Oakland’s San Pablo Avenue Chinatown:A compilation of research to aid the upcoming archaeological sensitivity study and

treatment plan to be drafted by the archaeological contractor for Forest City’s Uptownredevelopment project.

January 2005Prepared by Anna Naruta, Historical Archaeologist

ATTENTION:(after Praetzellis 1994:ii)

Scavenging, bottle digging, and souvenir hunting destroy archaeologicalsites. They’re also illegal. According to the State of California,Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307: No person shall remove,injure, or deface or destroy any object of paleontological, archaeological,or historical interest or value. The State of California Penal Code, Title 14,Section 622.5 states that it is a misdemeanor offense for any person otherthan the owner to willfully damage or destroy archaeological or historicalfeatures on public or privately owned land.

Scavenging is also dangerous. Without training in safety measures, peoplehave been severely injured when their pits collapse around them.Soils—especially in industrial neighborhoods—can be dangerous, andshould not be removed without testing for hazardous materials and thepossible necessity for protective measures.

Archaeology classes are available locally. Individuals wishing to dig areencouraged to seek them out, so that their endeavors can help preservehistory, and do not end with injury, sickness, or arrest.

Oakland’s San Pablo Avenue Chinatown:A compilation of research to aid the upcoming archaeological sensitivity study andtreatment plan to be drafted by the archaeological contractor for Forest City’s Uptownredevelopment project.

Copyright 2005 Anna Naruta

First distributed January 19, 2005Figures and Appendices added January 23, 2005

UptownChinatown.orgOakland, California

This report will be available at the Oakland Public Library’s Oakland History Room andAsian Branch Library, the City of Oakland's Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, and theOakland Asian Cultural Center, and online at UptownChinatown.org.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1: REMEMBRANCE IN SECONDARY AND TERTIARY HISTORIES....……..........1

2: THE DEVELOPMENT OF OAKLAND'S EARLY CHINATOWNS......………........3

3: WHY WERE RESIDENTS OF THE SAN PABLO AVENUE CHINATOWN"CONSIGNED" TO LIVE ELSEWHERE? ........................................................…........…4

4: PHYSICAL APPPEARANCE OF THE CHINATOWNS: ALLEGATIONS, FACTS,AND CONTEXTUAL INFERENCES................................................…………….......…6

5: REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SAN PABLO AVENUE CHINATOWN....…………9

6: ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIALS AND SENSITIVITY STUDYMETHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................10

REFERENCES CITED.....................................................................................................12

AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS............................................................................…......15

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER.................................................……15

FIGURES

Figure 1. U.S.G.S. Coastal Survey Map of 1857 for Oakland, detail showingUpper Chinatown area.

Figure 2. 1859 Whitcher Map detail showing Upper Chinatown area.

Figure 3. 1868 Boardman Map detail showing Upper Chinatown area.

Figure 4. 1878 Thompson & West Map, overlapping details showingUpper Chinatown neighborhood.

Figure 5. Oakland Transcript coverage of San Pablo Avenue Chinatown,May 9, 1872.

Figure 6. Upper Chinatown area major property owners named on the 1868Boardman map.

Figure 7. The 14th Street facade of the new City Hall, photographed fromWashington Street, with rooftops of San Pablo Avenue Chinatownpossibly visible.

Figure 8. Snow & Roos Bird’s Eye View of Oakland, a drawing made about 1870.

Figure 9. Detail of Snow & Roos Bird’s Eye View of Oakland depicting San PabloAvenue Chinatown area, ca. 1870.

Figure 10. Ventura Chinatown on Figueroa Street, ca. 1890.

Figure 11. Intersection of 13th Street and Broadway, looking northeast, 1868-1869.

Figure 12. The new City Hall from 13th and Franklin Streets, 1870s.

Figure 13. The residence of prominent white Oaklander, Colonel John Coffee,at 22nd and Market Streets.

Figure 14. Oakland Tribune article from March 13, 1875, editorializing against theSan Pablo Avenue Chinatown.

Figure 15. The Alameda Daily Argus of October 3, 1895, likewise calling forthe eradication of the city’s Chinatown to make way for redevelopmentincreasing adjacent property values.

TABLES

Table 1. History of East-West Streets Constructed near or through the San PabloAvenue Chinatown

APPENDICES

[Appendices can be viewed in the copies of this report at the following locations:Oakland Public Library’s Oakland History Room and Asian Branch Library, the City of

Oakland's Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, and the Oakland Asian Cultural Center]

Appendix AThe “Upper Chinatown” as recorded in the 1870 and 1880 federal census.A-1:

1870 census coverage of the “Upper Chinatown” at San Pablo Avenue (sheets 220B-221A, 223A-225A, 233A, 239A)

A-2:1880 census coverage of the Charter Avenue Chinatown (125D-126B, 127D) and the

laundry run by Chinese men at 19th Street and San Pablo Avenue (99A).

Appendix BEstablished scope required for archaeological sensitivity study, demonstrated inarchaeological sensitivity study compilation of research specific to the lot at 1362Seventh Street (Van Bueren 2004: A-63-66).

Appendix CPages from 1880 City of Oakland Tax Assessor Block Book covering the UpperChinatown locations, from north to south: pages 2008-2007, 2005-2003, 2000, 2002,2001, 1999 (north and south halves), 1998 A and B.

Appendix DCity of Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey forms for

Buildings on east side of San Pablo Avenue between 20th and Williams Streets,constructed 1883-84 (1972 San Pablo Ave), 1900-02 (1966-68 San Pablo Ave), and 1889-93 (1958-60 San Pablo Ave),.

Building on east side of San Pablo Avenue between 19th and 18th Streets, constructed1879-80 (demolished June 2000)

Appendix ESanborn Fire Insurance Company maps for San Pablo Avenue Chinatown area for years1889, 1902, and 1912

Appendix FDetail of pre-1870 map showing San Pablo Avenue area as “Irving’s Reserve.”

Naruta — 1

THE SAN PABLO AVENUE CHINATOWN

INTRODUCTION

In the 1860s, years before the current and long-standing downtown Chinatown wasestablished, Oakland’s “official” Chinatown was north of the downtown, in the San Pabloand Telegraph Avenue area. Although subjected to repeated dislocation by city authorities,Oakland’s early Chinese pioneers maintained a thriving “Upper Chinatown” into the 1880s.Community historians preserved the story of the early Chinatowns, and today new researchhas been able to recover more information that verifies and enlarges their accounts.

Forest City’s Uptown Project, encompassing roughly the area bounded by San PabloAvenue, 21st Street, Telegraph Avenue, the Oakland Fox Theater, and 18th Street, willimpact the recorded location of Oakland’s nineteenth century Chinatown on San PabloAvenue. The purpose of this document is to aid the formulation of the archaeologicalsensitivity study and treatment plan for this city-subsidized redevelopment. This documentdoes not constitute or substitute for the focused community review of the sensitivity studyand treatment plan the City requires Forest City to complete.

The first section provides evaluation of relevant secondary and tertiary histories, notinghow some have demonstrated their being more a reflection of the time of their writing thanan account of the events they claim to describe. Other histories have accurately usedprimary source material as they kept narratives alive. Of note is one historical accountespecially suited to also being a carrier of oral history from those who resided in the SanPablo Avenue Chinatown.

Section Two draws from a wide range of primary source documents to trace the origin ofthe earliest Chinatowns in Oakland, verify the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown’s existence,identify at least some of its residents and neighbors, delineate its geographic area, andrecord the Chinatown’s early development and an 1872 attempt at dislocation. SectionThree reports documentary evidence about the people who owned the property of andaround the Chinatown. This information combines with data about the City’s developmentto provide insight into a drive to eliminate the Chinatown. The fourth section combinesevidence from contemporary maps, drawings, and photos to explore what so far might bedetermined about the Chinatown’s physical appearance and how it compared tocontemporary buildings outside the Chinatown. English-language newspaper accountsattacking the Chinatown are examined in context of a widespread pattern of declaring aChinatown a blight when its land was desired for redevelopment efforts.

