10 reasons to finally drop the City Garden Project.
I started this as 5 reasons, however, in the end I’ve limited it to ten reasons, addressing just ten of the flaws with this project. I’ve made this as succinct as I can in the time I have.
1. 1. Complete lack of correlation between THIS project (CGP) and benefits claimed. The business case outlines the need for a regenerated City Centre, but at no point is there a direct correlation between the divisive City Garden Project, and the benefits claimed. It’s clear that investing the £70m earmarked for the CGP in wider ranging improvements throughout the city could equally well be claimed to bring the same – or greater – benefits. Access to the gardens could be improved, with theatres / exhibition space and an amphitheatre created elsewhere in the city for lower cost – reducing risk and reaping greater rewards.
2. 2. Funding gap. Even after three years of promotion and lobbying, it is only now, at the last minute, that 7 of the hundreds of claimed supporters have stepped in to pledge to help raise the £15m ‘private funding gap’. This is not a pledge of meeting it, merely of helping to meet it. Beyond that, there remains a £20m funding gap for the Art Gallery project. Typically when seeking trust funding, lottery funding and private donations, fund seekers need to identify potential funders to the value of between 3 to 5 times the sum sought. At this stage, within the business case, only “Creative Scotland /Lottery” have even been identified as potential funders. The funding available from these sources is way below the amount required, never mind the amount that needs to be identified to provide a reasonable chance of success in securing them. Far from being a way to ensure the development of the Art Gallery, it seems likely this plan will see the Art Gallery redevelopment fall by the wayside.
3. 3. Major regeneration projects don’t ‘just work’. Even Charles Renfro (of the company that designed the Granite Web says "Everybody thinks that they can put a Bilbao up, y’know, a copy. I don't see how these cities could think that just having an elevated train line makes for a success — the kind of success we've seen with the High Line."
Recent failures to create this coveted tourist-draw include Oscar Niemeyer’s cultural center in Spain, and Rafael Viñoly’s critically pummeled “Golden Banana” in Colchester
The “Bilbao effect” comes from investing in wide scale improvements. What those aiming to spend double of Dundee’s V&A investment don’t seem to understand is that Dundee isn’t viewed as ‘culturally vibrant’ because it’s getting the V&A. It’s getting the V&A because it’s viewed as culturally vibrant, on the back of a decade of grassroots investment.
4. 4. Capital projects tend to go way overbudget. Chicago’s Millennium Park, (part of a far wider plan to EXPAND the size of the downtown city) was budgeted at $150m, and finally cost over $475m, opening four years later than planned. Santiago’s City of Culture has already cost FOUR TIMES the estimated cost, and is only half built. If this goes even 50% overbudget, it becomes unaffordable, leading to city services needing to be cut to pay for it.
5. 5. Displacement.The business case assumes that due to the ‘high quality, culturally dynamic,
cosmopolitan City Centre", businesses will choose to locate in the city, Bridge of Don and Dyce. The same business case rightfully points out that the buoyant energy industry has seen businesses locate in Westhill, and points out that the Westhill Business Park is scheduled to double in size. It asks no questions as to why businesses have already shown their preference for Westhill than Dyce. Cost of rates, cost of rent, infrastructure? Nor does it express any concern over the fact that both Westhill and Dyce are 7 miles from Union Terrace. There is mention of ‘displacement’, but this specific and very real risk is completely ignored.
6. Small thinking. Chicago’s Millennium Park was part of a deliberate wider strategy to EXPAND downtown Chicago, not concentrate it into a small geographical space. A £92m loan over 25 years could be invested far more widely than in one small space in the city centre. Aberdeen has a wonderful asset in our golden beach, around ONE MILE from Union Terrace. The short distance from beach to the city centre is elaborate due to poor infrastructure, transport links, and an unappealing pedestrian journey.
The TIF loan could be invested partly in rejuvenating the gardens (for which further funding could be sought from businesses, community groups that have already expressed an interest), as well as in improving Union St, and creating an amphitheatre at the beach, with pedestrian route, transportation and a new park area connecting Union St to the beach. Given the simpler parameters, even the concrete web could find a place between Union St and the beack, for a lower cost than in Union Terrace Gardens.
Focussing on only Union Terrace Gardens is woefully small thinking. We need to invest over a wider scale.
7. 7. City of culture bid: Derry’s success in the City of Culture bid seems to have been boosted by capital investment of over £100m before the bid was launched. Unlike Aberdeen, however, this seems to have been invested in both new and renovation projects. Over a dozen separate projects. Far from securing our City of Culture bid, this project is more likely to damage it. A single project is unlikely to generate grassroots groups excitement. It creates a far greater risk, should the project (as mentioned) go overbudget or be delayed. Finally, it’s a highly divisive project, not something we’re ever likely to see the whole city uniting behind.
8. 8. Divisive project: Just as this project has been pushed on when consultation results didn’t go the way backers hoped, opposition will continue even if this project is taken to the next stage. It will face opposition at every turn, which will only add to the likelihood of becoming unaffordable through increased cost, or delay. Having a highly divisive project as the main ‘attraction’ to a city will damage the city of culture bid. Simply the divisive nature of the project should be enough of a risk to vote to cancel it now.
9. 9. Handing over public land to Private ownership: Nationally, there is a growing movement resisting and campaigning against the ‘privatisation’ of public spaces. Combined with media backed stories of over-zealous security staff, of people being barred from ‘public’ places by ‘management’, there is a risk that a high profile project such as this could become the poster boy for the movement. Should this happen, Aberdeen’s reputation will be damaged even further, with the very real risk of ‘renewables’ and socially responsible companies choosing deliberately NOT to locate in the city.
10. 10. Design: Design and aesthetics are rather subjective, however to many, this design is already dated. Concrete underpasses and walkways have been tried before and ultimately end up looking tired quickly. Although the word features in the press releases, the design is certainly not ‘iconic’. Even those who back the project have confessed that the design is ‘not to everyone’s taste’. I’d applaud a bold design, if it worked, but this one doesn’t. Engineers have mentioned that they can’t see how some of it could even be produced. Considering the loan repayment lasts 25 years, we need something that will last at least that long.
Ten reasons, approaching merely ten of the flaws in this ‘business case’ for this project.
I urge councillors to vote to stop this project before any further time or money is wasted on it, so that we can address the wider issues we need to solve to turn Aberdeen into a City of Culture, and an economic powerhouse for the next fifty years.
posted by Mikemuses @ 4:03 PM
0 comments
