大象传媒

The 'consultatation' is more like a public relations exercise organised by the group proposing the scheme. It is difficult to get a sense of what is involved from the documentation that has been provided; namely that the citizens of Aberdeen are being asked to give up a city centre park for a commercial development. What would replace the gardens is a concrete plaza with lawn areas and bushes.

Any contentious issues are unstated. There is no mention that 78 mature trees will be chopped down to build the steel and concrete superstructure. No mention of the 490 bay car park that is likely to take up the bottom two floors of the development. Aberdonians would be reluctant to approve the plans if they were made aware that the construction phase would last for almost two and a half years, causing major disruption in the city centre for that time.

The developers want to create the impression of public support for the scheme given that they need public money for this project to go ahead.

The whole thing is a disgrace by Aberdeen City Council. Their local plan states that no green space should be given up in the city centre yet as soon as 拢50 million gets waved in its face, it's prepared to consider anything - including effectively blocking a development it had already agreed to.

Ian Wood demands matched funding from the council for his donation. Given the state of Aberdeen City Council's finances, this is laughable. However, regardless of the stupidity of Wood's scheme, if Peacock doesn't get started in the next few months, it will lose its funding and it won't happen either.

If it is the public's choice (and I find that hard to believe) I urge people to think hard before offering support to the Wood scheme. Do you want
1. a concrete square over a car park and increased city centre flooding as a result OR
2. an arts centre with an award-winning design, the park (trees, wildlife!) to remain with better access and lighting and the Victorian toilets turned into a bistro (Cafe 52's plan)?

The "public consultation" is operated by Weber Shandwick, one of the UK's largest PR firms. Their brief has come from Acsef, who are of course the proxy for Sir Ian Wood's 拢50m contribution to the 拢140m+ scheme.

Would it be cynical to infer that the consultation is nothing more than window dressing designed to produce evidence that the people of Aberdeen want this square to happen? Perhaps. But then again when you take up the invitation to "have your say" on the project here - - something interesting happens. Whilst there's a straightforward yes/no question about whether you support the city square project, this is preceded by a question asking for your top 5 preferences are for the square's contents. You cannot submit the form without entering these 5 preferences. So should you not support the square, the only way of letting Acsef know of your opposition is to provide them with data indicating what you'd like to see in the square that you don't want.

Yesterday morning - on day one of an eight week consultation period - this wasn't the case. You could simply register that you didn't support the square without having to indicate 5 preferences. Now, you cannot.

Of course we'll have to wait and see what is presented by way of results, but the idea that data is being collected solely to demonstrate "support" for various prompted ideas for what should be in the square is a worrying one.

Aberdeen City Council prove yet again that all that matters to the Aberdonian politicians and business community is MONEY.
If you have the MONEY then they will bend over backwards (or forwards!) to get their hands on it.
You only have to look at the mad choices they have made in the past. The Bridge of Dee retail monstrosity which contributes greatly to the city's traffic problems. The Union Square retail monstrosity that has gridlocked the whole area around the rail and bus stations.
They are about to place the citizens into hock for the coming 3 or 4 generations to build a bypass that will do nothing to alleviate the city's traffic problems, but will be most desirable to the property developers. A huge tract of green belt will be gone forever.
They back the Trump "rich man's" golf development which will see the destruction of one of the most beautiful parts of the North East coast. Lost to future generations for ever.
You can have anything you want in Aberdeen if you have the MONEY. NO forward thinking, just greed. That's the only driver in Aberdeen.
I heard Ian Wood talking up his "plan" saying that it was needed to attract people into the area. I fail to see how such a concrete monstrosity will attract anyone into the area. It will, however, provide yet another wonderful shopping "experience" for Aberdonians. the centre of Aberdeen already resembles an airport duty free zone, only without the duty free part. The lack of consideration for the Peacock Printmakers project is just so typical of "the Aberdeen business community" and ACSEF's greediness for profit. It's all that matters to these people.
If Aberdonians don't wake up soon their city will be devastated forever. But look on the bright side, the retailers and property developers will do very well from these schemes, and will be able to live far away from the gridlocked mess they have made.
I'm sure Sir Ian's statue in the middle of the new Union Terrace Plaza (it's inevitable it will be there if this scheme goes ahead!) will make a fine place for the seagulls to park, and hopefully relieve themselves.

