Mega sweet plans for Aberdeen’s City Garden Project

Design would see 14 brands of sweets inserted

Published: 26/01/2012

Bookmark with: 

• 

PICTURE EXCLUSIVE: How Union Terrace Gardens could look.

The centre of Aberdeen could be filled with sweets as part of the City Garden Project, designers revealed today.

The raising of Union Terrace Gardens in Aberdeen would see over fourteen brands of confectionary dispersed throughout the Granite Web.

The sweets – including Smarties, Bassets Allsorts, Quality Street, Love Hearts,  – would replace the 86 trees currently in Union Terrace Gardens, to help create the new City Garden in Aberdeen.

Designers have said there is also option to construct the elevated walkways out of Twix. Wham bars were initially considered, however they ruled out after they were found to soften in the Mediterranean climates predicted be brought by the creation of the Square  Garden.

A spokesperson for ACSEF tonight said initial projections suggest that the City Garden Project's 5 acres of sweets would create around 6,500 long and medium term employment opportunities "What this development had highlighted is the periphery industries which could benefit directly from the project. We believe this would allow Aberdeen to become a centre for excellence in Dentistry."

Frank Furter from the Aberdeen City Gardens Trust Steering Monitoring Project Gardens Strategic Partnership Collective said "Whatever you want in it, you can have it."

A source close to the city council, who yesterday agreed on a range of measures to pave the way for the City Garden Project, subject to a “yes” vote when the result of the ballot is announced on March 2, claimed that elected members were very interested in this new proposal "especially if there was an option to include butteries."

Sir Ian Wood, who has underpinned the City Gardens Project with a generous donation of £50 Million from his personal fortune today said "Yummy."

Use It Or Lose It

Following the demise of the Northern Light Contemporary Art Centre Scheme, spearheaded by Peacock Visual Arts, following the decision by Aberdeen City Council on May 19th to accept "in principle" an alternative scheme for Union Terrace Gardens there was a surplus of unused and somewhat unusable £9.5 Million. This at direct contrast with the scheme which had been amber-lighted, oil tycoon Sir Ian Wood's 'vision' for a five-acre, three story plaza to replace the Denburn Valley, which is short by at least £90 Million, ten times the money which had already been raised by the Peacock scheme.

In the months following the fateful council meeting the £9.5 Million which had been pledged to Peacock inevitably began to filter away. The £4.3 Million Scottish Arts Council grant was returned to new cultural body Creative Scotland and redistributed to other projects throughout Scotland. Aberdeen City Council held onto the £3 Million they had pledged, minus a small amount released to keep Peacock's campaign team running in the lead up to the Council Decision. However in the past week doubt has been shed on the future of the £2 Million pledged from Scottish Enterprise.

In January this year, the Press and Journal reported that Gordon McIntosh, director of enterprise, planning and infrastructure, claimed that the Scottish Enterprise grant had been prematurely withdrawn “The information that I was provided with last week was that the £1.6million was handed back last April,” adding that “The council was working under the assumption that the money was there when it wasn’t."

Gordon McIntosh: "£1.6 Million handed back last April"

However, Scottish Enterprise strongly refute these claims stating that "at no point did SE withdraw funding for the Contemporary Arts Centre in Aberdeen. Had the project gone ahead as planned and outlined in the legal agreement then SE would have honoured the funding agreement." This stance is backed up by documents provided by Scottish Enterprise detailing how the organisation had contacted Council Officers on three separate occasions towards the end of last year: September 15th, October 19th and November 19th in order to discuss options for alternative proposals to receive the remaining £1.6 Million of Scottish Enterprise money.

Two of the three documents provided by Scottish Enterprise clearly mention a March 2011 deadline for the re-allocation of the monies, while the third refers to identifying "alternative eligible projects which may meet SE's strategic objectives and conditions." The eligibility and strategic objectives and conditions relating to the grant were spelled out in a legal agreement between Scottish Enterprise and Aberdeen City Council dated 18th March 2009, which had been signed off by the city solicitor on 23rd March 2009, which also mentions a final deadline for allocation of monies by 31st March 2011.

The information provided clearly indicates that should the grant not be re-allocated then it would be returned to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in April this year, not last year as Mr McIntosh suggested in January. While at face value, looking at the numerous documents it could appear that mr McIntosh's claims were the result of a simple mistake, that the council officer had simply gotten his dates wrong. It remains to be seen how a council executive with such a large responsibility to the city could make announcements based on a seemingly minor oversight - especially when receiving monthly correspondence from Scottish Enterprise regarding Aberdeen City Council's responsibility to spend the remaining money. It is reckless at best for a local authority with such major and widespread financial problems to simply lose over a million pounds of public funding.

Another interesting note is the apparent discrepancy between the £2 Million awarded from Scottish Enterprise to Aberdeen City Council and the £1.6 Million mentioned in the documents from Scottish Enterprise which was required to be re-allocated or returned. The original legal agreement between SE and ACC "envisaged that £300, 000 of the Contribution was to be advanced by 31st March 2009" in order to "contribute an equitable share towards the advanced design stage of the [Peacock] Project." To this end £226, 000 was awarded to Peacock for "Architect, Design and Project Management fees", but a further £190, 000 was taken from the £2 Million in order to fund the Haliday Fraser Munro technical appraisal into Sir Ian's "vision" on behalf of ACSEF.

While SE ensures that "had the Contemporary Arts Centre project gone ahead SE would have honoured the £2Million grant in line with the legal grant offer", their money was being used to back two conflicting proposals, and the money for both came from a grant offer made to one project which was already in advanced design stages and had received full planning permission. In addition to the £190, 000 used to fund the technical appraisal, the Press and Journal revealed this week that the council had "secured permission to use £375,000 of the grant funding for Sir Ian Wood’s city square scheme" meaning that, in total, £565, 000 of the Scottish Enterprise grant awarded for the Northern Light Centre has been spent on the scheme which caused its collapse. That's over a quarter of the original grant.

