The Big Partnership are Scotland's leading PR Company with offices in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Kirkcaldy and an impressive client list including the Scottish Government, Glasgow City Council, Grolsch, BP, Stagecoach and BT amongst many more.
The Aberdeen branch are also representing Sir Ian Wood and ACSEF's Civic Square project and last Friday afternoon spent no less than FOUR HOURS on this blog, checking out the posts and also the comments to all my posts concerning the UTG debacle.
(click above to enlarge)
In light of such an outstanding contribution to the campaign and having such a difficult job in attempting to put a positive spin on an act of wanton destruction of a public Garden, we would like to award you with your very own I heart UTG badge.
I hope you had a great time and found the posts here informative.
please contact iheartutg@gmail.com to collect your prize
"Eighty per cent of the people who spend time in the square will have no interest in the arts." claimed Sir Ian Wood in a recent article in the Sunday Herald. Laying claim to why his proposed Civic Square should be a preferred development to the Brisac Gonzalez Centre for Contemporary Art. While being a statistic Wood has seemingly plucked out of nowhere, to refer to a hypothetical square can only possibly relate to some sort of dystopic future where he gets his own way, Aberdeen is bankrupted, the oil businesses have left and the city is home to a group of people who don't actually exist.
"The development would use a significant amount of material in its development. The largest impacts would be from the significant amount ofconcrete, steel and other materials that would need to go into the substructure" (Page 65) "The most suitable use for the 2 lower floors of the development would be a 490 space car park. This parking has the potential to replace the 326 space Denburn car park." (Page 68) "Retail – Aspirational retailers such as Harvey Nichols, Harrods, House of Fraser and Selfridges may consider up to 6,500 sq m for a department store." (Page 68)
It is in the latter article where the most damning estimation of the Gardens is revealed, being described as "an unusable gap site in the city’s single most strategically important location." Which begs the question, in what way will this five and a half acre street-level square be any less of a "gap site" or as Jonathon Meades put it "grandiloquent void", than what is exists. Unless there is some alterior motive hinged on the status of the Denburn Valley as "the city’s single most strategically important location." It is, of course, the only area in the city centre which has not been built on, prime real estate some would say.
Beyond using these excuses for bringing about the square, there has been no evidence of any tangible benefits to the city from Wood's scheme, other than what has become the old chestnut of "jobs and economic prosperity" and making the city "more-attractive, greener, better-connected, safer." These shallow promises have never been backed up with any facts or figures, on a six acre site which apparently is "not about retail or car parking" where exactly are these jobs coming from? How does filling the space in with concrete and removing 78 mature trees and tearing out a garden make it greener when concrete can, in fact, "account for about 60% of total CO2 emissions" especially when proposals are being considered to ban Lorries from the city centre because of their emissions.
Though it is not like Aberdeen City Council can boast any consistency or strategic leadership in their policies. In the Aberdeen Local Plan, published last year, policy was drawn out for "Protection of Urban Green Space":
As you will be able to see from the map below, from the Local Plan, (Click to enlarge) Union Terrace Gardens and the Denburn Valley are indeed protected Urban Green Space. When lobbied on their plans by the I heart UTG campaign, no councilor can make a comment on the plans because in doing so they would effectively waive their right to vote should a planning application ever be received in going to vote. Though this does not stop them for allocating £40,000 pounds from the Revenue budget for the continue of works into phase two of the budget (Outlined in a meeting of the Policy and Strategic Committee on 9 June.)
The official response from ACC was that "It was decided that the benefits that could be brought to the city through a project of this magnitude should be further investigated, even with the understanding that the project would be a departure from the Local Plan." Although when asked to outline these benefits the reply we got was a confusing "further work is required to assess in detail the benefits this proposal could bring" which is what the allocated monies were for.
In addition, the 78 trees in the Gardens are subject to Tree Preservation Orders and Historic Scotland has identified no less than 30 listed works around the site of the square, which includes the Gardens themselves, the Balustrades, Arcades and Victorian Toilets in the site. In the attached letter, Dr Ann MacSween states that "we must stress that we would have very significant reservations about proposals which included significant levels of backfilling of the garden area and the replacement of the gardens with a more "developed" civic space." Dr MacSween goes on to say "we do see opportunities to undertake more limited landscaping, to introduce appropriate buildings within the gardens area", the central remit for the existing Contemporary Art Centre Proposal.