At one stage Wood was claiming that this park would turn Aberdeen into the "Houston of the East". What happened to that?

#3 Skylabq - I just registered opposition without answering the questions. Either they have changed it back or you were mistaken.

#6 Richard - They have changed it back, thanks for the heads up. Rather unusual to be changing the web form twice in 24 hrs! Fingers crossed for a transparent analysis of what folk think.

I reckon the majority of people are in favour of some kind of redevelopment of UTG. Because of its depth and aspect, most of UTG is in the shade most of the time, and out of sight of passers-by on Union Terrace. This has resulted in it becoming something of a no-go area for repectable citizens. (Princes Street Gardens it ain't, let's be honest). I think the Peacock arts scheme looked like an improvement, but it didn't take advantage of the possibility to build over the ugly Denburn road and railway. Once you do that, then it allows the possibility to link across to Belmont Street and create an attractive and well used public space.

So I quite like the proposal in theory. However, I think the artist's impressions shown so far are terribly diasppointing, looking horribly like the middle of Birmingham or some other concrete wasteland. For my part I would like to see a compromise scheme including Peacock as a visual centrepiece, raising the gardens partially so they see more sunlight and covering the road and railway with a descending terrace arrangment, ideal for cafes and the like. However, I understand Ian Wood will only sub up his money for a scheme that raises the whole space to the surrounding street level, which I don't is the best plan at all.

I have been to numerous European/World cities, where there is a proper city centre, Aberdeen does not have that.
We have a long, unappealing shopping street and a run down Castlegate, additional to a sunken, damp garden that is not used to it's full potential.

I really hope that the people of Aberdeen don't mess this one up, where we have an opportunity to make something special out of a forgotten/unused area...

It's good that the 大象传媒 has this forum, as it is difficult to get your opinion expressed locally against the scheme. Aberdeen Journals which control the Aberdeen local newspapers are in favour of the plans. Yesterday's Evening Express had an article on the scheme with a smiling picture of sir Ian Wood in the style of the Kitchener poster. The headline was 'Your city needs you'. Any dissent has been described as coming from a 'vocal minority'.

There is clearly a large amount of outrage and fury in the city against the idea of losing a city centre park. Yet the 'consultation' phase seems to be more about creating the impression that there is widespread support for the commercial development.

#9 Rod: Your right, Castlegate could do with a face lift. And it's already a square. Improving Castlegate wouldn't involve handing back the 拢9.5m Peacock has raised for the arts centre in UTG. It almost sounds like a win-win, doesn't it?

It's really a question of priorities. What Aberdeen really needs to do is concentrate in building up local industry especially in the new renewables energy sector and this is what Wood's pals at ACSEF should be concentrating on how to do.

The jobs created by the UTG plan will all be in the retail or catering sector and fairly low value adding. That apart Abd'n needs more shops like a hole in the head.

Where to begin? First off I am opposed to Sir Ian Wood's plans. Unlike one of the commenters who says that there is not a city centre in Aberdeen, I think the problem is that there is a city centre, but a very neglected one. Union Street and the Castlegate could be wonderful. Particularly the Castlegate which has, if you look past the horrible betting shops and drunks lolling about, quite stunning architecture. Investment here should be a priority for Aberdeen. The cafe culture that Sir Ian says he wants should be here. If this square were in Italy, it would be a hub of activity. (I know one person who about ten years ago owned a cafe here and was told to take her hanging baskets down by the council as they weren't approved by them.)

