This Time. This Place. This Generation. This Mess

Finally, after no less than six months, an announcement has been made by our friends at ACSEF about the almost-mythical public consultation into Sir Ian Wood's vainglorious plans for Aberdeen City Centre. The announcement has also come with a bonus prize of a branded identity package for the project which is imaginatively titled the "City Square Project." This package includes a logo, a website, some basic clipart and a catchy tagline: "This Time. This Place. This Generation." Which is an interesting slogan for a project which "is for the generation that will come after us." The website itself contains just more of the same promises to "create a vibrant, accessible, safe and connected public space" which have been being touted for the last six months without any proof or hard evidence over exactly how six acres of concrete will achieve safety and vibrancy.

The new wave of stunted PR also includes a new image of "what the square could look like" which is basically just a re-render of the old image of "what the square could look like." As well as still showing pictues of tall healthy mature trees, (even though "The new park due to its deck
construction may not be able to support the same size of tree as is presently
on the site." (Page 65)), is at odds with earlier reports that ACSEF would "work closely with Peacock Visual Arts and the SAC over the next month to see if there was a way to resolve the issue and allow both developments to go ahead."

Last month, even though Public consultation was supposed to be launched in early November, ACSEF announced that it "was postponing its consultation on the square...until the new year" in the light of the Scottish Arts Council extending the funding deadline until March 2010 with the understanding that this extra time would be used to investigate the possibilities of a compromise option which could retain the Gardens andoriginal Arts Centre design while still achieving ACSEF's aims for the square: "to see if it is possible to incorporate Peacock's design requirements and ACSEF's proposals into one scheme" . It was understood that Brisac Gonzales would work closely with Halliday Fraser Munro to this end. Ian Munro, C0-Director of SAC was quick to point out that “our joint board supported this project based on the original plans and designs in Union Terrace Gardens and the commitment is not automatically transferable to another project.”

Details of the format of the consultation have yet to be released, but it has been revealed is that "leaflets will be posted to residents, exhibition stalls will be set up in city shopping centres, focus groups will hold discussions and a telephone hotline will be manned", presumably funded from the £40, 000 of revenue funding given to ACSEF by ACC back in June. "Aberdeen citizens will be asked whether they want the project to go ahead and, if so, what they would like to see in the detailed designs", leaving the actual content of the square to be unknown, jarring with Tom Smith's guarantee that "the project is very real and properly thought through with foresight at every level." Foresight enough to not have any content as yet and properly thought through enough to have no actual idea of what the site will look like other than stretching between the four corners of the Denburn Valley or “chasm” as Mr Smith affectionately describes the area.

Should the outcome of the impending consultation be in favour of the "City Square Project" then this doesn't guarantee that it is actually going to happen, as is stated on the project site: "it will need to gain planning permission and funding. There will also be further detailed consultation before submitting any planning application." As I mentioned in a previous post, due to the nature of the Denburn Valley area, protected as Urban Green Space in the Aberdeen Local Plan (2008) obtaining planning permission should cause problems. However this may not be a problem if the body responsible for submitting the planning application are actually leading the modernisation of the planning process .

With the future of this "City Square" full of uncertainty and its very existence threatening a project which has already gone through due process, gained planning permission, 75% of it's funding and actually has content, there is a very real risk that a few months down the line we could end up with nothing. On Tuesday, Leader of the Labour Group within ACC, Barney Crocket called for the Peacock proposal as it stands to be included in the public consultation as well as Wood's “We know that there is worry at Peacock about how the arts centre is involved in the consultation and we would certainly want to make sure everything is on the table. It would be a worry for the city to risk losing everything – we would like to make sure all options are considered.” The closest an to an official line on the debacle from ACC was Council Leader, John Stewart who called for "a genuine, open and honest consultation. I really want to know what people think” Mr Stewart has already received hundreds of emails in opposition to the Square, and the numbers of the online petition continue to rise, which should provide a healthy estimate of "what people think." Despite this his he "had chosen to keep out of the debate" and continue ACC's Laissez-faire attitude when it comes to the concerns of the city they have been elected to lead, and the constituents who voted them there.

"[The cost of the project] may come out at GBP200m, in which case it's dead. We absolutely won't raise GBP200m. If it's between GBP100m and GBP150m, we would have a fighting chance." This was Ian Wood's original appraisal of cost issues around the square two weeks after his initial announcement, unsurprisingly the HFM technical appraisal brought the price in exactatly within his estimation, although it's not as though large infrastructural building plans ever come in anywhere near their original estimate. Even then, with £50 million provided from Wood's own funds, and hopes that "£20m can be raised from the private sector", this still leaves a shortfall of at least £70 million which must be met from public funds. Rita Stephen, ACSEF Development Manager, speaking on Northsound 2 on 6th December maintained the belief the the funds could come from the Scottish or UK Governments. A Scottish Government spokesman statued “We would consider any approach for funding on its own merits” which may not be the most encouraging statement, given the project in one form or the other has had funding bids rejected three times previously.

One possible way of raising the funds publicly is the proposal to introduce a Business Improvement District (BID) to the city centre. A highly controversial scheme which has already been rejected in Glasgow, would effectively place "Union Street, Market St et al" under private ownership of a City Centre Company, "which could sit under the umbrella of a city development company, or be stand alone entities under ACSEF." At the ACSEF annual forum in 11th June, North-East businesses were encouraged "to pay an extra 1% in rates to help trigger a quarter of a billion pounds of new investment in the region’s future growth."

"The money would be ring-fenced and used to fund ACSEF priorities such as the Energetica project, which aims to create a corridor of energy firms between Aberdeen and Peterhead, and the £140million Aberdeen civic square at Union Terrace Gardens."

Essentially, it would appear, that an additional tax would be introduced onto City Centre business, forcing them to pay for the square whether they want it or not. This "£25million over five years" and management of the city centre would be given, rather than directly to ACC (Who have announced they are facing another £25.5 million of cuts), but to ACSEF, a non-elected group currently without legal status or any funds. Given the fact that businesses in the City Centre would have to pay even more rates on their premises hardly encourages suggestion that building this square could "be the catalyst for the much needed regeneration of Union Street."

Returning to the issue of the existing proposal for the Arts Centre and it's future in the site, with Despite Ian Wood and Dave Blackwood maintaining that "“It is absolutely not an either/or situation,” another opinion tells otherwise, while perhaps not entirely "either/or" it is certainly a case of "a bird in the hand..." While the in the "City Square" there "could be an iconic contemporary arts centre" (and there could be a car park, could have shops, could have a restraunt, could have an Energy centre), the city square project has yet to have any solid purpose, attracted no funding and not been granted planning permission. The project has a long, difficult and costworthy road and there is a very high possibility that it simply will not go ahead at all.

Union Terrace Gardens are one of the highlights of Aberdeen, one of the symbols of the city and it's unique landscape and history. The real myth being "trotted out" is that of underuse, Obsolescence and demonizing it as dark, scary and unsafe, and even if these were true or a massive problem, the solution should not be simply to rip it up and level it off. There are ways and means of regenerating an area, turning it around, and there is a project already very real sitting waiting to be realised. The growing numbers opposing this plan, signing the petition, writing to the council and asking questions show that people activelly care about not losing their Gardens. We can only hope that this public consoltation will be “robust and comprehensive", "make sure everything is on the table" and really make sure that the people of Aberdeen are allowed to have their say but the ability to do so educated on what ALL the options are for the sight and given honest and transparent information on exactly what will happen to the Gardens in each of these options.