ACC, of course, are a major partner in the Contemporary Arts Centre, as it will be built on their land, and not only rehouse Peacock but also the Council's Arts Development (Whitespace) and Education groups, and provide further facilities Council sponsered CityMoves Dance Space, complimenting their current facilities in Triple Kirks. Even though these organisations will also lose their new home if the Centre does not go ahead, a member of staff attending a public meeting at Peacock's current space last Sunday revealed that they had been told that "as council employees they were not allowed to have an opinion on the developments" and that access to the online petition set up in an attempt to save the gardens had apparently been temporarily blocked from the Council servers.
Even though the Council owns the Gardens, has admitted that the civic square goes against their own Policies, has granted another project planning permission, a capital loan and has three of its own organisations set to move in, they appear to be washing their hands of any say in the debate. The development has been passed over to ACSEF, simply because of the £50 million Sir Ian Wood has offered towards the project has had such a dazzling effect.
If you feel strongly about keeping your Gardens and not allow Aberdeen City Council to fritter away the opportunity of a small yet significant development to improve the area and bring a better quality of life to the city, or if you, like many know that it is us, the taxpayer who will have to foot the £90 million plus bill to realise one man's vision, please call your Council to account. The I heart UTG campaign is asking if you could write to your local councillor (If you are unsure who that is, visit www.writetothem.com) Copying in Gordon McIntosh, Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure (gmcintosh@aberdeencity.gov.uk) and Sue Bruce, Cheif Executive (ChiefExec@aberdeencity.gov.uk) urging them to do the right thing and reject this plan (As has been done three times in the last twenty years) and Save Union Terrace Gardens.
It is now October, five months on from the publication of the £165,000, Scottish Enterprise funded technical appraisal which, unsurprisingly, brought the cost for Ian Wood's "vision" right in the £140 million mark, a point which Wood claimed "that if the costs were above £100 million it would be “very difficult” to make it happen." Even then this price is subject to 26 notable exclusions, including the acquisition costs for buildings around the site which could amount to around £10 million. In fact ACC members admitted that the £140 million cost as it stands in the HFM technical appraisal was only for the structure. This means it would be the cost involved in ripping up and filling in the gardens, building the concrete and steel frame, with no feature, no plumbing or electrics and no landcaping on the top.
The same representatives from the Council were hopeful that a staged approach could be taken into the project and something more akin to the scheme put forwards (Again by Sir Ian Wood) for the millennium, and before that in 1994 and before that in the 1980s. Thus plan would have see the majority of building over the dual carraigeway with a tunnel effect running down to meet a ever-so-slightly raised UTG. However, in a meeting with Dave Blackwood, ACSEF's head of the Denburn Valley Project, and co-incidentaly head of the steering group for the Public Consultation, and Jennifer Craw, Wood's assistant. They claimed that the HFM report was the first in depth technical appraisal into the proposal, and the the only way to support a civic space would be to build on the gardens, that "the gardens would be an inevitable victim of development."
Returning to the elusive Public Consultation, which at time of writing only abstract announcements have been made about it. Initial reportsclaimed that the public consultation would be carried out by the Lighthouse, however after a few days there was no official announcement and unfortunately before anyone could ask the Lighthouse went into administration. It seems that this untimely turn of events meant that the delay of the public consultation could be attributed to the demise of the Lighthouse, however, what I have heard from a Lighthouse insider suggests otherwise. It was implied that the Lighthouse themselves backed away from the project as their ideas for the Consultation, which was apparently to be centred around a question of the best future for the Denburn Valley. It seems that those leading the project had different ideas about the public consultation and due to bad press received concerning their involvement, they withdrew from the process.
With the Lighthouse out of the picture, it took a full three months before ACSEF managed to put a steering group for the consultation together, a completelly unbiased committee not only headed by Dave Blackwood but also featuring four other members of ACSEF's board including John Michie, chair of Aberdeen City Centre Association. Mr Michie's opinion on the development has been reported and in a letter to the Aberdeen Press and Journal this week, ACSEF chairman, Tom Smith described Wood's plan as " Our plans" and "Our development." So given that ACSEF are, for all intent and purpose, leading the steering group into the public consultation on the plan, and have a vested interest in the creation of the civic square to the point where they have claimed it as their own, does this really suggest a fair and unbiased consultation into the future of Union Terrace Gardens and the Denburn Valley?
