| Square | Area | Inhabitants |
| City Square, Aberdeen | 24,281 m² | 200,000 |
| Red Square, Moscow | 23,100 m² | 10.5 million |
| St. Peter’s Square, Rome | 22,783 m² | 2.7 million |
| Dam Square, Amsterdam | 20,000 m² | 738.000 |
| Place des Vosges, Paris | 19,600 m² | 2 million |
| Trafalgar Square, London | 12,100 m² | 7.5 million |
| George Square, Glasgow | 11,250 m² | 580,690 |
Flickr Photos
Union Terrace Gardens at present.
Compare The Square 
In these days of cut backs I would prefer that neither scheme is allowed to progress. The gardens are fine as they are. Why should the tax payer to asked to find funds for either scheme.
Thank you! This website makes it easy to see the differences between the projects and also provides an overview of basic facts ( civic square sizes in major cities and populations) If I was in any doubt before, I’m certainly not now. Its easy! Peacock’s plan is simple the best! Best value, best ideas, best for the environment and best looking too!
It is clear that in Peacock’s plan should triumph, for the citizens of Aberdeen. It will enhance cultural opportunities for it’s young people, who in the fading light of ‘spend spend’ culture should be encouraged, through this development, to enrich their lives in a far reaching way.
As an native Aberdonian, graduate from the Aberdeen School of Architecture and a Canadian Architect who has worked, internationally, on many large projects, I believe Aberdeen should enthusiastically endorse the City Square Concept. The construction of a street level park and gathering place, with significant opportunity for income producing development below grade, is a win win chance for the citizens to obtain a park which will have easy and direct access, and to permit significant below grade development of such elements as convention facilities, entertainment venues, commercial ventures and parking. Toronto has a major convention centre below grade (excavated at great cost) with the surface elements being a historic railway round house and a park. Maintain activity in your City Core or people and facilities will gravitate to the outskirts. Think big, think of the I M Pei pyramid at the Louvre and their below grade museum facilities.
To C Smith above: I never had time for this argument. Are your taxes going directly to this project? How on earth can you possibly know. Why don’t you decide where you wish your 20 pence in the pound to go and imagine it going there; you’ll be a lot happier that way.
Also, in my opinion the Peacock scheme is not about Unnecessarily changing the gardens; it’s about providing the residents of Aberdeen and the surrounding area with a world class contemporary arts centre that will bring both culture and revenue to the city. It will also strive to make a statement, which says that we want Aberdeen to be a forward thinking progressive city, with more to offer than oil and, well, oil. This should not be about destroying the gardens but about fortifying them.
Having said that I’m still on the fence – The civic square looks pretty nice too…..!
I’m interested in progress, and re-energising the gardens – the clue is in that very statement. I don’t believe that destroying (or RAZING – not raising) the gardens is “saving” the gardens…
I think the PVA building is a sympathetic building to its environment, quite obviously unobtrusive – yet world class (unlike the City Square pertains to be).
I am also interested to see that some business men think that “more” and “bigger” and “stronger” is “good / progressive” – yet “sympathetic”, “elegant” and “sophisticated” is not worthy of being seen as “visionary”. In this day and age of Green thinking – lets keep some of the only green space we’ve got left in the city centre (that doesn’t have dead people in it!) – and re-energise with the fantastic, inviting building PVA HAD been allowed to build.
Sir Ian, I applaud your potential contribution to Aberdeen, but please, think about using it more wisely – your good deeds can spread far and wide in the memory of people – far more rewarding than having thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel people hate? If it is a statue to ensure your memory you are after – please re-consider this square and commission a local sculptor with a hillock of money to fulfil your ambitions.
I agree wholeheartedly with C Smith above, our services to vulnerable people are being slashed in what appears to be an indiscriminate fashion – and our City fathers have the audacity to propose spending millions developing the Union Terrace Gardens – madness!
Seriously nobody uses union terrace gardens and it would generate millions for the city, also there would be more green areas after its done, but aberdeen wouldnt be aberdeen without something to moan about i suppose, also its being funded mostly by the private sector
Thanks for this site, brilliant idea, points out very clearly how out of proportion the CSP is. I think it would maybe be good on flyers because people very quickly get the point… let’s hope the most of them (the people o the deen) see through the scam… and vote NO.
I personally don’t think the point is HOW MUCH or HOW BIG either of these projects is ultimately relevant. For me, it’s about the future of the city, not its past.
Yes, understand the argument about saving the gardens but I am far more interested in supporting a city for our children and childrens children than that of our ancestors.
Aberdeen needs a future. Building something significant will help the city as nicely commented by Derry Robertson above.
Regardless of the millions put it, I believe as long as the project is relevant, it will pay for itself and more… Our city desperately needs a future and a heart. Not another campaign against development.
