SCDI supports Sir Ian – but calls for union

By Joanna Skailes

Published: 01/03/2010

A business development organisation has voiced its support for the proposed civic square in Aberdeen but dismissed claims it would guarantee the city’s future economic prosperity.

The north-east committee of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry (SCDI) said Sir Ian Wood’s vision for the £140million transformation of Union Terrace Gardens represented “a major opportunity” for the city that would underpin the region’s attractiveness as a place to live, work, visit and invest.

In a letter to Aberdeen City Council leader John Stewart, SCDI north-east chairman Duncan Skinner said the organisation would be willing to offer financial support to the scheme.

He stressed, however, that the north-east economy would not be damaged in the long-term if the public did not support the plans to raise the gardens and cover the railway.

It comes just a week after Sir Ian, who has pledged £50million of his personal fortune to the plans, claimed the project was essential to safeguard the future prosperity of the city.

Mr Skinner said in his letter: “Such projects have an important role to play in underpinning the region's attractiveness as a place to locate a business to live, work, visit and invest.

“Should the Union Terrace Gardens/Denburn Valley project not be supported, SCDI believes that the north-east economy can still be successful in the long-term.”

He added that the “wider vision” of raising the gardens and including a revised contemporary arts centre led by Peacock Visual Arts, which already had planning permission to build a centre in the gardens, was a “major opportunity which would bring significant benefits to the city”.

He called for a collaboration between Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef), driving Sir Ian’s plans forward, and Peacock.

The two sides have been at loggerheads since Sir Ian revealed his vision last year.

He said: “The current polarised position is unfortunate and needs to be overcome for the greater good of the city.”

The Peacock team had achieved a “tremendous amount” and their talents should be harnessed as part of a larger scheme, said Mr Skinner, who added committee members were not 100% in support of the civic square plan but the majority of members wanted it to be taken forward.

He called on Mr Stewart to “take a strong leadership role in brokering compromise and an agreement”.

Reader's Comments

More misinformation in this article today as well. Opinion is not polarised between ACSEF and Peacock, there are three viewpoints being expressed in the city. Many of us do not want Union Terrace Gardens to be buldozed. And also 'raising the gradens" eh? Is that raising as in the biblical sense of total destruction ....
mike shepherd
Report this comment

And also the sister article on consulting the citizens of Peterhead on the City Square project. Maybe they should be consulted on the idea of building a nuclear waste dump and waste incinerator in the centre of Aberdeen as well?
mike shepherd
Report this comment

There is no need to compromise. The "qualitative analysis" of the city square consultation (>8000 participants) will not be published before Peacocks lose their funding. The council will not make any decision until the report is published. However, 9118 people have already voted and the quantitative analysis shows 84% (7672) in favour of PVA and 14% (1446) in favour of the City Square. Sorry, I forgot about the silent majority. I guess that's why we need a qualitative analysis!
A L
Report this comment

“Should the Union Terrace Gardens/Denburn Valley project not be supported, SCDI believes that the north-east economy can still be successful in the long-term.” So were Sir Ian and ACSEF were lying when they said that our future depends on it? (or should "our" be "their")? Oh, I am confused ... thanks PnJ for helping clarify their message once again.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

The so-called "consultation" is a sham. Why are people in Peterhead being asked about the future of a city centre park in Aberdeen? Union Terrace Gardens is a civic amenity enjoyed for and paid for by the council tax payers of Aberdeen. It is our park and we want to keep it. It's a cynical ploy in that if the people in Peterhead are asked about the City Square, they will be more likely to vote in favour of it as they are more remote from and less attached to the Gardens.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Not sure I agree with that point, Mike. I think we should be getting the views of people well beyond Aberdeen. The claim is that companies will be more likely to come to the city if we have this square, but I can't see any coverage from outwith the city that sees this plan as anything other than madness.
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

At the speed things are likely to progress the PVA scheme (the least invasive)will founder as it's funding will be withdrawn and that would be a tradgedy. Or perhaps that what the powers that be want ?
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

if the so called powers to be want to make Aberdeen City and Shire an "attractiveness as a place to live, work, visit and invest." then they had better start doing something positive about the image of the NE by resolving the country's worst probelems with drugs,drink,gambling and violence that beset the NE and thsi is without the lack of infrastructure - these so called need to grow up and get the NE back to a respectible moral position within the UK
Thomas Owenson
Report this comment

