Artist's impression of the City Square, replacing Union Terrace Gardens
Another artist's impression
The City Square Project proposes radical transformation of the area of Union Terrace Gardens and the Denburn Valley. The civic square would fill in the gardens to create five acres of space at street level and a further two and half acres underground real estate.
Compare The Square 
Well, well – so Aberdeen City Council just says “How High?” when another multi-millionaire says “Jump!” The new concrete Sir Ian Wood square/car park will end up as a venue for junkies, drunks, chavs and vagrant population to throw up on, beg at, urinate on etc etc. Why do we need this when they already have the Castlegate? The Peacock Gallery solution was great! . We got to keep the only green space in the city centre and we got a world class Modern Arts venue as well. Typical of the worst local government leadership in the UK – I would sack the lot of you and tell the Woods and Trumps to donate their money to a worthy cause or sling their hooks!
Peacock Visual arts proposal = 8/10
City Square Project = 5/10
Castlegate = 2/10
Union St in 1970 = 8/10
Union St in 2010 = 3/10
Planning and Infastructure = 4/10
Aberdeen City Council, must try harder, prone to lapses in concentration culminating in bouts of prolonged planning and architectural vandalism………..gie yersel a shak !!
I am reminded of the Waverley Centre in Edinburgh. A blemish on a world renowned area, and wonder how possibly could it have happened? It could happen here, and result in a dated and concrete block which the Waverley is.
As plans had been passed for Peacock’s idea – why did Mr Wood then lead another scheme? If he has funds to spare – he might have backed the at risk, nearly folded Glencraft.
I wonder how these glass ceiling igloos would look once seagulls and pigeons have left their ‘mark’?
As if Union Square had not caused enought traffic chaos, The Wood venture plans for another car park, great for our carbon footprint and I don’t care what is on show it’s still a concrete monstrosity and there is no public money to fund it.
It’s a shame Aberdeen City Council cant see past $$$! Castle Gate could do with a bit of money put into it – it’s already a city square and already at street level.
Leave the only nice green place in the centre of town well alone and give Aberdeen a bit of Art and Culture!
Not seen 1 mention in any paper or news report over this project about the civic square that was being considered to replace St Nicholas House, sure the Woodmeister could use the £90 to easily fund it while leaving his obvious legacy at the same time, win-win
In the artisits’ impressions of the City Square Project, are those green blobs trees? If so, where do the roots go? Into the carpark? What exactly are we being consulted on? Where are the facts we need to consider?
I agree with much of what is said above. I am sadly not surprised to find that Aberdeen city are being led by the no-doubt sincere Wood to deliver a quick-fix for city centre malaise.
I love the Peacock solution and would certainly be a regular visitor to the arts centre & gardens in their new form. However if the square is developed as the new proposal envisages, then the distinctive will be lost, for no better reason than extending retail space.
This kind of vandalism is is a recurring theme in Aberdeen. Can anyone remember the dynamic of George Street and even the lost arcade behind Norco? Sad sad sad.
Does Aberdeen lack retail space? I would hope that even at this stage, Sir Iain might look at Union Street and support the recovery of what surely remains one of Aberdeen’s iconic spaces.
Unfortunately I beleive leaving it alone is not an option? As mentioned above yet more pandering to those who have more money than they know what to do with matched with the worst run council in the country. Why doesn’t Mr wood pay off the Cities debts for them and help local services rather than ruin what little there is left of a once fine city.
Isn’t Aberdeen grey enough already? At least the Art Centre design leaves some green. The City Square Project is UGLY!
I think the proposal to fill in the Gardens is an APPALLING one.
The Peacock proposal is sympathetic to the existing space.
I have always loved the Gardens as a kind of oasis in the center of town. Quite a distinctive set-up and not to be irretrievably lost for some square. Which will be wind-swept and dirty, no doubt.
Words fail me at how truly awful this proposal from Ian Wood is. He should hang his head in shame at this idea.
Aberdonians must speak out and say NO to Mr Wood
As an adjunct to my previous comments – The presentation drawings for the Arts Centre are professional and excellent – The Documentation for the Civic Square are truly awful and poorly executed.
Does not change the excellence of the concept for the Civic Square – they should have hired decent architects with professional presentation skills.
i gotta say the images of the peacock center built into the side of the hill really do make it look attractive.
I Also love wood’s idea of covering up the motorway and train line, as they are the eysore in the area.
COMBINE THE TWO PLANS AND MAKE THE PARK MORE SYMETRICAL!!
Extend the park so it also covers the track and road (grass hills like already in the park).
Thin the trees to allow more light into the park and put the peacock center in as planned. If need be raise the area near to union st. and possibly have a small shopping complex built over the carraigeway, built into new grass slopes that look the same as the peacock center. You could have a paved walkway over the top of them on the same level as the bridges, and that way when your down in the park you could still look up at the spired church. (infact are there not already plans to put a carpark under the church? Make the church part of the retail space!
This would also allow for the pubs at the end of belmont st to have external areas on the paved parts.
Also This way the brickwork of both bridges could still be left exposed at the top in the middle.
It’s amazing how different the aspirations of our neighbours are. take a look at;
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2010/01/12/newsstory14374111t0.asp
They have such a strong vision that Aberdeen’s floundering seems almost amateur by comparison.
I shak’s ma heedie!
derek, i like your visions!
A Thompson you’re so right, i shake my head in disbelief too…
The City Square project is so wasteful and destructive in its nature and so utterly out of proportion, a double double bad idea, which doesn’t deserve to be realised. I can’t imagine any other city where a scheme like that would have come even as far as a public consultation, any other council would have stopped it. It’s rubbish.
Besides supporting Peacock’s arts centre to the MAX I think that, through this process, people are coming up with great ideas for improvements to the gardens and alternatives to the regeneration for the city center area. It’s great. We must keep telling people, passing on information and hope they can see through the madness of this City Square proposal and vote NO in the public consultation. No to rubbish.
