Girders for Potters Fields Park

Does this work?

Mmm, seems like it does. How odd. Well, got to give it to him for trying

And in case anyone was wondering what the above ramble was about from me, someone had changed the subject title of this thread so that the title of email notification of new replies to this discussion suddenly appeared to suggest the opposite of the content of the vast majority of replies

Indeed. I tried 'change of subject' to test it. Funny how no-one's ever made that 'mistake' before.

One of those things, I guess

I'll have to come back to RichardK's post when I get a min, but in the meantime I came across some stuff on Google about the Foundation, for example how it changed its (very clear) charity 'aims and objectives' (part E) via papers filed on 22nd June 2010, from the original:

To enlist and provide support, succour, guidance and assistance generally to those who have been affected by the terrorist attacks on New York on 11 September 2001 or may be so affected in the future.

to (main change in bold):

TO RELIEVE THE SICK, TO PROMOTE GOOD HEALTH AND TO RELIEVE THOSE IN FINANCIAL NEED, HARDSHIP OR DISTRESS IN PARTICULAR BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY BY PROVIDING SUPPORT, SUCCOUR, GUIDANCE AND ASSISTANCE GENERALLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON NEW YORK ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 OR MAY BE SO AFFECTED IN THE FUTURE

Some more info, via Google and allegedly from Companies House:

Registered address of the 9/11 LONDON PROJECT FOUNDATION is same address as the Mills & Reeve law firm - Paul Solon, who is the Company Secretary and whose firm is listed among its legal advisers:

FRANCIS HOUSE
112 HILLS ROAD
CAMBRIDGE
CAMBRIDGESHIRE
CB2 1PH

(CHANGED ON 03/11/2010 FROM 42 BROOK STREET, LONDON W1K 5DB)

Here's the Foundation's Company Secretary Paul Solon's website for info:

http://www.mills-reeve.com/paul-solon/

Another Director/Trustee listed is Mr Stanley Fink, Occupation: CEO of International Standard Asset Management. Wikipedia describes him as:

Fink has been described as the "godfather" of the UK hedge fund industry and has been credited with building the Man Group up to its current status as a FTSE 100 company and the largest listed hedge fund company in the world.[4][5] He was ranked 698th in the Sunday Times Rich List 2008 with a personal fortune of £118 million.[6] In September 2008 it was announced that Fink would come out of retirement to act as the chief executive of International Standard Asset Management (Isam) in a partnership with Lord Levy.[7] In January 2009 he was appointed co-treasurer of the Conservative Party.[8]

It also appears that the Chairman of the Foundation is Mr Peter Geoffrey Rosengard (formerly known as Peter Geoffrey Rose). Mr Rosengard describes himself as a "record breaking life insurance salesman" and an "International motivational speaker". Here's his website

Mr Rosengard also apparently became the manager of the have a go hero Johnny Smeaton (Glasgow Airport, June 2007). Mr Rosengard, Johnny's "media guide and friend", had taken him to New York for the anniversary of 9/11, where John Smeaton "has now become a genuine celebrity". Read the full article in The Scotsman
.
.
.
.

Is it just me, or does the whole thing just seem really odd?

ultrapatrick wrote:

:

TO RELIEVE THE SICK, TO PROMOTE GOOD HEALTH AND TO RELIEVE THOSE IN FINANCIAL NEED, HARDSHIP OR DISTRESS IN PARTICULAR BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY BY PROVIDING SUPPORT, SUCCOUR, GUIDANCE AND ASSISTANCE GENERALLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON NEW YORK ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 OR MAY BE SO AFFECTED IN THE FUTURE

£600,000 the quoted cost,would go a long way to helping some of the victims families.

I dont understand why this is art or even educatonal. If you want to see what happened on that day surely you cannot top the endless videos from every angle, including the people who jumped which were subsequently withdrawn. it seems to me that Schama is ignoring the whole video, facebook twitter etc that helped to bring down at least two autocratic governments in the middle east as we speak. I live here its a very small park and every time I walk past it the only thing I will think is about the bodies that may or may not still be plastered to those pillars . This is not Guernica or Goyas firing squad this is something we all watched on TV and we all rememeber. Does Schama think if you cant turn it into an artwork that somehow we dont relate. Potters field is a where we go on a sunday and at the end of a bad winter to shake our wings, the place we walk through in the morning because the river is always different and interesting Nice place to have a cup of coffee. Can we be allowed to do that without having to take on this incredible misery every time we step outside.

