Backers of city square plan attacked on social website

By Ryan Crighton

Published: 14/01/2010

Key figures behind the £150million plan to transform Aberdeen city centre claim they have been the victims of “personal” attacks by backers of a rival project.

The Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (ACSEF) group is driving forward plans to raise Union Terrace Gardens to street level and create a civic square.

However, Peacock Visual Arts has expressed “huge disappointment” that its planned centre will not be one of the options contained in the two-month consultation on the future of the gardens, which has just started.

Peacock had been granted planning permission for its new centre in the gardens when oil services tycoon Sir Ian Wood promised £50million towards ACSEF’s plans.

Since then, ACSEF claims it has received a series of aggressive e-mails and letters, including one believed to call for the people behind the plans to be “hung, drawn and quartered”.

Details of the angry responses emerged last night after Peacock’s former digital co-ordinator attacked Sir Ian and ACSEF chairman Tom Smith on a social networking website.

Adam Proctor, who left the organisation last month, used his Twitter page to post a derogatory comment about the businessmen, which originally contained an obscenity, but was later amended to describe the duo as “oily barstools”.

Last night a spokeswoman for ACSEF said the organisation had been on the receiving end of “unpleasant and very personal comments” in recent weeks.

She said: “It is hugely disappointing that those involved in this type of behaviour have chosen to see this as an either or project, and do not seem to appreciate that the people of Aberdeen can have a hugely attractive and iconic civic space that caters for everyone with gardens, a contemporary arts centre and wider cultural and non-cultural activities.

“It is important that the whole region gets involved in the consultation process so that a vocal minority does not put such an amazing transformation for Aberdeen at risk.”

Last night Mr Proctor, who still does freelance work for Peacock, said his post reflected his own feelings and not those of his former employers.

He said: “I have retracted my original comment, seeing as it may be perceived as a personal attack on an individual when in fact it was an attack on the supposedly open consultation process.”

However, teenage campaigner Iain Corbett, who has set up the I Believe in Aberdeen group to support Sir Ian’s vision for the city, said the Tweet was “irresponsible”.

He added: “Peacock have lost all credibility. The comments made by Mr Proctor were extremely irresponsible and in bad taste and Peacock should issue a public apology to Tom Smith and Sir Ian Wood without delay.”

Last night Peacock declined to comment on the row, other than to confirm that Mr Proctor had left its employment.

Reader's Comments

No wonder there is anger in the city. The whole 'City Square' business is very dubious. Aberdeen council are partners in ACSEF and also the authority behind the planning decision. A 'consultation' run by a public relations company, rather than as it should have been by the council in a dispassionate manner. A questionnaire designed to prompt for the 'correct' response, so that the impression is given that the public are solidly behind the plans. 'Government, give us your money, they like it.' The containment of the public fury against the plan in order to frame and shape the agenda is causing major resentment in the city. The abuse is silly but the anger is real.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

This is rather hilarious. "Peacock have lost all credibility"...what? because an ex-employee (who couldn't plan his future do to Acsef's usurping of a fully approved PVA plan) wrote 1 sentence out of sheer anger at a situation he (and many others) feel have no say in at all. yes, well done PnJ for supporting ACSEF in any tiny way you can. Lets just hope the Acsef supporters who have said far worse on this very site remain anonymous! ho ho ho.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

And what about the abusive and defamatory comments made by ACSEF supporters about the Art Center project and supporters on this very website? I am not condoning Mr Proctor's actions but this is hardly fair and evenhanded journalism, poor show Aberdeen Journals.
Graeme Smith
Report this comment

And what about the abusive and defamatory comments made by ACSEF supporters about the Art Center project and supporters on this very website? I am not condoning Mr Proctor's actions but this is hardly fair and evenhanded journalism, poor show Aberdeen Journals.
Graeme Smith
Report this comment

