Backers insist claims of £150m loan costs are groundless

Debt fears over city square plan rejected

By Declan Harte

Published: 17/05/2010

The group behind Sir Ian Wood’s proposed new civic square last night insisted it was confident it could finance the scheme after fresh doubts were cast on the final cost.

Reports at the weekend suggested the proposed development on the site of Union Terrace Gardens could cost the city £150million in loan repayments – more than twice as much as originally forecast – and leave it with 25 years of debts.

But Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef), the body steering Sir Ian’s bid, dismissed the figures claiming the square would be paid for through a rise in business rates stemming from its construction.

The funding fears were raised as councillors prepared to meet on Wednesday to vote on whether to accept the project, which has caused bitter divisions in the city.

Scores of women representing city churches marched in the sunken Victorian gardens to show their opposition to the proposal yesterday, while a heritage expert criticised Aberdeen City Council bosses for showing “unorthodox” bias in favour of the plan.

And after an anonymous city businessman reportedly offered £5million towards the cost of the city square, an Aberdeen pensioner pledged £10,000 – almost half of a £25,000 redundancy payout which she received when she lost her job as a result of council cuts – towards the rival scheme by Peacock Visual Arts.

Peacock’s plan for a contemporary arts centre in the gardens had already secured planning permission and most of its £13million funding when Sir Ian’s plans were announced two years ago. The group has secured a number of extensions to its funding deadlines while the two sides have tried in vain to reach a compromise.

A spokeswoman for Peacock described the donation from Renee-Margaret Slater, of Walker Road, Torry, as “extremely generous”.

The new concerns over the city square costs were raised after the Royal Incorporation of Architects warned the budget could be at least twice the £140million being suggested by Acsef.

The economic development group has said the square would be funded by £50million from the Wood Group chairman’s own fortune, £20million from the private sector and a £70million loan that would be repaid through a pilot “tax increment finance” (Tif) scheme.

But yesterday it was reported that the £70million loan would actually cost the city £150million in repayments, made over 25 years.

The prediction was understood to have arisen from a report by Price WaterhouseCoopers, dated May 6, which considered the likelihood of funding the project through Tif, which permits borrowing against an expected increase in business rates for the area.

A spokeswoman for Acsef, rebutted the claim and said the expected uplift in business rates in the city would comfortably pay back the loan.

She said: “At the moment, all the business rates go to central government, then a percentage is given back to the local authority. Under the new plan, the city council would still get a percentage but it would be raised.”

Sir Ian has said that he will walk away from the project if it cannot be demonstrated that the majority of citizens are in favour of it.

However, a two-month public consultation found 55% of almost 12,000 people who responded were against the city square, although a group of 50 business leaders have given it their backing.

Acsef has now said it is up to Aberdeen City Council to decide if it wants to back the proposal.

Last night, Connie Leith CBE, conservation officer for Ferryhill Heritage Society, criticised a report sent to all councillors last week recommending they approve the plan. She said: “The council said that it would not get involved, but it has done by writing this report.

“To me that seems unorthodox and I really worry about it. I just wonder how democratic the vote is going to be – 55% is enough to elect a government, but it is still not enough for Sir Ian Wood.”

Almost 100 members of the Church of Scotland’s Women’s Guild made their opposition to the proposal known by walking around Union Terrace Gardens yesterday afternoon.

Rhoda Whight, convener of the Presbyterial Council of Aberdeen, said guild members feared the gardens could be gone in a year’s time.

She said: “It is a lovely park and is also a green area in the city, and the thought of all that going is quite depressing. We don’t think that the gardens should be covered up in concrete. They should be preserved as much as possible.”

Reader's Comments

I have to agree with the anonymous ACSEF spokeswoman regarding PriceWaterhouseCooper's report into the funding model for the CSP. I mean, what do PWC know, with them being a multinational auditing company working for an enormous number of global corporations with hugely complicated business accounts. They can't know what they are talking about. The fools. And I am SURE, nay, positive that Aberdeen's many and varied businesspeople are more than happy to pay extra rates for the creation of the big giant concrete building, which ASCEF haven't proven to provide any economic benefits.
Simon Christie
Report this comment

It's also worth asking what will a rise in business rates do for the centre of the city where many businesses are already struggling. Increased rates will also lead to higher prices which means ultimately that we will all foot the bill. If we go into the City Centre which many folk won't as the chaos caused by the construction of the CSP means anyone with any sense will go shopping in Dundee! Where there's also a lovely Contemporary Arts Centre!! Bonus.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

ACSEF seem determined to ignore, or discredit every single report which has been produced. Which would be fair if they weren't also using these reports to push their projects. The significant "misinformation" they keep insinuating is being spread comes from the self-same documents. Its about time they conceded and trusted the opinions of experts and the true findings of these reports which they have had commissioned and the taxpayer has bankrolled.
Fraser Denholm
Report this comment

And...as if by magic...the money has been found.
manniewe naebrain
Report this comment

Then there is also the fact that "the feasibility of TIF being used in this project has raised questions over Acsef’s sums. TIF has yet to be used in the UK and Aberdeen would need the Scottish Parliament to pass legislation for money generated by increased business rates in the city to remain in the city, rather than go to central government for redistribution" So, this funding source doesn't actually exist at the moment in Scotland. Acsef want to build an unspecified and undesigned square, with yet to exist sources of fundings despite 3 separate public surveys rejecting the proposal (the £300k consultation, respective online petitions and the 67 to 8 in the cults meeting) not exactly the most robust of business plans.
jack keenan
Report this comment

