Consultation - Aberdeen Voice

Youth Parliament – NE Members Challenge First Bus

Jul 122012

With thanks to Kenneth Watt.

Members of the Scottish Youth Parliament (MSYP) Kris Chapman (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) and Justin Rheiner (Aberdeen Donside) have challenged First Bus over the consultation that is currently taking place on the proposed bus routes.

Meeting with First Bus Representatives at the Douglas Hotel during the recent public drop-in, MSYPs Kris Chapman and Justin Rheiner highlighted serious concerns over the lack of public awareness of the proposed bus route changes and the absence of public engagement to allow the public to positively engage with the consultation process.

Following the meeting, newly elected MSYP Kris Chapman ( pictured ) said:

“I was pleased to see First Bus recognising their failures in the consultation process and have taken on board our suggestions in which the proposed changes to the bus route will be being made public available from the First Bus shop on Union Street in the near future.

“Young people rely heavily on their local bus services and make up a significant proportion of First’s customer base. It is therefore essential we work with First Group in order to address concerns that our constituents’ voices are listened to in order to ensure vital services are changed in a way that works for as many people as possible.”

MSYP Justin Rheiner, who is also LGBT Officer at Aberdeen College, commented further:

“It is important that as these changes to the bus routes are only proposals they can still be changed and modified to suit the needs of regular bus users and this is why we want to see more people engage with the process to ensure these changes work for everyone across Aberdeen.”

MSYPs from across Aberdeen, along with Aberdeen City Youth Council, will continue to engage First Bus to ensure that the public’s concerns are being heard.

Kris who is a full-time Researcher with Subsea UK and was elected in a by-election in June is making the First Bus consultation his first campaign in Aberdeen.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Torry/Ferryhill Candidate On Green Party Indifference

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, Information No Responses »

Apr 062012

Suzanne Kelly, Independent candidate for Torry/Ferryhill in Aberdeen City’s Council elections, speaks out against the Green Party for its apathy over the controversial Tullos Hill roe deer cull, in light of the Greens fielding a candidate in Torry/Ferryhill.

When I was with the Green Party, I explained clearly on several occasions what was wrong with this cull and Aberdeen City’s ‘tree for every citizen’ scheme.

However, the Greens decided that the party was not going to take a stand on this, one of the most controversial environmental and democratic issues in the city.

Some of the longer-serving Green party members sympathised with me, but there were newer members who didn’t see what the big deal was with the city shooting these deer.

I couldn’t believe it, as I’d previously explained and written in detail that the trees are unlikely to grow and the cull is flawed. People wrote to the Greens to ask for their stance on the matter, but still the party didn’t want to stand up against this cull.

I have been campaigning actively to stop this specific roe deer cull for over a year. The Scottish SPCA branded the Tullos cull ‘abhorrent and absurd’ for killing deer to protect trees which don’t even exist yet. Many other animal welfare groups oppose this cull, and thousands of people have signed petitions against it.

Three community councils condemned the consultation and cull last year, and more recently these councils sent an open letter to the city, asking for the scheme to be halted. I don’t believe the trees will grow, as the hill’s soil is very scant and the ground cleared for the planting is extremely rocky, and is covered in industrial and domestic waste (there is a soil report by government officials which confirms this).

Three community councils object to the cull and the city’s so-called ‘consultation’ on the tree scheme. The consultation did not mention deer at all (but it did cover rabbits and rabbit fencing). The consultation also failed to say that a massive 89,000 trees would be put on the hill. No one in the area wants it – and even though the city has started, the opposition will continue.

I’d been writing about this issue for some time, and The Green Party knew that the cull was specifically to plant trees and not for deer welfare issues. I am so very disappointed in the Green Party over this issue.

The Aberdeen Green Party is running a candidate against me in the May elections. I have a chain of emails between members of the Green Party and me from this time last year. Some of the Greens’ comments include:

“I don’t think the party as such should have a position. I certainly don’t want to get involved in this”

“I don’t understand why these 30 deer (or whatever number it actually is) are so different and attracting so much attention.”

“Also within a relatively few miles of Tullos are large numbers of cattle and sheep that will be killed so people can eat them. We do not have a policy of enforced vegetarianism.”

This last statement was particularly, amazingly patronising, and the remark is completely off the point of why these deer are to be killed.

There was no way I was going to stay in the Green Party after this. For a party calling itself ‘green’ to stand idly by while a meadow and its wildlife was destroyed was beyond the pale. How they can possibly stand for election in Torry and expect me to stay silent about their stance is something I can’t understand either.

I have previously explained to a local member and a national member that I would have to publicise how the Greens view Tullos Hill. I did give fair warning that I would go public about how they decided to look the other way concerning Tullos.

I’m happy to have competition in this election, but people need to know the Greens could have helped when it mattered – and didn’t. If I stay quiet, some people will simply think the Greens must care about the hill and the deer – I have to let them know the truth.

The elections are to be held on 3rd May. Torry and Ferryhill will be represented by four city councillors.

I served on the Torry Community Council for three years, and I have always been involved in helping people in my area and further afield whether it be fighting school closures, charity work, or helping some of our older people. One of the newer local Green Party ‘higher-ups’ apparently said ‘Suzanne doesn’t stand a chance of winning.’ Well, I am determined to prove them wrong.

Further information on the Tullos Hill deer cull: http://suzannekelly.yolasite.com/
For further information on Suzanne Kelly’s campaign, see http://suzannekellyforaberdeencitycouncil2012.yolasite.com
Green party response http://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/04/greens-respond

Community Councils Ask ACC To Call Off Tullos Deer Cull

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, News No Responses »

Mar 202012

With thanks to John F. Robins, Secretary, Animal Concern Advice Line (ACAL).

