| Union Terrace Gardens + new Art Centre |
The City Square |
| Total costs: £13 million | Total costs: £140 million + |
| Cost to the taxpayer £5.2m (already committed) | Cost to the taxpayer: £70m + (still to be found) |
| Impact on gardens: limited | Impact on gardens: eradication |
| Funding gap: £3.5m | Funding gap: £90million |
| Revenue costs to city: neutral | Revenue costs to city: unknown |
| Economic benefit to city: £5m p/year | Economic benefit to city: unknown |
| Planning stage: full planning permission | Planning stage: pre-design, no application lodged |
| Number of mature trees lost: 13 | Number of mature trees lost: 78 |
| Content: café/bar, galleries, printmaking studios, film/television and dance studios, education facilities, workshops and spaces for live music, screenings and other arts events. Lifts to enable disabled access to all levels of the gardens. Public toilets and baby-changing facilites. 24-hour lighting increasing security for gardens |
Content: undecided for upper deck. 490 space car park suggested for lower deckc in ACSEF feasibility study. |
| Land rights: awaiting lease from City Council | Land rights: requires lease from city council, air rights from Network Rail. In addtion compulsory purchase orders may be required for properties on Belmont Street |
| Total building site: 3,200 m2 = 0.75 acres |
Total building site: 24,281. 1385 m2= 6 acres (bigger than the Red Square in Moscow) |
| Green Space: Gardens remain largely untouched, comprehensive replanting to replace felled trees. | Green Space: Concrete platform will not be able to support mature trees as there is no where for their root system. |
| Gardens remain largely untouched, as building site is limited to area of Art Centre. | Gardens eradicated and replaced by 3 floors of concrete construction |
| Completion date: 2012 | Completion date: Unknown |
Flickr Photos
Union Terrace Gardens at present.
Compare The Square 
Also, the Herald are reporting that the council have a shortfall of half a million pounds from city cente parking income. It seems that less people are parking in town and there is competition from the Union Square park. Last thing we need is a new car park, given that 1) parking is under-utilised any way and 2) the council need the income.
Can you not just combine the projects to have a civic square and a Art centre?
I do think Union Terrace Gardens are nice but unless its backing hot how ever ventures down there, it untilised.
bring it up to street level makes more sence, but I can not see why you can ot intergrate an Art Center in to that design?
The full and very expensive scheme seems totally unneccessary, and will cause alsorts of problems like ventilation for the railway and road along the Denburn valley.
The scheme for the Arts centre is not only affordable, it maintains the green space, and the stone work in the gardens and of the bridges. The ‘full schme’ will just become the haunt of skate boaders like the upper deck of the St Nichols centre.
Green spaces at the heart of our cities are central to the future development of those cities as attractive destinations for residents and for visitors. Union Terrace Gardens already exists and is an asset many cities would kill for but it currently suffers from poor management.
The Gardens could and should be Aberdeen’s equivalent of Princes Street Gardens, Tivoli Gardens, Amsterdam’s Leidesplein or the Englische Garten in Munich. It is an attractive area in the heart of the city and should be retained as such, with sympathetic facilities such as the art centre developed to attract more visitors into the Gardens themselves.
Decking it over in concrete with occasional contemporary architectural plooks serving to break the windswept monotony will do nothing to add to the attractiveness of the area. This is the thinking of the 70’s not of the 21st century in which citizens should be able to determine how their cities grow and enjoy green spaces in their centres.
If Sir Ian Wood is keen to invest in a legacy project for the city that is to be welcomed but let it be one which local people will still revere in a hundred years time and which will restore the Gardens one of the gems of the city, not as a concrete wasteland populated by discarded fast food wrappers, and architecturally irrelevant structures
I’m either controversial, or a lot of people think the same as me, bbut don’t say it.
I like the Peacock scheme. A LOT. But I like the potential of covering the denburn space, and running it through the the station.
I’m sure that both could be done with a bit of effort.
The Art Centre is ready though, and it should go ahead NOW, with anything else for ACSEF et al, adding to it later.
the whole city square idea is ridiculous just a way for mr wood to leave his mark with a horrible concrete monstrosity that will do away with established mature trees in a very nice serene park in the center of aberdeen. if they realy have to change union terrace then the art center is the way forward not the money making city square idea.
There is no need to concrete over such a wonderful space – although I do agree something has to be done – I do not feel safe going through the gardens with the persons who congregate under the arches. The Peacock scheme is perfect – a wonderful space that uses the existing infrastructure and leaves the gardens to flourish. I also agree that the gardens could be used a lot more by the council – the markets etc?? instead of closing roads and causing chaos that ripples far outside the city centre. I have the most wonderful picture of my daughter taken by a p&J photographer in the gardens during a Tartan Day a few years ago and she still remembers that that was the picture taken. UTG are special to Aberdeen – what is special about another concrete elephant? In a time when all councils are jumping on the climate challenge bandwagon it seems a bit odd that they want to take away some of things that can help!!!!! Green spaces are important – let them continue to flourish.