Jack, I think 6 of the 8 folk that voted in the Cults public meeting were ACSEF board members. It really says it all about the level of public support that ACSEF leafletted the Lower Deeside constituency prior to that public meeting and only managed to get 2 people to turn out in support.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Alasdair, one other pro CSP we know of, was the wife of one of the ACSEF board members, so perhaps she came along, as she was the designated driver? (knowing what the mood of the public is).
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Local business men, in my view, will be most unhappy with the increased business rates, despite what Acsef say. (TIF is an unproven strategy, and it is unlikely that all of the rates would be returned to the city. The suggestion is 60%) There will be a huge hike in them this year, and I suspect that trading for many will be very difficult. Couple that with city rents plus rates and a big hole where the gardens used to be, and I suspect that trading will hit a slump .Unlike Acsef, I dont know what benefits, if any, will accrue from their plans, and I dont think they do either. All I can say that Leiths who are laying the roads around The Green which is to provide 'connectivity' (a word much loved by Acsef) to Union Square are months behind schedule - and that's just laying roads. Everything was due to be finished last November (or so I have been told) to coincide with the opening of Union Square.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Acsef really is the all knowing body of ultimate wisdom that can just dismiss every claim by a professional as nonsense, and insist that what they claim (which varies depending on the cloud movement) is the only bit of universal truth.. lets's look at what we've had so far... the public of aberdeen dont want it as it will irreversably destroy the gardens, place a big concrete lump of 4 storeys of car parking and unspecified retail over 6.7 acres of city centre land, also drawn out in the feasibility study. No, this is not true, the public are incapable of understanding that it will really Double the Green space by turfing, preserve the countours by imnmitating the swoops in concrete, and not provide car parking or retail. The A+DS, and the architects society unanimously condemned it as lacking desing amition, or havine meritable character. Nonsense, it is the most ambitious and bold and visionary project ever. the RIAS, and other countless individual architects or anyone having read the feasibility report that claims 140,000 but lists over 20 omissions and assumprions, have pointed out that the realistic cost is actually almost double the stated amount. again, nonsense, they are certain it is spot on 140, with no contingency. Worries shown that any cost overrun will ultimately fall on the council, nonsense, no money will be asked off the council, except in case the costs spiral, then it will be the council. The RIAS have called the project daft and devious (see sunday herald article for elaboration), but no this is inapproporiate, what do they know. And now a financial expert has assessed the TIF claims, and projected what the loans will amount to, again, no this is just not true.. missing anything, oh yeah, we are just doomed without this project, and if u think otherwise, nonsense, we are doomed withiut it.. well sone tom smith, you truly are the walking talking stephen hawking..,.,
Ved M
Report this comment

Perhaps if Sir Ian withdrew his offer and instead set up a trust for care of the eldely in our city in their declining years, he might recover some of the esteem he has lost through this sorry debauchle. "No", means no, Sir Ian (and Acef). Move on. The people have spoken decisively on this issue and the elected members should act accordingly.
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

Ved, All good points, but download google chrome as your browser, it's got a built in spell checker. ;)
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

What the? "and a £70million loan that would be repaid through a pilot “tax increment finance” (Tif) scheme". Sounds like ACSEF is now levying new taxes. Absolutely terrifying how much power this non-elected board thinks they have. Sack them all.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Press and Journal editorial: I have a question. Why is the headline for this topic so biased yet again? The headline should be '100 members of the Church of Scotland’s Women’s Guild march in opposition of Woods plan'.
Happy Aberdonian
Report this comment

Press and Journal editorial: I have a question. Why is the headline for this topic so biased yet again? The headline should be '100 members of the Church of Scotland’s Women’s Guild march in opposition of Woods plan'.
Happy Aberdonian
Report this comment

Alan, I agree with you there. It is very worrying that a body with no elections, no constitution, no complaints procedure and no public accountability has been given so much power.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

I wonder if these ladies are part of "a very strong and well organised anti campaign" spreading misinformation. I want to join, because I cant find the headquarters. Anybody know? If the stuff that Acsef punt out wasn't so laughable, it would be frightening!
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Tom Smith signed a letter condemning the NI rise not so long ago. And yet now he seeks to impose additional taxes on businesses in central Aberdeen? Perhaps he could tell us if Nessco, being based in Westhill, will be subject to the "uplift" in business rates that he is lobbying for? If not it would appear that Smith is all for taxing business as long as it's not his own.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

"although a group of 50 business leaders have given it their backing." P+J forgets to note that some of those business leaders who are part of the chamber of commerce were not asked if the body should back the Wood plan and many did not actually want to give their backing... http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1622139
Happy Aberdonian
Report this comment

"although a group of 50 business leaders have given it their backing." P+J forgets to note that some of those business leaders who are part of the chamber of commerce were not asked if the body should back the Wood plan and many did not actually want to give their backing... http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1622139
Happy Aberdonian
Report this comment

"although a group of 50 business leaders have given it their backing." P+J forgets to note that some of those business leaders who are part of the chamber of commerce were not asked if the body should back the Wood plan and many did not actually want to give their backing... http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1622139
Happy Aberdonian
Report this comment

To be fair, the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) 'hypothocation' would be on 'new' rates created by businesses operating in the new space...but that's a problem, WHAT new businesses? TIF will be piloted by the Scottish Government on the Edinburgh Waterfront, so the legislation is not the barrier. The important (missing) element is what do people want to see happen in the space, and is the level of it therefore of any importance whatsoever?
Linda Wilkie
Report this comment

To be fair, the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) 'hypothocation' would be on 'new' rates created by businesses operating in the new space...but that's a problem, WHAT new businesses? TIF will be piloted by the Scottish Government on the Edinburgh Waterfront, so the legislation is not the barrier. The important (missing) element is what do people want to see happen in the space, and is the level of it therefore of any importance whatsoever?
Linda Wilkie
Report this comment

