What A Tangled Web We Weave...

"Negative and mis-information provided by groups opposed to the project will be monitored so that their actions, which may have negative impact on the project, can be anticipated and the presentation of clear facts and informed opinion made public"

ACSEF City Square Project Communications Strategy

The reactionary policy of ACSEF and Sir Ian Wood to criticism of The City Square Project has been a series of half-hearted ill-informed statements which seek to deny everything or appease everyone, while contradicting previous statements and generally confusing the situation. Rather than counteracting "mis-information" ACSEF are actively producing more and more confusing and contradictory statements about the nature and aims of the project. While dismissing those who oppose the plan as "based on a wholly inaccurate description" or "not fully understanding the plans"and Sir Ian expressing that his "real disappointment is over the confusion and misinformation in the public domain,” ACSEF's statements shed little light on what the plans are, or even that they know them themselves.

Adding to last week's Guggenheim comparison, ACSEF have now put out a release that "the firm behind one of the world’s most famous buildings has shown an interest in contributing to the proposed civic square project in Aberdeen." Not architects Pei, Cobb, Freed and Partners, who designed the series of pyramids but RFR Engineering who executed the design to I. M. Pei's specifications. Given ACSEF and Sir Ian's current penchant for culture and arts it is hardly surprising that they concentrate on the large Pyramid outside the Louvre Gallery, and shy away from the equally impressive Pyramide Inversee which is suspended as a skylight into the Carrousel du Lourve underground shopping mall.

Sealing the announcement, ACSEF claimed "that creating a Scottish Guggenheim or securing a major national gallery or museum was one of its main aspirations for the project", not explaining how this would sit with assurances that "the door is always open to Peacock" exactly. What ACSEF fail to understand is the difference between a "national gallery or museum" and a Contemporary Cultural Space. Aberdeen already has a national gallery in the form of Aberdeen Art Gallery which houses one of the most impressive museum collections in Scotland, and it has been said many times that the Northern Light Contemporary Arts Centre will not just exhibit art, but host a wide range of activities and provide a counterbalance to the traditional Gallery Museum of the Art Gallery and the small grassroots arts initiatives emerging in the city.

ACSEF's board is made up largely of business interests, with a couple of token representatives from the public sector to legitimise their status, as they have no actual funds or legal status. There is no cultural or arts reprentation on the group, which is understandble as ACSEF are the local Economic Forum, tasked with realising "the ambition for the future of the Region and to shape delivery of economic development in Aberdeen City and Shire." Since there have been no examples of any strong economic case for the development, and is aimed squarely at culture and civic use then why is it being steered by the Economic Forum, and not, say, the Cultural or Civic Forums? In

However as former head of Grays School of Art, Stuart MacDonald, points out "We already have plans for an iconic building by world-class architects Brisac Gonzalez, who have come up with a fantastic design for the new Peacock Arts Centre, which respects the landscape of Union Terrace Gardens and is capable of providing, at a reasonable price, an accessible, inclusive venue with the potential to become one of the best public buildings in the whole of Britain.

“If people want a world-class arts centre in Aberdeen, they should vote for the one that’s already on the table,"

As well as acting completely outwith their remit for economic development, ACSEF are attempting to ride roughshod over the ten years of work Peacock have put in to developing plans for a world-class contemporary art centre for Aberdeen, and the international competition already won by Edgar Gonzalez of Brisac Gonzalez Architects.

"The project is very real and properly thought through with foresight at every level."

Tom Smith, ACSEF Chairman

Accenting the unorthadox web-based campaign against the City Square, a post on twitter highlighted the unfortunate use of a live photograph of Annie Lennox used in the City Square Project Brochure advertising a possible use of the square for "celebrations both big and small." The Irony is not lost on Ms Lennox herself who revealed her strong opposition to the scheme in a post on her myspace blog last week. "They clearly “assumed” it would be fine by me.. as it makes it look as if I’m endorsing their vision..when I wasn’t even asked..they just went ahead in any case. Which is precisely what will happen if people don’t become pro active on the issue" was the response posted on her Facebook page and not long after the revelations, the Press and Journal reported that the "glossy brochure for Sir Ian Wood’s City Square plan in Aberdeen which features pop star Annie Lennox is to be scrapped."

