arts centre was major stumbling block

Hostile response to a handsome offer

Published: 06/03/2010

Businessman Sir Ian Wood could scarcely have imagined the furore he would cause when he revealed his ambitious plans to turn Aberdeen’s Union Terrace Gardens into a new, street-level, civic square. Sir Ian had committed £50million of his personal fortune towards the estimated cost of the project, believing that it would inject new life into the city centre and improve access to the neglected and little-used gardens.

Now, with the formal consultation period officially at a close, it appears that he will be left with little option but to walk away from a scheme which captured the imagination of most of the region’s business community, but alienated large sections of city traditionalists.

The fact that Peacock Visual Arts had already won planning permission for a new arts centre in the gardens would appear to have been the major stumbling block, despite assurances that the centre would be incorporated into the final design for the square.

Now, several months after first mooting the plan, Sir Ian must be wondering whether it was worth the effort. His motives have been questioned, despite assurances from the outset that he wanted no lasting acknowledgement of his financial contribution, and he and the leading figures in the Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future group have been subjected to personal abuse.

Some have twisted and deliberately misrepresented aspects of the scheme to present it as a concrete eyesore with a shopping mall at its heart. Others have come up with their own suggestions on how Sir Ian’s £50million should be used, completely overlooking the fact that it is for him to decide where he spends his money.

All in all, a sad end to an ambitious plan which would have breathed new life into Aberdeen city centre. The real tragedy, however, is that by resisting the Union Terrace Gardens project to protect the Peacock plan, the likelihood is that the city will end up with neither.

Reader's Comments

I just spent ages writing s reply to this story and it didnt post....jeesh. Here we go again then: You are right in stating that there has been "personal abuse" during this sorry period. I have been called "a serial campaigner", "tree hugger". A member of ACSEF publicly called me a "Liar" when I was quoting directly from the Halliday Fraser Munro Feasibilty Study. Another member of the City Square Steering Group whispered discouraging words in my ear while I spoke to the room at the Land Use Forum. My proffession has been brought into question, with the intent of uncovering some hidden motive or agenda that I may have. All without foundation. Yes, personal abuse was indeed evident. It can also be seen in the ACSEF funded (for ACSEF funded, read publicly funded) advert printed in Aberdeen Journals newspapers. But what is worse than all this has been the PR spin. The use of the statement: "raising the gardens" when the feasibility study clearly shows the excavation of the gardens, then a steel and concrete structure built in its place with a garden (with no semblance to the original one) on its roof. To raise something you take it in its original form and elevate its position. This is RAZING not RAISING. The constant comments that only druggies, drunks, homeless and undesirables use the gardens without any evidence. No crime reports, no photographs, no personal stories of "I was attacked in UTG". Nothing except urban myths. The escalator full of busineesmen who appeared to proclaim their support for the square. But wait, these same businessmen are also members of ACSEF (but did not state this). So no hidden agenda there then. And then we have the story of how the Square will save Aberdeen. Scaremongering of the highest order which has now thankfully been discredited. This con-sultation has been a farce from beginning to end, and Aberdeen Journals needs to accept its part in this farce. The lack of balance by our local press has been woeful. The "Voice Of The North"? Sadly not, more the "Voice Of ACSEF". This has been the true low point of the City Square story, the lack of proper journalism.
John Rutherford
Report this comment

Awful language from an awful editorial bias. I'm not a traditionalist, I know that the future has to be more considered, with well thought out plans (in any place in the world) the old days of build it big and build it high should be over- but I fear the 80s oil boom still informs some business men of their idea of 'progress'. Can you write a scathing attack on the people that tried to destroy progress and future thinking for Aberdeen by railroading the pva plans? If the csp is 'for all' (meaning 'not just for artists' (not that the northern lights building is)) what else will be in the csp if it isn't shops and car parks? (by the way the car parking is on the acsef website PDF page 8 if you cared to look). Does advertising revenue really ensure a supportive editorial position at the journals? I just hope you are professional enough not to hold a grudge and moot any future pva stories of progress and engagent.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Where to start? Only one person during this consultation has accused me of being hostile, and that was Sir Ian Wood. Why? I don't know - I hadn't said or done anything, but Sir Ian saw fit to accuse me and hundreds of others in the Citadel of being "hostile" as his opening statement in the Frank Doran hosted public debate on the 18th Feb. Despite have absolutley no evidence on which to base this offensive and aggressive assertion. The P&J's editorial stance during this consultation period has been an embarrassment to Aberdeen and, I am sure, the more intelligent journalists it employs. Misleading information? Acsef's concealment of key elements of their project, along with the scandalous non-disclosure of an alternative project costing less than a tenth of theirs, covers that nicely. Acsef board members abusing their positions with other organisations to mislead the public over support for their scheme, well that's fine behaviour to be condoned by the P&J, is it? The list goes on and on. Shame on you, P&J.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