Excellent, in voicing support for the City Square the SCDI have, in one simple statement, removed the ONLY vague justification for it that ACSEF have stated, that it's required for the Economic Future of Aberdeen City and Shire. I agree with Mr Skinner in that he has essentially stated that "Such projects", not explicitly, "This Project" have a part to play in the regions attractiveness but not specifically it's economic future. So why don't ACSEF take the City Square Project and align it with ACC's Local Plan and Urban Realm Strategy and locate it at the real Civic and Retail heart of Aberdeen, St Nic's House and Centre and Broad Street... and leave Union Terrace Gardens alone!
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Ron, it's difficult to know what goes on in Acsef minds. In the first week of the consultation they were spending thousands of pounds advertising in the P&J to tell Aberdeen that Peacock are "exclusive" - utterly untrue and quite defamatory. Within a few weeks Acsef had decided that a contemporary arts centre would be the centrepiece of their project, telling us that they would bring a "Guggenheim" to Aberdeen. In short these people, who change horses from week to week and can't make up their minds whether the arts are a minority/elite interest of the jewel in the crown of their own project, clearly cannot be trusted. That they have also spectacularly failed to make any cogent economic case for investing £90m+ of public money simply proves the point. The bottom line is they're saying "trust us, it'll work" without bothering to explain how. And all the while behaving in extremely poor faith - witness Andy Willox last week telling the world that FSB members backed the square whilst failing to declare his Acsef board membership. And then having to backtrack because he hadn't surveyed FSB members. Do these people really think that they're capable of delivering any kind of project that will help Aberdeen? Their misleading and contradictory statements in the press suggest that they can't even manage a basic communications strategy properly. I can't imagine what havoc they would wreak if left in charge of hundreds of millions of public money, rather than the hundreds of thousands that they've wasted this last few months.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Ron, on a similar note, I think there is a distinct aroma coming from this city Square project. It's hard not to think that ACSEF and Sir Ian have tried to hijack a project that already had planning permission to build in UTG, something Sir Ian has tried before but failed! Suddenly the press is covered with these BIGGER, BETTER, GREENER claims to try to trivialise the Peacock's plans whilst trying to hold on to the now accepted concept that building in UTG acceptable. All based on some extremely vague vision that the economic future of the region is WHOLLY dependant on destroying UTG and dropping a 4-storey building in it's place. Looking at ACSEF's own Technical Appraisal of the site it's clear that there are significant planning constraints that they have to comply with, or circumnavigate. Hence, this extended PR Railroad Roadshow. If ACSEF could demonstrate significant public support, I have no doubt that concessions would be made in the planning review, particularly if the other project lost it's funding during this process. We have had a succession of independent technical reviews criticising the project for it's scale and lack of consideration to the city centre as a whole and now we have SCDI saying the Economic Future of the region is NOT dependent on this Square of Dreams. I have no doubt that the results will be spun, they are being handled by a private PR company after all, and ACSEF will call for another consultation process to try address all the technical and economic failures with the proposal to date. And more public money will be flushed down the toilet at a time when it cannot be spared, £300,000+ and counting I believe. I think we should call for an investigation of ACSEF's handling of this fiasco. ACC need to wake up and smell the roses! Forget these grandiose, single solution, pie in the sky proposals and stick to a simple, one step at a time approach, it's working well in Dundee. PVA is scalable, it affects only one small part of the Denburn Valley and it's in line with their Urban Realm Strategy and Local Plan. And as Thomas points out above, we have far bigger problems in the City Centre to deal with than paving over historic gardens.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

If the economic future of a town/city could be secured by creating a flat concrete expanse on top of a car park, every little place here & abroad would be doing it. The whole notion that investment, jobs & prosperity can be guaranteed by such means is ludicrous. It's parks & gardens that 'lift' places and attract visitors and money, not multi-storey car parks. Note recent depictions by the architectural students - flat, level expanses, somehow merging seamlessly with the surrounding streets to allow walk-on walk-off access, despite these all being at different levels - Belmont St a storey-and-a-half below Union Terrace - improbably large trees, large areas of surface water for kiddies to fall into, to flood in winter and become a stagnant, stinking mess in summer; it gets worse & worse!
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

