Just Plain Wrong, OK?

As the debate over the future of Union Terrace Gardens and the Denburn Valley rages on, and as passions and tension rises, cracks are beginning to form in the City Square Project's branded veneer. Three weeks into the eight-week process the strategy is becoming clearer, as all facets of the "robust and comprehensive" exercise have now been deployed. This has done nothing for public opinion of the project or the consultation process, which is widely regarded as disengenuous due to the leading questions on the survey and the reluctance to mention any other possible scheme which fulfills the objectives ACSEF and Sir Ian are claiming central to the reasoning for building it.

Last Monday, a week into the consultation, Weber-Shandwick carried out the first of their mysterious "focus groups." This get together at Aberdeen Grammar School was being billed as a meeting for Community Groups and local residents which led to a number of crossed wires as many people thought it was an open meeting to ascertain the views of city-centre residents and members of the Aberdeen public. However this was not the case and the event turned out to be invite-only and members of the great unwashed, without possession of a Golden Ticket were turned away at the door by stern-faced PR staff.

Although eventually a number of uninvited who were congregating outside were finally invited in, we were informed that we could come in for the presentation but were not permitted to take part in the focus group discussions, and any questions during the feedback session would be biased towards those who were invited. Fair enough, one would think as the reason given on their Facebook page was "By the nature of the workshops these have to be relatively small events and require a good cross-section of stakeholders and interest groups to be involved. For each of the focus groups we have drawn up a wide-ranging list of invitees. We cannot open these meetings up to all otherwise we will lose the benefit of gaining detailed insight and feedback." However, of 32 invitees, there were only 16 in attendance and 15 ininvited members which would have made up original quota for the groups. Regardless, when the Question and Answer session came around (delayed by an hour, according to the Agenda displayed at the beginning of the presentation the Q&A was originally supposed to take place right after the initial presentation) opinion was not stacked in the favour of the Civic Lid and Dave Blackwood from ACSEF and Maggie McGinley of Scottish Enterprise were left to field many questions, which related to the specific-yet-vague plans and their shallow promises, the consultation process, the destruction of the Gardens, and of course the debate surrounding the existing Peacock Plans. In response to questions asked about the collation of the results from the survey, Ms McGinley claimed that it "was not a numbers game" and that the purpose was to "identify a groundswell of opinion", however what this actually means in relation to the outcome of the consultation is another one of those mysteries.

In a letter to a constituent, Lewis MacDonald, MSP for Aberdeen Central, expressed his concerns "at the extent to which the public will be engaged" and that "despite repeated requests following correspondence from constituents, ACSEF have failed to take forward open public meetings." There are nine focus group meetings throughout the eight week period each one pickpocketing a different demographic (which we were assured by Dave Blackwood wouldn't be the case), and only six days of public exhibition within the City of Aberdeen (excluding the two set up in Aberdeen's two Universities which wont be available to the general public, and two more occurring outwith the city), this is hardly the "full and robust" consultation we were promised, and those behind the process are much more interested in their ad-bikes and presentation screens than any of the credible, intellectual or technical issues around the City Square project itself.

The reach and insight provided at the touring exhibition leaves a lot to be desired, as confused staff have seemed unable to provide any decent answers to the public's questioning and arent doing a particularly good job of selling it. I was told at one such exhibition in the Trinity Centre that "there's nowhere at the moment to hold music event and concerts", my reply of the Castlegate and it's track record of hosting the New Year festivities when the City can afford it. This inspired a blank look and the admission that the PR gentleman couldn't say anything about the Castlegate. Other visitors have reported confused and conflicting accounts of the "information" expressed by these civic design experts from Weber-Shandwick, some say Peacock is 100% involved in the scheme, others say they have no funds, no planning permission or that the Brisac Gonzalez project had already failed.

By contrast, on Tuesday, there was a very open launch of "What If" an exhibition of Edgar Gonzalez's sketches and concepts for compromised and phased approach to development in Denburn Valley. Far from being simply exclusive to the "arts community", the opening night at Peacock Visual Arts current home off Castlegate was attended by politicians, architects, city planners, businesspeople, accountants, teachers, lecturers, people who work in shops, people who work in resteraunts, people who don't work, people who live in Aberdeen who care about the future of the city. The exhibition shows outcomes of talks held late last year, arranged by Scottish Enterprise, between Halliday Fraser Munro and Brisac Gonzalez Architects in an attempt to find a "sensible" way to "end the stalemate between ACSEF and Peacock", which were rejected as they did not meet the unflinching terms of Sir Ian's investment.

Gonzalez's designs look into possibilities of retaining Union Terrace Gardens and responding to the desires ACSEF had identified to be fulfilled by the City Square: Connectivity through bridges and pedestrian walkways between Union Terrace and Belmont Street; Opening the back of Belmont Street with a series of peir like structures; Covering the railway and dual carraigeway with a lawn covered tunnel; Increasing accessibilty and use of the gardens through the Peacock Contemporary Arts Centre which will also provide light to the darker areas of the Gardens at night and shelter from the elements. The proposals also looked at the wider issue of the full footprint of Aberdeen City Centre, not just ACSEF's favourite "chasm", as the accompanying publication states: "A village has a town square. Cosmopolitan cities have many centres."

