AGCC "Genius loci" Visionaries?

I’ve had a good read through AGCC’s “genius loci”, and it makes for some interesting reading.

 

I think it could be more visionary, and I think there could have been an even wider range of contributors.  Let’s be honest, some seem not to have approached this as a clean sheet for what can be done to improve the city, but more to further promote their existing plans (we can always expect that to happen) – but let’s set these foibles aside and look at the positive, the interesting thoughts and the bits that challenge the current accepted ‘wisdom’.

 

Alex Drummond, of Lloyds, and AGCC Council member doubts that the proposed plans for the gardens will bring in tourists and visitors.  Something opponents of the city square/garden proposal have long argued.

 

John Curran of McGrigors tells the city we need to stop fixating on Union Terrace Gardens and wants to see the civic square developed at our best example of local architecture – Marischal College (something that would cost far less than the plan for UTG and leave funds for improvements in other areas).  He suggests removing cars from other squares in the city (Golden Square and Bon Accord Square) – this is easy to achieve would open up breathing space in the city for people to spend more time lingering.  I think a lot of people would agree this is an excellent idea.

 

Bob Reid of Halliday Fraser Munro suggests three projects that need to be completed – improving Union Terrace Gardens (though he suggests that maintaining much of the existing gardens may well achieve the same aims), the pedestrianisation (or part) of Union Street and regenerating the Castlegate and linkage to the beach.

 

He also talks about improving Palmerston road areas and making more of potential business HQ’s in that area.

 

I’ve long wondered why Aberdeen makes so little of its beach, harbour and River Dee areas. Obviously in industrial terms the harbour is crucial to the city, busy and successful, but as a cityscape it’s a wonderful backdrop no-one seems to seek – am I alone in wanting an office that overlooks the beautiful bustling harbour area?

 

Lewis MacDonald, MSP, also sees the city’s future as needing to make the most of the rivers and beaches that were so important in the past.

 

Richard Tinto talks about retaining the gardens, covering the road and rail area, to create easier access to the gardens, retaining an oasis of green beauty.  Connectivity and nature.  Finally he suggests a bridge from the covered rail to Union Terrace, and the more I think about this, the more I start to believe that done properly, this would be wonderful.  Bridges hold a romance as well as a purpose and I can see this becoming a popular meeting and lingering spot.

 

Councillor John Stewart still seems to think that the only way he gets to see the improvements he hopes for in the city is by creating a superstructure in Union terrace Gardens, more hopefully, he also wants to see improvements made to the harbour area – to bring it more into the ‘city’.

 

 

Dr David McLean of the Scott Sutherland School of Architecture warns that we must learn from the mistakes of other cities, with their “bleak plazas that failed to live up to the misplaced optimism of the artist’s impression”.  Will we listen?

 

Frank Maughan of ASM isn’t a fan of lifting Union Terrace Gardens to street level either (is anyone?).  Although he sees a place for parking underneath the gardens. 

 

To me, the obvious solution is to mix underground parking with removing parking from the city’s other squares.  Underground parking of a different sort – rather than driving into and around them, drive up to them, and have the car whisked underground – is increasingly commonplace in countries like Japan.  The space taken up on the surface to allow this is minimal, while still providing car parking for those of us who obstinately cling to car-use.  A few of these at Golden Square, Bon Accord square would leave us with the same (maybe more) parking, yet a surface almost entirely free of cars, suitable for cafe spaces, civic areas, or whatever we can imagine.

 

Colin Crosby calls for a wow factor – and I agree – we haven’t seen it proposed yet, but some of the ideas here could deliver it – and if the people of Aberdeen back the idea – it will instil civic pride.  Aberdonians might even start to boast!.

 

Steven Wilson of JCI Aberdeen sees a pedestrianised city centre.  I agree that opening up space would make it easy for people to linger and enjoy a city, instead of rushing between key areas.

 

David Briggs of Robert Gordon’s University sees a free trolleybus service (not trams!) running along Union Street – free public transport – that may even tempt us obstinate car users!    He also sees Union Street being covered to deal with our occasional inclement weather.  Affordable housing above the shops in the city – another way to bring life into the centre.   He sees the Castlegate upgraded – not updated, remaining traditional.

 

And when it comes to Union Terrace Gardens – he doesn’t see it as having to be fully raised and fully covered - partly raised – again it’s an ‘access’ issue, and while I think the picture he has differs from the picture I have, I think we could find a middle way we’d agree on.

 

Maitland Mackie wants the Wow factor too – and he thinks that all we’ve been promised so far lacks it.  “Another ‘nice’ city centre is not enough”  And he’s right.  Another ‘nice’ city centre won’t bring in tourists, and won’t keep inhabitants staying there for long.  He hits the nail on the head, for me – this has been my main complaint of the City square plans – they’re simply not good enough for the sums being spent – and they won’t deliver on their claims.

