The balance was struck on Tuesday when Jim Milne, Chairman and Managing Director of the Balmoral Group spoke out against the City Square Project claiming that “As far as I can tell, the people of Aberdeen do not want Union Terrace Gardens desecrated. People don’t necessarily go into the gardens every time they are in the town, but they often look down and admire it. To put a concrete jungle there would be a mistake.” He also felt that the Peacock Plan had been "blown of of the Water" by Sir Ian's last minute "plans", and admitted he "he would consider investing in" the Centre, which so far no pub and club owners, property developers, Football legends, hoteliers or garden centre managers speaking out in support have offered to do with the City Square. More telling, Mr Milne went onto say that “with regard to the city square plan, I personally know many individuals, especially within the business sector, that feel pressurised into supporting the Acsef project by their peers." Mr Milne's full statement can be read here.
An ACSEF spokeswoman responded to Mr Milne's comments saying "It is nonsense to suggest people are being pressurised to support the city square project." This statement does not really tie up in respect to the emails being sent by Zoe Corsi of The Big Partnership and an email from the Chief Executive of the Wood Group to all staff about the consultation, and the Pro-Square petition. Sir Ian himself rebutted Mr Milne's opinions by saying "Everyone involved in the project takes great exception to any insinuation about people being pressurised to support the City Square" and dismissing the statement entirely by saying “there is however always a danger when one individual claims to speak for others" despite the entire debate being because of one individual's vision for what is best for an entire city.
"It is also not so long ago that Glasgow City Council decided to “modernise” George Square, sweeping away its previous leafy oasis used by many office workers to enjoy their lunch-time snacks and replacing it with an expanse of pink-coloured tarmac. For most of the time, it is ignored by the average Glaswegian."
And as more and more people are speaking out against the City Square, the threat of losing Sir Ian's investment is making more and more appearaces. The Press and Journal's editorial described "It appears, however, that his offer is one that the majority of Aberdonians feel they can refuse", Stuart Milne warned "It would be almost criminal if we don’t grasp Sir Ian Wood’s offer of a £50million gift" , an ACSEF spokeswoman stated "If the public does not support this project then he will withdraw his offer of £50million and it will not go ahead" and Sir Ian himself has said that "If the citizens of Aberdeen decide they don’t want this city square then I’ll just finish up a miserable old Aberdonian who’s £50million better off." and "I have always said that if the public does not support this vision then my offer of funding will be withdrawn." Significant to note that Aberdeen City Council's reported deficit also amounts to £50 Million, these comments highlight the difficult situation Sir Ian's offer has placed ACC in. How could a Council £50 Million down refuse a "gift" of £50 Million? Although the nature of the gift requires a further investment of at least twice that with Sir Ian's offer matched pound for pound from the public purse and with the establishment of 8 Acres of "civic" space which must be maintained by Aberdeen City Council's revenue budgets.
The public consultation runs until 5th March and has it's last public exhibition in Aberdeen City Centre in the Bon Accord Shopping Centre (A development not about retail is mostly being promoted within retail centres) so please if you have not done so, please visit the Consultation Survey and if you DO NOT want the City Square project then make sure to vote NO to the third question.(Also try to avoid selecting choices in the first two questions as we do not yet know how the information will be collated and whether requesting a feature will register as "support") If you have any questions you wish to pose to the consultation, contact them by email at consultation@thecitysquareproject.com, raise a question in the discussions section of their Facebook Page or Twitter (remember to use the #citysquare tag.)
If you wish to support the I Heart UTG campaign please, if you have not already done so, sign our petition and pass it on, join our Facebook or email us at iheartutg@gmail.com. Together we can save the unique heritage of Aberdeen City Centre and begin to move toward a better, brighter future for our city.
5 comments:
Short and sweet.
Is it getting easier? he he.
I liked Peter Wilsons take on the urban realm blog of the Annie Lennox story and how Tom Smith decided to approach it...
Recognising a p.r. disaster forming in front of his eyes, Weber Shandwick’s Neal Robertson coolly said that he had read Lennox’s comments with interest and that “her response would be logged.” Better still, he added, “it is good that people of a high profile are airing their views. The whole consultation was designed to get people involved.” Which would be fine and dandy had he bothered to brief Tom Smith, chairman of ACSEF, before the latter made his own splenetic response to the press. Speaking of Nelson Mandela’s right-hand angel, Tom just couldn’t help himself: “Given that Ms Lennox appears to have made her comments based on a wholly inaccurate description of the project on MySpace, we are hardly surprised by them. Objectors’ claims that it will be a flat concrete square similar to Red Square are misleading, as is their statement that it will be full of shops and car parking.” This, from the leader of a team whose own public statements and overbearing stance on the matter to date would make even old Muscovite apparatchiks blush, seems just a tad oversensitive. But he’s got a point: Sir Ian’s plans aren’t Red Square - they’re far bigger than that and unfortunately our Annie has put the international spotlight on Tom’s master’s megalomaniac notion.
I do not understand how Sir Ian's £50Million can be considered anything other than a bribe to see his vision come to life.
The dictionary describes a bribe as:
"Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct."
And a gift as:
"Something bestowed freely."
Sir Ian's £50Million certainly isn't being given freely, it is tied to specific aims of his own and as you report in the article it will be removed if these aims are not agreed with.
Additionally what kind of monitory gift requires you to double the amount first and then continue paying for the result in the future? Not one I want that's for sure.
I mean monetary.
I feel sorry for Weber Shandwick, they are extremely prestigious in both P.R. and P.A., but I feel that Sir Ian Wood is totally ignoring their suggestions and directions, because he feels that he knows best. Bit arrogant?
@ anonymous/weber shandwick comment. If there was some evidence to suggest that Weber Shandwick are attempting to direct Sir Ian towards some compromise all well and good, but the only evidence we have is the consultation itself, which is sadly lacking in integrity and disclosure. It certainly does nothing to enhance the professional reputation of WS. Quite the reverse - if I were a WS client I would seriously consider whether they are upholding best practise. Given the greenwash, the lack of authorship in their social meida, the blatant ignorance and misleading comments offered by stand staff at CSP roadshows, the appalling behaviour of the client in question (Acsef) and other factors, I would come quickly to the conclusion that WS have compromised themselves to the extent that their services would no longer be necessary.
Post a Comment