wide backing for city square but advisory group hits out

Now 5,000 firms unite behind Sir Ian’s vision

By Ryan Crighton and Morag Lindsay

Published: 24/02/2010

Trade groups representing more than 5,000 north-east businesses have joined forces to back Sir Ian Wood’s £140million City Square plan.

In a joint announcement last night, Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Oil and Gas UK and the CBI declared their support for proposals to raise Union Terrace Gardens to street level.

They said the project being driven by Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef) would be the “catalyst” for regenerating the region.

Chamber chief executive Bob Collier hailed the Union Terrace Gardens scheme as a new dawn for the city.

He said: “We believe this project is as important to the economic success of this region as the AWPR and Trump International Golf Links.” The endorsement was a huge boost for Acsef – but the plans were also dealt a blow when the body set up to advise the Scottish Government on architecture, design and planning released a critical report on the scheme.

Architecture and Design Scotland said it had a number of concerns, including the “potentially unusable space”.

The Wood Group chairman’s “vision” to create a new civic square at the site of the Victorian park, the neighbouring railway line and the Denburn dual carriageway, using £50million of his own money, has led to heated debate in the north-east.

A two-month public consultation organised by Acsef is due to end on March 5. More than 7,000 people, including Aberdeen-born pop star Annie Lennox, have signed a petition calling for the gardens to be preserved.

Much of the opposition is from supporters of Peacock Contemporary Arts. It had full planning permission for a £13million arts centre built in the natural slope of the gardens when Sir Ian revealed his plans.

Like Acsef, the chamber of commerce previously supported the Peacock plans, but now wants to see an arts centre within the city square.

Oil and Gas UK chief executive Malcolm Webb said: “The city absolutely needs iconic developments such as the city square project if it is to cement its status as a truly global hub for oilfield goods and services.”

Aberdeen businessman Andy Willox, policy convener for the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland, said: “This project is one of the most vital for our region.”

CBI Scotland director Iain McMillan said: “This will bring much-needed business, social and cultural benefits.”

But Fraser Denholm, of the I Heart UTG campaign, said: “This support is not surprising, because of the amount of businesses on the board of Acsef. Architects and civic design experts are saying the city square is a bad idea.”

Architecture and Design Scotland said: “We see it as extremely important that alternative proposals are carefully examined. We have some concerns about the way in which the project is currently progressing, and suggest that there are a number of issues which should be addressed.”

The Scottish Government-funded organisation – set up to promote excellence in architecture, design and planning – says it supports Acsef’s level of ambition, but was disappointed at the failure to recognise the importance of Union Terrace Gardens to the city and its residents.

It said parks were more likely to work when built from the ground, and that constructing a raised deck would be “complicated, physically and spatially, and would require extensive exploration and resolution to be successful”.

The advisory group, whose support for the Trump golf resort was instrumental in winning over doubters, also raised concerns about the “large volume of potentially unusable space” created as a result of Acsef’s plans to build a concourse directly beneath the five-acre street level square and a number of levels underneath that.

The government indicated on Monday that money could be made available for the Acsef and Peacock were able to reach a compromise.

Reader's Comments

It's great to see so much support for Aberdeen's economic future, that's what these lobbying groups are for. But lobbying groups are not city architects and planners, that's why we have groups like A+DS whose aim "is to inspire better quality in design and architecture in the public and private sectors so that Scotland's built environment contributes in a positive way to our quality of life and our built heritage." But no matter how much good will and money you have, it does not turn a bad plan into a good one. If the business sector puts their support and funding behind a project that does not draw technical criticism at very junction then Aberdeen will have a great future.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

At the moment all there is in place is a consultation – the NEXT stage if there is one will be planning and design, it has already been stated that we have a blank canvass and that they are prepared to get in the best designers / planners / architects that money can buy – when this happens then all the concerns that have been mentioned by A & DS etc should be addressed and taken care of.
Philip Uren
Report this comment

At the moment all there is in place is a consultation – the NEXT stage if there is one will be planning and design, it has already been stated that we have a blank canvass and that they are prepared to get in the best designers / planners / architects that money can buy – when this happens then all the concerns that have been mentioned by A & DS etc should be addressed and taken care of.
Philip Uren
Report this comment

