campaign launched to support £140m project to transform centre

Views sought on plans for new city heart

By Calum Ross

Published: 02/12/2009

People in Aberdeen will next month be asked for their verdict on ambitious plans to give the city a new £140million civic heart.

The campaign to transform the centre of Aberdeen by decking over Union Terrace Gardens – now named The City Square Project – was launched officially yesterday.

A massive public consultation on the scheme, which would be backed by £50million of oil services tycoon Sir Ian Wood’s own money, is due to start on January 11.

Supporters hope to decide in March whether to press ahead with the plans.

However, completion of the eight-acre square is already pencilled in for 2014.

But other campaigners fighting to “save” the gardens, and the proposed £13million Peacock Visual Arts centre also planned for the site, handed out leaflets outside HM Theatre yesterday.

As they did so, members of Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef) met inside to launch the drive to deliver Sir Ian’s vision.

Acsef chairman Tom Smith promised a “robust and comprehensive” consultation.

“We will be asking every citizen in Aberdeen if they share our vision to make this project happen,” he said.

“This is about trying to enhance the quality of life in our city. The project is very real and properly thought through with foresight at every level.

“It’s about jobs, wealth and opportunities. It’s about where we go as a region after the oil goes.”

As consultation begins in the new year, leaflets will be posted to residents, exhibition stalls will be set up in city shopping centres, focus groups will hold discussions and a telephone hotline will be manned.

Aberdeen citizens will be asked whether they want the project to go ahead and, if so, what they would like to see in the detailed designs, to be prepared before a planning application is lodged.

With more than 3,500 signatures already on a petition opposing the scheme, Acsef and its public relations team went into overdrive yesterday to emphasise the significance of the vision. As well as unveiling the scheme’s title, The City Square Project, there was also a new logo and tag-line – “This Time. This Place. This Generation.”

Mr Smith, who described the gardens as a “chasm” in the city centre, also had future generations in mind.

Dave Blackwood, who leads the Acsef project steering group, emphasised the way the new square would highlight the historic buildings of Union Terrace and Belmont Street, despite public criticism from television architecture critic Jonathan Meades, who expressed the opposite view.

“The fact you could enjoy all of the architecture around the square is important for us,” said Mr Blackwood. He added that the designs could include as much green space as exists in the gardens at present.

An outdoor ice rink, international markets and space for concerts and public meetings could also be provided.

“This has been done in other places and has been very successful,” said Mr Blackwood. “The challenge for us is to think big enough.”

Reader's Comments

Woodie is no fool.This grand scheme will never happen.His millions are pretty safe!!!The Aberdeen bypass deserves his generous contributions.We could name a bridge after him??
Fiona Cooper
Report this comment

The square looks awesome I hope it goes ahead.
Roger Davies
Report this comment

A very cynical way to look at it Fiona. I for one don't share you view, but do believe that Aberdonians and those that live here, should make their voice heard. For Scotland's 3rd largest city, we are crying out for something like this. And the fact that Sir Ian Wood has made millions out of the area and wants to put something back in to it, should be rejoiced, not ridiculed. Come on, let's drown out the doubters and make our presence felt. For too long has Aberdeen been the poor relation of Scotland.
Joe Bloggs
Report this comment

Hardly a poor relation when you consider that e have one of the highest proportion of millionaires and the sheer volume of wealth that goes through this city. Ian Wood has indeed made millions out of the area and now wants the area to put millions into realising HIS vision, which will definatelly "cement" Aberdeen's position as the poor relation and, quite frankly, laughing stock of Scotland. Quite possibly the only city in the world which is considering destroying a well-loved and much needed piece of green space to have it replaced with concrete and the unbelievably bland and uninspired attempt at making everything level. The images released are extremelly misleading as trees of that size will not and can not be supported on the site, trees require roots to grow in and more than a wafer-thin sliver of concrete which exists between the surface and "underground concourse." This entire plan, and the sledgehammer tactics of bringing it about are one of the most disgusting pieces of eco-vandalism of the 21st Century and hardly a good foundation for the future.
Fraser Denholm
Report this comment

