant working poverty, the expansion of a sweatshop economy, and casualization of employment relations are also prominent features of economic life in Sunset Park.

The actual and anticipated spill over of a restructured urban economy brings both promise and concern to many New York City low-income neighborhoods.8  Sunset Park’s waterfront offers premium views of the New York Harbor and lower Manhattan, ready access to regional transportation networks, as well as vast industrial space of which a notable portion has been designated the Sunset Park Technology District.  As one of several districts in the Digital NYC: Wired to the World program, several buildings have been refurbished to accommodate telecommunications and high tech firms.9  Local development institutions welcome the possible economic renewal evident in the recent opening of the Brooklyn Information Technology Center (BITC) in September 2000 amidst great fanfare about its symbolism for the future of Sunset Park’s waterfront.10  This juncture in Sunset Park’s urban development highlights the dilemmas faced by low-skill immigrants in a post-industrial urban economy.  Echoing the sentiment of Asian American Business Development Center Director John Wang in his recent New York Times editorial, “The Boom that Threatens Chinatown,” while immigrant economies absorb workers and serve a vital role in the urban economic and social landscape, they are rarely viewed as an integral or valuable component of urban economic growth.

IV. A History of Immigrant Settlement and Neighborhood Economy

Named in 1966 for the 23-acre park within its boundaries, Sunset Park in Southwest Brooklyn has a long and rich history of immigrant settlement.  Drawn by employment opportunities in the developing industrial waterfront, Irish, Scandinavian, Italian, and Polish immigrants settled in Sunset Park in successive waves beginning in the early 1800s.  Institutions built by these immigrants including St. Michael’s Church, Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Norwegian Lutheran Deaconess’ Home and Hospital (now the Lutheran Medical Center), the Finnish Housing Cooperative, and Greenwood Cemetery are standing testimonials to the rich community life of this early period.  During the 1880s, Sunset Park was the center of Norwegian culture and contained the largest concentration of Norwegians east of Minneapolis (Winnick 1990).  The occupational profile of these immigrants as sailors, shipbuilders, ship repair, dockworkers, construction workers, laborers, cargo handlers, harbor pilots, and maritime related officers, reflected the prominence of waterfront development and city building activities.  Representing the largest port economy in the nation, New York’s waterfront was central to its economic vitality until the 1960s (Freeman 2000).

During the late 1890s, the construction of the Bush Terminal covering almost two miles of shoreline and consisting of a complex of 150 industrial structures and eight large piers including shipyards linked by a railway was completed.  The Bush Terminal, a prototype for industrial park development, represented the largest commercial and industrial facility in New York and employed 20,000 workers in manufacturing and shipping related industries (Sunset Park Waterfront Community Design Workshop, 1997).  In 1918, the waterfront expanded to include the Brooklyn Army Terminal -- a complex of three enclosed piers, warehouses, railroad yards, administration buildings, and mechanical facilities -- which served as a central deporting point for soldiers and supplies during World War II.

At its height, Sunset Park’s waterfront was a center of industrial production and trade related activities (Freeman 2000).  Bush Terminal and the Brooklyn Army Terminal provided more than 5 million square feet of workspace interconnected by a 14-mile railroad -- The New York Dock Railroad – that linked Brooklyn to the regional economy (Winnick 1990, 76).  Large industrial firms such as Bethlehem Steel Shipyard, Colgate-Palmolive-Peet, American Can Company, and the American Machine and Foundry as well as hundreds of small machine shops, repair shops, truckers, waterfront suppliers and trade services provided a steady flow of blue-collar manufacturing jobs in Sunset Park.  The Great Depression stemmed economic activity on the waterfront, however, the onset of another world war – WWII -- kept the waterfront industries booming until another shock silenced the waterfront for several decades.

As with many New York City neighborhoods during the 1940s, Robert Moses’ capital infrastructure projects set the stage for residential displacement and neighborhood destruction (Caro 1974).  A factor in Sunset Park’s decline was the construction of the Gowanus Expressway in 1941.  Despite community opposition, the Gowanus Expressway which connects the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel with southern Brooklyn was routed through Sunset Park along Third Ave.  Once a commercial center, the elevated Gowanus expressway cast a dark shadow on the avenue and created a physical barrier separating the waterfront from the rest of Sunset Park, prompting its physical decline.  The process of displacement and destruction occurred again in the late 1950s as the Gowanus Expressway was widened to accommodate additional traffic lanes.  By the 1990s, concentrated poverty dominates the area around Third Ave and the elevated Gowanus Expressway (Sullivan 1993).

Finding employment in the widening of the Gowanus Expressway and light manufacturing and textile industries, the numbers of Puerto Ricans settling in Sunset Park in the 1950s and 1960s increased dramatically.11  Unlike earlier immigrant waves who arrived in a period of industrial and urban growth, Puerto Ricans filled a marginal economic position which steadily worsened.  By 1950, the Brooklyn Army Terminal workforce had declined from 40,000 to a mere 1,100 (Winnick 1990, 88).  The 1960s closing of the Brooklyn Army Terminal and seven of the eight piers in Bush Terminal as well as the Bethlehem Steel Yard in 1963, and American Machine and Foundry in 1968 marked the massive deindustrialization of Sunset Park’s local economy.

The growing numbers of Puerto Ricans coupled with a shrinking employment base facilitated Sunset Park’s racial transformation as white ethnic groups began to flee to surrounding suburbs (Winnick 1990, Sullivan 1993).  As described by Winnick (1990), “(T)housands of local residents, their livelihoods gone, forsook the area” (p.89).  The subsequent out-migration of whites and industrial decline brought a period of urban disinvestment and abandonment which culminated in Sunset Park’s designation as a federal poverty area in the 1970s.  Vacant buildings in the underutilized Bush Terminal symbolized the massive loss of jobs.  Although a few warehouses, bakeries, and garment factories remained, these firms represented only a shadow of an earlier period of economic vitality.  Rather than an orderly succession process, the transformation of Sunset Park was an outcome of the interrelated dynamics of deindustrialization, white flight, and urban renewal.