I look forward to hearing how this progresses and some of the questions highlighted in this site against the City Square development are answered before I truly back either project.
“Not another campaign against development”
both the options compared overleaf are pro-development
“also its being funded mostly by the private sector”
only if the current estimations of 140 mil hold true.. scottish parliament anyone??
I think there is a compromise, where we do not want a heartless expanse of concrete, but we do want better access to UTG and for it not be be a sunken garden, that in it’s current state is not used by the vast majority of people who live and visit Aberdeen. I like what I see from Brisac Gonzalez’s image, it’s about time we introduced more cutting edge architecture in Aberdeen, but why does it still show a view over a railway and dual carriageway, surely we should cover these over to allow a better view onto the back of some unusual buildings on Belmont Street. I believe that we need to raise the level, but perhaps not up to the street level. I hope that part of the plan will also incorporate the pedestrianization of Union Street & Union Terrace
Rod, your “hope” will not happen under the current ACSEF led consultation process. Sir Ian Wood’s extremely generous £50mil pledge is ONLY on the condition of the “total transformation” that the City Square project would bring to Aberdeen’s civic heart.
Prato della Valle, Padua, Italy – Area 90,000 m² Population 212,985
Plaza de Balcarce, Balcerce, Argentina – Area 90,000 m² Population 42,039
Plaine de Plainpalais, Geneva, Switzerland – Area 78,135 m² Population 185,726
The Square, Palmerston North, New Zealand – Area 70,000 m² Population 80,700
Town Market Square, Olecko, Poland – Area 60,280 m² Population 18,490
Marktplatz, Heide, Germany – Area 47,000 m² Population 20,660
Place du Pâtis, Montargis, France – Area 45,000 m² Population 15,030
Christine // January 12, 2010 at 8:24 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with C Smith, Christine and others who are against the needless waste of tax payers money on this vanity project. This council certainly has dual standards and hypochrisy. Irradicating services to vulnerable people to which the City fathers should be ashamed of and have the audacity to propose spending millions developing the Union Terrace Gardens.
Also
The historic Green, New Haven USA – Area 65,00m2 Population 125,000
The old city square or green in Kaunas Lithuania
The City Square, Cracow, Poland
and on and on
Wow! Thanks Roger and Derry! A fine pair of Googlers you really are. It’s ever so nice to know that your sole reason for visiting these locations was the beautiful, regimented underlay of asphalt erected with such geometric precision. We expect to hear your tales about the fun events and buzz humming from these extraordinary squares. Do post your pics too!
Square or not square. Except for the unreal scale of the thing, it’s not so much about the square, it’s what it ruins in the making, compared to what it has to offer…. more shops that will make business even harder for existing shops on union street? car park? children’s playground? ponds? Nothing of substance, just windy emptiness and more consumerism. the city square project is wasteful and destructive in its pure nature, such a bad idea that you wonder how anybody could come up with it.
People don’t want to lose that one bit of park in the city centre. And, with all this attention, it’s going to become real popular, just wait till spring. The best thing about the PVA arts centre is that, if you’re nae interested, you can still go for a walk in the park, now also feeling safe, should you be scared of the dark… this is regeneration with thoughtfulness and devotion to the future of Aberdeen and its people. Peacock makes sense! Wood and ACSEF you’re way out of your element.
I like this new list of famous and iconic city squares the ACSEF fans are posting. Google, a fantastic thing! yes ineed, this new list of iconic(?) famous(?) inspiring(?) well loved(?) squares is very helpful….err…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_city_squares_by_size
pick n choose your faves per capita!…
You have to love Aberdeen. The city is broken, the infrastructure rotting by mismanagement and yet still after all this, people clamour to try and make Aberdeen compete with other places that are larger and better run.
“People don’t want to lose that one bit of park in the city centre.”
People don’t actually care, the closest that park has ever seen to be used was when an ice rink was put up. There are large swathes of green all over Aberdeen for people who care. If they are still not satisfied, you can go outside the city for even more.
We need so many things in this city, most of it relating to infrastructure, roads, public health care and sports facilities.
The city is quite frankly dying, and projects like this are helping it along and all for the minority. An arts and dance centre or a millionaire chasing immortality, both hardly worth the effort.
This web site is a great idea to compare the projects, though obviously there’s not near enough info yet, e.g. economic benefits & content ‘unknown’ isn’t helping me to make my mind up.
I’m leaning more towards the square, as it could be a fantastic centre to the city, but without knowing the content and economic benefits, it’s hard to say it’s worth £140m!
The Peacock thing could be cool, but why not integrate it into the bigger project? I’m not an arty person anyway, so wouldn’t miss an extra printmaking or dance studio.
