Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
scott.wright

Union Terrace Gardens

Recommended Posts

Your maths are wrong - they need 3 million of private funding ON TOP of the 75% (which is around 9 million, I guess?) of public funding. Hence the question - they have secured the public funding, but what about the private funding? There's certainly no point holding up Wood's offer if Peacock haven't got the cash to build anyway.

8o Woods offer (sic) is something like at least 90 million short of funding so..er.. wise up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your maths are wrong - they need 3 million of private funding ON TOP of the 75% (which is around 9 million, I guess?) of public funding. Hence the question - they have secured the public funding, but what about the private funding? There's certainly no point holding up Wood's offer if Peacock haven't got the cash to build anyway.

eh, no. it's the other way round. wood is holding up peacock's fully costed, with full planning permission and almost full funding proposa,l while they have a mere third of their proposed cash, which is in total cost, more than 10 times as expensive as peacocks proposal. peacock cannot go out and get the rest of their funding because their proposal is on hold due to sir ian wood, they will have no problem raising the remaining funds and were all set to break ground before sir ian wood cynically announced his 'offer'.

it's not a generous offer, it's blackmail to a cash strapped council to aide his legacy. Peacock have to raise a couple of million, Acsef need 90 million. what's more likely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not a generous offer, it's blackmail to a cash strapped council to aide his legacy. Peacock have to raise a couple of million, Acsef need 90 million. what's more likely?

At least 90 million!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your maths are wrong - they need 3 million of private funding ON TOP of the 75% (which is around 9 million, I guess?) of public funding. Hence the question - they have secured the public funding, but what about the private funding? There's certainly no point holding up Wood's offer if Peacock haven't got the cash to build anyway.

Cloud you have got this wrong, there's a massive difference, being Peacocks

HAVE planning permission already & only need 2million to complete the project. Ian

Wood's folly needs about AT LEAST 90million of OUR money plus the annual maintenance budget of OUR money against his basic project that is just an artists impression & hasn't any substance in any shape or form. His outline plan hasn't got a chance of planning permission & this very silly folly of a plan is now over 20years old & still hasn't got beyond an artists impression.

When the people in Aberdeen actually realise what Wood's plan consists of & the costs

involved to the public purse & the fact the public consultation is a complete SHAM because its run by his PR company, only a FOOL would be for it.

Dave Officer great post full of factual & accurate information.

As Dave said if you feel passionate about keeping this wonderful green space in the

centre of Aberdeen, please contact Peacocks to get involved in a positive way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wood idea, that's what it is as there are no actual plans, exists simply to prevent a new art centre being built on a space that Wood had ear marked 20 years ago for development in his name. Do not be fooled by the shiny things.

The ACSEF led idea has proposed zero substance and zero useful content.

My Dad said tonight tha he quite liked the look of it. Rather than get vexed I asked what it was he liked about it and why he thought that was better than what we have now or what we could have down there at a fraction of the cost he kinda stumbled for any reasoning other than, in his opinion, it looked quite good!

I simply let him lead himself to the reality.

Smoke and mirrors guys!:swearing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your maths are wrong - they need 3 million of private funding ON TOP of the 75% (which is around 9 million, I guess?) of public funding. Hence the question - they have secured the public funding, but what about the private funding? There's certainly no point holding up Wood's offer if Peacock haven't got the cash to build anyway.

OK i may have got the figures wrong, but the sentiment is the same, the council is looking at making 23 million in cuts, yet are seriously considering having to spend 40 million to help Wood's vision along. I am aware that the money for the scheme is probably going to be coming from somewhere other than where the cuts are happening, but how will it look if 6 months down the line the council say "Hey we're going to put 40 million into this square, right after we've spent all this money doing up Marischal College and we've made 23 million in cuts."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eh, no. it's the other way round. wood is holding up peacock's fully costed, with full planning permission and almost full funding proposal

The thing is - no-one is speaking publicly about how much cash Peacock actually have raised towards the building. If they still need 2 million (as mentioned below) - who's to say that they actually will raise it? Right now is hardly conductive for private enterprise to go investing on self-indulgent 'art' schemes.

they will have no problem raising the remaining funds and were all set to break ground before sir ian wood cynically announced his 'offer'.

