Rivals go head to head over gardens

By Morag Lindsay and Joanna Skailes

Published: 19/02/2010

A crowd of about 300 people packed Aberdeen’s Citadel last night as the two groups behind opposing plans for the city’s Union Terrace Gardens faced one another in a public debate for the first time.

Businessman Sir Ian Wood was booed by some in the audience as he defended his proposal to build over the Victorian park with a £140million city square, using £50million of his personal fortune.

His critics included some of the 6,000-plus residents who have signed a petition calling for the gardens to be left as they are and supporters of the rival bid by Peacock Contemporary Arts to build a new centre in the natural slope of the gardens.

The Wood Group chairman enjoyed backing from other business leaders who insisted the scheme, currently the subject of a two-month consultation steered by Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef), was essential to encourage companies to invest in the north-east when North Sea oil and gas runs dry.

Sir Ian told the audience the project was essential to safeguard the future prosperity of the city.

“If we don’t act now, in 20 years’ time we will be having this gathering again but the agenda will be about what we intend to do to tackle unemployment,” he said.

Sharing a platform with Sir Ian and Acsef chairman Tom Smith was Elly Rothnie, from Peacock Visual Arts, who said she was still hopeful some kind of compromise could be reached between the two sides.

Peacock had planning permission and three-quarters of its £13million funding in place when Sir Ian unveiled his plan. The arts group risks losing the lynchpin of its funding – a £4.3million grant from the Scottish Arts Council – when the body ceases to exist next month, throwing its entire future into jeopardy.

Acsef has said there is space for a contemporary arts centre within its square, but the two sides have been unable to reach a deal.

“What we would all like to see is some sort of win-win situation,” said Ms Rothnie.

“Our aims are so aligned that we have to find some way of making sure the city benefits and both projects can be achieved.”

Artist Jacki Sinclair, 53, of Whitehouse Street, Aberdeen, said Union Terrace Gardens were important to city dwellers like herself, bringing up families in blocks of flats with no green space of their own. She said she was initially opposed to the Peacock scheme but had been won round when she saw the designs and now believed it was the best way to breathe new life into the park.

Alasdair Johnston, 48, of Grampian Place, Aberdeen, received a round of applause when he said the Peacock Visual Arts design was “aesthetic and practical” and suggested Sir Iain invest his £50million in a facelift for St Nicholas House instead.

Neil Rothnie, of Schoolhill, Aberdeen, said the oil industry had contributed nothing to the cultural life of the city and could not be trusted to do so now. “In 35 years we have no rep theatre, no orchestra, not one single building produced by the oil industry that will last a year after they go. All of the money that has flowed from the North Sea is secreted under the mattresses of Bieldside.”

The meeting was organised by the city’s Labour MPs Frank Doran and Anne Begg and MSP Lewis Macdonald.

Mr Doran said he and his colleagues called the talks in an effort to find “peace in our time”. He said: “Our concern was that the debate had become polarised, and seemed to be turning into a debate by press release. Both of these projects have the potential to make too big an impact for the city to be handled in that way, and we felt it was time to bring people together to try to get some facts out.”

There has been anger that people are not being consulted on the Peacock scheme as part of the Acsef consultation and complaints about members of the public being denied access to focus groups and meetings organised in association with community councils.

Edgar Gonzalez, whose London firm of architects won a design competition with its plan for the Peacock scheme, spent yesterday afternoon in meetings with Sir Ian, talking over a range of potential compromises for the site.

He said he shared the concerns of Sir Ian, Tom Smith and many Aberdonians that Union Street was past its best, but the answer lay in tackling the street itself, not destroying Union Terrace Gardens.

“If I have a headache I don’t get a foot massage,” he said, to loud cheers from the audience.

“Aberdeen has some very, very nice urban architecture and natural characteristics. With a little bit of dusting off and a lot of marketing to point out its benefits you would be very surprised by how much this granite city will shine in the sun again.”

Also on the panel was David McClean, head of the city’s Scott Sutherland school of architecture and the built environment at Gray’s School of Art. He said Union Terrace Gardens was “perhaps the most important feature of the city” and that the real problems with Union Street lay on the land to the south of Union Bridge.

The last word went to fellow panellist Allan Garvie, former head of planning, policy and environment with Aberdeenshire Council, who urged all sides to come together to find a solution.

“There are no camps in this city, just good citizens who want the best for Aberdeen,” he said.

Reader's Comments

As of this article going live the signatures are 7022+ not 6000. :)
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

Compare ACSEF's position: “If we don’t act now, in 20 years’ time we will be having this gathering again but the agenda will be about what we intend to do to tackle unemployment". To that of Peacock's: “Aberdeen has some very, very nice urban architecture and natural characteristics. With a little bit of dusting off and a lot of marketing to point out its benefits you would be very surprised by how much this granite city will shine in the sun again.” It has been like this all the way through the consultation, ACSEF threaten Aberdeen citizens with doomed future (which is all *our* fault) if we don't support *their* idea. Peacock on the other hand present a very realistic, encouraging view to improve Aberdeen.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

I agree with the above... I just dont see what aberdeen is going to gain by distroying the gardens. Money should be spent in other places.. It is also so nieve to think that the go ahead of the city square will solve all current and future unemployment problems.
clare davidson
Report this comment

I wonder how many of these individuals campaigning against the ACSEF plans actually use the gardens on a regular basis or indeed, will use them in the years to come, should a decision be made to shelve the idea of a civic square? Probably a similar amount of people who actually used Balmedie Beach but who campaigned to the hilt to try and stop Donald Trump's plans for a World class golf course.
Joe Bloggs
Report this comment

But a Visual Arts Centre will solve all our problems instead Clare? Hypocrits, the lot of you!!
Joe Bloggs
Report this comment

