Letters Page

Published: 08/03/2010

Apathy towards gardens scheme

SIR, – Friday’s front page appeal by Sir Ian Wood was perfectly accurate in asserting how Aberdeen’s public apathy was affecting his promotion of the £140million Union Terrace Gardens scheme. The reason for this is obvious, and was initiated back in February with the release of the “artist’s impression” of a square larger than those in Moscow and China.

The subsequent threat of a withdrawal of the financial incentive unless that particular solution was supported may have been misleading, as Ascef have confirmed that they would welcome an international competition for the development of the site.

The inevitable compromise should be initiated by Aberdeen City Council taking the lead and producing a “brief” for the competition, the results of which should be judged under the auspices of the Royal Institute of Architects of Scotland.

The stated aim of a non-retail cultural occupancy of the site is admirable and can be achieved, whilst still retaining part of the gardens. Peacock Visual Arts deserve to be at the heart of any rejuvenation of the gardens and should welcome a more prominent position, perhaps directly off a smaller square linked to Union Street looking into the gardens.

Malcolm S.Webster,

Loirsbank Road, Cults,

Aberdeen.

SIR, – Following Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future’s (Acsef) trumpeting of Sir Alex Ferguson’s enthusiasm for the Union Terrace Gardens project, we have not been told if Sir Alex bumped into Annie Lennox while taking a stroll during their last visit to the gardens.

Your correspondent A.J. Eddie (Letters, March 5) is right – we must get our priorities right. On our frequent visits to what is a beautiful city, my wife and I continue to be disheartened with the way Union Street has been allowed to lose much of its identity.

Surely to radically develop Union Terrace Gardens due to the promise of a major (but welcome) injection of cash from Sir Ian Wood without also addressing the sad decline of Union Street would be wrong.

We must not be rushed to judgment on this major project on the basis of the nebulous information which has been presented to us.

On visiting the exhibition recently we were informed that only sketch layouts for the Acsef scheme were available and that no information was yet available on traffic management or whether or not Union Bridge would be pedestrianised. One can be sure Sir Ian didn’t get to where he is by making decisions on the basis of such flimsy information as is available with these proposals.

Richard G. Moffat, Knox House, Tough, near Alford.

SIR, – Sir Ian Wood’s surprise at the apathy shown by the public of Aberdeen for the city square project shows how out of touch he is with the concerns of working local residents.

Most people are still worried about job security, lack of dentists, schools, what the next cut by the incompetent council will be (no cuts to their £60million office complex of course) and the state of our car-destroying roads.

The last thing people are worried about is what happens to Union Terrace Gardens. If Sir Ian is that keen to find the best use for £50million, he could help the jobless, some of whom may even have been created by Wood Group companies paying off staff during hard times.

Companies looking to invest in Aberdeen will do so for financial reasons, not for what is in the gardens.

James Officer,

Cairnfold Road,

Bridge of Don.

SIR, – I see that the Germans have suggested that the Greeks should sell their islands in order to stave off bankruptcy.

This set me thinking about the financial problems of Highland Council. Why not sell Skye?

At a stroke we should solve all our infrastructure problems and at the same time save the huge outgoings that result from spending on Gaelic.

These are great possibilities for a little lateral thinking. Here in Dornoch we might get our sports hall at long last and finish widening the road to Embo.

Duncan Allan,

Castle Street,

Dornoch.

Iraq inquiry ‘whitewash’

SIR, – I am convinced that if the Chilcot inquiry had asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown his name, the session would have run for another hour.

Such were the anodyne responses to the questions put to him by a team of pathetic inquisitors. What other result could observers expect?

After all, it was Mr Brown who picked this team and our money who will for pay them. The performance by Mr Brown indicated to me that he is, indeed, a verbal bully. The more telling questions put to him by Sir Roderic Lyne were smothered in an avalanche of tangential references elsewhere and to the noticeable frustration of Sir Roderic.

Much of the PMs bluster would have been guillotined by one competent legal member in the inquiry but none had been appointed.

It is obvious that the whole charade has been choreographed by the spin doctors in Downing Street with an ensuing “whitewash” predictable.

My sincere thoughts go to all those unnecessary victims of the carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It has not been the bombs and the bullets that have wrought such havoc with the lives of millions but the lexicon of politicians, honed, manipulated and exercised by Blair, Brown et al with fatal consequences for the innocent.