The technical appraisal brief states that "the commission must deliver a technical appraisal which will inform an outline cost appraisal for three main options to develop Union Terrace Gardens and the Denburn Valley." The appraisal was to be carried out under a particular framework:

The framework for the options appraisal will fall under the following 3 headings:

1. Full street level decking

2. Partial street level decking

3. Re-design of the existing site without any street level decking

The appraisal must take into account a currently proposed project, with planning consent, to and create a £13.5M Contemporary Arts Centre (3,000 m²) on the West Side of Union Terrace Gardens.

However the actual results of the technical appraisal pay lip service to the framework but adhere closely to Sir Ian Wood's personal vision for the space. While the Contemporary Art Centre is included as a must, it is only included on the West Side of Union Terrace Gardens in option 3, which is quickly and unceremoniously dismissed as it only "would create minor benefits for Aberdeen City and Shire." Option 2, while having the brief to look at partial decking, it is almost indiscernible from Option 1, and bypasses the instruction from the project brief of "incorporating elements from previously appraised/designed schemes where appropriate" and ignoring the Millennium Square scheme (pictured, right)which would fulfill most people's desire to cover the dual carraigeway and railway, leaving the gardens mostly intact. Option 2 inexplicably replicates the first option but only doesn't meet with Belmont Street on the western side.

The technical appraisal, while bringing the costs of the project in embarrassingly light, pushes for the first option - directly facilitating the abandonment of the designed and planned Contemporary Arts Centre for which the grant which paid for it was intended. An odd and consciously contradictory machination which is not wholly unexpected.

In the ten months since The City Square project gained approval in principle, other than a change of name to The City Garden Project, it has made very little progress. The project has as-yet failed to gain Sir Ian's promised £50 Million investment, even though he claims it is now written into his will, a project board has been set up but inexplicably excluding any architects, and the timetable for the scheme is already slipping further back.

Kevin Stewart: "Surprise." Photo: Evening Express

Speaking in Saturday's Press and Journal, ACC Depute Leader, Kevin Stewart, in the face of losing the remaining £1.2 Million defended the council's actions by claiming “The city council made strenuous efforts to retain the Scottish Enterprise money for cultural projects. In fact, we drew up seven separate proposals — each of them costed and each presented to Scottish Enterprise for consideration.


“We had every faith that the proposals we put forward were worthy of funding from Scottish Enterprise, met the appropriate criteria, and would have contributed to the cultural life of the city.”

However it is difficult to quantify exactly how "strenuous" these efforts were to draw up proposals for spending the remaining money when just over a month ago SNP Councillor Stewart, who is also convener of the council's finance committee expressed that "It comes as a surprise to me that this money was withdrawn long before we made decisions about Union Terrace Gardens." How could Aberdeen City Council be making strenuous efforts to retain money that apparently wasn't there?

The attempts made to steamroller through this mega-proposal are spreading their debris throughout the city council. It seems that in the haste to chase Sir Ian Wood's yet-to-be guaranteed money for a project which will see him as the shot-calling minority shareholder, due process is being cast aside and Aberdeen City Council are tying themselves up in knots over it. As the Union Terrace Gardens saga continues with breakneck twists and turns, game changing revelations and scant regard for what the general public want to see with this public development, even those who support and champion the development are becoming unsure of what stage the development is actually at. Only once the City Square has succeeded in its inevitable self-inflicted downfall will the true costs of the vainglorious project be apparent to the city of Aberdeen. We can only hope that by that point it is not too late to give Aberdeen the regeneration it deserves.

Blow Your Own Trump-et

A few days ago, while filling in a job application form, I got to the section which asked about my education. For the first time when writing down the awarding body for my degree I was genuinely embarrassed. Over the years I have joked and been somewhat light-hearted about my degree from The Robert Gordon University, but on this recent occasion I was actually unsure whether declaring it would do me more harm than good, given the recent news that the University is to confer an honorary Doctorate on Donald Trump.

My studies actually took place in Grays School of Art, which has long sat uncomfortably with its parent institution from the perspective of both staff and students, and until August this year I was in the employ of RGU working as a technician out of Grays. While I am extremelly proud to both have studied and worked at Grays alongside some of the most committed, hard-working and talented professionals in the arts field whose compassion, integrety and moral fibre are second-to-none, my association with RGU is leaving an increasingly bitter taste in my mouth, given the institution's lack of regard for it's external perception and lowering moral code. It appears that The Robert Gordon University, like Aberdeen City and AberdeenShire Councils, is very much for sale.

RGU this year introduced a "Conflict of Interest Policy" for staff. The timing for this particular piece of legislation was extremelly odd, as it came in at a time when the university's figurehead: its Chancellor, Sir Ian Wood was driving forward a plan for a "Civic Square" (Or garden, depending on which particular demographic is being lectured) on the site of Union Terrace Gardens, which regular readers of this blog will be very much aware. On 19th May this year Aberdeen City Council voted to progress Wood's scheme, backed by economic body ACSEF which meant abandoning a 75% Funded, Fully Planned and previously approved scheme for a Contemporary Arts Centre within the Gardens being brought forward by Peacock Visual Arts.