In the meantime, time is running out for the Peacock-led Centre for Contemporary Art. With Wood's announcement last November, agreements had been made between the Centre's main funders, Aberdeen City Council (£3m), Scottish Enterprise (£2m) and Scottish Arts Council(£4.5m) "to ring-fence Peacock's money for 12 months to allow the viability of Sir Ian's vision to be investigated." The consultation,, is scheduled to begin in November and Mr Blackwood assured myself and Katie Guthrie would take seven weeks. Seven weeks is hardly a great amount of time in order to guage a wide spectrum of public opinion into what could be the most important decision for the future of Aberdeen.
With this lack of organized consultation , the default home of public opinion has become the letters page of the Press and Journal, which has exposed a massive shift in faith and has turned against the hundred-million pounds project, because of cost, because of taste, because of sentimentality and because of humanity. Jonathan Meades', respected Architecture critic, recent series "Off Kilter" (Video below, from 4:30)
slams the proposed development as a "vainglorious vision" and "irreparably damaging to the cityscape."
So we have until the end of the year to decide on what is best for the future of Aberdeen, even though the "democratic" processes involved are being manipulated to exclude the ever-growing camp of people who would rather choose between "UTG or no UTG" which includes an online petition of over 1500 names, and a large group of people who care so much to write to the local paper (majority included below).
Questions of democracy are rising in the North East, will the Local Council listen to its people or happy to hand over decision making powers to a business-led quango which represents the last 40 years without any educated insight into the next 40. Can we trust those we have elected to represent us, and can we trust ACSEF? A group with so much vision and grasp of construction realities that their Chairman seriously believes that "the finish date could be brought forward to coincide with the City of Culture award in 2013."
ACSEF have taken three months to organise a democratic public consultation into a plan which has been on the table for almost a year, can they really be charged with delivering a massive £140million+ Urban construction project?
Destruction of ‘priceless’ gardens
SIR, – Once again, I see that Tom Smith, of Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future, is uttering the usual platitudes about the destruction of Union Terrace Gardens and the creation of a civic square above the Denburn Valley.
But this time he is trying to persuade us that any bid by Aberdeen for the UK City of Culture title will be enhanced by the existence of such a structure. He called it “the perfect platform for showcasing arts and cultural events”.
Forgive me, but this priceless green space – a natural art and culture platform – had until the 1990s regularly hosted concerts and leisure activities which attracted thousands.
Maximise the use of the existing infrastructure and topography. Make it open, inviting and accessible from all quarters, with facilities and amenities worthy of a 21st-century venue and this natural amphitheatre will flourish again.
I recommend to Mr Smith that he looks beyond the rhetoric and commercial imperative and sets the satnav for Old Aberdeen – the High Street, the Chanonry, Seaton Park and then onwards to the Cottown of Balgownie – to see what can be achieved when historic artifices are protected and the natural environment preserved.
It just takes a little bit of foresight and imagination, which money can’t buy.
Erik Bjorkelund,
Tillydrone Road,
Aberdeen.
Plans for our small green place
SIR, – I am in agreement with your readers who want to enhance the gardens in their present form, rather than raise them to street level to make a plaza with cars underneath. I do think they need refurbishment.
In Russia more than 20 years ago, we were told that people valued the green “lungs” in their cities. I was interested and thought about Union Terrace Gardens and Princes Street Gardens at the time.
I am therefore sorry that the powers that be in the city of my birth seem to be planning to irreversibly alter our small green place.
Wilma MacKay,
10 Inverkirkaig,
Lochinver.
Don’t destroy city’s character
SIR, – Aberdeen was the centrepiece of a programme on BBC4 last week called Off Kilter. The presenter praised the stylish architecture in the city, noting that Aberdeen may have the highest percentage of old buildings intact of all the cities in Europe. Aberdeen was compared to places like Bath, which have a distinctive and well-preserved architectural style. I came away from watching the programme feeling proud and honoured to live in Aberdeen. Perhaps the local council should consider nominating the city through Unesco for world heritage status.
However, the programme was also critical about the proposed plan to fill in and replace Union Terrace Gardens with a multi-story car park and shopping mall. If this scheme goes ahead it will destroy the character of the centre of Aberdeen.
Yet the council is proposing a phase of consultation over the future of the gardens, where keeping them intact is not an option. Similar plans to build a car park in the gardens in the 1980s led to a public outcry.
Our council should take note of public opinion and must act to preserve our wonderful city, rejecting any plans that seek to destroy its character.
Mike Shepherd,
Forbesfield Road,
Aberdeen.