George Paterson,

Loch Way, Kemnay.

SIR, – I do not approve of the city losing Union Terrace Gardens, but if it does, what is going to happen to the old Bow Brig?

The Bow Brig was built in 1747 over the Denburn and linked Windmill Brae to the Green. It was part of the main route into the city prior to the construction of Union Street and Union Bridge.

The brig was removed in 1851 when the Denburn was put into culvert, and was later inserted into the top terrace of the gardens. It is at present holding up part of the Union Terrace roadway.

Obviously someone in the past thought that it was worthy enough for preservation, and I wonder if anyone thinks the same today.

Darwin Moir, Dubford Park, Bridge of Don, Aberdeen.

Reader's Comments

Malcolm it seems to me that the perfect compromise would be for the Peacock Visual Arts Project to go ahead as planned and for ACSEF and Sir Ian Wood to devote their energy to the development of a civic space on the site of St Nicholas House. The Peacock Centre has already been the subject of an International Competition, has full planning permission and has most of its funding in place. Something will have to be done with St Nicholas House when the council moes into Marischal College and this would seem like the ide
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Malcolm, the perfect compromise would be for the Peacock Visual Arts Project to go ahead as planned and for ACSEF and Sir Ian Wood to devote their energy and finances to the development of a civic space on the site of St Nicholas House. The Peacock Centre has already been the subject of an International Competition, has full planning permission and has most of its funding in place. Why not let it go ahead? Work would have started already if the City Squra Project hadn't been put on the table. Something will have to be done with St Nicholas House when the council moves into Marischal College and this would seem like the ideal opportunity. The space there could be used to show off two of Aberdeen's finest buildings, Marischal College and Provost Skene's House, to great effect. And when they have done that perhaps they could look at doing something with the Denburn Car Park and Health Centre before moving on to The Aberdeen Market and The Green. Let's correct some of the architectural catastrophes of last century instead of starting off this century with a new one!!
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Malcolm, the perfect compromise would be for the Peacock Visual Arts Project to go ahead as planned and for ACSEF and Sir Ian Wood to devote their energy and finances to the development of a civic space on the site of St Nicholas House. The Peacock Centre has already been the subject of an International Competition, has full planning permission and has most of its funding in place. Why not let it go ahead? Work would have started already if the City Square Project hadn't been put on the table. Something will have to be done with St Nicholas House when the council moves into Marischal College and this would seem like the ideal opportunity. The space there could be used to show off two of Aberdeen's finest buildings, Marischal College and Provost Skene's House, to great effect. And when they have done that perhaps they could look at doing something with the Denburn Car Park and Health Centre before moving on to The Aberdeen Market and The Green. Let's correct some of the architectural catastrophes of last century instead of starting off this century with a new one!!
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

James Officer's objectionable statement that Sir Ian Wood is 'out of touch' does not deserve a reply. By all means reject the plans to create a civic square, not forgetting tothank the proposed benefactor for his generous offer. To throw the offer back in his face while treating him to a moral dressing-down on 'priorities' is as small minded as it gets. I wonder if Carnegie and Nuffield ever set up trusts to fill in pot-holes?
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Jock, If someone thinks something is a good idea and no-one else agrees then that person is either "ahead of their time" or "out of touch". Maybe both? It was clear that the City Square Project attracted very little support from outwith a vocal minority of the Aberdeen business community. And that the Peacock Visual Arts Project had considerable support from a broad cross section of the community.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Sorry, that last comment should of course read that The Peacock Visual Arts Project HAS considerable support from a broad cross section of the community!
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