I think building a square there is brilliant idea which will change the look of the city for the better.I will be glad to see union terrace gardens go its not the kind place you could go for a walk in the evening and feel safe Dare i say it but if this square covers the dual carriagway that goes under union street this will also eliminate the usual spots were people commit and attempt to sucide which is a good thing Sorry if i have offended anyone
Eddie Aberdeen
Report this comment

I think this should be supported as should any private investment; Aberdeen gets precious little from "our" government in Edinburgh and those with the funds and civic pride to contribute deserve appreciation not suspicion and ridicule.
paul day
Report this comment

Oh good the budget problems must all be sorted. We can spend 140 million on this park. Perhaps we should wait and see if Marischal is completed on budget. I think they were planning on 20 million coming from the sale of the old council offices which are now said to be worthless. Lots of money for 11% raises for department heads though! Perhaps fiscal restraint should be exercised until the recurring annual 30 million budget cuts can be stopped.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Very nice of Wood to resurect a plan which will cost £140M and pledge just over a third of that. With another £40M (probably) being pledged by the private sector that leaves £50M that you and I will have to cough up. How can Aberdeen City afford this? And if it does there should be an outcry from every Aberdonion. We have had to swallow the elderly, disabled, young and other groups get their funding slashed and in many cases just stopped. Please do not be mistaken, this is NOT a 100% private investment, and it is not being pitched as such. This is where we need £90M of private money. Where are these benevolent benefactors when the vunerable need them? The gardens are VERY under used, I agree. But surely concretting over it is not the solution. Do people not realise that the Elm trees are over 200 years old. They will be chopped down. If people like concrete so much, have a picnic on top of St Nicholas Centre, as thats what UTG will be reduced to. Oh but without stairs. Stairs are evil.
John Rutherford
Report this comment

I find it frightening that Mr Smith of the Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef) describes UTG as a 'chasm'. We don't need another lump of unsympathetic concrete ugliness in Aberdeen, especially one that does away with the last bit of green space in the town centre! The people of Aberdeen should back the plans for the Aberdeen Centre for Contemporary Art which would sit very nicely in the Gardens without destroying them, Dundee had the vision to do it with the DCA and it has worked out well for them. The oil won't last forever and what will happen to all these shopping centres once the money as gone? We should back something that the Scots are good at - being creative!
iain gildea
Report this comment

keep it green
bob seivwright
Report this comment

Am I looking at the same "Green public space" that ACSEF refer to in their proposal?!? All I see is a huge amount of characterless paving slabs and a few token trees and grass patches. Their proposal totally kills the character of the area. How can this be presented as a valuable addition to the city in place of a beautiful, architecturally sympathetic building that maintains the gardens AND encourages the people of Aberdeen to use the space?! If Mr Wood has £50 million to invest, how about investing it in the public services that have been forced to close instead of pressuring our "cash strapped" council to invest at least the same amount again of tax-payers money.
Bryan Campbell
Report this comment

sit back and watch how the City and Shire obtain the funds to make Aberdeen into a greater Sodom and Gomorrah than it already The new square will be filled with pubs and clubs in every doorway and probably a few casinos but doubr if they will manage to draw the trade from the Trump Super Casino once it opens - they could always beg their master Donald Trump to give them the additional £ 100 million they need
Thomas Owenson
Report this comment

Hideous, unimaginative, faceless, soulless, concrete mess! that is what I think of the plan promoted by ACSEF meaning Aberdeen City & Shire Economic Forum, ECONOMIC being the operative word. Businessmen are going to destroy our wonderful gardens and replace it with a giant patio. There will be NO RELAXATION in THAT SPACE.
Jaki Sinclair
Report this comment

it's a horrendous vision of concrete blandness which will destroy a wonderful green space in the city. surely the better option is the already approved and funded peacock arts centre which will improve the current gardens no end by bringing a focus to them, while also making them brighter and giving people more security. it has genuine proven potential to benefit the whole of Aberdeenshire, not just a sketched idea with no planning permission and vague goals. destroying the gardens will make us a laughing stock. we should be proud of them, should cherish them and ensure they survive for generations to come.
David Officer
Report this comment

