麻豆官网首页入口

Union Terrace Gardens is a sunken haven in the centre of a busy, built-up, commercial city. Its natural depth insulates the park from the sound of the hugely busy roads surrounding it, and the award-winning flower displays please the eye. There even used to be a outdoor theatre there!

The two proposals involve "filling in" the gardens and building yet another modernistic "park" of concrete, turf and flowerpots: a hostile and clinical vision of what a 21st century garden should be, and they are both UTTERLY artistically bankrupt.

One is a pretentious church to the god of modern art, and the other a typical commercial development with a "mall".

Please, Aberdeen, reject them both, invest in what is THERE, and keep our historical Union Terrace Gardens for future generations to enjoy.

I agree Union Terrace Gardens is a place away from the busy street and a good green space to relax. Yes perhaps some updating and modernisation wouldnt do any harm but raising it up to same level as road defeates the whole purpose of the garden. It should be a place away from the hustle and bustle of the shops and traffic

great blog! i have to disagree a little with the first comment though, the peacock proposal certainly does not involve 'filling in' the gardens. the gardens will remain intact, the peacock development will be built into the steep slope at the union terrace side.

this shouldn't even be up for discussion, the gardens should be cherished by the council and not put up for sale to the highest bidder.

Many people are simply against change and 鈥榟aving your say鈥� seems to be understood as 鈥榯ime for a good whinge鈥�. Either way it鈥檚 entirely discountable.

Union St was created by bridging and in-filling to rationalise the little hills and lanes which existed before. When viewed in this context, it鈥檚 as if the site of the gardens didn鈥檛 get the same treatment perhaps due to constraints of cost or ambition. This work involved a great change and I鈥檓 sure that many were against it at that time. Now that pedestrianisation is the future, perhaps Union St wasn鈥檛 the best plan, long windy street that it is, but the gardens are another thing鈥�

The gardens at present (and gardens is really an overblown appellation) are situated on a very poor site: A dingy (sunken and almost always in shade) cleft in the city, right beside a main railway line and a dual carriageway and the undersides of a large bridge with no view out the other side. No matter how many 鈥榖on accord鈥� pansy schemes are planted here this basic fact of the site remains.

This 拢150m scheme to raise the gardens is a fantastic thing. 拢50m of a man鈥檚 own money is not to be sniffed at either. A lot of money to be spent locally which will advantage the majority. A no brainer if you ask me. Those who consider that the gardens, if you can really call them that: synthetic schemes spelling out Aberdeen in short lived plants, accessed only by dozens of steps and by few people, should be retained should not have too much weight attached to their opinions.

Personally, I鈥檓 not sure about the need for another arts centre or gallery in the city. These concerns are bottomless pits for public money and the city is already in the red despite being the oil capital of Europe for the past decade of boom. I don鈥檛 think that the Peacock proposal should influence the scheme excessively. With 拢150m in the pot, why be constrained by a 拢15m arts centre proposal (Peacock). The larger scheme should be looked at from the broader position that a budget ten times that size affords. Arguing about the art centre is a simplistic side-issue to distract from the real debate about what to do with the space itself. A debate that is going-on on the ACSEF website and beyond.

Stylish and beautiful landscaping, planting and water-features, caf茅s and bars, play area for children, a place for concerts, underground parking and a budget to look after the scheme properly would suffice, no? Oh, and a ban on skate-boarders trashing the place within the first few weeks would perhaps be sensible too.

The first comment is utterly wrong in regard to the Peacock plan. It is far from a "pretentious church to the god of modern art", Peacocks are a local visual art based cultural and educational charity working with all members of society and open to anyone.

The building Peacock had permission to build certainly wouldn't only house "modern art", but very much more. I urge this commenter to actually visit the Peacock centre and speak with the people there, pick up one of their leaflets or visit the website to find out more about what they do, because this person doesn't know what they're talking about.

As for the Peacock plan filling in the gardens, wrong again. Their building (which will house more than just their own centre) works sympathetically with the gardens turning them into something people will actually want to visit more often.

The City Square Project is so controversial in Aberdeen. The local papers get letter after letter on the subject almost all against the scheme. Here is one of the reasons for the controversy: the city of Aberdeen probably has the most old buildings intact of any UK city. These are beautiful buildings built out of grey granite in a combination of georgian and victorian mock gothic style. The granite hardly weathers with the result that the old buildings still look brand new. The victorian gardens are in perfect harmony with this architectural style. Many like me believe that the proposed City Square would be jarringly out of place with the city heritage.

But it goes deeper than that. Aberdeen is a very centralised city focussing on Union street, Union terrace and the gardens. If you live in Aberdeen, it's the area of the city you identify with. I feel as if the gardens are part of my psychologcal being and to take them away would be destroying part of me. I suspect there are thousands of citizens in the city who also feel exactly the same way I do.

@ Mike Lindley: it's a real shame that your rather eloquent post was spoiled by the baseless assertion that anybody disagreeing with you is "discountable" and that people wishing to retain the gardens "should not have too much weight attached to their opinions".

Why is that? How is it that your opinion, by inference, should carry weight?