V. Demographic Transformations and Neighborhood Revitalization

By the 1970s, Sunset Park represented a “dying neighborhood, another sad victim of urban blight” (Winnick 1991).  Offering a vast affordable housing stock, a convenient public transportation line to Manhattan, and weak organized resistance to newcomers, notable numbers of Asian and Latino immigrants made Sunset Park their home starting in the mid 1980s.12  Sunset Park’s rich history as a multi-ethnic immigrant neighborhood has shifted decidedly from the white ethnic groups -- Scandinavian, Irish, Italian, and Polish – of an earlier era.  Up until the 1980s, Sunset Park was largely a working-class neighborhood of European immigrants and their descendants (Winnick 1990, Freeman 2000).  Today, Non-Hispanic Whites represent only one in four residents in Sunset Park [Table 1].  While Latinos are the largest racial group, this population is increasingly diverse with growing numbers of Dominicans, Mexicans, and Central Americans joining a majority Puerto Rican population.  Emerging population groups include Arabs from Palestine and Yemen, and new immigrants from Poland and the former Soviet Union.  Asians account for approximately one-fifth of Sunset Park’s residents and while the largest ethnic group is Chinese, South Asians are also a prominent part of this population.  Asians, moreover, are the fastest growing population group with their numbers quadrupling in the 1980s in contrast to a 13% growth rate among Latinos during the same period.  Current immigration patterns underscore how Asians and Latinos will continue to transform the demographic and cultural landscape of Sunset Park.

Socioeconomic indicators including educational attainment, English language ability, labor force participation, and average earnings complete the profile of a working-class immigrant neighborhood.13  Table 2 illustrates how racially based socioeconomic disparities further differentiate Sunset Park residents.  Non-Hispanic Whites generally have completed higher levels of education, hold different labor market positions, and are less likely to be poor.  The Asian population in Sunset Park is overwhelmingly foreign born and subsequently, more than two-fifths do not speak English well or at all.  Among Asian and Latino adults, many have not completed high school.  The share of these two population segments whose income is at or below the poverty threshold also indicates a fairly high level of economic hardship.

The labor market position of Sunset Park residents underscore the racial disparities in socioeconomic status.  Over one half of Asian and Latino workers hold a service, operator, or laborer job in contrast to less than a quarter of Non-Hispanic Whites.  Manufacturing industries and retail trade are central to Asian and Latino workers while Non-Hispanic Whites concentrate in service and FIRE industries.  These racial differences in labor market locations are further reflected in the average annual earnings of Sunset Park residents highlighting a significantly higher level of earnings for Non-Hispanic Whites relative to their Asian and Latino counterparts.14  These socioeconomic patterns are also evident in the 1999 NYC Housing and Vacancy Survey data, in fact, the disparity between Asians and Latinos on the one hand, and non-Hispanic Whites are even more pronounced.

Sunset Park’s demographic and economic transformation is driven by the influx of post-1965 immigrants.  Among the top destination neighborhoods in New York City, Sunset Park received approximately 16,700 new immigrants in the 1990s.15  Based on 1990-1997 INS data, the two largest immigrant groups settling in Sunset Park are from the People’s Republic of China and the Dominican Republic [Table 3].  New immigrants settling in Sunset Park also include sizable numbers of Europeans from Poland and the former Soviet Union as well as Filipinos, Mexicans, Central and South Americans, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Vietnamese, Guyanese, Trinidadians, Jordanians, and Egyptians.  The INS data includes a few variables that provide some insight on the social and economic characteristics of new immigrants.  Based on these variables, it is apparent that the immigrant flow to Sunset Park is largely working age and unskilled.  Women comprise a little more than one-half of the newcomers whose average age is 29 years.  Family migration is very common as suggested by the high percentage of new immigrants who are married.  Among the new immigrants aged sixteen years and older, approximately one in two held a job prior to migration.  The most common occupations are laborers, sales and services, or agricultural workers.  Of those new immigrants who are 16 years or older and did not hold a job, approximately a third were homemakers (36%), unemployed or retired (33%), or a student (31%).16

There are notable differences between the top two immigrant groups – Chinese and Dominicans – which affect economic incorporation and neighborhood impacts.  Chinese immigrants tend to be older with an average age of 34 years relative to 25 years for Dominicans.  In fact, a full third of Dominican immigrants who settled in Sunset Park are children younger than sixteen years.  Among the adults, the majority of Chinese immigrants are married (68%) and held a job prior to migration (59%).  Reflecting a younger population overall, approximately two-fifths (41%) of adult Dominicans held a job prior to migration.  The occupational composition of both Chinese and Dominican immigrants indicates a largely low-skill labor force.  Over two fifths of Dominican immigrants who held a job prior to migration was employed as a laborer.  Similarly, more than half of Chinese immigrants who held a job prior to migration were employed in agricultural work or as laborers.

This brief overview of Sunset Park’s demographic profile illustrates a racially and ethnically diverse neighborhood of largely low-skill workers in retail trades, services, and nondurable manufacturing.  Immigration patterns underscores the centrality of Latinos and Asians in shaping the future landscape of Sunset Park, and moreover, points to the persistence of socioeconomic disparities among its multiple population segments.

a. New Immigrant Economies and the Revitalization of Sunset Park

The concentrated settlement of Asian and Latino immigrants in Sunset Park facilitated the formation of an enclave economy serving a “protected niche market” in ethnic-specific products and services.  Immigrants with financial and human capital purchased or leased commercial storefronts and established new businesses catering to ethnic consumers (Waldinger 1990, Kadet 2000).  Increasingly, the demographic recomposition of Sunset Park was reflected in the small retail and commercial storefronts along the main avenues as well as other public spaces that serve the neighborhood.  Once anchored by an industrial waterfront, Sunset Park’s vibrant and multi-faceted neighborhood economy includes Asian and Latino immigrant economies as well as a notable downgraded manufacturing sector in garment and furniture production.