Small wonder ACC is having financial problems. An expensive proposal without any public support and council continues to fund studies and consultations. Next time they need to cutback (february) they shoud axe ACSEF and particularly Tom Smith.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Whats new the ACC going to waste more money on another grandious idea. So Mr Wood is going to donate £50 million only if done his way. AT least it will give the drunken yobs a bit more room to vomit and urinate on, as it is in the centre of town. Union Street used to be a really nice street. Now it is a grotto disgrace, This council has no money to look after its citizens but has plenty of money to squander on another "White elephant" Time they got out of their Ivory towers and saw what they are doing. It seems that as long as you have money they will bend over backwards to give you your wishes. What about the disabled, the blind the other unfortunates that have had their life lines curtailed in the name of "We can't afford to keep you" But we will spend money hand over fist on our great ideas. Disgusting
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Why, in the creation of a Green Space, would they choose to cover a green space with concrete... a substance that produces up to 5% of the world's CO2 emissions? there are plenty civic squares in the world, but how many are used as an area for socialising and relaxing? would you rather visit a concrete slab with the occasional tree or a space with imagination, colour and art? Princes St Gardens in Edinburgh should be what Union Terrace Gardens aspires to. they have the new entrance to the galleries and such and is very successful and used by locals and tourists. seems rather similar to the original peacocks idea... i say give aberdeen more colour, more art and more useable space. people go and sit and eat picnics on grass - nobody who wants to ever have use of their rear again would ever have a picnic on concrete. Enhance what we have, don't destroy our city centre's only greenery, for everyone's sake.
maggie gillies
Report this comment

Aberdeen certainly needs some improvements to the city centre, but I'm not sure this is the right one. What about spending this cash to humanise the approach from Union Street through to the station and Union Square? What about bringing back some decent shops to Union Street? What about generally greening up the city centre? What about making Union Street safe of an evening? Aberdeen is and has been a great and historic city with some wonderful architecture, but successive administrations have allowed a series of horrors to be perpetrated, and it is now a hotchpotch with the fine buildings buried amongst architecture like the John Lewis concrete corner, and many others simply no longer there, all in the name of economic "progress". I don't see the current administration helping in the least, and how can we possibly know what the UTG scheme will really look like? Please, Aberdeen, make the right choice !
John Strimmer
Report this comment

I'm fed up of hearing that ACSEF's "plan" is the only way to "re-energise" the gardens (once destroyed, ironically!). the PVA building is being lost in all of this talk of fixing, renovation, re-energising etc. I want to remind people (or even point out for the first time) that the PVA plans look like this : http://www.peacockvisualarts.com/new-building/plans-models-and-images apparently "too small in scope and vision" for ACSEF to back... a fairly obvious retort from big, brash business men who can only be impressed by big unsophisticated lumps of concrete. I think the IDEAS and EDUCATION that will come out of the PVA building will outstrip anything ACSEF could ever hope for – as well as retain & energise the gardens by inviting people down into it (much like Edinburgh’s portrait gallery entrance onto Princess street gardens). Whitespace (Arts Development), Arts Education & CityMoves (dance) will also be housed in the PVA building - reaching out to communities and providing arts & culture to the most in need areas of town and citizens. Money can't buy you love ACSEF!
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

I'm unconvinced of what can be done to UTG. I share many of the views already expressed above - I think we need a greener City Centre, a safer City Centre, a better connected City Centre, a more prosperous and attractive Union Street and much more. Can the City Square proposal deliver that? Maybe it can. I, for one, actually plan to get involved in this consultation they are launching and tell them that I think Aberdeen City Centre needs the above things I have listed. From what I have read in the article, that picture is not a 'design'. It won't look like that. The consultation will determine what goes in there, what we want to go in there. This our chance. Our opportunity to put what we want in our City Centre. And they're listening to us. So lets be ambitious. Lets do it!
Eric Blair
Report this comment