Union Terrace Gardens debate
SIR, – Public consultations will soon be held on the plan to replace Union Terrace Gardens with a multi-storey car park and some shops. The consultation document does not include an option for keeping the gardens as they are, even although there is a substantial opinion in the city that they should be kept.
In this context, the consultation can be seen only as a sham. A small number of businessmen, including Sir Ian Wood, have decided how the city centre is going to look, and if anybody else is to be asked, it will be merely to comment on minor details.
There is a serious public debate required. The project has been costed at £140million, of which Sir Ian Wood has pledged £50million. Up to £90million will probably have to come from public funds.
To put these numbers into context, Aberdeen City Council announced recently that it was looking for up to £17million in savings for the next financial year, and that as many as 600 jobs could go as a result.
The public money under discussion is our money, it comes from our taxes. It is only right that we should be asked if we want millions of pounds of our money to be spent on destroying a much-loved city-centre park, or if the money would be better spent on preserving local services and amenities.
Michael Shepherd,
18 Forbesfield Road
Aberdeen.
Union Terrace Gardens plan
SIR, – The debate rumbles on about the “redevelopment" of Union Terrace Gardens.
Now is certainly not the time for Aberdeen City Council to contemplate spending millions on such a venture. It is, after all. virtually bankrupt.
While the railway and adjacent road could be covered to provide a new civic area – suitably landscaped at the side of the gardens – it would be sacrilege to destroy the mature trees and gardens.
This, in its present form, is a haven for the citizens and wildlife of Aberdeen and the numbers that enjoy it on a summer day prove that fact.
We should not forget that the Union Terrace and Union Street junction has one of the highest levels of airborne pollution levels in Europe.
The trees in the gardens help to absorb that danger.
Ultimately, where would most of us prefer to relax in the city centre? In a concreted, windswept, area with some overpriced “facilities", or a grassy knoll among the flowerbeds?
No contest.
Ron Campbell,
9A Richmond Walk,
Aberdeen.
Proposals for city gardens
SIR, – After looking at the Acsef (Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future) proposals for a new square on the site of Union Terrace Gardens, I am still puzzled.
What is it that Aberdonians need so much in a public square that its going to be worth spending an estimated £140million (this would have to include taxpayers' money, but the exact source is as yet undefined)?
The proposal gives some conceptual reasons, such as connecting up the city centre. This could be done at far less expense by simply improving access through the gardens with lighting, gradated ramps, lifts, footbridge to Belmont Street, shortcut under Union Bridge to the Green, and so on. In any case, walking round the gardens from one side to the other is only a five-minute walk; they're not that big.
The notes with Acsef's proposal reject this third option (to improve the gardens) out of hand. Sir Ian Wood's £50million contribution is not offered for this option, anyway.
Although the drawings show green planting, I am unconvinced that this would create the kind of oasis of nature that the current gardens give. It will be the roof of a shopping mall, so think of the roof of the St Nicholas Centre at the moment with troughs and so on.
Any explanations?
Helen Love,
67 Sunnyside Road,
Aberdeen.
‘Where do we find £90million?’
SIR, – So, Aberdeen might have no Christmas street lights this year, and fireworks instead of the usual New Year party.
Where, then, are we supposed to find the £90million (minimum) required for Sir Ian Wood's hallucination, sorry, vision, of Union Terrace Gardens?
A negative letter to the P and J after the article about the insert exhibiton, and my response. The bits in bold are the bits that were edited out of the response:
Plans for Union Terrace Gardens
SIR, – It was amusing, if not pathetic, to read (the Press and Journal, September 2) that a plea against the yet to be detailed Sir Ian Wood proposals for Aberdeen’s Union Terrace Gardens is being made by the proponents of the Peacock Visual Arts scheme for the gardens.
The Peacock scheme, by its introduction of alien architectural forms and destruction of many mature trees, is as damaging to the ambiance of central Aberdeen as could be, and it is a scandal that it was rushed through in the way it was.
That the gardens need attention is not denied, but this must not include destruction of our inheritance in the loss of this historic part of the planned townscape of Aberdeen.
Raising the gardens to street level would provide us with a windswept nowhere with the loss of the trees and changes of levels which give such a satisfactory setting for the almost mediaeval appearance of the rear of Belmont Street and the grand facades of Union Terrace – our own Princes Street Gardens.
One sunny day in May, I lost count at over 150 of the number of people enjoying the gardens, playing with their children and eating their lunch.
