Preserve Tiananmen Memorial Monument at Boston Chinatown Gateway Park

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 秉浩 on March 5, 2010 at 8:15pm

Some members of AOHK attended the public hearing (hearing #2) held at the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association of New England (CCBA) on Feb 25, 2010. This hearing was the second in a planned series of 3 meetings organized by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) for guiding the design and renovation work related to the present Chinatown Gateway Park at the corner of Beach and Hudson Streets. It was a rainy and, literally, stormy evening worthy of putting on record the events observed by this reporter. I apologize for the delay, but I do hope we will all get an idea of how big and how worthy of a fight this will be in the coming weeks to months ahead of us:

After a brief introduction by Kairos Shen, the Chief Planner of BRA, and Jill Ochs Zick, Senior Landscape Architect of BRA, two consultants from Stimson Associates made their presentations summarizing the "community inputs" from the last public hearing of December 17, 2009 (hearing #1). As Glen Valentine, one of the consultants of Stimson Associates, pointed out in his explanation of the design concepts, these "community inputs" played a role guiding the architects in the effort to come up
with the 3 options to be presented to the audience for comments that night. A slide showing a list of "inputs" with numbers signifying the "importance" (of those inputs) was briefly shown. At that point, I requested a clarification of the significance and the process by which these tallies may influence the design. Contrary to the sentiments of the general population and feedbacks we obtained, the slide showed a disproportionate "input" of 13 for "the removal of the Tiananmen Memorial Monument (Monument)" compared to an "input" of merely 3, for "telling the story of Chinatown", and 5, for "the statue of Mary Soo Hoo". These numbers, which had actually been counterintuitive enough to the consultants themselves that it took another colleague of Glenn to point out the mistake in his first explanation -- it turned out that the score was a head count of the "yes voters" present in meeting #1, instead of the ranking of importance as Glenn had initially interpreted. After I had pointed out the potential impact of this misguided tally on the design and development process, which was acknowledged by BRA, I thanked the consultants for keeping an open mind in their design so that the outcome will truly represent the community's vision for the Park. Naturally, it would have been inappropriate for a community park bearing the name of Mary Soo Hoo, which is to be developed with the goal of incorporating the history and culture of the local population, to focus more on the removal of symbols of history & tradition (the Monument) than to establish additional landmarks of significance (in telling the story of Chinatown and Mary Soo Hoo, for instance).

Following 15 minutes of deliberation, the Stimson architects, including the second speaker Tom Lee himself, had wrapped up the basis of their conceptual design, seemingly ready to show the 3 alternative models for feedback from the audience. As the nature of the hearing dictated, no details had been included. At this point, Mr. Ho, apparently representing CCBA, made an extended, bilingual statement, lobbying for "a respect for the residents of Chinatown and the Soo Hoo family" in choosing the design. He also went on to suggest, very emphatically, that those present tonight should defer "the final decision" to "the Chinatown residents" (once again, pointing to the left side of the lobby where an audience of about 20 elderly "Chinese-speaking residents" have been seated way before the hearing began, and this reporter will also note that this is the same group who relied exclusively on one bilingual interpreter to communicate with the architects & BRA personnel). Mr. Ho also pointed out, quite eloquently, that this Park should serve the multiple functions of recreation, education and preservation of a Chinese tradition. Following his line of appealing to the audience, I stood up to express my agreement with his latter remarks myself -- that a park of this nature should indeed preserve the community tradition and educational elements. I also expressed my appreciation of the efforts made by the Stimson architects to achieve that goal. However, I went on to point out that while the recreational and landscaping aspects of the conceptual design have been well explained, it is less obvious how the current designs can encompass the cultural goals of education & perpetuation of a Chinese tradition as they were envisioned by the Stimson architects. I made the request for the architects to clarify a bit more, for example, how they may have, or plan to, express in their design the tradition and dreams of the Chinese population around Boston in the past decades. One does not need to look far from the Gateway Park to seek these educational and traditional elements already in existence, I thought to myself, as the Stimson team begins to fill in the details in the future.