To be fair, the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) 'hypothocation' would be on 'new' rates created by businesses operating in the new space...but that's a problem, WHAT new businesses? TIF will be piloted by the Scottish Government on the Edinburgh Waterfront, so the legislation is not the barrier. The important (missing) element is what do people want to see happen in the space, and is the level of it therefore of any importance whatsoever?
Linda Wilkie
Report this comment

The voodoo economics are utterly scary. The city would be required to issue a bond for £70 -150M in anticipation of the TIF scheme. This type of funding was discussed by the council a year ago and it was proposed that the Gardens themselves plus surrounding properties (probably buildings in Belmont Street including the Belmont Cinema) would be put up as collateral. If there is default on the payments then these properties would be siezed in lieu of payment. On top of that, any significant cost over-run would have to be met by the council as ACSEF admitted last week. No matter what you think of the City Square project, there is no denying that the proposed financing exposes the council to a great deal of risk, particularly given the dire state of the cities finances as it is. The risk is very, very high and the impact would be catastrophic if things went wrong with financing the square. The whole business seems utterly mad to me. Aberdeen could end up becoming the "got any change?" city.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Linda, the PwC/CBRE report into TiF can be found in the appendices of this document: http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Published/C00000122/M00000371/AI00005499/AberdeenCityCentre.pdf In it, various assumptions are made, including a yield of £400K pa from "retail/food uses". In other words, Acsef's assertion that it will be a "civic not commercial" space don't square up to their own ideas of how to fund the debt the project will incur. Perhaps the most bizarre quote is this: "For the purposes of our modelling exercise we have assumed that this interest is ‘rolled up’ into the existing debt and paid off over time. In reality the prudential borrowing framework does not allow for interest to be rolled up in this way and future consideration will therefore have to be given to how this early years interest gap is covered." So an assumption has been made cognisant of its impossibility "in reality"! And this is what our council's unlected officials are recommending. It beggars belief.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

The bulk of this P&J article is drawn from a rather better, certainly clearer, piece in yesterday's Sunday Herald, followed by interviews with Ellie Rothnie from PVA and Tom Smith of ACSEF. It's well worth checking the original on the Herald website. And it's a pity we have to look to a Glasgow-based newspaper for a standard of informed, properly-researched comment and analysis as yet unmatched by Aberdeen Journals!
Alex Mitchell
Report this comment

Just as a reminder, it's not 70m that we are talking about loans, but at least 90m. Acsef claim they 'believe' 20 million can be obtained from private sector donations, but nobody has atcually comitted to it. Acsef also believe it's 140m, when many people based on the HFM report have ascertained that it might be at least double that, and this was only recently publicly stated by experts in the construction industry as well.. Acsef have a habit of repeating the incorrect figures so many times it becomes easier to use them in discussion rather than rectifying them every time. This is true for the above financial sums, and also for the 55% against the project, which has been identified as wong as there have been many many No cotes miscounted as Yes votes, all flagged up and counted for. It is worh bearing this in mind when discussing these figures.
Ved M
Report this comment

It shouldn't be a surprise that ACSEF "knows better" than PriceWaterhouseCooper when it comes to analysing the likely cost of the CSP. After all, the renowned architectural expert Ian Wood was quite happy to give his opinion on all manner of design aspects of the Brice Gonzales proposals at the Citadel meeting. With experts like these, we're clearly in safe hands.
Iain Richardson
Report this comment

"Backers insist claims of £150m loan costs are groundless" Why? There is absolutely no discursive analysis given in this article whatsoever to explain why ACSEF do not accept the £150M figure. Shoddy reporting here. ACSEF are taken uncritically on trust ... The vagueness and uncertainty of just about anything to do with the city square project has much to do with an uncritical press in the city. Ten years down the road when the city finances have finally imploded due to the City Square, how are Aberdeen Journals going to handle that?
mike shepherd
Report this comment

The idea of an "orchestrated" campaign against the CSP is laughable. My dictionary defines "orchestrate" as "to arrange or control to achieve a desired effect". The website of Weber Shandwick, the PR agency employed by ACSEF to promote the CSP, proudly states what they do for clients: "Community relations and grassroots campaigns: where the views of individuals and communities have a direct bearing on decision-making, we manage and mobilise their views in the client interest". See www.webershandwick.co.uk, click on "What We Do / Public Affairs". It seems very clear which side has been attempting to "orchestrate".
Iain Richardson
Report this comment

All those who oppose the City Square Project should stay away from engaging with the finance question. It is a 'straw man' argument put forward by ACSEF - set up for them to knock down themselves - as we are now seeing. The project will not suddenly become OK and acceptable just because it can be funded.
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

More from the PwC/CBRE report: "In addition to the impact of new developments CBRE have assessed the potential increase in the rateable value of the properties immediately adjacent to the Project (comprising Union Street, Union Terrace, Belmont Street, Little Belmont Street, Back Wynd, Gaelic Lane and parts of Schoolhill) which are expected to benefit significantly from delivery of the Project and subsequent regeneration of the city centre. It is has been assumed that these properties could experience an average increase in rateable value of between 10% and 20% depending on their proximity to the Project with a small number of properties on Union Terrace increasing in rateable value by up to 50%." I wonder if Mike Wilson has read this? I find it difficult to believe that his enthusiasm for the city square project would remain at such high levels when he considers the collossal increase in business rates he will have to endure to pay for it. Where will the Monkey House find the money to pay for its 50% increase? It's customers of course, who will all desert it for the cheaper drinking establishments. Sound business sense, there.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Depends on whether or not they increase trade I guess Richard, but that's another mystery, how are the regeneration 'benefits' quantified and for whom? I think Ludvig is quite right when he says that we shouldn't allow the argument to be ALL about the finances, as smoke and mirrors can allow the project to falsely claim victory, but we do need to clearly understand precisely WHAT are the benefits supposed to be, and therefore if the undoubted high risk to the public sector coffers is ultimately worth taking.
Linda Wilkie
Report this comment