 

He states “The focus should clearly be on the “WOW” factor, the creation of something marvellous that becomes a national and international must see” and I ask if anyone supporting the city square project truly believes that’s what we’re heading towards? 

 

Is a domed ‘hanging garden of Aberdeen’ the way forward?  I don’t know – but it’s a lot closer to wow than anything we’ve seen so far.

 

He’s the second person to mention a monorail (and I ask you,  who doesn’t love a monorail?).  Renewable energy driven high level monorail transport system linking the city centre – and maybe the airport (and perhaps Altens and Dyce?) – will that happen in Aberdeen – home of the oil industry?  I’ll remain hopeful.

 

Kevin Stewart talks about a bus station being built under the raised city square – even if I hadn’t read it just after Maitland Mackie’s daring dream, I think this is deeply unambitious – certainly it won’t be doing much to boost the city centre.

 

Rob Wallen of Aberdeen College reminds us that more needs to be made of the education providers the city has – and they need the support of local business to continue to be amongst the best in the world.  Attracting talent to an area is the first step in keeping them.

 

Simpson Buglass talks about raising the bar in terms of civic ambition, and “insist on top-class designs for new buildings going forward.”  He doesn’t say that the plans we’ve had for the gardens achieve these.

 

He also suggests that the city needs “an elected mayor - a person of some ability – directly elected by the townsfolk”

 

An interesting thought, but could a role lure the right kind of talent, and the right kind of strength of character to be ambitious, and not simply agree to the demands of the city’s unelected ‘big hitters’.

 

And then we come to the BID.  Flawed in execution so far, and while it could probably benefit the city, the utter lack of detail on what the revenues would be spent on in the BID publications leaves me concerned that it may be simply another wasted effort.

 

Finally, having a tab on the city garden project under ‘visionaries’ is rather unfortunate.  Even here the way it is described gives no reason as to why this is the only location for these ideas, what they may be, or how putting them in this place will bring the claimed benefits.

 

Few of the people quoted see the project as being crucial, or even necessary and many of those who do allude to the benefits it claims to bring seem to realise that the goals could be achieved in other ways – often at a lower cost.

 

Even John Michie, stalwart backer of the plans to develop Union Terrace Gardens into a building admits that the “alone may not be able to deliver all of the complex conditions for success.”  Which does beg the question – why that development at all – could an alternative not provide the same catalyst?

 

I’d love this to mean the plans were dropped, and the competition parameters expanded to see what could be done on the budget to improve the city – in whatever shape, place or form, but it won’t.

 

The competition will continue on, and we’ll end up with some designs.  I hope that something truly amazing is suggested, and I truly hope that they see much of the gardens being retained.  The ‘global buzz’ doesn’t seem to have materialised, as we enter the selection of competitor stage.  55 interested parties isn’t what we were promised at the start – a ‘global buzz of internationally renowned teams’, but I’m trying to set aside negativity.

 

What I read is not a show of support for the “City Square/Garden” plans we’re moving towards, more a show of support for a plan that is unique to our city and our needs.

 

Most importantly, I think this should see the dialogue as moving on and looking at the city as a whole, not as having one space in the city that will transform the rest, as if by magic.  The press and journal’s coverage of it doesn’t encourage me. 

 

Overall, what do I see coming from this?  I think there’s a tilt towards removing the TripleKirks spire in here.  I’m not sure how I feel about it – it has sat for too long doing little (although it harbours falcons now), but will those who see it as an obstacle demand that it’s replaced with something worthy of the truly prime spot – or will it be another glass box of an office?  At one point Stewart Milne publicly promised space within a development to Peacock Visual Arts.   Does the offer still stand, I wonder – and would they be taken by the rather bland designs put forward so far?

 

I hope that what comes of this, is the people of the city and the people who would shape it taking a look at the city as a whole, and seeing the real opportunities to make the most of what we already have, creating something truly unique to Aberdeen.

 

Will the authorities be brave enough to stand up to those who see the opportunity for personal gain rather than to make a lasting improvement?  Will they be brave enough to step back and look at the bigger picture, taking decisions that result in something truly remarkable, rather than something simply described by its developers as ‘iconic’?

 

Can we get a real WOW factor, something to make the rest of the country – the world – sit up and notice, something to make even modest Aberdonians boast about our city – something that’s not hype and bluster and PR spin but actual excellence in execution?

 

As Maitland Mackie said, after all this time and money, “it will be a crying shame if all we finish up with is just a ‘nice plaza’!”

 

 

 

Posted via email from mikemuses's posterous