Section Five traces the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown as it was dismantled, noting researchthat must be addressed in the archaeological sensitivity study, as well as resistance to thedislocation and establishment of new communities. The final section sketches out thescope of the sensitivity study and fieldwork plan necessary to meet obligations under theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Sensitivities demonstrated fromarchaeological fieldwork in the vicinity of the project area and an analogous cultural depositare reported. Finally, using well-established precedent from Oakland excavations, theappropriate pre-testing documentary research methodology the sensitivity study mustemploy is identified.

REMEMBRANCE IN SECONDARY AND TERTIARY HISTORIES

The history of early Oakland’s first Chinatowns has been preserved in multiple communityhistories, including Beth Bagwell’s Oakland: The Story of a City (1982, Oakland: Oakland

Naruta — 2

Heritage Alliance), The Chinese of Oakland: Unsung Builders, by L. Eve Armentrout Mawith Jeong Huei Ma, and edited by Forrest Gok and the Oakland Chinese History ResearchCommittee (1982, Oakland: Oakland Chinese History Research Committee), Howard Ah-Tye’s Resourceful Chinese (1999, San Jose: Matai Press; he had also recorded communityhistory in an 1984 article), L. Eve Armentrout Ma’s Hometown Chinatown: The History ofOakland's Chinese Community (2000, New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.),and William Wong’s Images of America: Oakland’s Chinatown (2004, Mount Pleasant,South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing Co.).

The earliest of the later 20th-century histories, Willard T. Chow’s The Reemergence of anInner City: The Pivot of Chinese Settlement in the East Bay Region of the San FranciscoBay Area (1974, Ph.D. thesis, Geography Department, University of California,Berkeley), laid important groundwork in that Chow both synthesized information fromearlier secondary histories and used primary source material to make significant discoveriesrelating to the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown. Among Chow’s contributions is that heexplored the city’s developmental history using contemporary documents, including theSanborn fire insurance maps of the late 19th and early 20th-century. He also discovered19th-century newspapers stories that verified the existence and location of the San PabloAvenue Chinatown and offered some rudimentary description.

Reference points for historians writing in the later 20th century were the early historiespublished in 1883 (M.W. Wood, History of Alameda County, California, Oakland:published by subscription by the author), in 1914 (Baker, J. E., Past and Present ofAlameda County, California, Chicago, The S.J. Clarke Company), and in 1939 (Hinkeland McCann’s Oakland 1892-1938: Some Phases of the Social, Political, and EconomicHistory of Oakland, California, Works Progress Administration). Use of these historiesrequires understand the context of their production. Wood’s 1883 history was written andpublished in the span of one year and relied on subscribers’ patronage. Wood’s strategyfor producing a thick volume under these circumstances was two-pronged: transcribe andreproduce early City records, and for historical narrative rely on stories his affluent whitesubscriber base wished to have recorded. Baker wrote a history similarly oriented to pleaseits audience among wealthier white Oaklanders; his book is particularly notable foroccasionally publishing descriptions of events at odds with primary source documents, therecord produced at the time of the occurrence. For example, by the history’s 1914publication, Chinese Exclusion laws and related discrimination against Chinese andChinese Americans had been in force for over thirty years, and it had become the fashionamong most prominent politicians to obscure the roles they or their illustrious predecessorsplayed in encouraging anti-Chinese discrimination. Consequently, although at the timenewspapers reported Oakland Mayor Enoch H. Pardee, judges, and other city fathers asheading an “Anti-Chinese Mass Meeting” at Oakland City Hall (Oakland Transcript, Sept12, 1876; Tribune Sept 12, 1876, p.3 col1), Baker’s account (203-4) erases theparticipation of Mayor Pardee and his colleagues. The 1939 history by Hinkel andMcCann has the advantage of drawing on concurrent WPA projects to index the earlierhistories and many primary sources such as newspapers.

A very different and remarkably valuable record of the early history of OaklandChinatowns comes from Edward W. Chew. Edward Chew’s father was Ng Poon Chew(1866-1931), an Oaklander and civil rights crusader who published the major SanFrancisco Chinese-language newspaper, the Chung Sai Yat Bo. Edward Chew’sfather—if not Edward Chew himself—would have been in direct communication withthose who lived in the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown. When Oakland’s 100-yearanniversary came around in 1952, Edward W. Chew published a special article in theOakland Tribune recording the history of Oakland’s early Chinese pioneers. Both Chew’s1952 article and Baker’s 1914 history (pages 203-4) recorded the location of the San Pablo

Naruta — 3

Avenue Chinatown. Chew’s article, having preserved important community oral history,has provided important clues allowing current researchers to discover further informationabout the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF OAKLAND’S EARLY CHINATOWNS

Edwawrd W. Chew recorded that by the mid-1860s, “the official’ Chinatown” in Oaklandwas on the east side of Telegraph Avenue between today’s 16th and 17th Streets. (HowardAh-Tye, writing in 1984, notes the Telegraph Ave Chinatown may have extended as farnorth as 18th Street). The USGA Coastal Survey Map of 1857 (Figure 1) shows how thisarea was at the outskirts of town; Oakland City development was clustered further southtowards the waterfront—the City Hall was on Broadway between 2nd and 4th Streets(Tribune February 20, 1934; Chow 1974:116-7)—and, as shown on the 1859 WhitcherMap (Figure 2), Broadway extended no further north than 14th Street.

In 1867 fire destroyed the official Chinatown on Telegraph Avenue. The cause of this fireis unknown, but Chow records city authorities prevented the Chinese residents fromrebuilding. At the same time, a number of City actions signaled the northward shift of thecity’s development. In December of that year, City Hall took up a new location, inShattuck Hall at 8th Street and Broadway (Transcript August 26, 1877). The City alsocontracted to have gas lamps installed along Broadway (Hinkel and McCann 1939:740) andTelegraph Ave (City Council Resolution Number 18, May 1867). Shortly after themysterious fire, the City extended Broadway northward, through the former Chinatown’slocation (City Council Resolution Number 358).

Edward W. Chew records that after the Telegraph Avenue Chinatown burned, cityauthorities assigned the official Chinatown to an area along the east side of San PabloAvenue. Giving reference points that would be understood by his mid-twentieth-centuryreaders, Chew wrote that the Chinatown was on the east side of San Pablo between 19thand 20th Streets, although neither of those streets (or Williams Street in between them)existed at the time of the Chinatown, and Chew’s reference to them cannot be taken as astrict definition of the Chinatown’s boundaries. The surrounding land, as indicated byextant maps, city tax rolls, census records, and city directories, was mostly farmland withsome residences.

Additionally, those researching the early history of this area must be aware that streets inthis area have been renamed multiple times. The sequence is delineated in Table 1 andexplained in the discussion of the area’s road construction sequence.

At the time of the new Chinatown’s development, the official city map was the WhitcherMap of 1859 (Figure 2). The area east of San Pablo Avenue between what would become19th and 20th Streets is adjacent to and immediately southwest of the pond—at today’ssouthwest corner of Telegraph Ave and 20th Street—which on its eastern side linked toLake Merritt. Chew’s history indicates the new official Chinatown would have beenlocated at least on block 283, and may have extended further into blocks 284, 285, or 280.

The names of this area’s post-Spanish and Californio period property owners can bederived from a number of sources. The names are preserved on the 1868 Boardman map(Figure 3) and the 1878 Thompson & West map (Figure 4) and in the city’s tax assessmentrolls. Researchers employing the tax assessment rolls will appreciate that occasionally thecity changed its block numbering system, and the rolls must be used in conjunction withthe official city map for that period. An additional source for researching the early property

Naruta — 4

development is via the original tract maps, which can be identified for a particular areausing the current County Assessor’s maps.