Depends on whether or not they increase trade I guess Richard, but that's another mystery, how are the regeneration 'benefits' quantified and for whom? I think Ludvig is quite right when he says that we shouldn't allow the argument to be ALL about the finances, as smoke and mirrors can allow the project to falsely claim victory, but we do need to clearly understand precisely WHAT are the benefits supposed to be, and therefore if the undoubted high risk to the public sector coffers is ultimately worth taking.
Linda Wilkie
Report this comment

AGCC were recently campaigning about the unfairness of the rates increases on Aberdeen businesses. The argument being that the way rates have been changed has led to vast increases in rates costs to local businesses. The PROBLEM, they’re bringing to ministers attention is that this increase in the cost of rates damages our local economy’s competitiveness. On the other hand, paying for this white elephant by increasing business rates will improve our local economy’s competitiveness? The effect of this on the local economy seems to be negative, rather than positive, and that’s just one more reason to stop it going ahead.
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

Linda and Ludvig i agree with you, and i have all along and will once again state, that even if ACSEF or the Business crew were to pay for the whole thing on their own, i would still oppose it because it is just a bad idea, an ill-concieved proposal with infinite flaws, and is completely orrecersable. It should be rejected due to the damage it would cause to the city and the gardens, and not because of the financial burdens that it would impose.
Ved M
Report this comment

irrecversable, man my spelling is off today.. apologies phillip..
Ved M
Report this comment

i meant irreversable, in both the above comments. third time lucky..
Ved M
Report this comment

Quite agree, the finance argument is not the whole picture - however, given that it is being put forward as justification it's worth looking at to see whether it stacks up. And like so many of Acsef's arguments, it doesn't seem to bear scrutiny very well. In fact what it does do is undermine Acsef's other claims about the city square being a civic space rather than a commercial venture. If Acsef were open about the CSP and the genuine commercial opportunities their scheme would offer - the redevelopment of the Denburn Centre and the Trinity car park, the realisation of office space on the Triple Kirks site, etc - then it would be entirely possible to have a reasoned debate about the potential of their project. By presenting it in such a shoddy and misleading fashion, however, Acsef have demonstrated that they simply cannot be trusted. Allowing them to wield financial intruments such as TiF, the like of which led us into our current record debt, seems absolutely insane to my mind.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

In my opinion, the city square is terribly vulnerable to questions about costing, irrespective of any of the so-called "merits" you can ascribe to it. I've worked with project planners on multi-million projects in the oil industry. One of the key inputs into planning and costing is to appreciate the risks and also to assess the impact if one of the risks turns into a serious problem (it happens). The overall financial costings and uncertainty is for the experts. But one thing is for sure, the impact of any financial misjudgement on the city is clear given the current budget problems. Aberdeen council goes bankrupt. Even the remotest chance of this happening is unacceptable, particularly as the project is so unpopular in the city.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

I agree Richard, i am yet to see an arguement that ACSEF have made that Does stack up, that actually ends in them elaborating or explaining it rather than just dimissing the counter arguement. From day one it has been the smar response 'it just does, it just will'. Surely anyone supporting the CSP has at some point quiestioned this infinite trust that they are placing in ACSEF. With so many concerns raised, and all of them dismissed withoug any explanation, surely the pattern will eventually leave the csp supporters asking questions too. By supposrters i of course mean the councillors thinking about pushing it to the next stage, as it's now in their hands, since it was never really in the hands of the public, contrary to Wood's claims..
Ved M
Report this comment

Latest News A prominent, anonymous, shy, retiring leading Aberdeen businessman, quangocrat and highjumper/stand up comedian/joker, of significant and intrusive overshadowing personality, has been booked into The Priory for addiction therapy and intensive psychiatric counselling on the afternoon of Wednesday 19th May, 2010. He will also receive image reconstruction counselling from Doe Boursi of The Enormous, Huge, Giant Collective LP. It is believed that Aberdeen City Council will pick up the tab and pay for all of this with the man having been told by another leading Aberdeen tycoon that he is a total FAILURE and LOSER and that, since he is on his own now, he should take the only honourable course of action open to him.
Graeme Slaterr
Report this comment

FAMILY ANNOUNCEMENT It is my sad duty to announce the death of the leading Aberdeen businessman and tycoon Tamm Schmmidt who has, sadly, died of press censorship and too much funny handshaking down at Crown Street and up at The Toon Hoose.
Graeme Slaterr
Report this comment

I've just had a look at Tom Smith's pleadings in yestarday's Sunday Herald, where he says once again that the economic future of Aberdeen is dependent upon the CSP, the AWPR and the Trump development all going ahead (as well as something else called "energetica" - WTF?). Really, it's embarrassing to read this stuff. During the 2nd World War, Polynesian island tribes set up 'Cargo Cults' mimicking the uniforms, landing strips, control towers etc of the US army logistics corps, in the vain hope that they, the tribespeople, would similarly succeed in attracting the big 'silver birds' full of goodies from 'heaven'. ACSEF, being good capitalists, should surely realise that it's innovation, entrepreneurship, the availability of capital and a well educated workforce which attracts inward investment in order to generate wealth, which then, in turn, attracts luxe retail etc - not the other way round! ACSEF wouldn't be attempting to set up a Cargo Cult in Aberdeen, would they?
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