I can’t see that happening on a level site, punctuated by rose beds and other vulgar ephemera.
There is scope, and time, for a far more satisfactory outcome to this matter to be discussed in detail before any final decision which will be regretted is made.
Norman G. Marr,
Plans for Union Terrace Gardens
SIR, – I write in response to Norman G. Marr’s letter (the Press and Journal, September 7) headed “Plans for Union Terrace Gardens”.
The “amusing” and “pathetic” plea was made last week as part of the I love UTG campaign, which has at its core the retention of the gardens and support for the best outcome for the site.
Sir Ian Wood’s “yet to be detailed” plans were outlined in the feasibility study published in June. The study outlines three options, two of which will see Union Terrace Gardens removed, is it describes as “approximately 3,947 dump trucks of earth and 4,605 dump trucks of granite” and paved over. The first option sees paving from Union Terrace to Belmont Street, the second option connections to Belmont Street not entirely made. The third option, which has been ruled out as having no benefits, would see the Art Centre going ahead with landscaping done to the fabric of the Gardens.
The plans for the contemporary art centre development were brought forward by a partnership between Peacock Visual Arts and Aberdeen City Council, with many restrictions made on the final design, to make sure that the build is sympathetic and has no long-lasting damaging effects to the garden, and so fits in with the Aberdeen Local Plan (2008), something that is overlooked in Sir Ian’s vision for the area. For each tree uprooted as part of the Art Centre development another of similar age and size must be planted. No such compromise is possible within the plans for the civic square as detailed in the feasibility study.
The art centre development has passed its own feasibility study, achieved full planning permission, three quarters of its funding, and passed a public consultation process, all of which took two years to come around. This is hardly “rushed”, as Mr Marr suggests.
I am in agreement that we cannot lose the gardens, which are vital to the historic context of the city.
The I love UTG campaign is striving to maintain the gardens and ensure that they are not destroyed in the wake of these new plans, something which should not be undermined as “amusing” or “pathetic”.
Established in 1999 the Lighthouse has been responsible for delivering high-quality Education projects, Events and Exhibitions, including facilitating and co-ordinating the Scotland-wide Six Cities Design Festival. A victim of the credit crunch, the Lighthouse's activities and presence will be a great loss to Glasgow and Scotland's cultural infrastructure, at what is becoming a difficult time for culture in Scotland.
Earlier this month saw the deadline for Public submission to parliamentary committee discussions of Creative Scotland and the Public Service Reform Bill. The committee looking into the Public Services Reform Bill, which will see within it the establishment of Creative Scotland, a body which will replace Scottish Screen and The Scottish Arts Council. The original Creative Scotland bill failed to make it through Parliament last year and now has been shoehorned into a wider bill.
Many sources believe that the creation of this new body will find practicioners working in many media fighting it out for the same pot of government funding. Another bone of contention is that the exact details of exactly what the new body is goin to do and how it is going to do it. The information available seems to suggest a leaning towards "creative industries" i.e. creative practices that make money for the economy. There is a belief that the new organisation will depart from the previous "arms-length" policy of award giving which the previous two bodies subscribed to, in essence allowing Government to dictate the criteria for grants and awards.
A worry could be that first refusal for any public money going to projects of fiscal value rather than the furthering of artistic practice or engaging in new projects which may not have any immediate financial return. The Scottish Artist Union response to the bill can be found here, and a "Creative Scotland" blog run by Variant collates articles and updates on the project.
In the North, we are still awaiting information on the "civic square" project lead by ACSEF and part funded by Sir Ian Wood. £40,000 pounds of capital funding has been earmarked by Aberdeen City Council for the second phase of the proposed project, the first phase being the production of the HFM technical appraisal. The Second Phase was originally planned to begin in July and be carried out by the Lighthouse, is to involve further public consultation, exploring funding mechanisms, economic assessment and transport analysis. Even though the project is complete departure from last year's Aberdeen Local Plan(2008).
In the interim the Artist-led I Heart UTG campaign has been established, with the primary goal to Educate and raise awareness of the actual details which aren't included in the spin surrounding the plan and Sir Ian's "Generous Donation." The campaign is taking the form of a rising petition, badges, articles, Club and Gig nights, exhibitions keeping the issue fresh in the minds of Aberdonians in the lead up to the elusive public consultation, which looks set to be carried out by ACSEF, the group bringing forwards the plans for the square, which will see a six acre area above a road and railway paved over and the Historic Union Terrace Gardens.