Such comments should have been appropriate in any public hearing, I figured, simply because these were the same comments the Boston Chinese community have been making for decades, within and outside of Chinatown alike. It was therefore a surprise, when I heard the gentleman behind me trying to shut me up before I even finished my last sentence. As I found out later, this "gentleman" was a Mr. Moy, who had obviously changed his position about the status of the Monument since his own endorsement of its erection in 1989. As it stood the evening of the hearing, Mr. Moy was determined to remove the Monument from the Park -- I could not even begin to fathom why, as he has not explained himself in the entire evening of his advocacy for annihilation of this symbol of respect for those fighting for democracy and human rights. He must have also thought that I complimented the architects' work with an intention to challenge his decision that the Monument will be the obstacle to the development of a well-designed community park, for he stated: "I am a friend of Mrs. Soo Hoo, and I am not going to let an idiot who was not even here in the last meeting to stop the development of her park!"

"Sorry sir, but I was asking about the conceptual design and how it can preserve the tradition and educational elements of the Park -- and I believe this to be a public hearing where I can ask questions", I remember myself trying to explain in bewilderment.

And in vain too -- as the agitated remarks coming out of this "gentleman" were both irrelevant and totally disruptive to the discussion. Other participants then got dragged into more arguments for and against the Monument being in the future park. While BRA personnel and the Stimson architects tried to accomplish their goals of getting a consensus/tally about the 3 alternative models, I witnessed multiple attempts made by a few (specifically Mr. Moy, Mr. Ho and a Mr. Yee) to try to force "a majority vote", in order to eliminate the Monument from the design, despite the fact that the purpose of the hearing was not to address those details at this stage, and the very clear fact that a majority of the audience were still puzzled about the conceptual models and needed the next 45 minutes to understand the differences among the 3 options. It was sad to see the process envisioned by BRA to have been disrupted by the commotion of a few, who somehow felt that those of us who joined this second hearing had no right to question what they had considered a done deal based on whatever tally had been orchestrated in hearing #1 -- tally that was neither representative nor even consistent with the intended goals of the design! As to the selection criteria of who were qualified to provide input to BRA, these few "gentlemen" have clearly decided that those of us who may not comply with their wish to vote in favor of removing the Monument must not be allowed to express our sentiments about the significance of the Monument to the Boston Chinese community. To the best of my knowledge, tallying for or against keeping the Monument was NOT on the agenda of BRA in hearing #2.

Let me also register a few other observations during this hearing. While I was absent from hearing #1, I have been keenly aware of the lack of representative channels, on the part of BRA, to publicize these hearings to the Boston Chinese community. BRA personnel, when questioned by myself and Mr. Che, about which Chinese Newspaper the announcements had been posted, were unable to confirm that the most widely circulated World Journal News (WJN) had been given a news release. A reporter for WJN, in fact, was present for the first time during hearing #2, and he confirmed that even he had no knowledge of the first hearing #1. Yet the "tally" for public input of the hearing has now been entered into public records as "community input". I also observed the way tallying was done during hearing #2 by BRA personnel. The extensive need for language interpretation among a Chinese-speaking population has seriously compromised the accuracy, both in terms of judgement and tallying by BRA personnel, about what was going on in the feedback phase of the hearing. More often than not, these "tallying personnel" had no clue whether approval or disapproval had been expressed by the audience. Virtually all remarks from the audience have not been translated -- let's face it, there was only one interpreter who has done his best keeping over 20 Chinese-speaking participants informed, and so how can we expect him to translate the simultaneous and variety of feedbacks from these same participants, accurately enough for registering by BRA personnel who are predominantly English-speaking?

Given these limitations I observed, then, would it be a surprise if these hearings would be, or could have been, manipulated by a few self-proclaimed "community leaders" for their own agenda - political or otherwise? How else could the counter-intuitive results of the "tallying" from hearing #1 be explained? It is not my intention to pass judgement at this stage, but it seems obvious that a few had already made the decision that the Monument must go, and every effort has since been made by them to orchestrate a "voting group" at these hearings with the intention of pressuring BRA into compliance with their wish.

