Jul 152011
 

By Bob Smith.

Abe Lincoln’s wirds we shud heed
They’re nae aat hard ti swalla
“Corporations hiv bin enthroned”
“Corruption in high places wull folla”

It’s noo weel ower a hunner ear
Sin  Mr Lincoln made iss quote
Bit in the modern warld o oors
His fine wirds are nae remote

Corporations hiv ruled the roost
Fer ower lang in oor bonnie city
Cooncils kowtowin ti their needs
They’ve nae backbeen -mair’s the pity

I’m nae sayin there’s corruption
Bit at times ye hiv ti winner
Some business plans in oor toon
Cooncillors dinna aye wint ti hinner

Bit iss is nae jist a local thingie
Seems rife aa throwe the nation
Fin fightin fer democracy
Fowk  suffer wi frustration

A question I’ve heard afen asked
An een fit’s nae aat funny
Are some o the toon cooncillors
In the hip pooch o them wi money?

The answer ti iss question is
As yet we’ve nae solid proof
Bit if there’s joukerie pawkery
We’ll  raise the bliddy roof

©Bob Smith “The Poetry Mannie” 2011

 

Jul 082011
 

Is control over the future of the City Centre and its Victorian Union Terrace Gardens falling into the hands of unaccountable, unelected agents?  Mike Shepherd believes it is, and sends his thoughts to our Councillors.

Councillors,

Council documents make it clear that you were expected to sign off the design brief for the City Garden Project at the full council meeting on June 29th.  The design brief is intended not only to give specifications for the civic square covering the Denburn, but also to provide details for the usage of the large underground space beneath the square.

There is a problem however; the full specifications for the design brief did not appear to be ready in time for the 29th of June.

Although a design brief has been issued, you have only been informed of the usage of only 6,000 square metres of the 56,000 square metres of accommodation space under the civic square (for an arts centre).

There is also intent to provide conference, exhibition and meeting space of unspecified size. The open space is described as a contemporary 21stcentury garden.

Given that these plans are designated for council-owned land, that the area is zoned as public green space in the local plan and the council have been asked to borrow £70million through a TIF scheme to fund it, then it would be reasonable to expect councillors to approve the specifications for the site.

You have now lost control over the City Garden Project. A non-elected body has now made decisions as to what our city centre should look like.

It now turns out that this will not be the case. You are not being asked to approve the design brief.  I have been informed by a council officer that:

“it was decided, by members involved in determining the agenda for Council meetings, that there was no need to obtain Council approval for this.”

The intention is to hand out the design brief to short-listed companies for the architectural competition on the 21st of July. The next full council meeting is not until the 17th August.

You have now lost control over the City Garden Project. A non-elected body has now made decisions as to what our city centre should look like. They have decreed that the Denburn should have a “contemporary 21st century garden”, not you. It is this body that is also deciding what the large underground concourse should be used for. If conference and exhibition facilities are to be  provided, then this will clearly have implications for the future of the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre at the Bridge of Don.  However, this is not a decision that you will have any control over unless you turn down the city square plans.

The public should be extremely worried about the loss of democratic control over the City’s assets. The public were ignored when they voted against the City Square in a public consultation last year, now the powers given to our councillors are being bypassed too.

I would ask you to assert your right to decide on our behalf what happens in our city. I would request that you insist that the approval or otherwise of the City Square design brief should be a matter for the council meeting on the 17thof August.

Mike Shepherd.

Jun 242011
 

“Which of our conflicting transport demands are most important?” asks Jonathan Hamilton Russell in this edit of his longer article, written to encourage debate on the future of personal and freight travel in NE Scotland.

Scotland has extremely ambitious climate change targets, yet we prioritise airport expansion and roadbuilding.

The NE economy needs transport infrastructure to allow movement of goods; people have to get to work with few holdups.

Meeting climate change targets means embracing sustainable transport usage by reducing car, road freight and air travel yet Aberdeen Airport has the fastest-growing passenger numbers in Scotland; public transport is the only option for many, but the majority are wedded to car use. Among Scottish cities Aberdeen car count is highest; Aberdeenshire has the highest rural area car usage; increasingly, Aberdeenshire residents drive to work in Aberdeen, exaggerating traffic bottlenecks.

