Once again, people of Aberdeen, I find myself being royally pissed off with you. Once again, people of Aberdeen, you fail to have the scope and vision to see what Aberdeen could be. Let me illustrate…
In the last two years the local press has undeniably been dominated by one thing: the Trump International Golf Resort at Balmedie. For those of you who don’t know, Donald Trump decided he’d like to build a golf course at Balmedie, but some meddling sod discovered that there were some birds living where Trump wanted to build his course. Then, much like the Brand/Ross BBC fiasco, people who had never even heard of the bird before called for Trump’s head to be displayed on a stake at the city gates. A fine plan, if we had gates. Or there was anything to bloody moan about.
Birds can be relocated easily. And so can wealth. Aberdeenshire Council failed to realise this, and decided not to approve the development. Any other city in the world would have jumped at the chance. Some did, in fact. But luckily Trump stuck with us, and the Scottish Government had some sense (for once) and overruled the council, allowing the development to go ahead. OK, so there are some out there who are still moaning. All they really want is attention. Or, more likely, a big cash payout from Trump.
You see, all those people who moaned and complained failed to realise one thing. We are dangerously close to running out of oil. Scientist-types reckon within the next 60-90 years, all the oil in the world will be gone. Why do you think the Scottish Government is ploughing so much money into offshore wind farms at the moment? Once the oil has gone, what does Aberdeen have left? A top-class football team to draw the crowds? Pah, not likely. A 3D motion cinema, the only one of its kind in the UK? Oh no, people got bored of it and it had to be shut down.
These people failed to realise that once the oil has gone, many big businesses will vacate the city, and what will we be left with? Nothing, that’s what. The trump Golf Course symbolises hope for the future; a way forward. Businessmen will be attracted by the golf. In turn, they will venture into Aberdeen and spend their money. The presence of big businessmen will attract a higher class of shopping experience. The wealth of the city will expand, and job opportunities will increase, lowering unemployment. The list of benefits go on. But oh no, the birds… Get a life.
And so this brings me onto my main point: the City Square Project. I regularly hear people complain that the government spends too much on the central belt; that Aberdeen never gets anything exciting. I hear it at home; in the street; at university. I hear it everywhere. The truth is, though, ladies and gentlemen, that Aberdeen’s population is too dour, stubborn and set in it’s ways to even notice a golden opportunity when it sees one. Typical North East of Scotland attitude, eh?
Take, for example, the aforementioned 3D cinema: a draw, however small, for tourism. But no, Aberdonians got fed up of it, so it’s gone. Take, for example, the aforementioned golf course: an obvious goldmine of opportunity. But no, the North East is too damn stubborn to let an American tell us how we should play golf. Take, for example, this Ferris wheel that will soon be arriving in the Castlegate: a huge fairground attraction that has been touring major European cities all last year and probably before. But no, all Aberdonians care about is no concert at New Year. No scope. No vision.
The City Square Project (CSP) aims to raise Union Terrace Gardens to street level. Sir Ian Wood has pledged £50 million of his own money towards the scheme. But no, Aberdonians have launched a counter-campaign, claiming they all love Union Terrace Gardens. How many Aberdonians can honestly say that, in the last 20 years, they have spent any meaningful length of time in the gardens? Having lived in Aberdeen for the almost 19 years of my life, I can say that I have spent no more than 24 hours in those gardens. In reality, they are a waste of space. To my knowledge, the only real users of the gardens are teens who visit the gardens in the wee hours of the night to partake in a spot of underage drinking.
The plan, as it stands, is to raise the gardens to street level. It is not, as many campaigners would have you believe, a plan to turn it into some sort of concrete jungle; a modern monstrosity. Rather, the plan involves large green spaces and garden elements, bars, cafes, restaurants, water features, outdoor performances areas, children’s play areas, a contemporary arts centre, a possible outdoor ice rink, sculpture and, above all, a lush, safe and enjoyable environment to sit, relax and meet people in amongst the hustle and bustle of the city centre.
And who in their right mind would argue with that?
Please visit the City Square website and share your views. Together we can create something worthwhile for the city of Aberdeen.
If you’re a Facebook user, please join the I Believe in Aberdeen group. Non-Facebook readers can visit the I Believe in Aberdeen Tumblr page.
Sign the petition in favour of City Square here.
Interesting blog post with some good points well made. What I fail to understand about this debate is why it’s happening in the first place; Aberdeen could benefit from the Brisac Gonzales designed contemporary arts centre in Union Terrace Gardens which would act as a catalyst for the city much as the DCA has down the road, AND enjoy the phenomenally generous offer of £50m from Sir Ian Wood for a large infrastructure project to benefit the city. Why is this not possible? If there is genuine ambition to improve Aberdeen, why does nobody appear to be lobbying for both a new arts centre (which has planning permission and 75% funding) and £50m of private money to kick start another infrastructure project? It’s absurd – the council is equivocating between the two leaving a stand-off situation.
Thank you for your comments, Ellis.
It is my understanding that the City Square Project can include a contemporary arts centre in its plans for the development, and is happy to negotiate with Peacock Visual Arts about its design and the exhibits. The emphasis from the CSP seems to be on involving the people of Aberdeen, and asking them what they want. So if enough people want to a contemporary arts centre, they will endeavour to make it happen.
In my opinion, Union Terrace Gardens is a wasted space. The fact that it is sunken into the ground seems to pose a problem for many people – they see it as shady, and a aplce where trouble might arise. The City Square project would raise this to street level, creating a usable and inviting space, which could be utilised to its full potential.
Thanks.
Thanks for writing this. I know a lot of people feel the same as you.