Joe Bloggs, had you turned up at the debate you'd have found plenty people use the gardens on a regular basis. In fact you could just visit the gardens yourself. Everyone agree's they could do with improving, but they key there is improving not destroying. The Peacock plan does not claim to solve all our problems (unlike ACSEF's plan which they claim will solve everything for the future...hah!). Peacock were quite clear that if you want to improve Union St, if you want to increase jobs, decking over the gardens is not a viable solution. Even Scotland's architectural watchdog yesterday voiced condemnation of the CSP plan.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

I attended last night, though why I have no idea, everyone who was there was of a fixed mindset. It was also clear most had gone their simply with the intention of making jibes at Ian Wood, one woman behind me was using some utterly appalling language during his presentation. This city has been held back for years because we are generally a bunch of moaning, negative, small minded fools when anyone attempts to inject a bit of vision. All we ever hear from people is "Aberdeen is rubbish, why can't it be more like other cities." So someone says, OK, I will come forward with a proposal to make it more like other cities, and then the same people turn round and say "No you won't, we like Aberdeen just the way it is." I suppose it must be the mindset that some folk are only happy if they're unhappy. One thing I find interesting is that nobody asked Mr Doran and his cronies which project they backed. I suspect that, as usual, they will wait to see which bandwagon has the most folk on it and then leap onboard.
Jane Spencer
Report this comment

The fact is, Aberdeen IS rubbish. I've lived in London, currently working Manchester and lived for a decade in Canada. How can it be more like other cities.....a city might be the answer. Look at Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square, a lovely setting, they freeze the pond every winter so people can skate on it. They have a stunning city hall. Ummmmm, let's put that into perspective for Aberdeen shall we. Ummm, frozen pond, yip had that at the Castlegate and nobody went. Stunning city hall, once Marischal College is completed, yes, it will be. However, that's nowhere near the proposed city square.... So where will that leave us, with a square, which might be used, but, generally the majority of people in Aberdeen are only interested in shopping. Why else do we have 4 shopping malls within half a mile of each other!!!! The City Square for all it's rights and wrongs, will NOT attract further investment, or create new jobs. In 20 years, it'll be a lovely place for all the unemployed to congregate. Personally I have no feelings on either idea, I both think that they are as useless as each other. If Sir Ian W want's to do something with his £50M, let him build the new AFC stadium, freeing up some badly needed cash for the club, or perhaps injecting some money into Glencraft or Doonies farm. There are far more worthwhile projects in the city which could benefit from this type of cash injection, rather than wasting on new projects. The only long term solution to unemployment in Aberdeen is to attract new forms of industry or large employers. The paper mills are gone, engineering in the city is dying. We have the Oil & Gas industry but that won't be around forever, so the time is to have some strategic thinking NOW.
Ian Stewart
Report this comment

Jane, perhaps you were at a different meeting? The one I went to saw Sir Ian open his talk with an immediate accusation that the audience would be "hostile". It concluded with what seemed like Sir Ian deliberate baiting the audience so that the watching cameras and journalists would get their "stormy meeting" story. A most cynical tactic, and one immediately exposed by Elly Rothnie's grace and composure when she thanked Tom Smith, Sir Ian and everybody in the room for attending. My conclusion is that the minority faction who refuse to countenance any compromise, who can only talk about a bleak future, whose central premise is "trust me" when day by day their story changes, are Sir Ian and Acsef.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

While, being out of town, I was unable to attend last nights meeting, I was however heartened by the number of ordinary that appear to have attended. It must now be very clear to the proponents of the Wood scheme that it is unwelcome in it's present form. In regard to Jane Spencer's jibe at politicians: I took time to e-mail all local politicians to ask their support in opposing the plans. Only two replied, one being Anne Begg, who made her views very clear, as she has consistently done. Shame on the rest of you for sitting on the fence. A clear compromise is staring us all in the face. Allow the PVA project to go ahead and when St Nicholas House is demolished form the new square there. It should be deservedly be named The Sir Ian Wood Plaza in light of his generosity. I don't see any of the other multi millionaires, who's wealth was built on the back of Aberdeen, queueing up to be so philanthopic.
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

A fixed mindset? Such as ACSEF completely refusing to compromise while everyone else calls for a middle ground solution? Sir Ian claimed they had offered to take involve the Peacock solution with their plans but this is a blatant distortion. He asked them to drop everything and join the CSP without guaranteeing anything in return and more importantly he refused to underwrite the £9Million funding they had worked to gain. Who in their right mind would drop that funding and their appraised building for a vague and widely condemned plan? And you consider trying to be like other cities a "vision"? How about being Aberdeen and not other like cities?
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

Jane, you are right in that the vast, vast majority of people who attended were pro-Peacock, or at least anti city square. I can't speak for all of them, but I'll explain my thoughts on the matter. I wasn't there to jibe Ian Wood. I wanted to hear from him, first hand, if there is any real substance to the project he is backing. Having listened to what he said, and listening to his stubborn refusal to compromise and some almost laughable answers to the questions put to him, I don't believe there is any tangable vision at all. I'm not prepared to endorse a project that, to me, feels like an pet project rather than something that improve the city centre. The key question of how a massive square, completely out of proportion of the city it will be a part of, will secure our economic future remains completely unanswered. It's got nothing to do with small mindedly rejecting vision, and I take issue with that suggestion that completely dismisses the very real concerns that many people seem to share. Firstly I don't believe there is a vision (at least, on Sir Ian's part) and secondly, because, I am embracing change as I want to see the Peacock centre come to light. I'm not an artist, in fact I work in the oil industry but I recognise that the Peacock arts centre will bring a wide benefit to the city far beyond the arts community. I lived opposite the DCA in Dundee when it opened, and witnessed firsthand the positive effect that building had on what was formally a fairly rundown part of Dundee, and now that city is attracting interest from the V&A to establish it's scottish base, and is a dramatically different city to how it was 10-15 years ago. That is the kind of effect I want to see in my city.
Iain Kay
Report this comment