At the end of last week, Sir Ian himself had the opportunity to answer the concerns, issues and questions in public, broadcast live on Radio Scotland as part of Brian Taylor's Big Debate. Almost half of the programme was taken up with the Union Terrace Gardens debate, Wood's response to the initial question about the controversy surrounding the City Square Project by repeating the now tired lines of rhetoric and shallow promises that have defined their PR effort in the past year. Challenged by the issues of how the City Square would create Jobs; The destruction of the Historic Gardens; Better uses for the public money required for the project; the nature of the underground real estate; the misleading nature of the consultation; the only rebuttal Wood could offer was by saying he was "conceared that three or four of the key points made were just plain wrong." Unable to explain exactly why these key points were "wrong", the best he could do was dispel suggestions of a Shopping Mall by explaining that it was "something like Covent Garden" before reverting back the well-prepared “I don’t want to be remembered as the North Sea oil generation that enjoyed the prosperity but left a depleting economic legacy to our children and grandchildren” line.

However, focus was pulled in the debate by Labour MP Anne Begg. While the other MPs present on the panel remained largely on the fence, other than Aberdeen South MSP Nicol Stephen, backed Sir Ian's scheme primarily before throwing enough get out clauses in so not to alienate too many voters, Anne Begg both criticised the consultation process and put her full support behind the Peacock project. She said "There are two visions on the table, and I have to say one doesn't make my heart sing and one does – and that is the Peacock development." furthering this with the opinion that " to put in an underground mall will kill Union Street."

With support for the City Square waning, seemingly being supported only by those who brought it forward (A lone clapper after Ian Wood's response to the question on the radio broadcast was none other than Andy Willox, an ACSEF board member) and opposition arising from National Press, Architecture Journals, and from presentations given by Sir Ian Wood himself to academics from Universities, as well as the negative response from the population of Aberdeen we are left to wonder how long they will continue pushing this dated project as the solution to all of today's issues and the shining light of tomorrow?

ACSEF however, like to ignore the public opinion, or in fact any criticism from anyone be it an average citizen with a love of the Gardens or an educated expert with an informed issue relating to the project and despite stating that they "do not want to pre-empt the consultation" they seem to be under the impression that it is a done deal. A 24-page supplement in the Eastern Airways in-flight magazine is already using the Square as an attempt to promote Aberdeen. Pre-empting the outcome by omitting the idea that the people of Aberdeen may not actually want the project to go ahead, the advertorial sets out that "The next stage will be a major public consultation exercise with the people of Aberdeen to see what features they would like such an iconic new public space to have."

Meanwhile the City Square Project is already taking its financial toll on the city, The Press and Journal reported last week that "Aberdeen City Council officials have urged finance committee members to keep supporting [Peacock Visual Arts] with £3,040 a month until the end of May." The article points out that the financing "would come from the £3million contribution to the scheme which it had already approved but capped, and would pay the wages of one full-time member of Peacock’s fundraising team, and one part-time staff member" outlining that the money required is to keep two staff members in employment and involves further chipping away at the money allocated for the Art Centre project. Fortunately a week later it was reported that Aberdeen City Coucil "handed a financial lifeline to Peacock Visual Arts to keep alive its vision of building a £13million centre in Union Terrace Gardens" however with a warning that "Any public money should not be used in any way to go towards the current propaganda war between Peacock and the City Square." This stipulation is odd on a number of counts, it has already been explicit that the funds released are to allow Peacock to pay their Art Centre Campaign Director so it is unclear where the worry that the money would be spent on "propaganda" would come from. As far as I am aware Peacock have not even released any propaganda.

Although the definition of "propaganda" can certainly be applied to ACSEF's output surrounding their side of the supposed "war." In previous posts I have mentioned the tactics, slogans and tenious reasoning forming the backbone of their arguments and PR supporting the vague proposal. Full page newspaper adverts; Shop front Adverts; supplements in in-flight magazines; eco-bicycle placards, enough promotional booklets to provide every Household in the city and to hand out willy-nilly; exhibition material including Advertising boards, plasma screens, desks and personnel; Website and Social Media presence; Manned hotline and text service; Invite-only focus groups all focused on one man's vision are being unleashed on the people of Aberdeen. These are all pushing an idea of believing in a Vibrant Aberdeen using emotive language, unsubstantiated claims, vague promises that this is the only way to achieve these things. The Evening Express even published an image of Sir Ian which imitated the Kitchener's famous recruitment poster.

Sir Ian has attempted to answer the numerous points of contention but warning that "Aberdeen faces serious economic decline and more social problems unless the city centre and its transport links are brought up to a higher standard" and that the City Square Project will be the answer to this. But there is no evidence to link the City Square Project to prosperty or wealth generation, the same report which recommended £40,000 pounds be allocated for Phase 2 of ACSEF's project states that the "UTG project is currently unlikely to create substantial new office/technology space targeted at industry sector growth", and the HFM technical appraisal, a document ACSEF believes to be "a world-class, comprehensive piece of work produced by a team of internationally renowned experts" also states that "the difficulty in quantifying the economic gain is considerable."