A throwaway comment has been seized upon and used to discredit a very respectable organisation (Peacock) and the opponents to the City Square Scheme. Mr Proctor has every right to express himself. This report has whipped up his casual remark and tries to make it look like he is part of some kind of threatening gang. It is ridiculous, and an indication of the fact that the City Square PR guys are going to use everything they possibly can to discredit their opponents. But trawling Twitter? Goodness me, how utterly desperate. It should also be pointed out that not all opponents of the scheme are involved with Peacock- there is genuine public concern that Union Terrace Gardens should be left structurally intact and not filled in. It is very apparent in a lot of the reporting from the Journals that they are biased towards the City Square project.
Gillian Martin
Report this comment

A throwaway comment has been seized upon and used to discredit a very respectable organisation (Peacock) and the opponents to the City Square Scheme. Mr Proctor has every right to express himself. This report has whipped up his casual remark and tries to make it look like he is part of some kind of threatening gang. It is ridiculous, and an indication of the fact that the City Square PR guys are going to use everything they possibly can to discredit their opponents. But trawling Twitter? Goodness me, how utterly desperate. It should also be pointed out that not all opponents of the scheme are involved with Peacock- there is genuine public concern that Union Terrace Gardens should be left structurally intact and not filled in. It is very apparent in a lot of the reporting from the Journals that they are biased towards the City Square project.
Gillian Martin
Report this comment

I have written to Mr Corbett in the hope he can clarify the headline "We Condemn the Peacock Personal Attack". It would seem misleading given it was the personal views of an ex-employee that is quoted in the press release. Everyone should dearly hope that over the coming months, irrespective of their opinions on the development of UTG, that accurate and responsible reporting will take prevalence and not poor, headline-grabbing, public misguidance.
jaco skinny
Report this comment

I have written to Mr Corbett in the hope he can clarify the headline "We Condemn the Peacock Personal Attack". It would seem misleading given it was the personal views of an ex-employee that is quoted in the press release. Everyone should dearly hope that over the coming months, irrespective of their opinions on the development of UTG, that accurate and responsible reporting will take prevalence and not poor, headline-grabbing, public misguidance.
jaco skinny
Report this comment

In response to Mr Shepard's comments, the Council is also a major partner, and funder of Peacock. Councillors have not made comment either for or against City Square, and must not do so, because the Council is also the Planning authority. I know that many Councillors are looking forward to the time when we can legally make our views known, and I'd be grateful in the meantime if folk on either side would stop pre-judging the Council's position. It is the duty of the Council to assist all such proposals to get to the position where a full and proper judgement can be made, not to pre-judge any potential development before that point.
Neil Fletcher
Report this comment

This is clearly a mountain being made out of a molehill to damage Peacocks already approved position on improving the Union Terrace Gardens. Let's not forget what those involved in the City Square project have to say about Aberdeen: "Empty shops and run-down buildings on Union Street. Ugly skyscrapers. An unattractive and avoid-at-all-costs city centre. A stagnant culture scene."
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

Although not condoning Mr Proctor's statement, albeit delivered in a jovial throw away moment with fellow Tweeters, I can understand why he is and should be angry. Since Ian Woods plans were announced there has been a cloud of uncertainty hanging over Peacock Visual Arts and any future for the Org and its staff. To be presented on a daily basis with rhetoric from ACSEF regarding the saving of Aberdeens future for generations to come and creation of employment possibilities, it is ironic that PVA's existence and service to the city, the opportunities developed, their expertise and skill sets and last but not least staff employment and security is now in jeopardy. Just writing this is making my blood boil. Stay angry as there is plenty to be angry about
Jim Ewen
Report this comment

At last!!! ACSEF seem to be getting a little unsettled. This is a pathetic attempt from ACSEF trying to put a bad name on any other project but theirs!! Try filling in the UTG opinion poll, it is completely one sided and any answer will result in them being one more tally mark closer to their beloved 5 acre slab. Both parties, those simply attempting to save their historical gardens, and those for the arts centre have so far been expressing their rightful anger against this hideous crime. These expressions need to be heard by the Aberdeen public seeing as this project has not been give the chance to be in the public consultation. Social websites seem to be the quickest and clearest way to create a wave against this criminal project. More people need to express themselves and not just sit and watch these debates, before it's too late!
Laura Walker
Report this comment