Having reported the above, I would still give credit to Ms Zick who, in the role of conducting a public hearing in the most orderly fashion possible under these circumstances, has rejected the suggestion by some in the audience that the Monument be removed "if determined (that evening) by a majority vote", "by only the residents of Chinatown", "to the exclusion of those were not here in the last meeting". Belligerent remarks like these may have sounded preposterous to most of us, but through translation and the misleading manner in which they were posted during a very disruptive moment of the hearing, by those same "gentlemen" with a self-serving authoritative demeanor, who had obviously attempted to use these occasions to amass "popular votes" for their own agenda, I have no doubt they could have guided most who were present to what they would have called "a majority vote". As Ms Zick had pointed out, BRA cannot remove the Monument, because it has been the mission to preserve and enhance the existing tradition. This reporter would add the notion that removal of a landmark Monument which has been the site of annual memorial services, ceremonial tributes, and quiet places of education for a whole generation of children for the past 2 decades will be tantamount to political extermination of a Bostonian and Chinese tradition. Ms Zick has also pointed out that the decision process does not include a vote, even though a inputs from a valid representation of the community will be considered by BRA. To this remark, this reporter will put emphasis on the phrase "valid representation". Was the tallying in these hearings valid? To what extent has the Boston Chinese community truly been consulted? Despite these very candid and appropriate comments from another participant in attendance, I distinctly heard sneering yells again from the "gentleman" who shouted me down earlier. Not surprisingly, he proclaimed to Dr. Li, who had the nerve to raise these same questions about the future of the Monument: "That stone is done with! It will be gone!" Indeed, in the minds of the likes of Mr. Moy -- it is a done deal, and to hell with freedom of speech, due process and fair representation.

How would you respond to remarks from the likes of Mr. Moy? Will our Monument be gone, along with the hopes, dreams and mournings of those fallen over 20 years ago? Feel free to comment, and I will follow your response with interest. More importantly, I will email those of us who can, and will, take
action along with me. We will gather momentum in response to this development -- AOHK members, it is now time to act!


***************
For those interested in reporting the event, I will upload a few pictures within the next 24 hours. These pictures and the information reported here can be used at your discretion, but must not be quoted as anything other than my personal observations and opinions expressed for the benefit of AOHK members. This report is not intended as an official statement for any organization. Nor was the report written for any newspaper, magazine or news reporting agency. I have by intention left out most details related to the hearing that can be found elsewhere, such as on the official website of the Park, and on BRA's website below:

http://tinyurl.com/mary-soo-hoo-park

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/Planning/PlanningInitsI...

Permalink Reply by 秉浩 on April 3, 2010 at 9:11pm

Following the third and very last public hearing, our members have carefully examined the publicly posted drawings / slides on BRA's website. The specific location and elevation, as well as the surrounding design elements such as trees and overshadowing wires, have not been chosen to our satisfaction.

Therefore, we are now calling for letter, email and phone campaigns from everyone in support of our cause, to the Boston Redevelopment Authority and its contractor, the Stimson architects. We should also consider, seriously, further actions to challenge the details of the relocation.

Here is a proposed letter summarizing our concerns. Feel free to cut and paste to your needs and send to:

Jill Ochs Zick, Senior Landscape Architect of BRA
Boston Redevelopment Authority
City of Boston
Boston, MA

Dear Ms Zick,

I am writing to express my serious concern about the proposed location, and the elevation and surroundings of the important landmark - the stone monument memorializing the historic Tiananmen Massacre of 1989 - as it was outlined on the slides on the BRA website (specifically slides 9, 34 and 36).

Having participated in the last 2 public hearings you superbly conducted, I am fully aware that this "marker" will be relocated as a result of the construction of the Mary SooHoo Park. As a Bostonian, I am in every way supportive of the construction. As I write to express my appreciation for the efforts you and your team have made, I would also summarize my concerns about the selected site and other open elements in the final design. More importantly, I would urge you and your designing team to ensure a conspicuous and dignified stature for the Tiananmen Memorial Monument (TMM). This symbolic piece of stone deserves a place of honor in the new park, and future visitors to the park deserve to enjoy the cultural tradition and dreams among Chinese Americans of the neighborhood. While a number of us feel that the representation and tallying at the first hearing has been misguided, we appreciate your efforts in subsequent clarifications. With a better understanding of the significance of this landmark symbol, and due diligence in the final design of a solid and conspicuous foundation for its future stand, I hope your team will fulfill the promised goals as publicly stated in the hearings. However, the proposed relocation as shown on your website will NOT meet the expectations of a significant group of passionate and concerned Bostonians like myself.