Sir Ian Wood’s incredibly generous financial pledge will only go towards a “total transformation of the city centre” (© Jennifer Craw) … ultimately meaning no compromise / collaboration with the existing PVA design.
Now were getting somewhere……………….. Cover over the road and railway and then on top of that put some retail or leisure features opposite the PVA and leave the Gardens almost intact, yes, radical, leave the trees ! Could be a unique feature from above and below akin to Princess St Gardens.Can i just also mention Union Street, can we just not bite the bullet – pedestrianise and refurbish what was once Aberdeen’s Jewel in the Crown, so sad to see the mess its in these days.
I’m glad to see others are sharing my view. Check out the ACSEF and the city square project website, they give some good information and better pictures as to their vision and reasons for it.
Also the above link at what dundee has planned, the main difference being massive green areas, and the williness to open the design up for internationally renowned architects to compete in.
I do believe that the civic square is already supposed to be the stepping stone for the padestrianisation of Union st – i’m not sure if it go’s as far as doing the same to union terrace tho.
They also agree on opening up the back of Belmont street for outside cafe area’s.
My vison is to have union terrace and union street both padestrionised, which would along with the new raised area above dendurn road create a U-shaped people zone, with the current gardens extended with almost symetrical grass slopes over the track, with Peacok embedded on one side and shopping/access to train bus station etc(wood’s plan) embedded over the Dendurn side’s slopes. In effect the civic square with the gardens in the middle!
I’ve already voted no in the survey for this project as it stands, tho i would be willing to vote in favour of it if a few changes were made.
– Sir woods has to agree to the funding of what the people decide on.
– They accept the possibiliy of incorporating the Peacock scheme along with the majority of the gardens in their current basic layout.
– the basic planning stage is put out to competition for both international and young scottish architects to submit designs.
– The people of Aberdeen get an open debate and a vote as to which aspects of these basic degins go forward.
By agreeing to this i think we can get a better deal that would indeed be worth us voting YES on, but not if we dont get to decide.
I just hope Wood’s team can agree with us on a vision that that we can truelly be proud of!
Aberdeen needs the gardens, it is the only green space in the city centre, yes it does need revitalised but so does the Castlegate, the Green and the disgusting Indoor Market. Also we are losing our music,art and community venues, at this rate aberdeen will have all the culture of a cold chip! New Art Centre is by far the best idea and with the rest of the money fix the other eyesores. If they go ahead with the Union Square concrete mausoleum it will be the final nail in the coffin of Abdn
Check website of Aberdeen Civic Society!
What’s the link?
Oh dear, the jackals are loose. Suddenly I have a strong feeling that someone, somewhere is likely to make a lot of money from the proposed development.
What else would motivate the publication of such an article as this?;
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1560790/?UserKey=
Ok, Mr Wood, fancy building over The Duthie Park and Hazelhead park too. How’s about the Johnstone Gardens Gem. I’m Sure ACSEF’s board of members, paying particular attention to Stewart Milne, would be joyful at that opportunity. I’m surprised you haven’t added a nuclear facility to your portfolio and ingenious collaborations.
But my real question is why?
Honest answers only.
Given that Ian Wood has been very succesful since his trawler days, why does he feel the need to involve himself in City Centre Planning?
A very attainable idea would be to buy all Union Street Properties, get rid of half the sh*t that presently occupies our thoroughfares and insist that only quality establishments take their place.
Then spend, perhaps an hour or two apologising to Peacocks for un doing their very hard, dedicated work.
Please respond in a dignified and reasoned manner. I will not be tempted to rise to the bait of those who would poison the exchange with provocative statements in the press or needless abuse here. There are those who would be pleased to point to any wild accusations as evidence of a looney fringe.
In my view the comments so far have been valuable with ideas that should be heard.
The only person provocating here is Ian Wood and his hangers on (looneys). Given that most of Aberdeen has been given up for bland unesessary developments, my statements couldn’t be closer to the truth and none of which are accusatory.
Im just glad that so many people feel the same as I do and it seems from reading the suggestions above that the real forward thinkers are us and not the business men & pr companies who are running the consultation.
I think we as a city are in a very unique position with the arts centre development and also having an asset like UTG, how the council could let it fall into the state it is is beyond me, all it needs is an out door cafe and some tables, improved lighting, maybe a night security guard and most importantly, access for all our citizens both abled and disabled. The double sided steps that lead down to the gardens, could one side not be converted into a disabled ramp for example, surely that wont cost £130 million?
I think the false sentiment in Sir Ian Woods pledge of money is clear for all to see also, building a substructure with parking facilities to benifit Stewart Milnes new development at spires, how handy. I find it sad that these grand gestures must come commercial benifits, if they were honest about such matters from the start then at least we would have honesty & transparency with in both schemes.
As for Aberdonians who feel left out by the arts centre and dont see any benifit, perhaps if you could see some of the community based projects that Peacoks have run for children from all areas of the city, helping them discover music, photography, print making, film making, all manner of creative endevours then you would see the true benifit of and world leading arts centre.
Car parks, shopping, bars and cafes might all help to sustain the economy of a city (we have the new shopping centre for this I think) but a world class contemporary arts centre will help build something much more important, Community! Non exclusive, open to everyone from all walks of life, all ages, all intrests. To lose this would be such a shame for future generations but also for our generation.
I hope in the future I can say to people that I’m from Aberdeen, home of PVA in the gardens, the granite city, the oil capital of europe where people make the right decisions and I’m so proud to call it my home.
Steve B – I was not directing my comment at you, apologies if it seemed that way. I was making a general point.
I’d like to hear responses from the City Council staff. What do the planning officers (privately) think? Come on, tell all.
Oops!
Sorry – a bit hot headed at times.