Eric Blair? Didn't you write Animal Farm? Under your pen name of George Orwell? How apt: a tale of treachery and scheming. Interesting also to note that "Joe Bloggs" and "Eddie Aberdeen" support ACSEF's vision of a skateboarding park. ACSEF talk about a cost of £140m. Their own feasability study allows just over £8m for an arts centre which has been costed at £14m (Peacock of course have planning permission and the majority of their funding, but like ACSEF let us ignore this for the moment). Perhaps ACSEF believe that they'll get a great discount on concrete? They'll be needing enough of the stuff. But if they can estimate one cost so inaccurately, how does the rest of their case stack up? We all know who'll be picking up the tab once Sir Ian's £50m has been poured into the Denburn Valley.
Ellis Croft
Report this comment

Eric Blair - "From what I have read in the article, that picture is not a 'design'. It won't look like that"....great comment! So the point of spending money on expensive visuals is? Surely first impression are meant to inspire. I know that is how I felt when I saw Peacock Visual Arts plans to bring the gardens back to life with the new arts centre. I here is a suggestion...instead of killing the gardens, how about enhancing them with a beautiful, sympathetic, well needed building promoting art, culture and creativity. ...Oh, wait a minute Peacock have already suggested that, and secured funding, and judging by the comments on this page, secured the majority of public support too. Imagine the gardens properly utilised, busy and beautiful, then look at Ian Woods plans and weep.
Bryan Campbell
Report this comment

I don't understand the hostility towards the City Square project, certainly not the criticism about it not being cultural. Even when the big project was announced, they said they wanted a contemporary Arts Centre included. And they're still saying its not an either/or situation, so why the hostility? We could have Peacock and the City Square! We just need to tell them we want that. I really don't understand the criticism about funding either. "We all know who'll be picking up the tab once Sir Ian's £50m has been poured into Denburn Valley" - Excuse me? Who do you think is funding the Peacock initiative? Their funding so far is almost entirely from public sources! And they still don't have enough money to build it, so clearly not everyone thinks its a done deal!
Eric Blair
Report this comment

The £9.5 million of public sector funding has been raised to date for the Peacock scheme has been committed since 2008. It is already budgeted for by Scottish Enterprise, Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Arts Council. The arts centre will generate around revenue for the City and give a return on public sector investment within 2 years offering real value for our already stretched public purse. And Yes, of course Peacock's funding is almost entirely from public sources at present. That is often how charities like ourselves core-fund projects. Peacock were about to launch their fundraising campaign when the City Square scheme was announced causing significant uncertainty for the future of our project. We are awaiting clarity on the future of the arts centre so we can resume fundraising having already raised 75% and secured another £1mill+ in pledges.
Elly Rothnie
Report this comment

Mr "Blair" the hostility towards this project comes from a great many issues that people have with the project. For starters it will see the destruction, not "raising" as the gardens weren't built on hydraulics and do not have the ability to rise out of the ground like a feature of the equalily fantastical Tracy island. The destruction of a garden, and the cutting down of 78 mature trees is a disgusting prospect and completely ludicrous at a time where cities across the world are holding onto their green spaces. Not only this but it is completely at odds with the Aberdeen Local Plan (2008) which identifies the valley as an area of Urban Green Space which must be protected and not to be considered as brownfield site for development. Secondly is the cost, with a estimated price tag of £140 million (and give me a case where a large scale infrastructure of development project has come in anywhere near estimated), £50 million being provided by Mr Wood and a further £20 million "hoped" to be raised from private sources, of which there has been no indication of any interest, which leaves £70 million to be paid for publicly, by the people (a far sight more than Peacock's £9.5 million of public funds) at a time when ACC are £60 million in deficit and making more and more cuts to charities, education, and leasure. Thirdly, there is a simple concern that a lack of architectural ethics has been employed. A project has passed all the procedures of public consultation, and secured planning permission for the site and it is with sheer arrogance that this "City Square Project" has landed on top of it with every intention of scuppering the plans. As far as I was aware gazumping wasn't allowed in Scotland...
Fraser Denholm
Report this comment

