Recently, the HCMC Department of Culture and Sports invited the public to contribute suggestions for a monument that commemorates the city’s spirit of unity during its fight against COVID-19. The site for this monument is planned for Lot 1, Ly Thai To Street, in Ward Vuon Lai.

Nguyen Van Vuong, a project consultant and manager born in 1990 and currently living in HCMC, said the monument should be conceived with a fresh perspective – as a “living monument” that connects with the community, rather than a static and isolated object in the modern urban landscape.

Could you summarize the idea you submitted to HCMC Party Secretary Tran Luu Quang regarding the creation of a monument to honor the city’s unity in overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic?

Nguyen Van Vuong: In my view, this monument should go beyond being a place of remembrance. It should function as an active institution capable of training, operating, and responding to urban emergencies. It must turn the painful memories of the pandemic into intellectual energy and actionable spirit for the next generation.

Specifically, I propose a shift from the concept of a “static monument” to a model I call a “living monument.” This means creating a site that integrates knowledge, research, training, drills, and community space. From this, the memory of the pandemic can be transformed into the city’s capacity for future emergency responses. More concretely, I envision a Memorial and Urban Emergency Response Center.

What makes you think Ho Chi Minh City needs a “living monument”?

The pandemic exposed both losses and resilience. I prefer to focus not on the trauma but on how HCMC rebounded swiftly. Its GRDP rose by 9.03% in 2022, 5.81% in 2023, and 7.17% in 2024.

These numbers show that the city doesn’t just need a “memorial,” but an institution to preserve lessons, enable training, and coordinate data during future crises. If we only create a beautiful monument that is isolated from urban life, we lose the chance to turn memory into practical experience.

In terms of space, I envision the project covering around 4 hectares and divided into three interconnected functional zones.

The first is the “Memorial Zone - symbol of rebirth” covering about 1 hectare, featuring a remembrance space, screening rooms, and digital exhibits.

The second is the “Urban Emergency Response and Research Center” on 1.5 hectares, dedicated to training, simulation, and data connection.

The third is the “Eco-Community Park” on 1.5 hectares, offering green areas, a lake, walking paths, playgrounds, and a tribute garden co-created by the community.

These three zones align with the project’s guiding themes as set out by city leadership: “From loss to rapid recovery,” “Gratitude for unity and solidarity,” and “A reminder for the future.”

You mentioned the emergency response center. What activities would it involve specifically?

It would host training sessions, rescue drills, public health simulations, and disaster scenario modeling, including fires, floods, and pandemics. It would also serve as a data coordination hub for agencies.

It could include interactive exhibition spaces for students – essentially “open classrooms” on life skills and emergency preparedness.

I believe that guest houses, villas, and other architecturally significant structures currently located on Lot 1 Ly Thai To (Vuon Lai Ward) should be preserved and repurposed rather than demolished. These buildings hold historical value and could serve as facilities for research, forecasting, and training in disease prevention and emergency urban response.

We can engage research institutes, universities, and organizations both domestically and internationally to co-manage operations, training, and drills. This approach would reduce investment costs, make the most of existing infrastructure, and create a multi-purpose “living monument” embedded within the city.

What should be done to prevent the project from becoming overly bureaucratic or tokenistic?

First, a transparent architectural competition must be held with genuine community involvement. I suggest an open contest inviting both domestic and international consultants, judged anonymously by a multidisciplinary panel that includes architects, historians, sociologists, urban experts, and community representatives.

After preliminary selection, designs should be publicly displayed for community feedback. Public opinion must become an official component in the final decision-making process.

The city’s current strategy of gathering feedback through digital platforms and media is a golden opportunity to engage widely. But it must be genuine – with clear procedures, open summaries, and public responses. When people see their voices matter, they will feel more connected to the project.

From a technical and sustainability standpoint, what design elements or risks should be considered for this “living monument” approach?