"Much of the opposition is from supporters of Peacocks" What rubbish. There are a substantial number of us in the city who want to retain Aberdeen's heritage and keep the gardens intact, who are not involved with Peacock. This was clear from the public meeting. I tried to get a public notice in the P&J on the heritage argument for keeping the gardens at the start of the consultation. I was told I couldn't. Yet the same week they had a notice from ACSEF supporting the square. For what is supposed to be a pluralist local paper to skew the facts and control the agenda like this is pretty poor.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

As long as all these groups backing this vision are prepared to contribute the remaining 200 million pounds this final project will cost. I hardly believe that all the companies and firms that are affilliated to these groups are behind the project. I suggest what is closer to the truth, is this is only the opinion of the three chief executives and of some of their "chummys" where some of them are members of ACSEF. Its the ususal distortion of fact from Aberdeen Journals. The impression I get from all of this is that "the vision" has not got as many people behind it as they thought it would and are now using desperate measures to try and massage the results. I hope all the business men in favour of this project are aware they will end up paying more in their business rates, as the council struggles to find funding for the upkeep, just like what is being proposed for the W.P.R..... Aye Aberdeen "Fur coat and nae drawers" comes to mind. I thought the comments from Malcom Webb the funniest, as he had one part of his comment correct about the "cement"
Keith Stirton
Report this comment

Trade groups representing more than 5,000 north-east businesses have joined forces to back Sir Ian Wood’s £140million City Square plan I think this is a little bit misleading, Dose the 5000 + businesses support the ‘’VISION’’ or indeed dost the people who work for this 5000 + companies support the ‘’VISION’’? Who will they dig up next it’s all looking a wee bit desperate to me. Now look at the article about the AECC ‘’The Scottish Government has ruled out a request to partially fund Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre’’so who will end up paying for the Civic Square at the end of the day?
Robert Horne
Report this comment

Sorry Philip, you have not read the A+DS report correctly, their concern is that the City Square only looks at Union Terrace Gardens only and no consideration has been made to the city urban realm. Additionally, even looking just at Union Terrace Gardens it has made no assessment of the cultural, historical and spatial qualities of the gardens. In short the City Square project is too narrowly focused to correctly access any benefit to Aberdeen.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Sorry Philip, you have not read the A+DS report correctly, their concern is that the City Square only looks at Union Terrace Gardens only and no consideration has been made to the city urban realm. Additionally, even looking just at Union Terrace Gardens it has made no assessment of the cultural, historical and spatial qualities of the gardens. In short the City Square project is too narrowly focused to correctly access any benefit to Aberdeen.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

What may well scupper the CSP is the imminent demise of the Forth road Bridge. The cables are corroding so badly it is likely to be unusable after 2019. There is an intent to replace it but it is going to cost £2.3 billion (!!). Now the current administartion want to borrow the money from the UK government but have been told no way. They will need to commit the money over a period of 2011-2017, just when the CSP is supposed to be built. This is such a vast sum of money, that the scheme will hoover up any spare cash in SCotland for the next decade. Of course a new bridge would be of far greater benefit to Aberdeen and the NE than any horrible city square.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Philip, have a wee look at the actual report: http://www.ads.org.uk/what_we_do/design_review/reports/682_city-square-aberdeen it assesses the very concept of the Square. No amount of "we don't know what is going in it yet" can defend the plans, the report states "While the deep level changes in this area present design issues, they are also defining characteristics of the topography and are part of the fabric of Aberdeen, and we believe that such features can enrich places if embedded within city development." and "We remain unclear as to what the needs are that are driving the current proposition." and "Where a new ‘park' is being considered then we suggest that such spaces are more successful, both in terms of perception and for practical reasons, when they are built up ‘from the ground', rather than being on a raised deck." I could go on but I think it best to read the report. I'm not sure how these concerns can be addressed in the design phase given that they are completely contrary to Sir Ian's personal perameters. Also "they are prepared to get in the best designers / planners / architects that money can buy" how much, on top of the £140 million to execute the structure, is that going to cost?
Fraser Denholm
Report this comment

Mike, very interesting point re: Forth Bridge. Not only is it going to cost 2.3 billion, but Westminster has rejected Holyrood's request to fund the bridge based on a loan borrowed from future budgets and paid back, which is exactly what they wish to do to fund the Square.
Fraser Denholm
Report this comment

How a vast expanse of concrete wll enhance our city bemuses me. How will it create jobs (other than construction jobs)? The park is a natural asset, enhancing the architectural beauty of the granite buildings surrounding it. Modern and ancient seldom stand well side by side. While not a PVA supporter, their scheme at least blends into a natural setting which we, the citizens treasure.
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