That's a bit confident, bearing in mind that they don't actually have the cash in place. If they really had 'no problem' - they would've had the 3 million in place before the 75% public funding (point : ACC is skint - can it really afford to spend money on *any* self-indulgent project?) was announced.

it's not a generous offer, it's blackmail to a cash strapped council to aide his legacy. Peacock have to raise a couple of million, Acsef need 90 million. what's more likely?

It's often said that the more cash you want, the easier it is to actually get it. As it stands, both projects seem to be an utter waste of public cash. The fact that they were talking about charging for the Winter Gardens tells you how dire the financial situation is - and at least from where I'm standing, neither project deserves a penny of council tax.

Let's face it - both projects are ultimately self indulgent in their own way. The only difference is that Peacock's project is for themselves, whereas the Wood project will be for everyone. On the basis of that, it's not hard to see what the ordinary Evening Express reading Aberdonian is going to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is - no-one is speaking publicly about how much cash Peacock actually have raised towards the building. If they still need 2 million (as mentioned below) - who's to say that they actually will raise it? Right now is hardly conductive for private enterprise to go investing on self-indulgent 'art' schemes.

That's a bit confident, bearing in mind that they don't actually have the cash in place. If they really had 'no problem' - they would've had the 3 million in place before the 75% public funding (point : ACC is skint - can it really afford to spend money on *any* self-indulgent project?) was announced.

It's often said that the more cash you want, the easier it is to actually get it. As it stands, both projects seem to be an utter waste of public cash. The fact that they were talking about charging for the Winter Gardens tells you how dire the financial situation is - and at least from where I'm standing, neither project deserves a penny of council tax.

Let's face it - both projects are ultimately self indulgent in their own way. The only difference is that Peacock's project is for themselves, whereas the Wood project will be for everyone. On the basis of that, it's not hard to see what the ordinary Evening Express reading Aberdonian is going to think.

Cloud, man, are you just trolling here? You don't seem to understand or have done any looking into how public projects or public funding work. Yes Peacock need to raise another 4 million, however they have all but secured half of this. At the moment it is very difficult for them to confirm any funding in garner interest in any other because given ACC's historic procrastenation and lack of vision of strategic leadership anyone interested in investing, at the moment because of the indecisiveness investors would be reluctant to put up any money until they know what the status is with the project.

As Peacock is a charity, not a private enterprise, and works very much in the public realm then it needs to gain interest from Public body funding for the majority of the capital costs. Once these are in place there is a more tangible case for them to plead for private finance. Which they have done, however with Wood's announcement TEN DAYS after they received the last of their public money meant they had no time at all to secure any further funding.

Other cities across the country have invested in cultural and cultural infrastructure to their benefit. DCA in Dundee gives back around five times its annual public investment to the city per annum, and makes Dundee's current bid for the first Victoria and Albert offshoot outside London all the more credible. Perhaps there are is, comparitively, small amount of people investing in Aberdeen currently, however this small scale investment will attract others to Aberdeen and retain many students who currently move straight out of the city once graduated which can only help but diversfy the range of activities, business and ventures which happen in the City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is - no-one is speaking publicly about how much cash Peacock actually have raised towards the building. If they still need 2 million (as mentioned below) - who's to say that they actually will raise it? Right now is hardly conductive for private enterprise to go investing on self-indulgent 'art' schemes.

That's a bit confident, bearing in mind that they don't actually have the cash in place. If they really had 'no problem' - they would've had the 3 million in place before the 75% public funding (point : ACC is skint - can it really afford to spend money on *any* self-indulgent project?) was announced.

It's often said that the more cash you want, the easier it is to actually get it. As it stands, both projects seem to be an utter waste of public cash. The fact that they were talking about charging for the Winter Gardens tells you how dire the financial situation is - and at least from where I'm standing, neither project deserves a penny of council tax.