Table 4 illustrates how Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy is based in small retail and service businesses which support the social reproduction needs of an immigrant population, and a manufacturing base of which over one half of the firms are garment manufacturers and/or contractors.  With the exception of manufacturing firms, the overwhelming majority of local businesses in Sunset Park are micro businesses in that they employ fewer than five employees.  The economic geography of Sunset Park can be discerned from comparing the firm composition of the two zip codes that comprise Sunset Park.  Zip code 11232 largely covers the area below 3rd Ave which includes the industrial waterfront.  More than one-half of firms located in this zip code are manufacturing or wholesale trade related requiring large industrial and warehousing space.  Many of these industrial waterfront businesses have existed for multiple generations (Sunset Park Waterfront Community Design Workshop 1997).  As noted earlier, waterfront redevelopment particularly as an extension of Manhattan’s high tech economy questions the long-term viability of industrial use (Boss 2000).  The retail and service sectors of Sunset Park’s local economy is concentrated in zip code 11220 which encompasses an area extending up to 9th Ave bordering Borough Park.  More than one-half (57%) of Sunset Park’s 2,278 businesses are located in this zip code which also experienced a 20% increase in the number of employees in the few years between 1994 and 1997 relative to a 7% hike in the number of workers employed in zip code 11232.

The immigrant-driven revitalization of Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy is largely based on small retail businesses that provide discount products and/or ethnic-specific goods and services, as well as a downgraded manufacturing sector concentrated in garment and furniture production.17  Up until the early 1990s, Sunset Park’s commercial activity was largely limited to Fifth Ave catering to a largely Latino consumer base and Eighth Avenue, the core of Sunset Park’s Asian community.  In addition to the numerous businesses located on these two avenues, my business inventory shows a significant spillover of immigrant-owned businesses on to Sixth and Seventh Avenues as well as Fourth Avenue [Table 5].  There are 243 businesses on Eighth Avenue between 45th and 65th Streets.  The concentration of Asian-owned businesses in this area earned Sunset Park the designation as Brooklyn’s Chinatown.  Typical of a Chinatown enclave economy, Eighth Avenue businesses are largely anchored in general merchandise stores, eating and drinking places, and groceries or supermarkets.  The large share of restaurants indicates that Eighth Ave businesses cater to an external market.  Interviews with business and community representatives have noted that the low volume of customers during the work week is a primary concern for local business owners (Mak 2000, Leung 2000, Xie 2000, Lau 2000).  My business inventory also counted 78 businesses on Seventh Ave, 36 on Sixth Ave, and 90 on Fourth Ave.  Relative to Eighth Ave, businesses on these avenues primarily serve local consumption as indicated by the greater share of groceries and supermarkets, as well as businesses that provide convenience and personal services such as laundries, car service, check cashing, barber shops and beauty salons.

These businesses comprise a significant share of Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy and to better understand their status and role in shaping the local labor market, a short firm survey on firm and employee ethnicity, types of jobs, wages, health insurance, training, sources of capital, and business issues was mailed to a sample of Sunset Park businesses.  A total of 88 were received representing a 12 percent response rate.  The number of surveys is comparable to that of Roger Waldinger’s 1989 study of Sunset Park businesses (Winnick 1990).  Moreover, as I will discuss in detail, the firm types of my survey respondents correspond to Waldinger’s findings as well as the 1997 County Business Patterns data on Sunset Park’s retail and service sectors.  My surveys, which were translated in Spanish and Chinese, provide a timely and unique data source to understand the contours of Sunset Park’s immigrant neighborhood economy.

b. Sunset Park Firm Survey: Respondent Profile and Key Findings

Table 6 provides a summary profile of survey respondents.  The firm types of the 88 respondents reflect a neighborhood economy that largely serves the consumption and service needs of an immigrant population.  One quarter of the firm respondents are businesses that provide food at home, i.e., groceries, supermarkets, produce markets, bodegas, and delis.  The next two largest firm types are convenience and personal services (19%) and professional services (19%) which include health services, education and instruction centers (namely driving and English instruction), and real estate.  Fifteen percent of the firm respondents provide general merchandise such as stationary, hardware, and electronics.

As noted, the firm types of my survey respondents correspond to Waldinger’s 1987 business census as well as the 1997 County Business Patterns data.  Waldinger also found a neighborhood economy largely based on retail and service firms in his street-level census of Sunset Park businesses which indicated 23% were groceries, supermarkets, meat and fish markets, and bakeries, and 16% provided personal services such as barber and beauty shops, cleaners and laundry, shoe repair and tailors (Winnick 1990, 150).  Moreover, the 1997 County Business Patterns for zip code 11220 provides updated evidence of a neighborhood economy anchored in food products, personal and health services as 24% of retail firms are groceries, meat and fish markets, and bakeries, 13% of service firms are convenience and personal services namely laundries, beauty/barber shops, and drycleaners, and 14% are related to health or educational services.  The consistency in firm types reflected in my survey respondents compared to Waldinger’s findings as well as official data sources support the reliability and representativeness of my survey data on Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy.

Forty-eight (48) surveys were completed by Asians, 21 by Latinos, 17 by Non-Hispanic Whites (NHW), and 2 by Arabs.  Fifty-five surveys were filled out by firm owners, 22 by managers or supervisors, 8 by employees, 1 by a brother of a firm owner, and 2 respondents did not indicate their position.  The two largest ethnic groups of respondents are Chinese (42) and Dominican (11).  Over half of the surveys were completed in English while a third was completed in Chinese and the remaining 16% in Spanish.

The commercial base of Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy is comprised largely of very small immigrant-owned firms.  A majority (75%) of the surveyed firms are owned and/or managed by immigrants with close to a third (30%) who arrived in the United States only within the past decade [Table 7].  The overwhelming majority of Asian and Latino respondents are foreign born compared to only 6% of Non-Hispanic Whites.  Approximately two-thirds (65%) of surveyed firms employ fewer than 5 workers, however, this is not the case for Non-Hispanic White firms.  Clearly, the majority of Asian and Latino businesses in Sunset Park are micro businesses (Thompson 1997).  Approximately one third of Asian and Latino firm owners did not complete high school relative to only 6% of NHW firm owners.  These differences observed among Asian, Latino, and non Hispanic White firms in Sunset Park are consistent with studies that find relative to NHW firm owners, minority firm owners, on average, have less education, their firms are less well capitalized, are typically smaller, and more likely to be concentrated in markets with limited sales potential (Bendick and Egan 1991, Bates 1994).