Public spending cuts mean local and national governments face stark financial choices affecting resources for maintaining and enhancing transport infrastructures.

The days of cheap petrol have passed. Prices will continue to rise.

Bus fares are higher here than throughout Scotland.  Southbound buses are often of poor quality although local buses are of a high standard, and Aberdeen citizens, on average, are nearer bus stops than other Scottish cities’ residents.

Bus use in Aberdeenshire can be problematic, but could be increased by driving to stops and transferring to buses – less stressful than car travel. Council cuts to services for the disabled and elderly have made travelling significantly more challenging for such socially-excluded groups.

What can we do?

There’s general agreement that people should be encouraged to travel more sustainably. Cycling activity is increasing, although levels are lower than elsewhere in Scotland, and it needs to be encouraged as a healthy, environmentally-friendly activity.

Cycle pools, common in many European cities, could be created. Cycle routes to school, given priority, would provide more fun and health benefits for children than car travel. Cycle safety measures would need to be put in place, particularly at roundabouts, to make them less dangerous.

Park and ride schemes, particularly at Kingswells, are less successful than envisaged but remain a commuting option. Car-sharing, whilst becoming more common, is far from the norm. NESTRANS, responsible for planning and transport implementation, has suggested piloting car-share lanes.

Laurencekirk railway station has re-opened, but more stops are needed, possibly at Kittybrewster and Altens. The Haudagain roundabout obviously needs improving, with priority for cyclists, buses and car-sharing.

A new Bridge of Dee is needed – contribution to its cost from that area’s large retailers might have been written into the conditions when planning consent was agreed. Any new development should prioritise cycles, buses and car-sharing.

Aberdeen is a fairly small city and walking should always be marketed as a healthy, cheap and quick transport option.

Traffic lights in pedestrian high-use areas should give priority to pedestrians. 20 mph restrictions have improved safety, although limits are regularly broken by a minority of drivers.

Offering flexible working hours is effective in reducing peak-time traffic levels. Salary benefits for those cycling or car-sharing could be introduced, with car pools for staff who have to drive during  work time. Working at home, for at least part of the week, is an option as is business conferencing rather than travelling to meetings. Both would reduce business costs.

it is well-documented that increased road space leads to increased traffic

Will the increased price of petrol reduce car use enough, or do we need to introduce road pricing, viewed as the single measure most likely to effect change to how we travel? The increased motoring costs would make drivers consider alternatives.

Aberdeen would almost certainly benefit, reducing the numbers moving to Aberdeenshire as extra travel costs outweigh housing cost savings.  It is a hot potato, however, and would be unpopular due to the high levels of car use locally. Few politicians would have the courage to suggest its introduction, despite being effective in reducing car  dependency.

We also need to identify new means of financing transport developments and to maintain the current deteriorating infrastructure. Road pricing could raise those funds.

Some planning decisions have encouraged car use. Union Square adjoins both bus and rail terminals but it has also provided increased parking opportunities.

 It has had a detrimental commercial effect on Union Street, George Street and Bon Accord Centre shops, all more accessible by bus.

The proposed Union Terrace development would increase city centre car parking availability, flying in the face of the need to reduce car travel and move towards more sustainable transport methods.

All measures have advocates and opponents. The Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) for example, highlights conflicting views and interests.  Newton Dee Village fought an effective campaign to stop the road encroaching on that community; Road Sense has successfully raised legal objections, forcing public inquiries, even if of limited scope.

The AWPR has both advantages and disadvantages. It would help take freight off Aberdeen’s roads although significant volumes still have to come in and out of Aberdeen.

It would reduce travel times although there are other bottlenecks further south. It would reduce congestion at the Haudagain roundabout and Bridge of Dee, but it is well-documented that increased road space leads to increased traffic. Roads in general will become more congested.

The AWPR would help businesses. It will allow more people to live outside Aberdeen as it will be quicker, at least initially, to travel into Aberdeen but will lead to an increasingly-ageing city population.

Such demographic change will leave Aberdeen City Council with less money and greater demands on resources. An excellent deal has been negotiated in terms of local authorities’ contributions, with the Scottish Government meeting 82% of costs. These, however, have already escalated and impending substantial expenditure cuts will leave less money in the overall pot.