Is there some way to let Tommy Smith and Sir Ian Wood know that there is a growing movement WHICH WILL INDEED BECOME ORGANISED PROPERLY, minded to take legal action against them to secure repayment to the public purse of the monies which have been TOTALLY BLOWN on their RIDICULOUS scheme to destroy Victorian gardens and put them in a concrete shroud?
Graham Slater
Report this comment

Oh dear, oh dear, oh me, where do I start today?
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Actually, were it to go ahead, could the CSP, as well as being characterised as a Cargo Cult temple, also be interpreted as a Potemkin Village artifact?
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

The one thing i hope that Renne's generous from today's other article will do, as well as Alasdair's from earlier on, is really help to complete the PVA fundraising procedure, once it finally resumes after the CSP is finally binned once and for all. There have been countless unfulfilled competition winnin projects, that for whatever reason were scrapped, and the people of the cities in question ended up losing out. However never in the profession before have i seen such desire and determination to accomplish the aims of the project and to bring it to realisation despite all the unneccessary adutes that have put it at risk. Aberdeen deserves massive recognition for showing such comittment to the PVA scheme, and any funding body that the PVA turn to, whether it's the national lottery, or private donors, should no doubt be overwhelmed by the public desire to bring this arts centre to life in a deserved and respected location, and the positive response of all that support it.
Ved M
Report this comment

gesture, missing above after the word generous
Ved M
Report this comment

Not everyone who questions the CSP are pro PVA though Ved, granted it doesn't rip the gardens apart or burden the City with massive debts, but it also isn't everything it's cracked on to be. I maintain, as Richard has mentioned, more thought needs to go into what kind of things could happen in the area to bring the gardens back into popular use, and an arts centre isn't the biggest or only draw possible. Lighting, concerts, small retail (in the arches?), these are the things to be developed and debated.
Linda Wilkie
Report this comment

Not everyone who questions the CSP are pro PVA though Ved, granted it doesn't rip the gardens apart or burden the City with massive debts, but it also isn't everything it's cracked on to be. I maintain, as Richard has mentioned, more thought needs to go into what kind of things could happen in the area to bring the gardens back into popular use, and an arts centre isn't the biggest or only draw possible. Lighting, concerts, small retail (in the arches?), these are the things to be developed and debated.
Linda Wilkie
Report this comment

I agree with Linda the ecological violence bestowed on the area with the PVA scheme is as bad if not worse than the CSP. Again PVA, no money, no title to the land, no business plan for sustainability and no real plans for the development.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Absolutely right linda, and i will look forward to that, but the PVA is a definite positive start, and you can't argue that the public support for it has been excellent. I think steven bothwell had the right idea when he put forward his cullinary school proposal. Whether you agree with it or not, and whether the councillors decide to give it outline planning or not is irrelevant, the point i took from it was that the gardens belong to the peole in aberdeen, and not to ian wood and acsef. Small schemes that don't irreversably destroy the gardens can be put up and and removed quickly, and can bring a variety of draws to the gardens.
Ved M
Report this comment

still preaching your version of reality sandy? keep up, the PVA have put forward a very good business plan that would see 5 million yearly income, and have backed it with precedent, they also have 9.5 million secured should the project be given the go-ahead, and they also have detail plans, and a full plannig permission (not outline planning and concept sketches as you perviously claimed). Do keep up.
Ved M
Report this comment

Linda, I happen to support the PVA scheme. My point was largely academic - that the manner in which the CSP has been put forward is deceptive, and that Acsef have sought to conceal the opportunities that their scheme offers due to fears of appearing commercially driven. The fact of the matter is that PVA have planning permission, largely because of the regenerating affect their development will have within the gardens. The PVA scheme also leaves the door open to further sensitive development along the lines you suggest, making it a far more sensible option. PVA have never laid claim to being Aberdeen's economic saviour - but they do have an independent economic impact assessment suggesting that the benefit to Aberdeen of the new centre would amount to around £5m per annum. As this is based on the DCA, which generates around £6M per annum for Dundee, it seems a relatively conservative estimate given Aberdeen's greater wealth.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Ved, I'd ignore Sandy. He's only here to troll folk. Best not feed him :-)
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

trolling folk with irrelevant preaching i have no time for, however getting facts consistantly and deliberately wrong deserves correcting, not for the sake that sandy might actually learn somehting from it, but for the sake of anyone else that has not been following the details so far.
Ved M
Report this comment

Wish I could write so eloquently as many here. Just a thought, would like to know which Hypnotist Ian Wood used to persuade ACSEF to change sides from supporting the PVA to his "Vision" Either that or the millions did it. This is a man "I have a Dream". Yes a nightmare for the rest of us. After reading the recommendations from Sue Bruce for the council meeting on the 19th. it seemed there was hope. It starts off all about the history and herigage of the city from Roman times to Robert the Bruce (How he must be turning in his grave). First the "rowies" from his common good trust, now the vandalising of our Victorian garden. Anyway I digress. The praise she gives Aberdeen is great, that is until the last couple of pages, then it is how the council should go with the Wood project, with the retail developments. Nice One Sue. You do not have to stay here after the destruction, off to pastures new. Then in todays EE we have Union street up for some prize as being the best Street in the UK. That is with a sunken garden. They must have seen old photos, of when the shops were good. And we also have councilor John West saying we should be more like Paris and have outside seating at bars and cafes. He has been to Norway and they have it. Why can't we just be who we are Aberdonians, not Parisians, Norwegians, Americans. Let us be proud of what we already have and not destroy it. When you look at Dundee, with nice apartments at the water front. Not a Mall. A large museum being built - A bit of Culture. No I would think that any business, once the oil goes and especially if Wood/ACSEF get their way will move a bit more south and never look back. Joking apart, but what about making the Gardens one of these Halting sites in the garden, after all it is underused, full of jukies etc. that would put a stop to that. It would cost very little apart from the clean ups. If that is ludicrous, so is the Wood "Vision" Never mind the expense. Tom Smith could not tell the truth if his own life depended on it. Hopefully we have some councilors with common sense. We know that some don't, and fully believe the fairy stories that ACSEF are telling.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Ved the comment "getting facts consistantly and deliberately wrong" should apply to you, the £5m per annum does not apply to the coffers of PVA it applys to the city centre economy. There's a big difference there. Must have lost your crayons today have you?
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Is Sandy Milne an alias for Tom Smith. They sound so similar, must be a clone. Sorry Sandy, we should not reply to you, as your venom just gets worse.
minnie mo
Report this comment