It is now time to question the City Square Project consultation exercise and the role of the public relations company Weber Shandwick in organising this. We have been informed that over £300,000 of public money has been used for the consultation. The guidelines provided by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations include comments on being fair to the public interest and not misleading us. The consultation has not been fair. The following points can be made: 1) Despite public money being used, the consultation was run as a marketing campaign to promote the City Square on behalf of ACSEF. Only one scheme was put forward, the alternatives were not mentioned. 2) There was not a fair and reasonable presentation of all the facts in the consultation document necessary for the public to make a balanced decision on the scheme. For instance, that building the city square would involve cutting down 78 mature trees in the existing gardens. 3) The survey poll was headlined by a clear prompt to vote yes for the City Square. “Have your say - The City Square Project: We believe Aberdeen needs a large, vibrant, cultural and civic space and gardens (sic) in the heart of the city for today and for future generations.” 4) On the internet site, the default option for the survey was yes to the city square. If you submitted the poll without remembering to check this option, you voted yes whether you wanted to or not (and I’m told this has happened). 5) Fraser Denholm has written this on his blog site: “The brief for the process outlines how Scottish Enterprise would be informed of progress daily by the consultant with further regular engagement between the consultant to "liaise with a small Working Group representing the larger Client Stakeholder Group." The working group includes Dave Blackwood from ACSEF, Jennifer Craw representing Sir Ian Wood, Fraser Innes representing Aberdeen City Council, and Derick Murray from NESTRANS. This means that throughout the duration of the consultation these stakeholders are being informed of how the results are going ..." None of this has been fair. There is a danger that if the survey is to be used to justify a planning submission for the City Square Project, that the results could be taken into account by the planning committee as an indication of public support for the scheme. If like me, you think that the “consultation” has been unfair, then write to the Chartered Institute of Public Relations to let your views known. Also let your MP know what you think of this too.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Alasdair, I admire your certitude. However, I think the clarity you promulgate is not there. Outwith the vociferous faction supporting the Peacock Centre, there is a distinct lack of 'die in a ditch' commitment from many commentators who would view the PC as an act of despoilation, similar to, but not equal, the Wood proposals. You ought not to interpret a lack of apparent enthusiasm as opposition. Many are just downright confused and rightly underwhelmed by the sketches put forward as part of the consultation. I suspect, but do not know, of course, that the vast silent majority do not believe that Sir Ian Wood's analysis of the economic prospects for Aberdeen are that wide of the mark.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Jock, I'm not sure if I like being described as part of a faction! I'm just an ordinary Aberdeen citizen and if you were at the public meeting in the citadel you would would have seen a lot of other ordinary Aberdeen citizens not connected in any way to the arts community. My work in the council and as a musician do bring me into contact with a lot of folk and although I obviously can't pretend to speak for anyone other than myself I haven't met anyone outwith a handful of folk from the business community who think the City Square Project a good idea. The Peacock Visual Arts Project has already been through a lengthy planning process and I think the fact that it has been awarded the biggest single grant ever given by the Scottish Arts Council speaks volumes for the quality of the proposal. Do you like it?
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Jock, I think you're right about the majority agreeing with Sir Ian's analysis. However, the City Square Project has demonstrably failed to make its case. At no point did Sir Ian or Acsef put a cogent answer to the question as to how the square would assure the region's economic future; they simply asked for our trust that it would somehow do so. And that is a big ask when you look at the credibility-stretching antics of Acsef over the consultation period, it's big ask when you look at the funding gap of £90m+, it's a big ask when it threatens the viability of an existing scheme - concealed by the consultation process - which has an independent report showing a benefit of £4m per annum to the city, it's a big ask when it involves the removal of Union Terrace Gardens - the only park in the city centre, it's a big ask when the council's existing plan involves a civic square on the site of the REAL architectural blight in Aberdeen, St Nicholas House, it's a big ask when you look at the insipid graphics used to market the CSP, it's a big ask when you tell people "it's my way or the highway", it's a big ask when your rationale for Holyrood funding boils down to the playground style "it's our turn", it's a big ask when the square turns into a gardens, it's a big ask when one week it's Covent Garden and the next it's entirely civic and not commercial, it's a big ask when Annie Lennox is wrong because she left Aberdeen years ago but Sir Alex Ferguson is right because... oh, wait, it's a big ask all round. It's not too tricky to see how so many people found it easier to say "no, thank you Sir Ian".
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Jock you talk about Sir Ian's offer as if it is something we should accept and be grateful for without question. Well I disagree, his offer of £50M comes with strict terms that align with his vision only and will cost more than twice what he's offering to actually put into action, probably bringing more debt to the city.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