Look at the mintes of meeting and the set up of ACSEF. It is very interesting reading. Maggie Bochel – Head of Planning. Gordon Mcintosh – Corportate Director and Sue Bruce – Chief Exec.
Oh and the consultation is also taking place place in Inverurie and Peterhead. Jesus!
I have a mild association with some of the above names, so i will contact them to get a head’s up.
I’ll get back to you.
This design named “city square project” looks to me like a concrete lid on some prime “real estate”
Who is it for!?
Its totally horrid.
It is important to get better access into UTG and the Peacock Centre includes this. The point I would like to make is that we don’t have to go IN to UTG to appreciate them! I regularly enjoy the view across to the floral bank and the theatre etc from Union Bridge and the view from the other sides. This is the heart of our city and by removing it we are taking away our “uniqueness”. The unremarkable visions for ACSEF square could be anywhere in the world. Build over the dual carriageway and rail line at a halfway level (making room for concert space for example) thereby opening up access to the gardens from the Belmont Street closes and bars/cafes. Then we’ll see people use them. Surely this would be preferable to some concrete wind tunnel skatepark!
I am not a native Aberdonian but I notice that there seems to have been little of value built in Aberdeen since the second world war. Recent public buildings are UGLY.
Aberdeen’s Victorian and Edwardian builders and planners bequeathed a wonderful legacy. and that includes the disputed gardens. I hear the comment “but nobody uses them!” Does that include just looking at them?
A huge area of green in the heart of the city, uncommon and it really brightens up our city. I cannot undersatand the vandalistic views of those who would wish to destroy it.
I can remember when the links at the beach were green, with only a few cafes and Codona’s. but we can’t just have grass! And when you contemplate what has been built down there you get some idea of what would happen to the gardens.
If Ian Wood wants to be remembered as an Aberdeen benefactor rather than as a vandal he should endow something at the University or hospital. Although if he gets his vandalistic way perhaps he will be very well remembered.
How can you support the ugly vision that Sir Wood offers. Bleak, cold and totally useless. That is until you think what value it is to him. The Peacock version is great, it has everything, plus the benefit of a bit of greenery in the middle of a bleak and dirty Union Street. To put more concret there will only add to the disgusting mess of Union street. Just another patch for the weekend vandals and drunks to descrate. At least with the Peacock there is still a breath of fresh air in the city. Pity that we are being ruled by a council that can only see Pound signs. Also very underhanded to upstage the already planned proposal. Says a lot about Sir Wood!!!!
Tart up current setting with new gallery and use the rest of the money for the by-pass you need!!!
When ACSEF Plans first muted it was all about “gardens and square” but when we go to Public Consultation, they start to tempt the public with additional entertainment, additional retail, additional refreshments etc. This leads to another Concrete Development, that does not weather chewing gum, spray paint, vandelism, skate board slides and loitering people as well as soft features do.
The occasional new development within the huge classical Granite uniquness of Aberdeen can work, eg Maritime Museaum but by the time you add all the new ones together – the mass of random newness destroys Aberdeen architecture and its skyline. For example Union Square that looks retail bland on one side, long factory wall on the other, eg proposed Douglas Hotel to disrupt the ascending skyline views from Market St area, eg something that will replace Nicholas House and not allow people to stand back and admire Marshall College and finally the Shiprow development (to be later clashed with Douglas Hotel) which is semi OK on its own but which planners think that white walls on Virgina Street duel carridgeway are a good colour, as now all grey dirt and make every motorist feel depressed
Alan Cassie puts forward a brilliant proposal.
Aberdeen does not enjoy a warm continental climate, so what would be the point of having lots of outdoor bars/restaurants?
The city will need a new civic square once the horrible St Nicolas House tower block is demolished and the council offices move across into Marishal College. This is where Sir Ian Wood should be looking to create his legacy.
This is what I wrote in the survey, following some of your great ideas and comments, thank you!
I am concerned that putting a yes in the ‘Do you support the City Square Project’ means that what I visualise will not be taken into consideration.
I am keen to see the area regenerated, but would value the green space being enhanced not eradicated, some of our oldest trees there.
Your plans to cover the railway and road could be done like the Faeroe Islands – their buildings are often covered with grass roofs!
Please support and work with those who are promoting the arts to create a wonderful centre to our city. Why can’t you move your idea? Where St Nicholas House is being demolished would be a fabulous site for a square, enhancing Provost Skene and Marischal College!
We live in a world of chaos, whether it be natural disasters, war or man’s inhumanity to man. But in the midst of all this there are many good and wonderful things and creating communities where people can enjoy their surroundings is crucial to the well being of our physical and spiritual selves. There are so many hideous concrete jungles in our cities around the UK, and Aberdeen Council seems happy to promote the construction of yet another of these eyesores.
The artist’s impression of the proposed new initiative lacks imagination and beauty, as opposed to the plans for the Arts Centre which are inspired. I say a great big NO to this proposal because I truly believe that building a vaste expanse of concrete, albeit with shops and car park, can do nothing to enhance the quality of the lives of those who live and work in Aberdeen. Would visitors to the city be drawn to yet another huge sterile looking acreage of leisure and retail space?
We have a beautiful city and Sir Ian Wood’s generous offer of £50m could surely be put to better use. The Castlegate for example, could be transformed into a delightful public area.
Well put i must say! What you really meant was, another heap of sh*t that will surely screw things up for good this time.
An illiterate proposal for someone who has too much cash and not nearly enough imagination.
Leave us be, Wood. There’s a place called Haiti that needs rebuilding. Your crass and pompus offering may well be needed else where. Build a hospital called Ian Wood Infirnmary.