Most would agree that Aberdeen city centre needs some TLC and investment, there are several "dead" sites throughout the City Centre but Union Terrace Gardens is not one of them. None of documents produced within the last five years have pointed to ACSEF's sudden belief that the Denburn Valley is "the city’s single most strategically important location", there is no mention of this in the Bon Accord Masterplan, Strategic Framework documents, Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan and surely this fact would have been highlighted during the two year period of development into Peacock's plans. ACSEF's Tom Smith, when discussing the allure of the city centre mentions "Edinburgh has Princes Street and the Castle" with the obvious glaring omission of Princes Street Gardens, which Union Terrace Gardens have often been compared to. The Denburn Valley could be the jewel in the crown of a healthy vibrant city centre if the level of donation Sir Ian wishes to invest was spread in a number of smaller projects to regenerate Union Street and the City Centre on the whole.

Sir Ian and ACSEF wish to turn a beautiful Urban Park into a structure with Covent Garden underneath, Red Square/Mini Central Park on top to turn the city into a "“Houston for the eastern hemisphere”, but why can't we just be Aberdeen?

The Facts and the Furious

On Friday 8th January, two days before launch of the consultation into it's current pet project, the vainglorious City Square Project, ACSEF released a full page colour Advert in Aberdeen's Press and Journal. The advert was an attempt to lay down the concrete-tinted "Facts" about the project, however, devoid of any statistics, projections, case studies or evidence, the facts are unsurprisingly thin on the newsprint. The Halliday Fraser Munro appraisal itself lays out that "the difficulty in quantifying the economic gain is considerable. To describe the benefits in cultural and civic terms; and to focus on the future raison d’être of the City of Aberdeen will become the means of explaining the benefits. However it is very difficult to make these benefits seem tangible"(page 55), and to this end, in June, £40,000 was released from Aberdeen City Council to ACSEF, which Peter Dennis, former Team Leader for Planning and infrastructure, explained was "assess in detail the benefits this proposal could bring." Six months down the line, at the beginning of public consultation into the project this ad shows that they are no closer to making "these benefits seem tangible."

Instead the idea has been to wade in with bombastic, sweeping, emotive statements amplifying the rhetoric of the last year and flying in the face of Aberdeen City Council's policies and ACSEF's recognised priorities from a simpler time before Sir Ian's timely benevolence. The ad leads claiming the vision was "the start of a journey to reclaim our city centre and create a safe place for relaxation and recreation for all those who live and work here" before going on to describe which miracles the structure will bring to the city.

JOBS FOR OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN

This section claims that "The City Square will help secure Aberdeen's long-term economic future, creating and safe-guarding jobs for generations to come." Without any demonstratible evidence to directly link the creation of the City Square and actual economic benefits, the ad reverts to a vague statement that "Research shows that attractive, vibrant city centres are key to competitive regions." This point ignores the fact that Aberdeen city centre extends much further than the five acre spread of the Denburn Valley and such expensive, high-risk concentration of funds, resources and planning into this one area will only be at the cost of the surrounding area.

There has been no word of how the £140 million investment in this area will impact on ACC's existing plans for city centre regeneration, such as the Bon Accord Masterplan, The Green redevelopment and the plans for a Civic Square at St Nicholas House, which has been used as the reason behind the Council's £11 Million move to Marischal College. The advert describes the city square as "a unique opportunity to put the city on "must visit" list", which is a tenuous attempt to tie the project into another of ACSEF's priorities: Tourism. Again however there are no reasoning of how this square will attract tourist, as though people are going to take time out to come to Aberdeen to visit a featureless square if not to point and laugh. The City Square will not solve the problems of empty shop units, for sale signs or the general untidyness of Union Street, issues outlined in a report into the City Centre Conservation Area. The idea that a five acre windswept expanse of unused real estate surrounded by badly-cared for buildings, empty units, weeds and 'For Sale' signs will make Aberdeen the "must visit" destination of Northern Europe leaves a lot to be desired, and this is an awfully shaky peg to hang all guarantees of "jobs and economic prosperity" on.

INCLUSIVE NOT EXCLUSIVE

Perhaps one of the most outrageous claims, which has already irked the Scottish Arts Council is that "The Peacock development is exclusive - focused on contemporary arts, City Moves and Whitespace. The City Square is inclusive - providing these and much more in a larger area for cultural activities." While much of the square's reasoning is supposed cultural activities, those behind the project have shown a complete ignorance to what it is Peacock, City Moves and Whitespace actually do.

City Moves is the council's own contemporary dance agency, which runs a number of classes on many areas of dance from ballet to yoga and is available to everyone both in Aberdeen and beyond. Whitespace, again, is Council-run and operates a great many projects with children, community groups, the vulnerable as well as reaching out to Schools and areas outwith the city centre as part of their remit "to remove all obstacles - financial, social, health, geographical or physical to ensure all City residents can access culture in Aberdeen and contribute to the cultural life of the City." Peacock themselves, far from being "focused on contemporary arts" runs a great number of inclusive community projects as part of their aims for "involving people of all ages and abilities in creative activity as a means of empowerment and to increase their understanding and enjoyment of contemporary art through collaborative projects with artists and the provision of learning opportunities." They are currently running the "Creative Identities" scheme which sees the organisation working with children from vulnerable areas to produce artworks, using the proceeds of crime in a positive, incusive manner. This project is the latest in a long line of artists outreach projects to benefit the communities of Aberdeen, including the Partner's scheme which saw artists working with communities in Woodside and Tillydrone between December 2006 and April 2008.