Lets hope this last chance does not suffer at the hands of a misguided minority, being manipulated by those at PVA looking to make their reputations (and money)
The latest bit of propaganda ‘Compare The Square’ is an exercise in comparing Apples with Oranges and then deciding Peacocks are better.
Shameful misdirection on the part of PVA.
PVA are also trumpeting the Dundee V&A scheme which consists of an arts venue within part of a wider development, that is yet to be fully planned or funded…erm..is that not what they are objecting to with CSP?..Double standards me thinks.
I was actually suggesting that anyone with genuine ambition for Aberdeen would favour both schemes. The CSP website says that it “could” contain a contemporary arts centre – which is fine, because that’s what the public consultation is there to establish. On the other hand it means that there’s a possibility there won’t be one, which means that the £9m+ funding already raised for the PVA centre will be wasted. This would be an utterly ridiculous situation. Again, why on earth are the two ideas mutually exclusive? Why on earth does a £50m donation have to involve the potential removal of another scheme all ambitions folk ought to support? I simply don’t understand it.
The logical next step, then, would be for those in favour of the PVA centre to partake in the consultation, and request a contemporary arts centre. The money already raised could then be offered up for its construction, thus combining the two projects. It has already been established that the two plans, as they stand today, cannot co-exist, so a compromise would have to be made. The CSP website states that the rest of the funds are still to be raised. Maybe a £9m+ offer would sway them in the direction of an arts centre?
I should point out that the intention of this post was not to cause controversy on the issue of CSP vs PVA. As I see it, both schemes are a worthy cause, however I see CSP being of more value to the city in the long run, as it would see the gardens made into a usuable space AND could feature a contemporary arts centre. With the PVA scheme, it has been determined that the rest of the gardens would stay as they are, and I fear that this would lead to them remaining underused.
Eoin, my understanding is that public sector funding and grants from establishments such as the Lottery Fund come with plenty of strings attached. Once funding has been earmarked, it’s virtually impossible to move the goalposts – which would clearly be the case if a landscaped centre were to change architect, brief, and location (whether above or below ground). The £9.5m raised is contingent upon the scheme that applied for funding – it’s not transferable. This means that it will by necessity be returned – that is, lost to Aberdeen and wasted – if the PVA scheme doesn’t go ahead. Which takes me back to the original question, who in their right mind believes that to be for the best? It strikes me as utterly ridiculous! Are you seriously suggesting that there aren’t other parts of Aberdeen that would benefit from the significant gift that Sir Ian is offering? Surely anyone with an iota of ambition would be dedicating themselves to acheive both outcomes? The area between the new Union Square mall and Union St, the Castelgate, the list isn’t exactly short, is it? So why no ambition to have a world class arts centre AND a major infrastructure project to improve Aberdeen? Makes no sense to me.
Thanks for your comments. You make an interesting point. I think, on this one, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Thanks again.
Hi Eoin, that’s a shame as it leaves room to believe that you’re not at all bothered by a situation where £9.5m is simply lost to the city (sadly the non transferable nature of funding isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s simply the way things are – clearly to ensure they’re disbursed responsibly and not misused at a later date through projects changing). And your original post suggested that you despair of that kind of thinking, the kind of antipathy that allows such wasted opportunity…
Some good points Eoin. I was originally neutral to what to do with Union Terrace Gardens, but am now primarily in favour of the Citysquare development primarily because they have put their arguments across in a professional manner while the PVA lynch mob have resorted to a fairly vile and childish campaign which has left me in no doubt these people aren’t fit or deserving to be in charge of a prime site of Aberdeen real estate. Many of the same people are also opposing the Golf course, and would oppose any form of progress.
They’re also not going to be adult enough to try and reach a sensible compromise and integrate with the citysquare project either. PVA have burned bridges so radically that they have likely destroyed the chances of many future arts projects in Aberdeen receiving any support from the business community – it may be good for Citysquare to look beyond them even if they did offer to compromise, there’s a lot of dead wood there and some very bitter individuals that need to be removed to give a chance to future sponsorship of arts.
Also, you know you’re winning the argument when you start getting insulted by them, have a look at http://twitter.com/fortsunlight to see what one of their attack dogs thinks of you
donate 50 million and hope they erect a statue in your honour cheaper than funding a football team and soon to catch on with the mega wealthy
Aberdeen does not need more concrete it needs more warmth more gardens not less
Those running Peacock Arts Centre’s campaign could certainly show ACSEF a thing or two about providing opportunities to vote for their cause. After weeks of going online to find a site on which to register my vote for The Ian Wood/ACSEF proposals, I found every avenue blocked by websites in favour of Peacock and eventually I had to phone it in. How many yes voters would have been put off by this internet embargo, I wouldn’t like to guess but I would presume a lot. I had the same problem when trying to vote for Donald Trump’s project, the internet was swamped with opposition sites.
So therefore the message is, if you are going to ask people to vote for you, you must provide at least as many, or more, opportunities than your opponent. I’m sure the vote would have been quite different if this had been the case, as many people I have spoken to just eventually gave up trying.
I have lived in Aberdeen for 50 years and have ventured dow there twice in that time, once when I was young and once a few years ago to an open-air concert, neither of which I enjoyed very much. The toilets reeking of stale urine are a disgrace and the damp, dark arches are used for various nefarious activities including emergency toilets – ugh!!! Union Terrace Gardens are now well past their sell by date. Ask a young mother with a baby in a pushchair if she would take her baby down there and I think the answer would be ‘no way, thanks very much’. It is a scary place, inhabited nowadays by a scary element of society.
Will a sunken Arts Centre improve this – I doubt it, the ‘arty’ types will soon disappear when they feel threatened that the dark nights, in the still sunken areas , will still be attracting these elements and we will be left with another ‘White Elephant’ to find a use for