You also mention "拢150m in the pot" which is slightly inaccurate; there is precisely nothing in the City Square Project pot. A pledge for 拢50m is not 拢50m. You may wish to consider who is paying for the current consultation, and ask who will pay for any subsequent planning application. Sir Ian Wood's pledge is attached to the project, not the preparation work. Planning applications usually cost in the region of 5%-10% of total budget, so 拢7-拢15m will have to be found from the public purse.

There is, however, 拢9.5m in the pot, a fact that seems to leave you supremely untroubled. Do you think that Aberdeen will receive a warm reception in the event that the City rejects 拢6.5m central belt funding attached to the PVA scheme and instead asks for more than 10 times that amount?

I respect your opinion, it is well expressed and you've clearly thought about it. But please do not denigrate the opinions of others, as it gets in the way of the points you make.

6. mike shepherd

Nonsensical self-indulgent emotive whinging! Why do we do that?! It paints a picture of Aberdeen as an old man sat with the paper under his arm sulking in his slippers.

Someone is giving you/us a pile of money to do up your garden! Take it and do it up! Simples.

Yes, we've had the 'old sofa' of the sunken gardens for a while (no mothers and small children in prams etc. are as obtusely nostalgic, I'll bet you...), but "comfy' as you may feel it is, a brand spanking new, modern and better suited gardens is a no-brainer.

You might want to sit in the same chair until you die, but how many visitors will you get?

You get lots of different styles of gardens these days, you know.

Would you actually PUT old foushty gardens in to the oil capital of Europe? No.
Would you knock down Union Square?

IT WILL BE AN IMPROVEMENT!
Your/our city needs and deserves it.

鈥� "Someone is giving you/us a pile of money to do up your garden! Take it and do it up! Simples."

No it is not that simple, not in the slightest. "Someone" has not just given us a pile of cash, they have offered part funding on the condition that we create this persons particular two decade old vision; no exceptions, no compromises.

Second to that nobody knows what is likely to go in this square, ACSEF are offering up the world and filling peoples heads with all kinds of nonsense ideas that will never happen to get support.

As someone else has said the gardens are a perfect sunken escape from the urban, commercial, busy city centre鈥� right in the city centre. They do not need to be destroyed with hundreds of millions of pounds thrown at them in an attempt to create a more unified commercial centre. They certainly need improving along with many other areas of Aberdeen city centre but this city square is the most absurd idea.

There are at least three points of view going around in Aberdeen at the moment: 'pro-Peacock', 'pro-Wood', and 'leave everything the way it is'. The lack of consensus is because there is something wrong with each of these three stances.

Starting with the Wood proposal - a vast street level concrete piazza with a few planters in it, with a large subterranean mall and car park - this has the great benefit of covering over the Denburn road and railway with something useful, and it tries to improve on the perpetually-shadowed dingy aspect of UTG whch keeps most people out of it by raising the public area up. However, it looks awful, like a nightmare from the 1970s, and will likely result in a huge windswept damp patched concrete expanse substantially less appealing than St Nicks graveyard.

The Peacock proposal - is a worthy attempt to bring some life and people into UTG, thereby driving off the lowlife who make it so unattractive to enter at the moment. Doesn't cover the road and railway, doesn't do anything about raising the sunken bottom of the park. Will be a permanent subsidy cost to the taxpayer for what is very much a minority taste.

Leave it alone - well, take a trip into UTG at your own risk, possibly with a spacesuit and a bottle of methadone for the natives. Because it is so deep, dark and unappealing, the arches under Union Terrace in particular are not somewhere I want to be walking, a view shared by 99% of Aberdonians I suspect. Just look how many people sit in the graveyard at lunchtime, compared with UTG as it is at present.

So what do I recommend? Assuming there was plenty of money (and as we all know, this is not the case), the best option is a compromise between the Peacock and Wood schemes. Deck over the road and railway to medium height, making a seasonal piazza area for the Belmont Street restaurants, bars and cafes, faced with grey granite slabs of course; raise the level of the bottom of the gardens to match this, but don't bring it right up to street level as this will create a windswept neo-Birmingham. Put a walkthrough route from the piazza side under the Union St bridge to the railway station. Fit Peacock into the arches and hillside pretty much the way they proposed.

It's not going to happen, though.

If I can make some obvious preliminary comments: Not all change is for the good; the labels 鈥減rogress鈥� and 鈥渟ustainable鈥� should make us wary about what is actually in the tin; the degree of sincerity underlying the beliefs of individuals or groups is not a reliable guide to their desirability as a long-term strategy.

The ACSEF City Square scheme appears to represent a long-held ambition of Sir Ian Wood. My very minor interactions with Sir Ian lead me to believe that he is a good and generous man to say the very least, and I do not doubt that he genuinely believes that the City Square project in undiluted form will benefit the city. It gives me no pleasure to say that in my opinion Sir Ian is mistaken.