"This city has been held back for years because we are generally a bunch of moaning, negative, small minded fools when anyone attempts to inject a bit of vision. All we ever hear from people is "Aberdeen is rubbish, why can't it be more like other cities." So someone says, OK, I will come forward with a proposal to make it more like other cities, and then the same people turn round and say "No you won't, we like Aberdeen just the way it is." ------> Jane, I think you are misrepresenting the majority of people who were at the debate last night. From what I can gather, the vast majority DO want change, DO want vision, DO want progress. It's not the people who are holding the city back, it's ACC who have washed their hands of due process, and ACSEF with their posturing, scaremongering and inability to compromise.
Mark McPherson
Report this comment

Could I have it explained, as just how an expensive cosmetic exercise on a garden, which many will hate, will secure 'the future prosperity of the City'. What an absurd thing to say.
Michty Me
Report this comment

Absolutely typical!!! As soon as there is a chance to improve and bring our city into the new century you clowns shoot it down. you lot comment on improving do you not see the railway line running past the park and all of the rubbish that accumulates up the sides of the tracks or the big wall that sorrounds most of it are these just other lovely urban Characteristics!! Leveling off the gardens is perfectly viable it is just the small minded mentality of some of our citizens that hold this city back!!! Yes it will be difficult yes it will require lots of engineering work and money but if you want quality and something unique then this is what it takes. There are also plenty of better parks in and around the city so the arguments of we will lose our only green area is nonsense and anyway the whole idea of developing this is not to turn it into a concrete jungle but to make it a better park somewhere people can congregate and to add some colour to the place instead of the grey dour buildings you associate with the city!!! I am sure that arts building will be built as part of the development but I can assure you all if it is built as the gardens are now it will close within a year we have all seen it before and then we will be left with another empty building. The city centre as it stands at present is an eyesore old decrepit, dirty and falling apart this is our chance to bring a new dimension into our city to breathe new life into it to make it a little more cosmopolitan stop holding progression back!!! No offence to the other persons commenting but I get the impression that you are older and are to set in you ways to this I say look around at the city we love it is now a DUMP!!!
Abby Abdessadek
Report this comment

Well said Jane Spencer. It's about time the voice of the silent majority is heard instead of the Nimbys, nae sayers and doom and gloom merchants that seem to populate these debates. My comment to Sir Ian Wood is just ignore these idiots and go ahead anyway. Elizabeth Duthie didn't have to go through this BS when she got the Duthie Park built over a century ago.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

To attract skilled professionals a city needs to have a good reputation, look attractive and offer a range of amenities - restaurants, arts, sport, shopping, schools etc. At the moment Aberdeen City's stock is at a low ebb. After 30 years of prosperity little has been done to soften and enhance the reputation and allure of Europe's Oil Capital. If many of the contributors really cannot see the connection between future prosperity and the redevelopment of the city centre then we need not look very far for the reasons behind Aberdeen's inertia and ongoing decline.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

To attract skilled professionals a city needs to have a good reputation, look attractive and offer a range of amenities - restaurants, arts, sport, shopping, schools etc. At the moment Aberdeen City's stock is at a low ebb. After 30 years of prosperity little has been done to soften and enhance the reputation and allure of Europe's Oil Capital. If many of the contributors really cannot see the connection between future prosperity and the redevelopment of the city centre then we need not look very far for the reasons behind Aberdeen's inertia and ongoing decline.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Abby Abdessadek, Peacock have proven over the past 40 years their ability to grow an arts centre and community based charity from nothing to something that is internationally recognised. I do find it amusing how you say the better idea is to spend hundreds of millions in money we don't have (thanks to the council debts and recession) to turn a park into a park. The Peacock building has been internationally appraised and the simple fact they gained the significant funding and planning permission shows the level of belief in the project. You also claim the city centre is an eyesore... well removing the gardens won't solve this problem! As the Edgar Gonzalez said “If I have a headache I don’t get a foot massage” - in other words you're not going to solve problems elsewhere in the city with a vague idea to deck over the heart of Aberdeen. If anything the CSP is a small minded, poorly considered vision based in some other reality.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

Sandy, on leaving the meeting last night to catch the bus, the first thing I had to do was to side-step drunken youths brawling on the corner of the town house. If ACSEF think that for one minute their "ornamental" gardens are going to last any length of time with the drinking culture the way it is in this city, then they are sure to be sadly disillusioned. The sight reminiscent of a battleground is not one any of us would wish any visitor to take away as their memory of Aberdeen. Wake up and smell the coffee!!
Kenneth Flavill
Report this comment

Sandy Milne, "doom and gloom merchants"… excuse me? It's Sir Ian spreading doom and gloom with threats and accusations of a ruined Aberdeen if we don't tail along with him. Peacock and the UTG supporters have been nothing but positive in finding a compromise solution for all, something ACSEF and Sir Ian have refused to consider. It's becoming quite clear that the City Square supports have so far paid absolutely no attention to the views of those who do not support it, I don't even think they've paid much attention to the City Square project itself.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

I think the main point everyone is missing is Sir Ian Wood's purposed plan is not going to drive the amount of new business that he is planning. If anyone was at the meeting last night they would have heard me speak out during the early questioning opportunities. Peacock's plan is to create an art centre, it will increase the culture of Aberdeen and will keep the Union Terrace Gardens, but it will not "save" Aberdeen once the oil runs out, but neither will Wood's plan! Business will not be interested by the "Park" due to the fact there will not be any possibilities for the business to settle anywhere near the park will be placed. The Peacock centre's design and plans have already been awarded and commended by some of Scotland and the U.K's top architecture, design and artistic minds, why on earth has it not been allowed to go ahead and bring that attention that it's design has attracted to Aberdeen itself? But hey, as Ian Wood put so "accurately" last night, I'm "a young lad" and cannot understand the influence of the oil industry in Aberdeen!
Callum Hopkins
Report this comment

