The BBC Debate on Union Terrace Gardens V the Granite Web

Union Terrace Gardens debate on 16 February 2012

This BBC debate concerned the proposal to remove Aberdeen’s Union Terrace Gardens and replace them with something called the Granite Web.

As the audience took their seats for the debate concerning the intended destruction of the city’s unique green basin a meeting of minds took place in the shadows of Queen’s Cross church hall between Aberdeen City Councillors, the advocates for the controversial development and BBC staff.

Then it was time to begin. Brothers-in-arms Council Leader, who I had taken for a cub reporter, SNP Councillor Callum McCaig sat next to Ian Wood, the man who stepped in to stop the exciting Peacock development in Union Terrace Gardens with his own scheme and succeeded in changing minds among SNP Councillors and one time supporters of Peacock with his promise of £50million contribution towards his vision. Opposing them were Lewis Macdonald, Labour MSP and Mike Shepherd from Friends of Union Terrace Gardens.

From the start it became clear that while the bulk of the audience was a mix of opinions a couple of rows at the back was packed with a phalanx of Wood cheerleaders. It must have been coincidence they were all together and intent on being the most vocal of elements in the hall. No sooner had proceeding got underway than the packed rows jelled into a veritable beast of astonishing intolerance towards opinions they didn’t share.

The opening point raised from the audience was a silly notion which sprang from original literature on the scheme that the development would be the answer to ‘undesirable elements’ that populate the Gardens. It’s a no-brainer – it won’t. As was countered from the audience, any so-called undesirables will not disappear because Union Terrace Gardens don’t exist, they will be hanging about the Web (granite or more accurately concrete).

There was a snort from the back of the room.

McCaig was asked why he had once supported Peacock’s innovative development then switched support to Wood’s project. He did not answer this. But he underlined his support for the Aberdeen millionaire Wood in his ambition.

From behind came a shake of a Rolex on a hirsute wrist and a black forked tongue dribbled long shards of stringy spit in ecstatic anticipation and released a roar of approval.

Someone asked about the glaring absence of democracy surrounding the project.

The beast heaved with indignation and emitted a belch of sulphur.

Wood ducked the question and mumbled something about preserving heritage: balustrades, statues, Kelly cats, arches but altogether managed to miss the point entirely that the sunken Gardens is the main heritage feature, practically the sole remnant of the medieval town.

The beast shifted: tiny red-infused eyes shiftily sweeping the ranks of dissenting voices from the audience. Its man had spoken.

Wood and his family made its fortune from working out of Aberdeen, in fishing and later in offshore energies. They are not alone. There are many millionaires in Aberdeen. You wouldn’t know it. The money is private money. There is nothing to show in the city for the wealth it helped create for these millionaires. This has been a complaint from the city’s people for decades.

Now money is on offer. With strings attached. No such thing as a free lunch. Not for ordinary citizens of Aberdeen. I’m sure there is for some.

Mike Shepherd talked up the park. He was fed up hearing this unique green basin being denigrated by those determined to get their way to pour in concrete by the hundreds of tons to create shabby walkways above street level.

A glint of Rolex and a shudder of mohair.

Someone in the audience mocked the Gardens. He clearly wasn’t from Aberdeen. He had taken a photograph, he said, so he knew what they looked like. They looked frightful. He gave no sense of realising their significance.

Lewis Macdonald disagreed, saying that this green heart of Aberdeen will be replaced by concrete walkways and that the consultation on the 6 shortlisted designs had not come down in favour of this Web.

A long impatient tail beat out a disturbing rhythm and the head turned on the thick neck sighting someone with the audacity to mention that recent architecture forced on the city had been of poor quality – his inference being this scheme was no different.

It listened as its collaborator McCaig talked up PricewaterhouseCoopers promise of 6500 jobs. He referred Charles Landry who had worked in Bilbao and considered this the best transformation project he’d seen in 20yrs. And still no word of democracy. Andwhat are the views of anyone in Aberdeen compared to those of a man who once worked in Bilbao?

Macdonald countered the jobs claim by revealing that PwC job figures were based on its collective experience and not through looking at Aberdeen as a discrete scheme.

The beast drew back its lips and snarled.