Before Sir Ian's vague vision emerged, this "exclusive" development was listed as a the Sixth Priority project for Aberdeen, fulfilling two of ACSEF's seven aims for 2025, with "High" Strategic Impact in the Strategic Framework Newsletter published by ACC in March 2008, a document which outlines the current status of projects which were to be delivered as part of the ACSEF vision. As well as proudly displaying one of Brisac Gonzales's images of the centre on its cover, the document fails to assess the Denburn Valley as "an unusable gap site" or even describe the area as "the city’s single most strategically important location" and the only hint at a "civic square" is the aforementioned St Nicholas House developments: "release of site for mixed use re-development." The document, in its closing outlines that a major gap in it's plans is that "There are few projects of scale to increase Aberdeen’s profile as a historical and cultural centre" contrary to this the City Square can only go ahead if it destroys and obscures the oldest remaining parts of the city centre.

Returning to the advert, the final paragraph of this section is quick to re-iterate Sir Ian's assurances that this is "not an either or project" as well as more unfounded claims that a Contemporary Art Centre in the City Square would have "better commercial viability as well as significantly lower development costs", even though the cost of the Square as a whole is ten-times that of the Northern Light Centre, and with a shortfall of £90 Million, is a lot more risky. Add to this the imminent dissolving of Peacock's biggest funder and the prospective loss of £4.5 million funding.

BRIGHTER, BETTER AND BIGGER GARDENS

Continuing the legacy of "could"s, "should"s, "may"s and "might"s this section outlines the possibility of "the same, or even more, green space in the heart of the city." An attempt to counter opposition to the destruction of the existing historic Gardens, claims of bigger and better gardens were the first batch of City Square PR this year. However, this has led the exact nature of these "gardens" to be questioned. The great Civic Roof has underneath it a concrete and steel structure, a road, a railway and three levels of real estate so there is very limited scope for landscaping. Yes it could have patches of grass, shrubs and potted plants but as I have said in many posts before: no trees. The images released with the city square projects, of which we are continually reminded that they are a "concept, not a design" shows dense woodland so thick it obscures much of the surrounding area, however in reality this is impossible (unless these are all recreations of the mobile phone mast near Dunblane which is cunningly disguised as a child's drawing of a tree.)

What is missing from the advert is that Union Terrace Gardens was not built on hydaulics allowing it to be "raised" and lowered as crackpot schemes see fit, the Gardens will be removed in their entirety to make way for the construction. “approximately 3,947 dump trucks of earth and 4,605 dump trucks of granite” will be removed from the site, along with 78 Mature trees, all plantlife and all features. The Gardens as they exist currently are a natural ampitheatre and have themselves been used often in the past for outdoor events such as concerts, dances, speigal tents as well as a meeting place, and site of relaxation and recreation. They are also home to a large floral version of Aberdeen's coat of arms, a feature which was partly responsible for Aberdeen winning Britain in Bloom ten times, their sunken nature provides perfect shelter against Aberdeen's stong and harsh winds and shade on those rare hot days in summer. The advert claims that the square will be "built into the natural topography of the area" while in fact it will cover and hide what is left of the natural topography of Aberdeen.

THE FUNDING WILL BE FOUND

ACSEF are now touting the City Square as "the top priority infrastructure project for the region" which is funny as not so long ago, ACSEF's flagship project "Energetica" was the top priority for the region. Energetica is a proposed corridor of energy headquarters between Bridge of Don and Peterhead "to create a concentration of energy technology companies, housing and leisure facilities along a 30-mile corridor from Aberdeen to Peterhead." A project like Energetica is central to ACSEF's Remit which is to "realise the ambition for the future of the Region and to shape delivery of economic development in Aberdeen City and Shire" and, unlike the City Square, has tangible and provable benefits to the region and can easily be equated with jobs and prosperity. However the claims that it will provide "further diversification" are negligible since the project will soley be "building on the solid knowledge, technology and trading base developed around oil and gas."

Proposals for a “Silicon Valley of the north" at Bridge of Don have been launched and highly-controversial plans for the Aberdeen Bypass have been approved by Scottish Ministers, linking Stonehaven and Bridge of Don skirting the Western Periphery of the city. Tom Smith, of ACSEF believes the bypass to be "“absolutely critical” to the region’s long-term economic future" yet this "most welcome" infrastructure project has no funds whatsoever towards it's estimated £395 Million cost and there is no indication of where the money could come from. Given the road's "critical" nature one can only wonder why ACSEF are considering plunging at least £90 million into leveling the Denburn Valley, a project which has yet to provide any reason for go ahead or proof of the benefits, rather than invest in a bypass which has been described as a "linchpin."

Further claims are made in the Ad that on the back of Sir Ian's £50 Million "further private money will be leveraged to make up the principle funds" even though the "plans" have been on the table for over a year now, and several business leaders have spoken out in favour of the Square, there hasn't been a single report of any interest, even speculative in investing in the project. As the text says: "The lack of public sector funding was one of the main factors in previous schemes for this site not going ahead."