in all fairness, the 5 million is to benifit aberdeen city, but it's still part of their business plan, the one that will bring the profit to the 3 million acc investment. the PVA also have a thriving sale of frames, print making, and learning facilities to lease, so the business plan is robust enough, as are the rest of the facts above. As for my lost crayons, i think i know where they are, in your purse, next to your tampons.. get it, cuz you are on your period..
Ved M
Report this comment

Actually, Minnie, I think you are more than eloquent enough! And Richard, sorry, I didn't mean to infer that you weren't pro PVA, just that you understood and articulated the question of 'activity' in the gardens.
Linda Wilkie
Report this comment

Actually, Minnie, I think you are more than eloquent enough! And Richard, sorry, I didn't mean to infer that you weren't pro PVA, just that you understood and articulated the question of 'activity' in the gardens.
Linda Wilkie
Report this comment

No apology necessary Linda, just wanted to say where I stand :)
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

One method of assessing risk in project planning is to consider all the risks that affect the project, one by one. You assess the chances of that risk happening (low, medium, high, will do)and you multiply it by the overall impact on the project. Here's an exercise for the panel, what is your assessment for the following risks to the City square project?; 1) the success of TIF funding 2) Cost over-run. Here's my analysis: 1) TIF funding: medium risk of not meeting the initial loan, medium to high impact (loss of council assets). 2) Cost over-run: high chance of happening, very high impact on the project (produces financial Chernobyl for the city council) at which stage in the analysis most astute, dispassionate planners would drop the project at once as far too risky ....
mike shepherd
Report this comment

geez, apologies for the tone of my own previous comment, i really have stooped to sandy's contageous immature attitude.. low.
Ved M
Report this comment

The protest by the Church of Scotland women is wonderful. Us Aberdonians don't protest do we...? We are generally happy to accept our lot? Not any more! The passion in the city over the Gardens is amazing, the whole topic has gone viral.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

The protest by the Church of Scotland women is wonderful. Us Aberdonians don't protest do we...? We are generally happy to accept our lot? Not any more! The passion in the city over the Gardens is amazing, the whole topic has gone viral.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

A prominent and very successful Aberdeen solicitor and semi-professional sculptor, Mr Franklin Feveredbrow haS agreed to offer a new work in granite to the future Gugenheimmer in the energetica capital of Europe. The work will capture the deceased, kenspeckle Aberdeen entrepreneur/tycoon/seminally-vissionary Tamm Schmitts out availing himself of the vibrant Aberdeen night time economy, kilted and brogued and shirtless. A spokesperson for Franklin Feveredbrow said that any city of future economic value would WANT to note the passing of a great man who found himself taking at least two hours to make his way from The Castlegate to The Junction in search of a couple of well-fired rowies, what with all the babies being passed to him to kiss en route. She went on to say that Mr Feveredbrow would try to freeze Tamm in an eternal moment of veracity, legs astride the pavement-mounted hot air vents outside the Prince of Wales and having to choose between preserving his modesty or keeping BOTH hands clamped TIGHTLY on top of his head, in the percolating updraft; Mr Smitt preferring the latter.
Graham Slater
Report this comment

G. Slater for Provost!
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

Ian Wood is very keen to see the city connected. He has certainly done that. We are all connected and protesting against his ghastly city square project....
mike shepherd
Report this comment

For definition of contageous immature attitude see Ved M and Graham Slater.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Application Status and Key Dates Status: Determined Date application received: 02/07/2007 Date application Registered: 04/07/2007 Date of expiry of period allowed for representations: 09/08/2007 Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions Decision Level: Planning Committee Decision: Approved Conditionally Decision date: 05/03/2008 Ved, And the conditions ARE???? Probably having money to do it!!!
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

And why wasn't our local press there to photograph these redoubtable ladies? Guess. You are right Mike, it is absolutely marvellous what is happening. Unorchestrated, spontaneous, Aberdonians repeatedly saying 'NO' 'NO' and again.....and again..... What was it SIW said again about the people not wanting his civic square?? It was never about the money - although the figures beggar belief, and the debt this city will be trawled into will affect us for generations to come, perhaps necessitating the selling of the family silver via the very quiet CITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - whenever that transpires.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

No P & J photographer for the Ladies. Can you imagine if it had been the almighty Tom Smith and Sir Wood enjoying the pleasant surroundings. The telly footage as well. So much for our great local press. They miss all the good things.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Broken News Police in Aberdeen today arrested 3 leading successful businessmen/entrepreneurs/tycoons and had them examined by a police surgeon as a first step to securing sections for the men detained in the cells. The identities of 2 of the men are known throughout Aberdeen but this reporter has so far failed to identify the third mysterious, anonymous, somewhat shy third person. All 3 were believed to have been released to an address in Rubislaw Den, with promises not to misbehave again being given and accepted by the authorities.
Graham Slater
Report this comment