Peacock was "established in 1974 by a group of artists, led by Arthur Watson" who were all recent graduates from Grays School of Art, similarly the majority of arts initiatives in the North East: Limousine Bull, Project Slogan, Creative Cultures Scotland, SMart Consultants, Vernier Studios and, more recently, the 26 Artists Collective have been set up by Grays Graduates within the city. Most of these are run voluntarily, and are committed to improving the cultural landscape and exterior cultural perception of Aberdeen while providing space and opportunties to Artists to encourage them that it is possible to live, work and maintain a practice in Aberdeen. They attempt to counterbalance and stem the yearly pilgrimage of Grays Grads to Glasgow, Edinburgh, London or the many other cities in the country which have invested in their cultural infrastructures. Each of these organisations, as was Grays School of Art, were intrinsic to the development of Peacock's "Northern Light Centre", and the development of the centre was intrinsic to the future ambitions of these grassroots initiatives. If Peacock, as a business, could develop to the stage it was so close to being, then so could any one of them, and the opportunities and exposure which would come with having a visionary Cultural Centre would only feed into the aspirations of the smaller initiative, encourage others to be established and allow a healthy growth in Aberdeen's Cultural Sector similar to those shown elsewhere.

The conflict, however, comes into play when we consider Sir Ian Wood's aforementioned position as Chancellor of The Robert Gordon University. Wood's initial announcement of his £50 Million investment into a possible Civic Square came mere weeks after Peacock were granted planning permission and a £3 Million grant from Aberdeen City Council, and meant that in its current form, with Scottish Arts Council Funding being specific to the development in the Gardens that the two schemes were incompatible. Part of Sir Ian's roles as chancellor is to be "titular head of the University and confers degrees, diplomas and other awards", this particular role almost led to a direct conflict when this year's graduating group from Grays began to arrange a "Call to request Sir Ian Wood's absence from RGU graduation." Part of this call outlined how the students felt that "After his successful bid to ruin union terrace gardens, and very possibly our futures, showing his face at our graduation would be a very bad idea."

Returning to the upcoming Doctorate being presented to The Donald, a statement from Professor John Harper, Acting Principal of RGU justified the move saying "Given that business and entrepreneurship lie at the heart of much of the university’s academic offering, it is only fitting to award Mr Trump with an honorary degree. He is recognised as one of the world’s top businessmen, and our students – the entrepreneurs of tomorrow – can learn much from his business acumen, drive and focus." To put this statement in perspective, it would only be just to have a closer look at Mr Trump's "business acumen, drive and focus" and see exactly what it is that RGU deems important for its students to learn.

Donald Trump is listed in the Forbes 400 Rich list as the 153rd Richest Man in America (488th in the world) worth $2.4 Bn, having inherited his father's real estate business and managed to steer it to generate further wealth, but the road has not been smooth for The Donald and The Trump Organisation. Trumps business interests hit the skids during the last global recession in the late eighties and by May 1991, found himself "more than $3.8 billion in the hole and sliding perilously close to a mammoth personal bankruptcy" which cost him " his beloved Trump Princess yacht, the Trump Shuttle, the Regency, his half- interest in the Hyatt and his 27% interest in the Alexander's store chain, he will retain the Manhattan trophies he values most: the Plaza Hotel, Fifth Avenue's Trump Tower and a valuable tract of undeveloped Hudson River waterfront." Although Trump "eluded the specter of personal bankruptcy by whittling his debt down to more manageable proportions. The amount of debt that Trump guaranteed personally -- several hundred million dollars -- is breathtaking even by the standards of the '80s." While Trump escaped personal bankrupcy, it was his "Banks and bondholders who had lost millions of dollars due to his liquidation" and The Donald was off to do it all again - a year later.

In 1992 "A Federal bankruptcy judge ... approved a prepackaged bankruptcy plan for Donald J. Trump's Plaza Hotel, giving a 49 percent stake in the luxury hotel to Citibank and five other lenders" allowing Trump to again escape personal bankruptcy and remain in place as CEO at the Trump Organisation. The hotel was unable to make its debt repayments of a mammoth $550 Million Dollars "We're really pleased with the deal," Trump said. "It's 51/49 split with a major reduction in debt. Once again Mr Trump's debt was picked up by others and he was free to continue trading, until 2004 when Trump Hotels filed for Bankruptcy. Perhaps Professor Harper's reference to The Donald's business acumen can refer to the amount of time's hes run a business into nine-figure debt and managed to escape unscathed?

In relation to his "drive and focus" we need to look no further than the Menie Sands and the way the Trump Organisation have dealt with the task at hand, the Trump International Golf Links. Since Trump announced his plans in March 2006, the development has been riddled with controversy. His announcement came with the statement that he had "never seen such an unspoilt and dramatic sea side landscape", which he obviously felt he had to do something about and make sure it was spoilt post haste, despite the area being a recognised Site of Scientific Interest. He put a halt to a planned offshore wind farm as "I am not thrilled - I want to see the ocean, I do not want to see windmills"; He has publicly described a resident as a "loser who is seriously damaging the image of both Aberdeenshire and his great country" and a "village idiot"; His organisation have intimidated Horse riders using the dunes; allegedly Harrassed neighbours; Had two respected Video Journalists arrested, despite granting them permission to film; Intimidated and detained an opponent Councillor, with right-hand man George Sorial saying "Our complaint is that she broke the law – she is a trespasser" (Despite there being no tresspass law in Scotland); Told Local home owners to "clear off" during public exhibitions of the Course plans. Trump's practices have been criticised by Aberdeenshire MSP Mike Rumbles "While this is all procedurally correct, this behaviour by the Trump Organisation is morally unacceptable. Compulsory purchase powers were never designed to aid commercial companies in their pursuit of business advantage." Putting this together, does this sound like a man who should be a role model for students and held as an example to RGU's "entrepreneurs of the future?"

Former RGU Principal, who oversaw the upgrading of the University from a technical college, Dr David Kennedy was one of many who do not think so, having returned his own Honorary Degree in protest. Dr Kennedy was principal of the university from 1987-1997 and was awarded a honourary Doctorate in 1999 for his services to the University now feels that he "would not want to hold the award after Mr Trump has received his" as "he should not be held up as an example of how to conduct business." Dr Kennedy then went on to question the motives behind the conference of the Degree, saying "I think the degree has been given in the hope of receiving some money back in return.”