The area immediately east of San Pablo Avenue between 19th and 20th Streets then waspart of Block 283, a parcel owned by an Irish immigrant named Edmund Hogan. Hoganowned the parcel by 1861, if not earlier (1861-2 Tax Assessment Roll, page 100). Recentproperty tax research by Oaklander Kelly Fong supports Chew’s history of the Chinatownmoving to San Pablo Avenue in 1867, revealing that between 1866 and 1869 the value ofimprovements on Hogan’s property more than doubled. Chew’s history is furthersupported by the recent discovery of the 1870 census having recorded that the San PabloAvenue Chinatown supported at least 36 all-Chinese households: cross-referencing thenames listed adjacent to the Chinatown in the census with contemporary city directories, the1868 Boardman map, and tax assessment rolls support identifying 1870 census sheets223B-225A (households 1440-1464) as the enumeration of the Chinatown’s residents.Residents were listed as either “Laborers on R.R.” or “Laborers in Quarry.” All thoserecorded were men, ranging in age from 19 to 50, with most being in their later twentiesthrough their forties.

Further confirmation of Chew’s report of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown comes from an1872 newspaper article, reprinted in Figure 5. On May 9, 1872, the Oakland DailyTranscript reported the residents of “the Chinatown on the San Pablo road” were“‘consigned’ to…new homes on Second Street.” The newspaper article reports on havingviewed their move the day prior, and the 1889 Sanborn fire insurance map confirms theexistence of a Chinatown at the south end of Castro Street that’s also shown in acontemporary sketch (Wong 2004:9). Yet despite this confirmation of a dislocation effort,a newspaper article printed three years later demonstrates at least some residents stayed andcontinued the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown (Tribune, March 13, 1875, also Figure 14).

WHY WERE RESIDENTS OF THE SAN PABLO AVENUE CHINATOWN“CONSIGNED” TO LIVE ELSEWHERE?

It is useful to examine the possible reasons for the residents of the official Chinatown beingconsigned to a new location, a spot at the opposite end of town. Chow’s map of thedistrict’s changing locations (1974:212) shows Oakland’s downtown was movingnorthward. In December of 1867, City Hall’s offices moved northward into a ShattuckHall at 8th and Broadway, and Councilman John A. Hobart introduced a resolution to startplans to construct a new City Hall on a piece of suitable land at a location to be determined(1870 Oakland City Directory, p.29).

Councilman John A. Hobart, also the Council President, owned the land immediately northof Irish immigrant Edmund Hogan’s property. Councilman Hobart was not the onlypowerful landowner neighboring Edmund Hogan. In fact, the list of neighboring propertyowners in the area of San Pablo and Telegraph Ave north of 14th Street (Figure 6) readslike a Who’s Who of early Oakland business and politics: some of the city’s largestproperty owners and real estate developers, a State Representative, the Surveyor of the Cityand County of San Francisco (at the time, the acquisition of a surveyor’s job requiredextensive political connections), the Alameda County Surveyor, speculators in a railroadcompany, and at least two men who had or would serve as City Council President.

In contrast, Edmund Hogan was listed in the Oakland City directories as a gardener (1872,1873), and his son, James, was initially listed in directories as a laborer and later wasidentified as a milkman (Tribune Sept 11, 1883). Edmund Hogan immigrated from Irelandto the U.S. by 1848, according to the testimony of a friend, who prior to himself

Naruta — 5

emigrating was instructed to look for Hogan in Boston (Deposition of Thomas Lynch,December 20, 1887, p. 3). If Edmund Hogan, already singular in an area of otherwiseprestigious property owners, was alone in leasing to the residents of the San Pablo AvenueChinatown, perhaps this explains why the Tribune described him after his death as“eccentric” (Sept 11, 1883, p.3 col 3).

The fruit of Councilman Hobart’s resolution to build a new city hall was the committee in1868 selecting a location just south of Hobart’s property, at the conjunction of San PabloAvenue, Broadway and 14th Street (City Council Resolution No. 52, January 1868).Choosing a more northern site for the new City Hall anticipated a boom in developmentfollowing the establishment in Oakland of the western terminus of the TranscontinentalRailroad, and at the same time turned property along San Pablo Avenue into prime realestate.

J.A. Hobart, just having concluded his term as President of the City Council at the end of1867 (City Council resolutions Nos. 45-47), proceeded to take action to subdivide the landbetween San Pablo and Telegraph Avenues, starting with the area around his ownproperty.

Hobart constructed a fence along his property, and then successfully petitioned the CityCouncil to “open” a street—Hobart Street (what would become 21st Street)—“[b]eginningon the said San Pablo Road upon the lands of John A. Hobart at the corner of the newfence recently erected by him (City Council Resolution No. 214, Oct 26, 1868).” The CityCouncil resolution continued, using the metes-and-bounds method of description to specifyhow the road would be constructed between San Pablo and Telegraph Avenues.

At least some of the new road impacted current residents: the City Council also resolved theCity Marshall would serve a notice to people owning or residing on the affected land, aswell as their immediate neighbors. The City Marshall was to deliver the written message“That all persons owning or occupying the lands embraced in the above description orabutting upon the same,” if they had any objection to their land or their residence beingtaken over to build the new road, must appear before the Council to state in writing theirobjections and any claim to an amount of damages (Resolution No. 214; see also No. 203,159-160). It’s unclear what happened subsequently, as the City Council Resolutions donot record any result of the resolution to create Hobart Street. But it’s recorded CityCouncil followed a similar procedure of posting notice to occupants or owners when arequest was made to create Frederick Street, today’s 19th Street, between San Pablo andTelegraph Avenues, and after no written claims were delivered to the council at thespecified time, the City Marshall was instructed to clear residents from the area, givingthose forced to relinquish their homes or other property $1 compensation (Resolution No.354, May 3, 1869; No. 368, June 7, 1869). As indicated in Table 1, the history of east-west streets constructed near or through the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown, resolutions tocreate today’s 20th Street—then Delger Street—were passed the following year.

The account preserved in the City Council resolutions is intriguing, and raises the questionof the identity of those who owned or lived on the land to be transformed into a publicstreet. That they were to be offered the paltry compensation of one dollar, and the CityMarshall was there to be sure they left, suggests a forcible removal. It’s possible some ofthe early Oaklanders being displaced for the planned streets were residents of the San PabloAvenue Chinatown. This would indicate the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown at the timeextended southward through today’s 19th Street, and even possibly further south into thenext block. This information emphasizes that we cannot adopt as the boundaries of the SanPablo Avenue Chinatown the streets later constructed, today’s 19th and 20th Streets.

Naruta — 6

In 1871 the new City Hall at the conjunction of 14th Street, Broadway, and San PabloAvenue was complete enough to open (Merritt 1928:120; Transcript August 26, 1877). Anearly photo of the new City Hall, Figure 7, shows the front facade, which faced theintersection of 14th and Washington Streets, from a vantage point to the south, onWashington. The area of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown is visible to the left of the CityHall: just beyond a shorter white building with a gabled roof is a windmill which seems tocorrespond to one depicted on the contemporary bird’s eye drawing in Figures 8 and 9. Tothe left of the windmill, the photographer appears to have captured the roofs of theChinatown, although too narrow a focus was used to allow us to see the buildings clearly.We do see that the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown was visible from the new City Hall. Andsoon after the City Hall opened, the Chinatown’s residents were subjected to a dislocationeffort that would seem to have official sanction if not sponsorship, the Oakland DailyTranscript in May 1872 reporting the residents of “the Chinatown on the San Pablo road”were “‘consigned’ to…new homes on Second Street.”

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF THE CHINATOWN: ALLEGATIONS, FACTS, &CONTEXTUAL INFERENCES

Indications of the physical appearance of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown are provided ina contemporary drawing, the Snow & Roos Bird’s Eye view of Oakland in the early 1870s(Figure 8; see also also Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2004:35; Praetzellis 1994:Plate 8; VanBueren 2004: 10). The 1870s bird’s eye view drawing is a very different sort of documentthan the previous building-by-building view of Oakland provided in the USGS CoastalSurvey Map of 1857. While obviously the drawing’s creators had to work to create animage that would be recognized as corresponding to Oakland, the 1870s bird’s eye viewdifferent dramatically from such maps in that this drawing was not created as an accuraterecord of Oakland as it appeared, but as boosters would like it to be presented. We seeevidence of this examining Figure 9, a close up of the portion of the 1870s bird’s eyeshowing the location of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown: The new City Hall is depictedin painstaking detail. But other details are sketchier—to the west, roads cease abruptly, ortrail off, giving indication the plans for subdividing the land north of City Hall had not yetactually been realized. And while Lake Merritt is shown having a western tributarysubstantial enough to require bridge crossings at Webster and Franklin Streets, atBroadway the tributary is drawn as if it just butts up against the road, and there’s noindication of the condition of the pond, shown on all previous maps, at the southwest ofTelegraph Ave and 20th Street, the drawing seemingly indicating some sort of thickvegetation.