For properly researched & in-depth analysis of this important topic, check the website & March 2010 Newsletter of Aberdeen Civic Society!
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

I agree with all comments above, but especially with Brian Christie and Richard Fraser. The way things are going, we are in danger of this project (PVA) being lost. The laughable thing is that the city could have two excellent public spaces if the Wood/ACEF lot would just compromise and utilise the St Nicholas House site instead of destroying the gardens.
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

Well said Alex Mitchell. The idea that a vast expanse of concrete in the middle of a city will lead to a burgeoning economy is beyond a joke. What next - a new strapline for the city? 'Aberdeen: Home of the big flat concrete thing'. I look out over a massive car park at my work and all it seems to attract when it's empty is seagulls...
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

By the way, is there an edict from the editor's office of the Pravda and Journal that Ian Wood's proposal must always be referred to in every article as a 'vision'? Surely words like 'proposals' or 'plans' or even 'scheme' could be used every now and again to relieve the monotony.
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

Louis, "vision" is admittedly a bit snappier than "speculative pre-planning application proposal with £90m+ funding gap that is currently preventing a well funded project with full planning permission from progressing".
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

I see where you're coming from Richard. You'd almost think the P&J were doing this on purpose...
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

I still dont see why Peterhead and the rest should have a say in our UTG. Did we get a voice in building a waste disposal in Peterhead. No we did not, we were not asked. But that would be far more beneficial that covering the gardnes. ASCEF do not know if they are coming or going. Every time you read the paper, they have something different to add. Drag out more people to extol their plans. As for Woods "Vision" which as noted above the P & J and EE write about so enthuisasticly it is not a "vision, it is a bribe. Now we have Architects saying it is not a great idea. This SCDI saying that is not essential for the economy of the city. But that is what the aCSEF/Wood keep telling us. Personally if I wanted to visit a place or even work there, I would much rather have a central garden than more concrete of shops. Of which Aberdeen must be "Mall City" the way they are sprouting up. . How many times has it been suggested to build Wood Square where St Nicholas house is. Far better location, which would as said give us 2 areas of civic pride. But it seems that selfishenss and stubborness is the mood of these individuals. There seems to be an ulterior motion in this Wood proposal. But with the daily papers backing him all the way we have no chance of a true vote. As for the ACC to make the correct decision, They should have made it right at the start and told Wood that the original plans were staying. Too greedy by half. Never mind who will pay for it all, they can't afford anything anyway. Cuts and more cuts, so where will the money for this fiasco come from. As saiid Wood should never have been allowed to get this far and ACSEF should have more sense.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Sir Ian and Co claim there is no possibility of a middle ground being found, it's either PVA join them or nothing. This clearly isn't true though, the Millenium Square project demonstrates the perfect possibility for a middle ground solution and one that is far more appropriate to Aberdeen than erasing the very centre and history for something that is very likely to fail.
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

In the P&J today there is an article about the residents trying to save Sunnybank Park in Old Aberdeen. Typical, here we are trying to stop wasting millions of Public money on a pointless "Square of Dreams" when yet another green space is threatened with closure due to lack of funding. The bowling greens and putting green have been closed and now the vandals have moved in. ACC really need to get their priorities sorted out! Stop listening to millionaires and their pipe dreams and start listen to the public and what we want for our City.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Good point Brian. On a related note it's scandalous how ACC deliberately let Duthie Park run down over the years - bowling greens, tennis courts, duck ponds etc. Seemingly it was linked to the bid for National Lottery funding for the park, which is now in place. There's a niggling worry in the back of my mind that if Woody's daft City Square nonsense gets the kybosh he'll come up with plans to rejuvenate Duthis Park (with concrete nae doot) and foul up the existing funding like he's in danger of doing with PVA.
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