The low level of rail freight uptake is a national scandal. Road freight transport’s perceived flexibility sees it preferred.  Historically, there were conflicts with rail unions, who, however, are now keen for freight to move to rail. This will need increased public and private investment, less likely in a period of reduced public spending, although in terms of providing work and kick-starting the economy this option should not be ruled out. This also applies to the AWPR.

There would need to be contracts developed between the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, rail companies, unions and government at all levels.

The replacement of the freight terminal by Union Square was a setback for future local rail freight capacity.

New freight facilities have been introduced at Craiginches and at Rathes Farm but this has not increased capacity. There are sea/rail links at Waterloo Quay and freight yards at Inverurie and Huntly. NESTRANS strategy states that development of new open-access freight terminals could be explored and if transferring freight to rail becomes reality, new depots would be needed.

Aberdeen harbour is an excellent freight facility and passenger transport gateway to Orkney and Shetland, with potential to expand both services. Currently five million tonnes of freight are exported through the harbour, but the loss of rail freight infrastructure in the station interchange area was a lost opportunity to link sea freight with rail.

We have to decide on our priorities.

Are we really concerned about climate change?

Can we move towards more community-based forms of travel from those currently privatised?

Do we want a more healthy society that walks and cycles more?

Can our business needs dovetail with our environmental needs?

Is it possible to think more holistically when making planning decisions?

Aberdeen Voice would welcome contributions to this debate.

Image credits:

RAILWAY JUNCTION © Davidmartyn | Dreamstime.com
CAR INTERIOR © Li Fang | Dreamstime.com
BICYCLE PARKING LOT © Chris Mccooey | Dreamstime.com
UTG DENBURN © Mike Shepherd

Jun 242011
 

The Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce recently issued a report with a series of articles where invited contributors were asked to give their vision for the future of Aberdeen city centre.  Mike Shepherd was intrigued by the following contribution from Maitland Mackie, ice cream manufacturer and farmer.

“What a wonderful opportunity to do something splendid! It’s not every day that a City gets offered a £50 million present to spend on a beautification program. Sir Ian of course has had a big vision for the Union Terrace Gardens for over 20 years.

“I remember him well, talking the then new Grampian Enterprise Board, Ian was its first chairman, into spending £800,000 to ‘pile’ the base of the new road and underpass, “in case the City wanted sometime in the future to cover it over and develop the gardens as a core of the City Centre ”. How’s that for long-term planning!”

See: http://www.agcc.co.uk/cityfutures/

The invitation to tender for the technical feasibility study (2008) gives a different figure.

“In 1996 proposals were so advanced that Grampian Enterprise Ltd (part of Scottish Enterprise) and Grampian Regional Council funded 1.65M to build reinforced structural piling into the central reservation of the Denburn Dual Carriageway, to support a future decked scheme.”

A news article in The Herald written in 1996 gives details of the proposed Millennium Project for Union Terrace Gardens.  This involved decking over the road and railway but leaving the park largely intact. The project failed to get funding. It mentions in passing that proposals for Union Terrace Gardens had been drawn up three years previously but the new plans “are nearly half the cost of the original.” The location of the structural piling is an issue. The Halliday Fraser Munro Technical Feasibility Study contains the following:

“Fairhurst’s were the Civil & Structural Engineers on the original design and construction of the Denburn Dual Carriageway. They also coordinated the design of the two lines of piles installed. Unfortunately, despite frequent contact, they have been unable to assist in our search for the information on the existing construction. We were never able to receive confirmation that an archive search had been complete.

“Action: Scottish Enterprise to contact senior member of WA Fairhurst Engineers to again request an extensive search of their archives is carried out.

“Contact: John Hollern – Planning Manager, Morgan Ashurst.   Discussion was held over several conversations on the phone. The aim was understand what Morgan Est knew of the construction of the Denburn dual carriageway, the piles to the reservations and the associated foundations.

“John confirmed that Amec Piling (now part of Morgan Est) completed the piling works. Sandy Anderson worked on the scheme and still works for Morgan Est. Sandy confirmed to John that he remembers completing the mini piling work between the railway and the northbound road carriageway. He also confirmed that he completed the culvert diversion to the route and material type suggested on the WA Fairhurst drawing. John outlined that Sandy does not remember completing the piling works between the north and southbound carriageways of the road. John offered to search their archive for any records of the completed works.