I think the main point everyone is missing is Sir Ian Wood's purposed plan is not going to drive the amount of new business that he is planning. If anyone was at the meeting last night they would have heard me speak out during the early questioning opportunities. Peacock's plan is to create an art centre, it will increase the culture of Aberdeen and will keep the Union Terrace Gardens, but it will not "save" Aberdeen once the oil runs out, but neither will Wood's plan! Business will not be interested by the "Park" due to the fact there will not be any possibilities for the business to settle anywhere near the park will be placed. The Peacock centre's design and plans have already been awarded and commended by some of Scotland and the U.K's top architecture, design and artistic minds, why on earth has it not been allowed to go ahead and bring that attention that it's design has attracted to Aberdeen itself? But hey, as Ian Wood put so "accurately" last night, I'm "a young lad" and cannot understand the influence of the oil industry in Aberdeen!
Callum Hopkins
Report this comment

I think the main point everyone is missing is Sir Ian Wood's purposed plan is not going to drive the amount of new business that he is planning. If anyone was at the meeting last night they would have heard me speak out during the early questioning opportunities. Peacock's plan is to create an art centre, it will increase the culture of Aberdeen and will keep the Union Terrace Gardens, but it will not "save" Aberdeen once the oil runs out, but neither will Wood's plan! Business will not be interested by the "Park" due to the fact there will not be any possibilities for the business to settle anywhere near the park will be placed. The Peacock centre's design and plans have already been awarded and commended by some of Scotland and the U.K's top architecture, design and artistic minds, why on earth has it not been allowed to go ahead and bring that attention that it's design has attracted to Aberdeen itself? But hey, as Ian Wood put so "accurately" last night, I'm "a young lad" and cannot understand the influence of the oil industry in Aberdeen!
Callum Hopkins
Report this comment

I think the main point everyone is missing is Sir Ian Wood's purposed plan is not going to drive the amount of new business that he is planning. If anyone was at the meeting last night they would have heard me speak out during the early questioning opportunities. Peacock's plan is to create an art centre, it will increase the culture of Aberdeen and will keep the Union Terrace Gardens, but it will not "save" Aberdeen once the oil runs out, but neither will Wood's plan! Business will not be interested by the "Park" due to the fact there will not be any possibilities for the business to settle anywhere near the park will be placed. The Peacock centre's design and plans have already been awarded and commended by some of Scotland and the U.K's top architecture, design and artistic minds, why on earth has it not been allowed to go ahead and bring that attention that it's design has attracted to Aberdeen itself? But hey, as Ian Wood put so "accurately" last night, I'm "a young lad" and cannot understand the influence of the oil industry in Aberdeen!
Callum Hopkins
Report this comment

the main argument of ACSEF's change of mind (from previously backing (and assessing the potential £5million per year an arts centre could bring here) - is that "when a better offer comes along, you have to grab it" (and some spurious metaphor about football transfers?)... So - a £140 million pound "investment" (where £70+ million is still unnacounted for) is the carrot here. Tom was rather excited about the possibility of £170 million coming to Aberdeen... to do what? - the same function as a £14million pound art centre investment? "It'll be bigger better bolder than PVA"- yet in the same breath, not actually knowing what will be in the place. (still "no car parks" and "not commercial"). S0 - if we have a massive concrete square that does has the same function of an elegant world class arts centre - HOW is that a better investment? - where's the facts of its return Vs the ACSEF appraisal of the £5 million PVA will bring? I also liked Sir Ian saying he "liked the PVA design, but you just won't see it" - so his solution? "put the new arts centre underground" ? we just want straight, honest answers. (oh, and a modicum of trust and belief / backing in the cultural providers of Aberdeen - I trust them more to run a cultural centre than some business men - stick to Energetica as a project ACSEF - and work WITH PVA - on helping them provide the culture "up here". We all want the best for Aberdeen - so please don't say we don't know what we're talking about.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Someone asked why the politicians are sitting on the fence. They are probably hoping that this scheme dies a natural death, before they have to put it to the sword. Over the next few years local government is to have its expenditure significantly reduced. Where is the public contribution to come from? The sum of £100+ million is greater than what the City collects in Council Tax in a year. Politics and Governance in the future are will be dominated by the management of declining resources, in common speak 'cuts'. The timing of this project could not be more ill fated.
Michty Me
Report this comment

?
Fiona Cooper
Report this comment

Just make sir Ian Wood pay for the complete thing & the locals will be very proud of Mr Scrooge.
Fiona Cooper
Report this comment

so - the pro UTG / PVA people are "Nimbys". "not in my back yard"... hmm... I want a word class, award winning, invigorating, community driven arts centre in my "back yard" please - Actually, I want a "back yard" - not a slab of undulating concrete (not concrete?) with a car park (not car park?) corridor build to connect shops. If anyone's a NIMBY - it's the people who put the kybosh on a fully approved planning application with £9+ million funding in place. Just drop the rhetoric and give us answers to all the questions that are making the MAJORITY angry because we're not getting answers that make CSP accountable or valid, when compared to a fully appraised (by ACSEF) Contemporary Arts centre.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Fa' wants a chuddy magnet, and the biggest skate park per heid o population in the world? Solve the unemployment that will happen when oil runs out! Fit wi a puckle o' scaffies to clean up the kebab and beer vomit fae the nicht afore, an some trogledites tae work in the subterranean car park & shops that wi need yet mair o'? All for triple what Sir Ian is generiously offering. Vision Sir Ian? Yi should o' gan' ti specsavers. Use yer philanthropic gift for fit the people o' Aberdeen want and need; it certainly ain't this vandalism of lovely city centre green space. Or is it a case of tik it or leave it, in which case thanks bit nae thanks.
Willie Wallace
Report this comment