At last!!! ACSEF seem to be getting a little unsettled. This is a pathetic attempt from ACSEF trying to put a bad name on any other project but theirs!! Try filling in the UTG opinion poll, it is completely one sided and any answer will result in them being one more tally mark closer to their beloved 5 acre slab. Both parties, those simply attempting to save their historical gardens, and those for the arts centre have so far been expressing their rightful anger against this hideous crime. These expressions need to be heard by the Aberdeen public seeing as this project has not been give the chance to be in the public consultation. Social websites seem to be the quickest and clearest way to create a wave against this criminal project. More people need to express themselves and not just sit and watch these debates, before it's too late!
Laura Walker
Report this comment

As Ryan Roberts says Union Street is ugly, dirty and run down with empty shops etc. How concreting over UTG will enhance this is a puzzle. These shabby shopw will still be there or are they planning on making every building into another hotel. Seems like there are a lot of folk coming to Aberdeen. Is it to laugh at our cities attempt to look good. The council were wrong to give any credit to Sir Wood as the Peacock project had already been approved, he should have been told that. But no when there is some money going they will renage on their own policies. As for the ACSEF to be digging into private Twitter, Yes many people are angry not just because of Peacock (Of which I know little) but because of the underhanded way this is being handled. I checked into the web site to see what it was about. And there is only 1 box to click if you do not approve, but loads of boxes to say you agree. Pretty low methods for a supposedly upcoming entrerprise. Sir Wood should be totally ashamed to come up with this plan, both for Peacock and the people of Aberdeen who do not see this as a great achievment.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Neil Fletcher has stated that the council has the role of making full and proper judgment on the scheme. I agree with him, they should. Yet we find that the leader of the local council, John Stewart, is also listed on the board for ACSEF. Shouldn't he step down from this role? John Stewart was quoted by the Evening Express in November as stating that he wanted a genuine, open and honest consultation on the plans. But when you read the 'consultation' document, there is no discussion of the main issues; are the citizens of Aberdeen willing to give up a city centre park for a commercial development? Do you want a public park replaced by an urban plaza? The consultation has been organised by a public relations company on behalf of ACSEF. This is wrong. A truly open, dispassionate consultation should have been run by the council.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

So an EX employee (yes, EX!!!) of Peacocks makes a remark regarding an very, very important topic on a social network site. A social networking site which it designed for interaction between friends. And this is considered "AN ATTACK"?? And news worthy?? Well done for blowing this way out of perspective!! Also, Well done for buying, and promoting, the obvious deformation agenda towards Peacock and its supporters this pr company has been employed to perform. AJL I'm dissapointed that you buy and print this nonsense. Next time they send you a press release please have a more balanced view point.
Scott Forrest
Report this comment

Neil Fletcher has stated that the council has the role of making full and proper judgment on the scheme. I agree with him, they should. Yet we find that the leader of the local council, John Stewart, is also listed on the board for ACSEF. Shouldn't he step down from this role? John Stewart was quoted by the Evening Express in November as stating that he wanted a genuine, open and honest consultation on the plans. But when you read the 'consultation' document, there is no discussion of the main issues; are the citizens of Aberdeen willing to give up a city centre park for a commercial development? Do you want a public park replaced by an urban plaza? The consultation has been organised by a public relations company on behalf of ACSEF. This is wrong. A truly open, dispassionate consultation should have been run by the council.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

This is not news worthy. So 2 grown men get their feelings hurt with name calling after trawling Twitter for ammo?!?!?!? The creative community in Aberdeen have been publicly branded as "Candle Makers and Tree Huggers" by ACSEF...and so far the story highlighting this "vicious verbal attack" has yet to appear! Grow up and get on with the consultation process honestly, in the most un-biased way possible, and let the people of Aberdeen tell you what they want....even if you don't like the answer.
Bryan Campbell
Report this comment