Three Community Councils representing neighbourhoods close to Tullos Hill have issued a last minute appeal asking Aberdeen City Council to call off the deer cull planned for Tullos Hill.
In a strongly worded open letter the Community Councils, which represent over 25,000 Aberdonians, accuse the City Council of using underhand tactics to get backing to plant trees on Tullos Hill as part of their Tree for Every Citizen initiative.

They claim that,

“the public consultation was seriously flawed and made no mention of a deer cull. Community Councils and the general public were given incomplete information, allowing ACC’s intention to cull to remain unchallenged”.

When the intention to kill the resident roe deer eventually became public knowledge there was an outcry with many Aberdonians telling the City Council that if the Tree for Every Citizen project meant killing the deer they did not want any trees planted for them. The Community Councils say the City Council dismissed local public opinion and have pleaded with the Council to change their mind at the eleventh hour and to,

“Listen to the voices of the people who elected you, cancel the cull and let the Tullos Hill deer live”.

For over a year Animal Concern Advice Line (ACAL) has been supporting local campaigners in the battle to save the Tullos Hill roe deer. John Robins of ACAL welcomed the intervention of the Community Councils. He states;

“This is a severe embarrassment to Aberdeen City Council.

“They can no longer claim that opposition to the deer cull is coming from outwith Aberdeen. Three Community Councils representing over 25,000 Aberdonians have made it perfectly clear that they want this cull stopped. On Sunday of this week the CEO of the National Trust for Scotland admitted on national television that they had made a mistake by undertaking a mass cull of deer on the Mar Lodge Estate.

“The very same advisors who were behind that cull are the people advising Aberdeen City Council to kill the deer on Tullos Hill. There is still time for Aberdeen City Council to avoid making that same mistake. All they have to do is respect the wishes of the people who elected them and call off the cull.”

The Open Letter signed by Nigg, Torry and, Kincorth & Leggart Community Councils can be viewed here.

Letter To The Sane World – A UTG Overview

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Feb 292012

Shakhaf Barak wrote to a friend highlighting the history behind the current referendum that is dividing the city. He has kindly allowed Voice to use it, almost verbatim as the deadline approaches for voting.

Dear Friend,
Here in Aberdeen there is a bitter referendum taking place, and it could go either way. Over 70,000 people have voted thus far, in a city of barely 212,000 souls, and both sides have reported each other to the police. Central to this story is a 250-year old city centre park, Union Terrace Gardens, and the billionaire oil tycoon seeking to redevelop it.

Union Terrace Gardens are similar to Edinburgh’s Princes Street Gardens, lying in the natural amphitheatre of the Denburn valley, the Denburn being a stream which flows right through the city, underground where it borders the Gardens. Much of Aberdeen’s best architecture was clearly envisaged to overlook this area.

The Gardens are home to a cluster of 260-year old elms trees that once formed part of the Corbie Haugh, a historic wood which ran through the valley. This is among the largest concentration of healthy mature elm trees in Europe, and they are reputed to have escaped Dutch Elm Disease, not only due to their isolation, but also because the pollution of the city has afforded some sort of protection from it.

Both the park and its beautiful Victorian toilets are Grade A-listed, and all of the trees are under preservation orders. Up until as late as 2003, the Gardens formed the centrepiece of Aberdeen’s Britain In Bloom entry, and they were truly stunning, but since then expenditure has all but ceased, and the toilets have been closed for several years.

In 2008 a local arts organisation, Peacock Visual Arts (PVA) was granted planning permission for an award-winning and sympathetically-designed arts centre to be built into the hillside of the Gardens. This would have meant felling a small number of trees but none of the elms. The design was universally acclaimed and it was hoped that this scheme would help regenerate interest in the Gardens.

Enter Sir Ian Wood, one of Scotland’s richest men, and chief of Wood Group PSN. Sir Ian decided that he’d like to redevelop the Gardens by building a five-storey bunker in their place, whilst covering over the adjoining railway line and urban dual carriageway, with the entire roof of this construction forming a flat civic square at street level. It was not entirely clear what would be installed in the bunker, although speculation was rife to say the least.

He offered the council £50m towards the cost of this project, which was mooted to cost £140m. This was possibly an optimistic figure since Union Square, a similarly sized shopping mall with none of the technical difficulties or prior excavation work, cost £250m to build. The council felt this offer was too good to refuse, but the some members of the public were up in arms.

Sir Ian decided to put the proposal out to public consultation and promised to walk away should the public reject it.

The ‘consultation’ was commissioned by Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (ACSEF), a publicly-funded unelected QUANGO, and conducted by The BiG Partnership, Scotland’s largest PR company.

It many ways it resembled a marketing exercise. The bulk of participation was via a website, which asked several questions with a somewhat loaded feel to them. For technical reasons, the question on whether or not to proceed with the plan defaulted to a YES vote.

If, during completion of the questionnaire, any previously-given responses were subsequently amended, this again defaulted back to a YES vote. When the results were released, it became apparent from the comments sections that may people who had intended voting NO had instead been recorded as YES voters.

Over 10,000 people participated in the consultation, and In spite of it’s technical oversights, the public voted against the Civic Square proposal by 54%-46%, a healthy and significant majority. However the PR machine kicked in and somehow spun that the 202,000 people who had not participated possibly represented a silent majority in favour of this scheme.

Critics described it as a cross between Tellytubby Land and a skate park

Sir Ian decided not to walk away, and the project went to a council vote. The council voted in favour of taking the plan forward at the expense of PVA who by that time had 80% of their £20m funding in place. It has subsequently been alleged that some of the PVA funding was diverted into the new project.

The BiG Partnership now re-launched the plans under a new name, The City Garden Project (CGP). It was claimed that the outcome of the public consultation was that the public were broadly in favour of a garden as opposed to a civic square. Any implication that they were actually in favour of preserving the existing gardens was ignored.

