Chandavkl is unstoppable. He has managed to dine at almost every Chinese restaurant in the San Gabriel Valley over the past 50 years!
17 Likes
I follow him and have for years. Reading that piece I found it revealing that he (a recognized expert on the subject IMHO) refers to it as âREALâ Chinese food. Iâm sensitive to people who are offended by the suggestion that Americanized Chinese food isnât ârealâ, but have to agree with his use of that term. âREALâ is what youâd get if you went to where food originates and hasnât been changed to accommodate other tastes. Itâs not âbadâ itâs just not ârealâ. Thatâs my 2¢.
2 Likes
The only quibble and/or question I have with his article is that he seems to define the SGV as âMonterey Parkâ, given the interesting history of racism and development within Monterey Park. A quick search indicates that the San Gabriel Valley includes the following communities:
If he has managed to conquer the never-expanding universe of Chinese restaurants in Rowland Heights, Diamond Bar, and Walnut, it only adds to my awe of his persistent diligence. Otherwise, it is more reasonable to assume that he refers to SGV as just being Monterey Park, Alhambra, Temple City, etc.
I read his other article about authentic chinese food and definitely appreciate the definition provided by Bryant Ng: âI see Chinese American food as a regional Chinese cuisine where the region is America. Just as mainland regions are shaped by local people, customs, and ingredientsâŚso is Chinese American food. It deserves recognition within the broader Chinese culinary family, distinct yet connected; more gradient than wall, with constant cross-pollination.â
It really helps liberalize that label of authenticity and it is appreciated.
2 Likes
The whole San Gabriel Valley. Part of the story is how the Chinese SGV expanded over the decades. That was covered in detail here. The 40 Year Eastward March of Chinese Food in Los Angeles
12 Likes
I stand in the presence of greatness, thank you for clarifying!
2 Likes
That definition misses the distinction between dishes made to appeal to non-Chinese customers and those that are relatively traditional but adapted to local ingredients.
Any examples present in SoCal that come readily to mind?
The only Chinese restaurants Iâve been to in SoCal are hardcore regional.
Well technically you are in effect making a distinction between the Cantonese based Americanized food from the early 20th century and the non-Cantonese dishes post-1960s immigration law changes, which I actually noted in my own mind. But that really complicates things, so I brushed that aside by saying that once the Cantonese part is determined to be authentic/real, any subsequent changes are part of the evolution of any cuisine (e.g. todayâs Sichuan food compared to 30 years ago).
2 Likes
Actually the main kind of non-Chinese-oriented Chinese-American food Iâm thinking of is a contemporary variation on Cantonese aimed at yuppies, like Ericâs in Noe Valley, SF, or Beckyâs in Rockridge, Oakland.
Call me racist but I prefer a Chinese restaurant where a healthy percentage of the other customers are Chinese.
I remember reading this interesting offshoot a few years back
2 Likes
So yuppies by your definition automatically excludes minorities, or at the very least Chinese people? Also, what is a âhealthy percentageâ?
@Ns1 neat article! Very interested in trying out the restaurants listed.
1 Like
âHealthy percentageâ depends on the location. Pretty much the same rule for Indian, Thai, and Korean restaurants.Over 50% is always good. Everybody but my party is best. None is a bad sign, though not an absolute guarantee that the food will be bad / Americanized.
I donât think Iâve ever seen a Chinese customer at Beckyâs.
There are plenty of Chinese-background yuppies, though I think they tend to have more traditional taste in Chinese food.
You donât have to go all the way to Imperial County. Thereâs Cachanilla Chinese Restaurant in Pomona, which has some Mexicali-style Chinese dishes.
3 Likes
The Wikipedia âeditorsâ have a lot wrong with that list (what a surprise!). Pomona, Claremont and LaVerne are not in the San Gabriel Valley, but the Pomona Valley. Kellogg Hill has always been the dividing line for the SGV, anything east of that is revisionism, much like where the âeastsideâ is in Los Angeles (sorry, couldnât help it 
)
Re: Monterey Park. Chandavkl can speak for himself, but the point was Monterey Park was the first place in the SGV where âauthenticâ Chinese food turned up. Jonathan Gold also stated as much.
3 Likes
Have to agree with this!
1 Like
The article denotes the demarcation of Pomona in the Pomona Valley but also notes that it is considered (by others than yourself, perhaps) to be part of the San Gabriel Valley.
Thank you for the significance of Monterey Park from J. Gold.
3 Likes
I actually went to the link from the Wikipedia article.
What the San Gabriel Valley means in terms of actual governance and geography and what âSGVâ means colloquially and culturally are probably two very different things.
And it probably depends on who you ask. I grew up in Pasadena and would never have considered Pomona or Claremont to be part of the SGV. I just asked a friend who grew up in Claremont if Claremont is part of the SGV, and she responded that it was (but in the passive voice). I have known her for ~25 yrs, and it was news to me that she considered it part of the SGV.
I would wager that it is not âcommonlyâ considered part of the SGV, even if it is technically part of it.
1 Like
Suffice to say, if the actual cities of Pomona and Claremont consider themselves as part of the SGV, thatâs enough for me - maybe youâd prefer the cultural authority, but who would deign to give it or have the consent of the governing body to overrule their own inclusion?
In terms of the borders of the SGV, I grew up in La Canada and was surprised that Diamond Bar was geographically part of the SGV. I know of a few Diamond Bar residents who expressed the same surprise.
In the end, perhaps âcommonlyâ is too great of a descriptor to affix to Pomona and Claremont, in the minds of its citizens. Their governing bodies, however, do consider themselves part of it, even though geographically, the cities clearly are not.
Iâm not really sure why the defining bounds of the SGV seems so important to you or why youâre making veiled personal attacks on others, but your statement has me genuinely scratch my head: how are Pomona and Claremont not geographically in the San Gabriel Valley?