Stuart MacDonald: Democracy would be biggest loser if City Square goes ahead

LIKE many UK cities Aberdeen has suffered its fair share of post-war architectural travesties. Recent developments, including the proposal to create a vast city centre square that does not raise but rather raze Union Terrace Gardens, are little different.

The obliteration of an important piece of natural heritage is not all that is at stake if the council decides to pursue Sir Ian Wood's City Square proposals. Also in danger is Aberdeen's chance to have a rare piece of quality contemporary architecture. Brisac Gonzales' scheme for a new arts hub sensitively inserted into the historic gardens is now hanging on a thread as its 4.5 million Lottery grant and a 1m investment opportunity will be lost in June.

It would be one of the best contemporary public buildings of the decade and re-affirm Aberdeen as a place of ideas, enterprise and culture.

Sir Ian has offered 50m towards a quoted 140m price tag for the square, and Aberdeen City Council has stated that it will not fund the scheme, although it will have to pick up the considerable maintenance bill if it were built. Even if the private sector were to contribute 20m this still leaves the city with a funding gap as wide as the Denburn Valley to bridge.

Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Forum (ASCEF) suggest that central government will provide this 70m to fund a development for which a robust social or economic case has yet to be made. How realistic is this? At a time of increasing pressure on the public purse and given Holyrood's decision not to finance GARL because the economic case was not "strong enough" ACSEF's contention looks more like wishful thinking than strategic economic planning. In the recent consultation, paid for with 300,000 of public money, people said they most wanted accessible green space with trees and an art centre and they were most concerned about the cost of the square and the amount of concrete needed to build it.

Throughout this public consultation there have also been calls for compromise. However, a range of thoughtful win-win proposals by Brisac Gonzales and suggestions that Sir Ian offer his 50m to support the much needed regeneration of other city centre areas have all been rejected out of hand by ACSEF.

From the start Sir Ian Wood's only criterion has been that the public back his plan. Given the majority 'No' vote in the public consultation one might have expected the vox populi to be respected. But no. Sir Ian and ACSEF dismiss the 'No' voters as a "vocal minority" and have now given Aberdeen City Council an ultimatum: back their plans at a meeting on 19 May or "lose" his 50m. At the meeting the council could instead give the go-ahead to the Brisac Gonzales design which would deliver all that the people of Aberdeen asked for in the public consultation at a fraction of the cost of the City Square and without saddling central government with a 70m bill. This would also leave the door open for an incremental and well thought out development of the city centre and the Denburn Valley.

However, the leader of the council is on record saying that councillors won't vote against the City Square on the basis of the consultation 'No' vote, and the Provost of Aberdeen writes "the City Council is little more than a bystander in the plans for the gardens". There is more at stake on 19 May than the loss of either an historic green space or the chance of having a world-class building that would be a catalyst to the city's creative economy. Democracy itself may be the loser.

• Stuart MacDonald is Emeritus Professor at Grays School of Art.