This is not news worthy. So 2 grown men get their feelings hurt with name calling after trawling Twitter for ammo?!?!?!? The creative community in Aberdeen have been publicly branded as "Candle Makers and Tree Huggers" by ACSEF...and so far the story highlighting this "vicious verbal attack" has yet to appear! Grow up and get on with the consultation process honestly, in the most un-biased way possible, and let the people of Aberdeen tell you what they want....even if you don't like the answer.
Bryan Campbell
Report this comment

So an EX employee (yes, EX!!!) of Peacocks makes a remark regarding an very, very important topic on a social network site. A social networking site which it designed for interaction between friends. And this is considered "AN ATTACK"?? And news worthy?? Well done for blowing this way out of perspective!! Also, Well done for buying, and promoting, the obvious deformation agenda towards Peacock and its supporters this pr company has been employed to perform. AJL I'm dissapointed that you buy and print this nonsense. Next time they send you a press release please have a more balanced view point.
Scott Forrest
Report this comment

Neil, Aren't you being a bit disingenous? Councillors for the City and Shire are part of ASLEF who are the promoters of the (Wood scheme. Now I as a Shire councillor won;t have to deal with any planning application and there is no problem me commenting. But equally, there is not Wood-scheme planning application so you are free to comment. Regards, Debra
Debra Storr
Report this comment

Neil Fletcher has stated that the council has the role of making full and proper judgment on the scheme. I agree with him, they should. Yet we find that the leader of the local council, John Stewart, is also listed on the board for ACSEF. Shouldn't he step down from this role? John Stewart was quoted by the Evening Express in November as stating that he wanted a genuine, open and honest consultation on the plans. But when you read the 'consultation' document, there is no discussion of the main issues; are the citizens of Aberdeen willing to give up a city centre park for a commercial development? Do you want a public park replaced by an urban plaza? The consultation has been organised by a public relations company on behalf of ACSEF. This is wrong. A truly open, dispassionate consultation should have been run by the council.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Neil Fletcher has stated that the council has the role of making full and proper judgment on the scheme. I agree with him, they should. Yet we find that the leader of the local council, John Stewart, is also listed on the board for ACSEF. Shouldn't he step down from this role? John Stewart was quoted by the Evening Express in November as stating that he wanted a genuine, open and honest consultation on the plans. But when you read the 'consultation' document, there is no discussion of the main issues; are the citizens of Aberdeen willing to give up a city centre park for a commercial development? Do you want a public park replaced by an urban plaza? The consultation has been organised by a public relations company on behalf of ACSEF. This is wrong. A truly open, dispassionate consultation should have been run by the council.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

I agree with mike shepherd on this cooncil and their bias towards the ASCEF vision. Why would you let a private enterprise essentially run a civic matter? Where are ALL the development options? Conversely, I wonder if the rabble of internet Peacock warriors would support an option to save UTG from ANY development, including the PVA development. Do they feel that strongly about the welfare of the gardens? Becasue until the Peacock planning was challenged by Mannie woods block of conrete paradise, the gardens needed saving from themselves, but they were nowhere to be seen. Babys throwing the rattle from the pram or the wolf crying for help? There's a fair few Aberdonians that want nithin changed. Leave the alone.
Allan F Simpson
Report this comment

So an EX employee (yes, EX!!!) of Peacocks makes a remark regarding an very, very important topic on a social network site. A social networking site which it designed for interaction between friends. And this is considered "AN ATTACK"?? And news worthy?? Well done for blowing this way out of perspective!! Also, Well done for buying, and promoting, the obvious deformation agenda towards Peacock and its supporters this pr company has been employed to perform. AJL I'm dissapointed that you buy and print this nonsense. Next time they send you a press release please have a more balanced view point.
Scott Forrest
Report this comment