The final say rests with the Potters Fields Park Management Trust which has said 'No.'
I don't see the Trust deeds on their website but I heard Jilly Frisch, a board member, say that the Trust is bound by its deeds to take "particular" account of the views of local residents. Those views appear almost unanimously against this. A lone supporter at a recent STRA meeting called those against the girders "antis". Well I suppose if you're for a calm green space, then you are "anti" memorials to murder.

So for it to proceed the Trust would need to be re-educated, presumably by changing the board's personnel or other shenanigans involving Southwark Council, local residents' views would need to be over-ridden and the view of an organization of victims' relatives would need to be over-ridden.

If the proposers wish to go ahead on that basis, then they so lack a sense of proportion and self-awareness that I'd prefer my children not to be instructed by them.

My own view is that I don't want Potters Fields politicized by girders or slave statues or demos whether I sympathize or not. Fwiw I've been on top of the WTC 4 times and have strong family connections to New York, but there's no link whatever between New York and Potters Fields. A statue of Jacob the drayhorse would be nice. It should be lying down as it would in Horselydown Lane and would be a companion to The Circle's Jacob. Children would clamber over it and laugh. Compare that to a memorial to terrorism.

I must confess I find myself puzzled by the level of negative reaction to this proposal (and I'm not simply trying to be provocative here). Potters Fields is one of my favourite places to sit and have a coffee and so it does matter to me that it is preserved. Whilst I understand objections based on the scale of the piece (and would like that to be thought through some more, though even here I do find large-scale public art personally appealing) I do not understand the objection to a piece of art/a memorial in principle here. Regardless of what happened afterwards (and our political views about the actions that were taken), 9/11 was tragic beyond all proportions and many Londoners had family or friends caught up in the attack. To remember and honour this, to my mind, is appropriate and offers educational opportunities (like our other memorials/monuments to other wars/atrocities throughout the city also do). I still remember the experience of standing in front of The Sphere in Battery Park, New York, with the impact of the attacks present for all to see and finding myself reminded in the most present, embodied way, of the reality of this event, something that never happened with viewing it on TV or the internet. I would hope that others have the same opportunity to remember or, for those too young, to learn about this event in a way which enables them to both understand and also feel something about this event. That is an important reason for public art/memorials (the distinction between art/memorial is moot), with history and our immediate personal relationship to it realised physically and emotionally. Okay, maybe that's a bit too artsy for some but give me a piece of art/a memorial here rather than a children's playground (a personal opinion which is not designed to start a flame war about the rights of children/parents in the city etc etc!). So, the reality is that there is not simple consensus about this issue (though I may of course be a lone voice). I have some concerns about it, of course, as I might when changes to any public space arise but for me this is not a clear cut attempt to destroy something important (as I would argue selling off our forests is) but an idea that may lead to an important new piece of public art/memorial in the heart of London.

If it is installed it will most likely follow the Turbine Hall 'Sunflower Seeds' and turn out to be flaking rusty dust and deemed to be hazardous to health.

I wouldn't mind if it was a six month exhibit like the Telectroscope outside City Hall a couple of years ago connecting London to New York, but not a permanent fixture.

Thomas Gray said all there is to be said about memorials (even artistic memorials)to the dead in his Elegy.

Can storied urn, or animated bust,
Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?
Can honour's voice provoke the silent dust,
Or flattery soothe the dull cold ear of death?

Yet ev'n these bones from insult to protect,
Some frail memories still erected nigh,
With uncouth rhymes and shapeless sculpture deck'd,
Implores the passing tribute of a sigh.

The electroscope was nice, all my family enjoyed it. The Foundation will only install a permanent memorial. They won't settle for anything less and will continue to use emotionally charged rhetoric to try to try to shame any objections

Ultimately, they will have to change the minds of the Trust however, who have already, most sensibly, kicked this nonsense into touch. Even then, nothing would be guaranteed given the other, including legal, variables in the mix