“Actions: Morgan Ashurst to search their archive for construction information of the Denburn dual-carriageway, mini piles to the reservations and associated foundations.” http://www.acsef.co.uk/uploads/reports/16/2009%2006%2012%20-%20Final%20Report%20Appendices.pdf

Thus it appears that £1.65million of public money has been spent on preparation work for a ‘vision’ that may or may not happen and nobody seems to be too sure where all the piling was placed anyway. This is not a good start for a project that many believe will be a waste of public money if it ever comes about.

Apr 262011
 

By Mike Shepherd.

The Council have decided to keep Union Terrace Gardens as development opportunity in the new Aberdeen local plan despite hundreds of objections to this.

A report to Council on Wednesday (27th April 2011) lists over 360 objections and only two in support.

Numerous objections are listed in an appendix to the report. These are typical:

“Support retention of public open space other than in exceptional circumstances. Financial incentives by private sector should not count as exceptional circumstances sufficient to outweigh normal polices else planning system simply becomes a question of deep pockets.”

“Union Terrace Gardens could be sympathetically improved by one or more of the following: providing access down, reopening the toilets, covering the railway and dual carriageway and opening shops, cultural facilities and cafes in the archways.”

“In line with the city’s policies, it should be subject to conservation orders, like Duthie Park.”

Union Terrace Gardens is the most obvious remnant of the Denburn the tributary of the Dee that saw the earliest habitation. It is an important topographical feature that also highlights the significant engineering features of the Union Street bridge and Rosemont Viaduct. Without the gardens these features become unintelligible and the centre of Aberdeen‘s history is much the poorer.”

“Add Union Terrace Gardens as a protected site as per Policy D4 – Aberdeen‘s Granite Heritage.”

The Council position is stated as follows:

“Whilst there is clearly a high level of debate regarding the Gardens it is our contention that it is important to identify that options for the redevelopment of the Gardens are currently under consideration. Any development proposal for the Gardens will need to be considered against the Local Development Plan, including the City Centre Development Framework, which sets out criteria for the future of the Gardens. The scale and nature of any improvements will be subject to other consultations and ultimately a planning application.

“In light of the above, the Council does not agree with the suggestion to remove this opportunity site from the Proposed Plan and to remove the Gardens from the opportunity site.”

See: http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=13439

Once the local plan has been approved by the Council, the next stage is for the plan to be independently assessed by a reporter. It is to be hoped that this issue is picked up and dealt with by an examination in public, not the least because a quarter of the 1,544 representations received on the plan concerned the Gardens.

The Council seem to be determined not to listen to the public on Union Terrace Gardens. They also ignored the outcome of the public consultation on the city square even though a majority of 1,270 said no to the development of the park.

The comment made above by the Council that:

The scale and nature of any improvements will be subject to other consultations”

… is difficult to take seriously in this regard. The Council appear to be only interested in one outcome and it’s not what the public want.

Apr 222011
 

By Mike Shepherd.

The design competition for the City Square Project was launched this week. The brief provided by Malcolm Reading Associates follows Sir Ian Wood’s ‘strict parameters’ with walk-on, walk-off access from four sides.
http://www.malcolmreading.co.uk/architecturalcompetitions/citygarden

Teams of designers will initially be asked to register an interest in the project by 13th June.
A shortlist of 5 – 7 designers will then be picked to produce seven designs, with the city square board and the Council approving the final design in December.

The public will be allowed to ‘scrutinise’ and comment on the designs but not pick them. The Press and Journal reported on Thursday that there has been world-wide interest in the competition.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2233305

But, therein lies the problem. The rest of the world is being asked what the centre of Aberdeen should look like – but not the people in the city.

A year ago, we were consulted on whether we wanted a modern city square. We said no with a majority of 1,270; this was ignored.

I have a big problem with a modern city square in the centre of Aberdeen and this concerns the concept of architectural authenticity. This is the idea that a building or feature should harmonise with its location. The concept is easy to explain using our city. The Victorian Union Terrace Gardens is in harmony with the old granite buildings that surround it, whereas the 1960’s St Nicholas House is obviously out of place in the Granite City. The problem is even recognised in the current Aberdeen local plan:

“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.”
http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=17124&sID=4209

It is possible to produce modern buildings with architectural authenticity in sensitive locations; Elphinstone Hall built next to Kings College in 1930 is a good example.

