In practice, places have been loosely defined to encompass neighborhoods, community attributes, and social affiliations (Black, 2008; Johansson et al., 2013; Means & Evans, 2012). Such use of the “place” incorporates several interrelated dimensions, which typically include a physical dimension as one’s home or neighborhood, a social dimension concerning the relationships and connection with people, a psychological and emotional dimension involving a sense of belonging and attachment, as well as a cultural dimension relating to people’s value, ethnicity, and symbolic meanings (Lecovich, 2014). AIP and environmental gerontology studies have focused on the functional, symbolic, as well as emotional attachments and meanings of homes, neighborhoods, and communities for older adults (Johansson et al., 2013; Lecovich, 2014; Wiles et al., 2012). Indeed, the utmost value of AIP rests on the fact that people would want to remain autonomous, active, and independent as possible surrounded by their family and friends as they age (Farber et al., 2011); thus the place’s characteristics, such as the resources, vitality, and emotional attachment, are essential to the older adult population (Cook et al., 2007; Wiles et al., 2012).

Older immigrants have experienced moving in and out of places as a result of migration. Literature suggests that immigrants may go through the physical and emotional experience of aging in a foreign environment with different sociocultural backgrounds (Sadarangani & Jun, 2015). Immigrants’ experiences of “place” may occur at multiple levels, from home to neighborhood and even at the national level, and the “place” could carry older immigrants’ sense of attachment, independence, and person-in-environment adaptation (Rosenwohl-Mack et al., 2020). For better age, older immigrants would be situated in places that are sources of meaning (e.g., immigrant enclave) and a locus of social activity (e.g., immigrant temple and church), and their places could also be an extension of themselves through connections with family members and immigrant community organizations (Becker, 2003; Hwang, 2008; Lai et al., 2019). Meanwhile, study also recognized the “placemaking” process among people who find themselves between places—rather than finding a meaningful place, immigrants transform the physical spaces into relevant and valid places (Johansson et al., 2013). The proactive “placemaking” is valuable as immigrants also incorporate ethnicity and cultural expressions through their everyday practices (Johansson et al., 2013).

For Chinese immigrants, Chinatown has been a residential neighborhood, a place providing many of its residents with access to shopping, restaurants, transportation, foods, as well as jobs and opportunities for economic activities. The use of ethnic enclaves (Lim et al., 2017) to portray Chinatowns has become a popular understanding of the Chinese immigrant community (Zhou, 2010). Historically, Chinatowns were the place for newly arrived Chinese immigrants for affordable housing, jobs, ethnic products and community support; Chinatowns had also served as buffers to anti-Chinese racism and hostile environments (Zhang, 2013). In recent decades, Chinatowns across the U.S. have experienced urban transformation, including the rapid growth of ethnic urban tourism. While various social-economic and political forces have envisioned Chinatown as an ethnic space differently, the neighborhood has evolved mostly with a bifurcated pattern, simultaneously being gentrified and remaining as Chinese enclaves and gateways for working-class immigrants (Acolin & Vitiello, 2018; Hom, 2020; McKee, 2016; Santos & Yan, 2008), as well as heritage sites and organizing points to be preserved (Zhang, 2013). Significantly, scholars also noted the rise of newer Chinatowns, not at the traditional downtown location but in the suburbs, as a result of increasing globalization and the arrival of a large number of middle-class and educated Chinese immigrants with capital and resources (Ang, 2020). Chinatowns and Chinese communities in the U.S. have demonstrated decentralized, differentiated, and multi-ethnic characteristics in the context of globalization and transnationalism (Yu, 2020).