Let's face it - both projects are ultimately self indulgent in their own way. The only difference is that Peacock's project is for themselves, whereas the Wood project will be for everyone. On the basis of that, it's not hard to see what the ordinary Evening Express reading Aberdonian is going to think.

do you get much coverage of this in poland like? peacock are talking about how much they've raised and it's been in every report on the peacock plans so you're talking out of your arse on that one.

peacock's plan is not self indulgent. the arts centre will house council arts departments as well as peacock! it will generate 5 million for the north east economy each year! the arts centre will be open to everyone and will make art and culture more accessible for everyone in the north east as well as making the gardens brighter and more secure right through to the evening.

also any funding from ACC has already been budgeted for from their capital budget, they will not be funding the rest of the development. they have been providing funds though to ACSEF for their consultation. your argument that it will be easier to raise 90 million is just ridiculous, you utter mentalist. 90 million!

i fail to see how the wood project is for everyone. it's not for me. it's not for any of the people who use the gardens now or want them to remain. i don't know anyone at all who would rather have a flat, concrete square than a green park.

please set aside your weird dislike for peacock, look at the gardens and sheer cost of concreting over them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a reply from my request to see the Peacock proposal included in any public consultation, I expect that it is the generic reply. Will report further once I've had a chance to look at it properly, it came with a word document. I read the first line and it said "spearheading" which made me retch from the sickly sweet taste of corporate sludge.

Beware of the buzz word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK i may have got the figures wrong, but the sentiment is the same, the council is looking at making 23 million in cuts, yet are seriously considering having to spend 40 million to help Wood's vision along. I am aware that the money for the scheme is probably going to be coming from somewhere other than where the cuts are happening, but how will it look if 6 months down the line the council say "Hey we're going to put 40 million into this square, right after we've spent all this money doing up Marischal College and we've made 23 million in cuts."

Exactly this.

I have good friends who are teachers at schools within the ACC area and it is a disgrace what is happening to them. Jobs are being cut and class sizes are going up. Furthermore, my brothers father in law was a headteacher and it just got farcical the cutbacks he was expected to make, he was having to completely cut away entire departments. You then read about cuts made to funding in other important areas the council are responsible for so it would be ludicrous to then spend millions of pounds for aesthetic purposes. If they can raise the money to overhaul the gardens then I would far rather see it go to areas such as education or health where it may be put to better use.

I will admit I find a lot of the reaction to the Wood proposal to be a bit cynical as I would imagine he would want to put his name to something he, and Aberdonians alike, can be proud of. However, my vote is firmly with the arts centre as:

A) I feel there would be more benefits to it, culturally and educationally

B) It looks much better!

I was in Edinburgh recently and paid a visit to the Winter Garden at Princes Street Gardens and it was excellent. It was an excellent attraction and led me to think how Union Terrace Gardens could do something similar. Whilst both proposals would lend themselves to this I think having the arts centre as a place to visit along with stalls, family activities etc. would revitalise the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly this.

I have good friends who are teachers at schools within the ACC area and it is a disgrace what is happening to them. Jobs are being cut and class sizes are going up. Furthermore, my brothers father in law was a headteacher and it just got farcical the cutbacks he was expected to make, he was having to completely cut away entire departments. You then read about cuts made to funding in other important areas the council are responsible for so it would be ludicrous to then spend millions of pounds for aesthetic purposes. If they can raise the money to overhaul the gardens then I would far rather see it go to areas such as education or health where it may be put to better use.

I will admit I find a lot of the reaction to the Wood proposal to be a bit cynical as I would imagine he would want to put his name to something he, and Aberdonians alike, can be proud of. However, my vote is firmly with the arts centre as:

A) I feel there would be more benefits to it, culturally and educationally

B) It looks much better!

I was in Edinburgh recently and paid a visit to the Winter Garden at Princes Street Gardens and it was excellent. It was an excellent attraction and led me to think how Union Terrace Gardens could do something similar. Whilst both proposals would lend themselves to this I think having the arts centre as a place to visit along with stalls, family activities etc. would revitalise the area.