Union Street is a mess. One of the reasons for this is that the council are more interested in new shopping areas like Union Square (recently open and offering duplicates of shops we already mostly have in the Bon Accord Centre and elsewhere in the city). Formerly beautiful granite building lie empty with trees growing out of the cracks, and the insides rotting away.

Want a new thriving city centre? Why not tidy up and regenerate the one we already have and leave the outstanding sunken park with 200 year old trees that is Union Terrace structurally as it is. Sure the park could do with a little face lift, but as the article rightly says the plans were already in place for that with the Peacock proposal. Concrete over and put more shops in? Our descendants would never forgive us!

Build this folly and there goes the money that should rightly be spent on what we have already. It would be a death knell for the rest of Aberdeen's (potentially beautiful) city centre which would fall further into disrepair and neglect.

Oh and this public consultation of ACSEF is a PR campaign. It is a piece of propaganda aimed at tricking people into supporting them. Their questionnaire should be taken down. Only the council should be putting up consultations like this.

The park is a bit of a joke if we are honest - more people have lunch or a seat in the graveyard in one week than there is in a whole month down in the depths of the below sea-level Union Terrace Gardens.....

Surely a compromise can be reached - Ian Wood is a big fan of Scottish Art so surely an Art centre could be accomodated.

And Aberdeen really needs this to break up the seemingly never-ending Union Street - is it just me or is it covered with fast food outlets & rubbish shops so this could improve the centre of town no end, unlike the naff new shopping centre.....

Yes it may do away with the park but a.) there is Duthie Park 10 minutes away & its a far better park. b.) We hardly live in London you have the whole of Grampian only a bike ride away.

Oh Misssym - The main reason for Castlegate being such a dump is what happens between 9pm & 3am every Friday & Saturday night. You could spend 拢5m on that section alone & within 3 months the stains, smells, etc would have returned......

Another questionable aspect of this scheme is the involvement of Aberdeen Council as a joint venture partner in the ACSEF group who are behind the scheme. They will also be responsible for the planning consent decision. You would think then that it would only be fair for the consultation to be an open discussion of all aspects of the proposal. What we have instead is a clumsily slanted questionnaire, much like one of those politically biased opinion poll questionnaires specifically designed to elicit a favourable response.

Yet the scheme must be against the council's interests. The Herald recently reported that last year saw a shortfall of half a million pounds in the council's income from car parking fees. It seems that less people are parking downtown and there is more competition from privately owned car parks. The 490 bay car park, likely to be part of this scheme, will only make the situation worse. Will more libraries and schools shut as a result?

It's been interesting watching ACSEF try to tell people that they will be "bigger, better, more iconic and cheaper" than the world class Brizac Gonzales Peacock Visual Arts design, which will sympathetically use the steep walls of the existing gardens - retaining the main amphitheatre as a natural space for visitors to enjoy the re-energised gardens鈥� to destroy the gardens and 鈥渞aise鈥� (read RAZE) them on a 4-6 storey concrete platform that covers 6+ acres? 鈥� in the 21st centaury? Are we really serious here? 鈥� We all know that ACSEF delayed their 鈥減ublic consultation鈥� when they found out that Peacock got ANOTHER extension on their funding 鈥� which runs out in April 鈥� an absolute disgrace, purposeful procrastination? You tell me.

Jolomo's first point is right on the money - the St Nick's graveyard is far, far more popular than UTG for people to sit in...this is because it is easily accessible and clearly visible from the streets around it. Who wants to take a walk down into UTG and discover what delights are lurking in those arches under Union Terrace? Better take some methodone and a flamethrower.