Mike, totally agree. There needs to be investgation into this "Public Consultation" and ACSEF's handling of this whole process. As you've pointed out, this excercise only asked if the public like this specific Plan for this specific Location. It did nothing to ask the public about other options for this site or if other locations are better suited to this type of vision. Those were also the reasons why it was criticised by Architecture and Design Scotland. Sir Ian is entitled to his opinion as is any resident in our City and Shire. But for ACSEF, a publically funded body, to skew this process in the mannor that they have is unacceptable.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Alasdair, I do like the plans for Peacock Centre. Am I glad that for once the Scottish Arts Council is funding a major project in Aberdeen, after years of neglect? Yes. But on this occasion I feel torn by the clash of two desirables which is always more difficult.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Indeed ACSEF should be investigated in whatever form is necessary. They have clearly put themselves and their club above the concerns of Aberdeen citizens throughout this whole proposal. ACSEF is too business orientated and not representative enough of "Aberdeen". There is more to the economy of Aberdeen than just business leaders and what they think is right.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

Funky Chunk, That is not what I wrote. I really don't know where you get the idea of 'without question' but therein I suppose lie the knee-jerk reactions that polarise debate. Richard, you raise some 'big asks'. But isn't that the whole point. If it weren't a big ask it wouldn't be worth doing. Maybe it is too big a project for a provincial town after all.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

The tone and wording of your comment are fairly clear.
Funky Chunk
Report this comment

As for the economic analysis of the City Square proposal, has there actually been one? Correct me if I'm wrong but the technical study merely states that other such projects have been successful else where, so if this one was successful then it should bring economic benefits to the area. What that implies but does not expressly state is that this project would have the same economic benefits at any city centre location. Thankfully, this was confirmed by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. Whilst voicing their support for the proposal, they stated that Aberdeen's economic future was not dependent on this proposal and that any project that increases attractiveness of an area will bring economic benefits. Again, this questions ACSEF's behaviour in this whole process. ACSEF stated that our economic future depended on this proposal and only this going ahead. That is just plain wrong. So ACSEF, our City and Shires economic future group, have either deliberately lied to us or they are incompetent at assessing the future economic benefits, their sole purpose for existing.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Jock, there's nothing wrong with asking big - IF you've got some answers. IF you can put a convincing case based on precedent and hard evidence. IF you are honest about what you're proposing. IF you treat people like grown ups capable of mature debate rather than children needing to be led to a house made of gingergbread. The CSP asked lots of big questions, fine. But did it get anywhere near to providing any answers? Not really; telling people that they should "show ambition" is a poor second best to arguing your case so that people can lend genuine support to a well-reasoned proposal. The inference that Aberdeen is somehow "provincial" if it doesn't "think big" is evasive and rather insulting. It's not provincial, it's looking at the case presented and realising that it's paper thin at best, and at worst the value in the project is hugely outstripped by the value of what it takes away from the city, whether that be monetary value or the value of Union Terrace Gardens.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Hi Brian, is this it? http://www.acsef.co.uk/viewNews.cfm?theID=12&page=4 "A number of landmark buildings are also in the pipeline. The University of Aberdeen recently unveiled plans for its new £57 million library, whose futuristic design will provide the city with a new iconic building. Peacock Visual Arts is planning a £13 million contemporary arts centre, expected to attract around 200,000 visitors a year, bring around £5 million annually into the local economy and provide a centre of excellence for some of the world's finest contemporary artists to work and exhibit in Scotland." Oh no, sorry, that's the bit ACSEF did about the economic benefits that the PVA building would bring BC (Before (sir Ian's) Cash).
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Richard, You want it both ways. On the one hand you disdain the notion of accreted monetary value in the project as not proven or vaporous, yet you are not above suggesting that somehow this scheme could take away 'monetary value' from the city. Cake and eating it comes to mind. The same cynical schizophrenia characterised the debates over the Trump proposals.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

BREAKING NEWS The switchboard at ACSEF HQ is believed to have gone into meltdown with the number of Aberdonians telephoning tommy Smith and DEMANDING the immediate publication of the results of the UTG 'consultation' without spending any more time holding the results back from the public domain on the pretext of' including' all comments and suggestions. One caller, trying to ask Tommy Smith what qualifications and experience were held by those doing the 'including' was cut off in mid conversation.
Graham Slater
Report this comment