Thank goodness, somebody else who shares my viewpoint, Ron Campbells statement "how will it create jobs". Let us look at this logically. If the plan goes ahead, the Civic Square is built. Potential businessmen arrive in the city at two locations, the train station, or the airport. If they land at the airport, generally they stay in hotels on that side of the city. If they travel by train, they get a taxi, which uses the Denburn which will be covered over. So, in either arrival method, they will not see the Civic Square. I have had to 'wine and dine' potential clients in the past, and, the fact is, you don't go anywhere near the city centre at night, as it is unsafe. Now this isn't a plea for more policemen on the beat, that's not going to solve anything other than more arrests. I don't have the answer to this question, and, as I commented yesterday, we need an independent review from someone outwith the city to advise on the best way forward. How about a radical thought though. Let's use E & M's old building as a 5 star hotel, and, build the Civic Square behind, using the space that will be given up by St Nicholas House, and, pedestrianise Broad Street. Thus, giving a fantatsic view of Marischal College (might point out, the 2nd largest granite building in the world, and, pretty impressive).
Ian Stewart
Report this comment

So, I work for a company who is a member of the Chamber of Commerce, and as far as I'm aware we haven't come out and vocally backed the CSP. For the P&J to come out with a headline of "Now 5,000 firms unite behind Sir Ian’s vision" is vastly misleading. Appalling.
Mark McPherson
Report this comment

If there's one thing this City Square project will have done by the end it's highlight just why Aberdeen is in such a mess. It has nothing to do with the so called nimbys and everything to do with the blatant disregard ACSEF, Aberdeen Journals and certain local business figures have for the people of Aberdeen or the city itself.
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

Gt Britain being an island is going to be turned into a toilet by the EU - corruption and lack of morals shown by the local councillors/authorities and their desires to ignor the interest in the local people and the Sir I Wood's and D Trump's of this world will turn the NE into a cess pit
Thomas Owenson
Report this comment

the accurate headline might have been ASCEF backs ASCEF's City Square.
Debra Storr
Report this comment

I also work for an organisation that is a member of the Chamber. Our staff have a mixture of opinions, and our company, which holds the membership has not voiced any support, and likely holds the view that the £50m could create a better change for the city if invested in a different way. I attended an unrelated event last night, where I met with a range of people, all chamber members, who were only united in the view that "something" needed to be done, but that "something" probably wasn't this square. Another tragically inaccurate headline from our pals at the P&J.
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

So Bob Collier and Co are paying for the square then!?
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

A continuing trend from the usual slew of doomsayers who crawl out and shout anytime an exciting, vibrant proposal to improve Aberdeen is put forward is that they want to preserve Aberdeen’s heritage. In itself this is a fair argument, however when this ‘heritage’ is a dated, underutilised, poorly conceived area in the middle of the city which could, by applying a 21st century development, be vastly improved and provide heritage from the 21st for future generations then their argument becomes somewhat redundant. How often do the individuals who are against the scheme use Union Terrace gardens? When was the last time any of them visited it? Annie Lennox – please, when was the last time she even visited Aberdeen! The Peacock arts centre is an irrelevance, on its own it won’t enhance or touch the lives of the vast majority of Aberdonian’s, yet it should be allowed to dictate whether a scheme which will goes ahead! It is time that Aberdeen (and a lot of Aberdonians) woke up, stopped being so dour and negative, and started to grasp the opportunities for improving when they are presented, continuing to bumble along moaning and complaining will see the city become a relic with no grasp of modern living or life.
Keith Robb
Report this comment

I've just recieved a letter from AGCC outlining their reasons for support. -------------------------------------------------Apparently, "Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce unequivocally supports the City Square Project on the basis that it will deliver significant socio-economic benefits and contribute to the ACSEF priority of redeveloping the city centre to which the chamber fully subscribes." -------------------------------------------------- However, they also seem to think that the £50m is coming from the Wood Family Trust, which I'm fairly sure is not the case. In light of this, I'm not sure how much we can trust their ability to consider the technical appraisal.
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

Keith, The problem with the city, is that anything which is done, is only ever 'half-baked' it is never a full idea or solution. The civic square scheme, it either guise, has highlighted that the people of Aberdeen realise that change is required. But, I'd like to ask a question of everybody. We have to all agree that there are areas in Aberdeen which require some investment. I won't mention any specific areas, for fear of people saying "there's nothing wrong with that area, blah, blah, blah", but, we all know which areas in the city fall way below standard. How is somebody who is unemployed with no job prospects, poorly educated going to benefit in any way shape or form from the Civic Square project?
Ian Stewart
Report this comment