The interested parties now felt that the best option was to redevelop the Gardens by building a five-storey bunker in their place whilst covering over the adjoining railway line and urban dual carriageway, with the entire roof of this construction forming a new garden at street level.

The whole thing had an air of déjà vu.

This time it was decided to hold an international design contest, paid for with public money. Six designs were shortlisted from hundreds of entrants. One, The Granite Web, bore a striking resemblance to Civic Square concept, albeit with less concrete and more greenery. Critics described it as a cross between Tellytubby Land and a skate park.

The local press heavily promoted the Granite Web design from the outset of the contest, leading with it on their front page and providing it with more photo coverage than the other designs. It was almost as though it had been ordained.

The public voted, and spoiled ballots aside, all indications were that The Winter Garden design proved the most popular. An independent poll confirmed this and put The Monolith in second place.

Tellingly both of these designs retained much of the topology of the existing Gardens. Word on the street was that The Granite Web was not a popular choice, but we’ll never know for sure, because a decision was taken not to release the results of the so-called public vote to the public.

It was then announced that the winner of the private-public vote would be put forward to the selection panel, along with another design. The self-appointed selection panel consisted of Sir Ian, some other influential people from the oil industry, an architectural consultant on the project payroll, and a councillor who backed the project.

The two designs discussed were the acknowledged public favourite, The Winter Garden, and you’ve guessed it, the joker in the pack, The Granite Web. When the panel announced the result, it should have come as no surprise to anyone that they had chosen The Granite Web, yet there was a shocked silence, and even those had come out in favour of the redevelopment initially appeared bemused if not downright confused.

The original Civic Square was mooted to cost £140m, with £50m coming from Sir Ian, £20m from the private sector, and the rest to be borrowed through a Tax Incremental Funding (TIF) scheme. Any over-run would be covered by the council (read local taxpayer) .

Only £5m of the private sector contribution has materialised thus far, but there has been an announcement that The Granite Web would be significantly less expensive to build than the previously-envisaged, but somewhat less complex, civic square. Sir Ian has offered to personally fund up to £35M of any cost over runs, should they occur.

The TIF proposal cheerfully bends all the guidelines of TIF funding. TIF is intended to be used to redevelop brownfield sites, with the loan being repaid over a 25 year period through increased rates recouped from any businesses setting up in the redeveloped area. The city council had already approved planning permission for two new industrial estates on the outskirts of town, under the business case for the TIF funding, these new estates become part of the TIF zone, so in The Granite Web’s case, sections of the TIF zone are located several miles away from the actual redeveloped area.

The predictions are for 6,500 jobs and £122m annual revenue to the local economy, all based on the new industrial estates, which have no obvious linkage to The Granite Web, operating at full capacity. Even if one were to accept that any new jobs could be somehow attributed to The Granite Web, the figure of 6,500 seems unlikely given that the London Olympics is only projected to create 3,500 jobs.

Either way, the setup feels a bit shaky; the truth is that these jobs and their associated revenue will accrue with or without The Granite Web.

By this time, councillors seemed to be getting edgy and unwilling to green-light the project, so they decided to hold a public referendum. Any group wishing to campaign was required to adhere to an £8,000 spending limit, and for this they were provided with 300 words of text in the voting pack.

The packs went out, but unfortunately some of the Retain lobby’s statements were mangled due to a ‘computer error’. The voting packs were closely followed by a big money public relations mail bombing campaign by The BiG Partnership promoting The Granite Web. Publicity materials went through every letter box, pro Granite Web articles dominated the press, and adverts were played around the clock on the local radio stations.

Apparently this expenditure was permitted by virtue of being funded by an ‘unregistered’, and as yet anonymous, campaign group – whatever that means! I guess it’s a bit like not having to pay tax because your parents never applied for a birth certificate, who knows? By this point, things were becoming surreal to say the least.

The referendum closes on 1 March and it’s a bitter fight that has divided the city. For example, an oil company boss has made a complaint to the police alleging mail hacking and cyber bullying. The police claim they are taking this allegation seriously. There have also been two arrests possibly related to claims of vote-rigging, but ultimately no one was charged.

The town has gone berserk and it’s civil war all over Facebook. It’s as if we’re all experiencing a really, really bad shared dream. I just dread to think what we’ll all be waking up to on Saturday morning.

Ten Reasons To Vote Against The CGP

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Feb 242012

Peter Veritas makes the case for voting “Retain”.

1. There is a very real danger that the City Garden Project will bankrupt Aberdeen.

The City Garden Project (CGP) is planned for a greenfield site which would require substantial excavation. It is a five acre, five storey, underground construction that would span both a main road and a railway track

It’s roof would be required to hold approximately ninety thousand tons of topsoil, the same weight as the worlds largest aircraft carrier. It is projected to cost £140M.

Union Square, which is of a similar size, was built on a flat brownfield site with good access. The final cost was £250m.

Marischal College is a much smaller existing building that was recently renovated. No major construction was performed. The final cost came to £65M.

Given that context, how can we be expected the believe the estimate for The City Garden Project is realistic? Should the City Garden Project experience a similar scale of overspend to the Scottish Parliament Building or the Edinburgh trams, then the shortfall could conceivably be of the order of £360M. The city, which is already £560M in debt, would be liable for this overspend.

It could not be rolled up into the existing loan, and would require immediate payment. Failure to cover the overspend would result in us being left with a dirty hole in our city centre. The only options open to the council would be to auction off it’s remaining assets, such as the other parks, to property developers, and to increase council tax massively. Public services which have already suffered severe cuts would be totally decimated.