Fa' wants a chuddy magnet, and the biggest skate park per heid o population in the world? Solve the unemployment that will happen when oil runs out! Fit wi a puckle o' scaffies to clean up the kebab and beer vomit fae the nicht afore, an some trogledites tae work in the subterranean car park & shops that wi need yet mair o'? All for triple what Sir Ian is generiously offering. Vision Sir Ian? Yi should o' gan' ti specsavers. Use yer philanthropic gift for fit the people o' Aberdeen want and need; it certainly ain't this vandalism of lovely city centre green space. Or is it a case of tik it or leave it, in which case thanks bit nae thanks.
Willie Wallace
Report this comment

grey dour buildings that is called granite and will stand for a million years,if you want more people to use the gardens it has to be spruced up for sure, if you make Union street pedestrian, add the peacock vision a few coffee shops, proper lihting at night you are there, its as simple as that, i am not sure what Wood is up too but you can be sure it is something, no one gives away 50 million for nothing come on?
bob seivwright
Report this comment

Perhaps we could pay double Council Tax for a year. Can't see the citizens being Scroogelike and objecting.
Michty Me
Report this comment

jock all the things you have mentioned we have have you never visited them, i have. Come out from the front of the TV Jock its all there.
bob seivwright
Report this comment


bob seivwright
Report this comment

No-one can deny that the area would look so much better if the road and rail tracks were covered up. The reason I dont support ACSEF is that the "vision" they are trying to sell is just a vast concrete slab with a few pockets of green. C'mon guys, surely you can sell it to me better than that? How about a big glass pineapple at one end to rival Londons "Gerkhin"? and replace John Wood House?
Dasbo B
Report this comment

I have to agree with Abby. I think raising the gardens to street level is a great idea. I couldn't make it last night but I did suspect that the people opposed to the proposals would be the majority at that meeting, that’s how these things usually work and I’m sure you all know that. Plus, to be fair, art students are driving the’ I love UTG’ scheme and it’s very likely that they'll be more able to attend something like this than the average family. Don’t get me wrong, I think there absolutely should be an arts centre in the area, I just don’t see the point in saving the gardens. As for all of this car park/concrete/shop nonsense, have any of you read the FAQ’s on the Consultation site? I found it very informative. I read that there are no plans for a car park – in fact it is unlikely permission would be granted for another car park in the city centre (I can only assume this is due to anti-congestion planning), that there will be as much garden space in the proposed square as there currently is in UTG, that it will not be another shopping centre – it will be a civic space which will, most importantly, contain a contemporary arts centre – they state that an arts centre has always been central to their square plans. I like that everyone can benefit from this idea, and not just people who like and appreciate the arts. The funding won’t come from the council or government, it wont come from us, it will be found privately. I live right by the park, I walk past it at least twice daily - I SEE how often it's used - not very much! There are plenty of other parks and green space in Aberdeen, Bon Accord Gardens and the Duthie Park, for example, and this square will have as much green space as is currently there, so we’re not loosing green space. I think raising the gardens to street level, making plenty of green space and putting in an arts centre is the best compromise for all. Bear in mind that there are no plans as yet for the square, we citizens can work together to get something truly inspirational and something that is of value to us all.
Kelly Smith
Report this comment

This article states that "critics included some of the 6,000-plus residents who have signed a petition calling for the gardens to be left as they are". No they haven't. The petition that I, and over 7000 other people as I believe, have signed was to "Save the New Contemporary Arts centre" i.e. in support of the Peacock proposals. This is a very important distinction as otherwise the article portrays objectors to the CSP as being against development per se. The P&J should check their article is factually correct before printing if they wish their journalism to be taken seriously.
John Park
Report this comment

No-one has commented on the issue of transport infrastructure. that to me is more of a barrier to business in future. Companies have staff sitting an hour to get to work in Dyce, they hire trucks by the hour and are paying for them sitting in traffic jams. We have two corporate monopolies running the bus (and train) services who care nothing for customers and all for shareholders. 50 million would sort the Haudagain and Bridge of Dee instantly and coupled with the AWPR would dramatically improve travel times. Alternatively the money could be spent on a Don to Dee tram system or even a non-profit making organisation to run the buses instead of First and Stagecoach. Spending that money on a square is plainly stupid when transport is a far more pressing issue that DOES affect business.
Keith Radcliffe
Report this comment

Well said Jane Spencer & Kelly Smith. 7000 + signatories on an online petition and the majority of a 300 + audience do not "Speak clearly" for what the citizens of the city and shire want as is being said in various places, the most vociferous are always the anti brigade, and last night proved that (no I wasn’t there but I could have written the script). What we need now is a very clear and fair PLAN to find out what the citizens want – not the loudest shouters – and not what ACC say we are getting – get a few plans together quickly, and get a postal ballot out to the citizens so they can ALL have their say on ALL the options, then we will know for sure - - - and whatever is decided I would be behind 100% - - what I can’t stand is allowing all this “polarizing” and “dividing” of the community, that’s not healthy for any city. It would be good if a decision could be made in time to save the PVA plan – but having said that I don’t think it is Union Terrace Gardens savior either, it also has a shortfall in its funding, and it also will rely on public money to keep it going year after year – and it wouldn’t attract me back into the gardens.
Philip Uren
Report this comment