I completely agree with all that is said in the previous comments. "It is up to him how he spends his money". Sure, if it's in his own back garden. The city gardens belong to the people of Aberdeen, not to a handful of businessmen who claim they want the best for the city, meanwhile ignoring almost 10,000 citizens saying that they DO want change but they DON'T want to lose the gardens. If it is up to Sir Ian how he spends his money on the city, why did the public have to pay for his £300,000+ public consultation? Peacock Visual Arts would have breathed new life into the city centre by 2011, if Sir Ian hadn't put a total stop to their progress in the first place. Mr editor, would you protest if a rich man told you to abandon your beautiful designs for a new house (that you had spent years working on) and instead be told you'd be housed in an 'underground concourse' with a roof light?
Nina Eggens
Report this comment

Nothing like a good piece of honest, balanced journalism!
A L
Report this comment

It seems you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept of a public consultation. The idea of a public consultation is that the public can express their view, both positive and negative, on a given proposal. This may involve people coming "up with their own suggestions on how Sir Ian’s £50million should be used" this should be encouraged not chastised and I'm afraid its really not up to an individual to decide where to spend their money when it involves massively changing the dynamics of the city centre that is up to the public to decide.
jack keenan
Report this comment

There's no worst kind of deafness, you just don't want to hear. This editorial is The ice of the cake. How dare you? Let me spell it for you pal: It's call d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y. If you don't like it stop insulting us and emigrate to Zimbawe. Mr. Mugabe's Ministry of Propaganda may be the place for you.
Vincent McDee
Report this comment

There's no worst kind of deafness, you just don't want to hear. This editorial is The ice of the cake. How dare you? Let me spell it for you pal: It's call d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y. If you don't like it stop insulting us and emigrate to Zimbawe. Mr. Mugabe's Ministry of Propaganda may be the place for you.
Vincent McDee
Report this comment

Outrageous polemics from the P and J. Let's look at what happened. The 'consultation' on the city square project was in effect a marketing exercise paid for with £300, 000 of public money. There was very little information provided initially on the scheme, it was all puff and huff. Aberdonians are a well-educated bunch and can see through hype and we wanted to know the facts. Luckily the detailed feasibility document was available, as it should be, we paid for it as well. There we could read about how the park would be replaced with a steel and concrete superstructure with 490 bay car parks, a mall-type set up on the third floor with restaurants, cafes, a hotel and to be fair, mention that retail would not be a major option (this was an early misunderstanding). If ACSEF felt that the scheme was being misrepresented, they can blame themselves. They did not set out all the facts needed for the public to make a reasoned evaluation of the scheme. It was inevitable that confusion would be the result and yes, mistakes were made on both sides. The consultation itself was shameful and alienated much of the public. To provide a voting ballot with a clear prompt at the top in favour of the city square was not fair and was seen as such. And if the opposition was hostile it was in this context. It is perfectly valid for local people to want to stop a public park from being developed and to campaign against it; dedicated campaigning on an issue should not be denigrated as hostility. Deep rifts have been caused within the city as a result of the City Square Project, with big business and local citizens eyeing each other largely with mistrust. Surely it is time now for Aberdeen Journals to try and heal wounds, rather than to blame-storm their readers.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