One in five (22%) survey respondents indicated that they are new firm start-ups and have been in operation for less than 2 years.18  The immigrant succession in small business ownership is suggested by the observation that among Asian firm respondents, close to a third are new businesses compared to only 14% of Latino and 6% of Non-Hispanic White owned firms.  In fact, an overwhelming majority of NHW firms have been in business for 10 years or more.  Another interpretation of the relatively high rate of new Asian start-ups is that business failure and turnovers are more common underscoring that small business development is a high-risk endeavor.  Approximately one-third of the firm respondents noted that they did not start their business.  Among these respondents, multi-generational ownership was observed for a significant share that took the business over from a relative.

Sunset Park businesses rely largely on a local labor force.  In fact, a notable share of firm respondents indicated local residence as a desired quality for new hires.  Two-thirds of the firms surveyed reported that most of their employees are Sunset Park residents.19  Latino firms are highly likely to employ Sunset Park residents as a full 81% of respondents indicated a local workforce.  Residence in Sunset Park is also common for Asian and Latino firm owners and managers but is much less common for non-Hispanic whites.  Although Sunset Park firms rely on a local labor supply, employment tends to be part-time since only 51% of the firm respondents indicated that all their employees are full-time workers.

Work environments in Sunset Park firms are likely to be ethnically homogenous as indicated by the majority (74%) of surveyed firms that noted that the majority of their employees are of one ethnic group.  It is primarily Asian (93%) and Latino (80%) firms that tend to employ only one ethnic group in contrast to less than 20% of non-Hispanic white firms.  Among Asian firms with an ethnically homogenous workforce, their employees are primarily Chinese (86%), while for Latino firms, Dominican workers (73%) are most likely.  Among those non-Hispanic white firms whose employees are largely of one ethnicity, the workers are mostly Puerto Rican.  For the most part, the work environments of non Hispanic white firms are racially and ethnically diverse with the workforce comprised largely of Latino workers including Dominicans and Mexicans, as well as white ethnic groups such as Italian and Polish workers.  Notably, Asian employees comprise only a small part of this ethnic mix in NHW firms.

Close to two thirds (64%) of the firms surveyed indicated only one occupational category for the type of jobs that are created by their firms suggesting a limited division of tasks with few avenues for inter-firm mobility.  The most common job types indicated by these firms are sales and service jobs.  Given the small size of Sunset Park firms, it is typical that the firm owner engages in similar work as their employees.  Among the firms that indicated more than one job type, the job mix was much more diverse with professional, service, sales, and administrative jobs comprising the most common occupational categories.

Although a majority (70%) of firms responded that they train their employees, the descriptions of on-the-job training indicates short-term instruction on very simple tasks that basically involve observation and repetition.  For example, some of the training descriptions provided are: “one week; show where merchandise stocked, how to price items, take inventory, cut deli products”, “demonstrate for them”, “simple tasks such as cleaning, learn as you observe”, “counter work, bagging, cashier, public relations”, “how to serve, treat customers, keep product clean”, and “observe and correct”.  A few firms did provide computer instruction and formal training venues such as attendance at a seminar or a licensing requirement, however, the survey findings suggest that Sunset Park employers typically do not invest in hard skills training.

The pay-offs to employment in Sunset Park firms are modest.  Among the survey respondents that indicated a starting wage for a new hire, the average is $5.50 which is slightly above the current minimum wage.  A full 12% of the surveyed firms did not respond to the question on whether they provided health insurance for their employees.  Among those that did respond, less than half indicated that they provide health insurance for their workers.  The prevalence of part-time employment with no health insurance as well as minimal on-the- job training and earnings signifies a local labor market distinguished by working poverty.

A majority of the firms surveyed noted only one or two factors why they chose Sunset Park as the location for their business.  The most common reasons are conventional business considerations of market opportunities noted in the two highest categories of consumer market (34) and growth potential (31) (Figure 1).  It is significant that in addition to these two factors, affordable rent was also a compelling reason for location in Sunset Park.  The issue of rent affordability reappears as a key concern for Sunset Park businesses with the specific issue being the rising cost of rents.  This concern was also expressed by industrial firms on the waterfront and reflects a shift in the real estate market that may potentially create displacement effects for current tenants.

Traditional resources such as personal savings and family networks are clearly the most important ways that immigrant businesses raise capital.  Slightly more that two thirds (68%) of the firms surveyed identified savings and friends and relatives as two very important resources of start up capital (Figure 2).  The sources most commonly identified as not important in gathering money to start their business is a government loan, rotating credit union, and bank loan.  Interestingly, more than two-fifths (44%) of firm respondents indicated that they are aware of government programs which assist small businesses to secure loans and training.  However, less than a third (29%) have ever applied for a business loan.  Further inquiry is necessary to research why the loan application rates are not commensurate with the level of awareness of these resources.  Sunset Park is an underserved banking area and while the numbers of banking institutions in this neighborhood are increasing as noted with the rent opening of a Community Capital Bank,20 banking services need to consider innovative outreach strategies as well as improving the linkages of small businesses to the changing structure of local market opportunities.

Sunset Park firms use only a few hiring strategies to recruit new employees (Figure 3).  The majority (91%) of surveyed firms use three or fewer methods to recruit potential employees.  Not surprisingly, the most common methods are based on informal networks and practices such as referrals or recommendations (34), friends and family (30), word of mouth (22), and walk-ins or postings in the windows and streets (20).  The least common methods used by employers to hire new workers are formal institutions such as employment agency, job training, and community organization with the exception of newspapers.  In addition to advertising employment opportunities, newspapers are a key source of business information and support so the role of the press, in particular, the ethnic press is quite central to business practices and know-how in Sunset Park.

The most frequently selected qualities that firms look for in new hires pertain to prior work experience (48), promptness (34) and language ability (33) (Figure 4).  These qualities reinforce the services and sales concentration of local jobs as language ability is important in dealing with customers and this was noted in several of the surveys where the respondent indicated Spanish was the language ability desired.  Moreover, these qualities also suggest that employers want to minimize investments in training so prior work experience is necessary to ensure that new hires are familiar with the world of work.  The finding that promptness is also a top consideration for employers implies that worker attitudes are an important factor and this observation is further reflected in additional comments such as “need to work long hours “ and “honesty”.  Interviews with local business owners, SWBIDC staff, and a local community planner substantiate the survey finding that soft skills or job readiness skills such as promptness, reliability, and appearance is a top problem in hiring searches.