Still, checking the 1870s drawing against the city directory, the census, and otherdocuments shows at least a portion of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown seems to bedepicted by at least 14-15 gabled buildings arranged in two parallel rows (Figure 9). So farno pictures of the Chinatown have been found, but the depiction on the 1870s drawingsuggests the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown would have been similar in design to theVentura Chinatown shown in Figure 10. The Ventura photo shows a row of wood plankbuildings of varying heights and widths, with front doors opening onto a woodenboardwalk running the length of the row. At least some of the buildings shared all or partof their adjacent walls, suggesting a degree of cooperative planning in the construction.The Ventura photo also shows how the gabled roof design easily supported a decoratedsecond-story false front, enabling a variety of building facades within a row and facilitatinguses ranging from retail to a full temple or “joss house.”

Surviving historic photos from nearby the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown demonstrate thiswood plank construction was typical for this part of Oakland when the Chinatown was

Naruta — 7

built. Figure 11 reproduces a photo showing the intersection of 13th Street and Broadway,looking towards the northeast. The photo’s dated 1868 or 1869, shortly afterestablishment of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown, and highly visible is the wood plankconstruction of the Oakland Mills. The photo in Figure 12 shows the new City Hall from avantage point to the east, near 13th and Franklin Streets. Although at the time of thisphoto, large houses in the distance and new plantings along San Pablo Avenue indicate theredevelopment of San Pablo Avenue had long been underway, immediately acrossBroadway from the City Hall and within its view are vertical wood plank gabled buildings.And though it was further to the west, at 22nd and Market Streets, the house of prominentwhite Oaklander Colonel John Coffee, was also of analogous construction (Figure 13).

Although the above evidence suggests the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown’s buildings wereof a quality consistent with their contemporaries in the neighborhood and in the wider city,on March 13, 1875 the Oakland Tribune published an attack on the Chinatown as a“nuisance.” The article was framed in terms of the Chinatown residents beingfundamentally different from other Oaklanders, giving such evidence as consumption ofvegetables, “of which” it noted, “the Chinese are particularly fond.” The Tribune (Figure14) also indicated the motivation behind this attack:

We yesterday paid a visit to the Chinese quarters, situated onthe San Pablo road, a few blocks north of the City Hall….This “settlement” is right in the center of a beautiful part ofthe city, and seems like a “plague-spot in the midst of aparadise.” The contiguous property-holders can do nothingwith their land until the removal of the “stink-hole,” andwhile property a few blocks off is rapidly augmenting invalue, that in close proximity is almost valueless. Thereasons are obvious.

The Tribune called for the Board of Health to be the mechanism for clearing away theChinatown to allow redevelopment of the area the new City Hall was making valuable.This is consistent with a pattern seen in other cities. For example, Alameda researcherKevin Frederick (2004) discovered contemporary newspaper articles declaring that theincrease in surrounding property values following construction of a new train depot oughtto spur the city to tear down the Chinatown (Figure 15). With a headline of “A Black Spotin Beautiful Alameda—Property near the New Depot Increasing in Value,” The AlamedaArgus editorialized that removal of the Chinatown at Park Street and Railroad Avenue to be“[t]he next improvement which should be made in Alameda….(October 3, 1895)” It wasthe Board of Health that was used to “suppress the Chinatown” (January 4, 1897), yet theArgus was forthcoming that the reasons for the actions against the residents were not aboutpublic health, but rather about facilitating redevelopment:

Now that the city has a proper and good-looking depot and amagnificent City Hall, these shanties which are in theshadow of both and which occupy one of the mostprominent spots in the city, should no longer be permitted tooffend.…When Lincoln avenue is opened through to the east end,and improved it will become the leading thoroughfare toHigh street, and property in the vicinity of the new depotwill become still more valuable for business purposes.(October 3, 1895)

Naruta — 8

Even San Francisco’s Chinatown faced a similar attempt to eradicate a community underthe guise of the Board of Health needing to stop a nuisance. Legal scholar CharlesMcClain chronicles how the San Francisco Board of Health in February 1880 passed aresolution declaring the Chinatown a nuisance, and days later posted a notice informingChinatown residents they would all be removed from the area thirty days later (1994:86,317; citing San Francisco Chronicle February 24, 1880). The resolution declared “All thepower of the law will be invoked…to empty this great reservoir of moral, social, andphysical pollution, which…threatens to engulf with its filthiness and immorality the fairestportion of our city.” Echoing similar moves in Alameda and Oakland, the San FranciscoExaminer anticipated how removing the Chinatown would open up a desirable area of thecentral city for redevelopment, and even indicated that the health officer had claimed majorcapitalists were standing at the ready (McClain 86, citing Examiner February 24, 1880).(As to the veracity of claims Chinatown was a source of “filthiness” and “pollution,”McClain (317) relays the available statistics in the health officer’s report—printed in theBoard of Supervisors, San Francisco Municipal Reports for the Fiscal Year Ending June30, 1870—“disclose that, if anything, the Chinese were less prone to disease than theirCaucasian counterparts.”)

San Jose’s Chinatown faced similar accusations from city authorities of being a blight, andseems to have encountered illegal measures actions against it: when it burned to the groundin 1887—the fire department’s water tank having been drained beforehand—the San JoseEvening News noted rumors its prominent white property owners had been heavilyincreasing their fire insurance in the preceding two weeks, and reported “There seems to beno doubt that the Chinatown fire was of an incendiary origin” (Yu 2001: 28-30, quotingEvening News May 5, 1887).” The white city fathers’ link between destroying aChinatown and increasing area property values was again asserted in a newspapercommentary on the burning of San Jose’s second Plaza Chinatown:

[W]e have a right to be proud, gentlemen, of the fact…[of]the eradication of Chinatown which for twenty yearsdepreciated the value of the neighboring property.

(San Jose Evening News April 17, 1888; quoted in Baxterand Allen 2002:384)

What becomes clear from a range of documentary evidence is that contemporary whitenewspaper descriptions of the Chinatowns as unsanitary or blighted are inaccurate.Archival and oral history studies are not always able to provide the missing information:few Chinese-language newspapers printed prior to the 1900s are preserved, and we areoften left lacking descriptions of the actual appearance of a historic Chinatown.

Excavations in San Jose have demonstrated archaeology has the potential to provideinformation on the actual design and conditions of a Chinatown. San Jose’s Woolen MillsChinatown, part of the rebuilding effort following the arson of the earlier Chinatown, wasconstructed with a fire hydrant system and gravel streets (Baxter and Allen 390; Allen, etal., 2002: 89-90, 40, 82). Archaeologists discovered that contrary to the stereotypesprevalent in the contemporary English-language media, the sanitary conditions of theChinatown were actually more advanced than those of the city as a whole. Unlike most ofSan Jose, the Woolen Mills Chinatown was constructed with a state-of-the-art sewagesystem (Baxter and Allen 385-6, 390; Allen, et al., 88). In contrast, numerous affluentwhite Oaklanders were at this time still dumping their sewage into Lake Merritt (Bagwell131; Oakland Enquirer May 9, 1888).

Archaeological potentials of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown site are discussed in asubsequent section.

Naruta — 9

REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SAN PABLO AVENUE CHINATOWN

It is unclear whether the Oakland Tribune’s March 1875 attack on the San Pablo Chinatownas a blight impeding redevelopment immediately translated into action against the residents.But redevelopment of San Pablo Avenue was underway by mid-1878, the Oakland DailyTimes reporting on new construction on the west side of San Pablo Avenue between 19thand 20th Streets (July 27, 1878, reproduced in State Historic Resource Inventory form for1901-15 San Pablo Avenue, Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey; see also form for 1917-21San Pablo Avenue).