Robert Gordon University have been courting Trump for several months, with Fashion Students at Grays being commissioned to Design a a new Tartan for the tycoon, as his mother's MacLeod tartan is obviously not exclusive enough. Obviously this may be seen as a "sweetener" in a similar style to Aberdeenshire Council's £5 Million worth of land "gifted" to The Donald as RGU are indeed looking for some ready cash, in a time of widespread recession when most Universities are feeling the pinch, only in March were "Plans for a £170m development of Robert Gordon University's campus at Garthdee in Aberdeen ... approved", which are not to be confused with a previous masterplan which was supposed to be brought forward in 2006 "in the pursuit of improved teaching and research facilities by 2015." RGU makes it clear that "The University’s Masterplan has undergone significant change since the original was submitted for approval in 2006."

In fact, this new development Masterplan is so radical a departure from the previous one that it facilitated the rebuilding of RGU's treehouse nursery, relocated to the site of the Grays School of Art car park on the very western edge of the campus, mere six years after the opening of the previous RGU Nursery which was located at the opposite end of the campus, where the new, new building is now expected to go. Ironically, the day the builders moved in to Grays, RGU's Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and the Built Environment launched a series of lectures about "sustainability." Odd from a University who's commitment to sustainability sees a building constructed, discarded and rebuilt within a six-year period. The construction of the new Treehouse Nursery, being situated on the previous Grays School of Art facilitated the construction of a new car park, taking up a vast majority of the lawn in front of the school, a much loved and much used asset to the campus is now a car park. Originally described as temporary is now a permanent tarmaced compound for staff already taxed £16 a month for the priviledge of getting to work. Spoiling the aspirations of Aberdeen's Artists by building a car park on a garden, RGU's chancellor would be proud.

Grays School of Art, despite its prestige, reputation and 125 year history as one of the worlds leading Arts Institutes (over a hundred years older than RGU itself), regularly gets a bum deal from it's parent institution. Frequent space audits are carried out through the School, and the staff-student ratio is embarrassingly low. Gray's eleven courses are staffed by around 40 members of Academic Staff, most of which work part time, meaning that, in some cases, there can be two or three days of a week when there are no academic staff available for students to visit, the rest of the time these staff members are so stretched with commitments for tutorials, seminars, crits and meetings that often students can go for weeks without having any contact with academic staff. Which is hardly a valuable system of support.

Despite this, and due to the School's mounting deficit a letter was sent to all staff last week inviting them to a meeting to discuss a "restructuring" of the School to combat the "significant financial challenges, including a projected budgetary deficit for 2010-11of some £300k, which would be circa £370k if left unchecked by the end of this academic session.", with members of the University HR Department and Trade Union representatives also in attendance. While the School's budgets each year are given back from RGU from Student fees, the University retains a 46% top slice and should the School oversubscribe, 100% of the fees from the number of students above the "cap" is retained by the University. This money which is retained by the University is for spend on support department, such as HR, Student Services, Marketing, Branding and Estates, who are bringing forward the £170 new campus "masterplan." One would think that in these current financial times the University's focus would be on education, however it seems hell bent on making cuts to frontline education services while making lavish spend elsewhere.

There are so many layers of management within The Robert Gordon University that those at the top are completely unaware of how the University operates at its core, and the priorities are skewed far from that of education and the student experience. As a recent article in The Times Higher Education points out, in reference to the pay of University Vice-Chancellors being similar to company CEOs:

"For those rises in salaries have been accompanied, and facilitated, by the gradual accretion of authority by managers over the institutions for which they work.

This has now reached the point where it threatens academic freedom, damages Britain's reputation and risks impairing the ability of universities to undertake effective teaching and research."

"As this has happened, many vice-chancellors have indulged themselves with all the glories of corporate managerialism, and cutting back on these first of all, rather than on teaching and research, seems to be a low priority."

Indeed, as the title of the article points out "Universities are not Businesses", however as John Harper pointed out in relation to Trump's degree " business and entrepreneurship lie at the heart of much of the university’s academic offering" obviously some of that has rubbed off on the institution, like big businesses, RGU is obsessed with development, and statistics, being bigger and better than other universities, the very fact that the University's Chancellor has been chosen because of his own "business acumen", as have several members of the board of Governors, could suggest that the University wishes to operate like a business, and that this operational method is what should be transferred to its students for the best operational practice.

Indeed Sir Ian's opinion of Universities and the way they are run was demonstrated in a 1994, ten years before his appointment as RGU Chancellor, article in The Independent. "He is delighted he did not become an academic. 'I would have been disastrous,' he says. 'Universities are very political, working by a strange form of democracy. I like straightforward lines of control.'" An odd sentiment, but nonetheless fitting for the University he heads, one could see the implimentation of RGU's "Conflict of Interest Policy" as a way of strengthening these straightforward lines of control throughout the university, as a way to silence opposition and criticism from those Academics for whom it is their job to think criticially, hold opinions, make independent decisions and hopefully transfer that to the student body. This policy introduction could be a way of ensuring obedience from Academics within an Academic Institution which wishes to be a business, but it works both ways, there could be seen a direct conflict of interest between the machinations and intentions of the University's heads, managers and governors and the remits of the Schools to teach and support learning and encourage critical thinking within its students, and of course RGU's coveted "Investors in People" accolade.

Aberdeen Voice has announced that the Ceremony to confer on Donald Trump his honourary Doctorate in Business Administration will happen this Friday (8th) 10a.m. at the Faculty of Health and Social Care, at RGU's Garthdee Campus. Tripping Up Trump will be presenting a petition this afternoon to John Harper asking for the University not to Honour Trump, there is still time to sign.