Is my 'Ninth Way' plan to obliterate Sir Ian's privately-accessed Den of Rubislaw gardens instead of Union Terrace Gardens for the location of the civic square beginning to be seen as the 'third' option being considered in the City and Shire? I am beginning to feel part of the City and Shire loop. In this connection is the rumour true that there is evidence of COAL DISCOVERED UNDER KINCORTH HILL? Is it further true, as rumoured, that the elimination of the verdant island of city centre tranqulity that WAS and COULD be UTG is part of a conspiracy by Sir Ian and Tommy Smith to use The Trainie Park as the site of an underground carbon capture storage facility connected to the coal powered fuel station planned for The Duthie Park, which would be serviced by dredging the Dee as far as the King George V1th bridge? Graham Slater
Graham Slater
Report this comment

extra extra, "City Square dealt major blow, Economic justification for Union Terrace Gardens site not proven" If the P&J can't put a relevant title on their articles, instead of the usual "blah blah supports the Square", we should add them ourselves.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

and we're starting to hear Sir Ian is worried that the "consultation" has been hijacked by a "vocal minority" - and that the data collected is not representational of Aberdeen... shame Webber Shandwick forgot to tell sir Ian that they were very happy with the consultation - and how many people have contributed. http://www.thecitysquareproject.com/media-centre/participation-in-city-square-consultation-set-to-beat-other-major-scottish-projects/ If only that pesky silent majority cared more about Aberdeen and its future! I'm happy to be part of a vocal minority that sees the arts as a key player in the future VIBRANCY of Aberdeen - I still think ACSEF should concentrate on business, and let the cultural providers provide the culture (how about giving them more money to help create a vibrant Aberdeen? or is that seen as a "drain" and the only benefit to any society is one that “makes money”?)...
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Why shouldn't people from Peterhead/Inverurie get a chance to share their views? I understand that people from Aberdeen didnt get to share their views about the waste plant...but given that people from Peterhead, Fraserburgh etc etc have to travel to Aberdeen for work, play etc and spend a lot of money in Aberdeen, therefore contribute to Aberdeens economy greatly then they should have their say. If the City and Shire are to be involved then residents of Aberdeenshire should be able to have a say!
Clare Duncan
Report this comment

clare, I've done some work for a company in Peterhead and I traveld from Aberdeen to get there... whom should I make my complaint to? I think I know how it works though - if you are not from aberdeen and for the CSP - that's OK. if you are from aberdeen and are for the CSP that's ok... but, if you are NOT for the CSP and from Aberdeen or elsewhere - ACSEF & friends think you are a vocal minority, elitist artist, NIMBY, naysayer, unaware of the true "facts"... delete as appropriate. very helpful ACSEF.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Hey Philip, I see what you mean, the spin is beginning! Just caught wind of Sir Ian's concerns in the EE. Tonights paper has a 2-page spread which essential discredits their own survey because of lack of involvement from the public! (How much money did this cost us?) Despite, as you point out, the overwhelming success of participation being touted on their own City Square website, exceeding the Forth Road Bridge and Edinburgh Trams consultations. According to Sir Ian and ACSEF with such apparently low participation the "negative opinion" will make up a large part of the result. I would like to say to Sir Ian and ACSEF that a "no comment" is as good as a "no" in this case, Please mind the step as you exit the Gardens.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Brian, the scandal is that there are two PR agencies being paid from the public purse here. One - Weber Shandwick - has been paid more than £100K to manage the consultation, and they are pointing out that participation is greater than in several other high profile examples from across Scotland. The other - The Big Partnership - is placing stories on behalf of Acsef such as that in today's EE, which tells us that Acsef and Sir Ian are preparing some kind of appalling deus ex machina strategy to ignore their own consultation, paid for with our money. In last week's Citizen (yes, yes, I know) Tom Smith cited that "only" 1.5% of the REGION's population had participated - which, despite that meaning it's one of the nation's biggest exercise in consultation in terms of number of people involved, apparently means that the process has been violated by a tiny minority. Sir Ian has long professed that he wants a mandate for his scheme, so it'll be revealing to see whether he is a man of integrity in a few weeks time. I sincerely hope so, but the behaviour of Acsef - already discrediting their own consultation - suggests otherwise.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Reading the EE tonight it seemed that once again that both papers are doing their own canvassing for the Wood project. Perhaps if their "Consultation" had been done correctly, which would entail both sides given equal opportunity to say what they wanted. Then maybe this fiasco would be over. To spend thousands of money on road shows, brochures etc which tell only half if that of the story does not show a good head for business by either ACSEF or Wood. Now the SCDI have said that after all the millions being spent of his "Vision" it would not bring any more business or finance to the city. So why waste money on it. It was mentioned that this marvelous square could hold concerts, Hogmany parties etc. Aye right like this last Hogmaney. Noted that a lot of the comments in the EE in favour of the square, all thought it would be great for more shopping. So that is what it is about!!! Is ACSEF and Wood now diversifing into the retail business. Tom Smith must wonder every day just what he can make up for todays P & J story. It changes all the time. And if Wood is getting a bit worried Good. As said before. He should never have been allowed to get this far and with tax payers money. Thier was an existing project approved. Just shows what a deceitful selfish lot they are.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Moaning Minnie – the article does not say “it would not bring any more business or finance to the city” it said “the north-east economy would not be damaged in the long-term if the public did not support the plans to raise the gardens and cover the railway” but it also said “Such projects have an important role to play in underpinning the region's attractiveness as place to LOCATE A BUSINESS to live, work, VISIT and INVEST.” It went on further to say “the organization would be willing to offer financial support to the scheme” Couple that with the fact that PVA is no longer under threat of loosing its funding and it paints a much healthier picture for the CSP than you and the others are trying to say.
Philip Uren
Report this comment