Dispersal of the majority of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown residents may have occurredat this time. On June 9, 1879, the Oakland Times was decrying that "[w]ithin theCorporate limits of Oakland are several Chinatowns” (all of which they were calling a“nuisance” that should be stopped by “[t]he sanitary authorities”). The “LowerChinatown” at the foot of Castro Street and the Chinatown centered at 9th and WebsterStreets were well established by this time, and the 1880 census records the new “UpperChinatown” was the Charter Avenue Chinatown, located in the Tuttle Tract (see censusschedules in Appendix A; also Chew 1952, Baker 1914:203-4). (The beginnings of theCharter Avenue Chinatown may be indicated in the listing of laborers and independentfarmers enumerated in the 1870 census sheet 239A as neighbors of the Simpsons and thefamily of Irish immigrants John and Bridget Smith. Alternately, it remains possible thesehouseholds may have been part of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown.)

Despite officially-sanctioned relocation efforts, some Chinese Oaklanders remained at ornear the site of the San Pablo Chinatown into the 1880s. The 1880 census recorded agroup of Chinese men running a laundry at 1915 San Pablo Ave, near 19th Street(Appendix A, sheet 99A). The 1880 census recorded whether an individual was literate,and for the Chinese men doing laundry work, the census taker wrote “All read and write intheir own language,” indicating an achievement shared by few of their white European andEuropean-American neighbors. Researcher Kelly Fong (2004) discovered the 1882 WellsFargo Directory of Chinese Business Houses recorded a Chinese laundry operating at theSan Pablo Avenue Chinatown location, on 20th (Delger) Street between San Pablo andTelegraph Ave.

The date of destruction of the buildings of the established San Pablo Avenue Chinatown isso far best indicated by the construction dates of the successor buildings. For example, atleast portions of the Chinatown’s buildings at the southwest corner of San Pablo Avenueand 20th Street would have been undergoing demolition by 1883, when constructioncommenced in 1883 on the Victorian Italianate false-front storefront that stands at 1972 SanPablo Avenue, and in 1889-93 for the Italianate that adjoins it to the south, at 1958-60 SanPablo Avenue (Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey primary records, using current streetaddresses). Any Chinatowns buildings at the site of 1818-24 San Pablo Ave (between19th and 18th Streets) would have been demolished when French-Canadian contractors andbrick-makers the Remillard brothers constructed their commercial building in 1879-80.(OCHS records preserve this information although the building was demolished in 2000.)

To determine end dates for the “official” Chinatown on San Pablo Avenue and effectivelydesign a research plan, the archaeological sensitivity study will need to research theconstruction dates of the Chinatown’s successor buildings, at least some of which aredepicted on the 1889 Sanborn map. Construction dates of the Chinatown’s successorbuildings still standing have already been researched by the Oakland Cultural HeritageSurvey. The archaeological sensitivity study will need to complete further research withthe city’s tax assessment rolls, the county records of property transfers, and the chains-of-title for all parcels within the project area.

Naruta — 10

The archaeological study may be able to illuminate the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown’sresidents’ resistance to dislocation. For example, in addition to Kelly Fong’s research withthe 1882 Wells Fargo Directory of Chinese Business Houses showing a Chinese laundry inthe area of the Chinatown, the 1912 Sanborn map (Volume 1 page 64) provides furtherhints for research, having labeled two buildings as Chinese Garment Factories. One ofthese buildings was located on the south side of 20th Street between San Pablo andTelegraph Ave, and the other, on the east side of San Pablo Ave south of 20th Street, wasnoted as being powered by electricity. Among the further resources not consulted for thisreport are census records beyond 1880, the Alameda county voter rolls, and the NationalArchives indices of Chinese business records and other immigration files.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIALS AND SENSITIVITY STUDY METHODOLOGY

As we’ve seen, primary source records focusing on the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown arescant. While we have enumerations of at least a portion of the residents in the federalcensuses of 1870 and 1880, the main descriptions of the Chinatown come through a fewnegative mentions in English-language newspapers. We’ve also seen how there was astrategy prevalent among some white Californians, who hoped to seize and redevelop aChinatown’s land, to describe the Chinatown as blighted and work to have it eradicated. Inthe case of the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown, English-language newspaper accounts revealpursuit of a similar strategy. The only hints of description these newspapers provide arethat the Chinatown included wood construction, had at least one well, and on one Springday in March of 1875 the area was experiencing soggy ground, a condition with whichmany Oakland homeowners are familiar.

The Bay Area’s Chinese-language newspapers published at this time have not beenpreserved.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that the documentary recordreveals so little about the Chinatown means there would be immense significance to anyarchaeological remains that might allow for characterizing the structure and history ofChinatown, its residents, their lifestyles and livelihoods, and relations between theChinatown residents and their neighbors. To be adequate, the archaeological study should

• determine the geographical extent of the Chinatown• determine what deposits may exist, and determine their uses and interrelationships• characterize the Chinatown’s architecture• characterize outdoor living and work areas, including potential agricultural or

horticultural zones• characterize the properties neighboring the Chinatown, including assessing the

type, condition, and uses of the architecture, who occupied or worked at thepremises, and how they may have related with the residents of the Chinatown andthe larger community

• determine what modifications the residents of the Chinatown or their neighborsmade to the landscape, such as controlling and/or filling in the pond shown in mapsthrough 1868

• determine the sequence of relevant city services in the area, such as municipal waterservice and city sewer development (see West Oakland research in van Bueren2004:120) and the often-related privy and well abandonment dates

Naruta — 11

Additional specification of testing directions significant under CEQA and the correlatedrequired data recovery can be found in the research design for the project at the northeastcorner of 20th and San Pablo Avenue (Praetzellis 2004).

Previous archaeological fieldwork in the project vicinity and in analogous situations revealsgreat potential for very abundant and intact archaeological remains in the Uptown projectarea. An archaeological monitoring project in the immediate vicinity showed intact,significant archaeological deposits existing around and underneath similar historic buildingsand, perhaps surprisingly, even under buildings remodeled or replaced in the 1950s(Busby 1996, compare with Hupman and Chavez 1994).

The area of the former “pond” (Figures 1-3) may also be rich in significant archaeologicalremains. The pond was part of the slough that would eventually be engineered into LakeMerritt. The Chinatown being located at the edge of a slough is a situation that alsooccurred in Sacramento, in the 1850s (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 1997:17-8).Archaeological work on the Sacramento Chinatown revealed the area around the sloughcontained very productive archaeological deposits. In the case of the slough near the SanPablo Avenue Chinatown, archaeological investigators must consider the area that wasformerly the pond as well. It is possible refuse from or physical remains of the Chinatownwere used to fill the pond as the area was redeveloped.

Clearly the archaeological sensitivity will need to evaluate what areas must be tested. Toprepare an adequate sensitivity study and testing plan, the archaeological researchers mustcomplete the necessary documentary research. Pre-testing research methodology hasalready been established for Oakland in the Cypress Freeway Project (Praetzellis 2002) andthe recent study of a Germanic enclave in West Oakland (Van Bueren 2004). (Praetzellisand Solari’s 2004 archaeological sensitivity study of the northeast corner of 20th and SanPablo Avenue, undertaken before the discovery of City Council resolutions relating to theSan Pable Avenue Chinatown area and before investigators were aware of the importanceof the area’s early development, is of limited use as it did not research land uses in recordsprior to 1878 and in some cases, 1889.)

The method employed in Van Bueren’s pre-testing research, as it focuses on recoveringdata concerning Oakland’s very early development, is most relevant to the investigation ofthe San Pablo Avenue Chinatown. The method is demonstrated in the compilation ofresearch for the lot at 1362 Seventh Street (Van Bueren 2004: A-63-66+; see Appendix B).This same range of primary source data must be consulted for the Uptown Project’ssensitivity study for the archaeological mitigations to fulfill CEQA obligations.