Imagine if a business person in Edinburgh was to come-up with some hairbrained idea to concrete-over Princess Street Gardens the public would go ballistic........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you get much coverage of this in poland like? peacock are talking about how much they've raised and it's been in every report on the peacock plans so you're talking out of your arse on that one.

Well, I've been asking for the figures and people seem strangely reluctant to actually say. If they're 2 million short, then it's a fair amount of money that they need!

peacock's plan is not self indulgent. the arts centre will house council arts departments as well as peacock!

Of course it's self indulgent. It's hardly going to benefit the vast majority of Aberdonians, is it? And the fact that ACC will be renting part of the building thus subsidising Peacock further is something that should be looked at - why the hell does the ACC arts departments need to be in such a building when the council owns plenty of suitable properties already?

it will generate 5 million for the north east economy each year!

You should know fine well that these statements should be taken with a pinch of salt.

the arts centre will be open to everyone and will make art and culture more accessible for everyone in the north east as well as making the gardens brighter and more secure right through to the evening.

More accessible? What's not accessible about HMT, the Lemon Tree and many others?

also any funding from ACC has already been budgeted for from their capital budget, they will not be funding the rest of the development. they have been providing funds though to ACSEF for their consultation. your argument that it will be easier to raise 90 million is just ridiculous, you utter mentalist. 90 million!

I thought you worked in banking, shouldn't you know that the bigger the sum, the easier it is to gain funding for it? This is why the British Council have decimated their small operations in Europe in favour of bigger projects, for instance. It's paradoxical, but very true.

i fail to see how the wood project is for everyone. it's not for me. it's not for any of the people who use the gardens now or want them to remain. i don't know anyone at all who would rather have a flat, concrete square than a green park.

The people that want the gardens to remain have an interest in the success of the Peacock development. It's pretty obvious as a bystander that these people have merely jumped on the anti bandwagon because it's contrary to their own plans.Somehow, if Wood had made it clear from the beginning that he wanted Peacock to stay, there wouldn't be the same amount of fuss.

As I said - the area will be for everyone, not just the 'artistic elite' who will inhabit Peacock and the like.

please set aside your weird dislike for peacock, look at the gardens and sheer cost of concreting over them.

I'm looking at the fact that both developments involve money that ACC doesn't have. Teachers getting the sack, yet ACC can afford to spend money on a new private arts centre AND pay to rent facilities from them? That's a joke!

It's sad that Peacock have jumped on the 'SAVE UNION TERRACE GARDENS' bandwagon while contributing to the destruction themselves.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I've been asking for the figures and people seem strangely reluctant to actually say. If they're 2 million short, then it's a fair amount of money that they need!

Of course it's self indulgent. It's hardly going to benefit the vast majority of Aberdonians, is it? And the fact that ACC will be renting part of the building thus subsidising Peacock further is something that should be looked at - why the hell does the ACC arts departments need to be in such a building when the council owns plenty of suitable properties already?

You should know fine well that these statements should be taken with a pinch of salt.

More accessible? What's not accessible about HMT, the Lemon Tree and many others?

also any funding from ACC has already been budgeted for from their capital budget, they will not be funding the rest of the development. they have been providing funds though to ACSEF for their consultation. your argument that it will be easier to raise 90 million is just ridiculous, you utter mentalist. 90 million!

I thought you worked in banking, shouldn't you know that the bigger the sum, the easier it is to gain funding for it? This is why the British Council have decimated their small operations in Europe in favour of bigger projects, for instance. It's paradoxical, but very true.

The people that want the gardens to remain have an interest in the success of the Peacock development. It's pretty obvious as a bystander that these people have merely jumped on the anti bandwagon because it's contrary to their own plans.Somehow, if Wood had made it clear from the beginning that he wanted Peacock to stay, there wouldn't be the same amount of fuss.

As I said - the area will be for everyone, not just the 'artistic elite' who will inhabit Peacock and the like.

I'm looking at the fact that both developments involve money that ACC doesn't have. Teachers getting the sack, yet ACC can afford to spend money on a new private arts centre AND pay to rent facilities from them? That's a joke!