Kelly, the FAQ page of the citysquareproject.com site is sadly misleading you about the car park. For a more factual read you would be better off looking into the "technical" link provided at the site, which takes you to the Halliday Fraser Munro feasability study. In the "full raised level" document (which is essentially what is being consulted on), £11.7m of the estimated cost of the City Square Project is allocated to the provision of 490 car parking spaces. By way of comparison, £8.2m is allocated to a contemporary arts centre. It is the fact that Acsef and their PR companies choose to hide this from the public that upsets many folk, and also leads to a terrible lack of trust in Acsef. Because they cannot grasp the nettle and admit to what's in their own feasability study (and in fact they contradict it publicly and in the media), the credibility of anything they say is severely compromised, and whatever merit their scheme has is obscured by their dubious and spurious claims.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Kelly you may have read the FAQ's but have you read the ACSEF Halliday Munro feasibility study? You may find the ACSEF FAQ's less informative when you read the actual facts behind the square instead of PR material. A car park is factored in and concrete will be a significant building material. Those concerned about these points are entirely justified. Kelly, everyone can benefit from the Peacock plan to upgrade the gardens, don't buy into this nonsense that it is only for the art community. Do you honestly believe the funding will come privately? A significant amount will come from the government as a loan, this has already been stated by ACSEF. But more importantly we've just scraped our way out of a recession, businesses are still making people redundant, Peacock had to make their fundraiser redundant as a direct result of ACSEF's actions to push for the CSP. If they can't invest in their own people how can business invest in a vague, entirely undefined and heavily criticized idea? Peacock and supporters of UTG would love to work on a compromise, but ACSEF repeatedly refuse any such idea.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

In addition to Richard Fraser's comment - ACSEF have also failed to provide accurate and realistic costs. They claim $120-140 Million but if you read the Halliday Fraser Munro feasability study you'll all find many significant factors have been left out: Works to existing buildings adjacent to Union Terrace, Contributions to Network Rail for disruption, Commercial fit-out, Blast proofing of tunnel, Archaeological works, Site Acquisition costs, Value Added Tax, inflation… and so on, to name just a few). They also fail to account for the costs to put what they want into the square, or to account for future maintenance costs which will come down to Aberdeen citizens since it is civic and not commercial. The council are already in a huge amount of debt, they are already neglecting many areas of Aberdeen, they are already pulling back city centre features and as I've already said we've just come out of a recession. This is not the right place and it is not the right time.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

I think its really funny that the pro acsef camp are calling their opposition "nimbys", when its them that are saying "No" LOL And then moaning about the majority of people moaning about the city square. hee hee
John Rutherford
Report this comment

Funky I honestly believe that you are also one of these short sighted persons that simply don't understand our city. Although my name may suggest otherwise I am born and raised and fiercely proud Aberdonian who has watched this city slip further and further down the pan!! This is not the fault of the Oil companies as many of you suggest it is the sheer short sightedness of Aberdeen City council and many of its citizens!! The Council is in a financial state for several reasons none of which is to do with the recession. The 70-£100 million they are spending on upgrading Marshall college the money unfairly being distributed to the central belt the complete mismanagement of the council full stop. We all know that the council is run by a bunch of clowns that much is obvious. I also can assure you if the Oil companies were not here this city would have nothing the vast majority of wealth and jobs here is either directly or indirectly created by the oil industry that is Fact so stop blaming the companies for the failings for our Council. To get back to the Art centre you are suggesting we built this new lovely building next to a dual carriageway and a railway line and 50ft below Union Street what a superb idea!!! As I said before this will b a massive project one of the biggest Aberdeen has seen in the past 100years and yes will require lots of money but that not a reason not to pursue something like this. The railway line is an eyesore and if I am not mistaken I believe the dual Carriageway is also constructed mainly of concrete well it was last time I checked!! This project would double the size of the gardens and I also believe the arts centre should also be built as part of the project so at least then you could actually see it when you are walking down Union Street!! Funky if anything we should build this to promote growth and enterprise and jobs thus helping stimulate our local economy which bye the way has not been that badly affected by the economic downturn. As for the claims that it will be a concrete jungle what nonsense yes clearly for structure concrete and steel will be required but what do you think the arts centre is going to be created from Jelly??? And we all wonder why the city is in the state it is in read some of the comments here and you will get your answer!!
Abby Abdessadek
Report this comment

I completely reject the idea that the majority who turned up to the debate were against progress or development in the centre. This is absolute nonsense, the majority who turned up are entirely in support of progress and development of the city centre 100%. They made many suggestions, presented many legitimate concerns and showed a deep concern for Aberdeen. I don't think anyone doubted that CSP supporters are concerned for the city so don't try and discredit those with different views just because they don't align with yours.
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

Abby; "This is not the fault of the Oil companies as many of you suggest"... One person at the debate suggested this, I've not seen anyone else suggest it, certainly not me. "the arts centre should also be built as part of the project so at least then you could actually see it when you are walking down Union Street!!"... how are you going to see it underneath the city square? "As for the claims that it will be a concrete jungle what nonsense yes clearly for structure concrete and steel will be required but what do you think the arts centre is going to be created from Jelly???"... unsurprisingly you've completely missed the point many are making.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

" don't try and discredit those with different views just because they don't align with yours." Really?!? You obviously haven't been reading the many comments from pro-Peacock/IHeartUTG campaigners who have done nothing but shout down, criticise and slag off the proponents of the CSP and their supporters. I struggle to understand why there is always such a burning desire to be nasty to other people, the abuse I have seen and heard being directed towards Sir Ian Wood is disgraceful, and I wouldn't blame him if he decided to take his money and go elsewhere. Would serve us all right for being short-sighted and negative once more.
Jane Spencer
Report this comment