Green spaces are vital to city centres for rest and a break from the concrete shopping centres. The Peacock appears to offer much improved facilities in the gardens while retaining the green space. Further sympathetic developments may well be attracted to augment it. A full decking to street level will be a wind swept desert as no mature planting can be achieved to soften it. It will end up as a huge version of the nasty upper deck of the St Nicholas centre with concrete boxes and rocking slabs. Where will the Peregrines go to catch pigeons? I have seen them hunt over the gardens.
Pingback: a is for architecture » The future of Union Terrace Gardens in Aberdeen
The Public Consultation on the proposed City Square does not include the Peacock Arts Centre design for the gardens, apparently because it already has planning permission in place. By definition then, it is valued by the City Authorities and could theoretically start at any time. So why aren’t the Wood/ACSEF Team planning their theoretical development around the Already approved Contemporary Arts centre?
Barbara, as it stands the Peacock arts centre would prevent any future decking over of the gardens. As Sir Ian’s pledge of £50m is conditional on the full decking of the gardens to street level, they cannot do that. Partial decking has been examined – it would cost a deal less and retain some of the gardens as well as connecting the terrace and Belmont St. But partial decking removes the underground real estate element, that is the potential for a 490 space carpark and retail development. Why Sir Ian won’t consider this option, I’m not sure he’s gone on record. But it strikes me that a philanthropic gesture is different to an investment decision, and perhaps we might hazzard a guess as to why Sir Ian is only interested in the option that allows for commercial activity under the roof (sorry, “civic square”) rather than other options that are less nakedly commercial.
The gardens are an important focal point for the city centre. Greenspace is a luxury that should be held onto. They do appear to have been neglected and under utilised in recent years now seeming to attract a range of miscreants.
Would it not be a good idea to rennovate them, add some facilities and make sure they are managed effectively and put to good use. Would the gardens and the art centre not help to achieve this?
I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. All he proposes to do is concrete over a beautiful green sanctuary, meanwhile hiding the longest single span granite bridge in the world. It’s only history. I’m sure many people would love to have a picnic on the concrete, and what’s a few skinned knees when playing children fall over? Although they’ll probably be blown over by the gale force winds howling through the wilderness. So what’s the fuss?
I think most of the above comments are fair and even minded, even though most of us have a preference for one or the other.
i like the idea of raising the gardens (a bit) and keeping most of the granite arches. the gardens are too far down (too many steps) for many of the citizens of Aberdeen to access. they are currently under used (for many reasons) so keeping them as they are should NOT be an option
putting peacock arts in there will ensure some use of the space most of the year. a civic square is a great idea if it is used other than by the ‘boarder boys’ but a cafe culture will never exist because it is too cold, at least with a lower level of decking there should be less wind!
Anyway7 the whole exercise is pointless as the council will never approve a plan as there will always be an election comining up and as we have found they can’t make decisions anyway, even though that is why I though we .put them there
Union Terrace Garden is a unique part of Aberdeen. Green spaces in cities are special and make the city attractive to visitors. The space could be used more often for music concerts, winter skating and I remember a wonderful family circus a few years ago. I feel it is important for cities to retain their character. Aberdeen does not need any more shopping centres and has plenty of new car parks but it does need a good art centre.
By raising the gardens to dtrret level you eradicate the current issue of its access. The only reason the art centre wants tot go ahead as it is is beacuse it would be “part” of the land and suken into the hillside (not neccessary) you can still create a modern unique building at street level. Although the costs vary hugely, but by building the art centre you still have the issues around drug dealers hanging around and access issues.
Why has no one taking into thought the amount of jobs the peacock centre would create?
I’m student at RGU’s Grays School of art and im sick of the lack of art culture in Aberdeen. The art culture Aberdeen has is a huge amount of art shops! The art gallery is poorly under funded and it’s excuse is it’s run by the council and the council have no money to help it. The peacock centre will atleast be run by it’s own company that will care about the centre and the work on show.
Pardon, I forget, the concrete square will need roughly 5 people to help run the carpark machines, that WILL be enough jobs for the 100’s of art student in Aberdeen right now!
Union Street Gardens are a wonderful city centre amenity. They suffer currently from difficulties of access, a problem which the Peacock Visual Arts Scheme would seem able to solve. If it attracts a fraction of the visitors foreseen, the bustle should deter many unwelcome elements. With a relatively small cost to the public purse and only minimal reduction in greenspace, this scheme sounds as if we all win.
Robert, the Peacock plans do solve the access problem. Disabled and elderly will be able to access the gardens by the lift that is accessable from the centres roof which will be behind the burns statue. The plans cleasly show this.
The people that will be attracted to the rejuvinated gardens and added lighting (possibly cctv too?) will keep the drug dealers from hanging around. Hmm why do I never see these ne’er do wells hanging about the gardens? Do they exist? Is there solid proof? Or is it just an urban myth?
They took all the trees,
Put ’em in a tree museum,
And charged the people
A dollar and half just to see ’em.
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone?
They paved paradise,
Put up a parking lot.