In order to counter the possible use of Compulsary Purchase Order, the campaign group have bought a piece of Michael Forbes land, The Bunker, which is apparently "required" for the development and are asking people to add their names to the deeds, you can sign up to The Bunker Here.

An International Design Competition?

A letter to Scottish Enterprise from the Royal Institute of Architects in Scotland:


12th May 2010


Dear Ms McGinlay,

Proposed Union Terrace Gardens Competition

I am writing further to a worrying telephone call from one of your colleagues, Nicola Moore, which was taken by the RIAS Depute Secretary, Sharon McCord, late in the day on 29th April. The call concerned a proposed competition for Union Terrace Gardens to effectively fill the existing valley and create a new public square on its roof, on a level with the surrounding streetscape.

Our concerns arise not because this proposal is relatively prosaic and therefore would offer very limited opportunities for architectural inventiveness. Rather we are concerned at a number of specifics of the call and in what we view as an inadequate consultative and feasibility process, prior to the launch of a major and costly competition. We are profoundly concerned that a premature or inappropriate competition would simply abuse participants who inevitably will put significantly greater resources into any competitive process than would be covered by any competition fee on offer.

Your officer suggested that you had been advised to approach a London based consultancy to manage the competition. That is a concern. She further suggested that there was a shared desire that the competition should be won by an “international” architect. On being pressed on this latter issue and advised that this seemed an inappropriate aspiration for a government funded Scottish organisation, she made it clear that what was being sought was a winner, certainly from out-with Scotland, with a known name.

Sharon made the point that such an aspiration runs quite counter to European procurement legislation as well as being offensive to indigenous talent. Your officer was assured that there are many practices in Scotland more than capable of undertaking very substantial architectural projects and that these should be given an opportunity equal to that of any potential international entrant.

A further significant concern is the much publicised budget for this proposal. You will be well aware that the highest profile architectural competition in Scotland in recent years was that for the Scottish Parliament and the lengthy and difficult process which ensued from the risible budget initially set for that endeavour. Considering that, in recent years, buildings of comparable scale in Aberdeen and elsewhere in Scotland on straightforward urban sites have cost easily twice the quoted budget figure for this particularly problematic and challenging site we would be very concerned about launching a competition based upon such a questionable budget.

Our final concern is that the public consultation for this proposal failed to take into account alternative proposals for the site and therefore did not give the people of Aberdeen the opportunity to comment on a breadth of proposals as would normally be the case in such a process. Our local Chapter, the Aberdeen Society of Architects, has written to the leader of the Council and others, indicating their significant concerns on the matter. At the RIAS Council meeting of 17th March 2010, it was agreed that our President would put in writing to the leader of the Council, the Incorporation’s extreme reservations about the efficacy and fairness of this process.

It is our view that pursuing a competition against a background of such significant doubt and unease, particularly a competition with the objectives stated by your colleague, would be counter to best procurement practice. This seems a thoroughly premature endeavour with so many questions remaining unanswered.


Yours sincerely,





Neil Baxter
Secretary & Treasurer

Give It Up

"Back my vision for the city or lose £50m, Sir Ian warns" read the headline from March 14th Press and Journal announcing the results of the Public Consultation into his own plan, majority funded by us, the taxpayer, The City Square Project. Despite the results of the consultation coming back with an astounding 55% against, a majority of 11%, Sir Ian still sees this as “marginally negative” and not enough for him to take to the outcome of the Public Consultation, which has been payrolled to the tune of around £300,000 by the same Public. Adding to the pressure, ACSEF Chair Tom Smith warned that “Rejection of this £140million investment will damage Aberdeen city’s reputation.”

Speaking to the BBC, Wood claimed that "I will be disappointed if Aberdeen City Council decide in their wisdom not to proceed with the transformational scheme" going on to explain his scheme as "The vision is to maximise the attractiveness of our city to win the new energy opportunities and become a world energy city. My offer of funds was to help achieve that, not to spruce up our city centre." Wood's statement, while consciously contradicting itself, again lacks any evidence which would show how or why capping off the Denburn Valley would secure long-term "jobs and prosperity" or how not building the square would lead us to certain doom.

Everyone's favourite benevolent Knight even goes so far as to try and suggest that "What is referred to as 'my vision' is in fact the vision, aspiration and hopes of many, many Aberdonians for the future economic and civic wellbeing of our city and region as North Sea oil winds down," a statement which inspired boos and jeering when he made the same claims at the Labour-organised public debate, and one that certainly does not wash in the face of many, many Aberdonians voting against the scheme in the consultation.

Sir Ian uses the article to backtrack on his previous promises, stating "My funds offer, spelt out in November 2008, was clearly conditional on achieving transformational change, and on Aberdeen City Council and the people of Aberdeen supporting the vision," however, tracing back to November 2008, Sir Ian said "I am only prepared to provide up to £50 million if it has strong support from the people of Aberdeen and the North-east of Scotland," no mention whatsoever of the Aberdeen City Council. An ACSEF spokeswoman reiterated this during the consultation period "If the public does not support this project then he will withdraw his offer of £50million and it will not go ahead," and Wood, going as far as to goad the public by saying "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 reiterated the point himself at the beginning of the consultation by saying "I have always said that if the public does not support this vision then my offer of funding will be withdrawn."

Of course, now that the public has not backed his Scheme, Uncle Ian has decided that the decision must now be down to ACC as "This is clearly the most valid exercise of the democratic process.” It seems that Wood is now invalidating ACSEF's "robust and comprehensive" Consultation, and indeed the views of the people of Aberdeen and the fundemental keystone of democracy: Majority rule.