I don't know if I'm more amused or alarmed by the number of comments here by people who did not attend last night's debate yet seem more than happy to make assumptions and generalisations about those who did. Yes, the Peacock crowd where there in force. Why? Because this is the first chance that Peacock have been given to put forward their proposals at a public meeting alongside ACSEF's. Contrary to predictions the Peacock supporters did not 'hijack' the debate. Nor was this a bunch of mouthy art students, in fact the most well-received, well thought out and passionate arguments came from regular city centre folk who just want to see the gardens preserved or have their doubts about the benefits of a City Square. Aberdeen has a lot to lose if this project doesn't live up to its promises, and those who object to it do so not only because of what will be lost, but because we have seen no evidence at all that it can actually deliver. Tom Smith delivered an excellent presentation on their plan, but it was sadly lacking in any kind of substance as to how it was supposed to benefit the city. Sir Ian repeatedly claimed that this would be the solution to reducing unemployment when big Oil finally leaves Aberdeen. The audience repeatedly asked HOW the square would do this, but neither Tom Smith nor Sir Ian could provide an answer. If there is opposition to this project it is NOT about short-sightedness, ignorance, NIMBYism, factionism, pessimism or any of the other reasons being trotted out by some of those commenting here. If they had been in attendance at last night's meeting they would have heard some very common-sense, cautious and sensible questions being asked about the TANGIBLE benefits to the city of Sir Ian's proposal. In my own opinion, there is no NEED for a city square, this is not some clever idea thought up by town planners and architects who are experts in this field that will provide something useful for this city. It is not as if we have been saying for years 'you know what this town really needs?...' Sir Ian wants to leave a legacy, and nothing short of fundamentally and irrevocably altering the very heart of OUR city is good enough. The audience at last night's debate repeatedly suggested and applauded the idea that Sir Ian could assist in the redevelopment of the site of St Nicholas House, or use his money towards a compromise solution which retains the gardens in their current form but covers the road and railway in the Denburn valley. He said he was interested in neither, and in my opinion that's because they are simply not grand enough projects for him. If the city square goes ahead, this won't be the oil generation's great gift to Aberdeen, it will be a glorified sarcophagus.
Chris Henderson
Report this comment

Jane Sir Ian's actions have directly resulted in one person being made redundant, Peacock losing half a million in funding, risking them losing 4 million in funding next month and his plan will entirely remove an historic part of Aberdeen that many in the city love. If anyone else came along and did this I doubt they would get the slightest bit of respect, but because he's offered a 1/4 of the expected funding he's somehow allowed to walk all over people.
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

I do not doubt Mr Wood's altruistic motivation, but I think it is misdirected. Some have suggested other projects for his generosity. Can I suggest he consider an endowment, to one of the City's Universities, which should be more welcome, than a destructive scheme, which like those from the 60/70's, will probably be regretted in the future.
Michty Me
Report this comment

Still no plan for how this will be funded. How many teachers will have to be layed off so we can subsidize Ian Woods development. How much will council tax need to be increased by to service this debt? Taxpayers need to ask themselves how much they are willing to pay. We currently face 30 mill cutbacks every year. This would mean a 30% increase in council tax every year if the cutbacks weren't made. Now we want to add 100mill for the AWPR and 80 mill for UTG to a capital budget deficit that must be approaching £1 billion. We can't keep spending like drunken sailors. We need some fiscal resposibility.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

There have been many suggestions as to what Sir Ian Wood should do with his money – but the fact is that it is HIS MONEY and he can offer to with it what he wants – he has simply offered the citizens of the city & shire to CONSIDER his idea of what he thinks is a good use of a grossly underused prime city centre site – and he has constantly stated that if the citizens don’t want it then he will withdraw the offer. What happens after that is for a future debate. I personally think a City Square on this site is a fantastic opportunity for a new focal point for the citizens of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, it just won’t work the way I see it anywhere else, this part of the city centre has long been a favored meeting place, the Monkey House, outside C & A, beside the statue, but never in the gardens – it is a natural focal point, a natural crossroads between various parts of the city where people will criss cross on foot from one area to the other and take advantage of whatever is built there. There are many questions still to be answered, but there are still many questions about the PVA project as well. And once again, well said to Jane Spencer and Abby Abdessadek.
Philip Uren
Report this comment

What a diverse debate. Kelly Smith with her comment of "There are no plans for the sqaure yet". Now lets vote on something we know nothing about. That is what ACSEF and Sir Wood is doing. As for Tom Smith comments about a football player. Does that not show the greed after vocalising in praise for the Peacock project. Would you choose Kris Boyd or being offered Cristiano Ronaldo I believe that Ronaldo would be the ACSEF project. But you can always get rid of Ronaldo not so easy with the concrete, car parks and commercial building they are proposing. Time and again they tell us how their plan will benefit the city, help with unemployment and bring new business. How come they cannot answer how this will be achieved with a concrete square. This does not make any sense. As for the Wood believers, it is hard to see why they are so deluded as to believe him. The critism that comes from ACSEF and Sir Wood against anyone disagreeing with them is deafening, but all their comments can be returned twicefold. Their consultation is a pack of lies. Misleading at the least. The gracious "Gift" from Sir Wood is no gift it is blackmail and bribery. Just look at Tom Smiths comments. There was a bigger offer came, even if it uglier, costlier I want a share it in. Pure greed and instigated by a egotistacal selfish man who will be remebered not for his gifr but for his "Folly" and corruption. All the people who think he is a great man should consider why he will not compromise it has to be his way or nothing. Does that sound like a great man. No way. We are all not art students. patrons of Peaock. just ordinary citizens who do not like being made a fool of and being led up the garden path to appease an overlarge ego.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

I have just had a better idea. Could Sir Ian's £50 million not be spent on covering over the Den of Rubislaw with a concrete plaza, behind his mansionhouse, with access-for-all provided up his side passage? Underground carparking could be provided, along with retail units. A Park and Ride thing could be invented with city centre shoppers skiting down the Denburn in solar powered boaties, perhaps recycled from the Duthie Park paddlers. Graham Slater
Graham Slater
Report this comment

Philip, I have to question your assertion that the gardens are underused, and if that is the case (and I'd say that if it is it is either a: seasonal and b: because of a lack of facilities) Surely it is better to try to improve the gardens at one tenth of the cost than to simply bury them and try to start over. It's a radical and extremely risky proposal that Sir Ian is putting forward from which there is no going back, and as far as I can tell the risks far outweigh the purported benefits. And I cannot stress the word 'purported' strongly enough as right now all we have from ACSEF are unsupported assertions, vague promises, a thoroughly questionable motivation and absolutely no hard facts.
Chris Henderson
Report this comment