Slightly off topic but it would be nice if the P&J fixed the commenting system here and removed all the duplicates.
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

As an opponent to Woods's/ACSEF's plans I have been told that I am a "candlemaker", "layabout", "scrounger", "habitual campaigner", "ignorant", "backward thinker", "tree hugger" and I should go and "get a job". Well I work 40 hours a week, never claimed benefits, I'm open minded and, although I love history, I do look at what our actions now will impact the future. I dont need a job and dont think there is anything wrong with hugging the odd tree. Now will Aberdeen Journals run a story at how ACSEF/Wood supporters have attacked me verbally? All the evidence is easy to find in their own website and on pro-Wood blogs
John Rutherford
Report this comment

as long as the backers of the civic bunker scheme and the P&J keep referring to any opposition as 'the vocal minority', they keep making it pretty clear that they really dont care for anyone's opinion apart from their own, and much less for a fair consultation process. If any negative comment is going to get dismissed and discredited, what is the point of pretending to ask the public what they think. In a consultation process, surely every single opinion, even that of someone saying that they want to see Pittodrie move to union terrace, should be treated with the same gravity as those that concur with the proposed nonsense. At the end of the day, i recon the consultation results will get manipulated and spun, and acsef will take whatever they want out of this process. But then desingning it, getting it past planning, and building it within the extremely unrealistic stated timeframe and budget just won't happen.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

An off the cuff remark has been blown out of all proportion by ACSEF. And who put this comment in the public domain? Certainly not Mr Proctor who posted it on his facebook and twitter pages. What were ACSEF doing reading the pages of an ex- peacock employee? Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not reading your websites... What was far more offensive was Sir Ian commenting "80% of Aberdonians have no interest in the arts" Perhaps he was speaking for himself but certainly not for myself, nor anyone I know. He is not, as Mr Proctor is, an individual expressing a view but a public figure heading a highly controversial development. I find being branded a heathen by the likes of him most objectionable. Perhaps he would also like to raze the library and theatre? If so, he could extend his civic square all the way to Woolmanhill.
Concerned Citizen
Report this comment

This one's for Allan F Simpson - being one of the "rabble of internet Peacock warriors" (someone who wants the PVA building in the gardens - not a concrete box destroying the gardens) - I can quite happily say that if anyone were to have fully approved plans to develop a sympathetic, world class building causing minimal damage, and actually using a lot of the un-usable (steep banks) to re-energise, vitalise and bring back to life (and attention) for the people of Aberdeen, I'd be behind it 100%. What I do object to is the complete destruction of the only green park in the centre of Aberdeen, and constantly telling people "we are raising the gardens" "it isn't concreting over the gardens" "how can you comment on our plans - when there are no plans"(?! I didn't get that one either!) I've been going on the ACSEF drawings that are still available on their website - but told by ACSEF themselves that "they bear no resemblance to what is possible - so you can't form a judgement on them" (relating to car parking space / subterranean content). How can something without solid plans be called a "public consultation"? in the context of architectural planning and approval - this "consultation" is half baked, half cocked and completely mercurial as to make the content we are supposed to "comment on" completely null and void. We are all for progress, we nearly had it until £50 million got under some noses and the breaks were slammed on HARD - that's progress? but, i guess if you are not going to benefit from a construction contract, architects fee or the simple joy of having your name associated with "someone else's progress" - I'd imagine those that can - will usurp and try to change the course of action in their favour, all in the name of “progress for Aberdeen”.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

I've said it once and I will say it again, why doesn't Wood take his £50M and use it for something useful like the demolition of the St Nicholas House eyesore and then build his square there instead, thus saving all this pathetic bitching that we are getting from both sides in this matter.
Dave McGregor
Report this comment