Peacock’s vision, planning and financial planning is great and I support their scheme – the idea of enbcouraginbg a look at both and compromise could only work with the covering of the road/railway as a given and the Wood’s money as unconditional – I cannot see what extra retail Aberdeen needs unless it is small , local individual shops and I cannot see how that fits into the bigs scheme and we have enough licensed premises already – not enough late night cafes and jazz bars thought – bvut they would not fit into the grand scheme – the big Woods scheme needs analysis by someone who knows about wind and weather – can you just imagine the screeching blast, and I know Aberdeen has a high sunshine record – good for the trees, the big ones, even if some have to go as in Peacock’s well funded scheme – Aberdeen be reasonable and visionary, keep what you have approved and ensure extra investment creates something we can be proud of and not more pavement for chewinggum to deface amidst the windy expanse.
Don’t forget the opinions of all us folk who live in the country. We come into town, we use the city, we appreciate its beauties, we dislike the architectural mistakes of the past. Can we be consulted too?
St. Nicholas’ church yard and Union Terrace Gardens are my solace when I come to town. No, I’m not a rural hill billy, simply someone who appreciates green space – the sort of environment that feels as though it allows you to breath when you enter it; a weight is lifted from your shoulders and a feeling of relief and freedom opens up as you let the children run across grass and play hide & seek behind tree trunks ….. that sort of feeling is never evoked when ambling through man-made environments like concrete civic squares, no matter how architecturally stunning!
Since this developemnt is in the heart of Aberdeen don’t forget to spread the consultation wide enough to include ALL those who use and enjoy the place. This project is an important decision to those who live in the shire too.
My vote is not to bury the place in concrete but to keep Aberdeen’s heart ticking and it’s lungs breathing, and to increase it’s life expectancy. Don’t smother it, embalm it and leave it for dead.
The Arts Centre project has my backing.
Such eloquent prose. I like it.
Yes indeed, you have summed up this mess is such simplistic terms. What you said was perfect!
Steve
cafe 52
Common Sense! Would you picnic on concrete, would you lie down and soak up the sun on concrete, would you sit down and take 5 on concrete? – NO! Leave some natural environment within the heart of the Granite City with the added bonus of all the PVA facilities. Common Sense!
Is there money in it? Yes, and that’s what counts in Aberdeen. This is a piece of undeveloped land which can be turned to profit. Just fill it up, concrete it over, cram it with commercial premises and watch the cash roll in. Leave a couple of trees to keep the greenies happy and for the drunks to piss against.
The only good thing about the Wood proposal would be the prospect of a bypass that would make it easier to avoid Aberdeen and reach other Scottish cities which still value their historical and cultural heritage.
Brilliant. Cultual Heritage is worthless is it not?
It took them a life time to decide on an essential transport route, i hope to God that there will not be the same nonesense this time, as time is of the essence.
I will continualy be aghast at the utter shortsightedness of ACSEF and the Council and their lack of quality forethought. Have they never been outwith the represive boundaries that Aberdeen has become through pathetic, ignorant decision or non decision making.
Anyway great comment. This site along with the vast majority of the Press and journal customer comments is indeed promising. Intelectual (without being snobby) feeback is what this thing needs. Not ACSEF herding in the masses, like mass brain washing excercise. If ordinary people are told the truth then they will respond with there true feelings. However if they are promised heaven they will ultimately be living in hell.
There is no reason why these concepts cant be brought together. Both are innovative and tackle major issues that the outdated gardens face. I recently, with a team of people, put together a report on the UTG district and historically they defined the edge of the town and acted as a shared gardens for children living in the then “suburbs”.
Moving into the 21st century these are no useless. Access is poor and where the Denburn river once flowed next to the gardens there is now a flow of heavy, fast moving traffic. The gardens in their current state, and I believe no one could argue against this, are useless, ugly, poorly attended, cold and intimidating.
I believe there is no need to cover the gardens as the step down in level provides intimacy and an escape from the street life.
The first thing that needs to be addressed is the road and railway line. Covering this with grassy hills (look at tadao ando landscaping- stunning) or beautifully contoured lines decking would create areas for the Belmont bars to spill onto the gardens. Maybe these could also provide natural seating for operas and concerts which Aberdeen council claims currently take place in the gardens. This, along with finally pedestrianizing Union street would add to the green feel of the city moving it away from the heavy emphasis vehicular access.
I like the idea of the Wood proposal to echo the former great Denburn river with a beautiful water feature, but this is inpractical.UTG connects to the buzzing student district and this would soon be abused. Maybe try to readapt this idea?
The markets provide great econmical boost to the city and make the town feel exciting and busy, plus introduces some much needed culture to the city. The old vaults, which currently inhabit the drug addicts of the city, could be transformed into beautifully lit, homes to the market stalls.
Also the stunning Victorian toilets need to be rejuvenated, and the public charged to use the toilets. Many cities in Britain are famous for their well kept toilets and we could be one of them. Plus there is no where in Aberdeen where someone can find a toilet without being subjected to the massive souless shopping centers.
The old turntable located at the lower end of the gardens (not accesable). Would also make a nice cafe seating area, being embraced as a piece of historical furniture.
The Peacock designs are beautiful and would bring some much needed culture to the area. Hopefully, this architectural injection would also help future developments in the city to be more bold and contemporary, contrasting with the fake “modern antiquity” crap we are used to seeing.
There is no need to spend all of this money on raising the gardens when money could be spent tidying up the rest of the centre. But something certainly needs to be done. Aberdeens problem is its inabilty to move forward or even see the beauty in subtlty. This is a true chance to create something in the city worth visting (that is not Union Bloody Square). Please, please, PLEASE dont f*** this up.
We keep being told how the gardens are underused, but this is ABERDEEN. Of course they’re underused- they’re outside!!
When the sun does shine, UTG is the best place to go and slump into a pile of shopping/textbooks/sneaky game of frisbee. In summer there is barely a patch of grass left it is so filled with happy friends and family. I have lost many an hour down in UTG and none of these things could possibly go ahead on that cold concrete expanse of the square, I feel sick when I look at it.