I despair to think what and who is running this city. When you have the chairman of ACSEF tellin us that he will drop any proposal no matter how good if someone can give him more money to spend. The morals and principles of this lot are extremely dodgy to say the least. To admit it is even more brazen. Everyone agrees that the gardens need a helping hand. Anyone with a semblance of common sense can see that the Peacock project covers all the bases for everyone. The gardens are used, we get a cultural centre to the city and the greenery is still there. Because of all this the gardens can become once again the centre of Aberdeen. This is more likely to encourage people to spend time there, Withing easy reach of all the retail areas of town. Why risk throwing all that away on a whim and a vision that is wasteful and expensive. Sir Wood if he cares for Aberdeen at all will see this. Where building a concret mass will help the unemploymnet even he nor ACSEF can answer, so that leaves the question - What is the point or alterior motive behind it all. Is it just a vain ego trip or is there a financial motive behind it. BEing a multi millionaire, it does make you think about making more money.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Chris - reading through the MANY articles and websites devoted to this matter even the PVA and other anti CSP people have said repeatedly that the space is under used, it looks busy with a couple of dozen people in it simply because the one truly useable part of it is the one small flat space at the bottom, the rest is steep banks, pathways or flower beds. A few dozen people every day would look good down there but it rarely achieves that. The PVA supporters are saying that it will bring in much more, which it obviously will, but my opinion is that the CSP will do much, much more and make it a useful space for ME and many of the people I know, where as leaving it as it is or the PVA project will do nothing for me. I am also dismayed that ACSEF have answered so little of the many valid points raised by objectors, even I would like answers to those questions – but I am basing my support for CSP on what has been said so far – and on some of the many brilliant ideas proposed for this space, risky yes, but in my opinion, assuming that those very questions are answered satisfactorily – then the CSP is in my opinion the best option for Aberdeen. Posts like those from Graham Slater and “Minnie never stops moaning” above do nothing to further your cause.
Philip Uren
Report this comment

I'm in a position where I am still undecided. I can't really see where all the economic benefits will come from, I'm clear I don't want a large concrete space, but I do see an attraction in a 'transformational' scheme. I also think an offer of £50 million deserved detailed consideration and a consultation before being ruled out, but that doesn't mean the final answer has to be yes. Like many people though it's hard to support an idea which remains rather poorly formed, which makes it difficult to know what I am being consulted on. The one thing that puts me off Peacock is the behaviour of some of its supporters. They have allowed a sense of grievance and emotion to alienate some people who would normally be sympathetic towards them.
John Duncan
Report this comment

People and ACSEF keep pointing out that other cities have a square, why can't we? Well I ask why can't we be different? Why do we have to have what other cities have? Trying to be like other cities instead of building on what Aberdeen is, is pathetic and shows the LACK of vision.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

John Duncan, I understand your position, a lot must be in your situation - And well done for not hiding behind a pseudonym like many who qualify for the latter part of your post.
Philip Uren
Report this comment

Wish i could have been there last night but couldn't get into town in time. I find it hard to take the argument that those in favour of the gardens and peacock are the negative group in this. When we're being pressured into supporting a vague idea of a square with prophecies of doom from acsef and sir ian wood pretty much every single day. I particularly liked sir ian's comments in reply to jim milne, basically built it his way or no way at all. No pressure though eh? How people can claim peacock are the nimbys and doomongers when citysquare are claiming aberdeen will be a ghost town if we don't build it is beyond me. Surely at their heart both proposals are positive, peacocks willingness to compromise is positive, the engagement of such a huge portion of our population is positive but sir ian's sheer stubborness is negative. They say they will listen but the one thing they will not listen to is the fact that people want the gardens to stay, cover the train tracks and road sure, but keep the gardens. The Peacock option is visionary, positive and is proven to benefit the economy. It's obtained full planning permission and almost full funding, not through blackmail and bullying, but because their proposal was brilliant.
David Officer
Report this comment

I find it amazing that I'm the only one that objects to this project because of the cost. No wonder ACC has been allowed to get into such a financial mess. Taxpayers never seem to object to spending vast amounts of money even after 3 years of cutbacks. Taxpayers will get what they deserve if they don't start to object.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

What I find disturbing is how skewed the "reporting" of the issues in the EE is towards the pro square "arguements". The P&J appears to be much fairer and balanced in it's articles.
Willie Wallace
Report this comment

What I find disturbing is how skewed the "reporting" of the issues in the EE is towards the pro square "arguements". The P&J appears to be much fairer and balanced in it's articles.
Willie Wallace
Report this comment

I was struck at the meeting by what a broad cross section of the community was in attendance. Of course there were a lot of artists but sitting within the few rows next to me I spotted a sparky, a friend from The Chamber of Commerce, a cookery teacher, 2 council admin workers, a few musicians, a couple of community workers, two undercover police officers, a postie, a cafe owner, a couple of unemployed people, a retired teacher and a gynecologist. A broad spread of ages too. I was also struck by how little support there was for the City Square Project apart from within the business community. Where is the silent majority?
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Oh and I was also struck by how fantastic the Peacock Visual Arts Centre looks. I hadn't seen their wee video before and I was knocked out by how bold and visionary it is. I can't wait till it opens!!!!! Union Terrace Gardens will be heaving with folk!
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Ian Stewart - please don't feel you have to hurry back to Aberdeen. Abby Abdessadek - you said 'As soon as there is a chance to improve and bring our city into the new century you clowns shoot it down'. Ironically, this is precisely how the supporters of the Peacocok project feel about Ian Wood's plans... Sandy Milne - I was greatly amused by your comment 'Elizabeth Duthie didn't have to go through this BS when she got the Duthie Park built over a century ago.' I assume you'd have preferred it if Elizabeth Duthie had arranged for Duthie Park to be concreted over rather than being gifted to the city laid out as grass, hills and trees? If you honestly think that there's any valid comparison between what Ian Wood plans to do and what the redoubtable Miss Duthie did for Aberdeen, then you're not really in a position to call other people idiots.
Louis Balfour
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.