The Peacock Art Centre proposal seems a far more fitting venture for Aberdeen. The gardens would be transformed in atmosphere by the traffic generated by the arts centre, solving current problems of people not feeling safe to walk through etc. But more importantly, what the city will gain in cultural richness from the activities available at the centre, arts, dance, a vibrant social hub with the cafe etc. These activities in th e summer could spill out into the gardens with occasional performances of various types, open air workshops or simply by the users of the centre going out onto the grass to take the sun! The other thing is the environmental impact of the energy and materials used to build the concrete `desert` will hardly contribute to Aberdeens claim to be a `Green` city , not to mention the loss of trees and wildlife? How can the council even consider this in the current climate? I agree that the civic square project could end up as a soul-less place in the wrong situation to be truly a civic square, it is now too far from the heart of the city which nowadays enevitably means the shops! Why cant Sir Ian help to fund the demolishing of St Nicholas House to create a civic square there? That would be a far more obvious place for it with the council takin g over Marischal College as offices. Then Aberdeen can get its new arts centre and Sir Ian can get his `legacy` of a Square named after him, everybody happy???
Surely this act of vandalism won’t be allowed. Please Peacock don’t “compromise” to Sir Ian’s “vision”. The reporting by Aberdeen journals, particularly the EE, have been so skewed towards the square it has been unbelievable. At least now they have came out officially with their support, as though we didn’t know!
First off, the comparison is rather biasly worded, however…
The gardens are almost unusable as they currently stand. The arches/benches are a haven for junkies and winos, plus the very large mature trees have created a canopy which prevents sunlight from reaching large parts of the site which are very damp as a consequence.
I love the look of the Peacock project which looks to use the light to better advantage, however I would point out that the vista from this premises will be dominated by the very unsightly railway line and triple kirks ruin.
It’s a tricky one, but I don’t think covering the whole area in concrete is the answer.
i would love to see the gardens put in the hands of those who love and revere aberdeen ,forsight often cannot be put right with hindsight ,so i implore allyou citizens of aberdeen to take a minute to remember the concrete jungles of the sixty’s and seventy’s; how cold, unwelcoming, unnattractive, unwanted, uninspiring and unnecessary. don’t you think we would be a laughing stock if we outdo moscow ,st.peters’ square etc ,we take pride in our “small” city so come on all of us and let us prove we truly are ;FLOWERS OF SCOTLAND; and maintain our reputation of THE BLOOMING CITY and not insult the GRANITE CITY by reducing us to the CONCRETE CITY .
I am sure the answer is to negotiate, and listen to the people.
I’m not really sure what the fuss is about?? Before anyone shoots me down, I would just like to put across my own thoughts and hopefully spark the conciderations of others, I am but one person of many..
How many people actually went to UTG on a regular basis before this whole ‘debate’ started? I mean who could be put off by muddy paths, a whole lot of stairs, unsafe areas for children to play, oh and the sweet sound of trains and cars passing on the Denburn. Is it not time for change?
Change is fact of life, I’m afraid to say – I mean we could stay in the dark ages with our over used roads, large areas of land left with no access to anyone (because they are untouched – untouched and never seen..) and our ‘parks/gardens’ that have never been updated, due to some members of the public that want to hold on to every last part of the past and not think about the future. I love history and looking at old buildings/structures, but in a design process there is always ways to compliment these – otherwise we would continue to use inadequate facilities for some generations to come. If the City Square project / Arts project does not go ahead, my only hope is that future generations will not be so close minded when it comes to change and will create a better place to live.
Much prefer the Peacocks design, improves the gardens rather than ruining them. Planning permission already granted too, its a no brainer! Sir Ian Wood’s money could be used to demolish St. Nicholas house and let Aberdonians and visitors see James’ Dunn house.
Am I the only one that thinks the whole Peacock thing smells of elitism? We already have an amazing Art Gallery, just down the road in fact. Why would we need another, encouraging protentious artists to put bits and pieces together and call it art?
How many go to the UTG regularly? I would phathom a guess at ‘not a lot’, unless of course you are dependant on illegal substances or have an alcohol problem. Me, as it is at the moment, I wouldn’t go near the place. It has the potential to be a beautiful area, but unfortunately due to the mass of ‘unclean’ persons there I would avoid.
Please, let Mr Wood have his way, how often do we get such a generous offer from a local person who has done well, the man has stayed in Aberdeen all his life and loves the area. Unlike a certain female singer who I could mention, who has put her tuppenworth in, without even being in the city for years!!
Please go for the Wood option!!!!
Keep the gardens, just raise them to be level with Union Terrace. How many people use the Graveyard, Loads! No concrete please, who uses St Nicholas at Marks and Spencer, smelly birds!
If the kind generous man has a kind generous heart to go with his large pocket he would come to some agreement. Please!
UTG is an eyesore and radical plans to hide the railway and road under a level “green space ” is the sensible option. Sadly the process has become a us v them and as usual with Aberdeen I think the cheaper option will win out. Aberdeen should after 40 years of “oil wealth” be a far better city than it currently is.