A modern city square in the centre of Aberdeen would not be architecturally authentic and would be jarringly out of place with the older buildings.

It would totally change the character of the city centre and would probably accelerate the current trend whereby there has been piecemeal destruction of old granite buildings to be replaced by soulless modern buildings. This could be exacerbated if TIF funding is approved for a £70m loan.

This loan has to be paid back by capturing new or extra business rates and encouraging new city centre developments would be the main mechanism by which this could happen.

I was born and brought up in Aberdeen and I am intensely proud of the city. It is the granite buildings and the distinctive architecture that bring such a strong sense of locality and identity.

Once Aberdeen’s heritage starts to disappear on a large scale, the city will lose its unique character and will start to look like everywhere else. We will be denied our unique sense of belonging as Aberdonians.

We will not be given a public referendum on the city square. As it stands, a modern city square is being imposed on us whether we like it or not. We do not have to react to this in a “whatever will be, will be” mood of resignation. We can make sure that our voice is heard!

Join the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens on  www.friendsofutg.org

Apr 082011
 

Sixteen year-old  Kenneth Watt, born and bred in Aberdeen and a friend of Union Terrace Gardens, tells Aberdeen voice of  his sadness at the apparent disrespect for the city’s youth in consultations by Aberdeen City Council and ACSEF, particularly in relation to the City Gardens/Civic Square Project.

It was my intention to make my voice heard. I had invested considerable time in research and preparation of a presentation I hoped to make to the Aberdeen City Council at today’s meeting.

Throughout this sorry saga I have had few replies to e-mails sent to councillors and frequently found my phone calls not returned.

I should not have been surprised that they decided not to allow deputations, including mine, to be made at the meeting.

Councillors instead argued about the politics of the motion put before them. No action was taken, and it just became more and more apparent how out of touch our  representatives are with their electorate.. It would appear a distinct lack of financial knowledge was displayed during the session, along with sweeping statements, one example being a claim that Peacock Visual Arts were never fully financially secure. It should be noted that they only needed a further £3.5 million from the Council as the rest was already secured.

Conversely, the cost of the City Gardens Project has not been calculated. The proposed method of funding (T.I.F.) has not been used in the UK to date, and reports of successful use has been confined to areas in the United States of considerable deprivation: a description which does not fit Union Terrace Gardens.

It would appear to me to be significantly disingenuous for ACSEF to invest/ promote Youth Matters when the input of the younger generations have been ignored on so many occasions. This I find unacceptable.

It’s not Council leader John Stewart’s generation that will have to face the brunt of what seems like a modern design for the City Square Project in 2011. It is my generation that in twenty year’s time will have to support the council repaying debts, should the project over run, and address possible service cuts and traffic problems invariably associated with the project – not to mention the loss of unique green space in the city centre because of a naive decision taken today.

Taking the views of  only 1% of the city’s future tax payers is disgraceful, and completely dispels any myth that we are the forefront of this project.

Not only have our elected representatives seemingly ignored our offers of dialogue, but I feel that there has been inadequate consultation with Aberdeen’s youth in general, and little or no engagement with Aberdeen’s youth in the decision-making process. The consultation, such as it was, was invalid, too narrow and did not reflect the views of the youth of Aberdeen.

In the City Square Project public consultation amongst Secondary Schools, a total of 113 pupils were consulted out of over ten thousand children studying in Aberdeen City.  It is, surely, essential in such a major development like this, that my generation is consulted properly, using a large, valid and representative sample. Taking the views of only 1% of the city’s future tax payers is disgraceful, and completely dispels any myth that we are the forefront of this project.

Aberdeen City Youth Council has released a new consultation named ‘Hear My Voice’ which was launched late last year. By 2015, they aim to distribute this survey around all schools in Aberdeen and get a minimum of 5,000 returns. Respondents have to indicate whether they agree, disagree or are unsure about 64 statements covering a wide range of issues in the city concerning them.

Statement nine in the Transport and Open Space category reads:

Union Terrace Gardens should be kept and invested in as they are now. Lighting, cleaning and upkeep should be improved to make the gardens more attractive and more events held there to increase usage.”

So far there have been 165 ‘pilot’ responses. 161 of these agreed with the statement.