I don't recall the P&J condemning Acsef's hostile response to Jim Milne of the Balmoral Group, or Annie Lennox, or any of those whose opinions differed from their own. Such blatant double standards tell their own story; I for one hope that DC Thompson have been keeping a close eye on the behaviour of their Aberdeen based papers. If they understand that the lifeblood of the newspaper business is a thriving readership based on mutual respect and trust, then I would hope that they will see the clear need for a change in leadership at both the P&J and the Evening Express. Both have abrogated their responsibilities to fair, balanced reporting and betrayed the views of the majority of Aberdeen's citizens in their pursuit of one man's "vision". It's one thing to have an editorial agenda, assuming that it can be robustly defended. It's quite another to simply regurgitate the posturings of a body such as Acsef and dress it up as "news". Sadly the latter has characterised much of the coverage of the City Square Project, no doubt to the detriment of Sir Ian's project. People can see through such shallow journalism, and I take heart in the intelligence of the majority of Aberdonians who have refused to be sold this particular pup.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

interesting that you'll say all this about the people of Aberdeen (ie. the people you write for) and Peacock and yet you're not willing to attach your name to this article..
Marc Madill
Report this comment

"CITY UNDER SEIGE" Any independent journalist that has followed recent events in Aberdeen could happily used that title for reporting them. The Public of Aberdeen have been surrounded and held captive by daily rants from ACSEF, EE and P&J with no respite these past few weeks, it's an absolute disgrace! They pretend that this is an open debate but don't try and tell them you don't like their ideas, you'll just get branded as being part of the aggressive vocal negative minority trying to sabotage their plans. Absolute poppycock! I'm not sure if the Aberdeen Journals have broken any Press Code, it certainly feels like they have. But ACSEF, a public funded body need to be investigated for the handing of this fiasco!
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Dear Editor, I wish to make you a handsome offer. Although you may have plans for your living room, believe me when I say that my plans will ensure the economic future of your street. I intend to excavate your living room and turn it into a space level with the street. This will enable virtually millions of citizens to pass directly through to the kitchen area. I will make a handsome offer to do this project. Don't attempt to ovstructbot with your closed minded views that your living room is not for this purpose.
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

Q: What does it take to make someone a Hero? A: Just 500 meters! That's all that's needed to make Sir Ian Aberdeen's Local Hero, we'll hand him the keys to the City, hold a ticker tape parade and carry him down Union Street on our shoulders. If only Sir Ian and ACSEF would move their City Square plans JUST 500 metres in an East North East direction. That's the site for ACC's already proposed and supported Civic Square at the civic heart of Aberdeen. It even includes ideas for Winter Gardens, Cafes, Accommodation and Hotels. But here again we're being branded as "City Traditionalists" implying that we object to any change, when any one of the voices that regularly speak out against the City Square at it's current location would instantly be silenced and supportive of a proposal in ACC's Bon Accord Quarter.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

— "All in all, a sad end to an ambitious plan which would have breathed new life into Aberdeen city centre."… No it was a poorly considered, small minded, farce of a proposal from entirely unqualified people that should never have been considered in the first place. The CSP was based on improving retail and business in the centre and had nothing to do with the claimed civic nature or wider reaching improvements. If ACSEF and Wood cared about improving Aberdeen they'd look at making appropriate investments throughout the centre not a single grand "willy extender" scheme. —"The real tragedy, however, is that by resisting the Union Terrace Gardens project to protect the Peacock plan, the likelihood is that the city will end up with neither."… And if that happens we have none other than Sir Ian Wood to thank.
Ryan Roberts
Report this comment

This article is disgraceful; you cannot publish something as biased as this unless it is clearly cited as a personal opinion and not necessarily shared by the newspaper. The Pravda and Journal needs to be made accountable for this.
Jonathan Mennie
Report this comment

To redress the shockingly biased editorial comment in today's P.& J. all of the above responses should be printed on the front page of Monday's edition with an apololgy from whatever hack wrote the leader. Shame on you PandJ - are you taking lessons from Afghanistan?
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

given Sir Ian has said (however incorrect) that the Scottish government says money would be available for Peacock no matter the sight.. why is he then saying that if we didn't go for CSP we'd end up with nothing? surely the statement from the government would seam to imply that Peacock would get funding whether the CSP went ahead or not.. so if we're not getting CSP, Peacock goes ahead as planned.. and if Peacock did have to apply or re-apply for any money from government/governmental agencies as part of it's funding campaign, then Sir Ian seems to have the evidence that this would be granted.
Marc Madill
Report this comment