Quick in their attempt to influence this "valid excercise," fifty members of Aberdeen's business community put their signatures to a letter ACC Chief Executive, Sue Bruce, asking for "some reassurance from our city council that this opportunity will not be denied simply due to misunderstanding of the project among the public and an inability to appreciate the very real impact that high quality civic amenities and an excellent city centre can have on the regional economy.

"It is absolutely essential that the council supports this project to enable it to progress to the next stage – an international design competition." However, Labour secretary Willie Young was quick to hit back by stating “What strikes me as remarkable about the letters from Oil and Gas UK and the 50 business people in Aberdeen is that each and every one of them is happy to write to the chief executive pleading for the city square development yet it seems that not one of them is prepared to put their money where their pen is."

However despite none of the fifty signatories making any financial contribution to the project, a report released by the Chief Executive and Corporate Management Team recommended "that members approve Sir Ian Wood’s offer of £50m based on ACSEF proposals, to got to the next steps in the process" (page 18), aligning with ACSEF and the "business community" rather than the wishes of the majority citizens who took part in the Public Consultation. The recommendation is on the condition that "That the costs of an international design competition be met up to 50% by Sir Ian Wood up to a maximum of £400,000, with the balance of the resource required to be met by the private sector through ACSEF."

A phonecall from Scottish Enterprise investigating the options for an "International Design Competition" raised serious issues from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, with their secretary, Neil Baxter stating that "We are profoundly concerned that a premature or inappropriate competition would simply abuse participants who inevitably will put significantly greater resources into any competitive process than would be covered by any competition fee on offer." The letter also expresses the RIAS's reservations about the focus of the supposed competion on securing an "international" architect with Mr Baxter, speaking on BBC Scotland's Newsdrive describing this as "using public relations of the most crass kind to steamroller through a mega-proposal."

Furthering concerns over the competition, the RIAS also expressed siginificant reservations concerning the much-quoted £140 Million cost: "“Considering that, in recent years, buildings of comparable scale in Aberdeen and elsewhere i on straightforward urban sites have cost twice the quoted budget figure for this particularly problematic and challenging site, we would be concerned about launching a competition based on such a questionable budget.” Further fears were raised about the actual costs of the project, stemming from an appraisal into Tax Increment Financing compiled by economic assessors, PriceWaterhouseCooper in which it is estimated that "at an interest rate of 3%, the common rate local authorities borrow at, the £70m loan would cost £150m over 25 years."

The report also states that "under each of the four Scenarios there is an early years interest gap where the project revenues are insufficient to meet the interest payments due. For the purposes of our modelling exercise we have assumed that this interest is ‘rolled up’ into the existing debt and paid off over time. In reality the prudential borrowing framework does not allow for interest to be rolled up in this way and future consideration will therefore have to be given to how this early years interest gap is covered." (Page 88) This means that even the TIF funding will be unable to actually pay back the early interest required to pay for the square. Even the very concept of Tax Increment Financing, which is a pilot scheme yet to be trialed in the UK has uncertainty surrounding it, in November 2009 Edinburgh submitted a bid for a TIF area to the Scottish Government for the development of the Forth Ports in Leith, is also uncertain as even if the bid is approved by Scottish Government there is a chance that the proposals could be blocked by the Treasury. Considering that similar funding strategies for financing the new Forth Road crossing had been rejected by westminster "We will work with the Scottish Government, but their particular scheme where they were asking to borrow money from budgets which are yet to be allocated over an extremely long period – that’s something that we simply don’t do" there is a high chance that the TIF system, which ACSEF have provided as the backbone for securing the £70 Million shortfall (after Sir Ian and an entirely speculative private investment figure of £20 Million), may not float.

Meanwhile Peacock Visual Arts and the Scottish Arts Council have spoken out about apparent ommissions from the Chief Executive's report. Peacock Director, Lindsay Gordon claimed that “It appears that all of Sir Ian's parameters for the city square remain intact and that the council is being asked to vote in favour of a concept that the people clearly rejected in the public consultation,” going on to say that “The paper takes no account of Peacock's board’s position, taken after long and careful consideration, that we cannot be part of the city square project.” while SAC Co-director has written to Sue Bruce clarifying that “If I am interpreting your recommendations correctly, your first suggests that any consortium progressing the city square project would have access to the Scottish Arts Council’s investment. I’m afraid that’s incorrect.” going further "It would be unrealistic to expect our current financial commitment to be held indefinitely and transferred to an as yet undetermined project. Unless of course it is the intention that Peacock's current plans become an initial phase of redevelopment and can be delivered quickly."

As this will by my last post before the crucial decision tomorrow, it wouldn't be fair not to pass comment on our old friend ACSEF chair, Tom Smith, who was asked a series of questions in the Sunday Herald. His replies further the convoluted and contradictory messages he has provided to the media for the past four months, even going as far to say "we [ACSEF] can take pride in our integrity and professionalism in the face of a vociferous and not always factual opposition, unjust criticism and unfortunately, on occasions, personal attacks" despite the fact that the majority of "not always factual" information came from the self-same documents ACSEF have produced and are using for a basis for the supposed feasibility of their project. Further to the previously mentioned letter from the 50 business leaders, signed by Tom Smith, he also states in the interview that "It would damage our reputation to be seen to reject a £140 million investment in our city." This comment is alarming, as the head of an Economic Forum with a remit "for advising on national, regional and local economic development from a regional perspective" who is unable to tell the difference between a £50 Million investment and a £140 Million investment. For there is not £140 million on the table, only Wood's £50m and a new "anonymous city businessman reportedly offered £5million towards the cost of the city square." Add this to Tom's sound economic arguments for the City Square, which amount to comparing it to Aberdeen FC signing Ronaldo (even though for The Dons to achieve such an accolade would surely bankrupt them) and admitting that the project was a "Leap of Faith", would you let this man champion supposed economic development of the region?