Immigrant small business typically do not rely on institutional sources of support because they don’t know of their availability or because they feel they don’t need the resources (Figure 5).  Over one half (55%) of the firms survey relied on only one source of business information or none at all, and among the firms that do rely on resources for business information and support, the most common resources are word of mouth (31) or newspapers (29).  Membership in a business and trade association or BID is rare suggesting that for most immigrant firms, they are not well organized or formalized into a group that can advocate for collective interests.  Moreover, the notably low responses for the Chamber of Commerce (4) or Small Business Administration (4) as sources of business information and support further underscores the limited contact and linkages between local businesses and mainstream institutions and markets, which indicates that opportunities and information external to the ethnic community is minimal.

Almost all of the firms surveyed responded that they have not had difficulty applying for a business license or interpreting government rules and regulations.  Some of the problems among the 11% of surveyed firms who noted difficulties in interpreting government rules and regulations are related to complaints about inspectors who are not knowledgeable or are constantly changing so that new inspectors don’t know the routine.  These sentiments are reflected in the following comments: “The inspector don't know what they want, make you go back and forth” and “Dept of Health don’t know how to inspect when it is a new inspector”.  Language barriers was a common problem that exacerbates the difficulties in understanding and interpreting complex government rules and regulations, "They need a Oxford graduate”, and “You couldn't understand all gov. rules”.  Simple problems such as “we never got a booklet of the rules” were also expressed.

Virtually all the surveyed firms identified at least one pressing problem facing their business with a sizable share who indicated more than one problem (Figure 6).  The two top challenges facing Sunset Park local businesses are competition (36) and rising rents (33).  Overall, these two concerns are clearly more pressing than issues of financial capital (15), lack of skilled labor (12), or space for expansion (12) and health insurance (11).  A survey respondent commented that their “landlord won’t provide a new lease”.  This concern was repeatedly aired at a small business forum organized by Congresswoman Nydia Valesquez indicating that small businesses rarely own their commercial spaces, and more importantly, the rising real estate values in the neighborhood brings the issue of both commercial and residential displacement to the forefront of neighborhood concerns.  A sizable share of surveyed firms noted additional problems which largely pertain to safety and crime, and the increasing costs of operating a business due to rising rents and electrical costs.  One firm respondent simply noted, “just too many problems!”.

The firm survey findings reinforce a cautionary assessment of the role of small businesses in a neighborhood economy.  While they comprise a vibrant economic core and an important local employment source, the capacity of small businesses to create jobs with livable wages and mobility opportunities are very limited.  Moreover, these small businesses are fairly disengaged from mainstream institutions and networks that necessary to create linkages for growth and improvements.

c. Sunset Park’s Immigrant Garment Industry

In addition to retail and services, garment production is also a central component of Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy.  Although still largely centralized in Manhattan, Brooklyn neighborhoods namely Sunset Park are increasingly an important production site for New York City’s garment manufacturing industry (Bowles 2000, Kwong 1997).  The importance of Sunset Park is likely to increase due to Manhattan’s expanding corporate real estate market and rising rents that is forcing the relocation of garment manufacturers from historic production districts (Bowles 2000, Casimir 2000, Trebay 2000).  In addition to cheap rents – the average rents for industrial space in Sunset Park are between $4.50 and $5.50 per square foot relative to $8-$10 in Manhattan Chinatown and up to $15 per square foot in the midtown garment center -- relief from a largely unionized workforce is also a factor in this movement to Brooklyn (Chen 2000). 21

Sunset Park’s garment industry exemplifies the limitations of small business ownership as a strategy for individual and community economic livelihood.  Cheap imports and production outsourcing have created conditions of fierce competition reflected in the comment of a local Sunset Park manufacturer as he noted, “We’re dying a slow death.”22  New York City is able to retain a segment of the garment industry due to several competitive advantages including its status as a fashion center, the agglomeration of retailers, designers, manufacturers, and contractors, and easy access to a skilled and low-wage workforce.  Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy is a critical part of a globalized production process providing cheap industrial rents, easy access to regional transportation networks, and a largely non-unionized labor supply.  The reindustrialization of Sunset Park is centered on downgraded manufacturing evident in the growing numbers of small garment subcontractors.  The low capitalization costs and relative ease of entry into the labor intensive subcontracting end of garment manufacturing has provided an important base of business ownership for many immigrants.  Their key competitive advantage is access to a co-ethnic and female labor pool.  The 1999 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey data in Table 2 affirms that a full third of Latino and Asian workers in Sunset Park are employed as laborers or operators with a majority working as sewing machine operators.

According to the latest Department of Labor statistics, approximately 384 registered garment shops are located in Sunset Park representing about 40% of the apparel firms in Brooklyn (DOL 2001).  Virtually all of Sunset Park’s garment firms are non-unionized.23  Sunset Park’s garment industry can be viewed as comprising two spatial districts with distinct qualities – firms located along the historic industrial waterfront, and a rapidly expanding Chinese immigrant sector concentrated in the avenues above the waterfront – namely above Eighth Ave.24  The spatial location of garment firms in Sunset Park is segmented by firm owner ethnicity with the majority of firms located along the industrial waterfront owned by white ethnics while those concentrated on and above Eighth Avenue are owned by Chinese contractors.25  The type of garment production and the racial composition of the labor force further demarcate this spatial segmentation.  The businesses located along the waterfront include cutters – historically skilled Jewish and Italian men -- and contractors that are diverse in the types of products manufactured while virtually all the contractors on and above Eighth Avenue produce women’s sportswear which is a highly competitive segment of the garment industry due to the rapidly changing styles and quick turnaround requirements.