Unfortunately, in supporting his plan, ACSEF are taking on a very high risk of destroying a well-thought out and properly designed project which has been extraordinarily successful in getting the required funding in place. For a virtual certainty of achieving a world-class centre (and Peacock have serious form in terms not only of high quality projects across a wide spectrum of visual arts, they also do immensely valuable work through involving underprivileged young people in creativity) 鈥� ACSEF are intent on substituting a project whose funding (not withstanding Sir Ian鈥檚 拢50M) is completely uncertain, and whose benefits are not calculable because the content is undefined, vague and shifting.

High risk of damage, low probability of successful outcome, final bill indeterminate, benefits un-projectable - as one of your correspondents puts it, this is indeed a 鈥渘o-brainer鈥�.

If ACSEF are as intelligent as I think they must surely be, I suggest they need first of all to have a good detailed look at the Brisac Gonzalez plans for a combined, phased PVA-ACSEF scheme, and secondly they should have a long and serious talk with Sir Ian Wood. An imaginative compromise along these lines, involving both ACSEF and PVA through proper negotiation, would be a brilliant legacy for the City and its citizens.

Please see also:

@mince and mealie

I just want to say that Peacocks have proposed your suggestion of a compromise in their "What if鈥�" exhibition (which is open to all at their current centre). The problem lies in the conditions made by Ian Wood and his donation, there is no option of a compromise from him or ACSEF.

DoRox
Very well argued. I think we are agreed that a compromise scheme is the ideal solution, although who would pay for it I know not.

However, that youtube link did make me grin. A slightly unrealistic protrayal of what it is usually like in UTG, and even on a very nice day hardly a soul sitting on a bench up by the arches...

9. RyanR

LOL! You sound put out just because it wasn't your idea!

I'm sorry, there is nothing 'perfect' about dingy Union Terrace Gardens! How much of the city's population can't (or don't want to) get down to them? Older people, little kids, anyone who cannot go up and down 1800 odd 18th century steps - it's out of date. (Maybe you should ask yourself why do you like dingy places?!)

OF COURSE there will be a decision process as to exactly what replaces them. Are you suggesting Aberdeen is to be blackmailed? And IF so, how terrible, new gardens - that is EVIL. And why would the person putting up the big sum of money NOT have a vision of what he would like to see? Be unusual if he didn't??

When builders build houses, they have a vision of what that house will be like. Then decisions are taken as to whether it's acceptable - quite normal. NOT the paranoid situation you are describing, with 'big, bad Sir Ian' and his world domination plan or whatever it is in the dark cupboard you are scared of. ("Boo!" - is it because he has money??)

YOU sound like the control freak who only wants it his way.

I have serious reservations over the proposed City Square Project for a number of reasons. Firstly, from what I have seen to date, it does not seem to me to have much architectural merit and is incongruous to the existing city architecture. If it was more sympathetic to existing architecture and , as one of the previous contributors mentioned, was part of a more comprehensive city regenertaion plan (including, for example, the pedestrianisation of Union Street), it may (only may) be more appealing. Secondly, the last think Aberdeen city centre needs is a square with more cafes and bars. Does anyone seriously believe that the square will be a haven of continental-style civilised drinking surrounded by the sea of drunkeness that Aberdeen city centre is most nights of the week? Perhaps the culture and civilisation will permeate out into the surrounding areas? Or will the square will simply end up as another place for the drunks to vomit and fight while they wait for taxis?

What concerns me is not so much how UTG is redeveloped but the fact that there seems to be a need to redevelop it. As a child growing up in Aberdeen in the seventies, I regularly visited the UTG with my family when we ventured into the city centre for the day. At that time UTG was well used particulalry during the summer months. I can't help but think that the redevopment proposals is a depressing statement about our modern way of life more than anything else. This is not just a question of sentimentality; we have increasing numbers of obese children who take no or little exercise and are more familar with a Nintendo DS than the outdoors. If UTG is redevloped because it is not used enough by the citizens of Aberdeen, will other city parks and gardens be redevoped? How many people use the Duthie Park? Maybe I should set up an organisation to compare (a) how many people use it currently; and (b) how many people would visit it if we turned into a large drive-in Burger King and Starbucks. Or perhaps to preserve our past culture, as a nod to the Winter Gardens, we could have a cactus themed fast food joint selling Mexican food. I'd put up 拢50 to help fund it (although I suspect the Council might struggle to match this= at the moment). It couldn't be any worse than the redevelopment of the beach - a monument to the Council's view that any development is a good development. I mean, who in their right mind would prefer a bit of open grass at the beach to kick a football around to an unoccuped ex-nightclub, the only aesthetically pleasing aspect of which is the way the grass growing out of the guttering conceals part of the building? Although I did hear a rumour that someone might be thinking of turning it into a fish and chip restaurant. There's a lot of demand for that type of thing at the beach so I've heard.

Thanks, Mince and Mealie, for your comments. The point (as I see it) about phasing is that the PVA scheme needs to utilise its funding immediately or it will lose the 拢9.5M already raised. PVA will also be destroyed as its lease expires in March, if understand the matter correctly.