Nicola Moore of Weber-Shandwick who are handling the Public Consultation said “As it happens we are naturally phasing out this brochure. It has been replaced with a new, more concise leaflet which addresses some of the questions that have been raised during the consultation.” Of the £309,676 of public funds being spent on the consultation process a portion of this would have been spent on the design and extensive print run of the brochures, which have already been handed out at the shopping centre exhibitions, the focus groups, at presentations and a mass-mail out to Aberdeen homes, which would seem like an awful waste of taxpayer's money to simply be "phased out" just over halfway through the eight-week process. The phasing out, or scrapping of this document, which has been an integral part of the consultation, in favour of a "more concise leaflet which addresses some of the questions" hardly sounds like the "very real and properly thought through" project Tom Smith describes. As to how you can produce something "more concise" than the content-free original brochure will presumably remain one of life's mysteries.

An ACSEF spokeswoman, defending the brochure in The Scotsman said that "To show the fact that the new civic space and gardens could attract major outdoor and indoor concerts, we used a photo of Ms Lennox rather than another artist, as she is Aberdonian." Unsurprisingly, the purpose behind the inclusion of Ms Lennox is at odds with the bewildering statements of Tom Smith who dismisses the comments due to the fact that "Ms Lennox has been based in London since 1971" opposed to "Sir Ian is an Aberdonian who lives here." It seems her status as an Aberdonian is only justified if she supports the destruction of Aberdeen's only City Centre Garden.

With the heat of the national spotlight provided by Annie Lennox's statements now firmly on his scheme, Sir Ian has begun to sweat. Rather than accept her opinion, he critisized her remarks, saying "Comments focused on destruction by bulldozers and concrete are misguided. It’s ludicrous for her (Lennox) to talk about a concrete square" adding that he was "disappointed she’s been so negative without coming and having a look or understanding what’s happening." Lennox's original comment was "Aberdeen is your home town. Are you going to sit back, and do nothing while it’s beautiful historic center gets ripped out and concreted over”??!!" As the only information is "The proposal will create over 5 acres of ground at street level and a further 2.5 acres of all-weather, covered space with significant daylight below" and the only certainty is that the existing gardens will be removed then her comments hardly seem "ludicrous."

If the project is indeed "very real and properly thought through with foresight at every level" then why is the consultation process aimed at asking people what they want in it? In fact ACSEF's arguments against criticism are entirely contrary to Chairman Smith's statements and rely on the fact that the project is yet undefined to constantly deflect any concerns arising about the project, extending to giving "rows" to BBC reporters for mentioning the word concrete as "they do not know if it will be concrete yet." However neither the consultation survey or the focus groups are asking people what building materials they would like to use in the square and the HFM appraisal lays out that "The largest impacts would be from the significant amount of concrete, steel and other materials that would need to go into the substructure." (page 65)

With ACSEF and Sir Ian's increasinhly desperate attempts to bodyswerve criticism, they are now presenting the project as creating "a new civic space and gardens with a contemporary arts centre at its heart" which would be great for if it not for the project would have to destroy existing civic garden space and proposals for a contemporary arts centre. With the constant attempts to appease or pre-empt the supposed "arts community" and thin promises as the same "allocation" of green space with Sir Ian desperate offers on Brian Taylor's Big Debate that "You can have four acres of garden on top, if that's what you want."

Why spend £140 Million to build this at street level when there is already an actual "very real and properly thought through" plan on the table which would retain 2.5 Acres of existing, landscaped Gardens and have a contemporary arts centre at its heart for a tenth of the price?

What is so important about those three levels of underground real estate?