Oh shame on you P&J, if it wasn't for the nastiness, it's impossible to take this load of rubbish seriously. What a disgrace. Even Sir Ian must be disagreeing, as he's always said it was up to what the people wanted. Now that we are waiting for those consultations results you seem to be revealing that the majority of people have said NO to CSP. Well? Shut the fck up, there has been enough disgrace surrounding this one-sided consultation and simplistic reporting. Have a bit of dignity and let the results speak for themselves. It's called DEMOCRACY. Pss&jurinal...
Eva Merz
Report this comment

What can you say, I agree with everyone of the above. The P & J & EE have behaved disgracefully in the ongoing saga of Wood/ACSEF and the genuine people of Aberdeen who do not like to be bribed. Whye was he even allowed to get this far???? It should never have been allowed, so ACSEF/Wood are not the only ones to blame. It has been a dirty underhanded consultation since day one. Maybe they have not been aboslute liars, but have evaded telling the whole truth. It is only by going on to their own web site, you see their plans. And they are not good. AS for the P&J it will be very hard in future to be able to believe anything they have printed, so perhaps we should look elsewhere for our daily read. There are plenty of comics and fiction books around. Better read anyway. At least you know you are not dealing in the truth with them. Very disgraceful behaviour, from ACSEF/Wood local business men the local papers. Though given even the BBC the other morning had the same story, a picture of a dull UTG or the sunny concrete/glass bubbles. Nothing at all like Aberdeen. Must have got their information from who -- Not the people of Aberdeen but the usual spouting rubbish ACSEF
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Just another thought. Why does this artice go on about a " handsome offer". Since when is a bribe a handsome offer. What has happened to the morals and ethics of the journals. A bribe is a bribe when it has stipulations attached. Anyone can look up a dictionary and see the meaning. And that is what is going on here. Nothing more and nothing less.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Yes - not so much a "handsome offer" as a poisoned chalice. Whole thing reminds me of the January Sales - "Buy something you didn't want in the first place because there's a bit knocked off". A big bit, in this case - £50 million - but leaving a much bigger bit, at least £90 million, to be covered by "leveraging the city's assets" - the kind of financial jiggery-pokery that has gotten the country into such a mess. One is tired of saying it, but UTG is THE WRONG PLACE for a civic square, too far from the present & future centre of activity in Aberdeen, being the vicinity of St Nicholas Street, where an ideal site, presently occupied by St Nicholas House, will soon be available.
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

It seems that where there is large sums of money going on offer, any common sense goes out the window. The worst thing about the whole thing is the complete turnaround by ACC and ACSEF. Both public and paid by the tax payer. The ACC have gone against their own policies and planning, as they were all for the civic square being where St Nicholas house is. That has gone by the way since the "Bribe " came along. ACSEF were wholly backing the Peacock venture again until the specte of £50 million reared its ugly head. Wherr are the principles - Gone. If they were there in the first place. It is wrong on every front to go with Wood/ACSEF. Peacock had the permission, the funds, which would not break the bank. They also had the backing of ACSEF. Alos the plans by Wood anc Co. are not entireley what they are telling the public. They have only asked you to vote for the covering up of the gardens. They have many proposals for what happens after that. You can see by their plans. But once this Wood scheme has been accepted, we will have no real discussion on what goes on there. But in the meantime we would have lost the Peacock/Gonzales and garden plans. This is a no win situation. If Wood would see sense and build his square at Broad Street, everybody wins. But he is being stubborn and unrealastic. His vison of revitalising the city centre, will actually kill it off more speedily.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