I think the prospect of developing Aberdeen’s city center is really exciting however this blatant steamrollering by ACSEF is becoming rather tiresome now. How a ‘public consultation’ using public funds does not take into account a project which already has planning permission, community support and existing funding sincerely baffles me.
Whether or not the arts center the gets built, the way that this is being handled is not only insulting to the process of public consultation but to us and the ‘choice’ that we’re being offered… it’s like going to a restaurant with 8 things on the menu that are all the same!! I’m not angry about this, just disappointed that what could be a development which is genuinely representative of the collective thoughts and ideas of the people of Aberdeen is looking more and more like it’s going to turn out just to be a missed opportunity…
A couple of simple Questions and Answers….
Q1 – Does Aberdeen need even more shops?
A1 – No! It cannot fill what it already has. Just look at the amount of empty premises at the top of Union Street and Bridge Street.
Q2 – Do we honestly think that in the long term the growth in retail (therapy) is going to continue to rise?
A2 – I hope that we have learned our lessons about spending money we don’t really have and that society will as a whole seek far more stimulating ways to pass their leisure time.
Yes! we have to consider that the construction of such a development will create jobs etc., but we also have to look beyond that short period of time. If a developer is looking for projects and ways to generate revenue and create wealth, not just for themselves, but for the community as a whole, then there areas within Aberdeen City that would benefit from REGENERATION and which could be done for a fraction of the cost, I’m sure.
Once we have exhausted that space and it is permanently in use, then we can look to dramatically altering the what remaining green space we have.
The Peacock VA proposal is very positivr and addresses the question of ‘under use’ within Union Terrace. At the moment the gardens are not a short cut to anywhere, unlike other green spaces in other cities. So to build something within the gardens that makes people want to go through them and visit, would address that simple problem. We could also look to perhaps providing a footpath that leads (albeit past the HMT) to the Denburn Car Park, as well as a footbridge across both the railway and road that could lead to the back of Belmont Street. Then you could walk from a pedestrianised area to a green space without having to touch the busy Union Street. Just some random thoughts!
With reference to The Press and Journals ‘Questions and answers’ with Sir Ian Wood, I would like to point out a few serious blunders on his part.
He says that Edinburgh’s Princess St Gardens are totally different. Frankly they’re not and if Aberdeen City Council were to host more entertainment programmes like their counterparts this comment would be invalidated. I was in Princess St Gardens on Monday 1st feb, and I counted 10 people, who looked blissfully happy in their surroundings.
Sir Ian Wood describes the Gardens as a big hole that is 45 ft deep. Princess St Gardens are over 65 ft deep. Union Terrace Gardens boast 200 year old trees and beautifully landscaped areas. It’s anything but a hole. Princess St Gardens have a very steep slope and stairs for access, have Edinburgh City schools banned their children from access; and can any school ‘ban’ children from personal activities out of school hours? I think not.
With regard the lack of sun light, has his ‘designers’ and architects provided a detailed survey for natural light?
Sir Ian Wood has quoted that the stone cats will be saved. In what context does he mean ‘saved’ Does he mean put into storage? Are they really made of stone?
He goes on to say that he wants to provide heritage that will still be relevant in 100 years.
We have it already. Although it’s probably the last piece of heritage left.
Levelling Union Terrace Gardens will not as he put it ‘highlight’ architecture, it will merely regress architecture.. what’s the big deal with stimulating Triple Kirks? And how does he see Union Street returning to its former glory, with a square? How does that work? The entire length of Union St is a mess, what will happen to the rest?
And why oh why does every shopping mall need to connected by a concrete umbilical cord?
With regard Peacocks successful planning application the ‘them and us’ was created by Ian woods team by not telling the public the real truth and not including them in the consultation.
If the tax investment finance scheme and future rates growth are to be relied upon, surely essential services would benefit more from these types of schemes. No??..
Sir Ian Wood states that he would provide facilities especially for late teens and early twenty somethings in the concrete subterrania. I’d like to know what his suggestions are there.
Future lack of oil will not be balanced or semi subsidised by a 5 year building project. And it’s up to Local Council to embrace alternative power.
North east Business leaders have done nothing of any visible significance for the general public, especially given the ‘cuts’ that abound us and the jobless who remain wanting, so why would a ‘square’ sort this problem out?
Sir Ian Wood set up a trust to provide £50 million to impoverished children and good on him for doing so, surely he should continue in the same style.
He also states that he does not want to be associated with the ‘square’ forever. Why not?
Is it because it will fall foul with age with modern cheap building materials and utter pointlessness, or does it mean that it will never really be the pies de resistance that it claims it will be.
My massage to Sir Ian Wood is this: Continue to help the genuinely impoverished. Now there’s a legacy to be truly proud of.
Steve Bothwell,
Café 52,
52 The Green,
Aberdeen,
AB11 6PE.
Hmmmm concrete and chewing gum. lovely
The gardens have an enormous potential for development – as a garden – and the Peacock centre has practical use, looks great and barely impacts the garden space, which is very good for the citizen’s amenity, health and the public purse.
The idea of roofing over the City Glen is a nightmare. I have visited other cities with “grand” civic squares. Mostly they look awful, barren windy deserts surrounded by grand architecture, while sparsely peopled by a restless mix of puzzled folk and lonely pompous statues with nowhere else to go. How many rain shelters and burger stands are they planning I wonder? This is Scotland; keep our city’s wee green glen in its heart. Make it a place to escape the endless shopping round. DO NOT turn it into yet another shopping mall with a dank underground car park instead of another layered, high rise concrete monstrosity.