2. Aberdeen has suffered badly from previous developments.

St Nicholas House, the New Market, The Denburn dual carriageway, the Denburn Health Centre, The St Nicholas Centre, and Virginia Street are all universally acknowledged as failures that now blight our urban landscape. Aberdeen lost many beautiful buildings to clear the way for those developments.

The people who campaigned against those architectural and planning atrocities are also campaigning against The City Garden Project. They’ve been proven right time and time again. Perhaps it’s time we listened to them?

3. We already voted against this Project under a different name.

There is something sinister about the City Garden Project. It was originally conceived as the City Square Project (CSP), and envisioned as a five acre flat concrete piazza. That proposal only emerged after Peacock Visual Arts were given planning permission to embed an unobtrusive arts centre into the hillside of Union Terrace Gardens. Sir Ian Wood pledged £50M to build The City Square, but promised to scrap the Project if the public rejected it.

That was then put out to a flawed public consultation, in which the public voted against by a substantial majority, despite the online survey mysteriously defaulting to a “yes” vote. Sir Ian then reneged on his promise and continued to push the concept, the council ran roughshod over the electorate, and by the casting vote of the Lord Provost, consigned the Peacock plan to the dustbin.

Sir Ian has consistently stated that he will only contribute his £50M to this particular proposal and nothing else, and that if we reject his proposal then he will divert the money to Africa. His behaviour is baffling.

4. There has been an air of deception around The City Garden Project.

The City Square Project was rebranded as The City Garden Project. During the Project’s second coming the public were presented with six designs and invited to vote on them. None Of The Above was not a option.

Aesthetically, the public appeared to favour the Winter Garden design. From a conceptual perspective The Monolith design was arguably the most cohesive.
The appointed panel then refused to release the outcome of this public vote and instead selected The Granite Web, a design for which very few people acknowledge having voted, and which many people considered to have been among the weakest.

CGP propaganda has continually claimed that Union Terrace Gardens are a dangerous place, but Grampian Police crime figures reveal that they are actually among the safest places in the city centre. Neighbouring Belmont Street, which the plans propose to connect to the Granite Web, is statistically the worst area for street crime.

Under the rules of the referendum, registered campaign groups are limited to £8k spending to maintain a level playing field. However a mysterious group of anonymous business people has allegedly ploughed £50K into sending pro-CGP propaganda to every home in Aberdeen City. This is not within the spirit of the referendum and is arguably a breach of the rules.

It has been claimed numerous times that the 250 year old elm trees in Union Terrace Gardens are diseased, but a recent report by a tree surgeon has given them a completely clean bill of heath. These elms are among the last surviving in Europe, and they flourish both due to their isolation from other elms, and because the pollution of the city prevents Dutch Elm disease from spreading to them. These trees are all covered by a preservation order.

5. Those arguing in favour of the City Garden Project are mostly connected to it in some way.

Scotland’s top public relations firm were engaged to promote the Project, which may be why the majority of stories that have appeared in the local press have been fawningly in favour of the CGP.

Those who have argued the merits of the Project, both in the press and on-line, are interconnected people with an as-yet unknown agenda.

In addition to the numerous PR professionals being paid thousands of pounds each day to present the case, there are several property developers, the owners of assorted the premises on Union Street, and various oil company executives.

No fewer than three city councillors, who backed the Project, recently announced that they intend to stand down, and have also revealed that they are planning to leave the city. Virtually all of those involved are members of Acsef, Scottish Enterprise, the Institute of Directors, and The Chamber of Commerce. The same dozen people feature time and time again in the groups which have come out publicly in favour of the Project. The same people wearing different hats.

6. The economics have no basis in fact.

Tax Incremental Funding (TIF) is intended to fund the redevelopment of brownfield sites. Businesses which later setup in and around those sites pay increased business rates which repay the cost of the development in a similar manner to a mortgage. The business case for this Project bends the rules since the increased rates will not be gathered for the site itself, but from two new industrial estates, located several miles away and for which planning permission has already been granted.

The 6,500 jobs and £122M of projected annual revenue are a product of these new industrial estates working at full capacity. This is almost guaranteed to occur anyway without The Granite Web.

Furthermore, the paid author of the reports is PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), which has recently been fined £1.4m for audit failure. PWC rates the TIF case at Risk Level 3, where 4 is the highest risk.

7. To save the architecture of the Denburn Valley

None of the Granite Web mockups, artists impressions, or video, have addressed the issue of the rear elevation of Belmont Street.

This is home to some of Aberdeen’s most spectacular architecture, descending right down to the level of Denburn Road. Architecture which will be obliterated when the CGP connects to it, some five storeys further up.

Most of these buildings are either local businesses or publicly owned concerns, and several of them have picturesque balconies below the finished level of The Granite Web.

8. To retain our sheltered park.

Union Terrace Gardens lie in the Denburn Valley which offers shelter from the wind and urban pollution. Raising the area up to street level would turn it into a wind trap.

The wind would howl round the concrete walkways and other architectural features of the granite web, plants would struggle to survive, and people would avoid the area, preferring instead to travel along the relatively sheltered confines of nearby streets. It’s a fallacy to claim that this development would enhance connectivity.

9. Union Terrace Gardens have been cynically starved of funding – in order to ‘pave the way’ for this redevelopment.

Union Terrace Gardens was the centre piece of Aberdeen’s famous successes in the Britain in Bloom contest. Over the course of the past eight years the council has cut funding, with the result that the Gardens are no longer maintained at previous award-winning levels

The beautiful Grade A listed public toilets were closed, the famous giant draught boards were ripped out, the winter skating rink was no longer installed and concerts and other public events were discontinued

A modest investment would both regenerate the Gardens, and improve access to them. There is no need to risk bankrupting the city for what amounts to no additional benefit

10. The curse of Corbie Haugh.

Back in the seventeenth century, the area where the Gardens now stand was a wood called Corbie Haugh. The ancient Scots word for crow is corbie and the wood was named after the crows which gathered in the grassy valley and within the bank of elm trees. The elm trees in the Gardens date back over 250 years to that eighteenth century wood.