The sad fact is that this has become a long game. Building was supposed to begin on the new Contemporary Art Centre in November and be completed by next summer, this is now in hiatus with an uncertain future. A Contemporary Arts Centre is part of the loose and vague plans for ACSEF's square, but this precludes any details or any detailed consultation with any major stakeholder in the Art Centre project, with the expectation that the £9.5 Million of funding already raised for the existing project being moved across to this new development.
In contrast, and on the brighter side, the Trongate 103 project is set to open its doors on 12th September. The new complex, located in Glasgow's Merchant City is set to house Glasgow Independant Studio and Project Room, GMAC, Glasgow Print Studio, Project Ability, Russian Cultural Centre/ Cafe Cossachok, Street Level Photoworks and Transmission Gallery. Giving Glasgow another centre for contemporary Art, an innovative project at the forefront of developments to transform the Merchant City into a cultural quarter for the city.
It is interesting to look at the project, one which has enhanced almost an entire block between King Street, Parnie street and the Trongate itself, with the proposed Peacock's Art Centre in Aberdeen. On a much smaller scale, the new building which is now in under threat was set to house Peacock Visual Arts, ACC Arts Development and Education groups, CityMoves Dancespace, would be a very similar project. A building to house a number of Arts and Cultural groups, to encourge creativity and engage community with the benefits the arts can bring.
Trongate 103 is the kind of development which is needed in Scotland at the moment to promote collaboration, participation and growth within the Artistic Community. It is just a shame that Aberdeen is unable to accept these kind of projects in the way Glasgow does, how the city activelly wants to create a Cultural Centre. In the north culture is secondary to capital, thinly-veiled fiscal opportunities have the ability to gezump existing projects if they are supported by a large enough donation, no matter the moral, ethical and actual financial implications.
Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP Office of the First Minister St. Andrew's House Regent Road Edinburgh EH1 3DG
Dear Mr Salmond,
I am writing to you in respect to the “Civic Square” which is currently being proposed for Union Terrace Gardens and the Denburn Valley in Aberdeen, which is being brought forwards by Sir Ian Wood and Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future.
As an SNP voter and citizen of Aberdeen, I must say that I am extremely dismayed at the support you are giving to this project. I feel slightly let down as someone who voted for the Scottish National Party in the hope that you would lead Scotland to an independent country which can play on its considerable contemporary strengths to become a world leader in terms of cultural and creative output.
In the last twenty or so years our country has shrugged aside the many twee and negatively stereotypical perception to produce an impressive output of Artists, Musicians, Filmmakers, Writers, Designers, and Computer Gaming. For such a small country we have an impressively large inventive output. Scotland now has its own representation in the Venice Biennale, and there is also high representation of Scottish based artists in the annual Turner Prize. Many Scottish bands have gone on to achieve international acclaim, and even our unsigned acts regularly have a high representation in the South By Southwest Festival in Austin Texas. And we have an internationally renowned software and games company in Rockstar North.
As an Artist myself who has been involved in many of the above activities, I am immensely proud of our national output and to be involved in it. Because of this I am fully committed to pushing forwards our country to celebrate what we have achieved and how we have managed to embrace contemporary trends and culture to turn our nation around in the post-industrial age.
Given the wealth of talent in Scotland and commitments of many who live here, I hope my sadness at current policy of Government support, or lack thereof, for the creative industries. Both in respect to the lack of information on the upcoming merger of Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council, but more pressing is my concern and distress with your personal support of Sir Ian and ACSEF’s plans to destroy Aberdeen’s historic and beautiful Union Terrace Gardens, which had been to provide a home to the new Contemporary Arts Centre.
As clearly identified in the Halliday Fraser Munro Feasibility Study, published in June, as well as Sir Ian’s donation of £50 million, between £60 and £90 million must be found from other sources, which would either have to be from the City or Government, each meaning that taxpayer’s money must go into creating this space, which has been widely reported to be equivalent to Red Square, wholly unsuitable for Aberdeen, with a population of 200,000.
Other details in the alarmingly vague study outline how an underground concourse can house “boutique” shops or restaurants, which are suggested in the study to be the like of “Harrods” or a celebrity restaurant possibly part of Jamie Oliver’s or Gordon Ramsey’s enterprises. These suggestions seem to me to be rather elite businesses for a civic square which is to be accessed by all, I doubt very much if the average Aberdonian could afford to regularly shop in Harrods or be dined by Channel 4’s finest. I know I couldn’t.
