Backing beauty

As a long-term citizen of Aberdeen, I feel very strongly that if we let the Ian Wood idea (your report, 20 May) of creating a five-acre site in the centre of Aberdeen "in the style of an Italian piazza or Central Park, New York" go ahead, we are letting down current residents of Aberdeen (City and Shire) and the people who will live here in the future.

The Peacock scheme would have been an excellent choice. Why are we being told that if we don't accept the whole Wood deal – the destruction of Union Terrace Gardens, an oasis in the midst of the granite, with its mature trees and natural valley topography, the covering over of the dual carriageway and the railway etc – then it's no deal?

These moves would make the square a monstrous size in a small city.

Why are supporters of this scheme claiming it will bring money to Aberdeen? Why would visitors be more attracted to this square, similar to so many others in other cities, than to the unique feature we already have?

Aberdeen is not like Italy or New York or anywhere that gets sun and not much rain or north-east winds in summer. Even if it was, there is still no justification for the destruction of an inner-city area of natural beauty.

SHEILA LAM

Watson Street

Aberdeen