The growth of this new immigrant sector has brought renewed attention to the emergence of a “sweatshop” garment industry (Buford 1999, Lii 1995, Gottschalk 1995).26  Violations of basic labor and health standards are common practices in Sunset Park garment shops.  Assemblyman Felix Ortiz who represents Sunset Park serves as the chairperson of the New York State Subcommittee on Sweatshops and sponsored two public hearings on this issue.27  Among the most serious violations are the withholding of wages, substandard conditions including blocked exits and lack of ventilation, and the reemergence of child labor.28  In 1999, the US DOL found eight of eleven Sunset Park firms that were investigated to be in violation of overtime wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Community rallies have also shed much public attention on the extent of sweatshop conditions in Sunset Park’s garment industry (Buford 1999, Sandberg 1997, Gottschalk 1995, Lin 1998).29  Sunset Park’s economy illustrates how local neighborhoods are positioned in the spatial geography of global production representing “the third world within” as Asian and Latino immigrant women labor under substandard work conditions in direct competition with their overseas counterparts in Mexico, Dominican Republic and the People’s Republic of China.

VI. “Whither Sunset Park?” 30: Immigrant Economies and Community Building

Immigrant-owned businesses are lauded for revitalizing urban economies (Muller 1993, Portes and Zhou 1992, Marcuse 1997).  As stated in a HUD monitor, “Neighborhood small businesses opened by immigrants have sparked revitalization and economic growth,” (January/February 2000).  These small businesses have stemmed urban decline in many local neighborhoods by providing vital products and services as well as contributing to the cultural diversity of a global city.  While immigrant economies provide opportunities for economic livelihood, the case study of Sunset Park highlights two outstanding issues which require further investigation: do immigrant economies create mobility opportunities similar to those that existed for previous immigrant waves that took place during periods of industrialization and urban growth?  Do immigrant economies that are largely based on ethnic-specific retail and services, and downgraded manufacturing generate sustainable community development?  These broader concerns of community building raise a cautionary note about the role of small businesses which are affirmed in the findings on Sunset Park’s neighborhood businesses.  Briefly, the survey findings indicate that while immigrants have sought business ownership as an economic strategy, the nature of these largely micro businesses point to limited avenues for skill acquisition and mobility, lack of health insurance, prevalence of part-time work, and concentration in typical ethnic niches in food related industries, personal services, and nondurable manufacturing.  Although business development is promoted as a key aspect of asset-based community development, the qualities of immigrant economies suggest important limitations to creating meaningful economic opportunities especially for workers.

The policy implications require a reconceptualization of business assistance beyond financial capital and business management and to integrate capacity building in community economic development strategies and goals.  A key aspect is to facilitate and strengthen local business connections to mainstream economic, political, and social institutions.  Although immigrant groups have high rates of business ownership, the long term viability of immigrant economies require the technical capacity as well as political clout to engage in community economic planning and development (Fu and Ong 1994, Urban Institute 2000).  The Sunset Park firm survey findings emphasize the need to develop an entrepreneurial base with skills that are better matched to external market opportunities.  In other words, the future prospects for immigrant economies depend on cultivating an “export orientation” which extends beyond typical enclave concentrations in food products, restaurants, and garment manufacturing.

Community development in immigrant economies needs to cultivate entrepreneurs that can “…successfully engage in the kinds of work required to identify and capture new market opportunities.” (Lichtenstein and Lyons 2001, 5).  To improve business networks, capacity building must engage entrepreneurs in “a process of development” (p.5).  However, with the exception of micro-enterprise programs, there are no systematic efforts to develop the skills and capacity of local businesses and communities to engage in community economic development.  Conventional business assistance programs should be supplemented by resources that promote technical skills to adapt to changing market conditions and build networks to regional growth industries and institutions.

The need for a community economic development approach was clearly expressed by a banker in Sunset Park who is seeking strategies to create alternative opportunities for immigrants upon the decline of the garment industry.31  Due to language and skill barriers, Asian and Latino immigrants rely on ethnic economies for a means of economic survival.  Hence, an integral aspect of improving workers outcomes is to advance the capacity of immigrant-owned firms to move into more profitable sectors of the economy (Zhou 2001).  While there are several banking institutions in Sunset Park including the recent establishment of a branch of the Community Capital Bank as well as business assistance programs, business services need to be reframed to promote an entrepreneurial development system that cultivates innovative approaches and skills to establish linkages to diverse market opportunities.  While ethnic networks and social capital may provide important resources for business start-up, integration into mainstream business networks and economy is essential for success (Saxenian 1999).  Moreover, business development must be paired with community development goals for the maximum effect on improving neighborhood economies (Bendick and Egan1991).

In conclusion, the revitalization of Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy was embedded in the economic restructuring of New York City and is instructive on the position of immigrant neighborhoods in the sociospatial organization of advanced urban economies.  The decline of Sunset Park’s waterfront industries in the 1960s was related to the massive and fundamental shift in New York City’s economic base from manufacturing to service-related industries (Fitch 1993, Bluestone and Harrison 1982, Mollenkopf and Castells 1991).  The reindustrialization of Sunset Park is centered on downgraded manufacturing where the key competitive advantage is cheap domestic labor in the form of risk taking entrepreneurs and their co-ethnic workers (Sassen-Koob 1984).  Sunset Park’s neighborhood economy has moved from industrial jobs that provided avenues for worker mobilization and unionization to marginal manufacturing and service industries viable due to the contributions and consumption needs of low-wage immigrant labor.  Hence, the rejuvenating qualities of Sunset Park’s transformation are countered by the concentration of immigrant micro businesses in marginal ethnic niches with low entry barriers that generate working poverty, sweatshop conditions, and limited options for upward mobility (Bates 1997).

