Apathy could kill plans for city square, warn backers

By Morag Lindsay

Published: 05/03/2010

The team behind Sir Ian Wood’s city square plan warned last night that a lack of public interest could kill the project and cost Aberdeen tens of millions of pounds of private and public-sector funding.

The Wood Group chairman predicted future generations would be “the real losers” if he was forced to walk away from the £140million scheme because of local apathy.

It is understood members of the group steering the proposal on his behalf fear Aberdeen will lose out on both the city square and a rival bid by Peacock Visual Arts for a £13.5milllion arts centre in Union Terrace Gardens – and be left with nothing.

Sir Ian spoke out after the group steering the plan on his behalf revealed fewer than 3% of the city’s population had responded to a two-month consultation, which is due to close at midnight.

Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef) said public participation was so low that there was a danger that Sir Ian would withdraw the £50million he has pledged towards the redevelopment of Union Terrace Gardens and the Denburn Valley – and claimed the collapse of the scheme would cause significant damage to the north-east’s reputation.

Sir Ian said: “I hope a significant number have expressed their views. I would not like to see such a huge opportunity lost by apathy.

“If people don’t want this transformational change, I will accept that with the consolation of being £50million better off. However, if that is what happens, the real losers will be the next generation of citizens of Aberdeen.”

Acsef chairman Tom Smith said: “Sir Ian Wood’s £50million towards a radical transformation of the city centre is conditional on the people of Aberdeen wanting it.”

Mr Smith added: “Support from the Scottish Government and private sector has made this £140million a reality and the damage to our reputation should we reject it would be significant.”

Finance Minister John Swinney said yesterday that the government would consider giving the development tax incremental finance (TIF) zone status, which would allow city leaders to use business rates to underwrite the capital cost of the project.

But the government has said that funding would be dependant on the city square team striking a deal with Peacock Visual Arts, which had secured full planning permission, 75% of its funding and Acsef’s backing for its centre built in the gardens when Sir Ian revealed his plans.

The two sides have been unable to reach a compromise.

Members of Acsef are understood to be worried that a no vote for the city square scheme would not automatically mean the Peacock project could go ahead, because the art group has still to secure the rest of its funding.

The suggestion that the city could be left with nothing was rubbished last night by Peacock campaign director Elly Rothnie. “Our fundraising campaign was ready to launch when Sir Ian made his announcement, after being checked by two independent consultants who judged that we could deliver it on time and on track,” she said.

“I hope that if the public do decide against the city square that the whole city will get behind Peacock’s original proposal.”

Despite the concerns, Weber Shandwick, the company running the consultation into the city square scheme has said participation levels are on course to be among the highest ever in Scotland.

More than 7,500 people had taken part by the end of February – more than the consultation on the Forth crossing, Glasgow Airport rail link or Edinburgh trams.

More than 8,000 have signed a petition calling for the city square scheme to be abandoned and nearly 1,500 have put their names to another in support of it.

Reader's Comments

"Finance Minister John Swinney said yesterday that the government would consider giving the development tax incremental finance (TIF) zone status, which would allow city leaders to use business rates to underwrite the capital cost of the project." Didn't the council say they were not going to fund the square, and quite right too. Reportedly £50 million in debt with a further commitment to the bypass, not to mention the drain on cash by the exhibition centre, the council would be insane to borrow even more money for the city square folly. And excuse me, but how about using future business rates for council services and tidying up the city. Otherwise the city square would become a big rubbish tip once the refuse collections stop in the city cos the council's broke.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

"I will accept that with the consolation of being £50million better off." -- second time i've heard this in a few weeks.. thanks mate, we feel your pain
jaco skinny
Report this comment

"Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef) said public participation was so low that there was a danger that Sir Ian would withdraw the £50million he has pledged" if Acsef dont understand this then they should not be in their jobs - people are sick and tired of the immoral, corrupt behaviour of councillors who dont do the job they are there for and have come to the conclusion these councillors and the Wood's and Trump's of this world just do what they want anyway and dont listen to the public
Thomas Owenson
Report this comment

http://www.variant.org.uk/35texts/PlayingBall.html
jaco skinny
Report this comment

"More than 8,000 have signed a petition calling for the city square scheme to be abandoned and nearly 1,500 have put their names to another in support of it." correction.... 8254 have signed a petition to save the Peacock contemporary arts centre and 1524 have signed in support of the city square. The statistic remain constant ~ 84% in favour of the Peacock scheme and 16% in favour of the City Square. So, lets get positively behind the Peacock scheme. The ski is not going to fall in, the oil companis are not going to leave and the economic prosperity of Aberdeen is not going to be damaged. Time for ACSEF to challenge Scottish Enterprise to support and fund new businesses wanting to set up in our area (assuming ACSEF aren't planning a move to Edinburgh in protest!).
A L
Report this comment

PVA had raised 75% of its funding when Sir ian brought back his concept. This is typical of a successful fundraising campaign for this kind of project. Had they been able to press on, they would likely have been able to produce their visionary plan UNDER budget, due to lower costs than forecast. I have no doubt that they will be able to reach their target, and their plan go ahead. It all depends on Sir Ian and ACSEF acting like grown-up, not children playing with their toy city. They should immediately concede that the majority of people in Aberdeen judge their concept to be not good enough - Aberdeen deserves better than that. Step aside now, to let PVA start work .
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

