Views over Sir Ian’s city square plan to be revealed

Reader's Comments

The Press and Journal will not allow the use of swear words on their website. However, there are times when the use of profanity is totally justified, and such a time is now. Just how outrageous can ACSEF get ? Opinion is divided in the city but we still want to proceed is their message. Sounds like they didn't get the result they wanted despite spending over £300,000 of public money on a tawdry public relations exercise to promote their city square folly. Can't they just listen? The citizens of Aberdeen want to keep our city centre park and we have told you so in no uncertain terms. We don't want car parks, hotels and a concrete plaza to replace Union Terrace Gardens. KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR PARK!
mike shepherd
Report this comment

The Press and Journal will not allow the use of swear words on their website. However, there are times when the use of profanity is totally justified, and such a time is now. Just how outrageous can ACSEF get ? Opinion is divided in the city but we still want to proceed is their message. Sounds like they didn't get the result they wanted despite spending over £300,000 of public money on a tawdry public relations exercise to promote their city square folly. Can't they just listen? The citizens of Aberdeen want to keep our city centre park and we have told you so in no uncertain terms. We don't want car parks, hotels and a concrete plaza to replace Union Terrace Gardens. KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR PARK!
mike shepherd
Report this comment

did the findings show our city FOR or AGAINST the proposal? Its a simple question.
wind bag
Report this comment

"…despite vocal opposition from many of the 10,000 people who took part in the consultation" how do the press and journal know this? when the results are going to be released at 10.30 today? not even Peacock Visual Arts have been giving any indication from ACSEF (you know, the people that want to work closely with PVA in getting the best way forwards). Good to know it's all fair playing fields in the world of corporate greed and power games.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Acsef quote from 9th Feb: "“Sir Ian has always said that such a transformational project must be what the people of Aberdeen want. “If the public does not support this project then he will withdraw his offer of £50million and it will not go ahead." Time to see if Sir Ian is a man of his word - if he proceeds in the face of majority opposition, then he clearly does not care about his reputation or integrity. We shall see.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Given that the P and J are in Acsef's pocket: given that our MPs and MSPs are playing their cards close to their chests: given that democracy has taken a nose-dive in this city: coupled with a city council that's "Not fit for purpose" - anybody surprised?
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

here's what Sir Ian said on remembrance day 2008, when he announced his pledge: “I am only prepared to provide up to £50 million if it has strong support from the people of Aberdeen and the North-east of Scotland." Given the P&J story it would appear that he has won the strong support necessary to push forward, wouldn't it? Otherwise Sir Ian would be walking away.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

The people have spoken, but will they be listened to? We shall have to wait and see.
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

That has to be one of the most arrogant press releases I have ever read. The people of Aberdeen don't know whats good for them, so a private business organisation is ALLOWED by ACC to decide this for us?!?!??!? How?!?!?!?! Count the Yes and No votes, and stick to your promise Wood.
Bryan Campbell
Report this comment

"Acsef chairman Tom Smith said the project should not fail because there is not the “necessary vision and ambition”." In other words, the people of Aberdeen don't have the same vision as ACSEF. Nor do they have the same ambition (or perhaps greed is a better word) as ACSEF. But regardless of the lack of support for ACSEF's glorified car park, they know best and will now impose thier "vision" on the city. I hope ACSEF are going to pay back the taxpayers money used to promote this horrendous plan.
Colin Aberdeen
Report this comment

Whatever the arguments for or against the scheme, the claim that it will "deliver jobs and prosperity" is fatuous. Coming out with daft stuff like that diminishes credibility.
Michty Me
Report this comment

55% against the City Square Project according to the BBC.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

If Sir Ian Wood is a man of his word he'll now take his £50M off the table. The report can be accessed here: http://www.thecitysquareproject.com/consultation/ No surprise to see more weasel words from ACSEF in tee report though - despite a resounding 6512 to 5242 majority against the Square they say 'the public were nearly evenly divided over the City Square Project as proposed'. Also interesting to note that 76 people took the bother to respond by post to say that they didn't know if they supported the project. Another 19 phoned up to say that they didn't know if they supported the project. Truly bizarre...
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

In addition to the 55% no vote, the highest ranked answer to the feature question was 'green space', with 'Contemporary arts centre' ranked second behind gardens in the facilities question. If that is not a clear stear on what the people of Aberdeen want for the gardens, I don't know what is. I do rather fear, however, that a serious amount of PR spin is about to be applied to these results and the majority are going to be ignored.
Iain Kay
Report this comment

ACSEF have also been very careful not to mention how may of those responding stipulated that their priority was the Brisac Gonzalez designed contemporary arts centre. If you go into Appendix 2 and search against 'Brisac' it makes for very interesting reading and gives a significantly different perspective. ACSEF - more spin than a washing machine.
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