Ploughing through on a tide of fantastical yet unsubstantiated promises, the ad goes on to state that "Other funding will come from accessing some of the public sector's long-term capital sources for major infrastructure projects", which is good because it's not the Aberdonian taxpayer who is footing the bill, but the Scottish taxpayer. Funny that ACSEF should lay claim to some of that elusive national pot of money, however Scottish Government funds are pretty stretched as the moment, with a planned rail extension to Glasgow Airport scrapped in the face of a £500 million pound cut to Scottish budgets from Westminster. No matter how often ACSEF can claim "it's our turn!", if the money isn't there there's not much that can be done about it. With Government money supposed to be financing the aforementioned AWPR, and transport links to Glasgow Airport cut, then how exactly does the City Square justify itself in the National portfolio of Infrastructure priorities?

What of other possible funding sources? In the past there has been the suggestion of a Business Improval District (BID) to be introduced to Aberdeen to "develop projects and services that will benefit the trading environment within the boundary of a clearly defined commercial area", or as the ACSEF Newsletter points out: "The money would be ring-fenced and used to fund ACSEF priorities such as the Energetica project...and the £140million Aberdeen civic square at Union Terrace Gardens", essentially increasing rates by at least 1% making the surrounding city centre businesses within the BID district to pay for the square. Another possible source of funding which has been identified is "Tax Increment Financing", which operates not unlike the BID, however the rates levy is not restricted to Businesses along, the entire population of a certain area (presumbably, in this case, Aberdeen City Centre) who's taxes will go up to account for "future gain" at the end of the project. Not only is this a worrying increase to a population already paying the highest Council Tax Rates, but this particular financing method is not legal in Scotland and it's implementation would require legislation to be changed at a National level to allow it to go ahead. Is this City Square Project really worth it?

"The City Square cannot take money away from the council's annual revenue budgets and therefore will not impact on key services such as education, housing, social work and roads."

This statement is perhaps the greatest diversion from "The Facts", Sir Ian was quick to point out at the fateful "consultation" evening at Tiger Tiger all those months ago that I didn't know the difference between capital or revenue funding, as an answer to questions of how Aberdeen, a City currently in financial dire straights, can afford to undertake this project. A valid question which most people are asking when faced with a price tag of £140 Million pounds, however this patronising attempt to quell public outrage doesn't exactly ring true. The previously mentioned £40, 000 released to ACSEF came from "the Council’s current revenue budget, which would be sufficient contribution for Phase 2."(page 155) which goes to prove that any of the preparatory work: technical appraisals, feasibility studies, public consultation, economic assessments, transport assessments, analysis of delivery vehicles, design, planning application and so on would be funded from revenue spending. Only the costs of building the Square would come from capital sources, and then more costs would need to be suffered from revenue such as greenskeeping, maintenance, cleaning, collecting litter, supervision, Health and Safety issues as well as day to day operations of any features the people of Aberdeen would like to see, such as an outdoor Ice Rink, cafes, concerts, Markets and 'landmark public art'.

WHO ARE ACSEF?

One of the most common question I have come across in the last six months, aside from "where is the money coming from", "Why can't they build over the road and railway and leave the Gardens" and "what is the point?" has been "Who are ACSEF anyway?"

ACSEF, or Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future, previously Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Forum, formally North East Scotland Economic Forum was established in 2001 in response to a Scottish Government directive. They are a Public-Private sector Partnership, which should not be confused with a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) which is usually an enterprise, such as a school which is built by a private firm and leased back to the Education Authorities, ACSEF is a public-private sector partnership as it includes high profile members of the private sector business community as well as the leaders of Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils and representatives from both Aberdeen and the Robert Gordon Universities.

The National Guidelines for Local Economic Forums point out that the role of forums was "tackling first the streamlining of business development services and thereafter, if they have proved successful, they will move on to consider local delivery mechanisms for lifelong learning, better local labour market co-ordination and other areas such as trade and tourism." ACSEF (NESEF) at the time to streamline economic activities and drive economic growth within the city.

On becoming ACSEF, the role of the Forum remained largely the same but their remit was expanded to an advisory capacity to inform Scottish Enterprise on routes to "maximise the contribution of the region to Scotland's economic growth." Beyond this ACSEF has no actual power or authority over any of it's partners or other forums. Only ACSEF's development manager recieves a wage, and this position is part of a three-year secondment from Aberdeen City Council, ACSEF as an organisation for the year 2009/10 received £80,000 of funding from Scottish Enterprise and £229,000 from Aberdeen City Council (Costs include the Development Manager salary) Both SE and ACC list these costs to cover Development Manager, office costs, events management, communications, and project development support.

Given this, ACSEF seem to have outgrown their all-weather footware. Nowhere within any documents, received with Freedom of Information requests to ACC and SE relating to the establishment and powers of ACSEF, does it mention spearheading huge scale construction projects. They would argue, most likely, that they drive economic development, however as the Advert above and public statements made by members of ACSEF have proven, they can demonstrate no tangible economic benefits to the region from the project. While it would attract £50 Million pounds of investment (the investment which actually started the project), it would require at least twice this amount to go ahead, not to mention the cost to the traffic infrastructure for such a big construction, the tax hikes and destruction of the last of Historic Aberdeen.