Union Street is a mess now because all the shops are in the new malls, or closing in one to open in another. What else did the planners expect? Fine by me, I hate shopping, but if only the planners had thought to make the beautiful old buildings of Union Street into Aberdeen’s culture, fashion and entertainment area; not just a place to get wellied on Friday nights or to hurry away from to the shops once you get off the bus. Union Street was built on bridges, a proud endeavour, and the wee glen is almost the last place to see and to understand that and to be proud of that heritage. Do not cover it over with more bland concrete; please think of the common good, not the commonplace.
Last night I attended an SCDI event, on the square. Ian Armstrong told us that the concensus of SCDI (if it can be called that), is compromise. Sir Ian Wood told us there could be no compromise.
For his part, for his gift (and it is a gift), that’s fine.
But for the greater future of the area, and therefore, for what ACSEF should be doing is acting in the best interests of the city.
Tom Smith said that he “didn’t want us to feel pressurised”, and yet when someone asked questions about viability, they were made to feel rather uncomfortable.
My role depends on the godwill of people, so I feel compelled to be anonymous.
There is potential in the scheme, but not as it stands. The gardens should be left as they are.
According to the feasbilitystudy, the consultation was originally planned to end in December. Peacocks funding initially lasted til December.
Peacock have managed to extend their funding to March, when the SAC disband, leaving the funding almost certainly unavailable. Last night we were told that the consultation (and I use the word loosely), will be completed in “March to April”.
ACSEF seem determined to ensure that regardless of the outcome we will lose the Peacock centre, and along with it the returns and benefits which are clear.
Sir Ian said that the City Square doesn’t need a commercial return – does that mean it will bring no return?
If Aberdeen doesn’t want this scheme, then ACSEF should be supporting and facilitating what the Aberdeen does want. There was no commitment to do so.
Despite their words, I have serious doubts that ACSEF have the vison and ambition to bring long term economic development to the area.
Oh, interesting indeed, so they are a manipulative bunch of _____ then! Why would they stretch the timing of their pathetic consultation, surely their not that low.
Will annon be at the public meeting on thur?
well i shall be, brandishing some serious pointing questions.
well done you.
Hi again, one other thing, are the minuted of said meeting available to you/public?
S
Open letter to Sir Ian Wood
Sir Ian , you have single handedly created an enormous amount of stress to a group who have yearned, fought and temporarily succeeded in making a city that is one of envy. You have torn at the skin and gnawed at the flesh of what is the most perfect thing for a city which is desperate for realistic forward thinking future gains – Culture. You have sapped the very blood line that makes a city, and have violated a future. You barely understand the need for diversity and have trashed all opportunity for this city to survive as culturally diverse.
This city may be an industrial city, but this city is one of historical importance that has been brought to its knees by our council. You have stepped in at a time that is so inappropriate, it beggars belief.
The apparent swiftness in which this interjection came before us, is unsubtle. It belies the very people who surround you, thus your wish – black damp.
You have levelled your own playing field by the way in which your cohorts have devised your approach. The ‘consultation’ is the most shameful event that has ever happened in the North East, and you should apologise for everything that has happened since this ill gotten, selfish, self – centred, pathetic, grotesque, lavatorial nightmare was proposed (The Civic Square)
You have bayed on the ill informed and dangled sparklies at a public who you have been treated like ill trained mutts, slamming plans in their faces suggesting this or Armageddon.
You are a bored rich man trying to claim what is not yours and you don’t like it when objections are raised.
The one thing you do understand is this, the council are weak and you have played on that .
You have taken advantage of a council that don’t know where they’re going or what they’re doing and you have devised a plan which is so insulting to a future economy, you have insulted everyone.
The ACSEF of evil has placated our town folk as if they were trudging peasants thankful for a bowl of social gruel, blanching facts with an over seasoned stock, deliberately enshrining a project of sociopath levels.
The public are at the end of the day silenced of opinion and especially decision making, whereas bullying talks and we surrender. We are herded in by editorial media and intellectually gassed as if our word meant nothing.
You have postured wealth by articulating a public smoke screen, where we will all benefit.
You also state that you do not want to be associated with the ‘square’ forever. Why not?
Is it because it will fall foul with age, modern cheap building materials and utter pointlessness?
You have discarded our heritage like a stinking sock.
Looming over our future past will be a monument of vulgarity of the highest level, Sir Ian Wood square. No real trees, no real history and no real cash to boot.
An ancestral insult.
Steven Bothwell
Steve, I have to disagree.
I’m convinced that Sir Ian truly believes that the plan he is putting forward is the only way to cure some of the ills of the city.
If he wishes to only support this proposal, it’s entirely up to him, it’s his money to do with as he pleases.
I would hope he would use it to help the people of the city in another way, but it remains his choice.
I remain unconvinced that the benefits of this square – and there would be some benefits – would be any greater than the benefits of the Peacock scheme. I suspect they would be less – and then there is the loss of the gardens to consider. We stand to lose more than we stand to gain.
There are those within ACSEF that stand to benefit personally from this, and I am unconvinced that they are acting with the same view of improving the city, rather that they see how to improve their own finances.
Steve, you and I may yet disagree on proposals, as I see a benefit in a compromise scheme, creating a smaller square over the road and rail, keeping the PVA plans, breathing new life into the gardens, and creating a natural amphitheatre – something unlike any city in the world, something that would give people cause to visit and something that Aberdeen could be proud of.
A compromise will not happen though. ACSEF intimate that there can be no compromise, and that without Sir Ian’s donation, there will be no chance of any form of development. Strangely they see their role as improving the city, but seem unwilling to fight for funds without this one gift. (They even seemed reluctant to back PVA should this be the case).
Aberdeen has been grossly under funded when it comes to regeneration and investment, it’s natural for people to grab any chance when they see no others, but this should be ACSEF’s role. Fighting our corner, seeking ways to gain investment, seeking opportunities, whether through new visions or through compromise.
If there can be no compromise, there can be no progress, if there can be no progress, I must remain firmly against the plans.