Wood protested that ‘we are going through a democratic process’ – albeit a truncated one Mr Wood, for it was a clique which chose the 6 designs and a clique which short listed and a clique which chose the winning design and you who have said it’s this or nothing – forget the years of the city being run down you’ll get nothing unless you let me get my way. I’m paraphrasing. In all innocence he shrugged, I have only ‘made money available.’

The beast snarled. The tail beat the floor. Again and again. The head pulled back and a cold reptilian stare settled on the little people who dared question the great man and his backers.

This Council is closing schools and cutting services to the disabled and yet there is commitment to spend millions of public money voiced an audience member.

The council leader had nothing to say.

A Prada stiletto scourged deep into the grain on the church hall floor and the beast opened its jaws releasing its sulphurous stench.

McCaig was asked to sell TIF to the audience. TIF is the controversial scheme the council hope will eventually pay back the huge sum of money it will have to borrow to finance Wood’s idea. It will be based on two areas of the city being designated as special areas. Whenever a business sets up it will contribute towards TIF and this money will be ring-fenced to pay back the loans. Of course it is pure speculation that enough money will be raised by TIF. It is a new system of raising funds in Scotland. In fact Aberdeen City Council is not even sure it will get government permission to establish TIF sites. There are many unknowns regarding TIF including a description of it from McCaig. The above is my explanation. It might not be up to much but it was more than we got from McCaig who appeared surprised to be asked to sell this scheme to the people of Aberdeen. Sell it? He couldn’t even describe it. Immediately he jumped to the Ravenscraig example, one of only 2 approved in Scotland. Brownfield site developments which as MacDonald pointed out can only add money, unlike this one being proposed for Aberdeen.

A clearly unsettled McCaig was put out of his misery by the chairman who defined it for him. It’s good to know that Council representatives and the Council leader is so well versed in the detail of the scheme he is happy to put his name to.

The beast shifted uncomfortably on legs of iron and feet of clay.

McCaig did confirm the raising of the funding through TIF would be underwritten by the Council.

Mike Shepherd referred to problems with TIF funding as an untried means of guaranteeing cash. Well so much depends on incoming business that no figure can be guaranteed. Fall back on council funding. Council’s borrowing while in debt and the risks to services if that happened.

Possibly the most stupid question of the evening came from the vicinity of the beast. More a statement than a question that young people wouldn’t come to the city unless there was development in the city. This development.

The Beast roared its approval.

Wood spoke of the need for connections: road and air connections. But it’s bus connections Aberdeen City Council is talking about with this proposal. Connections to the bus station. The bus station so recently erected and so badly designed that there is no room for passengers and no seats provided for them, no dropping off and picking up places for vehicles to drive in, forcing passengers with luggage to walk from several streets away. This bus station where buses have to reverse into the station traffic each time they begin a journey. Would you trust the Council to do any better with such a radical scheme for Union Terrace? The same council which has continued to build shopping malls while Union Street empties. It is empty because of shopping malls. It is empty because the council refuses to reduce rates to keep businesses operating. The council has taken an impressive mile of granite architecture and created a desert.

Mike Shepherd reminded Wood that his company, and every company, would not hesitate to set up anywhere, irrespective of what it looked like if there were profits to be had. He cited Wood’s company in Caracas and Lagos and that he doubted they went there because of how they looked.

Don’t know about them but Wood looked confused.

There was a grunt from the beast, a slash of something golden and an angry sweep of the tail.

McCaig had nothing to say.

Businessman Tom Smith, Chair of ACSEF the anti-democratic body given all the cards in this scheme railed at Macdonald for rejecting this multi-million pound ‘investment’ and yelled at Mike Shepherd to be quiet. He accused Macdonald of trying to stop any development from happening.

The beast peeled back it thick lips and yelped frantically.

Mac Donald insisted the divisions which had emerged over this proposal were because there was only one project, only one ambition and shared arrogance of the people behind this scheme.

The audience breathed in the stench of cashmere soaked in sweat.

The panel was not invited to address where anonymous literature landing through peoples’ letterboxes sprang from. The inference was that city businessmen were behind it. Well only businessmen could afford to do this surely. But why not reveal who you are?

Councillor Kate Dean said Aberdeen was anti development and against attracting young people to come and stay in the city. Well it’s a point of view, fair enough but then she had to spoil it by saying how the city has done very well in the past in attracting people in. Really?? Without a totally transformed city centre? Not following that logic.