By making PVA鈥檚 design phase 1 of a bigger project, this then allows ASCEF time to consult, think through and properly design phase 2 so it becomes more defined and less open-ended. ASCEF and Sir Ian Wood have already said that PVA have a place in their scheme, but I would argue that it makes sense not to waste the present opportunity. How phase 2 is funded is precisely the same as how the current ASCEF scheme would be funded, ie Sir Ian鈥檚 拢50M plus fundraising efforts + public purse.

Re my YouTube offering, I can see your problem 鈥� however, I personally took the photographs on 15th June 2006 around 11:30am, and can vouch for these being an accurate pictorial representation of the scene at the time. It鈥檚 true that later that day it did get dark, but I went back a couple of weeks later to check, and d_mmit, the sun was shining again!! But seriously, there are feasible & practical ways of improving the amount of daylight using Heliostats 鈥� see:

15. nedafo2

You're so right. We should return Aberdeen beach front to the draughty, charmless cafe 'heaven' of the 70s, lets have no progress, feel miserable, knock down every brick built since the 80s. (Ban mobile phones and ipods too?) I know everyone in Edinburgh hates what they've done to Leith and that Ocean Drive - just drags the place down...

ARE YOU SANE? What is the name for your 'architectural philosophy'? Time Warp Drear? Why do you want your oil capital to be an ever more run down (for that's what happens if you stand still) pokey little hole? Go to the museum if you want to 'Oooh, baby' over the decade style forgot. You may want to wear flares forever, but you'd look stupid and so would Aberdeen.

Why is it that an unelected forum of local business interests considers that it has the right to impose its magalomaniac "world class" vision on the wider public and engage in crass acts of civic vandalism? Isn't that the role of our city fathers, or, perhaps more likely, an uber philistine, or the absentee Laird of Menie?

What exactly is the economic benefit in destroying unique heritage and cultural assets and creating a windswept plaza and a parking lot more in keep within downtown LA? Its not like Aberdeen city centre is short of car parking or shopping malls, which, incidentally, are unlikely to want to locate underground without any street frontage. What it does lack is quality mature green spaces free from the perpetual intrusion of traffic (i.e. precisely what UTG provides). Whatever next, demolition of all those old mouldy buildings on Union Street to accommodate more trafic lanes and parking perhaps?

As a chartered town planner and local resident, I would question the need for any draconian intervention here, irrespective of its shade of elephantine pallidity. However, I would not dare to pontificate about the merits of offshore engineering, or local commerce.

The obvious solutions? Keep the gardens and its existing features intact. Extend them to the north under the viaduct to provide level access, develop possible footpath links to the railway station to the south and a pedestrian bridge across to Belmont Street. Develop Peacocks at the derelict Triple Kirks site opposite the art gallery, if necessary cantilevering out over the Denburn Road to exploit views of the gardens and the westerly aspect. Develop Golden Square as a civic space by removing the existing horrendous car park and creation of new public gardens there.

# 17 - thanks. Very constructive. Your posts says a lot more about your attitiudes than mine. Why not read my post and address the points which it actually raises rather than the ones which you think it raises. My post makes no comment whatsoever on the architecture of the seventies - as you are probably aware, UTG was built well before then and I would agree that the 70's was not a good decade for architecture in Aberdeen. Does my post say anywhere that progress is bad? The point is that not all development/progress is good. Are you part of the "any development is good development" brigade as well? Is it not possible for buildings to be aesthetically pleasing? The important question you have to answer is whether you can name three developments in the city from the past 30 years or so which have improved the architecture of the city. Can you? I can't. Oh yes, we have lots of new shopping centres and other facilities and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with having these but the point is, in my view, much of the devlopment could have been done so much better. The development at the beach is a very good example. Surely you don't think that the devlopment improves the landscape at the beach? Surely what was built there was not the only option?

19. nedafo2

Hmm, feeble argument. The beach is much better. The Patio Hotel, as it was called first, is much better. Exchange Street is looking much better, The Academy is much better, the AECC looks great, those offices down Holburn Street (don't know their name) are much better than what was previously there, the Riverside Drive flats are much better - I could go on.

I like the beach, the big cinema, the eateries and the breakwater project have smartened it up a lot.

I like how they re-clad those tower blocks past Bridge of Don.

It's NICER.

It's not all shopping - though Aberdeen was short on that compared to what cities usually have. And foresight for good car parking is a must.

So what's not looking so good? What's another part of Aberdeen that's run down, a major part of the city centre that's in need of a lift?

Union Terrace Gardens. It's a wonderful opportunity.

@eye_write

You kick off with "LOL!", follow with a childish comeback, litter your reply with uppercase words (I presume to make your point) and demonstrate perfectly how little you actually know about either TCSP or PVA鈥� then list (above) what you think looks great in Aberdeen.

I'd laugh if your comments weren't so depressing.

Pretty much in agreement with mince and mealie (are you married to mashed tatties?) and also DoRox

Nedafo2 started off well in #15 and I totally agree with the comment 鈥渃an't help but think that the redevelopment proposals is a depressing statement about our modern way of life more than anything else鈥� but then the post deteriorated into utter rubbish

The comments re the development at the beach 鈥� apart from the failed night club the rest of the development is very popular 鈥� it is always very busy when I am down there and it is the citizens of Aberdeen who use these places that count, if people don鈥檛 like that kind of popular development they should move out to some peaceful hamlet out in the country 鈥� but then they can鈥檛 because the jobs are mostly in the cities which is why they have to grow and develop.