Another statement is that:

Young people should be more involved in decisions about how budgets are spent as they are not listened to enough.”

A unanimous 165 agreed with that.

I recently found out that over 60% of cuts planned in the council’s budget will have direct implications on under-25s in Aberdeen.

I struggle to understand how the city Council can afford to commit to such a large project, the funding of which is not yet secure. It would appear that  not only will 60% of cuts have such a direct impact on Aberdeen’s youth, but we will now be the generation who may very well have to pick up the bill in the future for something we don’t want.

“This generation, this time, this place.”

ACSEF’s catchy public relations campaign sound bite may appear promising but it is more likely to be nothing more than another hollow gesture.

It’s not your generation. It’s my generation and that of my peers, if not our children, that will have to face the consequences of a decision made today.

It’s not this time. It is in ten or twenty years’ time that the city will really suffer from problems caused by decisions made in 2011. Look at the Bon Accord and St Nicholas Centres – they’ve caused countless traffic problems and have isolated George Street, which was once a prosperous and vital artery into the city centre.

It is now largely abandoned and crime has reportedly increased since the development. The council’s decision in 1985 to support the plan was one pushed through by business interests in the face of  a significant level of opposition. The voice of the people was ignored.  That is clearly echoed by the council’s actions today. Just because Sir Ian Wood has pledged £50m funding does not mean that the City Square Project is viable and worthwhile.

It’s not this place. It’s a commercialised business venture that will see countless years of history and heritage destroyed, and very likely, at a vast expense to the taxpayer.

If the council wish to represent the views of the people, then they need to conduct a fair consultation, involving Aberdeen’s citizens in the decision-making process.

My main proposal to the council is as follows: Leave Union Terrace Gardens alone.

It is reasonable to assume that the council will have vacated St Nicholas House by the end of this year, and it’s quite apparent that it would cost them vast sums of money to demolish it. Why not hand the area of land that St Nicholas House covers over to Sir Ian Wood, allow him to demolish it and create a fantastic green space around Provost Skene’s House and opposite the beautiful building that is the Marischal College.

Not only will it attract more visitors to the area, it will get rid of the eyesore tower block at no cost to the public and preserve hundreds of years of history and heritage that exists in Union Terrace Gardens today.

Apr 082011
 

By Mike Shepherd.

A proposal was made to discuss Thursday’s special council meeting on Union Terrace Gardens in private.
The reason put forward by the council lawyer was that the motion questioned the ‘validity and veracity’ of a report which led to the council’s approval to progress the City Square Project last May.

See article: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2205463

The public have every right to be concerned about this move. Too many details about the City Square Project are being withheld. Councillors are being briefed by council officials on the scheme’s progress, yet these briefings are not being made public.

These contain details such as timetables for the project and how the city square design is to be picked (the city square board selects the final design and the council will be asked to approve their choice).

Union Terrace Gardens is on Common Good land and belongs to the people of Aberdeen. It is our park and we have a right to be informed on any proposals for it.

Although the Council will probably retain ‘ownership’ of the land on which the Gardens are located, the building above it and the city square is likely to be owned by a private company in partnership with the council. The building will be about 5/6ths the size of Union Square. What will go into this enormous three-storey concourse given that the remit is that it will be a ‘civic and cultural’ space?

The latest idea is to put a conference centre in there, although this brings into question the fate of the Exhibition Centre at the Bridge of Don with which it would compete. Failure is not an option for the Exhibition Centre as it has been loaned £28m by the council. If the centre closes, then this debt will be transferred to the council budget with immediate and potentially calamitous consequences for the city’s finances.
See article: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1877056

An interesting perspective on the city square building was provided by an online comment made last week to the Press and Journal’s letters column:

The design process for Union Terrace Gardens will be unlike most design processes. Most conventional designs tend to start with a use, before proceeding to a site and then a brief, and finally designs to enable a scheme to be built. For UTG this will effectively be reversed. This is partly because the scheme is opportunity led, but mostly because of the scale and significance of the expected design. This scheme will be, by its very nature, more akin to designing a new street in the city, than designing a new building.
See article: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2205094#ixzz1IiidEav9

A limited company has appeared centre stage in the controversy and has been given control of the design competition. This is the Aberdeen City Gardens Trust, about which very little is known. Last week it was revealed that they have approached the council to invite them to be partners in the trust. The council have deferred the decision as they want to know more about the trust,  what they are letting themselves in for and the implications of this.
See article: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2205463

It is not only the council that needs to find out more about the trust, the public need to be informed about everything to do with this company. Who are they?