When he was asked if Aberdeen City Council would spend any money on improvements to the city centre if this scheme was rejected by the people, McCaig initially said no then suggested there might be something. Then he went back to TIF repeating it was designed to pay for itself. That certainly is the plan Mr McCaig. And the point you are making is? Oh and that ACC is not in a position to splash out. Not a great deal of clarity here.

He was asked about the arrangements for the referendum. What would be the winning line? What had been decided between ACC and the government? A harassed looking McCaig said nothing had been worked out. Hello? Nothing? The papers have gone out. Do you have faith in these people to act in your best interests?

Macdonald interjected with the observation which most of Aberdeen have already made that a major reason for the lack of visits to the Gardens was because the Council had not spent anything on them over the years. Have you seen how the beautiful granite has been allowed to go green for lack of a bit of housekeeping? Why has the Council never even put in a set of swings or a climbing frame to attract children and families into the park? This would cost practically nothing. But they’re not interested.

Mike Shepherd reminded the audience that another city businessman was willing to put money up front to make improvements to the existing Gardens,  including better access and a park-keeper but James Milne has not received anything like the same attention in the local media that Wood has enjoyed.

Wood said he regretted the divisions his scheme had created in Aberdeen to which Macdonald replied that it was because people cared so passionately and Wood’s undemocratic way of handling his proposal had resulted in such ill-feeling.

I guess you don’t become rich by consulting with people. Well, maybe that’s not true as some well-known examples from the US suggest. It is clear this is not the Wood nor ACSEF way.

The prospect of Aberdeen borrowing £92 million might be a risk too far for the more prudent Aberdonians but McCaig would have none of it – risk? What risk? He compared it to a household mortgage. Yes, and we’re seeing what’s happening to many of them at the present time. His parting shot was that people should see Aberdeen as others see it. So much for representing the people who vote for you Mr McCaig.

Mike Shepherd urged people to vote against Wood’s backward-looking 1960s style concrete monstrosity in what is the city’s leafy green heart with its 200yr old elms.

The iron legs strained, the stiletto scraped, the nostrils steamed, the beast screeched and cracked its cleft tail.

Wood was given the final word. He emphasised the huge amount of work which had gone into working out the finances of the scheme and that the comments on TIF were ridiculous. Certainly were Mr Wood. He railed at his opponents for what he described as negativism but which they will say is approbation for the most positive development for Aberdeen that which involves retaining the magnificent Union Terrace Gardens.

The beast is a simple animal. It is excited only by profit yields, retail opportunities and exclusive cabals in its determined drive to take the city forward into the past. It roared its approval. It roared and snarled and beat its swarthy chest and licked the fleshy lips in euphoric rapture.

The referendum result will be known on Fri 2nd March if the Council works out how to read the results by then.

TIF info:

Wonder why Ian Wood has SO much money?

Tags: ,

15 Responses to “The BBC Debate on Union Terrace Gardens V the Granite Web”

  1. What a beautiful piece of writing..

  2. haha, thanks very much, that’s officially the first time *that*s been said! ;ox

  3. Please read Billy’s blog it is very impressive.

  4. The unedifying site of followers of “loads of money” squealing about bullying must mean something is troubling them. Hard to believe that these men hardened in the ways of business are upset by the push and shove of debate especially from individuals who lack the wealth and influence that money can buy. Of course what power always fears is that maybe just maybe the counter-weight of democracy will expose it as a sham. In 2002 Tom Smith (“Oil Baron” of 2007, what can we say?) set out his vision for the future. In a few words he spoke volumes which ten years later we can see him trying to bring to fruition. He said,
    “Leadership, ambition and courage will be critical components of our future if we are to ensure the region is an attractive location to establish, run and develop a business, our ability to be truly competitive on an international basis must be our goal. The caveat here is that individuals and businesses also need to get engaged – as the saying goes, ‘if you are not part of the solution, then your are part of the problem’.”

  5. Thank you Greytay for your comments. I fear actual granite would be far too costly for the kind of setup envisaged. Granite facings and the original from the Gardens.
    The Lord Lucan I’ll refer you to and and Ask yourself who the developers will be? Who has most to gain financially from this? The park is public land but soon it will be privatised and private means profits for someone.

  6. xistenshal : Where did you find out that he ‘owns’ 50% of the trust? Question how can you lease a garden specifically? Also it’s a non profit trust thats running the gardens once built so… please could you enlighten where profit is to be made?