Naruta — 12

REFERENCES CITED

Ah-Tye, Howard. (1999) Resourceful Chinese. San Jose: Matai Press.

---------. (1984) “Chinatown’s History, An Intriguing Past.” Chinatown Monthly. June12, 1984. Vol. 1, No. 1. Edited and published by Ron Lai. Courtesy Oakland PublicLibrary Asian Branch, vertical file.

Allen, Rebecca, R. Scott Baxter, Anmarie Medin, Julia G. Costello, and Connie YoungYu. (2002) Excavation of the Woolen Mills Chinatown (CA-SCL-807H), San Jose. 2Volumes. Oakland, CA, Prepared under contract with Jamie Cleland, EDAW, Inc., SanDiego, for California Department of Transportation District 4.

Baker, J. E. (1914) Past and Present of Alameda County, California. Chicago, The S.J.Clarke Company.

Baxter, R. Scott and Rebecca Allen. (2002) “Archaeological Investigations of Life withinthe Woolen Mills Chinatown, San Jose.” The Chinese in America: A History from GoldMountain to the New Millennium. Susie Lan Cassel, Ed. Walnut Creek, CA, AltaMiraPress, pp. 381-398.

Busby, Colin. (1996) Archaeology Services, City Administration Building – ProjectL74021: Final Monitoring Report. Letter dated April 22, 1996, to City of Oakland ProjectManager Jack Young. Basin Research Associates, 1933 Davis Street Suite 210, SanLeandro, California. California Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Centerfile #S-18536.

Chew, Edward W. (1952) "Chinese Residents Proud of 'Men from Oakland' Title."Oakland Tribune. May 13, 1952

Chow, Willard T. (1974) The Reemergence of an Inner City: The Pivot of ChineseSettlement in the East Bay Region of the San Francisco Bay Area. Ph.D. thesis.Geography Department. University of California, Berkeley.

DeWitt, Josephine. (1939) Printed Maps of Alameda County and Its Larger Cities M.A.thesis in Librarianship, University of California, Berkeley.

Fong, Kelly. (2004) “Oakland Chinese Businesses 1882 and 1889.” Manuscript researchreport with maps. In prep for publication on UptownChinatown.org.

Frederick, Kevin. (2004) “Historic Newspaper Clippings about Old Alameda that Relateto 2320 Lincoln Ave.” http://www.geocities.com/lincoln2320/Newspaperclippings.html.Also via http://savegims.com. Viewed June 2004.

Greenwood, Roberta S. (1993) “Old Approaches and New Directions: Implications forFuture Research.” Pp 375-403 in P. Wegars, Hidden Heritage: Historical Archaeology ofthe Overseas Chinese. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc.

Hinkel, Edgar, and William E. McCann, (1939) Oakland 1892-1938: Some Phases of theSocial, Political, and Economic History of Oakland, California, Works ProgressAdministration.

Hupman, Jan M. and David Chavez. (1994) Archaeological Resources Investigation forthe Oakland Administration Building Project, Oakland, California. David Chavez &

Naruta — 13

Associates, P.O. Box 52, Mill Valley, California, 94941. June 1994. Submitted toEnvironmental Science Associates, Inc., 301 Brannan Street, San Francisco, California.California Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center file #S-16863.

Lynch, Thomas deposition made December 20, 1887, p. 3, in probate of the will ofEdmund Hogan, commencing Oct 15, 1883, Case no. 680, Roll #24 Superior Court ofAlameda Country, California, probate department.

Ma, L. Eve Armentrout with Jeong Huei Ma, and edited by Forrest Gok and the OaklandChinese History Research Committee. (1982) The Chinese of Oakland: Unsung Builders.Oakland: Oakland Chinese History Research Committee.

Ma, L. Eve Armentrout (2000) Hometown Chinatown: The History of Oakland's ChineseCommunity. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.

McClain, Charles J. (1994) In Search of Equality : the Chinese struggle againstdiscrimination in nineteenth-century America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Merritt, Frank Clinton. (1928) History of Alameda County, California. Chicago, The S.J.Clarke Company.

Oakland City directories. Archived at the Oakland Public Library’s Oakland HistoryRoom.

City of Oakland Tax Assessor Rolls and Block Books. Archived at the Oakland PublicLibrary’s Oakland History Room.

Oakland City Council Resolutions, Volume 1. Archived at the City Clerk’s office, OaklandCity Hall.

Oakland nineteenth-century newspapers, archived at the Oakland Public Library MainBranch, and at the University of California, Berkeley, Doe Library.

Praetzellis, Adrian (2004) Research Design and Archaeological Testing Plan for theThomas Berkley Square Project, Oakland, California. Review Draft dated April 2004.Rohnert Park, California, Anthropological Studies Center / Sonoma State University.Submitted to Alan Dones, ADCo, 630 Thomas Berkley Way, Oakland, CA 94610.

Praetzellis, Adrian and Elaine-Maryse Solari. (2004) Archaeological Sensitivity StudyPlan for the Thomas Berkley Square Project, Oakland, California. Review Draft datedApril 2004. Rohnert Park, California, Anthropological Studies Center / Sonoma StateUniversity. Submitted to Alan Dones, ADCo, 630 Thomas Berkley Way, Oakland, CA94610.

Praetzellis, Mary, and Adrian Praetzellis, Eds. (2004) Putting the "There" There:Historical Archaeologies of West Oakland, I-880 Cypress Freeway Replacement Project.SHPO Ref # FHWA900927X (ALA-880 PM 31.9/34.8, ALA-80 PM 2.3/4.0; EA 04-190270 in the Cities of Oakland and Emeryville, Alameda Country, California). RohnertPark, California, Anthropological Studies Center / Sonoma State University. Prepared forCalifornia Department of Transportation, Contract 04A0538, Task Order 15.

Praetzellis, Mary, Ed. (2002) Block Technical Reports: Historical Archaeology, I-880Cypress Replacement Project. Multiple Volumes. Rohnert Park, California,Anthropological Studies Center / Sonoma State University.

Naruta — 14

Praetzellis, Mary, and Adrian Praetzellis, Eds. (1997) Historical Archaeology of anOverseas Chinese Community in Sacramento, California. Volume 1: ArchaeologicalExcavations. Rohnert Park, CA, Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma StateUniversity Academic Foundation.

Praetzellis, Mary, Ed. (1994) West Oakland -- A Place to Start From. Volume I: ResearchDesign and Treatment Plan for Historical Archaeology, Cypress I-880 ReconstructionProject, Contract No. 0F841-EP, ALA-80 P.M. 31.9/34.0. Rohnert Park, CA,Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University Academic Foundation.Submitted to California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland.

Quentin. (1997) Quentin's Guide to the Streets of Northern Alameda County includingAlameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont. Draft, with Addendum:Former Names of Oakland's Numbered Streets, May 20, 1997. Compiled by Quentin,Masters of Library Science, for Oakland Heritage Alliance. Copyright by Lawrence W.Rand. On file at the Oakland Public Library, Oakland History Room Reference Desk.

Van Bueren, Thad M., with contributions by Scott Baxter, Anmarie Medin, Linda S.Cummings, Christie A. Hunter, and Kathrun Puseman. (2004) A Germanic Enclave inWest Oakland: Archaeological Investigations for the Mandela Park and Ride RelocationProject in the City of Oakland, California. 04-Ala-880, K.P. 51.6 (P.M. 32.1)--EA 04-4468801. Prepared for Brian Ramos, Chief, Office of Cultural Resource Studies, District4, California Department of Transportation, Oakland.

Wells, Fargo & Co. (1882) 1882 Wells Fargo Directory of Chinese Business Houses(San Francisco: Wells, Fargo & Co.)

Wood, M. W. (1883) History of Alameda County, California : including its geology,topography, soil, and productions : together with a full and particular record of the Spanishgrants : the early history and settlement, compiled from the most authentic sources, thenames of original Spanish and American pioneers, a full political history, comprising atabular statement of officers of the county since its formation : separate histories of each ofthe townships, showing their advancement and progress : also incidents of pioneer life, theraising of the Bear Flag, and prominent citizens and representative men : and of its cities,towns, churches, schools, secret societies, etc. Oakland: M.W.Wood. Facsimilie reprintby Holmes Book Co., Oakland, 1969.

Naruta — 15

AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS

Anna Naruta holds an M.A. in Anthropology with a concentration in Archaeology, and iscurrently completing a Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley. She’s worked inboth research and cultural management compliance settings. Her previous work includes aproject executed as part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA)remediations following the 1993 Mississippi River flood, cultural resources managementexcavations at the Presidio of San Francisco, and multi-year public archaeology researchand interpretation at the mansion and plantation of President Andrew Jackson. She wasfinishing a collections-based historical archaeology project researching the origins ofCalifornia’s Chinese Exclusion movements and the Angel Island Immigration Station whencommunity members told her of a redevelopment project planned for the recorded locationof one of Oakland’s oldest Chinatowns. Talking with various community membersemphasized that today’s Oaklanders care deeply about this cultural heritage, and led to theformation of the UptownChinatown.org coalition, whose website she maintains.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER

Research contributing to this report was supported by numerous individuals and groupsgenerously donating their time. It was also supported in part by the following awards tothe author: National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship, U.S. Department ofEducation Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships, summer study award from theBancroft Library, UC Berkeley Center for Chinese Studies Fellowship, UC BerkeleyAnthropology Department Block Grant, and research material grants from the UC BerkeleyLowie Foundation and the Stahl Endowment.

Any findings, conclusions, opinions, or recommendations herein expressed do notnecessarily reflect the findings or views of any of the above granting organizations.

This report is to aid the formulation of the archaeological sensitivity study and treatmentplan for Forest City’s Uptown Redevelopment project. It does not constitute or substitutefor community review of the sensitivity study and treatment plan.

Figu

re 1

. U.S

.G.S

. Coa

stal

Sur

vey

Map

of

1857

for

Oak

land

, det

ail s

how

ing

Upp

er C

hina

tow

n ar

ea.

(Cou

rtes

y O

akla

nd P

ubli

c L

ibra

ry)

[San Pablo Ave]

[Telegraph Ave]

[Broadway][L

ake

Mer

ritt]

Figure 2. 1859 Whitcher Map detail showing Upper Chinatown area. (Courtesy Oakland Public Library)

[Mar

tinLu

ther

Kin

g,Jr

.W

ay]

[LakeMerritt]

Figure 3. 1868 Boardman Map detail showing Upper Chinatown area. (Courtesy Oakland Public Library, also reproduced in DeWitt 1939:84, Map 103 )

Figure 4. 1878 Thompson and West map: Overlapping details showing UpperChinatown neighborhood. From pages 69 (top), 70 (lower left), and 71 (lower right).

Figure 5. Oakland Transcript coverage of San Pablo Avenue Chinatown, May 9, 1872.(See also Figure 14, Oakland Tribune coverage of March 13, 1875 .)

Figure 6. Upper Chinatown area major property owners named onthe 1868 Boardman map. Listed property owners and their occupation or titleare listed roughly from North to South. The names of additional property ownersare found in Appendix C, pages from the 1880 tax assessor block books, and in theCity’s tax assessor rolls.

Property Owner Occupation or titleW.F. Kelsey Major nurseryman and hotelerCharles Albon Tuttle attorney, California SenatorE.H. Jones (unknown; but he did not reside

on his large tract)J.J. Gardiner Surveyor for the City and County

of San Francisco; real estateinvestor

Capt. P.S. Wilcox State legislature-appointedcommissioner for new laying outof Oakland streets (City CouncilResolutions, May 2, 1870)

John A. Hobart City Council PresidentEdmund W. Hogan, and son,James T. Hogan

Irish immigrant gardener;laborer and milkman

Frederick Delger major real estate investorF.M. Campbell City Council President, state

Republican party figureG.C. Potter Surveyor for the City and County

of San Francisco; real estateinvestor

Below: Detail of 1868 Boardman map shown in Figure 3.

Figu

re 7

. The

14t

h St

reet

fac

ade

of th

e ne

w C

ity H

all,

phot

ogra

phed

fro

m W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

. T

he r

ooft

oops

just

bey

ond

the

whi

tebu

ildin

g le

ft o

f C

ity H

all m

ay b

e pa

rt o

f th

e Sa

n Pa

blo

Ave

nue

Chi

nato

wn.

(C

ourt

esy

Oak

land

Pub

lic

Lib

rary

, Oak

land

His

tory

Roo

m)

Figu

re 8

. Sn

ow a

nd R

oos

Bir

d’s

Eye

Vie

w o

f O

akla

nd, a

dra

win

g m

ade

abou

t 187

0.

(Cou

rtes

y O

akla

nd P

ubli

c L

ibra

ry, O

akla

nd H

isto

ry R

oom

)

Figu

re 9

. D

etai

l of

Snow

and

Roo

s B

ird’

s E

ye V

iew

of

Oak

land

dep

ictin

g Sa

n Pa

blo

Ave

nue

Chi

nato

wn

area

, ca.

187

0.

(Cou

rtes

y O

akla

nd P

ubli

c L

ibra

ry, O

akla

nd H

isto

ry R

oom

)

[Lak

e M

errit

t]

[21s

tSt.]

Figu

re 1

0. V

entu

ra C

hina

tow

n on

Fig

uero

a St

reet

, ca.

189

0. (

from

Gre

enw

ood

1993

:387

, pho

to c

ourt

esy

Ven

tura

Cou

nty

Mus

eum

of H

isto

ry a

nd A

rt)

Figure 11. Intersection of 13th Street and Broadway, looking northeast, 1868-1869.Handwriting on the print notes it “shows Oakland Flour Mills, [which were] destroyedby fire [in] May 1872.” The building in the foreground’s sign for “Stoves, Pumps,Tinware, &c.” is headed by the name J. Dalziel.

(Courtesy Oakland Public Library, Oakland History Room)

Figu

re 1

2. T

he n

ew C

ity H

all f

rom

13t

h an

d Fr

ankl

in S

tree

ts. (

Phot

o lik

ely

date

s to

the

earl

y 18

70s.

)

(Cou

rtes

y O

akla

nd P

ubli

c L

ibra

ry, O

akla

nd H

isto

ry R

oom

)

Figu

re 1

3. T

he r

esid

ence

of

prom

inen

t whi

te O

akla

nder

, Col

onel

Joh

n C

offe

e, a

t 22n

d an

d M

arke

t Str

eets

.Si

de v

iew

. (C

ourt

esy

Oak

land

Pub

lic

Lib

rary

, Oak

land

His

tory

Roo

m)

Figure 14. The Oakland Tribune of March 13, 1875, editorialized againstthe San Pablo Avenue Chinatown. This excerpt indicates someOaklanders were taking part in a strategy to claim an establishedChinatown’s land for redevelopment by declaring the Chinatown a blight.This strategy was also attempted in other California cities, and in SanJose, archaeological excavations demonstrated the nineteenth-centuryclaims that the Chinatown was unsanitary were completely unfounded.

Figure 15. The Alameda DailyArgus of October 5, 1895, like-wise called for the eradicationof the city’s Chinatown tomake way for redevelopmentthat would increase adjacentproperty values. Like theTribune, the Argus editorializedthe Chinatown was “a blackspot.” A later Argus article(January 4, 1897) shows suchlobbying spurred the Board ofHealth to act “to suppress theChinatown nuisance.”

(Argus images and researchfrom Frederick 2004)

...