It is a pity that Ian Wood鈥檚 offer seems to be a 鈥渘o compromise鈥� offer 鈥� as some of the in between ideas are really good, especially if they moved fast enought to save the PVA project 鈥� but ACC will never find the funds 鈥� nor make the decision to redevelop, unless someone else is 鈥渄riving the bus鈥�.

And one more thing-
Fits 鈥渆lephantine pallidity鈥� fin its at hame ?

21. RyanR

And your snobbery is more laudable? The whole point is (happy?) what looks good in Aberdeen. Don't get all 'Marvin, the Paranoid Android', hiding behind a knowledge of acronyms. That there is a process to go through in planning and funding is no revelation.

You've poo-pooed the beach. I am not. The beach area is popular - and liked. Where are all the people complaining about it?

I am in favour of the improvements that have been made in Aberdeen so far. And I'm not a lone nutter in thinking that.

I'd like to see Union Terrace gardens improved. It's not all that difficult. There is no need to sigh.

Trying to have a serious discussion is snobbery? Take a look at your comments, would you talk like this at one of the consultations ACSEF and PVA have held in public? I doubt it.

As for improving Aberdeen鈥� everyone, whether they support TCSP or PVA, see a need to improve Aberdeen. However one has an approved, internationally appraised project that works sympathetically with the city centre, with most of their funding secured but held hostage. The other has a vague, speculative "vision", that concretes over the city centre with little consideration for the unique topography or architecture and isn't likely to get the required funding or fulfill the absurd ideas they are suggesting to the Aberdeen people simply to get support.

24. RyanR

You "doubt it"? Do you always so underestimate all those who care to disagree with you? Yes, plain speaking, and not getting lost up our own ar$e, is more valuable than I suspect you see. ('Professional meeting goers' are the nightmare of those who remember that meetings are set up to achieve something - are they not? - as they just want meetings to go on forever. But who gets to the top?)

For it is forgetting our luck, and being a little ridiculous and spoiled, to focus only to complain and pontificate. One way or another we're going to get a fab new redeveloped area. The details are significant, but they are not the point.

If I get a new kitchen, I can have plan A or plan B... There is a lengthy and necessarily long-winded design and planning (and funding!) process to go through, there to see that I make the right choice. I know I won't choose one no one in the house likes. But whether I go for one plan or the other, or a hybrid of the two, etc., my new kitchen will be a vast improvement on my old one - it was needing doing up, that's why I considered a new one!

UTG is a fantastic chance - we shouldn't just pi$$ on it.

The problem is that Sir Ian's plans, however well-intentioned, are just too vague, and just too boring. Aberdeen deserves better. Have you looked at the most detailed proposals? UTG disappear, in their place, a vague and dull 'arts centre' and 2-level car park, the other side (over the denburn) is a 'space', and then there's the top level - the only part of merit, but a vast expanse, with no idea of what to put in it..

The arts centre in Sir Ian's plan is more expensive than Peacocks, but not of the same value. Peacock's scheme was only to redevelop some of the gardens, and it's obvious that a compromise can exist. Build Peacock, cover the road and rail, create a still large 'plaza', but one with a view, and give Aberdeen something we can actually be proud of, modern and 21st century, blending historical architecture with modern.

But that has been ruled out completely by Sir Ian.

6 months ago, Sir Ian unveiled his plans to an organisation I'm involved with saying that there was much still to finalise. Today, the plan is barely any clearer.

Sir Ian wants to give Aberdeen a place to be proud of, but he doesn't have an idea worthy of it. Progress is not the same as change. This is change without progress. This is why Aberdeen must vote no to it. It simply isn't good enough.

eye-write. This is a bit different than a new kitchen. But to use your analogy, it's like you have a kitchen, but it's tired and needs replacing. You have the choice to clean it up, adapt it, get rid of that annoying area where grime builds up by putting in an extractor fan that works.

OR, you can raise the floor and turn the room into a jacuzzi room. Yes, you still have a basin, of sorts, but there's nowhere to prepare food, or do the dishes.

26. Michael Hodgson

Sir Ian Wood is being painted as a very mean generous man???
The danger here is we end up like kids stressing over which sweetie to pick!

27. Michael Hodgson

No housewife in her right mind would forgoe a new kitchen because she can make ammendments to sort out the grime spot - a new kitchen would sort out the grime spot! (I think a husband taking your position would be overruled ;-)
Aberdeen does deserve better than a redarned pair of old socks.

Jacuzzi bath? I think Sir Ian Wood would have spotted such an error!
Are you merely miffed as his plans are too new?

29. eye_write

I think many folk are miffed that Sir Ian's "vision" is anything BUT "too new"



A 1980s vision for the 21st century? What else would you like to see resurrected from the 1980s in the name of, er, "progress"?