Aberdeen City Council's elected members will meet at 10:30 tomorrow, 19th May at Aberdeen Town House. While the Council's Labour Group of 10 Councillors have declared that "unless there is some tremendous financial thing happens between now and Wednesday, we feel it would be wrong to kill off the Peacock proposal at this time when there is so little real meat in the Union Square development" and voting against the City Square, the 31 remaining Councillors have a free vote. Only time can tell exactly what way it will go, but what began as a little case of A Garden, an Art Centre and a Civic Plaza has now become an overriding question of the validity of democracy in the North East.

We can only hope that our elected councilors will do the right thing and stand by the wishes of their constituent rather than a vociferous minority of business leaders.

Watch This Space

Aberdeen has spoken.

The results of the £309, 676 Public Consultation into Sir Ian Wood's City Square Project have been published. "The majority of people who took part in a consultation on plans to create a civic square in the heart of Aberdeen opposed the plan" with the overall totals for the response to Question Three "Do you Support the City Square Project" coming in with 44%(5242) in favour and 55%(6512) against the City Square Proposal (Also, inexplicably 2% against, making the Consultation inexplicably widespread in it's uptake of 101%) which means that there is not the majority support Sir Ian and his cronies at ACSEF desired to push through the project.

The quantative results, which contributed to what king of contradiction, Tom Smith, described as the "sheer weight of feedback meant it would be unable to announce the outcome until April 13",(two weeks after the initial March deadline for Peacock Visual Art's SAC funding for the Northern Light Contemporary Arts Centre) spelled out how most respondents (17%) to the questionaire desired Formal Gardens while "The second and third most important facilities were a contemporary arts centre and a cultural centre for the performing and visual arts."

Already ACSEF's policy is to skew the results and not take the majority of opposition to heart, as Smith claimed "This was never intended to be a referendum type consultation." in response to demands by North East MP Lewis MacDonald for results being released before the April 13th date, saying “Given the importance attached by Sir Ian Wood to support for his proposals, the key question would appear to be whether or not these proposals commanded clear support from the majority of respondents." Now, ACSEF are, predictably using the quantative data which apparently points to "the public have said they want change. They believe the gardens are underused and inaccessible. Significant new green space and a cultural centre must be part of this change that would give us a more attractive and safer city centre and kick-start the wider regeneration of the city centre."

However, also unsurprisingly, Tom's blinkers don't notice the proposal the City Square Project could almost have been designed to scupper, the proposed Contemporary Arts Centre. Given that the results themselves show that 55% of people are against the proposals, but there is a desire for some sort of change, with favour leaning towards Gardens, a Contemporary Arts Centre and a Cultural Space, then Brisac Gonzalez's designs are the obvious choice. Everything that the people want to do with the Union Terrace Gardens can be achieved through the Peacock plan and the retention of the existing Gardens, for a tenth of the cost of the City Square, which the majority of respondents did not want.

However, even before the results were announced, Tom Smith giving the voice to ACSEF's finger which appears to have been placed on a slab of concrete rather than anywhere near the pulse was already denouncing the results of the consultation saying “It should not fail because we do not have the necessary vision and ambition.” Although ACSEF had said "we do not want to pre-empt the consultation, we want to make it clear to people that our plans are not about replacing gardens with a concrete square but about using the natural sloping topography of the location to create a civic space with gardens which everyone can enjoy" their line now the consultation results are in, and not in their favour is remarkably similar "This project is about so much more than the gardens, it is about a radical transformation of our city that will help deliver the jobs and prosperity we need for the future success of the region" despite being unable to demonstrate exactly how the Square will deliver "jobs and prosperity" or how, as Sir Ian described, it would be "essential to safeguard the future prosperity of the city."

In fact, adding to the £100 million shortfall in the City Square Scheme, discussions such as Tax Increment Financing and the establishment of a Business Improval District in the city centre requiring a business rate hike which "would be ring-fenced and used to fund ACSEF priorities", would actually make the area around the square less desirable. Businesses find it hard to move into Union Street because of the high rates, then raising them will hardly do what ACSEF believes the Square will do and "kick-start the wider regeneration of the city centre."

After the conclusion of the process on March 5th, a statement on The City Square Project website, PR consultants, Weber Shandwick, announced that "The process will begin with each single response being logged, checked and duplicates removed. The figures will then be analysed along with a vast amount of qualitative data, which will be studied for common trends. ACSEF will then announce the result of the consultation on Tuesday 13 April." Tom Smith, of ACSEF, defending this date as the "sheer weight of feedback meant it would be unable to announce the outcome until April 13" going on to describe how "the consultation report on Edinburgh trams took 12 weeks to compile based on feedback from 3,500 people. There has been three times that amount of input from the public for the city square project."

Continuing Tom Smith's trend of not checking previous comments made this unsurprisingly contradict ACSEF's statements the week before blasting the consultation process saying "public participation was so low that there was a danger that Sir Ian would withdraw the £50million he has pledged" and Tom Smith's own fears that "the damage to our reputation should we reject it would be significant.” However, the City Square project has been the subject of a high-level of criticism, in a BBC Documentary by Jonathan Meades, been slammed by Architecture and Design Scotland, ridiculed in Private Eye, and the situation inspiring laughter in a crowd listening to Edgar Gonzalez give a presentation on the Northern Light Centre, which proves the idea of destroying a garden and leveling off one of Aberdeen's unique selling points has already damaged the reputation of the city, and will be likely to do more so should public opinion be ignored and the project proceed.