And I believe I – we – must attempt to persuade Sir Ian to find a way to help this city, his city, our city, in a way that will bring the positive changes he wants to see, but without the negative changes he deems necessary.
What we need to do after we build a bleaker version of Red Square, is fill Kings College Chapel full of pigshit, after all, there is a booming market in pigshit, and it would be suicidal not to take advantage of it, then the Art Gallery, we could store literally hunners o’ tons of pigshit in there. Whos with me?
Good luck to all opposed to concreting over of the UTG.
Acsef’s plan belies anything that can be comprehended as ‘essential to the future of Aberdeen and the North East of Scotland.’
As Jonathon Meades put it, ‘Aberdeen is good at being bad’ Polite prose indeed.
The former glory of George St, with high quality retail and high quality architecture/replaced with the now, John Lewis building (formerly the Co-Op) –
St Nicholas Centre and The Bon Accord Centre, whilst severing the bloodline to the rest of George St, which resembles a down market version of the down trodden Arglyle St in Glasgow.
The old Co-op Building in Loch St/Gallowgate, which with little imagination could have been a gem of high quality boutique scale retail/ instead of Architecturally impotent office/residential blocks.
St Nicholas house which dwarfs Provost Skene’s house, one of the oldest and most architecturally significant buildings in the area.
The Trinity Centre/Trinity Hall, which subsequently moved to an equally, but on a smaller scale architectural abortion.
The Old Market building (market St and the Green) replaced with the New Market building, sporadically raising pointing questions from the public (locals and visitors alike)
Amadeus nightclub on the beach front which offers nothing but bemused and disturbed confusion.
And last but not least, Union Square, which is a glorified retail park with parking. This Architectural abomination will need replaced sooner than we think.
Union Street, comes up in conversation with great frequency. For the past 30 years planning and control has become so lax that we are adorned with gratingly luminous patchwork of irregular symmetry. Absentee landlords are never held to task, nor are the lease holders.
Union Terrace Gardens is not to blame.
Most City Councils have made errors, and some cities have corrected them. Aberdeen City Council still strive forth to allow the most banal picture painting of a living hell, by destroying everything in its path. Either they are missing the clues which sit firmly on their own created door step or are suffering a serious bout of doldrumitis
The Civic Square planning and design details do not excite but only represent the pointlessness of it.
The City Council, along with Acsef and Central Government wholeheartedly supported the Peacocks scheme, providing local planning guidance was adhered to. This was to make it blend into the historic park. Peacock’s did that.
We now have a scheme, which in its vagueness, is impossible to get to grips with. From that I mean, it is quite obvious that this charade is nothing to do with enhancing our city for future energy companies to get comfy with, because as we know, energy companies care about nothing but energy riches and not about Urban realm Strategies, and especially about retail connectivity.
Acsefs approach to retail connectivity is fed through a brainwashing exercise in which the retail ‘Pillars’ unease at motions of failure result in the bandwagon bursting at the seams with the ‘I’m on board brigade’ ensuring their retail offerings, bland as they be, will not suffer the ever changing movement or trends of public spending.
Union Terrace Gardens is not to blame.
It is poignant that public money has been frittered away on asking Joe Blogs about ‘an idea’, an idea which still reveals no real detail of the final outcome, whereas Peacocks had it sorted and without the need for car parking. Their enhancing project upset no one, and has not created the furore that the Civic square has.
Union Terrace Gardens are not frequented often. Perhaps the reason for that is, the general public are more interested in other things. Society has gone through radical changes and people have become armchair deficits. They rage vengeance on slopes and stairs, grass and beauty, nature and health.
Union Terrace Gardens is not to blame.
However, Courtesy of Grampian Police, The facts are this: – There is negligible crime in Union Terrace Gardens. The Freedom of Information Act has provided much needed defence, where Union Terrace Gardens is the safest area in the City Centre.
It’s plain to see that Acsef have not used Europe as an example of quality city centres but used America and Australia as examples. America and Australia are fairly recent countries but wholeheartedly celebrate their Green Spaces.
Aberdeen City Council’s budget is tight and perhaps tight lipped. And the Scottish Government should be representing Scotland and its history, which it’s not.
Union Terrace Gardens is not to blame.
Steve Bothwell, I agree with all you say. But I have an uneasy feeling that as we shout into the wind, the decision has already been taken in all but name. Too many vested interests stand to gain while the real stakeholders in the city centre; businesses, local residents, groups like Peacocks, are sidelined. I despair really. I live out of the city but would love to see the gardens brought to life through the Peacock plan.
I expect that many of the scheme’s supporters believe in the worth of their uncompromising patronage, not seeing it as anti-democratic and also lacking in genuine foresight. they need to take stock and listen to the concerns of those who have lobbied so eloquently.
I think Sir Ian Wood’s scheme would be better if it incorporated more lap dancing bars, casinos, mobile phone shops, and fast food joints. But strictly nothing of quality as that would spoil the image of Aberdeen as being somewhere that the greedy can take advantage of.
The ACSEF scheme has nothing to do with improving Aberdeen. If the want to spend £500M (lets not kid ourselves) of tax payers money improving Aberdeen by putting something underground then they could start by tunnelling Virginia Street under the harbour and restoring our harbour front to it’s pre-oil glory.
Better still they could demolish Old Nicks House and restore the gardens that were their before.
What our politicians have let them do to this town since the 1960s is totally disgusting. Someone should be put on trial.
I’m not angry, shocked, or even disgusted to be honest. I’ve been following the news right from the beginning of the Peacock’s proposal through to now and I just feel completely deflated.
Peacock’s proposal is ambitious in the right way as it looks at an existing area which has a history and a heritage but has been in decline for some time. I’ve lived here for nearly 20 years and I can easily count how many times I have actually walked down and around UTG. The area feels let down by the public as well as those who plan our city but those plans genuinely seem forward thinking and positive.