Let's see what Sir Ian says: 鈥淚 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,鈥�

Clearly it bothered him so much that he resurrected this failed plan once PVA had full planning permission for their new arts centre. Because, as he said last week at the University of Aberdeen, if PVA started to build, his vision would never happen. An honest and revealing appraisal.

Still, if you want to believe that Sir Ian represents progress and anyone with doubts is idiotic or a tree hugger, that's your perogative. Just thought you might like to know that the city square project isn't "new", it's an old, failed plan that you're supporting there.

30. Skylaqb

Yes, very accomplished Ian-bashing :-)
But the point is, it's much newer than what's there. It would be a vast improvement.
That's the point.

It would be a great boost to take his 'imperfect' plans, than to be such stick in the muds (literally) that we never did get round to doing anything. That's what is really sad. Yet we dither and bother.

Instead of progress at all, it's the 'petty being put out, and one-up-manship show' now. So, he was disappointed before and is giving his plan another go? Why the "How dare he"? Instantly he grows horns... We're losing sight of the the issue here. It's really coloured thinking.

We'd seriously rather cut off our nose despite our face because we think Ian Wood is too uppity? With all that cash on offer, I'd keep him on board! Maybe this reaction to his 'audacity' is behind his apparent 'refusal to cooperate'. MAYBE he didn't get a very nice reception.

I'm supporting both plans by the way, or either, or whatever plans eventually come out of it. But it would be a mistake not to go 'bold' on this project, which rules out a prissy 'historical preservation' of what's there just so it can merely FUNCTION in the 21st century. So we don't lose it? THAT would be a total waste of money, and a mousey hourder's approach. Take a photograph for the sentementalists, and get the guts to make a change. You know you'll be so glad you did!

I'm not sure anyone opposing Sir Ian is a 'tree hugger'. But I detect an air of bias against anyone who is bold, brave, possesses ingenuity, is successful and monied - they are automatically a 'baddie'. Truth is, that view speaks of how frightened, insignificant, ineffectual and insecure the accusers feel, that they must grasp what is around them and not allow it to change too much, more than just a fraction - and not to challenge the 'Sir Ian Woods' exposes that.

But it's missed opportunities and a wasted life.

31. eye_write

I wasn't looking to bash Sir Ian - I saw him present only last week and am convinced that he is genuine in his belief that the city square project will fullfill the rather bold ambitions outlined. However, it's not a "new" project - that was my point.

The Brisac Gonzalez designed arts centre - which IS new, and will affect change in UTG, and has involved ingenuity and hard work in attracting 拢9.5m of committed funding and full planning permission - represents a lot of what you seem to be asking for.

If Sir Ian was simply having another crack at his preferred vision, then fair enough. However, in doing so, he is jepoardising the hard work and millions of funding secured for the BG designed centre. This seems to escape a lot of folk. Funding of that magnitude is not disbursed without stringent conditions, and therefore it cannot simply be transferred to another scheme. Aberdeen will lose a 拢4.3m chunk of that funding at the end of March, effectively killing the BG design stone dead. Sir Ian Wood has been given the opportunity to underwrite that amount so that his vision can be fully explored and go to full planning, yet he has refused (as of course is his right). But one has to ask - if he is so confident in his own scheme, what does he have to lose by guaranteeing the existing scheme's funding? Assuming the support of the people, assuming that planning permission is granted for the city square, assuming that the 拢90m funding gap can me met - if all this is achieved, then his guarantee will cost nothing. But he will not offer it, meaning that if his scheme fails planning, or if the funding cannot be found, this process will have cost Aberdeen the opportunity to build a world class arts centre in UTG and regenerate the gardens.

Which to a lot of people represents the biggest mistake of all - the possibility that nothing might change.

eye-write # 20 - it's all beginning to make sense. The test for whether or not new development should go ahead is simple - is it nicer. I'm just glad that our predecessors in Aberdeen used a higher test. The problem of course is that in many cases, producing something that is nicer is not a high test.

I happen not to agree with your views on most of the developments you quote. The oil company building which replaced the old College of Commerce building in Holburn Street may be an improvement on what was there before but, in my view, it has no real architectural merit. Same goes for the AECC. My view is that we will look back in 30 years time and kick ourselves. We are living through what are perhaps the most prosperous years in Aberdeen's history and what legacy has been left behaind for the city? What happens when Shell, Talisman, etc eventually leave the North Sea. What will be the architectural legacy? Empty office blocks that do nothing for the city from an architectural standpoint and, in one cvase, is plain ugly. Ironically, I think this is where Sir Ian Wood is coming from and he is trying to go some way to put things right. For that, he needs to be appluaded. It is just that I don't believe his proposals for UTG are anywhere near the best way to improve the Aberdeen cityscape.