A really spectacularly dishonest & misleading headline from wir local Press monopoly, bearing little relation to the article itself. ACSEF have failed to present any convincing argument in favour of concreting over UTG, and have similarly failed to answer the many arguments against. Their whole attitude seems to be: "We want it, and what we want, we get". Aberdeen has been subjected to a succession of seriously awful & pointless developments in recent years - see 'City Wharf' on Shiprow - which have ripped wir toun apart and caused unending disruption; but the ACSEF proposal for UTG really takes the biscuit.
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

As a current member of the F.S.B. I have received no consultation whatsoever concerning the C.S.P. from them. For Andy Willox to state that "We are backing this project" without contacting ALL members to gather opinions is slightly out of order. I am sure I am not the only member of the F.S.B. who is against this scheme. Why do they continue feeding us the same story of creating jobs and rejuvenating Aberdeen? Anyone with any commonsense knows that the problems in the city will NOT be solved by such a risky venture. Most of the experts involved in heritage and architecture are expressing their views against the square, yet these businessmen think they know better. I for one will not be renewing my memebership of the F.S.B.
Kenneth Flavill
Report this comment

Keith (Robb), I take it you totally disgree with A+DS, Scotland's national champion for good architecture, design and planning, then? Do you believe that a major urban realm project such as that that proposed by the City Square does not need to consider how it interacts with the wider city centre area or what it will remove by it's selection of site? That simply spending £140 million on a project will guarantee it's success as a world class destination?
Brian Christie
Report this comment

It appears that many of the opinions and concerns expressed in this forum are slightly over the top in their vilification of certain people or groups. I think many the posters are mislead if they believe that the people directly involved in preparing and promoting proposals on both sides are losing as much sleep as they themselves seem to be in attempting to cling to their self righteous beliefs and opinions. Many people seem to have lost sight of the fact that both options although different might be quite good.
Graham Robertson
Report this comment

From an economic development standpoint whether this project goes ahead or not will have little if any impact on Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire's future and it is extremely misleading to suggest anything different. The same of course applies to the ACSEF Energetica project.
Wee Scamp
Report this comment

See website of Aberdeen Civic Society for latest Newsletter and extended analysis by Diane Morgan and Norman Marr of proposals for Union Terrace Gardens!
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

Well it seems that ACSEF have been misleading the people once again. 5000 businessess are behind the Wood scheme. Now we read that this is an exageration. What again!!. Just how did Sir Alex find our about the city square. does he get the P & J delivered, or was he contacted by the ACSEF and told about their and only their plans. Same with the obscure American, OK the mannie from Ben Reid is here, but has a vested interest in the possibility of all those flower pots. So who else will they manage to hoodwink into believing their plan is the best, when the other plan has not been aired. I do not believe that these people were allowed to consider the alternative. What with ACSEF and Sir Wood promising what??? That if all these businesses vote for his square, there will be better prospects for ABerdeen. Just why can't they tell us what the advantage of a walkway from Union Street to the theatre will bring. Are the tourists etc going to be queing up to see the wonder of a lost garden with an Art centre below ground and a car park. Did I read last week that ACC are planning another park and ride to encourage more people to catch a bus. Do they know what each had is doing. Total hypocracy, Hopefully it is looking like ACSEF and Sir Wood have realised that their dream is not everyone elses. That is why they are trying to bring in even more people to say how great their idea is. If they cannot even see that the Architects who would eventually have to do something for it do no agree with it. Ok a long moan, but it is unbelievable that the P & J gives this hogwash so much space.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

It's rather interesting to read a story on the Evening Express website. "Attackers stamped on man in Aberdeen's Union Street". Now, you could argue that these stories are unrelated, which in reality they are, but, it goes to show a deaper rooted problem. Doing 'something' with UTG, is only masking the underlying problems in the city. Would 'you' as a tourist want to visit UTG in the evening, when this type of violence is all to often the 'norm'. The council planners, only seem to be capable of approving, 1. Pubs, 2. More Houses, 3. More Pubs. Personally, I think that any one of us commenting on this story, have more to offer as councillors, as we have a firmer grasp on the realities of the city, and, what might and might not actually make an improvement.
Ian Stewart
Report this comment