Then I look at the Wood proposals. This is as ham-fisted and utterly heavy handed as I have seen. Can’t solve a problem? Lets fill it with concrete (!). And what do we have on street level? Concrete walkways and shallow ponds. In the pristine light of an architects drawing, everything looks bright and breezy, but come on; the reality is that it looks like just another (much larger) area similar to that above the St. Nicholas Centre. I’m sure when those proposals were drawn up they looked much the same as these.
Sadly I feel that with such a big name who just seems like he wants to make a permanent legacy of the City in his name, and a Council that’s beaten up and criticised to the point where I just don’t think it cares any more, we are not going to be given anything more than lip service to the plans.
There are terrible parts of Aberdeen – many of them – and I empathise how difficult town planning must be. But there are astonishingly beautiful parts of Aberdeen too. I just hope that those responsible for this ugly proposal (the Woods one) rethink and make proper judgements.
Cynical Speculators.
Aberdeen- two stories, same conclusion.
Trump tramps on any dissent, but Ignorance is bliss. The truth of the matter is that the dune system IS unique and should have been defended better by our elected leaders.
Unfortunately, it seems the lure of cash is too tempting.
Union Terrace Gardens are up for sale too. What price Benachie or Dunottar? What price a river or the wilderness of the Cairngorms? What price….well…anything?
It is all very sad. The recent history of Aberdeen and ‘shire is blighted by our elected officials inability to make any oil money – that flowed through the county- stick. Some of the biggest corporations in the world set up shop in Aberdeen, yet their legacy will be empty offices, and an elected council who would seemingly sell their sister, and tout the city as an easy date.
It was not always so. The Victorians left Aberdeen with a rich legacy of fine architecture while local boy Byron, who knew the worth of the natural world wrote;
There is a pleasure in the pathless woods
There is a rapture in the lonely shore
There is a society, where none intrudes,
By the deep sea, and music in its roar:
I love not man the less, but Nature more.
Somehow we have lost the plot. Our eternal shame is an inability to follow the wisdom of ages. Lessons and examples laid before us, in the wooded city gardens or perfectly lonely shores are now valued only as commodities. They should be seen as the legacy of nature and the city fathers.
We are too ready to grab the easy buck, and so I quote Oscar Wilde; ‘A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”.
Cynical speculators like Trump or local boy Wood know what type of society they find here, they just need to haggle over the price.
Spot on. Trump/Wood = Vomit.
Yet again in last night’s PRAVDA sorry I mean evening express even more (UN)biased options for the city’s “good and the great” this time (SOON TO BE SIR … if his firm doesn’t go bankrupt before the list is out next year) Mr Milne saying that the Union terrace gardens (sorry CITY SQUARE … what’s all that about ? have the council already renamed one of the most historic pieces of green space in the city already ?) project is “a vital piece of infrastructure that is badly needed to transform our city centre.” Wow now there is a statement “vital to the infrastructure of the City” more like vital to your recent purchase of the Triple Kirks site more like. He goes on to warned Aberdeen could become a “backwater” if it didn’t embrace the vision; this the same “backwater” of a city that has made you your £100’s of millions is it? Well if you’re talking about the same place you need to have a close look in the mirror Mr Milne as for as much as I feel that Sir Iain Wood’s (so called) £50 million offer for HIS project is an insult to the gardens at least he has made an offer and not just sat there counting his coppers like Ebenezer Struggle.
That brings me nicely to this (SO CALLED) £50 million … let’s all be honest he doesn’t have it; if he does “SHOW ME THE MONEY” it’s all talk nothing more if he wants’ real backing and respect for his project put the cash in a fund today … time to put up or shut up Sir Ian.
In yesterday’s paper he is saying if the product isn’t finalised soon he will withdraw his offer of the £50 million; so what’s this now a children’s playground game to you is it? “It’s my ball so if I don’t get to play am taking it with me” GROW UP Sir Iain, have some backbone and think about what is best for the city, it’s people and the greater future not just about your One man mission to leave behind a legacy after the guilt of sitting on your big pile of cash for the last 20 years and doing nothing for the city other than being a big LOCAL employer.
oops sorry another @&*%”£$ typo … maybe time to use a spell checker …
Scrooge not Struggle OK TIME TO GET BACK TO MY REAL JOB … lucky am not an English teacher !
Depleting oil & global economic meltdown (another/final collapse of US$/debt) = only thing left with value = real estate or gold.
Follow the money, you get the real reasons for this super sized concrete slab idea; a corridor to more retail concrete real estate, perhaps ?
bad idea + bad idea = a few winners $ and the majority losers. Aberdeen has been ground zero for greed over culture for too long nice to see it finally has a voice, could this be an opportunity to turn things out differently ? or at least the planting of a seed.
could someone check the william wallace statue at the end of UTG and see if he is crying yet.
Nice to see your public elected body has listened to the vote of the people who pay their wages … Yet again ! Aberdeen has yet again did the same old half assed thing as always and gone for the easy option that cost the most money; we yet again seem to forget we are a nice LITTLE city, we are not Chicago or Houston and to be honest I wouldnt want us to be.
The idea of a civic square is a good one and I dont mind the £50 million (guilt for not doing anything to help the city in the last 25 years payment) but Union Terrace is the wrong location; in 18 months time Aberdeen City Council will move from its currant eyesore on Broad Street in to the newly and ott revamped Marshall Collage site leaving behind am massive whole in the city centre a hole that is perfectly suited for a civic square.
Am I the only one who thinks a civic square should be next to a citys main civic building ?
Anyway, if that’s the planning approved is SIR Iain going to write that £50 million cheque and hand it over … What are the odd’s on him just sitting on it until the last minute and then he will pay by installments. He never got to be rich by handing money over until the VERY last minute (just as anyone in Wood Groups accounts office)