As you know, this monument was established shortly after the tragic killing of students and citizens of Beijing on June 4, 1989 by the Chinese military, in the Chinese Communist Party’s attempt to stop the tide of escalating demands for a democratic government in China. Every year since 1989, countless Boston citizens have come together to pay respect to those fallen heroes at different times, but most regularly on the eve of the anniversary of this tragic event, when like-minded citizens like myself would bring flowers and candles to this monument and observe a moment of silence. My personal friends and visitors from those parts of the world, where fundamental rights, justice and a democratic system of governance have yet to be won, also found inspiration and consolation from this relevant landmark in a minority neighborhood of Boston.

{suggestions for improvement over the current design} (see list on next page)

For the small space this monument has taken up in our neighborhood, the room it has occupied in the hearts of the people of Boston can be fairly described as immense and definitely everlasting. We Bostonians should feel proud to continue to host, in a corner of our beloved city, such a monumental symbol of our sentiment during some of the darkest moments in the history of mankind. I would also feel that it is symbolic of the noble intentions of Ms Mary Soo Hoo, who has undoubtedly spent her life time working for the rights of the common people of Chinatown.

As a friend of mine has also pointed out, this is probably the first monument ever, in the history of Massachusetts, that was erected to commemorate any tragic event of their ancestral origin among ethnic Chinese. It is of special significance to many Americans of Chinese descent, and certainly the overwhelming number of Bostonians who had supported its establishment in 1989. We feel strongly that this symbolic monument be granted a stand with visibility, pride and dignity in the future park by your designing team. I would be glad to be of assistance if you, your office or your commissioned contractors need any further input from me.

signed


name
phone numbers

{your suggestions for the architects may include:

1. The proposed location of the marker may be appropriate for small clusters of 2 to 3 visitors, but can be improved if more standing room can be allocated to its front, so that entourages of more visitors can simultaneously see it without feeling crowded or elbowed too closely onto the edge of a busy surface artery to the north of the park

2. At its current elevation, the inscriptions on the marker can be hard to read, especially if a typical group of visitors of 20 to 25 cannot all be standing close enough to the monument. I would suggest placing the monument on a mound so that the inscriptions are at least on an eye level, allowing visitors in the back rows a better line of view.

3. While we understand that BRA is not empowered to make any modifications or enhancement to the marker, we do feel that provision of a more elevated stand for this monument is synergistic with your stated goals of the design (recreational, traditional and educational): stone monument with calligraphic inscriptions, standing above surrounding flora & fauna, has always been an essential visual element of Chinese gardens, and the visibility of timeless & inspirational inscriptions has also been a key educational element within Chinese courtyards, including some of the best known gardens of the noble and academic classes.

4. The arbor, and associated vines to be grown, may overshadow the circulation areas around the monument. There is also the additional concern whether birds can be effectively discouraged from perching, and thus leaving unsightly droppings in the vicinity of the monument. I would strongly suggest cutting back on the arbor to leave an open air space within 20 ft radius of the monument.

5. The concept of carving on the vent tower a timeline of Mary SooHoo is an excellent one. It will put an appropriate emphasis on the civic contributions by Mrs. SooHoo in the history of Chinatown. For your reference, we do want to highlight the fact that the historic event symbolized by this monument, which happened in 1989, was also a landmark event in the Boston Chinatown community. The newspaper Sampan, founded by Mrs. SooHoo herself, had pages of reporting on the response of the Boston Chinese community back then, and Mrs. SooHoo has been supportive in the establishment of this monument. Therefore, we feel that her timeline should highlight that historic moment of June 4, 1989, or an essential accomplishment of Mary SooHoo will be amiss.

6. While I greatly appreciate the wrappings of Chinese paintings around the vent tower, I would suggest that the choice of Hsu Tao's creation for all four faces of the structure may have placed a disproportionate emphasis on the landscaping and leisure elements, possibly at the expense of the traditional Chinese values on education and philosophical aspirations. I would point out that on this, intentionally more civic-spirited side of the park, visitors would be seeing the prominent display, on the existing Chinatown gateway, of the famous Confucian quote "Lands under the sun belong to the people" from 3 millennia ago. For the decoration on this side of the tower, therefore, I would challenge you and the Chinatown community (i.e. ourselves) to come up with a painting with equivalent stature, ideals and aesthetics to fully integrate with the millennia-old aspiration of the Chinese people for a democratic, just and egalitarian world.

.....}