Traditionally, Chinatowns were perceived as transitional spaces; resources in Chinatowns such as employment agencies helped new immigrants, often in their working age, ease the initial settlement process and ultimately supported immigrants’ integration into the larger American society—moving out of Chinatowns and moving up (Chen, 2018; Liang et al., 2018). For newly arrived older adults, most of them migrated to the U.S. not for the economic opportunity and a better life as their younger cohorts, but often migrated in assisting their adult children’s needs of work and family life, conceptualized as serial migration, thus living in extended-family households (Treas, 2008; Zhou, 2012); these older immigrants scatter throughout the city but go to Chinatowns, old and/or new, for shopping and gathering. Despite that older immigrants might not necessarily need to live in Chinatown neighborhoods to work out the challenges concerning their aging and care, recent literature indicates that the age structure of the Asian population in Chinatowns was characterized by the high share of older adults (Xie & Batunova, 2020), and monolingual long-term Chinese older residents claimed Chinatown as home (Hsu, 2014). The older immigrant population is still highly relevant with immigrant enclaves due to their decreased possibility of language acquisition and cultural integration into the broader society (Zhou, 2010).

The concept of AIP has been criticized for not being studied adequately and not having sufficient understanding in the context of immigration in late life (Johansson et al., 2013; Rosenwohl-Mack et al., 2020). Immigration itself leads to a complex process of reconnection with the new place, given that it can include dealing with different customs and languages, altered beliefs regarding aging and the roles of older people in society, changed access to welfare and social resources, transnational relationships, and new forms of mixed or transnational identities (Bozic, 2006; Johansson et al., 2013; Lewis, 2009); immigration processes have changed the aging experiences in terms of place and/or space. Studies have shown that older immigrants who were “aging out of place” have transformed aging from a traditional life stage “in place” into a complex transnational process infused with new learning, insecurity, and separation; some integrated their past experiences of sense of place in their native country with their present experiences of home in the new country (Curtin et al., 2017; Zhou, 2012). While aging in place, the home environment is highly valued for older immigrants, however, potentially threatened by changes to their family relationships due to intergenerational care and living arrangement (Zhou, 2012). It is also noted that undesired isolation and lack of connectedness, due to immigration-related loss in social relationships, changes in daily routines and lifestyles, and left behind personal possessions, were significant among older immigrants (Johansson et al., 2013; Lai et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018), which challenged the fundamental value and applicability of AIP among older immigrants. For the older adults living in the immigrant enclave, their understanding and experience of AIP is ambiguous and might differ from the major ethnicity groups. So, the study asked: Are Chinatowns really the place for Chinese immigrants to age?

The ecological theory of aging offers a framework that takes into account various types of personal competence and characteristics of the physical environment, including housing, neighborhood conditions, and public transport (Lawton & Nahemow, 1973; Wahl et al., 2012), and successful AIP emphasizes the interaction between these personal competencies and environmental conditions (Lawton & Nahemow, 1973), that is, the mutual relationships and reciprocity occur between the older individual and their residential environment in which they live, work, and socialize (Lawton, 1983). Ethnic enclaves constitute an important aspect of immigrants’ AIP, enabling them to simultaneously remain connected to the places left behind and yet appropriating and forging significant new place ties. The architectural environment, and social, commercial, and ritual activities, all contribute to immigrants’ interactions with the “place” (Mazumdar et al., 2000). Indeed, the concept of “place” often refers to the “place integration”, which involves the idea that the geographical neighborhood undergoes constant changes due to the sociocultural process (Cutchin, 2003). People who are experiencing “aging in place” would engage in significant adaptations such as housing, cognition, social behavior, relationships with significant others, community, institutions to accommodate their new needs in aging and new “place” (Rosenwohl-Mack et al., 2020). The existence of ethnic enclaves is complicated, and both advantages and disadvantages are apparent to older immigrants. Aging in Chinatowns allows immigrants to maintain close ties with their home country, access available social networks, and obtain relevant information, essential advice and instrumental supports, which are particularly important for older adults and those physically or linguistically less mobile people (Forrest & Kearns, 2001; Gray, 2009; Luo, 2016). Nevertheless, the older individuals living in enclaves might be confined to the ethnic community with extensive reliance on the residential community and senior centers for overcoming the language barrier, thus encountering higher rates of health disparities, racial stigmatization, social isolation (Chau & Lai, 2011; Li et al., 2018; Osypuk et al., 2009). Aging in enclaves may increase the older people’s social exclusion from the outside community and hinder their inclusion within the mainstream age-friendly initiatives as well (Herman et al., 2021). So, this study asked: Do older Chinese fare well in Chinatowns?