Hi Philip, do you work for Wood or the P & J as you can always quote them word for word. I thought it was us the "vocal minority" that had the blinkers on. This CSP' funding is still unsure. There has been very little if any on the costs of the surveys alone, never minding the building. I doubt that the estimated £140 million will be enough. but you seem to think that people will come to view this glorious square. Well they might, but more likely to wonder how anyone can be so blind as to cover up an existing garden. Still missing the point. Wood should have been told this was already in place for the Peacock project. For every departmnet or government body that ACSEF/Wood have persuaded to extol the virtues of his "Dream" there are as many who disagree. Notice that many people who are in agreement with Woods plans say how great it will be for shopping. Is that all the city is to become.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

PVA may still lose their funding. The comments today don't seem to be verified anywhere, and the assumption is that they'll be able to go ahead if the Square goes ahead. unfortunately, the square wouldn't be finished in time for them to have a home. As one of Sir Ian's aides said, if everything goes ahead at full speed, it may be finished by the end of 2015. (which may mean it costs a lot more than planned, since the plan is based on completion in 2012). If this consultation drags on much longer, I'm not convinced that all of the bodies that have put up the funding for PVA will guaranntee it - even if the government funding is to be guaranteed. I believe some funding has already been lost, and fundraising put on hold due to this exercise. The risk of losing out on the PVA scheme still seems very real to me.
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

As you've re-quoted yourself Philip, that's "such projects" not specifically "this project". Which means that any project, such as ACC's Urban Realm Strategy for the Bon Accord Quarter would achieve the same result as the City Square. This blows Sir Ian's and ACSEF's claims out of the water, they claim that Aberdeenshire's Economic Future depends on this project and this location ONLY. How many times have we heard "this is Aberdeen's last chance" which now turns out to just plain wrong as everyone suspected.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

I merely pointed out that the lady had misquoted the article ;-)
Philip Uren
Report this comment

The story in last nights's EE is another example of the disgraceful depths that the ACSEF/Aberdeen Journals/Woody axis will stoop to in trying to manipulate this story. 1984 is supposed to be a novel, not an instruction manual. The result of the EE poll of 500 people (a clear majority against the square) is downplayed and the story concentrates on the fact that 'fewer than one in ten of tne people have made their views known'. If of course there had been a majority of the 500 in favour of the square, the story would be to this effect and the percentage of those who had made their views known in consultation wouldn't be an issue. This sort of stuff is worthy of Mandelson and Campbell and makes 'In The Thick Of It' look like Jackanory.Typical of ACSEF/Aberdeen Journals/Woody to try to undermine the process when they don't get the result they want. Have they been taking tips from Robert Mugabe? Also not a word about the clear majority of several thousand who have put their names and comments to the online petition against the square as opposed to the 'tiny minority' who are in favour.
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

Couldn't agree more Louis. I couldn't decide whether to be more outraged or amused by their "shock" story! It's hilarious to see the City Square Website claim this to be the most the most successful public consultations in Scottish history one day and for ACSEF and Sir Ian to say that the results will be biased due to such a poor response the next. If it were all being funded by the private sector I'd stick with hilarious but as this fiasco is being funded by public funds it's an outrageous waste of our money! I suspect the results are going to be so furiously spun that I'll get dizzy just looking at them!
Brian Christie
Report this comment

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