In furthering this project, ACSEF are also going against their core remit for promoting economic development, they will scupper an approved plan which will bring in £5 Million annually and expects a footfall of 200,000 as well as regenerationg Union Terrace Gardens without completelly irradicating them, and will, in turn, refuse an investment which has already been promised from central Scottish funds. The future of Peacock is up in the air as well, with this process being dragged out for fifteen months, the lease on PVA's current home gets closer and closer, there is a very real concern that ACSEF may "bleed them dry" and rather than further economic development they would kill off a progressive and internationally respected business which has been around for 35 years.

Please, keep lobbying councillors, find out who at WriteToThem, they may say they are not allowed to make comment because it may come to planning application, however they are only restricted on commenting on LIVE applications and the city square project has a long way to go before it can consider putting in a planning application. Continue to urge others to Sign the I heart UTG petition to Save Union Terrace Gardens and if you are unsure of the costs, scales check out Compare The Square which puts the project in perspective. Actually it highlights how completelly out of perspective the project is.

This is a Design, Not a Concept

It has begun. Public Consultation into Sir Ian Wood's proposed big-budget sequel to Moscow's Red Square, commissioned for ACSEF by ACSEF. The consultation is being reported as "one of the largest public engagement exercises yet mounted", but rather than being in the hands of an architecture or civic design consultancy, the public consultation will be carried out by Weber-Shandwick, the worlds largest PR company. With an agenda consisting of "presentations, exhibitions and displays across Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, and the public will be invited to have their say by text, Twitter and other social networking sites, as well as more traditional methods", you could be mistaken for thinking this was more of the Daz Doorstep challenge rather than a serious debate about future developments in the city centre. As well as "public" displays in shopping centres and in both universities over the course of the next eight weeks, the Consultation will be dropping into schools, and presiding over "focus groups," invite only representatives from the small businesses, arts and community groups. The exact details of how to get involved with these focus groups, or the formate which they will take remains a mystery.

The City Square Project website, has shed its placeholder and contains all manner of "information" surrounding their proposals including a consultation survey. This survey asks three questions, the first asks you to rank "the most important features to you" from nine options, before going on to ask "what would you like to see in the City Square Project?" again with a ranking system to name your top five out of nine, before asking a simple yes/no question to "do you support the City Square Project?" I personally replied to the second question with "I do not support the City Square Project, therefore I do not want to see anything in it" and answered the third question with the expected "NO." However if you select that you do not support the square, yet want to see "water features", a "conference centre", "specialist retail", "outdoor ice rink" and a "contemporary arts centre" in it, then how will this effect the result. How exactly will these results be collated and reported anyway? Responses to these three questions are wide open to interpretation, and if there's anything PR companies to best that's spin. After all it was Weber Shandwick's CEO Colin Bryne who was Tony Blair's PR adviser at the 1997 and 2001 elections.

This “robust and comprehensive” consultation, in fact "the scheme’s backers have promised will be the “most comprehensive” consultation yet seen in Aberdeen", is so comprehensive that late last year it was reported that the existing proposals with majority funding and full planning for the Northern Light Contemporary Arts Centre would not be included as part of the consultation. ACSEF's Tom Smith claims, paridoxically, that "It would be completely inappropriate to consult on a scheme which already has planning permission", which means that this "comprehensive" consultation into the future of the Denburn Valley is leaving out the only fully realized project for the area, one that Mr Smith claims "If the public don't wish to support our proposal, the option is to go with Peacock’s design." As ACSEF have no funds to speak of, the undisclosed cost of the Public Consultation (With budget enough to employ a freephone line, a text service, employing the World's leading PR agency, full page newspaper adverts, travelling exhibitions, leafleting of all homes in the City, catering at the focus groups and goodness knows what else) is again being paid for by the taxpayer, yet excludes another project which has secured £9.5 Million pounds worth public money and spent another £1 million in their own preparatory work. Prime example on the complete disregard for public funds being shown by ACSEF through the entire process, which will presumably continue along the long and costly road should the result of the consultation come back in their favour.

The track history of the outcome of ACSEF commissioned (and publicly funded) "investigations" does not suggest a fair unbiased outcome. As I have mentioned in previous posts, the Haliday Fraser Munro technical appraisal into the Denburn Valley project not only failed to look into a compromise option of achieving Sir Ian's "vision" but retaining the Gardens and the existing Peacock proposals but dismisses the third option, of the Brisac Gonzalez Art Centre and landscaping of the existing Gardens "will not create any significant economic and social impacts"(Section 8.8), conflicting with the independent financial assessment and two years of groundwork which resulted in Peacock securing full planning permission, public funding from three different sources and a place as one of the ACSEF's strategic priorities for the region. The appraisal also manages to bring the cost within Sir Ian's original estimate, even though the report itself outlines 25 notable exclusions, including the compulsary purchase of “Site acquisition fees/costs. Air rights, rights to light (or any third party compensation settlements), over sailing licences, sale or letting fees/costs”, which the report states could amount to £10 Million, and the question of out of hours working, Network rail has stipulated that they will only allow access “9 hours at weekends and 5 hours during the week." Add to this that Aberdeen City Council has confirmed that the £140 Million estimate is only for the structure itself, any features which "the people of Aberdeen want", Landmark Sculpture, Conference Centre, Landscaped Gardens, Water Features etc would cost extra on top. The actual full costs of the square would likely end up double the estimate, assuming that the construction does not run into any disputes or encounter any other problems during the project, and adding on the expense required with the actual design, planning applications, another public consultation etc which must happen before the project can even think about raising the £90 Million plus required for destroying the Gardens and building the structure.