Grassroots Philanthropy: A course for senior council executives in which participants will be taught to discern between genuine benefaction and self-interested, pecuniarily-motivated investment positioning. Male applicants ONLY. t.smitt-smoke'nmirrors.co.uk
Graham Slater
Report this comment

I have just seen on the STV news that another Aberdeen pensioner has donated £10k to PVA, http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/177915-pensioners-donate-20000-to-alternative-gardens-vision/, to add to the same amount donated by Renee-Margaret Slater over the weekend and myself after the public meeting in February. That now makes a total of £30k from 3 individuals whose combined income is probably less than the interest Sir Ian Wood earns on his Post Office Savings account!
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Thanks for the update Alasdair, and well done to roddy millar and thanks for his offer. As i was saying before, the public support for the PVA is overwhelming and unprecedented, something that will play a big big part in the remainder of their fund raising procedure to bridge the final gap of 3,5 million.
Ved M
Report this comment

I don't get why we are talking about putting in a civic square when the council can't even manage to provide the public with swimming polls and ice rinks without having to mothball them. Give the public things that they will use and benefit from. That would be money better spent
Iain Anderson
Report this comment

Right on Iain. The thing you have to realise though most of the authors here in favour of PVA and UTG have vested interests. Career bureacrats doing a bit of empire building. Most have never had a real job, never produced anything but increased public debt. Professional leaches with their hands deep in the taxpayers pockets.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

A touch excessive alan, i assure you i have a very real job, and have in no way any vested interest in the PVA apart from wanting to see what i think is best for aberdeen happen, and what i think it deserves. It's about time the city got a new modern landmark building that we can be proud of, a true architectural gem, the cultural facilities that many other cities have, and the enhancements to the gardens can really transform them. I totally agree with you and Iain, that the money being asked for he square would be far better spent on other facilities, think of what 50 million would do to the bin accord baths, and have left over for other public projects. There is no reason we cant have them all, the PVA with all the benefits it would provide, and the sporting and leasure facilites for the public. the 3 million acc is transfering to PVA would hardly make a difference with any of these.
Ved M
Report this comment

Alan, I have no vested interest in PVA and I have 2 "real" part-time jobs. I support PVA because I have had the privilege of using their services in the past in my work with people with learning difficulties. They are a fantastic organisation and have brought a lot of joy to many people who would otherwise not have had the opportunity to get involved in the arts.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

I was just looking at the STV web site and came across Jimmy Milne's piece on the CSP. It's interesting to read what Tom Smith had to say about it. ''Chairman of ACSEF, Tom Smith said: “Through the consultation and all our presentations we have sought to inform people of the facts so that they can make an informed decision. Such a transformational project requires public support and we want to ensure that everyone – from all walks of life, not just business, gets a chance to make their views – for or against. In this highly emotive environment of mis-information, we have always taken a measured and factual stance. It is disappointing that this whole debate is becoming polarized and personalized.” All the misinformation has come from Acsef and now that the public has rejected it he is pushing the 50 business men want it. What an absolute farce this whole sorry mess has turned out to be. ACC should sack the entire board of Acsef and Ian Wood should be striped of his knight hood.
Robert Horne
Report this comment

Alan, unfortunately it is this attude that anyone in support of PVA is an unemployed artist leeching of the taxpayer that is stopping you or most CSP supporters from actually trying to understand the merits of the project, and benefits it would bring to the city. A tad more respect and open mindedness, and you might find out that in the long run it has countless positive outcomes,at just a fraction of the cost of the CSP, and has the potential to really enhace the gardens and provide a new draw to them.
Ved M
Report this comment

Alan, got anything to back your assertion up? Of course not. So why make it? Just to insult folk?
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Careful Alan this lot don't like the truth or the real world. You'll be accused of all sorts of imaginary things from these twisted minds.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Sandy, as far as I know "this lot" are ordinary folk who aren't all involved in "the arts" and who are just expressing their views, generally with a great deal of respect for folk who disagree and who have valid points to make themselves.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Alasdair who mentioned "the arts"?
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Here's hoping the generous gesture by the 3 pensioners who have donated their hard earned cash is used in the correct manner for what it was intended. I wouldn't like the HMRC take some of it in tax or some unscrupulous individual use it to fund some frivolous indulgence.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

I think it's great news about another £20000 being donated to Peacock Visual Arts by 2 pensioners to add to the £10000 already donated by a part-time council worker and musician. It really says a lot about the high regard in which Peacock is held. One of the positive outcomes of this unfortunate saga is that public awareness of Peacock Visual Arts has now grown enormously and I'm sure has made the task of finding the remaining 25% of their funding a far easier task. There will be many more private donations and much corporate sponsorship to come now that so many folk are aware that it's a fantastic, inclusive and dynamic organisation whose new Contemporary Arts Centre will be something to bring pride to our city for years to come.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

ditto alasdair, ditto..
Ved M
Report this comment

I see the curator of AAG&M has just spent £5,850 on a piece of contemporary art by Ritsue Mishima called Spin. Now I know what the do with all the recycled bottles ACC pick up once a fortnight. Be careful pensioners. http://www.artnet.com/artwork/426001267/424901557/ritsue-mishima-spin.html
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

My not one but two with the mentality of the ACSEF, We know best. They must be the 2 who were at Cults voting for the CPS. After all the vote went against them with the "Public consultation". But we are the ones who can't see the truth or are in the real world. In their twisted minds a vote for No means yes. Speak about contrary!!!!!. Go play with your pals at ACSEF, they like distortions of the truth.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Beautiful!!
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Beautiful way to spend someone elses pension. That will really keep them warm and fed in the cold hard winters ahead.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Naw, just beautiful. I look forward to seeing it next time I take my wee boy to Aberdeen Art Gallery
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Peacock Visual Arts Contemproary Arts Centre isn't going to be a gallery like Aberdeen Art Gallery and Museum but more of a multi-media arts space with printmaking facilities, video and photography editing suites, a dance studio, workshops, a framing workshop, a cafe and of course space for artists to exhibit their work. I'm confident that the money I have donated will be extremely well spent.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