An ancient legend, The Curse of Corbie Haugh, holds that when the crows depart, the city will be ruined. If the elms are chopped down, the crows will indeed depart, and if they city ends up burdened by an additional £360m of debt, then it shall indeed be ruined!

SAVE OUR CITY FROM DISASTER BY VOTING TO RETAIN UNION TERRACE GARDENS.

Union Terrace Gardens – Heritage Matters

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, History, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Feb 232012

Next Friday (March 2nd) we will know the fate of Union Terrace Gardens. The results of the public referendum will be announced then. Will there be wild celebrations in the park itself or will the champagne corks be popping in the boardrooms? writes Mike Shepherd.

The Importance of Union Terrace Gardens

I agree with the comment that in your mental map of Aberdeen, Union Terrace Gardens is at the centre of it. This observation gets right to the core of the controversy.
I’ve heard Sir Ian Wood dismiss the idea of building a civic square on the St Nicholas site. As far as he is concerned the Denburn is the heart of Aberdeen, and that’s where the civic square / garden should go.

The fate of our park will be highly symbolic for the future of Aberdeen city centre. If you agree to retain the Gardens, it’s a statement that heritage matters in the city centre and there is a will to maintain the historical nature of down-town Aberdeen.

On the other hand by agreeing to build a modern park and structure, this would probably give the green light to extensive development of the city centre. As the TIF business report for the City Garden Project states, the scheme could stimulate the establishment of a central business district and the accelerated construction of city centre office blocks.

The alternative is so much more attractive. With Jimmy Milne’s business fund we could sympathetically restore Union Terrace Gardens at a fraction of the cost. It would be a marker for preserving our city centre heritage.

The Erosion of the Character of the Granite City

My background is geology and I grew up near Rubislaw Quarry. The geology of Scotland varies so much, it means that each town and city has its own distinctive building stone. This creates a strong sense of place and belonging unique to each part of Scotland.

I was born in Aberdeen and I love the granite buildings with a passion. It breaks my heart when one is pulled down and a concrete and glass box of no redeeming character is put in its place. I would agree with the sentiment expressed in the old Aberdeen City Plan (very tellingly omitted from the new plan that has just been approved):

“The standard of design in new development has been raised as a widespread cause for concern during the preparation of this Local Plan. This is one reason why new development can raise so much hostility amongst the public and this situation must change. The City has such a rich and relatively intact heritage of older buildings that shortcomings of newer ones are all the more obvious. It is necessary to encourage better design.”

The loss of Union Terrace Gardens could be the start of Aberdeen losing its special character as the Granite City. More and more old buildings may be lost, until the city starts to look like everywhere else. This would sadden me immensely.

A Test for Local Democracy

I also see the Union Terrace Gardens as a test case for local democracy. Despite the public referendum, local democracy has failed miserably on the issue. The development of Union Terrace Gardens was imposed on the public from the start with no serious attempt to build consensus. A so-called public consultation was run essentially as a marketing exercise, and when it failed to convince the Aberdeen public, it was conveniently ignored.

The recently held ‘public consultation’ on the design is remarkable in that the results were not even made public. Even the referendum has been lop-sided, with a massive public relations exercise on one side combined with a local press willing to publish anything it gets. There have been some new lows in recent days (see Richard Pelling’s article on the subject).

Will the public assert themselves against the machine? I hope and trust they will. If not, expect much more of the same.

A Waste of Public Money

Recently I received an email from the managing director of an oil service company in Aberdeen. He described the idea of using Central Government funds for the City Garden Project as a terrible waste of investment and infrastructure money. His opinion is that the city centre development will not affect the decision by oil companies and personnel to move to Aberdeen or otherwise.

“Companies invest in Aberdeen because of the fantastic talent pool, the high standard of living, the stable fiscal regime (assuming Osborne doesn’t have any more surprises), the access to West Africa and other merging oil & gas regions which are increasingly supported from Aberdeen.”

I agree. What is calamitous is that if Aberdeen Council was going to apply for TIF funding, they could have found much better projects than Sir Ian Wood’s city garden. How about these:

a. Revamping the Beach area

b. De-bottlenecking Aberdeen’s congested roads

c. Building the AREG renewable energy centre

- And just about any other project you could think of.

If the City Garden Project goes ahead, we will have replaced a park with a park. Is this what we should be doing with public investment money in Aberdeen? Most certainly not.

If you agree with any of this and you haven’t voted yet; vote Retain Union Terrace Gardens (the option that does not destroy our Granite City).

Open Spaces Unltd Reply To Knabzco

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, Information, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Feb 222012

With Thanks to Rt.Hon. George Maloney III ( CEO Open Spaces UnLtd. )

The following contains a reply to some feedback Open Spaces Unltd received through youtube. Open Spaces UnLtd were recently contacted by a person by the name of Knabzco. After watching our Option 7 Campaign video Knabzco offered his/her opinion on our campaign.

“Well, at 499 views, I’d say you’ve probably impressed enough people to swing the vote. Not. Fucking bellend. Grow up.” – Knabzco

Open Spaces Unltd values highly any customer feedback, so without hesitation we responded.

“Dear Knabzco, thank you very much for your feedback on our campaign. The board are considering your comments and will send through their reply in due course. We are proud of our proposal and feel honoured that you would take 2 minutes out of your very busy day to send us your insightful words. You are most welcome to arrange a meeting with one of our managers if you would like to talk further about our wonderful company.

Much love to you

Kisses xxx”

Mr/Mrs/Ms Knabzco graciously continued the dialogue.