Oh so that's what i've been missing this whole time, vision and ambition? well i feel much better now that i know that! Honestly, who gives them the right to judge the opinion of over 6500 people? look enough of this already, it's been milked so much over the last 17 months, during which it's been made abundantly clear that people don't want the damn thing, just wise up already and stop trying to find ways to pressure aberdeen into this. Walk away from it already!
Ved Mij
Report this comment

What Tom Smith doesn't seem to grasp is you can have all the vision and ambition in the world but you still need at least £80 million to get this done. I'm fed up with these big thinkers wanting to spend my money every time they get a vision. Then they tell me they've run out of money again and have to close a school or pool.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

feel quite woozy from reading that, last time I was spun that hard I fell of the roundabout in Seaton Park. 55% Against, 44% for say's it all. That's not a divided opinion, that's a majority.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

feel quite woozy from reading that, last time I was spun that hard I fell of the roundabout in Seaton Park. 55% Against, 44% for say's it all. That's not a divided opinion, that's a majority.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Given the grossly slanted way the consultation was framed, the result shows that Aberdonians aren't stupid. In this context, 55% is a big no. The next step is to tell the council group that NO means NO. The people have spoken and we want to keep our park, thank you very much.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Obviously a visionary like Tom Smith is wasted on the unambitious people of Aberdeen. I expect him to resign before wasting any more of his exceptional talents on us. Or someone at ACC might grow a pair and sack him!
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

C'mon ACSEF, take the hint!
Dasbo B
Report this comment

So let me get this straight- they've spent a fortune conducting this consultation just to ignore the result? I suggest the money would have been better spent on building a time machine to send Tom Smith to Stalinist Russia where this kind of thing would be more inkeeping with the political climate.
Gillian Martin
Report this comment

Gillian Martin - no need for a time machine. Tom Smith could do a good job for Robert Mugabe, given his evident ability to ignore people's clearly stated wishes and kid himself that he knows what's best.
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

It’s either zero or one hundred percent contributions required from Woody for his dream. If he's that desperate to be remembered for his vision, he should build a prestigious office, which his followers would be proud of. Or buy himself a Porsche & drive up & down Queens Road. This will really impress the young girls & boys of Aberdeen.
Fiona Cooper
Report this comment

13.5 million, that's not much money by today's standards, what do you get for that, chicken shed maybe? well its only a couple of rounds on a night out with the boys for Prince Harry. Anyway when i lived in Aberdeen and that's more than 35 years ago, the only thing i remember about the park is it was a gathering place for alcoholics and junkies,not that i was accompanied to going there, was not my scene, So a roundabout might be a good replacement if that is still the case .
charles hay
Report this comment

charles that's nonsense. First of all, have u seen how packed the gardens were over the weekend, and the more nice weather we get, the more that will be the case. Second, alcoholics and junkies? eh? that seems to be the only recurring arguement for the city square.. and it's so false. at the end of the day, belmont street is full of alcoholics, so is union street, and justice mill lane.. should they all be totalled too, and will this stop a few drunks waliking about wherever they please. And finally, for 13.5 million, you would get an arts centre with cafes and amenities, preserve all the flat green space that people use, keep the slopes that add visual interest to the sunken gardens. I doubt you will ever use the gardrens either way though charles.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Just read this quote from Sit Ian on the BBC website, "Unless Aberdeen City Council decide that the project should proceed with their backing, and that they will step in and take a key leadership role along with Acsef, my financial offer will be withdrawn". Strange, I'm sure the last time Sir Ian made a statement regarding his funding it was along the lines of "Unless the majority of Aberdonians support the City Square Project, I will withdraw my funding"
Brian Christie
Report this comment

Well Charles, maybe all the alkies and junkies (junkies - were they around 35 years ago?) appear to have decamped with you. With the Freedom of Information Act it turns out that Union Terrace Gardens is one of the safest places in the centre of Aberdeen with little in the way of crime. (Statistics available from the police) So if there are any alkies and junkies in the park, they must be fairly benign, because they aren't kicking bits off one another or anyone else for that matter! .......and when I was in the park two weeks ago I didn't see any.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

so the official figures are 55% against, 44% for, and 2% undecided. Am i the only one that adds this up to 101%? And how on earth can there be a likely margin of error + or - 5%? for that much money spent on a consultation and that long a timeframe, u'd expect better than that..
Ved Mij
Report this comment

according to the article on the bbc website, the decision whether to take the city square forward will be made on the 19th of may, and ian wood is happy to keep his offer on the table till then. so really, another month of this guff. According to bob collier, there is ''clear evidence of a desire for change, to encourage the project team to go to the next stage of an international competition having listened carefully to the views of the people.'' Has he not been reading Any of the comments over the last few months. Doesn't matter, sound's like the decision has been made already.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Ved, no one else picked this up because we are so used to reading mis-information from Aberdeen Journals. Perhaps its only another artist's impression. :-) I also wonder how many of the people who voted for the concrete jungle were pressurised and c ajuled when ASCEF went round offices at to PROMOTE their idea. Had this been done as a consultation the I am sure the results would have been different. Our only hope now is that the councillors in favour of the jungle will be ousted at the general election :-)
Keith Stirton
Report this comment