  7. It is certainly interesting to read earlier comments. Firstly, I intend to vote to retain the Gardens, I have always thought of them as an oasis, and a pleasant one at that, in the middle of the City. While I believe sincerely that people in Aberdeen are being misled about this project, I was surprised to read that the Web (Mr Wood’s Web) will in fact be concrete and not granite! I am elderly, in my seventies, and scarcely able to walk nowadays. Myself and others can get no support from the Council….. because of Cuts they tell us are necessary. Is it very naive of me to ask people to search their hearts, to consider what they want Aberdeen to be……. a city with a concrete web in its centre, with hovels where the elderly and ill live out the rest of their lives uncared for and unsupported?

  8. That’s very interesting. I thought he was a little too emotional during the debate and what did he have to lose if the development didn’t go ahead? Perhaps you have answered that question. No problem with people in business making money but not when it’s dependent on subsidies from the public purse or through privatising public land.

  9. Excellent write-up, Ms Hyena. One further point of note : Mr Tom Smith, Chair of ACSEF and one of the brayers at the debate, owns 50% of Aberdeen City Gardens Trust. This private company – not a trust – is pulling the strings, paying the PR people and has a stated aim of taking on a lease to the Gardens. Said lease will be worth tens or hundreds of millions of pounds – this is prime city centre real estate. Something wicked this way comes.

  10. Your thoughts echo mine almost entirely. I don’t support the Labour Party any more because I think they are wrong on most issues nowadays but Lewis Macdonald is on the right side here, whether out of political reasons or not. There has been a lot of underhand activities going on surrounding this project. I do think there is scope for a proper investigation into who has most to gain. The interesting thing about the business interests in developing the granite web is the vehemence with which they are promoting this. It is not anything to do with attracting business in the future surely. No-one is going to get THAT excitable over that – and you had to be at the meeting to realise there was genuine anger and hysteria among the scheme’s advocates. There must me a more immediate return. Is that a reason for Aberdeen to get its heart ripped out? For private individuals to make a killing on the back of huge public expenditure?

    Something is rotten in the state of Scotland.

  11. I thought it was particularly rich of Mr Wood towards the end claiming that there had been misinformation about the funding etc, when we all know the misinformation has been coming from his side of the argument. I know people who genuinely think this scheme is going to lead to the 6,500 jobs being mentioned, without even questioning the basis for this, never mind attempting to find out how accurate a projection it is, and I see people falling for the hype that we have to do this purely because we have to do something. I disagree with him completely on most things, but Lewis Macdonald’s view that the problem is that we’re only being given one choice is a view that I share. Must be the first time I’ve agreed with a Scottish Labour politician in years (although he seemed to forget that his party began the running down of UTG, as the SNP/Lib Dem coalition has only been in place for five years, and he correctly highlighted that this has been happening for at least ten years.)

    The haranguing from the crowd was quite despicable, although I must admit I heard some when McCaig and Mr Wood were speaking as well, just to a much lesser extent. But the reactions to Mike Shepherd when he was simply taking his turn to speak was shocking.

    I’m not 100% against something being done to the gardens if we can find the right project, and I don’t feel strongly enough about it to protest when the bulldozers come in. But I’ve voted to retain the UTG simply because I do not like the way this project has gone, nor the way Mr Wood is attaching strings to his funding – if he had simply said “I think we could improve the gardens, and I’m willing to donate £50 million towards it”, and things had evolved naturally from there, then I could have been won over. But this started out as a hair-brained idea about filling in the gardens with concrete, and it’s never recovered from that. We need to ditch this and start again, with no strings. Oh, and I resent the conflation of this development with the other schemes the council has in mind (but won’t tell us about), which has been a major factor in much of the misinformation that has been going around.

    The council has some grand scheme for regenerating the city centre (I remember Kevin Stewart telling me in an email that this was his reason for supporting the development). If they would only share it with us, then we might be easier to bring on board. Asking us to give permission to destroy our award-winning garden without giving us the full facts is completely disingenuous.

  12. Who knows what people will vote for when they’re bombarded with misinformation – which of course is the point of the exercise. But whatever happens you’re right the business guys are not going to lose.

  13. the council knows how to read the results. Based on the stats so far the method is,

    find out what *business* wants.
    do that.
    find out what the vote says, when you get the first FOI request.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: