´óÏó´«Ã½

Aberdeen needs a facelift not a heart transplant!

It appears that commercial interests are trying to push this scheme through, despite the fact that the majority of people who took part in the public consultaion were against it. I certainly can't see any aesthetic argument for changing a scenic vista into a flat space.

The Peacock project, while less objectionable, should also be criticised for presenting themselves as the only alternative to the City Square.

Union Terrace gardens just needs looking after. Look at Parade Gardens in Bath, for example. They are so nice that people pay to get into them!Any attempt to fill and level that space would cause a national outcry.

As with all such developments we are offered any number of alternatives, except the status quo. Maintenance is required, not redevelopment.

It worries me that days before a crucial council vote, an individual donor supporting one option can remain anonymous. Does this person have a financial interest in the project? The donor's identity should be disclosed.

The square development proposal is bloody minded in spirit, and as time passes, increasingly undemocratic in practice. I smell profit, big profit. Can you?

An extension to a niche art centre isn't really going to attract many new visitors to Aberdeen to be honest.
Whereas, the city square project looks like they could help to transform the place..

Covering up the dual carriageway and the railway is going to double the size of the area for a start, as well as remove lots of noise pollution.

Seems like a fantastic opportunity.
Any other place would grab this chance with both hands.

Anonymous concrete versus a unique green space we have enjoyed in Aberdeen for generations - nae contest

There needs to be an enquiry about all these developments which go against the wishes of the people. I hope you keep your historic green space. We are currently awaiting the outcome of the Reporter's (an unelected Scottish Government bureaucrat) decision about the development of a green space including green belt at Kilmardinny in Milngavie and Bearsden. If it goes ahead the ordinary people here will lose their sports centre, possibly for a temporary time, possibly for ever if funds cant be found in the Council. This is to make way for 550 houses, most of which us ordinary users of the sports centre couldnt even dream of affording. That is of course unless the banks are willing to lend us money beyond our means - which they might do since our leading public owned bank own the developers and are backing the funding of the whole development..............;-)

Having grown up in Aberdeen and I have many great memories of Union Terrace Gardens as a calm breathing space in the heart of the hectic city, as well as a public areana for events.
I can only cross my fingers and hope that the (already approved) Peacock plans are set in motion.
Aberdeen needs more art and culture not car parks and concrete. I am planning to move back to my home city and am concerned that the views of the general public are being ignored.

I only hope sense rules over greed.

UTG are lovely to look at, but there is no reason to visit them. Even with a new Art Centre, this will not change.
The dual carriageway and railway are eyesores, surely no one would complain if they were covered, raised to the level of Union Street\Belmont Street with access to UTG. On this part could be built the shops and restaurants\cafes overlooking the gardens.
I think everyone agrees that the present setup is not sustainable, and Aberdeen city centre could do with modernising. Let’s try and find a solution that solves these problems and enthuses the majority of population, not splits it into two camps.

It seems plain to me that Ian Wood's plan will not come to fruition due to a lack of support from both the public and the City Council. The Peacock Arts Centre appears to have won the day on that one.

Why not look for something different? Having walked through the Trinity Centre yesterday I saw the plans for the new football stadium. Could he not put the funds to that so that we could have a publicly owned community stadium for the benefit of the City and Shire. Possibly link it with the re-siting of the AECC to the same location. A one stop shop on the south of the city for many events utilising either the stadium or the exhibition centre. e.g. obviously fortnightly domestic football (already a proven revenue stream), football internationals (why restrict to just Scotland - bring other countries like they do in England), bigger concerts either at the stadium or in the exhibition centre, athletics, rugby etc. Other benefits could include a reduction in traffic congestion in the city from visiting football fans and associate problems.

Just an alternative view that may provide a lasting economically beneficial legacy as seems to be Mr Wood's wont.