It is not in anybody's interest to dispense completely with a plan of this order, vote or no vote. It is a clear majority but it is not a crushing rejection. Portentous statements such as 'the people of Aberdeen have spoken' deserve ridicule. The next stage should be a thorough ventilation of a compromise project that might satisfy the criterion of summum bonum. Aberdeen deserves this at least.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

How sad and embarrassing this has turned out for Acsef and Sir Ian Wood they don’t have the decency to admit that they have lost. You would expect this from Tom Fool but with SIR IAN’s standing in the community you would hope he will do the honorable thing because after all that’s what his title is supposed to imply.
Robert Horne
Report this comment

Yet more bull from Tom Smith on the BBC online story: 'The public have said they want change. They believe the gardens are underused and inaccessible. Significant new green space and a cultural centre must be part of this change.' Shame that you tried to stop the public telling you that they wanted the Peacock project eh Tom? Also very inconvenient that Appendix 2 to the ACSEF report allows the reader to see just how often people spoke out in favour of the Peacock/Brisac Gonzalez project. I also found this quote from Mr Smith laughable:'Rejection of this £140m investment will damage Aberdeen city's reputation.We will be known as the city which turned down a £50m private sector donation towards an ambitious and much-needed public infrastructure development at a time when other cities throughout the UK would have grasped it with open arms.' No we won't Tom, we'll be known as the city that saw through the bullying aggression of a shower of chancers and elevated greenery and culture above a tawdry retail development. Go and ask the citizens of Edinburh if they'd like Princes Street Garden to be destroyed. One last thing - why don't you do the decent thing and stand down given that there's no opportunity for the public to vote you out?
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

Ascef lost both votes.....lets not forget the go petition (that was the VOLUNTARY one 9500 versus 1600, not the consultation which benefitted from all the blatent newspaper headline lies etc etc etc )Any decent organisation would say the MAJORITY won the argument. The business community in Aberdeen associated with Ascef are now officially a pathetic laughing stock
mike tyers
Report this comment

Just read the EE and now our illustious council is agreeing with ACSEF/Wood that it is not all over. Reading the article you can see they are in in favour of the Wood plan. Could it be the "Bribe" of £50 million. Perhpas if the PR company Weber Shandwick along with Wood/ACSEF had been above board with their "Consultation" and stated from the top of the page, that what people would like to see was only after the concrete was laid. Many peopley did not realise this and stated all the things they would like in the original gardens. So from day one we have been lied and cheated to from these so called gentlemen and business people. Now we have our Council leaders John and Kevin Stewart getting their knickers in a twist and calling for more council meetings on the subject. Not only have they given ACSEF over £300 thousand to waste on this they now backtrack. More waste of time and money from our useless council. As for Wood , well what can you say - a man of his word - certainly not. Oh I forgot the answer "No" is not in his vocabulary by the looks of it. He is certainly not a man of integrity. If the council sees fit to go ahead with this atrocious plan I only hope that they include an clause that when not if. the costs go well over the estimated £140 million. Our "Visionary" Wood will be held responsible for the rest of the money. After all it is his vision and all his sycophants can put their hands in their pockets as well.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

An interesting statistic that is hidden away on page 113 of the full consultation report is that 978 people responding to the survey specifically stated that they wanted the existing Peacock plans to proceed. This is despite the fact that the 'consultation' exercise was so skewed that it didn't even mention Peacock at all. Needless to say, there is no mention of this statistic in the ACSEF 4 page report summary...
Louis Balfour
Report this comment

Such bombast, Louis. To compare the shrivelled thing that is UTG with Princes Street Gardens is an exercise in disillusion. To that extent, Tom Smith is right with his laughing stock jibe. If only Aberdeen could be more like Edinburgh. But then the redevelopment of Edinburgh's heart was to develop the city's economic links with England - a statement that would clearly be beyond the comprehension of the naysayers on this board who cannot make such connections.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Louis, it would appear that Acsef are using those responses as evidence of support for the city square project by cataloguing them as wanting a "contemporary arts centre" in the aggregated results. Sir Ian Wood has gone back on his word that he would withdraw if the overwhelming support of the people was not forthcoming. If anything is going to make Aberdeen a laughing stock, it is the very real prospect that our city centre planning is decided by the whim of a single very wealthy individual, rather than the people and their elected representatives. This would be embarrassing enough if Sir Ian was paying for everything (including the consultation and feasibility study which cost the public purse instead). But he's not; he's putting in a fraction, and insisting upon the destruction of the city centre's only green space as a condition of his partial contribution. Laughing stock? It's right there.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