Mr Thomson, you didnae answer the question. Your not really saving the gardens are you? - but trying to save them for yourselves and from Woods Bunker, but now that Woods has usurped you, you want to complain.(oh but there was planning permission, hey ho welcome to the real world) You want to support a scheme that takes away 'a wee bit of the gardens, that takes away the "un-usable steep banks" i could go on but you are blinded by you own dishonesty. Your saving UTG from Woods I agree, but who will save it from PVA? You moniker should perhaps be 'I love UTG but with PVA stuck in the middle' Btw, I am firmly against any development there, especially Woods Bunker, Pva should ken a wee bit better than to destroy Abeedeens's heritage. Knock down St Nicholas house like Dave McGregor suggests.
Allan F Simpson
Report this comment

Allan Simpson you're talking rubbish and you know it. First of all a disclaimer: I'm not connected with PVA in any way (well, I did go to Gray's 10 years ago so there may be some roundabout connection). PVA are quite clearly working WITH the gardens and turning them into something more appealing and safe for people in Aberdeen to spend time in. Wood & Co want to remove the gardens rather than work with them which is a very different and damaging proposal. The gardens are currently underutilised, the PVA plans are a perfect balance for the future of the area.
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

Dave McGregor, Allan Simpson - Sir Ian Wood's extremely generous pledge of £50mil ONLY qualifies for a scheme that will see a "total transformation" of Aberdeen's civic centre. As with the mantra of Aberdeen Beyond 2000 (formed '86 by prominent local business men inc. Wood): they only see UTG as the location this can be achieved. There is literally no point arguing/suggesting for compromise or change of tact during this current ACSEF consultation - it's a lost vote, simple. (Granted a St Nicholas house location is a great idea!)
jaco skinny
Report this comment

Maybe some pertinent facts are in order: 1: Twitter comments are entirely public. That is the point of Twitter. 2: According to the P&J, Peacock are also on the steering group of The City Square Project, so I find it difficult to envisage some of the conspiratorial allegations made here, being true. 3: The Oil industry accounts for a great deal of the disposable income in Aberdeen, directly and indirectly. Some of this is spent on art. If you have a problem with the oil industry, you are in the wrong place, selling art to the wrong people. 4: Dismissing one set of offensive, published remarks as 'Off the cuff', whilst then poring over every nuance, every dotted 'i and crossed 't' of other published comments is hypocritical. 5: None of the Pro PVA comments here demonstrate 'inclusivity' that their centre is supposed to provide. They don't even stretch to 'tolerant'. Will I be welcome in their plan if I am not in their clique? 6: The survey asks if you are in favour of The City Square Project or not. It is a Yes, No question. How much easier/fairer/democratic can they make it? Perhaps we can see the PVA public consultation to see the high standard of impartiality and democracy that it represented?
Stevo Smith
Report this comment

Dave McGregor, Allan Simpson - Sir Ian Wood's extremely generous pledge of £50mil ONLY qualifies for a scheme that will see a "total transformation" of Aberdeen's civic centre. As with the mantra of Aberdeen Beyond 2000 (formed '86 by prominent local business men inc. Wood): they only see UTG as the location this can be achieved. There is literally no point arguing/suggesting for compromise or change of tact during this current ACSEF consultation - it's a lost vote, simple. (Granted a St Nicholas house location is a great idea!)
jaco skinny
Report this comment

Thanks for that reality check Stevo. 1. Yes Twitter is public. 2. Yes, according to the P&J Peacocks is on the City Square steering group. A fact that surprised Peacocks since they have never been part of the meetings nor have been allowed to. 3. Yes, disposable cash generated by the oil industry has been spent on art. But where are the facilities for beginners to the art field? Thats what the center is for. (And remember White space and Citymoves are in there too) 4 "Dismissing one set of offensive, published remarks as 'Off the cuff', whilst then poring over every nuance, every dotted 'i and crossed 't' of other published comments is hypocritical." Totally agree and so is being hurt by name calling while calling the opposing camp "elitist", "exclusive", "candlemakers", "scroungers", "serial campigners" and such. 5.Inclusive: definition.. 1. including (almost) everything within its scope Since the proposed art center is for ALL of Aberdeen. i.e. anyone...and I mean ANYONE can go in and get involved. So it IS inclusive...so thats sorted. Wether you WANT to get involved is your choice. 6. The survey would NOT submit if you said "No" to it unless you stated from the multiple choices given, what you wanted in it!! It was a loaded question. i.e. "No I dont want the plan to go ahead, but I want a water feature, some trees and a car park" It was contradicting itself and was NOT democratic by any means and many saw this as a trick. It has now been sorted. Again, thanks for clearing that up Stevo.
John Rutherford
Report this comment