Brian – I’m not dismissing A+DS Scotland and if they are considered an important short and long term stakeholder in the project there concerns should be addressed, presuming of course they are going to contribute constructively, and potentially financially, in some way to doing so. As for considering what it will ‘remove by doing so’, yes this certainly needs consideration, however in my opinion the loss to gain ratio here could and should fall hard on the ‘gain’ side. Ian – the council are and have long been a shambles, however the ‘too many pub’ debate is itself flawed. If there were too many some would close, there is sufficient demand so they don’t. Businesses, after presumably carrying out sufficiently diligent market research, see that they can tap into the market open more. There are streets, parks, districts of almost every city I’ve ever been to that I wouldn’t venture purposefully into after dark, why should Aberdeen be any different. Redevelopment of UTG would surely make it a safer place at all times, not just after dark.
Keith Robb
Report this comment

Will these 5000 nameless firms contribute their own cash towards Woody's dream? Why don't Woody build a corporate office that his people would be proud off?
Fiona Cooper
Report this comment

£90,000,000 divided by 5000 firms = £18,000 each. I never heard of such generosity. Or does this "statement of support" (with the obligatory sycophantic reference to Trumpton thrown in) mean that the taxpayer still has to foot the bill...
Bill Harrison
Report this comment

A reminder to the editor: From Press Complaints Commission: Editor Code of Practice. The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

As I mentioned yesterday the P&J is guilty of spectacular double standards of reporting. It is 100% obvious where the editors opinion lies but his opinions should be confined to his editorial page not on supposed balanced reporting. Alan Craigie has a very very good point and it is not confined to this subject.
Dave McGregor
Report this comment

According to some people above anyone who isn't in full support of the City Square project, ignoring facts and concerns, is against progress in Aberdeen. Interesting statements to make considering everyone I've seen comment and everyone I've spoken to, whether they're for or against the CSP, are all for progress and development.
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

well ACSEF sent a presentation team to Edinburgh to present to A+DS so they certainly think A+DS is a significant stakeholder, not surprising as they are a key delivery mechanism for the objectives of the Scottish Government's Policy on Architecture. It's a shame ACSEF did not use A+DS's help from the start, following Inverness's example. We would have gotten so much more for the £300,000 plus that's be spent on the City Square project so far. Or ACSEF could have used ACC's own Urban Realm Strategy or Local Plan in assessing where best to put a Civic Heart back into Aberdeen, any suggestion based on those plans would have gotten unanimous support from Aberdeen, particularly if it involved knocking down St Nic's House.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

If anyone is interested, here's what A+DS said about PVA's planning application: http://www.ads.org.uk/what_we_do/design_review/reports/224_peacock-visual-arts-centre-aberdeen
Brian Christie
Report this comment

I have my own business and am a member of the Federation of Small Businesses and I certainly do NOT support this wasteful, unnecessary, boring civic square. And can anyone explain how they are going to grow big trees when there are all sorts of things planned for underneath the flat, almost featureless, surface? Leave the beautiful gardens alone, apart from the Peacock Arts Centre - that's what the majority of folk want!
Sue Edwards
Report this comment

I have my own business and am a member of the Federation of Small Businesses and I certainly do NOT support this wasteful, unnecessary, boring civic square. And can anyone explain how they are going to grow big trees when there are all sorts of things planned for underneath the flat, almost featureless, surface? Leave the beautiful gardens alone, apart from the Peacock Arts Centre - that's what the majority of folk want!
Sue Edwards
Report this comment

Sue, this page http://www.acsef.co.uk/infoPage.cfm?pageID=4 tells us that Andy Willox is on the board of Acsef. So a board member of the quango pushing the city square project is using his position with the Federation of Small Business to suggest that there is a unanimous and unequivocal support for the Acsef project? Did Andy Willox canvas opinion within the FSB, or did he simply take a flyer because he's on the Acsef board? There are several posts here suggesting that none of the organisations claiming "support" actually bothered to ask their constituent businesses what THEY thought. That this clear abuse of position is thought to be acceptable, let alone swallowed whole by the media, is astonishing.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

I hope all you members of the FSB shout about this. Let the media know, let your councillor know, your MP. But most of all let the people know. If this "thing" gets built, it will be in your name!
John Rutherford
Report this comment