While the consultation process was originally scheduled to begin in July, directly after the publication of Haliday Fraser Munro's technical fable, however an alleged dispute and then the administration of original consultants Glasgow's Lighthouse meant the process was delayed. From then it took almost six months for ACSEF to announce a date for consultation which was then due to begin in November and to be carried out by PR consultations Weber Shandwick, supposedly to be completed in time for the expiry of the original extension of Peacock's £4.3 million grant from the Scottish Arts Council.

However when November came along, ACSEF reacted to a three month extension from the Scottish Arts Council to investigate compromised approaches to the development of the Denburn Valley and to allow time for consultation results to be collated by announcing "it was postponing its consultation on the square – due to have started earlier this month – until the new year." ACSEF's criteria for the "compromise" was still to strongly adhere to Sir Ian's personal perameters for the project, which would in no way allow for the original Gardens to be retained. Despite knowing full well that the Scottish Art's Council's uncertain future after April 2010, ACSEF chose to ignore the funding deadline of late March and the understanding that results would be published in time for that deadline, and decided that results would not be released until two weeks later.

Fortunately the SAC, in reaction to ACSEF's games and with their own future still unknown, extended the deadline for another two months. Ian Munro co-director of SAC stated "'“The outcome of the recently concluded public consultation, led by Acsef, will have a significant influence on the continued development of the existing Peacock scheme. The initial timetable given by Acsef to announce the outcome of its consultation on City Square was scheduled for March. However, this has now been delayed until April 13. As a consequence, the Scottish Arts Council will now review its position in June 2010 at the next scheduled meeting of our lottery committee.”

During a Youth Consultation session last June Sir Ian was adamant that we live in a democracy and and therefor only had a single vote, and has sade throughout the process that "If the public does not support this vision then my offer of funding will be withdrawn." Although now that the public has expressed that they indeed do not support his vision, Wood is showing no signs of backing down. Choosing not to pay any heed to the negative reaction to the consultation into his plans, Sir Ian is now leaving his money on the table until a full council vote on the matter, scheduled for May 19th saying "This is clearly the most valid exercise of the democratic process and I am prepared to leave my financial offer on the table until these deliberations.”

“However, unless Aberdeen City Council at that meeting decide that the project should proceed with their backing, and that they will step in and take a key leadership role along with Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef), my financial offer will be withdrawn.”

Putting extreme pressure on the council now with his threat of taking away his £50 million being left down to ACC, with them taking direct blame for its refusal. However ACC Labour group leader Willy Young stating that "the people of Aberdeen would not be “bullied” into accepting his plan" going further to say "If Sir Ian Wood wants to continue with his project he needs to start listening to the people of Aberdeen and stop lecturing them. It is obvious they have said no.”

However, Liberal Democrat Council Leader John Stewart claimed that he was "concerned about ... people taking this decision for the right reasons – and that is for the long-term future of Aberdeen.” with SNP depute leader Kevin Stewart saying “We can no longer deal with the city centre in terms of a piecemeal solution." While giving nothing away, the council seem to be making noises echoing the thoughts of ACSEF and Sir Ian, in particular Tom Smith's emphasis that "This money is not available for other projects or piece-meal developments." It seems the pressure ACSEF, as Aberdeen Council's Economic think-tank are going to continue pushing the city square as the only way Aberdeen could ever achieve external investment while continuing to forecast doom if it is not taken on board: "If we let this window close on us, the clear message will be that we do not have the ambition or the foresight to prevent a downward spiral that will see a serious decline in our economy, the gradual loss of businesses and consequently jobs and quality of life."
Without displaying in demonstrable proof of why the Denburn Valley remaining generally as-is is a ticking time bomb to the destruction, and against statments made by the Scottish Council for Development and Innovation who stated that "should the Union Terrace Gardens/Denburn Valley project not be supported, SCDI believes that the north-east economy can still be successful in the long-term.”

Amid the "bullying", feet stamping, hypocrisy it cannot be denied that the results of the consultation are a victory for those seeking to Save Union Terrace Gardens, an eleven percent majority of those who filled out the formal questionaire opposed the city square. While both the I Heart UTG Petition and "Support the City Square" petition were included in the report, their numbers were not included in the statistics of the results. There was even a disclaimer after the mention of the I Heart UTG Petition which pointed out "It should be noted that this petition was running for six months prior to the start of the public consultation." Although, just to be clear, while the petition did indeed start six months before the consultation, this graph put together by a supporter shows a comparison of the day-to-day uptake of both petitions, with there being a very obvious trend throughout the consultation period.
While ACSEF have shifted the decision making powers onto Aberdeen City Council, the results of the consultation are very clear. 55% of respondents said NO, and what the people said they want: accessibility, Green Space, Contemporary Arts and Cultural Centre, are cornerstones of the Peacock Visual Arts development. Tom Smith has claimed that "The public have said they want change. They believe the gardens are underused and inaccessible. Significant new green space and a cultural centre must be part of this change" while this is his attempt to justify the City Square as "absolutely not dead in the water" it highlights the sheer lunacy of their plans to destroy a Garden to build a garden, and to stymie a ten-year plan for a Contemporary Arts Centre put together by experts in their field, to start from scratch developing another one.

Going forward, the people of Aberdeen must continue to appeal to their councillors, those we have elected to represent us to do the right thing. An individual with Money must not be more important than the majority of citizens in the city who are rightly concerned about cost, locatation, timescale and environment. Please keep contacting your councillor, you can find out who they are at www.writetothem.com, and urge them (politely) to do what the people have wanted and ensure democracy is played out in Aberdeen. Also, the I Heart UTG petition is still active and we will be encouraging people to continue to sign it and pass it on until the full council meeting on May 19th.

The people of Aberdeen have not voted for the City Square, and the things they expressed they have wanted is already planned, funded and will cost a tenth of the approximate price for the City Square while saving the face of Aberdeen both internally and externally. Please let your councillors know this.