July 11, 2008 by Chinatown Blogger.

Update 7-14-08: The flyer has the incorrect weekday of Thursday. The date is still 7-23 but is on a Wednesday.

Public Meeting on proposed Boston Arts Academy School for Parcel 12
Date: July 23, 2008
Time: 6:30pm
Where: Josiah Quincy School Cafeteria

Posted in CHINATOWN CALENDAR | Print | No Comments »

July 7, 2008 by Chinatown Blogger.

http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2008/07/06/moving_in_moving_out/

The Boston Globe published an article about Chinatown, “Moving in, moving out” on July 6, 2008 by Victoria Cheng. Overall, the article touches on a really good topic but like most newspaper stories, the article leaves the reader asking more questions.

Boston Globe Excerpt:
Karen Chen, a paralegal with Greater Boston Legal Services, worked with a number of families that were priced out of their apartments above the Chau Chow City Restaurant on Essex Street after the Hamilton Co. bought the building in 2003… “The units used to have families and newer immigrants who paid between $700 and $900 in rent,” she said. “After Hamilton bought the building, rent went up to between $1,500 and $2,000.” The legal services group and the families were unable to negotiate lower rents, Chen said… Facing the higher rents, many residents prefer to move out as quickly as possible. One woman Chen contacted about being displaced from the Essex Street housing units expressed reluctance to tell her story publicly. “She felt that it’s over, she’s in public housing now, even though it’s not in Chinatown, and there’s nothing she can do about it,” Chen said.

The Chinatown Blogger has been researching Census data from 1990 to 2000 and the trend will support this argument — that Chinatown is seeing a decline in the percentage of Chinatown residents of Asian-descent from about 90% in 1990 to about 80% in 2000, a 10% loss per decade. If the trend continues, in the next Census 2010 we will most likely see residents of Asian-descent constitute only 60-70% range, and even possibly in the 50% range.

There are several reasons for the decline: 1) As Karen Chen pointed out in the Globe article, non-subsidized housing units in Chinatown are pricing out the working-class; 2) New construction of luxury housing since 2000 have added about 50% to Chinatown’s existing housing stock and bringing in more diverse residents economically and racially; 3) A smaller reason for the decline in Asian population is the high number of renters in the community (homeownership in Chinatown is less than 10%) and renters are more likely to move than homeowners.  

Boston Globe Excerpt:
“I think the fear that a lot of activists have is that Chinatown in Boston will become like Chinatown in D.C.,” said Chinese Progressive Association member Amy Leung… “There’s a fear it will become a playground for yuppies, with just Chinese restaurants but no Chinese residents with the culture and the fabric of the community.”

After reading the Globe article, the Blogger was left with more questions. The article is flawed because the writer has a certain perspective on the development issue. What the Globe writer didn’t do was include interviews of proponents of luxury developments and the “yuppies” that do move into Chinatown.

As the Blogger has learned over the years, Chinatown does not have a monotonous voice when it comes to development — issues cannot be seen as either black or white. For every person that is trying to stop gentrification, there is someone else who is advocating for gentrifying Chinatown.. and both sides have valid arguments.

The Chinatown Blogger’s opinion?

The facts are: historically, Chinatown has always been a home to many different groups. Before the Chinese, there were Irish, Italian and Syrians (some still remaining). New residents of different racial and economic strata are moving into Chinatown now and will continue to do so in the future. Let’s figure out a way to incorporate the new residents (whether they are yuppies or not and the Blogger doesn’t really care because a person should not be judged solely by economic status) to build a more livable Chinatown.

What are your thoughts?

Posted in WORD ON THE STREET | Print | 2 Comments »

July 3, 2008 by Chinatown Blogger.

Photo collage of the former Chinatown Unity Community Mural. Clockwise from top left: 1) Original site of mural on 38 Oak Street. 2) Parking lot at corner of Nassau St. and Ash St. 3) Demolition to begin on 38 Oak St. building. The site was replaced by the 23-story Metropolitan tower. 4) The remains of the Unity Mural. Some community members went to collected bricks to commemorate the mural. (Photographer unknown, photo taken around 2002.)

UPDATED 7-10-08: Made some minor edits

This is a shorter version of the history of the Chinatown Community Mural (or sometimes called the Unity Mural). The mural was painted on the side of a 3-story brick row house on 38 Oak Street and faced Harrison Avenue. Many years ago when the Chinatown Blogger was at UMass Boston and took a course on Asian American Communities, the professor led the class on a tour of Chinatown. During the tour we were led to Ping On Alley (where the first group of Chinese to Boston stayed) and the site of where the Community Mural stood. With 30 students huddled around the professor, he began to describe the symbolism and importance of the mural . That professor, Peter Kiang, is now Director of Asian American Studies at UMass Boston. Later on, as the Chinatown Blogger gave his own Chinatown tours to other student groups, the Blogger would always bring the group to see the mural — and recount the same story that he once heard from Professor Kiang. This blog will recount the history of the mural, recap the same story the Blogger once heard and describe what happened to the mural.

Who Painted the Mural?
The mural was designed and painted by Cambridge artist Wen-ti Tsen and David Fichter with assistance from Annie Chin, Arlene Chung, Valerie Jayne and members of the community in 1986. The Project Director was Eileen Hansen, who at the time, was the Executive Director of the Quincy School Community Council (which later became Boston Chinatown Neighborhood Center.)

Why Was the Mural Painted on the Site?
The Chinatown Community Plan of 1990 wrote: “Over the years, the Chinatown neighborhood, which more than tripled in population from 1950 to 1987, lost more than half its land to roads, highways, and medical institutions… In 1985, a key event for the neighborhood occurred. This was the creation of the Chinatown-South Cove Neighborhood Council… as a vehicle for encouraging grass roots involvement in city planning and development. Shortly, thereafter, the disparate forces of neighborhood growth and institutional development collided over a proposal to build a 850-car garage for institutional use on a Chinatown site.” (Chinatown Community Plan: A Plan to Manage Growth, 1990)

The “institution” mentioned in the Chinatown Community Plan of 1990 were New England Medical Center (aka Tufts Medical Center) and Tufts University. The site for the proposed 850-car garage was 38 Oak Street or what became known as Parcel C. Having already lost half the community’s land to urban renewal and institutional expansion, Chinatown rejected the garage plan. The Boston Redevelopment Authority agreed with the community and designated the Quincy School Community Council (QSCC) as the re-developer of the land in 1988.

New England Medical Center and Tufts University disagreed with the decision and challenged the designation in court. During this process to save the site from being turned into a 850-car garage, the Chinatown community and QSCC came up with the idea of painting the mural on the building to “claim” community ownership of the site. QSCC director Eileen Hansen was instrumental in raising funds and launching the project. Discussion took place on what images should be included in the mural. (Phone interview by Chinatown Blogger with artist Wen-ti Tsen, 1998)

What Happened to the Mural?
New England Medical Center and Tufts University eventually settled with the City. As part of the settlement and dropping the case against the City, New England Medical Center was allowed to purchase 2 adjacent parcels on Washington Street which were later developed. For Chinatown, QSCC received the 38 Oak Street building to run their child-care services and a playground. In addition, the City agreed to reserve Parcel C for future community use. (Leong, Andrew. The Struggle Over Parcel C. Institute for Asian American Studies, Sept. 1997)

However, New England Medical Center did not give up on taking Parcel C to develop their garage. In 1993, the hospital proposed to the City and the BRA to build a garage again. This time around, the cash-strapped BRA supported the hospital’s proposal, which included an offer to build a 10,000 square feet community center and to pay $1.8 million to Chinatown in exchange for the development rights to Parcel C. Some in the community accepted the offer while others felt that the offer was not enough to compensate for the land. What ensued was a long struggle by some community members to save Parcel C and to request the City and BRA to abide by their previous decision to preserve Parcel C for community use. Eventually, New England Medical Center’s withdrew their proposal, but the struggle left many bitter feelings between community members (those who were for or against the garage), the community and the BRA, and the community and the institutions. (Note: Lingering differences would later play out again in future developments proposed by the City/BRA in the next decade.)

In 1998, the BRA convened an advisory committee to develop the Parcel C site. A community non-profit entity, Asian CDC and a for-profit developer, E.A. Fish and Associates were designated as the co-developers. (Chinatown Master Plan 2000). This partnership produced the Metropolitan, a 23-story mixed-use (residential and commercial) and mixed-income project, with 46% of the residential units being classified as affordable and low-income. In addition to providing much needed new housing to the neighborhood, the Metropolitan also created valuable space for 4 community agencies to conduct youth programs, child care, adult ESL classes, and worker trainings. The Metropolitan was only made possible as a result of 20 years of struggle by community members to save Parcel C from being taken by Tufts and New England Medical Center to build a garage.

23-story Metropolitan on site of the former Parcel C.

The Unity Mural was demolished to make way for the Metropolitan. When the mural was tore down, a significant piece of the community’s history was lost. To commemorate mural’s history, the Boston Chinatown Neighborhood Center (former the QSCC) recreated a replica model of the mural in their visitor’s lobby on 38 Ash Street.

Replica of the original mural in the lobby of BCNC on 38 Ash Street.

Coming Next Part 2: Explaining the Symbolism of the Mural Images

Posted in WORD ON THE STREET | Print | No Comments »

July 1, 2008 by Chinatown Blogger.

Lead researcher Christine Ash (left) and Tufts University Medical School Professor Doug Brugge (right).

Updated: 7/3/08 (Added more observations)

Tufts University’s Civil and Environmental Engineering in collaboration with Tufts University Medical School, Mystic View Task Force, Aerodyne Research, Inc., and Montana State University of Chemistry and Biochemistry presented their report today titled “Spatial and temporal distribution of ultrafine particulate matter and other air pollutants throughout the morning near a major highway.” This report is relevant to Chinatown because 2 major highways (I-93 and I-90) border the neighborhood. Tufts University recently received a grant to conduct furhter studies of highway pollutants on Chinatown and Somerville.

Ash introduced how adverse health effects linked to automobile exhaust pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides can lead to reduced lung function, asthma and cardiovascular disease. Populations living near the vicinity of major highways may be at risk to high levels of pollutants. The purpose of the study was to: “determine the extent to which UFP and gaseous pollutant gradients vary in space and time near a major highway.”

The study measured ultrafine particulate matter (UFP), total particle number concentration, carbon monoxide, carbone dioxide, nitrous oxides, ozone and aromatic hydrocarbons. The study area was the Ten Hills neighborhood in Somerville, MA near I-93. Ten Hills is a densely settled residential neighborhood and approximately 25m to 400m away from the highway.

The researchers drove a mobile air monitoring laboratory van outfitted with equipment to measure wind, temperature, and pollutants. The study was conducted on January 16 between the hours of 6AM-11AM with the van being driven on the side streets adjacent to the highway. Test results were influenced by distance (spatial) from the highway, time of day, temperature and wind direction.

Without giving the whole report away, the study concluded that pollutant levels were highly affected by wind and temperature changes. Proximity to the highways generally resulted in higher concentrations of UFP and pollutants. The significance of this report was summarized by Ms. Ash: “One of the first study on automobile exhaust pollution gradients in the Northeastern United States…. with detailed measurements of changes in pollutants levels throughout the morning… and detailed measurements of changs in pollutant levels on relatively small spatial scale.” Previous reports highway pollutants were based on West Coast findings.

Audience members asked questions and some praised the report. A Tufts University faculty member questioned the results on why during the hours of 6AM-7AM (pre-peak rush hour) there were higher concentration of pollutants as opposed to the hours of 8AM-9AM and wondered if this may be due to higher number of diesel trucks during those times? Other questions included such as if the tests were done during the summer months as opposed to winter (Jan. 16), would the test results be the same or different?

One problematic conclusion the research reported was that the volume of vehicles was not a major factor in the amount of pollutants present and claimed that wind and temperature were bigger factors. Audience members questioned the data collection process for counting vehicles and if the methodology was flawed. The Chinatown Blogger pointed out the absurdity of the claim that the volume of vehicles had no significant impact on the amount of pollutants. A developed building a hypothetical 1,000 car-garage in the future can point to the report and say: “A 1,000 car garage will not generate more pollution because pollution is largely affected by wind and temperature…”

A follow-up conversation with Professor Brugge clarified the question: that due to the limited scope of the research which only covered from 6AM-11AM, measuring changes in the volume of vehicles in a major highway from say 7,000 per hour to 8,000 per hour will not yield significant differences. Whereas if the study had compared to 500 vehicles vs. 8,000 vehicles this would show significant changes.

Posted in WORD ON THE STREET | Print | No Comments »

July 1, 2008 by Chinatown Blogger.

(Boston Globe. Photograph by Tim Llewellyn)

The Boston Globe Sunday Magazine published an article on the Boston Redevelopment Authority’s Chief Planner, Kairos Shen, who also happens to be a Chinatown resident. The Globe reports on Shen’s immigrant background, his career at the BRA, and insights on dealing with the City’s development.

The Shaper of Things to Come, Boston Globe Sunday Magazine Article

Posted in WORD ON THE STREET | Print | No Comments »