Philip Uren # 22 - okay so my post at #15 did descend into a bit of a rant but you are missing the point in relation to the beach development. It is possible for a development to be functional and popular (in the sense that it is used a lot) but not to be aesthetically pleasing -- lets face it, the cinema complex has had little competition until recently and was bound to be popular. The beach development may fall into the category of popular but not aesthetically pleasing. My view is that the devlopment is ugly. Too much concrete and buildings which can only be described as of a fourth-rate design. Why can't devlopment be done in a way that is much more aethestically pleasing and sensitive to the people who have to view the developments day in and day out? It seems there is complete lack of civic pride in most of the building in Aberdeen at the moment; there is a lack of any notion that we should be putting up buildings that enhance the city and are not purely functional. It is all about return on capital when it comes to development. Can you imagine hat Aberdeen would look like if this had always been the case in Aberdeen? Why, for instance, can't the major oil companies take some pride in their buildings and see them as representative of their position in the city and their importance to its economy? Is it because they know that in 10 or 20 years they will gone and they have no interest in legacy?

to eye-write and co, quoting an earlier post: "When builders build houses they have a vision of what the house will be like" - well, that's just summarises the weakness in the ACSEF proposal! Ideally, builders should build houses that please their clients, rather than line their pockets with their own ideas. Compare Ian Woods' City Square with the beautiful and harmonious PVA building: Peacock's architects have come up with an award-winning design that has made its way through the public consultation process and received planning permission. It has 75% funding in place, with small costs to the public purse when compared to the City Square. It will serve the community by replacing the present unfit-for-purpose and often inaccessible venues with a wonderful space, right in the city centre, designed with it's clients in mind (including children, folk with disabilities, the elderly). It utilises an area in UTG which has fallen out of favour and use, which provides natural access to the sunnier parts of the gardens, and offers views across to several of Aberdeen's iconic buildings. What's not to like about that?
Also, as mentioned already, the "What If?" exhibition at PVA demonstrates just how we could have this new building (by 2012!) along with many other possible improvements to the Gardens. Just take a look at how our city could be enhanced by sympathetic improvements - using very little concrete! Let's turn our eyes away from the dazzle of 拢50million, with it's many strings attached, and instead support PVA's vision - NOW!

33. nedafo2

Jeepers, those buildings you criticise leaves one to wonder, what would satisfy you? We needed office blocks, and I think these new ones look great. To me, they're a bit "Sim City' and I think that's pleasing on the eye and quite fun.
And there's nothing wrong with that. They have cheered up the city .

No doubt these buildings will be redeveloped or knocked down one day. But nothing stays forever, not even cities - I think this is the error in the appalled's thinking.

These buildings are well liked. They are popular. But does that automatically make them undesirable? (What can everyday people know of "architecture"?) I assume you feel you can appreciate it. Is yours an elitist agenda? Your "architectural merit" is subjective.

You seem to be searching for something - the principleAb of architectural design? (Unbridled change irks you; we need to really control it; to pass it has to be imbued with higher ideals?) I don't think you are getting caught up in it, well perhaps just a bit, but, this Aberdeen legacy you seek, why can't Sir Ian Wood's proposal be it - because you simply don't like it? It's not "special" enough?
Is this not an antonym of progress? An eddy from which actions seldom escape.

If we had employed the 'as near to perfection test', or heeded 'my god, if it's "nice" don't build it!', or whatever impossible standard this 'we only have once chance' neurosis dictates, any of the buildings we've mentioned would never have been
built? - that they were is not the end of the world, rather they've made the world there better. That's stifling. It's a matter of degrees so minute they don't actually matter.

Your opinion is you don't like them. OK. But it does not infer backing by some higher moral power. Don't pretend you access some exclusive divine architectural foresight. You just don't prefer something I and many, many others do :-)

32. Skylaqb

Didn't Sir Ian's "not new" plans drew inspiration from other successful heart-of-city projects in cities in other countries. They aren't all "stuck in the 80s" to answer another post, if they were even all designed in the 80s.

Are we saying many there have a continual regret that these projects have been built. Or, a feeling of pride in an enhanced city? Are these projects not so welcomed and admired? I want to feel those benefits those others cities have.

I see that it is perceived Sir Ian Wood has caused problems. But how did he explain the difficulty as you have set out? Would he indeed act in such a way as you describe? Is he just a "ruthless businessman". Being aware that this is stereotypical, is it a easy/handy assumption? You are of course not on his side??

35. fredmart

I'm not terribly aghast at either proposal. I just don't want a restored 'museum piece' kept in place just because we cannot freegle/freecycle what's there!

But you can't demonise Ian Wood for "lining his own pockets" in this. He's not in it for money, or he'd have suggested shops, housing, offices or whatever, or some greatly effective way to cream currency, surely.

No, he's trying to put something back to, as he feels it, his city. People who are bashing the rich guy need to ask themselves, how many targeted funds do they have set up to aid and implement causes at home and numerous abroad? How many fund managers do they have doing this for them? Sir Ian, has many.

Supporting Sir Ian Wood isn't being dazzled by money, doesn't tar us. It is really unpleasant to not afford the same dignity to someone who had made millions, because he has made millions (like that's offending), inferring he must have been evil somewhere along the line to have done so. It's just sour grapes, a cheap shot.
It's the chip on the shoulder.

Let the best plan win perhaps, but not because of a smear campaign against Ian Wood. That is cheating ourselves, resigning our integrity.
And that is what wouldn't deserve respect.