I signed the first consultation on line, and there was only 1 very small box at the bottom to say no. But a 2 lots of questions of what you wanted to do with the space, as long as incorporated ACSEF adn Sir Ian Woods plans. Definately not what you would call an unbiased public discussion. As with Sir Wood butting in after planning for someelse has been granted, to carry on and be so underhanded show that he may be a millionaire and Tom Smith jumping at bit, but certainly not a very considerate or compassionate man. His way or nothing!!! Smacks a little of blackmail. But then again, he is a millionaire.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

http://www.sound-scotland.co.uk/site/2009/diary/11_28@1300.htm there is the advert for the OMG show at PVA in December - the culmination of a years work with disadvantaged kids in many parts of Aberdeen - "bring everyone" at the end of the invite (it was free and open to all). If anything, the local artists who expected their "Christmas financial boost" by selling some work at the usual A5 / small work Christmas exhibition were denied that opportunity, in order to promote the excellent work Scottish screen and cashback for communities and peacock did - which had been planned a year in advance - way before ACSEF decided to stick their oar in and procrastinate with their "public consultation". Inclusive? Please get off this ridiculous tabloid perception that “fine art is for the few” – or pickled sharks, or unmade beds… it can be many things to many people – and it’s evident that Aberdeen needs the opportunity to see more “fine art” – as we have plenty shops already, lets try raising everyone’s game here? – Education is key to a progressive life on this planet… I think it’d be an excellent building block in our collective experience… give it a chance?
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

So john a temporary mistake on the website still allowed you to vote no. So when they count the yes's and no's, it will still be representative, surely?. It's a public process, so a no will still be a no. I think claiming it as non-democratic before the results are even out, is just a way for PVA to back both horses. You never commented on my point about Peacocks public consultation results, is that available online anywhere? How many were consulted and how and where from? And minnie - if you voted no, what other questions did you want to answer? You are contradicting John into the bargain Also this plan has been mooted 3 times in the past so its not accurate to say Peacock were first. This will be my last post on the matter a I have more important things to do, but feel free to respond.
Stevo Smith
Report this comment

Maybe it was a mistake. And I think it was. As I said, they fixed it, so why was Minnie contradicting me? She obviously wanted to put more comments on it but there is no option for it. Hopefully it will be democratic and open now, but can you blame peoples doubts when Ian Wood states that there will be no car park and that it wont be an option to suddenly find out that over 400 car parking spaces on 2 levels have been conceptually designed? I do not represent PVA and have no connection to them other than I like their plans so I have no idea about the results to their consultation other than it passed. If you want the results do your homework, it was a public consultation to the results will be in the public domain. Personnaly I have no interest in those results. Oh and thanks for giving us your time since you are so busy are are you just too scared of the answers to read them?
John Rutherford
Report this comment

http://bit.ly/5rPgEp
jaco skinny
Report this comment

Stevo, re: Pertinent Facts - From the city square consultation document; - "The vision is for a more attractive Aberdeen City Centre. Greener, better connected, safer. A City Centre that is inspiring and vibrant, a place that everyone can access, meet and enjoy. The proposal is to redevelop Union Terrace Gardens and the Denburn Valley to create a new civic space. We believe that doing so is the key to creating jobs, investment and improving quality of life for the future. If Aberdeen City and Shire is to be recognised as a world leader in the energy sector, we need a City Centre that reflects that ambition. We need to return our City Centre to its former glory by creating a focal point that we can all be proud of." ... From the Oxford dictionary; consult |k?n's?lt| verb [ trans. ] seek information or advice from (someone with expertise in a particular area) • have discussions or confer with (someone), typically before undertaking a course of action ’ " ... "marketing |'märkiti ng | noun the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising." ... Public consultation or marketing exercise by ACSEF? You make your own mind up.
Concerned Citizen
Report this comment