Mr "Blair" the hostility towards this project comes from a great many issues that people have with the project. For starters it will see the destruction, not "raising" as the gardens weren't built on hydraulics and do not have the ability to rise out of the ground like a feature of the equalily fantastical Tracy island. The destruction of a garden, and the cutting down of 78 mature trees is a disgusting prospect and completely ludicrous at a time where cities across the world are holding onto their green spaces. Not only this but it is completely at odds with the Aberdeen Local Plan (2008) which identifies the valley as an area of Urban Green Space which must be protected and not to be considered as brownfield site for development. Secondly is the cost, with a estimated price tag of £140 million (and give me a case where a large scale infrastructure of development project has come in anywhere near estimated), £50 million being provided by Mr Wood and a further £20 million "hoped" to be raised from private sources, of which there has been no indication of any interest, which leaves £70 million to be paid for publicly, by the people (a far sight more than Peacock's £9.5 million of public funds) at a time when ACC are £60 million in deficit and making more and more cuts to charities, education, and leasure. Thirdly, there is a simple concern that a lack of architectural ethics has been employed. A project has passed all the procedures of public consultation, and secured planning permission for the site and it is with sheer arrogance that this "City Square Project" has landed on top of it with every intention of scuppering the plans. As far as I was aware gazumping wasn't allowed in Scotland...
Fraser Denholm
Report this comment

I agree with you on the mature trees. I think they should be saved and possibly relocated if the City Square project is to go ahead. That is what I will be feeding into the consultation when it comes around. But having read exactly what is being proposed (I have found the study to be available on the ACSEF website), there is not at all a reduction in green space. In fact, it enables much more green space to be created if thats what we want. Again, thats what I'll be telling the consultation. On the funding front, you're understanding of local government finance leaves a lot to be desired. The money that pays for education, leisure etc. comes from a completely different fund from that which pays for capital projects. ACC have in the past proposed to central gov't that they be allowed to transfer funds from the capital fund because it is in the green whereas their revenue fund is not. Of course local gov't would put something into the project. But think of what we can get from central gov't - Dundee has been awarded £60m for the regeneration of its city centre - and it is now asking for more! Why can't we? Your assertion that no private finance is forthcoming is not founded on fact. Enterprise that has a stake in Aberdeen will come forward with money, as right now our decaying city centre acts as a challenge to them - preventing the migration of skilled workers to our City who don't want to live in an unattractive, run-down City, and a lack of tourism in the City as tourists would much prefer to see the castles etc in the Shire rather than the lack of attractions in the City. The City Square project I think gives us the chance to build something into our City Centre that is worth seeing - imagine the cultural hub we could create - museum, galleries, an arts centre. As well as the potential to create far more green space. I have a positive outlook on this, because I see this as an opportunity to make things better. Its completely up to us what goes in there. We are being given that say. So lets actually come up with some constructive solutions to save our city centre!
Eric Blair
Report this comment

I am well aware of the difference between capital and revenue budgets, and even though it would be a capital project to build this abomination, it still needs to be maintained, cleaned, kept and looked after which requires revenue expenditure. Aberdeen City Council have stated categorically that they cannot afford to invest in this project. What I said in my previous comment was that "there has been no indication of any interest" which, if I am wrong, please feel free to correct me with some facts other than a simple assumption. This project has failed to attract funding three times in the past due to lack of vision, technically unfeasible and the only reason it is being considered at the moment is because of Wood's £50 million carrot. Central government funding was awarded to Dundee for a range of projects, not one overblown bombastic, bland and outdated monument to oligarchy. Spending £70 million on one project which has no tangible means of generating interest will only see other areas suffer and continue the "decay" of the city centre. You are mistaken if a vague, featureless flat windswept square will lead to increased tourism or attract skilled workers. I would like to attract your attention to Expo Plaza in Hannover which is a similar venture to what is being proposed. http://www.panorama-cities.net/hannover/expo_plaza.html this 360 view shows exactly what this "City Square" will become: a dark, menacing, empty void.
Fraser Denholm
Report this comment