“I just find it incredibly arrogant of some people who are prepared to turn down an offer of 50 million pounds to bring their city centre back to life. There are towns and cities throughout the UK and Ireland which would bite your hand off for such an amazing offer. Sad. Really sad to see. I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail and the majority vote yes. If they’re retained, tell me, what will the Gardens look like in 10, 20 years time?” - Knabzco

Our CEO, Rt.Hon George Maloney III provided Mr/Mrs.Knabzco with a personal response.

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Knabzco

Thank you for getting in touch again Mr. Knabzco. We at Open Spaces Unltd feel that we cannot speak for the citizens of Aberdeen as we are an unlimited company but I would, speaking as an individual of course, like to offer my thoughts on the issue.

Our feedback analysis actually found the “arrogant” ones to be those in our society who have no regard for democracy or decency. I suspect, again speaking as an individual, that this result pertains to the veil of secrecy that surrounds the project.

Aberdonians do not respond well to threats, especially when they are being threatened by those who completely ignored their feedback forms.

I suspect that consumers in the city are unsatisfied with their choice of local quangos given that our foremost economic advisory body ACSEF, a board of millionaire businessmen with only 2 elected representatives, appears to have unrestrained influence over the economic direction in which our city is being driven. I also suspect that consumers are unsatisfied with the matter of public consultations.

In this particular case, consumers have been consulted twice and have, both times, called for the retention of the gardens.

Additionally, our Public Relations Department found that citizens did not care much for the marketing strategies of the pro-CGP teams. They felt that they had been delivered an ultimatum, a threat, if you will. Our research shows that Aberdonians do not respond well to threats, especially when they are being threatened by those who completely ignored their feedback forms.

I, again speaking as a citizen of the Granite City, feel that the public have been offered very little in the way of information about the funding mechanisms. The TIF scheme has a very blotted copy book and I wonder if the public aren’t beginning to get a little restless about the details.

Our team has, through vigorous investigation, shown that the consumers tend towards anti-austerity views. They felt that the Scottish Government were changing the rules of the game halfway through.

It was pointed out to me by one of our most esteemed clients that the original TIF pilot scheme only included funding for 6 schemes, but when the ACC scheme was not recommended by the Scottish Futures Trust (a body appointed by the government to scrutinize TIF applications and make recommendations on the sensibility of the business case to the government) to Holyrood, ministers decided that they might be able to find an extra £92 million to finance said initiative.

I suspect that the public, in these terrible times of austerity, simply feel that spending such money is not prudent, especially when one considers the number of budgets and services which are currently being liquidated and how that might affect the most vulnerable in our society.

Money does appear, at least to many people, to be buying opinion.

The final point I’d like make is that, according to our telephone survey, the public felt the referendum itself might be undemocratic. Many participants raised concerns about the funding of a group called the ‘Vote for the City Gardens Project’.

They felt that, as it had not registered as an official campaign organisation, it may be spending far more than the £8000 allowed to official campaign groups.

It was stated that the playing field was not very level. Especially when the Facebook page revealed that 50 anonymous business people (who have more money than the average campaigner) were behind the venture. Many of our participants had become disillusioned by and tired of the constant stream of Royal Mail-delivered pro-CGP propaganda dropping though their doors. The flyers, newspapers, radio adverts, videos and pro-CGP media were all identified as major concerns throughout the survey.

Money does appear, at least to many people, to be buying opinion. The pro-UTG groups simply do not have the funds that this unregistered group enjoy, and as a result the debate is not fair or balanced. I fear that such disregard for public opinion will lead to consumers simply withdrawing their savings from the confidence-in-business-elites-and-ACC bank and will oblige them to look for other ways to run their society.

I hope my humble offering has helped to shed some light on those “arrogant” people who may not be fully supportive of your personal view.

Thanks again, and please do not hesitate to contact us if there is anything else we can do for you.

George Maloney III

Super-Natural: The Urban Landscapes Of DS+R

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Information No Responses »

Feb 172012

A lecture by Charles Renfro, held at the Robert Gordon University, Tuesday the 14th of January. By Jeremy Millar.

I pulled on my black turtleneck and picked up my Mac book pro and set off for the lecture. Would I be mistaken for an architect; yes I was – it’s all in the attention to detail. The theatre was pretty full, with architecture students to the back, and bolder interested parties to the front. Charles Renfro is an engaging character – think Niles Crane amalgamated with Andy Warhol.

He had flown in especially for this event, and encountered the usual techie difficulties in getting his gleaming Mac book pro to talk with a PC campus. The lecture was a run through of a number of the DS+R projects, and very impressive it was too.

At their heart DS+R are artists, often very clever and imaginative conceptual artists. This approach is exemplified by the ‘blur’ installation on lake Neuchatel in Switzerland. This brought to mind ‘Smoke on the Water’ for some reason. This building was a folly in the architectural sense and Charles spoke of playing with the senses as the visitor entered the water cloud and saw nothing. Like many of the DS+R projects there is an element of passing through, rather than destination.

The revolving trees in Liverpool are another witty play on perception.

Understandably the main focus of the lecture was on the High Line project in New York. I have to say that I was a fan before, and now I am even more so. This project demonstrates all that is great about urban design. It involves people with their environment on so many levels. There are many small spaces along the route that offer opportunity for performance. There is a sense of people owning and playing up to the intimacy of these spaces. If it is not to your taste – well you can just move on. It was, however, sooo New York – and I was reminded of “just a New York conversation rattling in my head”: thanks Lou.

a walk-through video that involved much playing of the bagpipes

I was impressed by the way in which the High Line acknowledges routes and roots, and builds in memory of decay and goes wild. Charles is keen on letting the DNA show through and inform the evolution of the space. He ably demonstrated this with the Lincoln Centre and the new Rio gallery designs.