Jock, there's nothing vaporous about the £140m estimated cost of the CSP. You might say there is something optimistic about that estimate, but it's a finite sum. The Peacock scheme, which has full planning permission and an estimated cost of £13m (of which £9.5m is already raised), has an independent economic assessment stating that the benefit to Aberdeen can be measured in the region of £4m per annum. This is based on the £6m per annum return that the Dundee Contemporary Arts centre offers there, so given Aberdeen is a wealthier city one might suppose it to be a relatively conservative estimate. What does the £140m proposed investment offer in return? Answer: there has come none. From business people! I don't think that I'm having my cake and eating it, I'm looking at two proposals and scratching my heid wondering why on earth we haven't yet gone with the solid, achievable proposition that will offer excellent return. Why are we looking at a speculative proposal that will cost a minimum of 10 times that and cannot offer a cogent explanation as to what benefit will accrue as a result? That's not "cynical schizophrenia", Jock. It's a perfectly rational response I think!
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Richard G. Moffat claims that we must not be rushed to judgment on the ’nebulous information which has been presented to us.’ The fact of the matter is that there was always one issue on which the Wood project was never ‘nebulous’ and that was the absolute necessity of decking over Union Terrace Gardens to street level. And it was that, which involved the destruction of the natural amphitheatre of the Denburn Valley, which people objected to. Malcolm S. Webster wants more money frittered away on a competition for the square but no architect could ever disguise the fact that a street level square would always lack the intrinsic visual interest of the Denburn Valley. And there is a world beating design already there, the Brisac Gonzales design for Peacock Visual Arts. People have not been apathetic, Weber Shandwick who ran the ’consultation’, have claimed it as ’on course to be among the highest ever in Scotland.’ It looks as if the pro-Wood group have realized that their costly and much-trumpeted ’consultation’ is not going to yield the results they wanted; so now they are scraping around trying to find excuses for not accepting them. It really is time for Aberdeen City Council to show a bit of initiative and get a grip of a situation, which so far they have conspicuously failed to do, call a halt to this expensive fiasco and complete work on Peacock’s lease with no more dithering. Roddy Millar
Roddy Millar
Report this comment

Was a bit concerned after reading the EE regarding how pleased ACSEF/Wood are with the results of over 9000 views. But we still have to collate feedback from hundreds of phone calls e mails, text and responses from public exhibits. Now just who is going to collate all these things???? Hopefully an independant company. With all the bally hoo and expense that ACSEF have incurred in this fiasco it is a bit worrying to think they might have diffuculty in reaching an unbiased count. As for Jocks comments We shoud thank hte proposed benfactor for his generous offer. What to kill off our gardens with no absolute plan to replace them except his pathetic sketches. We have an existing approved plan with model design. Not a sketch which was loudly praised by ACSEF that is until Wood dangled his carrot of £50 million. Look how fast they turned and asked how high to jump. There is nothing praiseworthy of stabbing someone in the back with a bribe. £50 million if you do what I want. If not the words of doom and gloom for the city if not. £300,000 wasted money by ACSEF on a consultation that was so far from the truth, it might have been a comic or a great fictional novel. There has been nothing glorious, truthful, praiseworthy or practical about this scheme.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Richard G. Moffat claims that we must not be rushed to judgment on the ’nebulous information which has been presented to us.’ The fact of the matter is that there was always one issue on which the Wood project was never ‘nebulous’ and that was the absolute necessity of decking over Union Terrace Gardens to street level. And it was that, which involved the destruction of the natural amphitheatre of the Denburn Valley, to which people objected. Malcolm S. Webster wants more money frittered away on a competition for the square but no architect could ever disguise the fact that a street level square would always lack the intrinsic visual interest of the Denburn Valley. And there is a world beating design already there, the Brisac Gonzales design for Peacock Visual Arts. People have not been apathetic, Weber Shandwick who ran the ’consultation’, have claimed it as ’on course to be among the highest ever in Scotland.’ It looks as if the pro-Wood group have realized that their costly and much-trumpeted ’consultation’ is not going to yield the results they wanted; so now they are scraping around trying to find excuses for not accepting them. It really is time for Aberdeen City Council to show a bit of initiative and get a grip of a situation, which so far they have conspicuously failed to do, call a halt to this expensive fiasco and complete work on Peacock’s lease without any more dithering. Roddy Millar
Roddy Millar
Report this comment