Eric Blair - "imagine the cultural hub we could create - museum, galleries, an arts centre" we can have this at a fraction of the price with the already costed, approved and funded peacock proposal. we keep the gardens while making them safer, brighter and having a genuine cultural hub which generates revenue. the peacock plans are complete whereas the city square project is vague promises. they could literally say whatever they think people want to hear at this stage just to get it past consultation, but conveniently forget to point out that the £140 million is just to fill the denburn valley and build the foundations and shell of the square. imagine the cost of the actual shops, landscaping, lighting, upkeep, ice rink, stage, restaurants, and whatever else they promise us just to get the council to sign on the dotted line. it will be an obscene amount of money at a time when the council is already under a huge amount of pressure for spending a huge part of it's capital budget on the new headquarters. it will not have the spare cash. any consultation should include the already approved peacock proposal so that the public can properly decide. of course it should never have come to this in the first place, the council should have thrown this pipe dream out as soon as it was brought forward but they were too scared after the hysteria around the trump golf course.
David Officer
Report this comment

The Peacock plan in isolation does not promise a 'cultural hub'. It provides ONE cultural facility. In fact the Peacock proposal in isolation fails to deliver what the City Square project can - making the centre better connected, having a regional economic impact, making the City Centre safer, making the City Centre more attractive, more vibrant. Peacock on its own can only provide a fraction of that. The Peacock scheme also does not promise a revenue stream, not for the City. Whereas there is great potential for revenue-creating instances to be factored into the City Square proposal. It CAN create wealth for this City Centre which will have a knock-on effect in regenerating our ailing City Centre - particularly Union Street. I share your view, David Officer, that the consultation should include the Peacock scheme. But I think what should be consulted on is actually an integration of the two, a best of both worlds. I think thats the logical compromise here, and probably what the majority of the public favours.
Eric Blair
Report this comment

This is and abhorrent scheme, which will rip a unique green space from the heart of the city centre, and green spaces are few and far between in cities as it is! Whilst Mr Wood's generosity can not be overlooked i can not help but think his money would be better spend elsewhere, in the true spirit of philanthropy, where it can do some actual good, and not on this monstrous vision in concrete.
Graeme Smith
Report this comment

"The Peacock plan in isolation does not promise a 'cultural hub'. It provides ONE cultural facility" You are right that it will provide one physical facility, but within that one facility wil be Peacocks, Whitespace (Arts Development) and Arts Education & CityMoves (dance). More than 1 independant, artistic and cultural groups who can communicate and contribute with each other. Thats hub in my eyes. I cant see why anyone can say its not. A one stop hub if you wish. And with the close proximity to the Gallery, Theatre and Library there will be a fantastic oppertunity to expand that hub to include them too. I am glad that you agree that Peacocks plans should be included in the consultation, but why are you against it standing as it is now. That is fully planned, permitted, costed and funded? The people of Aberdeen deserve to see EVERY option that is open to them. Anything else would be dishonest, disingenuous and just down right wrong. Or are you just worried at how Woods plans will look like when stood side by side to peacock's centre? As for the trees, I am glad you dont want them destroyed, but would you not rather be proud of the fact that we have a city centre that is home to these wonderful examples of nature? Finally, I want to point out public perception regarding budgets. Of course you are right in your analysis, however the ordinary man does not care about this. They will see, and have done, schools closing, the infirm discarded, the old thrown aside but also they see the councillers get a wage increase, new multi-million pound council offices and now this city plan also costing millions. The public wont care that these are from seperate budgets. Public perception is in many ways more important than the facts.
John Rutherford
Report this comment