Loving what I’ve seen so far, in that it is visionary, interactive and accessible. These projects are also all in large metropolises with sophisticated urban elites, and large numbers of tourists pretty much the year round. There is no question that I would visit if in New York, Rio or Boston.

And so onto the ‘City Garden Project’ for which Charles launched a walk-through video that involved much playing of the bagpipes. The key words and phrases included diversity of ecology, ideas pulled from existing context (that DNA concept) sustainability, green lung, reconnecting the city, reinforcing heritage moments, keeping topographic interest; and I have to say he lost me.

I could see some of the connections to the successful DS+R projects, but this vision betrayed a fundamental absence of an understanding of what makes Aberdeen unique both architecturally and culturally. The DNA of Aberdeen city centre is in the crisp Victorian lines of squares, crescents and terraces. The grand public buildings echo a past of commerce and culture as one strolls down Union Street.

The visual dominance of ‘education, salvation and damnation’ overlooking the gardens and leading the eye round to the gallery are rightly flagged up in guides to the city.

The gardens as they stand reveal this DNA and tell Aberdeen’s story. Charles in his presentation showed photographs of this evolution, the exposed Denburn, the trains pulling into the station, the bandstand and the vistas beyond. This legacy would be obliterated, and as for the DNA, we would have some balustrade and two statutes. I would defy any visitor to read the city from the perspective of the Web, unlike the active interpretation gained from a stroll along the High Line.

A question about the merits of consultation with the public gained an acknowledging that this had not happened

Granite is what makes Aberdeen noteworthy. The city centre is a symphony of granite. Apart from the granite in the name of the Granite Web it barely features in the design. The talk of the eye being drawn to new perspectives is compromised by the edifice of the Web blocking views towards the Theatre and the Terrace. The parade of arches under Union Terrace barely feature in the walk through.

The biodiversity of the various garden spaces are for me messy and confused. The High Line took it’s planting from the wild flowers that colonized the derelict line and the wildness was utilized to great effect. The current gardens are formal with wild edges and they reflect a city rightly famed for this form of planting. If people want to experience the Scot’s pine they can catch a bus to the Duthie Park. We have parks for all tastes and occasions in Aberdeen. There is no need to create a microcosm of the northeast in the city centre.

There was time for a few questions. A question about the merits of consultation with the public gained an acknowledging that this had not happened, although there was an awareness of the controversy. DS+R worked to the brief and they may consult more widely if the referendum is successful. There was no acknowledgment of contact with heritage groups at any stage of the process. Charles has made four visits to the city and feels he is getting to know it.

A question about the profile and presence of the arena space referred to as the ‘butterfly’ draws on the restaurant at the Lincoln centre, and both attempts to sit in the landscape and be iconic. There was an acknowledgement from Charles that this is a work in progress and they will get it perfect.

There was a question about sustainable build and climate change. Charles said that the build will reach the highest standard and will probably be the first in Scotland to do so. He talked to the advantages of green roofs for maintaining ambient temperatures. He did not address the concrete involved in the build, but did say that he was given materials to work with.

A further query focused on the tunnel through to the station. Charles was clear that this is not part of the project, but the Web would provide the opportunities for others to take these developments forwards. The man from Keppie spoke of connecting with the harbour and opening access to Aberdeen’s other areas in 10, 20, 30 years. He added that the project is about creating an identity for Aberdeen going forward.

Make Union Street a cultural space and preserve the gardens

A question followed which addressed scale of the design and queried the numbers of people required to make the space work. The observation that Aberdeen was not New York was made.

Charles interestingly responded by reference to walking on Union Street and having to ‘fight’ people off. He went on to claim that the Web would provide the space for people to escape Union Street, which he acknowledged was dying, with the malls draining the energy away.

He then went on to claim that a range of cultural programming would attract people to the Web. It would be a melting pot for all the different populations that are around. In a further observation about walking down Union Street in the rain, he wondered why the ‘sidewalks’ couldn’t be bigger.

The final question was the magical one, and asked Charles that knowing what he knows now and if given a free rein to develop a project – would he go for the current one? The answer was of course, absolutely. He then returned to his battling down Union Street theme and made the obligatory one man and his dog in the gardens observation of the usage of the gardens by the public.

So there you have it. For me the most revealing evidence from Charles came with his ‘Why can’t the sidewalks be bigger’. In looking into the tranquil sanctuary of the gardens from the bustle of Union Street he was blind to the answer beneath his feet. Pedestrianise Union Street: create a space, a green corridor that revitalizes the Street; brings together all the successful elements of his other projects, preserves and lets the DNA speak. Make the Street a cultural space and preserve the gardens – subject to access improvements and recreational attractions – as the sanctuary within the hustle and bustle of ‘downtown’ Aberdeen.

The final train journey along the High Line delivered turkeys to New York for Thanksgiving.

Don’t let the City Garden Project deliver another architectural turkey to Aberdeen. Vote ‘Retain Union Terrace Gardens’ in the referendum.

Cue ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’…

Aberdeen City Youth Council Hits Out At CGP

Aberdeen City, Articles, Breaking, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, News No Responses »

Jan 272012

Aberdeen Youth Council’s former head Sean Press resigned because of ‘a conflict of interest’, citing his involvement with ACSEF the ‘pro-business and development body [which] is fully supportive of the City Garden Project’ per the Press & Journal. Now Aberdeen City Youth Council, the official voice of young people in the city, has spoken out against the proposed development of Union Terrace Gardens, describing the plans as “unwanted” and “potentially devastating to young people”.

17 year-old office-bearer, Kenneth Watt, comments on the decision:
“It’s not normal for the Youth Council to speak out against the Council like we are doing. However, the decisions made have the potential to be devastating to our generation, and generations to come and we are genuinely worried about the prospect of the City Gardens Project going ahead.”