So I am all for a major revamp, including building over the road and railway (who of the objectors wants to keep that exposed?). It's just that the artists impressions are, well, disappointing.

mince and mealie - I think PVA had asked if ACSEF would consider doing just that - covering over the road & rail - and leaving the amphitheatre and space for the existing PVA design - but, that was turned down by ACSEF - and then they said that PVA were "unwilling to compromise"...

jolomo - what new and exciting, different shops will be in the new space then? ask ACSEF and sir Ian to get the cool shops that you want in there - just make sure they are "inclusive" remember! as Peacock (a public art gallery - door open to all, working with underprivileged kids etc) were dubbed "exclusive" by ACSEF in a full page advert in the PnJ (paid for by taxpayers money - as sir Ian hasn't given anything yet...) and everyone is forgetting that the PVA building is intending on "re-energizing" the space without destroying it! if anything, it should be given a chance - as it's "only a snip" at 12 million quid - a drop in the ocean to the City Square budget (even the fantasy figure we all know is an underestimation due to it's own ambiguous non descript undefined parameters)

I didn't see that full page advert by ACSEF supporting the scheme in the Press and Journal.

Shame, then that they when I phoned Aberdeen Journals last week to ask for the terms involved in putting a public notice on the plans in their papers on Monday, I was told that the idea had been vetoed by the editorial team (I hadn't even written it yet).

One of the 'vocal minority' ...

Philip - I have no idea as to the exciting shops as long as they are not a repeat of what we already have 200 yds away!!! Also, I presume by inclusive you mean low-end. There are very few high-end shops in Aberdeen or did I miss the Harvey Nicholls opening.

Re the "public art gallery" - Aberdeen does have an excellent collection of Scottish Art available for all to see for free at the Aberdeen Art Gallery - just next to the proposed site. The collection contains some of the best examples of 20th century Scottish paintings in the World & does hold regular exhibitions.
However, as 75% of the population of Aberdeen have never crossed the threshold & would struggle to point the building out if they were stood at the door it seems a moot point.

One final thing what does "re-energizing" actually mean?? Sounds like corporate speak drivel. The question we really need to ask ourselves about the Peacock gallery is "Are they going to have a holistic cradle to grave approach?" Or will Ian Wood get "All his ducks in a row" before they "All touch base off-line"......

Aberdeen city's best features are it's beach, it's harbour and Union Terrace gardens - all of which have great potential, but in their current state are truly uninspiring places to be. UTG needs a scheme which incorporates the best of both the Peacock scheme and the Wood scheme. I don't think anyone in Aberdeen wants a huge, expensive
paved plaza - it is after all a garden and should remain so with plenty green space. Building over the Denburn Road and connecting to Belmont Street is a great idea but raising the entire level to meet Union Street is expensive and will just create a wind-tunnel. Keep the gardens sunken to retain its character, and for god sake lose the carpark - we should be discouraging cars from the city centre, no question. Also, these mature tree's everyone bangs on about are unfortunately part of the problem, creating a dark and shadowy area. Replant them elsewhere in a new scheme which also incorporates a new arts centre, cafe's etc.

If Mr Wood would really like to help he could spend the money funding an open design competition and appoint a select judging panel. I've seen some scheme's for UTG by RGU design students which are better than the Wood scheme.

Mind you, still can't answer the funding gap question...anyone?

Divert a city square/plaza idea to the space released from the demolition of the late 60's Town House.

Hold an architectural competition for a (retractable?) pedestrian bridge from mid level of the Gardens to Belmont Street.

Move King Albert's statue elsewhere and have a grand and revamped broad entrance from Union Street.

Keep (most of or all of)the super-mature elm trees (they are properly what is "vibrant" and/or "iconic"); encourage Peacock's stunning plans.

jolomo - "re-energize" - to bring energy back into the underused gardens? - apparently only destroying them can do that according to ACSEF. but, I can only assume that you think providing some element of "contemporary art space" in Aberdeen is a waste of time, based on your views in the Times last year.

(BTW it's now the 21st century! not sure if you've noticed that one),

Not sure if it's valid to ask, but, you did go off on one with a rant about "management speak" - so, here goes...

how many pictures does Sir Ian own of yours?