Right, in light of blog comments have re-examined both designs for UTG. The high minds at Peacock have not raised the gardens?!!! It does not adequately connect all the areas around it, the shopping malls etc, together then??? It's what we usually get when we can't quite move on, half baked.

No one designing a new gardens for that location, if it we imagine that the area were vacant, would NOT raise the site. It's crazy, makes it unusable. It might be bonny, but we are not designing a postcard. What construction project, in this lie of land, would stay down in it? I don't see many other such sunken projects.

It's pandering to the idealist romantics' pressure to "put the gardens' needs over those of its users".

The great boon of the site is that it connects everywhere. I don't want to have to go down a million steps to get to or from the Peacock plans to the other adjacent parts of the city. I don't want to ramble up and over hills when I'm having a day out shopping! It's green brigade madness. The inmates running the asylum - dreams alone securing their right.

This type of impractical garden in a house would prevent it from selling to families.

The truth is the romantics in an insular relationship with the existing UTG are forgetting love is blind - the obsessive aversion to moving a blade of grass unless its absolutely necessary. They think they are 'more sensitive', superior knowers to us. 'Heartfelt' giving them the moral edge. It's conceited poppycock. The Poppycock plans.

The railway line isn't even covered - it's like leaving your wiring on show!

It looks as if nothing has changed! So, what a waste of money! It's cringe-worthy.
As an end-user, I sincerely hope it this is never built. It would ruin Aberdeen.

Get Sir Ian in for the cause of common sense, now!


- IF Peacock does have better aesthetic skill, then keep the green spaces, landscape etc., but RAISE THEM UP!

eye-write - as usual, your responses to me ands other make unwarranted leaps of logic which frankly makes it difficult to argue with you. You make assumptions that I am elitist, that unbridled change irks me, that my opinions have backing from a higher moral authority and that I am seeking perfection in architecture. Can you please tell me where you derive all of this from? No doubt, you cannot, and will avoid answering these questions in your response. You should spend more time reading posts carefully and not ne so dismissive over other peoples views. If you are seeking to persuade people over the merits of Sir Ian's plans then you have a very odd way of going about this.

Architecture is of course subjective but does that mean we should all stop expressing opinions? My opinion (and, as you rightly point out, it is only my opinion, but presumably you accept that it carries just as much weight as your own - or do you?) is that much of the recent development in Aberdeen is mediocre at best and that we should as a city strive to achieve more. Your opinion is that you like them - does this include Union Plaza? The issue is important to me not because of some architectural snobbery on my part but because I see these buildings on a regular basis when I am out and about in the city.

I accept that buildings do not last forever but (a) they will probably remain intact during my lifetime and (b) we may be stuck with many recent developments for many years as, in my view, it is unlikely that there will be the wealth in Aberdeen to replace them once the oil and gas industry begins its downward slide.



Finally, have you ever considered that you are in fact the elitist (rather than the common sense, progressive and pouplist which you protray yourself as) in the way that you dismiss from opponents to Sir Ian's scheme out of hand and label contributors as mad "greenies" or elitists?

Philip Uren - on the beach development issue, I understand that the original plans for the beach development which were approved by the Council involved the frontages of the buildings facing the sea all being glazed but that the developers subsequently changes this to what we have today on grounds of cost. The council accepted the change. That is why the buildings have concrete frontages. It reinforces my view that the council is too scared to stand up to developers and takes the view that any development is good irrespective of its quality.

To nedafo2 re post 39
I wasn鈥檛 really commenting on the architectural merit of the beach development, just pointing out that it was very popular despite what anyone thinks of the aesthetics of it.
Much as I do think it is pretty ugly from the front, but everything can鈥檛 be designed by the expensive designers and everything can鈥檛 be built from granite.
Some would moan about every single office block that goes up in the city no matter what design it was 鈥� but you can鈥檛 please everyone 鈥� aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder :-) - - - - have a nice day

39. nedafo2

As Scotland is at the fore, in the world, of offshore and renewable energy (in no small part to the infrastructure being already there), it's the next golden goose, if we play our cards right this time :-)
There is at the very least another generation of oil and gas out there.
Scotland's got everything going for it. We could have it made.
To maybe 'groovy' myself up a bit, and quote Bob Dylan: ('you' meaning 'us')
"there's no one to beat you, no one to defeat you, 'cept the thoughts of yourself feeling ba-a-a-a-ad" ;-)

Yes, I really like Union Plaza - more please :-)

Maybe you are right to worry, as a priority, about the standard of architecture in Aberdeen. Maybe I am right to think you have nothing to worry about.
Readers will no doubt form their views, as it should be.

(I'm not really seeking to persuade. It's not for me to tell anyone what to think.
But if I say what I think, people can hopefully see a bit more of an argument.
I think everybody can think for themselves. So they should have, and can take, any argument put at them. It's inclusive, not exclusive. Am I elitist?)

PS I expressed some of what you include in your first paragraph as questions, and my other thoughts were based on your disapproval of what most people are happy to accept as buildings they are freely in favour of, and that you highlighted a need for a 'legacy'.

I did not notice any dire architectural straights in Aberdeen until you (strongly) mentioned it. And when I drive around Aberdeen I am pleased to see the new buildings.