In the lead up to Monday's launch of the public Consultation ACSEF's PR drip fed news of high profile supporters such as ex-Aberdeen Manager Willy Miller and Hotel Magnate Robert Cook as well as a disability group voicing their concerns about access to the Gardens, an issue which is a part of the Peacock project with their introduction of a lift that can grant access from Union Terrace directly down to the bottom of the Gardens. Perhaps one of the most outrageous move was a full page advert published in Friday's Press and Journal, which has already angered funders at the Scottish Arts Council, who have invested £4.5 Million pounds in Aberdeen, for claims that the Peacock-led Contemporary Arts Centre will be "exclusive", compared to the City Square which will be "inlcusive."

The Ad also continues to make spurious claims without any evidence, precident or logic: It claims "Jobs for Our Children and Grandchildren" going on to explain why Jobs are necessary, but fails to mention how this featurless square will provide long term employment; "Brighter Better and Bigger Gardens" which is an attempt to counter the great concearn about losing an area of Urban Green Space, reflecting statements ACSEF had already released to the press, claiming that because there was a greater surface area to the square it could have more Gardens, although Gardens devoid of history, heritage, integrety or trees. Not Gardens actually: lawns and shrubbery. Another claim is "The Funding Will Be Found" making more shallow promises about bidding for Government pots, yet the most interesting sentence is the outright lie that "The City Square cannot take money away from the city's annual revenue budgets" perhaps the construction of the square can't, but care for these "brighter, Bigger and Better" Gardens will, maintenance of the Ice rink, fountains, landmark sculpture and cleaning among whatever other features "the people of Aberdeen" will. We have just seen that Aberdeen cannot afford to grit the city, how will the afford to grit an extra five acres of street. I guess it might cut down on costs of an Ice Rink though.

A comment on a BBC Blog about the debate revealed that the P & J has vetoed the publication of any advertising against the square which is backing up their editorial line supporting the City Square project outright, and labeling the high volume of concern and opposition as a "vociferous minority" who are smothering the strong opinions of the "silent majority." Now the consultation is in full swing and is being discussed throughout Aberdeen, the silent minority is remaining suprisingly silent. Comments made on online articles about the City Square are largely against the square, as is opinion on many message boards and forums, the City Square #tag is hardly encouraging and the only discussion on the Facebook group is from people who are establishing that they are "not a fan."

Although the week before the consultation launched, a group calling themselves "I believe in Aberdeen" emerged with their own blog, "Support the City Square" petition and Facebook group, which advertises Aberdeen as "Empty shops and run-down buildings on Union Street. Ugly skyscrapers. An unattractive and avoid-at-all-costs city centre. A stagnant culture scene." The stance of the group continues the guilt-tripping tactics started by Sir Ian Wood in November 2008 when he made his initial announcement. The rhetoric being used here is to suggest that the only way to "believe" in Aberdeen is to tear out it's heritage and cover the it over with concrete and astro-turf. Far from being an independantly-run support group, when the Facebook group was first established it listed it's creator as Paul Robertson, leader of the Aberdeen Youth Council, and coincidently a member of the City Square Project steering group. Administration and ownership of the group then passed onto Iain Corbett, another Youth Councillor who quickly sought to legitimise the group by demanding that "Peacock should issue a public apology to Tom Smith and Sir Ian Wood without delay” for comments made by a former employee Adam Proctor on twitter relating to the Public Consultation.

This attempt at a smear campaign against opponents to the City Square based on a personal opinion is a tad hippocritical considering that anonymous supporters of Sir Ian's plans have labeled those in opposition as "moaning indidviduals" users of the Gardens as "drunk, drugged up, unemployed yobs" in online Press and Journal comments. In fact, the first online presence of the "Aberdeen Silent Majority" announced themselves in a comment on a previous post. A blog with with two entries, the first an attack on the I heart UTG campaign and the second a critique of this humble blog. The blog was removed not long after, presumably to retain the silent nature of this "majority." This is a public consultaton into a controversial issue, which means that the public will be able to have their say and express their feelings, both about the proposal and the way the entire process is being run, members of ACSEF are making public statements so should be ready for the general public to react to these statements.

Despite this, local press took it upon themselves to make a mountain from a molehill, or rather a City Square from a concrete slab. The Press and Journal's editorial line read "Whatever people think of the proposal, there should be no question but that the motives of the two men are entirely genuine" and that this fact "is not good enough for a few people who lack the ability to express themselves without resorting to insults." This unsurprising editorial and the "Barstoolgate" article echoes the Press and Journal's "exclusive" expose on the Tripping Up Trump campaign group claiming that the fact that many of the groups leaders did not live in Aberdeenshire meant the group's "credibility is comprehensively blown apart" allowing the paper to make the editorial statement that "This newspaper has given a voice to all those who have wished to become involved in the debate about Donald Trump’s plans. That courtesy was extended to Tripping Up Trump in the belief that it was bona fide group of local environmentalists. Today, it has been withdrawn." Not only have they withdrawn their support for the group but also begun to release articles actively making tenuous links in an attempt to discredit the supporters or members of the group.