As a result, the group has registered to submit 300 words in the voter registration pack.

The group also criticised the City Council in its involvement of young people in the decision-making process, after they discovered that only 113 young people from just two schools were consulted with. In the Youth Council’s own consultation 98% of 14-25 year-olds were in favour of retaining the Gardens.

The financial security of the City Gardens Project (CGP) concerns the Youth Council. The Aberdeen City Youth Council (ACYC) are worried by the lack of a plan to cover the possible failure of the risky Tax Increment Funding scheme. After multiple requests for detailed financial information from councillors on the monitoring board were ignored, the group became very apprehensive over the CGP’s feasibility.

Kenneth Watt, an office-bearer in the ACYC says that:

“Young People have been hit hard by spending cuts to key services already; the prospect of facing more in the future is a risk the Council can’t afford to take.”

“Young people need to be listened to and have their questions answered. We’re the ones that will have to foot the bill when the £96million loan can’t be repaid.”

One of the main sufferers of cuts to public services is Aberdeen’s youth. Northfield has the highest rate of child poverty in the north-east of Scotland and the Council cannot commit to such a financially unstable project when they are closing key services to the youth in many areas.

“It is ridiculous for the Council to commit to a £96million loan when vital community services – such as the Mastrick Young People’s Project – are being cut left, right and centre.”

It was claimed that the CGP would reduce crime rates in the city, which young people are frequently blamed for. Both final designs for the CGP have direct access from Belmont Street and Union Street, home to many pubs and clubs. A £170million project of this nature will not cure the violence and crime that Aberdeen faces.

“Voters need to think seriously about the long-term aspect of the City Gardens Project and the financial burden it could easily leave for generations of Aberdonians to come.”

“Union Terrace Gardens is a space that is unique to our city. Our parents have loved the Gardens, we love the Gardens, and – if retained – our children will love the Gardens too.”

Not The First Choice – Webs, Worms And The CGP.

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Information, News, Opinion No Responses »

Jan 192012

By Mike Shepherd.

The final design for the City Garden Project was picked this week. The proposed plan is to replace Union Terrace Gardens with a futuristic design of curving walkways and grass called the “Granite Web”.
The announcement stoked up even more controversy as it appears that the design was not the first choice amongst those that voted in the exhibition in October last year.

Favoured was the “Winter Garden”, the design with the big greenhouse resembling a giant glass worm.

A letter in the Scotsman gave a typical response to this ‘consultation’:

“Pointless poll. Of the six designs submitted for the development of Aberdeen’s Union Terrace Gardens, one emerged as the clear favourite during a protracted public consultation in which the Aberdeen electorate took part.

Yet a panel of judges has selected one of the other designs, and the Aberdeen public is apparently to be given the choice between this one or nothing. What is the point of holding a public consultation and treating the result as if it didn’t exist?

Derrick McClure, Aberdeen”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/letters/letter_pointless_poll_1_2061360

It is not the first time that a consultation on the fate of Union Terrace Gardens has been ignored. A public consultation run in 2010 saw a majority of the public rejecting the scheme.

The design itself is also controversial. John Glenday, the editor of the magazine for Scottish architects the Urban Realm, commented:

“Diller Scofidio & Renfro’s ‘granite web’ of interconnected walkways has been sold as a vision of the future for Aberdeen. However the seductive sixties sci-fi vision presented may be out of date before the journey from concept to reality has even begun. In their submission the architects have spun a tale of making Aberdeen “throb” again but the history of elevated walkways and underpasses, as anyone who has ever traversed any concrete New Town will attest, is often dystopian.

“Health and Safety officials are also likely to have a field day with the walkways and platforms as presented, inevitably leading to a compromised design with fencing, signage and other clutter once the demands of building regulations are met.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/cartoon/analysisagrandschemebutitmayjustbealittletoolate

Others have been more sceptical. It has been variously likened to a Teletubbies TV set, a skatepark and even ‘Mounthooly Roundabout on steroids’. The City Garden Project have however reached for their dictionaries to praise the ‘vision’, with press releases abounding with words such as ‘transformative’, ‘vibrant’ and ‘dazzling’. Despite the hype there are very few facts being presented. We still do not know how much it will cost or how long it will take to build.

In another development, Aberdeen City Council are to hold a special council meeting next Wednesday to discuss the City Garden Project.
http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=18252

The report for the meeting asks councillors to approve the final City Garden Project design , expects the private sector to commit at least £70 million towards the project and discusses some of the land ownership issues.

There is no discussion in the report as to what happens if the City Garden Project goes into massive cost over-run. In 2009 the then Chief Executive, Sue Bruce, decreed the private sector would be responsible for any cost over-run. Since then, no procedure has been discussed on ensuring agreement about this. In my opinion, Aberdeen City council are being grossly negligent here.

Councillors are effectively being asked to approve the final City Garden Project design ahead of February’s public referendum.

Yet the report mentions that:

“ACGT has produced initial draft proposals in respect of the likely uses of any internal and external space to be created by the proposed development and are currently redrafting these proposals to reflect the space provision within the design recently selected by the Design Competition Jury.”

It is difficult to see how councillors can approve a project when there is no clear statement as to what the scheme is going to be used for.

The requests to councillors to spend up to £300,000 on legal costs from Council funds will be very controversial. We have been repeatedly told that the City Garden Project will have no impact on Council budgets, yet this is clearly not the case here. Some will ask how such costs can be justified when services and amenities are being drastically cut elsewhere.

Polling cards for the referendum are to be issued to Aberdeen residents on or around the 16th February. We will be asked for a third time – what do we want our city centre to look like?

The public are being treated with disrespect on this issue. Nevertheless, Aberdonians should ensure that they vote in the referendum. This one counts.

Older Entries