Aberdeen has existing civic areas that require regeneration, and several areas outwith the city centre which are also in dire need of regeneration but are not receiving it due to council cuts. The same cuts have also led to the closure of several homeless charities and foundations within the city. It seems ludicrous that this scheme is even being considered given the already existing shortfalls in funding and the current financial climate. To invest this amount of money in a single city centre venture then those areas outside of the city centre will be excluded from investment.
Other concerns have been aired from the Artistic Community as well, who have backed the proposed Art Centre plans for the last two years through it’s unsteady road from commissioning an internationally renowned architect, feasibility studies, public consultation that led to the project receiving £9.5 million pounds from Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Arts Council and Aberdeen City Council. The innovative project was set to re-house Peacock Visual Arts, Citymoves Dance Space and Whitespace: ACC’s Arts Development and Education teams.
Aberdeen is currently the only of Scotland’s four main cities to be without a substantial Centre for Contemporary Art, which shows in the statistics of art and design graduates from Grays School of Art, the majority of which will immediately move on outside of Aberdeen to Glasgow, Edinburgh or London in search of employment and inspirational opportunities which Aberdeen is sadly missing.
It has been widely reported and is evident here in Scotland, that the Arts have a strong role in the redevelopment of post-industrial cities. Glasgow’s cultural boom since being awarded the European City of Culture and more recently, Dundee’s redevelopment and cultural awakening in the wake of the establishment of Dundee Contemporary Arts, which has seen the city attracting more high profile design and computing businesses, government funding and the upcoming Victoria and Albert museum. This is an established route of economic development through cultural enterprises that could be so easily applied to Aberdeen.
Unfortunately, even though Sir Ian and representatives from ACSEF have loosely factored a Contemporary Arts Centre into their plans for the Denburn Valley, the money allocated to Peacock Visual Arts is both project-specific and time-barred meaning that the already raised funds may not necessarily be transferred to another plan.
As you may be aware, a colleague and peer, Katie Guthrie has set up an online petition to support the Contemporary Arts Centre and save the historic Gardens which, at time of writing, has 1089 signatures with many interesting comments relating to the desperate need to protect Aberdeen’s only city centre green space, which is protected by Historic Scotland and a conservation area.
I am also interesting in hearing the standpoint of the Scottish Government on Sir Ian’s proposed development and hope that my faith in Government can be restored. I would be extremely dismayed to think that it is the policy of the Government to support the investment of money, no matter the circumstance, rather than improve the cultural profile of the country around the world and create a modern, vibrant exciting Country which can continue to punch above it’s weight.
Thank you for your time and I hope you can restore my faith in the SNP led Government to do the right thing for the future and for each and every person in Scotland.
This is the full version of a letter printed in today's press and journal. In response to an article about Katies petition published this week:
"Dear Editor
I was thrilled to read your article on the Arts Centre, bringing further attention to Katie Guthrie's valiant efforts to make people aware of the threat present in the proposal for the Arts Centre.
The notion of paving over Union Terrace Gardens is horrific, only trumped by Ian Wood's proposal to build yet another shopping mall accompanied by yet another driech carpark.Why on earth do we need more of the same?!
The plans for the Arts Centre integrate it within the existing enviroment of the garden, complimenting His Majesty's, Aberdeen City Library and the transient International Market. Essentially these plans would turn the heart of the city into a culturally rich enviroment, and promises to be a highly lucrative investment, not only financially but as an investment for practicing artists and more importantly in supporting youth run organisations such as White Space.
To suggest housing the centre in Ian Wood's proposed shopping mall, is insulting and cheapens the very notion of culture and free thinking.
The importance of the aesthetics and history of Union Terrace Gardens play an integral part in the development of this project,something which Ian Wood and council memebers seem oblivious too in their intent to build another facade of granduer.
If people like Wood continue to try and strip Aberdeen of its natural beauty spots and the injection of much needed cultural investment, Granite City will soon feel more like a concrete coffin of capatalism.
Please continue to keep this issue in the public eye, it's their city too and they have the right to a say.
Kind Regards
Jody Curtis"
If anyone else would like me to post any of thier letters in full please email them to dontcallmehanson@gmail.com and if there's enough I'll start a fresh blog for letters.
But please continue to write in support to the addresses in the post below
(click above to enlarge)