£5,850 for contemporary art, amazing. multiply that by 52 and you could buy one useless, pointless and complete waste of a public consultation. now that's spectacular waste! funny thing is, the consultation got people thinking, like a good piece of art should, shame it's maker didn't take stock from the lessons it taught them. sorry... troll feeding... couldn't resist!
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Philip, Maybe we could hang the consultation in Aberdeen Art Gallery? It could be entitled "Ceci N'Est Pas Une Consultation" Has to be worth at least £10k - maybe we could get a pensioner to sponsor it?
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Well done Philip multiplication. Pity PVA can't add up when it comes to a business plan. Subtracting money from the the public purse seems to be the easiest form of arithmetic when it comes to contemporary art. It certainly divides public opinion.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

oh look, sandy the mass-debator is at it again..
Ved M
Report this comment

Sandy, it's a pity you can't be bothered to engage in anything other than trolling. But there we go, I suppose it keeps you off the streets of an evening. For that at least I suppose we ought to be grateful.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Philip it would appear ACSEF are far superior artists to you. I suppose the organ grinders always control the monkeys.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Peacock Visual Arts has been around for a long time, 35 years I believe. It has grown steadily in that time and has become a highly respected organisation locally, nationally and internationally. It has just been awarded the biggest single arts council lottery grant, ever. It achieved all of this by being soundly managed as well as creative, dynamic and inclusive.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Richard not heard of Iphones and blackberrys then, but I suppose it keeps me from dragging my knuckles on the tarmac streets in your deluded mind.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Alasdair for grant read begging bowl
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Richard, you have tarmac streets in your deluded mind? You poor man, I have sun-dappled country lanes in mine!
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Sandy ok, I'll rephrase that. "It has just been awarded the biggest single arts council lottery begging bowl, ever" Doesn't sound quite right but if it makes you happy.....
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

I'm not entirely sure Alisdair, our unfriendly troll appears to have been at the buckie though.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Richard, I tried Buckfast once at a ceilidh - some boys had brought it along just to demonstrate how cosmopolitan they were. Anyway it is truly, astonishingly foul and I'm not surprised it has a reputation for addling folk's brains. One mouthful left me feeling off for the rest of the evening.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Richard on a more serious note I thought today brought some excellent news. First we had Renee's donation, then the report on the 100 women from the presbytery having their protest stroll, STV reporting on Roddy Millar donating £10k and then I also heard on the BBC that the Arts Council have written to the council to tell them their grant to PVA is NOT transferable to another as yet unplanned project. I think it will be very hard for the council to take any decision on Wednesday other than supporting PVA.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Given that they're funding the PVA project to the tune of a £3m capital grant, and have stated unequivocally that no capital grant would be forthcoming for the CSP, it would be a very strange situation indeed if ACC suddenly take up the gauntlet Wood has thrown them. How can they take a "leadership" role on a project they won't fund? And how can they ditch a project that they are committed to?
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

The Press and Journal has just announced a "Spot The Troll" competition. Visit http://www.tolkienforums.com/Orthanc_2.jpg and mark an x where the Troll should be. The lucky winner will be whisked off in a limousine for a luxury weekend for two in a caravan in Clatt.
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Come on - Sandy is Tom Smith, the mentality shows that. Sorry his knuckles are a bit bruised, but that happens when you fall out of the tree. Perhpas he is thinking that with the CSP he has more to roam in around the Union Street/Belmont Street area. Thought these exquisite animals were extinct, Somebody tell the Edinburgh Zoo. After all they have a rail way bang in the middle of the city And A Garden. How ever do they manage???? Really it is a shame to call Sandy and Alan a Troll. Were some not nice.????
minnie mo
Report this comment

Sandy - `'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of an impoverished mind.' Emerson
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Which ever Project gets built, it will end up costing us ALL one way or another!!!! I would rather take money of the businessmen than a Pensioner. Why can both parties not come to some agreement? They are all grown ups!!!! Most of the people campaigning for the PVA are not interested in the centre they just want to keep the gardens because and this option has less of an impact on the park!!!
Who Cares
Report this comment

Who, that is just not true. First of all, the PVA has More of an impact on the park, a very positive one, the CSP has none, it just erases the park so that it can create a blank canvas for development oppurtunity. Second, there are a few folk that only want to see the PVA because the alterations to UTG would be minimal, compared to their total eradication of the CSP, but Most PVA supporters are actually very excited about the prospect of the contemporary arts centre in aberdee, which has the potential of being the best in the nort, and will do so much for the gardens, by providing the cultural and leisure draw, and the amenities. It would also be a landmark piece of architecture, and as the design is directly influenced by the uniqueness and beauty of the gardens, it will also feel timeless, and will not come out of fashion like the quasi-modern project immitations of the 60s. Third, it will end up costing us all, but the PVA will cost us 3 million (the ACC section of the contribution), which will have a massive return for the council (at least 5 million a year), while the CSP will cost us at least 90 million (recent reports estimate 150 million in loans), and as of yet no tangible return can be predicted. So weigh it out. And finally, a compromise in an ideal world would be logical, but Acsef and Wood have adamantly ruled this out, they want the whole gardens and not a millimiter less. So no grown-ups there. Hope this helps.
Ved M
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.