With the Press and Journal urging us to "Treat Garden Plans With Respect", even though the plans show no respect for the Gardens, they also emphasise that "Sir Ian, remember, is promising to commit £50million of his own money if the project goes ahead." This is a big "if" and if we look closer at Uncle Ian's motivations and the nature of his "generous" donation of £50 million. It was this generous donation which launched the hastily thrown together plans for "decking over' the Denburn Valley, just a few days after confirmation of the last of public money for the Northern Light Centre. Sir Ian has admitted that "From a personal perspective, I consider the failure of Grampian Enterprise to achieve the backing and financial funds to achieve this in the early 90s to be my biggest failure as its first chairman and that has always bothered me" and that if the people of Aberdeen do not support the project he would walk away. His money would not be available to the city to invest in any other project, such as the newly green-lit Aberdeen Western Periphery Route which hasn't confirmed the whereabouts of any of its £300-£400 million budget.

"Sir Ian has attached four conditions to his £50m offer. The street-level square must have a walk-on/walk-off from Union Street, Union Terrace and Rosemount Viaduct; it must cover the whole five-acre site including the Denburn railway line and adjacent roadway; it is subject to the outcome of the feasibility study which will determine the cost and scale of the project and also subject to significant public sector funding being available; and it must have the backing of Aberdeen City Council and the people of the north-east of Scotland."

Sir Ian's conditions are not exactly flexible, a compromised approach with an eye to covering the road and railway while retaining the Gardens akin to the Millennium Square project of the late-nineties will not be considered. (Peacock architects, Brisac Gonzalez, have actually come up with some inventive designs for ways of integrating the existing Union Terrace Gardens and Arts Centre with ways of covering the Gardens and achieving the conceptual desires of The City Square Project which will be on display at Peacock Visual Arts from Tuesday 19th.) A bargain is only a bargain when you need it, and these rough and vague proposals backed with the £50 million donation will cost at least twice that from public funds as well as the removal of a historic part of Aberdeen's cityscape and the loss of £4.5 million investment and a scheme to highlight and revitalise the Gardens and create an opportunity for Aberdeen to diversify its interests and widen the range of industry supported in the City.

However, Sir Ian does not seem interested in diversifying Aberdeen's interests, even in the face of the decline of North Sea Oil he wishes to plough on. In an interview on BBC Radio Scotland's "Good Morning Scotland" programe, Wood claimed the purpose of the square was to "attract the kinds of new industry, mainly energy related which try and give us jobs for our children or grandchildren." Although there is no evidence to support the idea that the building of a Square will have any benefits, economic or otherwise, or how exactly it will attract skilled workers or industry. The effects in small-scale investment in culture have been seen to have enermous effect in transforming post industrial areas such as Liverpool, Dundee, Glasgow, Gateshead.

Aberdeen has the chance to branch out and relieve the strain on the energy industry with all of Aberdeen's eggs placed in it's basket, but that chance no matter how much Sir Ian assures us that "a contemporary arts centre, built as part of what is a transformational development in the centre of Aberdeen, will cost less. They will get exactly what they want: lower costs, better prospect for viability", Peacock's funding (The largest single capital grant from the SAC), two years preparitory work, an award winning design and an already spend £1Million would be lost. Sir Ian argued on STV News on Monday that he "didn't believe" the money would be lost, even though the Scottish Arts Council will cease to exist in April with the emergence of Creative Scotland, and the money must be committed or spent on other projects throughout Scotland before then. no

A website has been released, "Compare The Square" which, does exactly what it says on the tin, and helpfully provides comparison in black and white between the two schemes. The I heart UTG Petition continues to gain signatures and people who believe strongly about Saving Union Terrace Gardens should be encouraged to sign it, if they have not done so already. People should also get actively involved in the Public Consultation to make sure their opinions are heard.

PLEASE also participate in the consultation by:
Freephone: 0800 111 4881
Text: Sending your thoughts by texting 60777 followed by the word ‘square’
Email
consultation@thecitysquareproject.co.uk
MORE INFORMATION:
If you, or anybody you know, is feeling slightly confused then please spread the word of www.comparethesquare.com which discusses the options for Union Terrace Gardens in a simple and easy to understand manner.




ADVICE ON FILLING IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE:
If you want to say NO to the City Square project then we would suggest the following method of completing the consultation survey:

Question 1: go to the fill-in box marked "other" and enter either "Retaining Union Terrace Gardens as they stand" or if you prefer "The Brisac Gonzales designed contemporary arts centre" or , indicating this is your number 1 preference. Leave the rest blank.

Question 2: go to the fill-in box marked "other" and enter "I do not support the city square project", indicating this as your number 1 preference. Leave the rest blank.

Question 3: "no" (!)

The reason for answering questions 1 and 2 would be in case the results are presented on the basis of completed surveys. This is one way in which survey data can be presented, and in the case of only answering one question on the survey, it would potentially allow that data to be excluded from the final report. This may not be the case of course, but we should be aware of the possibility.