Roddy you are asking the ACC to show some initiative. Last week they stated that they will not be paying for any of the scheme. In fact they are literaly washing their hands. As for the private sector and the government paying for it. That equates to us, the taxpayer if the governmnet manages to scrape some money from nowhere. And the private sector will just increase prices so back to us to pay more. So Sir Woods plan will cost us a lot. That is unless he want to pay for the whole thing. After all £50 million is a drop in the ocean to the scale of what he wants. £140 million is a figure someone took out of a hat. More likely to be double that. The cost of the surveys alone will be astronomical. And over 9000 Aberdeen citizens do not want his project. Leave the origanl plans for Peacock and build his square in the only place it should be. Broad Street.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

"The intrinsic visual interest of the Denburn Valley". An estate agent could not better this for hyperbole. You must be looking with one eye in that case as half of this Shangri La is plug ugly with a road, an unkempt railway line and the ruins of an old kirk that is reminiscent of WW2 bomb damage. Frankly I am not sure how one would go about comparing the aesthetics of a civic space and a solitary building.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

I think we all agree that a compromise could and should be found that could take care of the unsightly road and rail as well as the ruined kirk. This could easily be done without destroying the gardens and the peacock centre could still go forward as planned.
John Rutherford
Report this comment

Considering that the ungsightly road and rail has been there for about 200 years, it is a bit late to be complaining about them. Ok cover it up but will that be acceptable to the rail people. As for the ruined kirk. Stewart Milne is supposed to be upgrading it for offices. no doubt that is why he was so eager for Woods car park. So now it will be a nice clean kirk and with the Peacock version, it wil be a beautiful sight from Union Street to the theatre. Less expensive, more open and lo and behold we can use the gardens again, Because the toilets will be back, Some cafes and a beautiful structure for the art folk. What more can you want from an open and green garden area. Lovely. That is more likely to bring folk to the city than some more bland concrete Oh sorry forgot abut the glass blisters etc.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Totally agree John. I've always liked ACC's Millennium Gardens plan to extend the gardens to the East an improve access. Can't find them on ACC's website but they're on the information board in UTG. As for the intrinsic value of the Denburn Valley, I have to agree with Roddy. ACC's Urban Realm strategy makes an excellent argument for why this topography should be kept and enhanced. To quote Inherited Townscape from the ACC website: "The three dimensional aspect of Aberdeen must be celebrated. The topography of the Denburn and the dramatic cascade of Union Terrace Gardens must be preserved, and the presence of the great bridged streets promoted. The arches, vaults and bridge of Union Street should become more evident within the townscape.... The opportunity exists to promote this inherent characteristic of Aberdeen"
Brian Christie
Report this comment

The trouble with Aberdeen as it now stands is that the centre is too small for the size of the city. There just isn't enough space available to give the city a proper heart. Union Street is part of the problem as its very linearity militates against the sense of there being a focal point. It is hard to think of a notable city that lacks such a space. The plunging crags of the Denburn are indeed a feature but apart from a small quadrant pressed up against the slope beneath Wallace's statue, none of this great expanse of 'fresh air' is utilised. Properly done it would give Aberdeen a quite stupendous 'square' bringing out the dramatic profile of HMT, St Marks, the public library, the museum dome and the back of Belmont Street. At the moment, these edifices are noteworthy but feebly disconnected. However, it is your city. I can only lament its decline from a distance.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

millenium plans: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KOz9lV8IXWU/SykNDZuPN0I/AAAAAAAAARo/pvym8eCTUxI/s1600-h/22+Millenium+Square.jpg
John Rutherford
Report this comment

In the 12 months from Sep 08 to Sep 09 7942 offences including 137 violent in Belmont St & Union St. However in 24 months 52 offences, including 0 violent in UTG for all 08 and 09 combined. http://ryanr.eu/utg/ http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1394516?UserKey=
John Rutherford
Report this comment

Jock: I would agree that Aberdeen's centre of activity, being St Nicholas St, is small & unimpressive, certainly since the Bredero redevelopment of the 1980s. But the solution is to expand & improve the centre of activity, by extending it into the site presently occupied by St Nicholas House; not to create a flat, barren expanse a long way off the main drag, with various unspecified subterranean facilities, devoid of natural light, down below.
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