Eric Blair – If you were to have done some actual research into the Peacock proposal you will find that an independent economic assessment into the project estimates that it will see around £5 million pounds and a footfall of 300, 000 per annum. We only need to look 60 miles south at Dundee Contemporary Arts to see a cultural project which generates up to five times it’s public investment to the City every year. It will indeed be a “cultural hub” as it will house many different creative activities, and be home to three separate organisations, as well as providing a city centre platform for both universities and a number of other organisations. Again if you look further afield, to initiatives like Glasgow’s Trongate 103 to see a “cultural hub” which does not contain ALL of the cultural activity of Glasgow, nor should it have to. The comments about connectivity are completely unfounded when you consider that Aberdeen City Centre is small in comparison to other Scottish Cities and that to venture around the area of the Denburn Valley only takes around five minutes, and that paving it over will only cut this by half which is hardly a massive issue. On a personal note, my mother who regularly visits, staying at the Caledonian Hotel on Union Terrace, has no issue making her way around the site, considering that she has a medical condition which severely impairs her mobility. In fact my parents, who are from a far-flung corner of Scotland enjoy the picturesque vision of the gardens and often spend time there as an antidote to the hustle and bustle of the oft-faceless consumerism of the city centre. I recommend that you take a piece of your own advice and do some research into the existing proposals before making ignorant and malinformed comments about a project which can provide nothing but vague and empty promises, yet no tangible evidence about its benefits to Aberdeen, the people who live here, and those who intend to visit.
Fraser Denholm
Report this comment

John - The Peacock project has already undergone its statutory planning consultation so it wouldn't bear any fruits to undergo another consultation. The consultation is also ACSEF's consultation on their proposal, it is not the statutory consultation, it is simply an exercise to discover people's views and ambitions for the space. I think, as previously reported, the fact that Peacock and ACSEF are looking at an integrated solution is why Peacock should be involved in the consultation. Fraser - I take your examples, it is just my opinion that the contemporary arts centre built into the larger project - which could also host many cultural activities in its space - would be a better cultural offering. That is my opinion. It is not ignorant nor malinformed simply because it differs from yours.
Eric Blair
Report this comment

George Orwell - sorry, "Eric" - you've moved from saying Peacock should be included in the January consultation to saying it wouldn't be worthwhile. I don't understand why, in the context of a £140m scheme which aspires to include a contemporary arts centre, ACSEF or Sir Ian Wood have been unable to offer a firm commitment to guarantee the future of the organisations that would be housed under the PVA scheme. Given the funding gap of £4m, or about 3% of the ACSEF scheme estimate, this ought to be entirely possible. No guarantee has been forthcoming, has it? Why is that?
Ellis Croft
Report this comment

No, you have misunderstood me. I don't believe the Peacock scheme should be included in the consultation in isolation - for that option has already been consulted on. I think there should be a consultation on an integration of the two schemes. The ACSEF proposal promises a contemporary arts centre, Peacock or otherwise, of equal floor space and quality to that of the current Peacock scheme. So if Peacock were to inhabit that arts centre, then there would still be scope to accommodate the orgs. that they currently plan to house in their existing scheme. Pretty good compromise IMO.
Eric Blair
Report this comment

Looks like a good area for outdoor public events, but then again, as there is no sign of any culture in Aberdeen, it will just be another windswept area of concrete. So I think the park is best left as is!
Jason Stewart
Report this comment

"Eric Blair": why the equivocation ("Peacock or otherwise")? PVA's scheme has planning permission, 75% of its funding and further pledges of financial support - which cannot be made good whilst Acsef pursue their "vision", because that fails to explicitly guarantee PVA's project. An alternative centre has none of these, so what are the circumstances under which it is sensible to consider that alternative? If you think an alternative which would mean losing £9m of funding is a "pretty good compromise" when the alternative would be to guarantee PVA's scheme and work on a compromise solution, I'm stumped. Even Acsef's own site promoting their project says the new square "could" involve an arts centre. This equivocation is seriously damaging to their efforts to secure support and goodwill on a number of levels, and what is so perplexing is that there's no apparent downside to offering a straightforward guarantee to the initial project.
Ellis Croft
Report this comment

The Press and Journal is happy to encourage discussion and debate on the topics featured within our newspaper and on our website.

However, we would urge people to respect the opinions of others even if they do not agree with them. We will not tolerate abusive comments of any type and such posts will be removed with the people responsible facing a ban from this website.

Only registered users can supply comments, and your registered name and location will automatically be appended to any comment that you upload.

We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using a false name or pseudonym.

To post a comment, please login using the form at the top of the page, or click to register.