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.