breathing new life into Aberdeen

Vision of an iconic city square

Published: 09/02/2010

BUSINESSMAN Sir Ian Wood could scarcely have imagined the storm he was about to unleash when he offered to donate £50million of his personal fortune to create his vision of an iconic city square in the centre of his native Aberdeen.

The plan to raise the virtually unused Union Terrace Gardens to the same level as the main Union Street thoroughfare, incorporating the already-approved Peacock Arts Centre, seemed, on the face of it, a win-win situation for the people who have watched the degeneration of the city centre with growing alarm. It appears, however, that his offer is one that the majority of Aberdonians feel they can refuse.

Fellow businessman Jim Milne, chairman and managing director of the Balmoral Group, which employs more than 500 people in Aberdeen, is the latest, and arguably the highest-profile, figure to rail against the plans. Mr Milne, always one to call a spade a spade, accuses supporters of Sir Ian’s proposal of intimidating and pressurising sections of the business community, and talks of “desecration” and “demolition of the city’s heritage” to underline his personal opposition.

We believe firmly that the proposal would breathe new life into the tired heart of Aberdeen. It will not, as some critics suggest, exclude the Peacock Arts Centre, which will be incorporated into the design, nor will it be another shopping mall.

Sir Ian has stated from the start that, if people do not support his plan, he will walk away and become a grumpy Aberdonian, but £50million richer. That would be a great loss, which future generations would live to regret, and it is to be hoped that those for and against the scheme can, even at this late stage, have a constructive dialogue which might salvage something out of the situation.

Reader's Comments

The chances of a constructive dialogue are damaged by such ignorant posturing. If the editor or whoever wrote this opinion piece actually read their own paper, they might be able to spot several inaccuracies it contains. The high handed manner in which you patronise Jim Milne is a disgrace as well - shame on you, P&J, shame on you. You should leave such sleights to Tom Smith, who let's face it, has had plenty of practice dismissing folk like Frank Doran, Annie Lennox and now Jim Milne over the last two days.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

I despair! As the author has commented "We believe firmly...", then I take it this article speaks for the editorial team of the P&J. As such, I wonder how they can write that the square "will not exclude Peacock" when this very paper has reported that PVA's proposal has funding from the Scottish Arts Council only for their existing design. Is Sir Ian also going to replace that funding? I look forward to the day this paper can answer this kind of question with balanced opinion and good journalism. But it does not seem that day is with us yet.
Concerned Citizen
Report this comment

I agree with the two previous contributors. A very unbalanced piece of journalism, making no mention of Anne Begg's, and other politiicans opposition, along with no mention of public contributions in the paper which were skewed heavily against the Wood plans.
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

There are many things that annoy me about the city square fiasco, but possibly the two biggest are the P&J's laughable inability to report the issue in a remotely balanced way, and Ian Wood's poisoned chalice offer of £50 million. If the man even remotely cared about Aberdeen in any way, rather than the size of his ego, he'd donate the money freely so it can be used where it is really needed. Instead, he arrogantly dictates it goes towards his pet project, blithly stating it will help sustain Aberdeen and that 80% of Aberdonians don't care about art while steamrolling decades of heritage in favour of 70's architecture at it's very worse.
Iain Kay
Report this comment

Sir Ian's £50million is very nice but not so nice when you realise we will have to raise twice that (in reality far more than twice) in order to use it, even then we are still restricted by very specific conditions dictated by Sir Ian.
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

Just some "proof reading": 1) Virtually unused. 2) Incorporating Peacock. 3) Alarmed watchers of degeneration. 4) Mayority "feel" can refuse. 5) Accuses supporters. 6) Desecration and demolition of heritage as "personal" opinion. 7) And last but not least "WE believe": Wouldn't be about time the writer of this sign with his/her name, thus the rest of us, mere mortals, know whom we've got to thank for so much enlightment?
Vincent McDee
Report this comment

Paragraph 2 for starters: the Gardens aren't "virtually unused"; the "Plan" isn't to "raise" the Gardens but to replace them with a 3-storey steel & concrete structure topped off by a concrete slabs; the PVA Centre can't, as designed & approved, be "incorporated" into the said structure; and the relevance of this scheme as a solution to the "degeneration" of the city centre is hard to discern.
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

Paragraph 4: "nor will it be another shopping mall". But what will it be? ACSEF keep telling us what their proposed City Square won't be, but not what it will be. A multi-storey car park? An elevated, wind- and rain-swept expanse of nothing much, some way removed from both the main centre of activity in St Nicholas Street and the obvious routeway of choice - the "North-South Axis" - between St Nicholas Street and Union Square?
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

Another appalling opinion piece from the P&J. They know it and almost everybody else knows it that the city square plans are in complete dissaray, they're not even half baked and are in my opinion completely laughable. The editorial team at the P&J must have taken leave of their senses.
John Park
Report this comment

Great reporting from the P & J Would you class that as a biased opinion from a newspaper??? You could never say it was good investagive reporting. Whoever wrote this article ( NOte they did not put their name to it) must deserve a hearty welcome from Sir Wood. Speak about propaganda, and this comes from our own daily paper. Maybe as already said they are scared of losing advertising business from these supporters of Sir Wood. It would be nice to know just how much incentive some of these businesses are getting to go with this project. It is surprising that a daily paper cannot see the flaws in the consultation paper. Perhaps they had a hand along with Tom Smith and Sir Wood in drafing this load of progaganda and misinterpretation. This is a very pathetic and underhanded bias from this paper
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Thanks to Jim Milne for standing up and speaking out against this wasteful and destructive development that is the city square. Shame on you P&J, again and again and again (for all the reasons mentioned in above comments). What an embarrassment of an article.
Eva Merz
Report this comment

There was a danger of this becoming a "business vs arts" debate, rather than a debate on the future of our city beyond the lifetimes of Sir ian and any of us. Hopefully James Milne's opposition to the scheme will encourage other business people to stand out in opposition. The city deserves something visionary, something that will bring a benefit, and sadly, Sir ian's schemes are just not good enough. Very disappointing that thhe P&J either doesn't see that, or will compromise its views for fear of offending someone who can handle criticism of his ideas.
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

This is fantastic... Not the sloppy, biased Editorial, but the respose of REAL Aberdonians who are committed to the future of out city. For what it's worth, I quite like the idea of the City Square -- it's the £100 million+ cost that worries me and as it stands it's hardly a "win-win" situation for the average taxpayer.
Bill Harrison
Report this comment

Bill, I think we all like the idea of a City Square... just not at "This Place". A real win-win for Aberdeen would be so easy if Sir Ian would take his generous £50m offer to another location in the city centre (St Nicholas house… hint! hint!)
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Brian, the reason stated by Ian Woods to picking UTG for his bronze statue rather than St Nick's house is that the development would "...pull[s]together the Bon Accord and St Nicholas centres, connects them to union square through the Green..". Er, ok. Maybe Ian should have a look at a map. Last time I checked if you wanted to walk between the BA and St Nick centres, going through the green would be quite a detour. Truly, the man has his finger right on the pulse of Aberdeen.
Iain Kay
Report this comment

Sir Wood has already stated his opinion - his way, his place and nothing else. Rather an old schoolboy to be playing such childish games with the people of Aberdeen. Same as any other bully he has his entourage. The ACSEF, the city council Kevin Stewart was sticking up for him and now the daily paper. What else does he need. Perhaps he could use the common sense which got him to the stage of being a millionaire or was that just luck by being in the right place at the right time. He is not showing any enterprising thoughts on the subject of the gardens. Only a small minded petty bully with too much money.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

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