In my view, preserving the gardens in their current state is not that worthwhile, as they’re rarely that busy, though I do enjoy picnics there in the summer!
However, bringing it to street level will mean more sunshine all year round = more sunny picnic time! If it can be shown to represent value for money, it could turn UTG into something the city can be proud of.
I’d be interested in a public presentation where the backers of each project try to sell the idea on its merits to help me make my mind up.
David, there is a great deal of information on the city square project that’s NOT being made public, and it can be found in the Acsef commissioned feasability study here http://www.acsef.co.uk/infoPageMS.cfm?pageID=10&MSID=14
The fact that the gardens will be excavated/removed entirely is absent from the consultation process, instead there is the highly misleading suggestion that UTG will be “raised”.
The fact that a 490 space car park is costed into the £120-£140 estimate is entirely absent from the consultation process, instead respondents are invited to indicate how they value public transport and walking/cycling.
The fact that the Peacock Visual Arts centre has planning permission is ommitted from the consutlation is also below standard, involving as it does concealment of a material fact relating to the city square proposal.
The assertion that the city square project will not impact on Aberdeen City Council’s revenue budget – repeated yesterday on BBC radio by Sir Ian Wood – despite the fact that £40,000 has been allocated from the 2009/10 revenue budget (June 2009 full council meeting) towards the public consultation.
In short, as an exercise in transparent and honest dialogue with the citizens of Aberdeen City and Shire, the public consultation is an utter sham, and a disgraceful misues of public funds, all in the interest of chasing the potential for a £50m donation. This donation is, of course, a pledge – contingent on one scheme and one scheme alone, and equally dependent upon planning permission. The planning process usually costs between 5% and 10% of a project’s budget, so that suggests that another £7 to £14m will need to be spent to see if Sir Ian’s pledge is forthcoming – which doesn’t bode well for a partial planning process given the fence-sitting our politicians (Anne Begg excepted) are currently indulging in.
Irrespective of how you feel about the merits of the alternative schemes, the lack of integrity inherent in this public consultation and the attendant waste of public money involved, should be a cause of serious concern.
Do we need City Square? If we need more space and accessability in the Union Terrace Gardens area why not just cover over the road and the railway line and have terraces down to the gardens, maintaining the pleasant contours of the present area. What’s so great about flat?
Goodness me! Aberdeen wake up before the whole of the City is covered in “legacy” concrete. Did I actually see the words “Civic Heart” in one of these posts? Have you gone mad? Have you seen Birmingham City centre?Do you remember what happened to Dundee in the 60s? Please don’t waste precious resources on such a dreadful project as this City Square. If Ian Wood wants to leave the City a legacy, ask him to repair the uptown baths – that at least would be something this bankrupt City Council REALLY needs. As for having underground parking etc etc – whatever happened to the long-term objective of keeping cars out of the City centre. Or is that a wee policy change to allow this monstrosity to go ahead? Who’s getting the backhanders this time – or is that the question nobody’s asking…
SUPERB!!!
I have lived in this city all of my 40 years on this planet and have always enjoyed the gardens since childhood. I have always been opposed to any changes to the gardens but this site has changed my thoughts on the matter. I fully realise that something shall be done to the gardens due to the space it occupies and its placement. That said I fully now support Peacocks plans and would strongly urge my fellow city dwellers to do the same. It not only keep the identity of the gardens in tact but also allows for the magical urban peace I feel when ever I enter UTG. Please support the Peacock cause, you know it makes sense!
I’m afraid that due to the greed of certain Aberdseen businessmen and councillors, plus Ian Wood’s vanity, the city will end up with nothing. Peacock’s opportunity will have disappeared in a few weeks and, let’s get real – will they find £100million + + to build the square? it will never happen.
We already have a public square – it’s called Castlegate – and no-one uses it.
Of course, if Ian Wood wanted to, he could support Peacock to make an even better centre – plus have £40 million more for architecural whimsy.
Support Peacock, not the pork-barrel.
Acsef’s member Stuart Milne, Developer for the derelict Triple Kirk, has quoted that none uptake of the Civic Square would be criminal. Interesting.
What he is saying is that if the city square project does not happen it will be disastrous for the city. So basically he is saying that the City Centre is presently a disaster. Close.
I fully understand the city is light years away from being a city of envy, but to put Union Terrace gardens in the firing line seems absurd.
Huge swathes of development land have been unsympathetically developed with absolutely no quality aesthetics inputted into the final product and that is surely the fault of The Planning Department and Full Council decision along with unscrupulous plans and projects in the first place.
Are Stuart Milne and Sir Ian Wood the Siamese twins of uber wealthy over – development or is there another connection there.