The case study of Sunset Park, Brooklyn illustrates the dilemma of connecting immigrant neighborhood economies to emerging sectors of sustainable employment based on economic development goals and policies which promote both equity and growth (Pastor et. al. 1998).  Although Winnick (1990) wrote, "…the waterfront economy per se is near death, even if some profess to hear a faint pulse returning", only a short decade later, this “faint pulse” has become a roar as many turn to Brooklyn’s waterfront as an economic engine for future growth.  After years of decline and neglect, Sunset Park's industrial waterfront is once again positioned as a site for economic development, which provides a window of opportunity to build meaningful linkages among its multiple economies including the immigrant sector.  This crossroads in Sunset Park’s development provides both opportunity and challenge to implement the necessary policy approaches and resources to integrate its immigrant economies in a way that promotes sustainable and equitable revitalization.
Interviews

Business and Industry Leaders

Mr. Henry Lee, Manager, HSBC Bank, August 20, 2000
Mr. Patrick Lau, Executive Director, First International American Bank, August 22, 2000 and February 7, 2001
Shiu Kam Leung, President, Brooklyn Chinese Merchants Association, September 7, 2000
John Wang, Asian American Business Development Corporation, August 25, 2000 and January 12, 2001
Dominic Massa, Harborside Management, November 25, 2000
Fred Levine, Marcus & Weisen, September 26, 2000 and February 7, 2001
Marc Landman, Jomat of New York, September 26, 2000
Simon Ghanime, Sacoche International, September 26, 2000
Jack Edelstein, Stealth Inc., September 26, 2000
Stanley Meyerson, B to B Industries, September 26, 2000
Moses Sirkis, Sirtex Knitting Mills, September 26, 2000
Tony Lutfy, Falcon Mills, September 26, 2000
Louis Venagas, New York State Department of Labor, November 30, 2000

Economic Development and Community Leaders

Jeremy Laufer, Community Board 7, January 5, 2001
Rev. Samuel Wong, Chinese Promise Baptist Church, June 13, 2000
Paul Mak, Brooklyn Chinese American Association, June 3, 2000
Chang Xie, Branch Director, Chinese American Planning Council, September 17, 1998
Patrick Marsh, Sunset Park Local Development Corporation, November 21, 2000
Renee Giordano, Sunset Park Business Improvement District, November 22, 2000
Jocelyne Chait, Planner, 197-a Community Plan, Community Board 7, November 21, 2000 and February 5, 2001
Teresa Williams, Southwest Brooklyn Industrial Development Corporation, June 5, 2000
May Chen, Vice President, UNITE, October 27, 2000
Linda Dworak, Executive Director, Garment Industry Development Center, September 7, 2000
Annie Liu, Director of Education and Training, GIDC, October 12, 2000

Elected Officials

Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, June 2, 2000
City Councilor Angel Rodriguez, July 12, 2000

Meetings

Small Business Forum, June 5, 2000
Chinese Promise Baptist Church, Street Fair, September 3, 2000
Community Board #7 Meeting, June 21, 2000

Bibliography

Bagli, Charles V. 2000. “Office Shortage Imperils Growth in New York City.” New York Times, September 19.

Bailey, Thomas and Roger Waldinger. 1991. “Primary, Secondary, and Enclave Labor Markets: A Training Systems Approach.” American Sociological Review 56: 432-445.

Bates, Timothy. 1997. Race, Self-Employment, and Upward Mobility: An Illusive American Dream. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bates, Timothy. 1994. “Social Resources Generated by Group Support Networks May Not be Beneficial to Asian Immigrant-Owned Firms.” Social Forces 72 (3): 671-89.

Bendick, Marc Jr., and Mary Lou Egan. 1991. “Business Development in the Inner-City: Enterprise with Community Links.” Community Development Research Center, New School for Social Research, New York, February 1991.

Bluestone, Barry and Bennett Harrison. 1982. The Deindustrialization of America. New York: Basic Books.

Browning, E.S. 1994. “A New Chinatown Grows in Brooklyn,” Wall Street Journal. May 31.

Boss, Shira J. 2000. “As Warehouse Gets Wired, Garment Firms Fear Future.” Crain’s New York Business, September 4-10.

Casimir, Leslie. 2000. “Year of Silicon Dragon: Booming Internet Biz Pushing Asians From Chinatown.” New York Daily News, February 3.

Center for Economic and Social Rights. 1999. “Treated Like Slaves: Donna Karan, Inc. Violates Women Workers’ Human Rights.”

Community Board 7. “Garment Industry Task Force of Sunset Park.” Not Dated.

Community Board 7 Garment Industry Task Force Sub-Committee. “Brooklyn Apparel Center Concept Paper.” Not Dated.

Community Board 7. 1996. Meeting Minutes. August 21.

Fitch, Robert. 1993. The Assassination of New York.  London, New York: Verso.

Freeman, Joshua B. 2000. Working Class New York: Life and Labor Since World War II. New York: The New Press.

Fu, Vincent and Paul Ong. 1994. “To Speak Our Own Voices: Asian Pacific Americans in the New Urban Initiative.” Unpublished Paper.

Galster, George C., Kurt Metzger, and Ruth White. 1999a. “Neighborhood Opportunity Structures and Immigrants’ Socioeconomic Advancement.” Journal of Housing Research 10 1: 95-127.

Galster, George, Kurt Metzger, and Ruth White. 1999b. “Neighborhood Opportunity Structures of Immigrant Populations, 1980 and 1990.” Housing Policy Debate 10 2: 395-442.

Golden, Howard. 1997. Brooklyn Can Sew Up the Garment Industry: Recommendations for the Future of the Garment Manufacturing Industry in Brooklyn. Borough President of Brooklyn, January.

Hays, Elizabeth. 2000. “Sunrise, Sunset Park. Officials To Redevelop Waterfront.” Daily News, November 3.

Hughes, C.J. 2000. “New Day’s Light at Sunset Park: Bush Terminal Set to Bloom.” The Silicon Alley Reporter. September 21.

Kadet, Anne. 2000. “New Dawn in Sunset Park.” Brooklyn Bridge. February-March

Kwong, Peter. 1987. The New Chinatown. New York: Hill and Wang

Kwong, Peter. 1996. Forbidden Workers: Illegal Chinese Immigrants and American Labor. New York : New Press.

Lentz, Philip. 2000. “New Havens for High Tech.” Crain’s New York. April 3.

Li, Wei. 1999. “Building Ethnoburbia: The Emergence and Manifestation of the Chinese Ethnoburb in Los Angeles’ San Gabriel Valley.” Journal of Asian American Studies, 2, 1.

Lii, Jane H. 1995. “A Special Report: Week in Sweatshop Reveals Grim Conspiracy of the Poor.” The New York Times, March 12.

Lichtenstein, Gregg A. and Thomas S. Lyons. 2001. “The Entrepreneurial Development System: Transforming Business Talent and Community Economies.” Economic Development Quarterly February 15 1: 3-20

Lin, Jan. 1998. Reconstructing Chinatown: Ethnic Enclave, Global Change. University of Minnesota Press.