This is what happens when an interested party is allowed to run a poll. As Joe Stalin said, it's not who casts the votes, but who counts them.
Darwin Moir
Report this comment

Imagine suffering almost eleven months of 'electioneering' then putting your informed and well considered X on the voting paper, then have to wait almost a month while the vote is counted, to then be told, well, your vote was not the right vote, so we have decided for your own good, because you the public have neither the 'vision or ambition' to make your own judgements, therefore, we will keep you hanging on AGAIN for over another month until the council discuss it. Have they not been discussing it like the rest of us have for the last eleven months? My personal time and energy has been wasted. This whole thing has been a pointless waste of time and public money over £300,000 of it. More PR for this Civic Square than a general election or even a war, and it has taken over most of the year. Everyone nationwide has heard of it, but with ALL of the PR and SPIN - AND with the online default at YES for supporting the project, the results still came up with NO. What do we get now - Going back on HIS word and the city council being warned by Tom Smith that the scheme could be scrapped unless they, the council, give their full backing! We have Stewart Spence saying that 'they should not allow opposition to put them off' - when did he become dictator? People are getting totally disillusioned with the so called democratic process and can you blame them for thinking what is the point in voting, none of them can be trusted. Stewart Spence says that the future of Aberdeen should not hinge of such a small amount of people as only 11,000 voted out of 250,000 - so what - you just count the votes that have been cast and that's it! It is called DEMOCRACY, you know, where the people get to have their say and the most votes win. BUT seemingly the DEBATE has only just begun! It's Groundhog Day.
Jaki Sinclair
Report this comment

Here's a radical thought, lay the centre area to grass & flower beds, incorporate the arts centre into the design and lets get rid of the scabby hole, rubbish strewn railway line and rear facade of Belmont st so it all looks good. Everyone's then happy. I do agree with ACSEF, people are eager to shoot down any attempt to bring alternative idea's to the city and improve it, they are all happy to shout and moan about problems but not interested in coming up with a solution !!!! How narrow minded can you be ???? Niall
Niall Ewen
Report this comment

Well now we know, democracy is not dead. Stewart Spence says it all. Why should Aberdeen be run by these so called business men. Con men is more like it. Tom Smith has proved he has the right credentials for that profession. Not too good at lying as he contradicts himself with every sentence. Sir Wood, now that is an upstanding pillar of the community!!!!. His word means a lot. Yes a lot of hot air. As for the council to now come up with that statement the debate is not over. It should never have started. Peacock's plans were already approved, but the council got a bit dizzy with the thought of a few million pounds. Did they even consider how bad they looked. Did the consider just how much money this would cost the city. To beleive Tom Smith, which is very hard to do after this debacle. The private sectore will pay up. Well as long as Sir Wood signs a pledge that after the £140 million is used up, he will pay for the rest to be finished. How much millions has he. More to the point how much will he be left with. Since when have any of the estimated costs been remotely like the end result. Better watch out at the election, don't let Smith and co near the counting as in their worda a No is a Yes
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Niall, do keep up. What you have just proposed has been put on the table time and time again but Wood keeps saying no to it. Its the full decking over of the gardens or nothing! He has made that VERY VERY clear. Its easy to see who is being narrow minded.
John Rutherford
Report this comment

NO means NO. A few businessmen in Aberdeen (and we know who they are) are conning people that we need a new concrete square, Trump and a bypass. It's time we told them that we don't!
David Cutteridge
Report this comment

Unfortunately, Mr Cutteridge, you have been telling everyone that you and your ilk are saying 'No' to just about every development being proposed. Fortunately, others aren't listening and with a bit of luck Aberdeen might just about struggle into the 21st Century at some point - before the oil runs out, I hope.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Jock, why would you say "no" to the PVA proposal for UTG?
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

David Cutteridge - This article is about the Union Terrace Gardens proposal not about other developments which have huge popular support in the region - those popular projects are the AWPR and Mr. Trump's development at Menie. So please stick to the subject.
Diane J Balmedie
Report this comment

I don't believe that many people support building the AWPR at a cost of a billion pounds! Maybe we should have a vote on it?
David Cutteridge
Report this comment

I don't believe that many people support building the AWPR at a cost of a billion pounds! Maybe we should have a vote on it?
David Cutteridge
Report this comment

David Cutteridge - AWPR - Your location and your green credentials are well known but unfortunately your arithmetic seems to be a wee bit lacking. Where is the back-up for the billion pounds you are quoting? One thing is for sure and it is that yours and your friend's efforts to scupper this essential development have already cost the region millions of pounds.
Diane J Balmedie
Report this comment