Much to do with the way that the proposed development of Union Terrace Gardens has been driven through is highly questionable.

The public were consulted and ignored when they voted no to the scheme. The council meeting last May was informed that the results of the consultation “clearly indicated a wish for change”, when they didn’t. Local businessmen urged the council to ignore the consultation, Acsef minutes for  the 20th April meeting state:

“There is a mandate from the business community to proceed to the next stage”.
See : http://www.acsef.co.uk/uploads/reports/21/13%20April%2010.doc

From then on, the project became ‘opportunity led’ and the public have been progressively ignored as it has progressed. Consultation has become two-way traffic between the project management board and the council; opponents of the scheme have been left scrabbling to find out what is going on.  A modern city square for the centre of Aberdeen is being imposed on us whether we like it or not.

From now on, the possibility of keeping Union Terrace Gardens is not on offer unless the Council votes against the city square, and so far they have not. Even the selection of a final design for the city square is being taken out of our hands. The businessmen and council officials on the project management board will take that choice.

If like me you think this state of affairs is appalling, join the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens through our website www.friendsofutg.org

We are campaigning to keep our city-centre park.

 

Apr 082011
 

By Ivan Mejia Cajica.

The United Kingdom has a large portion of the renewable energy resources available in Europe; it has the greatest wind resource of any European nation; and its long coastline suggests plenty of opportunities for power generation firms to develop wave and tidal renewable energy projects.

The outskirts of Aberdeen has a considerable share of these resources.

This wealth of renewable resources has largely been overlooked in light of the UK’s reserves of coal, oil and gas, as well as losing out to the nuclear industry in terms of obtaining allegiance for financial support.

By embracing the EU Renewable Energy Directive, the UK has made commitments and established targets to increase its renewable energy generation capacity.  To achieve those targets, which are the most challenging of any European Union member state, the UK Government has put in place mechanisms to support the development of electricity generation from renewable sources through the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) System (Ofgem 2010).  Through the Renewable Obligation Certificate System, UK electricity suppliers are obliged to increase the proportion of their electricity generation from renewable sources.

At the regional level, according to the Aberdeenshire Local Plan 2006, Aberdeenshire Council adopted the “Renewable Energy strategy”, which aims to encourage the generation of electricity from renewable sources (Aberdeenshire Council, 2010).

Since the various privatizations of the public utility firms during the 1980s, the customer acquired the right to choose an energy provider. One of the key aims behind the privatization process was the goal of stimulating competition within the electricity industry whilst reducing electricity prices to consumers. Another key objective of the privatisation process was the belief that a liberalised market would contribute as well to continuous improvement in quality as the public utilities had done.

This is the moment to envision the future for Aberdeen and its citizens

However, some of these objectives remain unfulfilled. The environmental impact caused by the electricity industry is still high. In fact, in 2008 UK electricity consumption accounted for 42% of end-user carbon (CO2) emissions, according to the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC, 2010).

According to OFGEM, the electricity industry regulator, there has been little consumer desire to exercise choice and support the electricity generation from renewable sources.  In fact, despite commitments at both state and regional levels, in 2008 the electricity generation from renewable energy resources amounted to only 6.5% of the total electricity generation in UK.

This figure is lower than the portion of renewable electricity generation in others European countries such as Portugal (32%), Denmark (28%), Spain (19%), Germany (15%), and Ireland (12.5%) or of the average of the European Union as a whole (17%).

How can Aberdonian citizens have a more active role in redirecting the path of Scotland’s electricity industry?

Since the 1970’s Aberdeen City has played a leadership role in the Oil and Gas Industry.  However, now that the North Sea’s reserves are diminishing, there is a general agreement within the industry that renewable energy has an important place in Aberdeen’s future.  This is the moment to envision the future for Aberdeen and its citizens with a better quality of electricity and environment.

A study is being carried at The Robert Gordon University in order to provide some insights on the roles assumed by Aberdonian citizens in the purchase process of electricity.

This study will contribute to a better understanding of the future that Aberdonians envision for the city and for the electricity generation industry.