"Participation in City Square Consultation Set to Beat Other Major Scottish Projects" — http://www.thecitysquareproject.com/media-centre/participation-in-city-square-consultation-set-to-beat-other-major-scottish-projects/
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

So why did we have this Public Consultation then if ACSEF and Sir think the turnout is so low? Public participation in consultations are well documented and this one beats most if not all major Scottish projects of this type. We could have saved hundreds of thousands if they looked at previous consultations, said participation will be too low and gone straight to put a planning proposal into ACC. Ooops, silly me! They needed significant public support to help circumnavigate the planning requirements and restrictions for this historical site.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

It's patently obvious that none of these stories about apathy would have been appearing in the Pravda and Journal if ACSEF had got the answer they were looking for in the consultation exercise. You also have to ask serious questions about the propriety of a publicly funded consultation exercise which clearly involves the ongoing assessment of the responses as they come in, this information then being passed on to the P&J and a selection of local worthies/stooges being lined up to undermine the process before it's even been finished. Also no surprise to see Tom Smith talking out of his hat yet again.
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

It's not apathy, it's common sense and a desire to see progress in the city, and not the same mistakes made over and over again. If Ian Wood really is the generous philantropihist the he claims to be and that the P&J are trying to force everyone into believing, why doesnt he just donate a small fraction of that supposed promised 50million, lets say a tenth, to the peacock project and we can ttuly get the gardens brought back to life.. Rather than ending up with nothing, we can now get a landmark project, that doesnt destroy the gardens, a project that should havve already been under construction had the big businessmen not decided to faff about. Not that it would make up for the last 16 months of desperately shoving the peacock project under the carpet, but still, we would actually get something out of all this nonsense.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Ved, if Sir Ian did that he'd have enough left over to put into the civic square at St Nicholas. Which is what has been planned by experts and approved by the Aberdeen public. Does Sir Ian have the grace and humility that his knighthood infers upon him, or will he really storm off with his bag of money, insisting that the people of Aberdeen are "losers" for disagreeing with his vision?
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

I don't know who is worse, the small time, small minded vociferous few who are so opposed to progress and change in the city, or the hapless majority who don't seem to care less what happens to Aberdeen - shame on the people of this city for not embracing, or at the very least considering the opportunities and improvements this proposal could have for all of us!
Allison Robb
Report this comment

Allison, it's a tough call, but the answer is the small minded vociferous few opposed to progress - ACSEF. Progress would be a visionary plan, and theirs is sadly a dull concept. Progress would be Peacock PLUS investment. The square would be a huge step backwards for Aberdeen.
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

Allison, you should consider that the PVA building has full planning permission and £9.5m funding in place. How could this be possible in a city of "small minded vociferous few who are so opposed to progress"? The answer is that it couldn't. So your analysis is quite probably incorrect. It would appear that Aberdeen's citizens are happy to adopt a progressive, well thought out and economically viable scheme - even when it involves development in Union Terrace Gardens, the only green space in the city centre. Could it be that the City Square Project is none of those things?
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Allison, could you give examples of how the city square would provide opportunities and improvements for us all? Maybe it is the fault of the original 'consultation' which took the marketing rather than the expository route in promoting the scheme, but there has been very little actual logical argument on the subject from those in favour of it that makes any sense. All we here is tired old cliches like iconic, fabulous etc, etc. We are an educated bunch here in Aberdeen and we are big fans of reasoned argument you know.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

oops, not that educated! for here read hear!
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Alison, unfortunately when you make an unjustified accusation like that and brand everyone as 'small minded' you will naturally invite backlash comments and sarcasm towards you.. I however will only reiterate, that most of us are actually all up for development, we'd like to see the gardens rejuvinated, we'd like to see them redevelopped,but we'd like to see it done right, and the pva offers this. Four storeys of concrete over 6.7 acres is counter productive, and when costs spiral and maintenace falls through, the council won't have enough money to take it down,and it will be a wasteland. And that's far from a narrowminded view, that is actually thinking for a change, as opposed to buying all the bull that you are spoon fed, or is shoved down your throat by people that have no way of backing up what they are saying.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Alison I think you might have read this the wrong way round, ‘’the small time small minded vociferous few’’ are the 1524 people who voted for the City square and not the 8254 people who oppose the City Square.
Robert Horne
Report this comment

Allison… right so supporting well considered, appropriate city centre development in your mind is "small time, small thinking". You really need to look at the ACSEF proposal and those behind it.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

Look at it this way, for the cost of the CSP we could improve the gardens AND many more areas of Aberdeen so people visiting and living here have even MORE to proudly promote and enjoy.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

Apathy? Yeah..... Whatever.....
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

Its more like the citizens of Aberdeen don't want a "pathy" built on top of the gardens that they are giving the wood vision a body swerve. According to the organiser running the consultation that it has had a good response. It is just that it is not the response wanted by the ACSEF. If they had started the project off in a much less aggresive manner, and had been more open and honest perhaps they may have had a better positive response from the public. The country is sick to the back teeth of being lied and "conned" to, by parliment, councils and corporate fat cats.
Lord Lucan
Report this comment

Are we opposed to change? I don't think so. Can I have a hands-up from all those who would support a Civic Square at the Broad Street/St Nicholas House location? That's a YES from me.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Raises hand (to street level).
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

Raises hands too.
Nina Eggens
Report this comment

That's a most definite YES in support of a Civic Square at the Broad Street/St Nicholas House location for me too! See, no need for a PR company do run a costly consultation that costs over quarter a million quid of public money.
Jaki Sinclair
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.