Salmond backs £140m plan for city’s gardens

By SHÂN ROSS
Published on Tuesday 21 February 2012 00:36

FIRST Minister Alex Salmond has backed the controversial £140 million City Garden Project in Aberdeen but says the final decision is up to residents.

A referendum on 1 March will ask the public if they want to see the Union Terrace Gardens transformed or stay as they are.

Mr Salmond said he was impressed by the Granite Web design chosen for the site. The Scottish Government must see a finalised business case for the project before it can proceed.

Colin Crosby, director of Aberdeen City Gardens Trust, said: “We are obviously delighted that the First Minister is backing the City Garden Project and, ultimately, the £182m of investment it unlocks in our wider city centre. Alex Salmond recognises that the City Garden Project is truly transformational.”

But campaign group Friends of Union Terrace Gardens said: “While not wishing to stop anyone from saying what they think, the First Minister’s comments on the City Garden Project are unfortunate.

“Aberdeen council have yet to submit the business case to justify borrowing £70m from the Scottish Government for the scheme. We would be concerned about any preconceptions that the First Minister may have prior to his proper role in scrutinising the decision on this.”

Aberdeen businessman Sir Ian Wood has pledged £50m of his own money for the project.

Comments

There are 12 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

12

Aberdeen lad

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 08:14 PM

The SNP and LibDems have done nothing but damage Aberdeen, soon we have the chance to vote them out.

• Report Unsuitable

11

Alan Craigie

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 04:47 PM

News in the EE today. Student attainment declining because the council cut 2.5 million for teaching assistants yet they can spend 90 million on a park. Children pay for this councils foolishness.

• Report Unsuitable

10

Huntly Loon

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 03:24 PM

If the burgesses of Aberdeen had not been far-thinking in 1800 they would never have spent the money to build Union Street in 1800. some naysayers said it was an extravagance to build a road so wide.. Sometimes an opportunity comes along that has to be grasped. The problem is not just the gardens themselves, it is the site which has been an eyesore for the past twenty years. How long were the citizens of Aberdeen going to put up with the half demollished Triple Kirks in the heart of the city. I know there are loads of concrete monstrosities in Aberdeen, but I see the revamping of the gardens, raising them a feature to make them accessible and carrying the public areas through the heart of the city to Marischal College There are very few really old buildings in the heart of the city. Provost Skene's House and St Nicholas Kirk are the only ones left. There is good array of 19th century granite buildings but more could be done with UTG. The problem is not the gardens per se. It is the railwayline and dual carriageway that that could be covered over to increase the publicly available space, but that cannot be reasonable done without raising the level of the gardens to that level and treating the area as a unified space. This will make a far larger green space in the heart of the city and one which might get people to use instead of just having to walk around. .

• Report Unsuitable

9

Alan Craigie

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 01:18 PM

Yes Huntly Loon I support Alex Salmond on the rare occassion he does something helpful. On this occassion he's asking Aberdonians to waste vast amounts of money.

• Report Unsuitable

8

John-R

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Doesnt the council have better things than to BORROW £70million to spend on some Oil Baron's vanity project? Its no surprise Salmond supports it - he will support any crackpot idea a multi-millionaire comes up with to spoil Scotland - just look at the Trump golf course.

• Report Unsuitable

7

Huntly Loon

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 08:54 AM

And I guess if Alex Salmond had wanted the UTG's unchanged , CASHKING7 and Alan Craigie would have been in favour of the proposals. For some people it is not about the gardens but about party poliitical sniping. When was the last time either of you had a wander through the gardens?

• Report Unsuitable

6

Huntly Loon

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 08:49 AM

#2 Aberdingdong. So you think the current gardens are an iconic landmark. Do you think the railway line and the dual carriageway that runs alongside is an iconic landmark and the triple kirks behind? And are you content that there is no access to the gardens from the Belmont Street side? All it is at present is a grassed valley with poor accessibility. To call it a gardens is a misnomer. It is of little use to the elderly and infirm who find access impractical. I was open minded about its improvement, but when I realised I was wary to go down into it, I realised anything would be better than what it is now. I dont know what came of the iconic public toilets, but the UTG are dark and dreary and apart from the trees has not much going for it in the 21st century.

• Report Unsuitable

5

Alan Craigie

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 08:38 AM

Seems Alex wants Scotland to lose it's heritage and become a plastic Americanized country. Not this Scot!

• Report Unsuitable

4

CASHKING7

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 07:46 AM

Anything Fat Alex supports needs to be closely checked, maybe he wants a a nice place for occupy Aberdeen to camp, as he did sweet FA about the tramps in St Andrews square.

• Report Unsuitable

3

Chappit Tatties

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 07:12 AM

#2 Aberdingdong.......... No, you are wrong. The gardens were already a run down spot for flashers and winos when I lived in Aberdeen in the 1970s. To suggest that they are deliberately run down so that developers can develop actually bestows more foresight on the council than i believe they have. We can argue till we are blue in the face about how to improve the gardens but there can be no doubt whatsoever that they are currently a totally wasted resource and present a huge opportunity for the city!!!!!!!

• Report Unsuitable

2

aberdingdong

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 06:38 AM

We hate it. The current gardens are already an iconic landmark, which are steeped in the very history and fabric of the city and its Victorian past. This is a beautiful central green space which does not need destroyed. There is no reason that money cannot be spent to improve the existing gardens and it's connectivity to the city. The fact that it has (in some areas) been left to run down is no reason for forever ruining it. A cynic might say that they have been deliberately ignored to favour the developers in the referendum. This is a clear legacy project driven by ego and a quest for immortality, which is a bit sad really. Improve and invest.....yes. Completely and forever destroy....absolutely not! Unfortunately I have no faith in the integrity of the voting process nor the honesty of the local council (as the 'mistake' in the voting letters clearly demonstrated) This will be a legacy of disgrace and shame for this city if it goes ahead.

• Report Unsuitable

1

Huntly Loon

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 01:00 AM

Well I like it. The current Union Terrace Garden is not fit for purpose for several reasons. The only redeeming features are the mature trees along the Union Terrace side. Access is available only from Union Terrace, whereas the heart of Aberdeen lies to the opposite Belmont Street side. The Gardens fail to make full use of the available space in that on the north side there is the dual carriageway and the railwayline. With those covered the gardens double in size and with integrated access to Belmont Street there is a potentially pedestrianised heart that could stretch via nice restaurants, pubs and individual shops on to the quiet green St Nicholas Kirkyard, on to the plaza over the St Nicholas Centre and onto Provost Skene's House which coulf be made another public open green space on the site of the defunct St Nicholas House. With the beautifully restored Marischal College building to the impressinve facades of Union Terrace we could have a great central city feature of pedestrian precincts gardens and nice shops within an area bounded by Broad Street, Upperkirkgate, Schoolhill, Union Terrace and Union Street. The whole area then has easy access to the Trinity Centre, Bonaccord Centre and Nicholas Centre shopping malls. Easy access is likewise afforded to the Art Gallery, the Central Library and His Majesty's Theatre. as well as Provost Skene's house and Marischal College. The proposed scheme is visionary and it would mean an effort would be made to tidy up the eyesore area by the Triple Kirks. Aberdonians would be foolish to not go ahead with the proposed plan. UTG is at present underutilised and inaccesible. I see that Richard Baker condemned Alex Salmond from expressing a view. As a local MSP he is entitled, nay obliged, to let us know what he thinks. The First Minister would be bebarred as a local MSP from having any input in the decision making process if it landed at the Scottish Government's door. I would imagine Richard Baker would have known that. But he was happy to stir up lies to get his face in the press.

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.