Sorry John - did not mean that I wouldn't read the comments, was just trying to avoid a needless back and forth.I understand you are not going to be moved from your position and I the same. Also apologise for directing the PVA comments at yourself. Was framed as being a summary of all the comments posted but apologies nonetheless. I looked at the online survey and there is a space for comments - it's right there. Why are you saying it doesn't exist? The car park thing is indeed disturbing but from past experience I have heard surveyors use the car park analogy as a way to describe the scale of an empty space. Are you sure this is not the case here? I could be wrong though. Just a thought. Who knows it could have been an 'off the cuff' remark in which case we can all ignore it....lol I shall now go and hunt out those elusive results from the Peacock consultation. Odd though that, that consultation is of no concern to you.If you have nothing to do with PVA why are you not scrutinising that plan with the same intellectual rigour? Meanwhile lets all rejoice at jaco's post and hopefully a more constructive, dialogue will emerge from that approach, for the benefit of everyone. I wish you all the best and thank you for your measured responses.
Stevo Smith
Report this comment

Can I just clarify that a previous comment is incorrect. Peacock Visual Arts do sit on the ACSEF Steering Group for Union Terrace Gardens.
Paul Robertson
Report this comment

As a supplementary to the above - there is however, a City Square Project Board, which they do not sit on. Neither do I. But the Steering Group oversees the work which the Project Board does, so there is an element of scrutiny which Peacock is included in.
Paul Robertson
Report this comment

Why is this even being debated.....the city does not need, nor require a 'city' square. Even if were to be built, we would see the same issues as we had previously with Union Terrace Gardens being plagued by alcoholics and drug users. If we are going to invest £150M into something worthwhile for the city, let us make it a lasting legacy. Once the Oil industry has finished with Aberdeen, there will be huge gaps and large scale unemployment. Let us see the money put to something which will benefit these individuals in time, rather than waiting until the last minute and having to scramble about for ideas.
Ian Stewart
Report this comment

One final point to make, Sir Ian Wood has been offended by the comments, oh what a shame. He may be very wealthy, but, does that mean that he automatically gains our love and respect and we are not allowed to speak out against him?
Ian Stewart
Report this comment

"Can I just clarify that a previous comment is incorrect. Peacock Visual Arts do sit on the ACSEF Steering Group for Union Terrace Gardens. Paul Robertson" and if a fly land on an elephant, it can make an impact on its direction. "on paper" - what a great thing.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Cheers Stevo. Ahh, they have added a comment box now. Thats good. But it was not there before. How many times have they changed the form now? But thats good, means they are listening, however it means that I missed out on making a comment. Will I have to vote again to get this option? No, I believe in democracy and wont fiddle by doing multiple votes. Why am I not scrutinising the PVA's plan? I dont need, to. Its passed consultation, been given planning permission and is ready to go. However the Wood plan is in consultation NOW. That means we should be scrutinising it, we should be debating it, we should argue about it. Isn't that the point of the consultation. If you missed the Peacock one.....tough, that's your fault. You had the opportunity and you didn't take it. Sorry. But go down to Peacocks centre in castlegate, ask questions, look at the model there. Thats what I had to do as I missed the consultation too. But, hey. That was MY fault. I believe the PVA and Union Terrace Gardens can live in harmony together and as the Gardens are my number one concern, I back them. Stevo, its good to debate, so thanks for your questions and I agree. We will never agree. Take care of yourself my friend and keep asking those questions ....to both sides.
John Rutherford
Report this comment

ACSEF it appears will manipulate anything for its own dubious agenda.
Sean Ashley
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.