Aberdeen City Council in partnership with the Scottish Arts Council encourage artists to apply for the Aberdeen Visual Arts Award Scheme. The primary aim of the scheme is to support the development of Aberdeen based visuals artists by awarding grants towards the creation of new work. Secondly it is hoped that these awards can also assist in encouraging artists to remain in the city which is a fundamental objective in achieving our vision of Aberdeen becoming a 'vibrant, cosmopolitan and internationally acclaimed creative city'.The Peaciock scheme for Union Terrace also represents other creative , visual and dance organisations in Aberdeen with plans for integrated centre which will be open to more than just art users. The objectives outlined cannot be achieved if the very basis of artistic and cultural foundations cannot be fulfilled. The local press, whose negative attitude to the arts (no arts feature page) and local business groups who put money ahead of social and cultursal development require to think positively not selfishly and the counsellors who want to support artists can do much more than offer grants to a few but the opportunities to many which will invigorate life into a beayutiful breathing space

Let's have some comon sense please. It's obvious something needs to be done about the gardens as they are used less and become more intimidating to those who might use them on a regular basis. I've read more than once that the two schemes can't be amalgamted except at great cost, so why not set the egos aside, start from scratch and take the best of Sir Ian's proposal & the best of Peacocks and come up with a cost effective compromise. Decent, well lit access to the gardens and some public facilities once there are all that's needed.

AB65 (post 8), I was thinking much the same thing. The dual carriageway is the real problem. Ironically its worst impact is on the view from Union Street - a view which would disappear anyway if the City Square went ahead!
The new terrace you describe would really be something special. If it was somewhat lower than Union Bridge, it would add to the multi-levelled charm of city centre and complement Union Terrace itself. I'd leave the railway open as it is not the problem and there is no need to provide access to the gardens from the Belmont St. side.

It is a fact that many more people sit in St Nick's graveyard at lunchtime than ever brave the descent into UTG. It is also a fact that the road and railway are eyesores and crying out to be terraced over.

So there is a strong case for some form of development, if the money can be found. The Peacock scheme is a modest part of that, and should bring some law abiding citizens into the upper level of UTG. But it doesn't really do the whole job.

The Wood scheme is very disappointing, though. Raising the entire valley to street level and topping it with a neo-70s style concrete piazza of the type that screams "windswept", "damp patches", "litter" and "scary urban punch and vomit park at night"...

A compromise scheme as proposed by AB65 above is clearly the way to go, but it isn't going to happen, apparently.

An awful lot of folk have put forward arguments for compromise schemes involving the PVA project as planned along with covering the road and rail. However, Sir Ian Wood has stated repeatedly that his pledge is conditional upon his "parameters" being met. These necessitate the abandonment of the PVA project as approved, along with the funding attached to it. Sadly for Aberdeen, Sir Ian won't consider any alternative options for his pledge, despite his assurances that his only motive is the betterment of his home city; it's his way or nothing.

If councillors vote to progress the Wood-sponsored scheme under the impression that some compromise incorporating the PVA scheme and/or retention of some of the gardens will be the result, they will be making a mistake. Wood's scheme will mean the excavation and removal of Union Terrace Gardens in their entirety, and PVA have stated that they cannot be a part of the City Square Project. Sadly the choice is therefore a stark one - a speculative un-designed concept that will involve incurring a debt of at least £90m, or an approved scheme which has 75% of its funding, will cost 10% of the proposed budget of the city square project, has the support of the majority of Aberdonians and will demonstrate that the council is a partner that can be worked with and trusted.

Sir Ian and his cronies are attempting a commercial take-over of a public park.

They claim it is dangerous and inaccessible when the crime figures show it to be one of the safest places in the city and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has previously removed the "inaccessible" reference when challenged.

They claim the project is transformational - well thousands of tons of concrete poured into a public park certainly transforms them.

They claim it's not a concrete plaza when their own feasibility study details the amount of concrete required create their structure.

They claim it's not about new car parking and its not - the car parking shown on their powerpoint presentations (aired once again as recently as last week) is "replacement" car parking.

They claim they will compromise so long as their plan is retained.

