「中國城」（Chinatown），這個形容海外華人聚集地的名詞被廣泛使用，並且根深蒂固地在西方歷史和文化的思維中，存有著既定，無法改變的刻板印象。針對二十世紀初倫敦早期的中國城萊姆豪斯（Limehouse）的形成與設計，本論文使用物質文明和物體分析的研究方法，將重新詮釋當時的中國城僅僅是兩個商業街道（Pennyfields and Causeway Street）而非所謂的中國「城」，這樣名不副實的稱謂。通過對語言的涵義討論，及商業街的「世界都會」流動屬性考量，即是無所不在；相較於當時舊金山的中國城，倫敦「中國城」更是明顯缺乏中國建築和特點，又是無處可循。倫敦萊姆豪斯「中國城」呈現出對「他者」文化的圖像想像勝於真實景象，本文探討為何此地長久以來被稱為「中國城」的因與果與其關係。由當地的報紙，倫敦塔橋地方歷史圖書館的建築和街道照片檔案，以及現存於倫敦政治經濟學院，由社會科學家查爾斯布斯在1900年所繪製的倫敦地圖手稿等舉證。探討這些對倫敦「中國城」無所不在，無處可循的屬性；挑戰「中國城」長久以來的刻板分類，及其根植於現代化，全球化移民運動中，華人聚集地的想像與設計。本研究期能有助於二十世紀初中國與西方設計的歷史課題，以及社會文化研究論壇的跨文化比較。

The widespread use of the term ＂Chinatown＂ lies at the root of an unchallenged stereotype within Western historical and cultural thinking. By using a material culture and object-based analysis approach, a new interpretation of the area will emerge that affirms the use of the term ＂Chinastreet＂ rather than ＂Chinatown＂. Evidence will be drawn from a range of sources including local newspapers, Chinese texts, architectural and street photographs in the Tower Hamlets Local History Library taken between 1900 and 1930, and the notebooks of social scientist Charles Booth composed during his London map project (ca. 1900) now in the London School of Economics archive. This material will demonstrate how Chinatown became an imaginary manifestation that was applied to the Limehouse area, at this time comprised of two streets, Pennyfields and Causeway Street. In summary, this paper places London's Chinatown within a social history with a consideration of environmental design factors that contribute to the argument that ＂Chinatown was misnomer＂. I argue that London Limehouse Chinatown was a commercial site that was both nowhere and everywhere; it functioned as a designation of ＂China＂ and ＂Chineseness＂ to Britons in a manner that deeply engaged with the sphere of global and cosmopolitan experiences both for the British and for overseas Chinese audiences.