Lipowicz, Alice. 2000. “Space Race Puts Firms Out in the Tech Zones: Net-Ready Outside Manhattan.” Crain’s New York. August 21.

Logan, John R. and Richard D. Alba. 2000. "Minority Niches and Immigrant Enclaves in New York and Los Angeles: Trends and Impacts" In Frank Bean and Stephanie Bell-Rose (editors), Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the United States. New York: Russell Sage

Logan, John R., Richard D. Alba, Thomas L. McNulty. 1994. “Ethnic Economies in Metropolitan Regions: Miami and Beyond.” Social Forces, 72 3:691:724.

Marcuse, Peter. 1997. "The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What Has Changed in the Post-Fordist U.S. City." Urban Affairs Review November 33 2: 228-264

Mollenkopf, John and Manuel Castells. 1991. Dual City: Restructuring New York. Russell Sage Foundation.

Mollenkopf, John, Philip Kasinitz, Mary Waters, Nancy Lopez, and Dae Young Kim. 1997. “The School to Work Transition of Second Generation Immigrants in Metropolitan New York: Some Preliminary Findings.” Unpublished paper presented to the Levy Institute Conference on the Second Generation. Bard College. October 25.

Muller, Thomas. 1993. Immigrants and the American City.  New York: New York University Press.

New York State Assembly Sub-Committee on Sweatshops. 1997. “Behind Closed Doors: A Look Into the Underground Sweatshop Industry.”

New York State Assembly Sub-Committee on Sweatshops. 1999. “Behind Closed Doors II: Another Look Into the Underground Sweatshop Industry.”

Oser, Alan S. 1996. “Immigrants Again Renew Sunset Park.” New York Times, December 1.

Ong, Paul. 1984. “Chinatown Unemployment and the Ethnic Labor Market.” Amerasia, 11, 1: 35-54.

Pastor, Manuel, Jr., and Peter Drier, Eugene Grigsby III, and Marta Lopez-Garza. 1998. “Growing Together: Linking Regional and Community Development in a Changing Economy.” Sheltorforce Online, January/February 1998, http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/97/pastor.html

Portes, Alejandro. 1981.  "Modes of Structural Incorporation and Present Theories of Immigration." Global Trends in Migration, ed., by Mary M. Kritz, Charles B. Keely, and Sylvano M. Tomasi, Staten Island, NY: Center for Migration Studies Press, pp. 279-97.

Portes, Alejandro and Robert Bach. 1985.  Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 1990.  Immigrant America: A Portrait. UC Press.

Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1992.  "Gaining the Upper Hand: Economic Mobility Among Immigrant and Domestic Minorities." Ethnic and Racial Studies 15 4: 491-522.

Portes, Alejandro. 1995. “Economic Sociology and the Sociology of Immigration: A Conceptual Overview.” The Economic Sociology of Immigration, ed. Alejandro Portes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Robaton, Anna. 1996. “Chinese Stake out Sunset Park Rebuilding Brooklyn Neighborhood.” Crain’s New York

Sanchez-Korrol, Virigina. 1983. From Colonia to Community : The History of Puerto Ricans in New York City. University of California Press.

Sanjek, Roger. 1998. The Future of Us All: Race and Neighborhood Politics in New York City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Sassen, Saskia. 1990.  "Economic Restructuring and the American City." Annual Review of Sociology, 16.

Sassen-Koob, Saskia. 1984. “The New Labor Demand in Global Cities.” Cities in Transformation, Urban Affairs Annual Reviews, 25.

Saxenian, Anne. 1999. “The Silicon Valley-Hsinchu Connection: Technical Communities and Industrial Upgrading.” Unpublished Paper.

Sullivan, Mercer L. 1993. “Puerto Ricans in Sunset Park, Brooklyn: Poverty Amidst Ethnic and Economic Diversity.” In the Barrios: Latinos and the Underclass Debate, pp, 1-25, edited by Joan Moore. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Sunset Park Waterfront Community Design Workshop. 1997. Briefing Book. Co-sponsored by Community Board 7, American Planning Association New York Metro Chapter, Municipal Art Society Planning Center.

Thompson, Philip. 1997. “Inner-City Business Development and Entrepreneurship: New Frontiers for Policy and Research.” Unpublished Paper.

Trebay, Guy. 2000. “Dot-Coms Intrude in the Land of Needle and Thread.” New York Times, November 14.

Tietz, Michael. 1989. “Neighborhood Economics: Local Communities and Regional Markets.” Economic Development Quarterly 3 2:111-122.

Tilly, Charles. 1990.  “Transplanted Networks.” Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics, ed., Virginia Yans-McLaughlin, New York: Oxford University Press.

Urban Institute. 2000. Building Capacity: The Challenges and Opportunities of Asian Pacific American Community Development. A Report to the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development. April.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1999. New Markets: The Untapped Retail Buying Power in America’s Inner Cities. Andrew Cuomo, Secretary, July.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2000. “Shifting Immigrant Settlement: The Suburbs Beckon.” Urban Research Monitor. January/February, 4, 6.

U.S. House of Representatives. 1998. Testimony. Committee on Education and the Workforce. The American Worker at a Crossroads Project. March 31.

Waldinger, Roger. 1990. “Ethnic Business in Sunset Park.” In New People in Old Neighborhoods. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Waldinger, Roger. 1996. Still the Promised City? Harvard University Press.

Wang, John. 2000. “The Boom that Threatens Chinatown.” New York Times, July 8.

Wiewel, Wim, Bridget Brown and Marya Morris. 1989. “The Linkage Between Regional Development and Neighborhood Development.” Economic Development Quarterly 3 2:94-110.

Winnick, Louis. 1991. “Letter From Sunset Park,” The City Journal, 1, 2: 75-79.

Winnick, Louis. 1990. New People in Old Neighborhoods. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Zhou, Min. 1992.  Chinatown: The Socioeconomic Potential of an Urban Enclave. Temple University Press.

Zhou, Yu. 2001. “Caught Under the Fashion Runway in the Big Apple: Immigrant Enterprises in the Garment Industry in New York City.” Unraveling the Rag Trade: Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Seven World Cities, ed., Jan Rath. Oxford: Berg Publishers.