To participate in a survey and share your opinion on this topic of electricity generation and how you purchase electricity, please follow the web link: http://edu.surveygizmo.com/s3/506003/RGU-Sustainable-Electricity-Research

Mar 302011
 

By Mike Shepherd.

The controversy over Union Terrace Gardens shows no sign of abating. The proposed scheme to replace the Victorian city-centre park with a three-storey building and a modern roof garden is still causing outrage in Aberdeen. The plans have reached the stage where an architectural competition is to be launched at some time in the next two months.

The city square bosses are currently working on the design brief for the competition, a document which they hope to get out by mid May.

I understand that a key issue is to try and find a use for the three-storey building that could potentially fill in the site of Union Terrace Gardens. Given that the Gardens extend over 2 ½ acres, the floor space provided over three levels will be significant. According to the technical feasibility study this is estimated to be about 56,000 square metres.

By comparison Union Square, according to Wikipedia, has a total retail space of 65,000 square metres. Although I’m told there will be some commercial activity in the building, this will not apparently be on the scale envisaged in the technical feasibility study for the project. For instance, although it is possible that there will be a car park, this may not be the two-storey 490-bay car park as detailed in the study.  I’ve been told that the main use of the building is to provide a civic and cultural centre including potentially a public meeting place, a heritage museum, art space, a concert hall, along with entertainment and sports facilities.

Although superficially this may sound attractive, one can already anticipate  some major problems. One big headache for the city square bosses is that the design brief will have to give a reasonably detailed idea of what the building is to be used for. And that’s a lot of space to fill given the civic and cultural remit.

Councillors opposed to the City Square have forced an emergency debate on the gardens controversy

The problem is that Aberdeen already has many of the facilities that the City Garden Centre is supposed to house. It is difficult to see the City Square getting  a major conference or concert facility as this would compete with the Exhibition Centre, a building that the Council would be most reluctant to close as this would land £28M of debt onto the massively-strained revenue budget.
See: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1594201?UserKey=

Providing an art space is not without problems either. The Aberdeen Art Gallery is almost next door and there are already plans to build an extension to the gallery to provide extra room.   Peacock Visual Arts have so far refused to be part of the city square project and it is difficult to think of who else could get involved at this stage. His Majesty’s Theatre is immediately adjacent and an additional major drama venue also looks to be superfluous at this location.

Would the Council encourage the rehousing of institutions such as the Music Hall, the Lemon Tree, the Aberdeen Arts Centre and the Belmont Cinema just in order to find something suitable to fill the large space available? Then another question is as to whether the Council would be prepared to fund any new cultural activity in the City Garden Centre?  Given the current calamitous state of the revenue budget, it is difficult to see this happening in the short to medium term.

Yet another problem is anticipated for the City square bosses later in the year. Once the designs come back from the competition, one of them will have to be picked. Councillors have been told what is likely to happen. Initial submissions will be shortlisted to around 25 entries. A jury comprising technical experts and community representatives will pick five of the designs.

These will then go on public display and the public feedback will be considered by the jury when ordering the preference for each of the five designs. The recommendations of the jury will then go to the City Square bosses who will in turn recommend a preferred option to the Council.

The Council will then vote on ratifying the final design at a meeting in December. If by this stage the public consider that their views on how the centre of Aberdeen will look are not being taken very seriously, they would be right. And not for the first time either.

Meanwhile, Councillors opposed to the City Square have forced an emergency debate on the gardens controversy.

They want the problems over the Peacock grant to be investigated. They are also asking for the City Square to be rejected on the grounds that it damages the city’s heritage and that it would have serious financial implications and risk for the Council in the years to come. No date has been fixed for the debate as of writing but it should be held by the 8th April.
See: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2197558?UserKey=

A pro City Square campaign has just been formed called ‘Just Imagine’. The leader of the group is Michail Tzouvelekis, co-convenor of the Grampian PR Group an organisation for public relations practitioners, professional communicators and PR and communication students in the Aberdeen area.

According to the group:

A number of concerned locals from all backgrounds and ages have spoken out against objectors to the City Garden Project ‘who continue to promote inaccurate messages’, as they believe they are over-shadowing the huge but largely silent support for it.”
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2198685#ixzz1I1A8ttBv