It's sad that Peacock have jumped on the 'SAVE UNION TERRACE GARDENS' bandwagon while contributing to the destruction themselves.

get a grip cloud, you are blatantly trolling now. peacock have been very open about their funding and how much they need, no one has refused to say anything.

the only plan on the table that keeps the gardens in much the same way as they are now is peacocks. their plan uses a small part of the gardens which is currently unused as its a big slope and many of the trees from this part are being relocated to other parts of the garden. how you can say this is destroying the gardens is beyond me, you'd make a particularly good spin doctor.

seeing as you brought it up, as a bank employee i can catagorically say that it is much much harder to raise vast sums of money than small ones(unless you are a bank and you collapse). no matter how many times you say that crazy statement it won't make it true. it's just a stupid stupid argument that doesn't make any sense.

the council will house it's arts groups in the arts centre because it'll make them more accessible and promote a sharing of resources. what should concern you more is how much public money is being used for a biased consultation process for a project not even at the planning stage and which in it's current form goes against the local plan and the councils stated planning objectives. but you'll probably ignore that and make up some wacky conspiracy against peacock again.

the 5 million pound figure does not need to be taken with a pinch of salt as it was obtained as part of the official planning process which peacock have passed and is based on the very real benefit that Dundee Contemporary Arts contributes to the tayside economy.

Art and the arts centre are not elitist. How can a project designed solely with the intention of opening up arts to more people be elitist? it's a tired argument used by lazy critics of a project they don't understand or want to understand. wood has made it clear from the beginning that he doesn't want the arts centre and his 'plan' has been produced now solely to stop the arts centre from moving forward. it's a cynical negative ploy and their campaign will now focus on painting the save utg campaigners as negative naysayers scared of progress when this vast concrete square is really a regression in terms of style, function and planning. cities are simply not destroying green spaces anymore and we will be a laughing stock around the world if we do this, whereas we have an opportunity to have a genuinely inspirational development that retains the gardens while making them more secure and brighter(the only compaint people have at the moment with the gardens).

i feel a little disappointed that i keep rising to your bait but people simply shouldn't get away with spreading disinformation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good news from this Dave is that if the art centre finally gets the go ahead, which will happen on rejection of the Civic square idea, and we spend enjoyable nights out in the company of a variety of cultural events and activities we will never see Cloud in the building. His disgust at the very thought of it suggest he will never enter its doors.

win win!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was walking down Union Street the other day at lunchtime and as I passed the gardens it struck me - if the square thing went ahead, how exactly would it interface with the rear of the buildings on Belmont St? I assume it has to extend that far due to talk of covering the road etc...it could only really come over so far and then have a big wall or fence? Nice views from the beer gardens then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was walking down Union Street the other day at lunchtime and as I passed the gardens it struck me - if the square thing went ahead, how exactly would it interface with the rear of the buildings on Belmont St? I assume it has to extend that far due to talk of covering the road etc...it could only really come over so far and then have a big wall or fence? Nice views from the beer gardens then...

I often wonder about that and can't imagine anything but big concrete columns. I don't even think the levels are the same at both sides so it'll either slope of be stepped. I don't know how it'll work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be "sloped" to "work with the existing contours" and concrete straight over to belmont street, around the buildings, covering most of the beer gardens and a couple of buildings in its entirity. if you have a look at the drawings, you can see that some buildings are in fact, only roofs on the surface of the square.

aberdeen_4_ready.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It truly is an abomination eh... The thought of having to traverse that space leaves me cold and a little uncomfortable feeling. Something to do with it not matching the scale of surroundings and city. Much prefer walking around the gardens as they are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The artists impression is one thing but I'm pretty certain that in reality it won't be as easy as just building up to the existing buildings....in fact I can't believe that the existing properties wouldn't have a good case to have the proposed design kicked into touch...then again, we know how such things can change once Salmond the Hutt decides there are big business men to please...the only way I can see it working is to have it run over to around the edge of the road and have a big wall to stop folk falling off the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...