Alex, I agree that knocking down St Nicholas House is desirable but only to remove the overshadowing of Aberdeen's truly iconic building and to bring out the pleasant courtyard adjoining the magnificent Provost Skene's house, But as a strategic centre of activity it is not compelling. It does not link up anything. Connecting the unlovely eastern end of Union Street with the abysmal Gallowgate is not worth the effort; nor are there fringing buildings that would make people want to congregate in that part of Aberdeen. Your proposed reorientation of the centre is going in the wrong direction.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Thanks for the link John! I'd agree with that statement Jock, Aberdeen centre is too compact. But as UTG is already well used, changing it's use from an urban green space does not add any additional recreational space to the city centre and does nothing to expand the size of the city centre. There's a good survey of the city centre usage on page 69 of the ACC's Urban Realm strategy that shows UTG as being the 2nd most popular spot in the city centre for standing and sitting. St Nicholas Street and Centre being the most popular. It also exposes one of ACSEF myths as it states "Union Terrace Gardens is one of the popular spots in the city when the sun is shining, and it is one of the only places people go to play with their children." Page 62 also backs up your concern for the lack of "civic square" space in the centre and also proposes many solutions without having to remove any urban green space, surely that's a win-win. Unfortunately you are mistaken in thinking that a Civic Square as St Nicholas House only links up the Gallowgate with Union Street The Bon Accord Centre through St Nicholas Centre & St Nicholas Street ti Union Street is the busiest part of the City Centre and is the perfect location for a combined Civic Square/Cafe/Green Space redevelopment like The City Square Proposal. This same section of the Urban Realm Strategy has all the necessary analysis to demonstrate that. Unlike ACSEF, the Aberdeen Council has carried out a great deal of analysis on the use and structure of Aberdeen City Centre and has some good ideas on how to improve it. The only thing they lack is funding, it must be very frustrating for them to watch a proposals such as The City Square which ignores all their good work. http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/planning/pla/pla_urbanrealm.asp
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Jock, isn't it a bit provincial to think in such solitary terms? A city has many centres; look at London's West End (in itself a centre within London) which has Picadilly Circus, Covent Garden, Fitzrovia, Oxford Circus, Soho Square, etc etc. Aberdeen has fewer, being smaller, but the point remains that to say one, collossal space can be a defining "centre" is to surely miss the point. Castlegate, the Green, St Nicholas Square (fingers crossed), Union Terrace Gardens, Golden Square (if we can get rid of the car park)... and so on. The argument that it "does not link up anything" is simply odd. If the idea is to provide a compelling space, then does that not become a destination in itself? Isn't Sir Ian's analysis that Aberdeen needs such spaces to attract people and business? The Tate Modern doesn't link up anything, but plenty of folk take the trouble to visit it, and did so even before the wobbly bridge was built. What's wrong with that?
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

I think I understand you Jock, is this basically what you are hoping for if the CSP goes ahead? :"put a diamond in a Turd"? - so if the East End of Union street, the Gallowgate, fringes etc are shabby... we should not spend any money / time / effort / care on sorting that out, but plunge Aberdeen into 70..90..100+ million pounds further in debt, taking into account, of course, the most gracious offer to kick start that debt of £50million from sir Ian, and build a nice big "focal spot" - to take everyone's eyes of the decaying surroundings (by covering up the only greenspace in the centre of town)? - so basically condensing the city centre to 6 acres, as opposed to the expanse of historic streets we already have. I have to say, It's a crazy Idea, massively disrespectful of Aberdeen and sounds like it would only benefit investors and construction / architect companies involved... hmm, I fear you might have some trouble selling that to the people of Aberdeen whom care more about what we have, than keeping a few rich big men happy. But...good luck!
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

It is not a clinching argument to state that UTG proves popular with mothers and their children on sunny days. Where else can they go downtown, unless they enjoy picnicking with the dead in St Nicholas cemetery? Because of its immense size London has many civic spaces, but it is known for only a few, where Londoners congregate at times of civic celebration and national importance. Exactly where do Aberdonians go? As for being massively disrespectful to Aberdeen, Sir Ian Wood would come a poor second to the citizens who have displayed massive insouciance over the past forty years in the face of near continual decline and decay. I'm sure however that you will be able to blame a few rich big men for that too.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Jock, by 'intrinsic visual interest of the Denburn Valley' I mean the interest which derives from it simply being a valley, as opposed to a flat surface. I agree that the dual carriageway, railway line and the triple kirks, certainly in their present states, are ugly but they are not intrinsic to the Valley. You could take them away and still have a valley with a topography which yields 'intrinsic visual interest'. I hope this makes things clearer and does not seem too patronizing.
Roddy Millar
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.