Tab

le 1

: H

isto

ry o

f E

ast-

Wes

t S

tree

ts C

onst

ruct

ed n

ear

or t

hro

ugh

th

e S

an P

ablo

Ave

nu

e C

hin

atow

n

Cu

rren

t N

ame

(lis

ted

fro

mN

orth

to

Sou

th)

Nam

e at

Str

eet’

sfo

un

din

g

Str

eet

Nam

ein

188

9Sa

nbor

n m

ap

Str

eet

Nam

ein

190

2Sa

nbor

n m

ap

Dat

e C

ity

Cou

nci

lA

pp

rove

s S

tree

t (w

ithre

solu

tion

num

ber)

Con

stru

ctio

nd

ate

give

n in

Que

ntin

’sG

uide

(19

97)

21st

Str

eet

Hob

art S

tree

t21

st o

r H

obar

tSt

reet

Hob

art

Oct

26,

186

8 (R

es. 2

14);

Als

o:O

ct 1

9, 1

868

(Res

. 203

);Se

pt 2

1, 1

868

(Res

185

);A

ugus

t 10,

186

8 (R

es.

159-

160)

1875

20th

Str

eet

Del

ger S

tree

tD

elge

r Str

eet

20th

Str

eet

May

9, 1

870

(Res

. 559

);A

pril

18, 1

870

(Res

. 545

);M

arch

21,

187

0 (R

es. 5

21)

1876

Wil

liam

sS

tree

tW

illia

m S

tree

t19

th o

r Will

iam

Will

iam

[not

sea

rche

d; R

esol

utio

nson

ly c

heck

ed th

roug

h M

ay9,

187

0; R

es. 5

59]

1876

19th

Str

eet

Fred

eric

k St

reet

Polk

or

Fred

eric

k19

th S

tree

tM

ay 3

, 186

9, (

Res

. 354

)[n

ot s

earc

hed]

18th

Str

eet

18th

Str

eet

18th

Str

eet

18th

Str

eet

[not

sea

rche

d][n

ot s

earc

hed]

17th

Str

eet

[17t

h St

reet

]17

th S

tree

t17

th S

tree

t[n

ot s

earc

hed]

[not

sea

rche

d]16

th S

tree

t[1

6th

Stre

et]

16th

Str

eet

16th

Str

eet

[not

sea

rche

d][n

ot s

earc

hed]

Lat

er b

uilt

imm

edia

tely

nor

th o

f H

obar

t Str

eet w

as J

ones

Str

eet,

whi

ch w

as s

how

n on

the

1878

Tho

mps

on a

nd W

est m

ap.

(Jon

es S

tree

tis

toda

y’s

22nd

Str

eet,

and

anot

her

prev

ious

nam

e w

as 2

1st S

tree

t, as

indi

cate

d on

the

Cou

nty

Ass

esso

r’s

Off

ice

map

8: 6

47.)

Imm

edia

tely

nor

th o

f Jo

nes

Stre

et, a

nd b

isec

ting

the

Tut

tle T

ract

, was

Cha

rter

Str

eet,

know

n al

so a

s C

hart

er A

venu

e or

22n

d St

reet

.C

hart

er A

venu

e be

cam

e pa

rt o

f to

day’

s G

rand

Ave

nue

(Cou

nty

Ass

esso

r’s

map

8: 6

60).

Man

y of

the

enum

erat

ed s

tree

ts, b

efor

e ha

ving

been

app

rove

d by

the

City

Cou

ncil

and

cons

truc

ted,

wer

e sk

etch

ed in

to th

e B

oard

man

Map

of

1868

. B

oard

man

’s m

ap w

as a

dopt

ed a

sth

e C

ity’s

off

icia

l map

on

May

17,

186

9 (C

ity C

ounc

il R

esol

utio

n N

umbe

r 36

0), a

nd in

May

of

1870

, City

Cou

ncil

Res

olut

ion

Num

ber

553

repo

rted

P.S

. Wilc

ox h

ad b

een

appo

inte

d by

the

Stat

e L

egis

latu

re a

s on

e of

the

com

mis

sion

ers

auth

oriz

ed to

lay

out O

akla

nd s

tree

ts.

Que

ntin

(19

97:1

39)

note

s W

illia

m S

tree

t was

one

of

thre

e of

thes

e st

reet

s na

med

for

Fre

deri

ck W

illia

m D

elge

r, a

nei

ghbo

r to

the

resi

dent

s of

the

San

Pabl

o A

venu

e C

hina

tow

n.

Appendix AThe “Upper Chinatown” as recorded in the 1870 and 1880 federal census.

A-1:1870 census coverage of the “Upper Chinatown” at San Pablo Avenue (sheets 220B-221A, 223A-225A, 233A, 239A)

Appendix AThe “Upper Chinatown” as recorded in the 1870 and 1880 federal census.

A-2:1880 census coverage of the Charter Avenue Chinatown ( 125D-126B, 127D) and thelaundry run by Chinese men at 19th Street and San Pablo Avenue (99A).

Appendix BEstablished scope required for archaeological sensitivity study, demonstrated inarchaeological sensitivity study compilation of research specific to the lot at 1362Seventh Street (Van Bueren 2004: A-63-66).

Reproduced fromVan Bueren, Thad M., with contributions by Scott Baxter, Anmarie Medin, Linda S.Cummings, Christie A. Hunter, and Kathrun Puseman. (2004) A Germanic Enclave inWest Oakland: Archaeological Investigations for the Mandela Park and Ride RelocationProject in the City of Oakland, California. 04-Ala-880, K .P. 51.6 (P.M. 32.1)--EA 04-4468801. Prepared for Brian Ramos, Chief, Office of Cultural Resource Studies, District4, California Department of Transportation, Oakland.

Appendix CPages from 1880 City of Oakland Tax Assessor Block Book covering the UpperChinatown locations, from north to south: pages 2008-2007, 2005-2003, 2000, 2002,2001, 1999 (north and south halves), 1998 A and B.

Appendix DCity of Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey forms forBuildings on east side of San Pablo Avenue between 20th and Williams Streets,constructed 1883-84 (1972 San Pablo Ave),

1900-02 (1966-68 San Pablo Ave), and 1889-93 (1958-60 San Pablo Ave),.

Building on east side of San Pablo Avenue between 19th and 18th Streets, constructed 1879-80 (demolished June 2000)

Appendix ESanborn Fire Insurance Company maps for San Pablo Avenue Chinatown area foryears 1889, 1902, and 1912

E-1:1889 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps for San Pablo Avenue Chinatown area

Appendix ESanborn Fire Insurance Company maps for San Pablo Avenue Chinatown area foryears 1889, 1902, and 1912

E-2:1902 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps for San Pablo Avenue Chinatown area

Appendix ESanborn Fire Insurance Company maps for San Pablo Avenue Chinatown area foryears 1889, 1902, and 1912

E-3:1912 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps for San Pablo Avenue Chinatown area

Appendix FDetail of pre-1870 map showing San Pablo Avenue area as “Irving’s Reserve.”A handwritten note records this map was filed in 1870, probably in response to the City’srequest for documents pertaining to Oakland, many of which had not been previouslyfiled with the relevant authorities ( City Council Resolutions Volume 1, ResolutionNumber 209, October 19, 1868). This copy is courtesy the Oakland Public Library. TheAlameda County recorder’s office holds another copy of this map, on which TelegraphAvenue is called “Peralta Road.”

App

endi

x F.

Det

ail o

f pr

e-18

70 m

ap s

how

ing

San

Pab

lo A

venu

e ar

ea a

s “I

rvin

g’s

Res

erve

.”A

hand

wri

tten

note

rec

ords

this

map

was

file

d in

187

0, p

roba

bly

in r

espo

nse

to th

e C

ity’s

req

uest

for

doc

umen

ts p

erta

inin

g to

Oak

land

, man

y of

whi

ch h

ad n

ot b

een

prev

ious

ly f

iled

with

the

rele

vant

aut

hori

ties

(Cit

y C

ounc

il R

esol

utio

nsV

olum

e 1,

Res

olut

ion

Num

ber

209,

Oct

ober

19,

186

8).

Thi

s co

py is

cou

rtes

y th

e O

akla

nd P

ublic

Lib

rary

. T

he A

lam

eda

Cou

nty

reco

rder

’s o

ffic

e ho

lds

anot

her

copy

of

this

map

, on

whi

ch T

eleg

raph

Ave

nue

(her

e no

t lab

eled

) is

cal

led

“Per

alta

Roa

d.”

[Lak

eM

errit

t]

[14t

h S

tree

t]

[Broadway]