I think it's fair to say there's been personal abuse from supporters of both sides but nothing worse than playground stuff. Certainly nothing worth serious reporting on. As has already been stated, the majority of the twisting and distortion has been carried out by Aberdeen Journals in support of ACSEF. Everything that's been said about City Square from the UTG side is fact, the Halliday Fraser Munro feasibility study states that the structure will be steel and concrete. The briefing document that ACSEF sent out states that there will be shops to complement those in Union Square! We didn't just make this stuff up! Yet Aberdeen Journals, Ian Wood and ACSEF have continued to make claims that they can grow mature trees on the roof of this structure, that there will be no shops(famously comparing it to Covent Garden in the process, which is full of shops), that the gardens just now are underused and full of undesirables. THIS IS ALL LIES! Of course the gardens are empty during the harshest winter on record, but this could be remedied by the Peacock plan, they are still used regularly in Summer. There is no evidence to support the accusations of them being ran by a gang of thugs, drug addicts and alcoholics either, just heresay and conjecture. I've spent many many days in the gardens and never been approached by anyone nasty. I've had to duck a few frisbees and footballs but that's the hazard of a public park. This sorry consultation has only served to make Aberdeen a laughing stock and sow distrust in our business and civic leaders, not too mention our local press. I for one cannot trust anything written in the P&J or Evening Express again, many of my friends feel the same way. The vile editorials and bias articles in these publications should make Aberdeen Journals hang their heads in shame, you've sold this city out and sold any trust you had left from the citizens of Aberdeen down the river. The tide turns now, we're taking our city back from the whims of big business and lying journalists! We are not a 'vocal minority', We are the Vocal Majority.
David Officer
Report this comment

Well P & J, I think you can consider your a**e well skelped *lol*
Philip Uren
Report this comment

One wondered how much further Aberdeen Journals could take its bias and now we know. An appalling confirmation of the desperate need for the Press and Journal and Evening Express to face genuine competition in terms of newspaper publishing in Aberdeen. The handling of the 'consultation' process by Aberdeen Journals has been shameful and I sincerely hope that the lack of professionalism shown by its 'journalists' is recognised by others in the print media in Scotland.
Mike Miller
Report this comment

Well... Who said local politics is boring.... I was in Reading (west of London) on a "business trip" a few months ago. I was shocked, because by comparison to this not particularly distinguished Home Counties town, central Aberdeen looks like a run-down, provincial dump stuck in the 1970s. It really is that bad, and urgent action in the form of Big Ideas is needed. So, what about UTG? I will restate my minority position that I like the basic design idea, but it is unfortunately a financial impossibility now and in the foreseeable future, despite Woody's offer of £50million.
Bill Harrison
Report this comment

Bill, you might want to consider who paid for that advertorial you were reading? I know that ACSEF paid for a 15 page "story" for an in-flight magazine, telling all the lovely business men visiting Aberdeen what a hole it was (thanks!) and that their CSP was going to make all the difference. Take the time to watch Jonathan Meades "off kilter" on Aberdeen - and see if you think those images of Aberdeen make it look like a hole? - I completely agree with Meades, that the only "bad" or "ill considered" architecture is the smash and grab, build ‘em cheap, maximise our profits, sod the civic responsibility oil buildings that popped up like chicken pox. And it's these people we're supposed to trust to build "amazing, inspiring architecture". it's what we had with PVA - and was sadly squashed by the big boys. I think you can understand why waving 50 million under people's noses as a "gift" then saying "Och well, I'll just take my money and be 50 million richer" is not going to help sir Ian's cause one bit. I'm writing to the PCC today about this article too, and CCing DC thomson.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Perhaps it all comes back to the ACC. By allowing the new Union Square Mall to be built has squashed any hope of Union Street regaining its past glory. If they had encouraged all these shops to reinvigorate Union Street it would have been a wonderful shopping experience. To build more shops on the built over gardens is totally out of order, Who needs more cheap shops on Union Streeet anyway. ACC should take all of the blame for the state of Union Street and Union Terrace Gardens. If they had done their jobs and commitments properly this garden would not be as the Wood/ACSEF say underused. Put the blame where it should be. ACC for neglect and ACC for allowing Wood to proceed with this proposal. Sold down the river right enough. Wonder what the Wood supporters will feel like if and when it goes ahead, and in 10 yres if that it is nothing but a dirty underused and bleak concrete square, with tatty shops.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

I would suggest that (if the predictions are true) the result of the vote is a backlash against the P&J and its support of the Wood Square, in rebound protest against the P&Js biased support of the Trump development rather than as a result of the facts of the case, in a rare case where some democracy has been allowed to prevail. Maybe this will be a lesson to the P&J to start reporting facts as facts, and opinion as opinion, not let the two become confused, and to start presenting the citizens of Aberdeen and Shire with full and unbiased information in future. If they start do do this, I may even consider starting to buy the paper again.
John Strimmer
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.