They claimed that Sir Ian would walk away if the public did not want it and with an 11% majority, that many Westminster hopefuls would have killed for, the public said no. They began to brow-beat the Council instead of walking away.

They claim their vision is vital for the future of the City without any evidence to back this up. Why should anyone in Aberdeen believe them?

Richard (post 14), I was not aware that the Peacock plan has the support of the majority of Aberdonians. Opposition to City Square does not imply support for Peacock.
There should be a public consultation to see if UTG should be kept purely as a park. Improvements, yes, but no change in use or extra buildings. Then you'd see what a majority looks like.
I don't understand why the people aren't being given that choice. It will cause resentment later, whichever scheme wins.

It is clear from the vote that Sir woods proposal does not win over a majority of the public. I highly doubt that there is a significant amount of the public that do not wish to see the dual carriage way and train track covered over. Currently it is an eye sore and a source of noise pollution. However, i have lived in aberdeen for 20years and am now studying architecture and i did use the gardens now and again, but i believe the space could be utilized much more compared to what it is now. The design solution may not be to completely flatten the gardens and bring them up to street level but to maybe cover the dual carriage way and train track with the proposed arts facilities etc. I also believe that Sir Woods proposal does not link as well with belmont street and the backs of the properties on belmont street as well as it could. I would like to see these properties be properly integrated into the design which could open up more areas to sit out the back of the existing restaurants/pubs that currently exist. If the dual carriage way and train track was covered over then surely the existing gardens would not have to be changed to the extent of completely removing them. I think this would give the public the best of both worlds, the new arts center fully connected and accessible to belmont street, union street and the gardens linking the old with the new and maximizing accessibility, green space, and the arts centre.

I'm with Annie Lennox - reject this plan!.I now work in Edinburgh, where the Princess Street Gardens are very well used and valued, and I see no reason why UTG could not be the same.

I agree with 8 and 12.
East side is the problem - hide the "rotten tooth" look of buildings and dual carriageway with a "glassy refective dome" that matches the look of the Peacock Centre.
A one-off 21st century solution
Both interested parties satisfied.
Need a lot of money to do that!
Anyone got £55M please.

Why can't the Council help us to use Union Terrace Gardens more? The gates are locked early not exactly encouraging. More events to entice people in would also help. If Princes Street Gardens can do it why can't we in Aberdeen?
Why should a few undesirable characters mean the gardens are a no-go area? Is the councils answer to put down lots of concrete and move them elsewhere? Look at the top of the St. Nicholas Centre a fine example of how concrete helps to bring life to the city centre. They may need to improve lighting and access but I can't see why anyone would want to destroy the area because once they concrete it over it will be gone for ever.
Maybe Mr Wood should donate his money to NHS Grampian as I'm sure they could spend the money on a lasting legacy that would be a benefit to all.

This is a classic case of big business bullying their way into a city centre for their own profit and kudos.

A city centre is NOT just some concrete edifice for the council and business interests to hang their egos on for all to see. It is a thriving shopping and leisure district; the very heart of the city.

Whilst things do need improvement, this revolting destruction of Union Terrace Gardens is nothing short of vandalism.

For comparison, witness Manchester's Piccadilly Gardens... once a flower-filled sunken garden... an oasis in the heart of the city... now just a concrete and grass nothing, with a fancy fountain... and a private, commercial building built on public land. Sound familiar?

One of the main arguments in favour of this new development is that it will have a positive impact on economic development. It won't of course because there isn't the investment going into the new or early stage companies that we need.

So the City Square gets the green light. I think Peacock must take some of the blame for contributing to the "apathy and misinformation" mentioned by Sir Ian. A straight choice between Peacock and City Square was NO choice for everyone who just wanted to keep UTG as a park. Yet when we objected to City Square, Peacock claimed that as support!

I am slightly encouraged by Sir Ian's comments. He now seems to recognise that gardens are what we want, not the urban desert shown in the artist's impression.