Tom Smith Chairman of Acsef refutes anything that seems to be standing up against Acsef and its members. Also interesting. He states ‘residents were already given a voice’
‘A’ voice with only one option, so he is correct there.
Congratulations to Frank Doran for his timely intervention.
Steven Bothwell
Café 52
52 The Green
Aberdeen
07756951576
I have to say that I am undecided about the benefits of the Peacock proposal and indeed the Civic Square option.
However I do find that there seems to be too much debate by those that see themselves as righteous and pro the Peacock development. I agree that the development of a new arts facility would benefit the city and indeed the wider community; but does it need to be in the gardens? If it was not for planning permission already being granted, and funding obtained would we be having such a debate about trees and green space? I do not believe so. The comparison of Peacock design to other major buildings globally is not really valid, while inspiring for Aberdeen it could be so much more. People go to the Scottish Parliament building, Guggenheim, and even the Tate Modern to look at the architecture as well as what is inside, I do not believe that either option will do this.
As for the debate on cost, surly this is not important in comparison to obtaining the correct solution. If this was the case then the solution to union terrace gardens could be improved by enhancing the pathways, removing a few trees, and adding more or improving existing access points.
The civic square option, while it does address the issue of the local weather by offering enclosed public areas, I can not see how any consideration has been taken in regards to the wind, which is a problem which blights the Castlegate as a civic area at the moment.
In conclusion I think we should be thinking twice and building once, as we don’t want another ill thought out scheme in the city, just because we want something NOW!
With regards to the few tax payer concerns near the top of this page; your taxes are not going to be increased in order to pay for this project (plus, through art grants and EU grants alot of the money has already been sourced), they will however be contributing to a scheme that when finished will bring in an estimated annual turnover of £5million. It will take 24 months to pay off the costs of the development in full after which any profit from the scheme will go back into the council who can then disperse the money as they see fit into other worthwhile ventures. I can’t stress enough how nieve I feel it would be to pass up this oppurtunity. The Peacock’s proposal for Union Terrace Gardens is an absolute money maker. The fact that there is still a debate circulating around whether or not this should go ahead truly confuses me.
I have never seen such a groundswell of opposition to the idea of filling in the gardens. The idea is a dead duck judging by the public outcry against the civic square. There are too many Aberdonians – and prominent Aberdonians at that – for the idea to go anyfurther
Can anyone tell me where ACSEF came from?
I have to agree with anyone sensible:
NEITHER SCHEME – LEAVE THE GARDENS HOW THEY ARE.
Wood’s project has included a bigger (and better?) contemporary arts centre/home for PVA from the start. Currently UTG is under-used, falling into disrepute and becoming an eye-sore. Think ahead, think beyond today, aberdeen! Consider the benefits and the ambition required to progress as a City! There will be MORE grass, MORE arts space and better opportunities for the Aberdonians of generations to come if the CSP proposal is agreed. If not, we may regret passing up this opportunity.
And thanks to A. Lennox for her tuppence-worth – be sure to pop in past the Gardens when you’re next back in your ‘home’ city.
Ross, St Nicholas House would be the ideal place for a civic square – as identified in the council’s own master plan for city centre regeneration. Union Terrace Gardens would benefit from the PVA centre in many ways – accessibility, new facilities, increased safety and so on. A square is not a park, so the absurd sight of the CSP morphing into a “green space” out of guilt for excavating UTG betrays the lack of planning and imagination behind the scheme. Would a square at St Nicholas House be subject to such intense debate over the provision of green space? No. There’s a very good reason for that – it wouldn’t involve the destruction of the city’s only central park. It would however involve the removal of St Nicholas House – most folk would see this as a “good thing” as well as Provost Skene’s house being reintroduced to the cityscape after decades of being hidden away. This scenario is so attractive I can only admit to bafflement that Sir Ian Wood hasn’t jumped at the chance to facilitate it, rather than stubbornly pursuing a scheme so deeply unpopular that his £50m has been essentially immaterial to the entire debate.
“UTG” should really read “UTG, alongside a dual carriageway, a railway track, and waste ground”.
When viewing from Union Bridge UTG is only about a third of the sunken area. Surely a project that will cover over the dual carriageway and railway track needs to be taken onboard. Personally, I thik there is a compromise, where the gardens are raised up to the level of the arches, where the arches could be renovated, but the area would be sheltered from street level, but not left down at a level that sees little light or people. Aye, it might be nice to look at, but we need areas that are used by more people. For nice to look at, we’d have an art centre with art work inside.
With all the farore about UTG the subject is getting somewhat wearysome. Why not do what the French do whenever a decision is required—
have a reforendum, on a Sunday so as not to close the schools. Just a simple YES or NO
I’m not in favour of either project. Is it necessary to built another shopping square after Union Square? And is it necessary to add something redundant to the garden?