For Chamer of Commerce members who feel that they are being misrepresented, you can make your feelings clear by emailing robert.collier@agcc.co.uk
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Federation of Small Business members who don't agree with the City Square, or have issues with being represented as supporting it, can email Andy Willox, OBE, and Acsef board member, at andy@gold-star.co.uk
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Still trying to get an answer as to how Woods project will enhance the city and a future for next generations. As for Tom Smith in the EE "Its going to be the biggest vote so please have your say" What vote??? We have had the Wood project rammed down our throats, our daily papers indundated with praise and a consultation that is so highly flawed it is lamentable. It this is what big business men and the likes of ACSEF can come up with. It is not a civic square we need. It is some decent individuals that know how to put forward an unbiased programme on which to vote. This "Fiasco" of a vote is totally unacceptable. Not only is this project only in the drawing stage, they still want us to vote on what??? An artists impression of nothing. No Tom Smith has already changed allegiance when Wood came up with his millions. Why did he wait until all the plans were passed. Now does that not make anyone wonder. What is the ulterior motive that they are so urgently trying to win votes even to the extent of bringing in "Celebrities" ie Sir ALex to extol their plans. If Tom Smith and Wood told me it was raining and I was holding an umbrella, I still would have serious doubts about their motives. Personally I find nothing remotely generous or gentlemanly in Woods performance. It now seems that ACSEF have overstepped themselves with the 5000 businessess. As said above, the louts who were sentencced today, did they commit their crime in the gardens. No in the middle of the street. So making a large concrete expanse will only encourage more of this behaviour.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Minnie, if you'd attended last week’s public debate (you know, with the "hostile" audience, thanks Sir Ian), Tom Smith said (in believing that this CSP will be a catalyst for jobs / prosperity) that it would involve "A leap of faith". so there you go. My point has always been - if it's the SAME provision (culturally) as PVA - why are ACSEF trying to run the show? why not trust the cultural bodies of the city? - if it's "bigger" - yet still "free" (civic) - how can this bring more money? besides, it's quality , not quantity that matters when it comes to cultural provision - and especially if you want to impress the world to come here - I am sure watching the Chinese Olympics makes people realise what sort of "scale" is needed to be "impressive" (let alone a "catalyst" for economic regeneration!). If the CSP is NOT purely cultural civic provision – then be honest ACSEF and tell us how many shops, business, carparking spaces (490 from your plans on your own website)…there are planned – and stop pretending that you are giving any Aberdonian any say in the direction of Sir Ian’s vain glorious. (is the story true he’s got a model of UTG in his office from the first 2 times he tried to own…sorry, gift a large newly created slab of real estate?).
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

if you actually look into the figures of companies represented by these bodies that are Aberdeen-based.. it's substantially less than 5000... Aberdeen CBI members + FSB South Aberdeenshire members + Oil & Gas UK members = approx 2071 businesses (including Balmoral Group and others who have already said they are against City Square) AGCC represents many of the same businesses as the FSB (including 3 belonging to the Wood Group alone) oddly, AGCC also has a good few dozen members in the creative & education areas.. including both unis, Aberdeen College and Aberdeen Arts Centre which are almost certainly against City Square.. AGCC (unsurprisingly) is also a partner of ACSEF Would it not seem unfair (not to mention bizarre) that a representative body be in favour of a scheme of one of it's members if it is detrimental to other members?
Marc Madill
Report this comment

oh, and if they are bringing people like Sir Alex into the equation, then does this not come in direct opposition to their stance over Annie Lennox voicing her opinion since she hasn't lived in Aberdeen for so long.. apart from the odd friendly vs Aberdeen, when was the last time Sir Alex set foot in Aberdeen? I'm not bashing one of Aberdeen's most famous sons but if Annie's views aren't valid.. neither is Sir Alex's..
Marc Madill
Report this comment

Surely then the Press and Journal should not have printed a headline which stated that “5,000 firms unite behind Sir Ian’s vision” when this is clearly not the case. Any decent bit of journalism on the P&J’s behalf should have confirmed opinion contrary to the statements that the AGCC and FSB released. Can I remind the editor of Section 1 i) of the Editors Code on the Press Complaints Commission website which clearly states: The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information And The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Jonathan Mennie
Report this comment

Surely then the Press and Journal should not have printed a headline which stated that “5,000 firms unite behind Sir Ian’s vision” when this is clearly not the case. Any decent bit of journalism on the P&J’s behalf should have confirmed opinion contrary to the statements that the AGCC and FSB released. Can I remind the editor of Section 1 i) of the Editors Code on the Press Complaints Commission website which clearly states: The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information And The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Jonathan Mennie
Report this comment

What a shoddy rag the Pravda and Journal is nowadays...
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.