Aberdeen Developments

[RapidTaco]

Originally Posted by Scot87

I'm genuinely not trying to convince you of the merits of the scheme Taco. I'm sure you're old enough to decide whether or not you like something without having to have someone tell you. One of my main gripes from both sides in the debate is the use of misinformation and point scoring to try and convince people. Everyone can make up their own minds.

You're correct, there probably is other places within Aberdeen that an ice rink could be set up, think they had one down the Castlegate in years gone by. However the team behind the gardens were asked to provide something that could be used year round and that's what they came up.

Your point regarding concrete is a valid one. I think you either love or hate the design. However I would say to you to look at the wider picture. Compare todays scene, with how it could look:

(Photo courtesy of Aberdeencars.blogspot.com

(Photo courtesy of STV)

If you wanted to, you could claim that there's actually less concrete now, due to the covering over of the road and railway. Technically where there was concrete before, there could be trees and greenery, although that may be taking the piss slightly when stretching the argument

Personally what does it for me is the increased connectivity, the increased green space, the potential of the new arena, the new art centre and the covering over of the dualer/railway line. However in my mind, it's part of a bigger picture in unlocking TIF funding. It's claimed it will unlock £182 million worth of investment in a city centre which has declined recently. This includes an extension to Aberdeen Art Gallery, redevelopment of St Nicholas House site and the North Denburn and the development of new public realm.

Of course you could argue that these projects should/could go ahead without this, but the fact is that they won't. TIF funding is only unlocked for major projects such as this. Union Street, Bridge Street et al are historic and for the most part beautiful places that are in decline. If replacing UTG with this new Garden is part of a wider regeneration of the centre of Aberdeen then I'm willing to lose the gardens in their current form. Personally, and to most of the people I know who voted 'yes', this is the most important aspect to it.

(And here's me saying I wouldn't rant )

Thanks for expanding Scot87. All very interesting and gives a much better insight into the bigger picture. I wasn't aware that Union Street etc was in decline but I suppose there was always a concern with Union Square opening where it did. I would imagine many people drive straight to Union Square now and avoid Union Street and the Bon Accord etc?

Well the people of Aberdeen will decide soon enough, and rightly so

[Scot87]

Originally Posted by RapidTaco

Thanks for expanding Scot87. All very interesting and gives a much better insight into the bigger picture. I wasn't aware that Union Street etc was in decline but I suppose there was always a concern with Union Square opening where it did. I would imagine many people drive straight to Union Square now and avoid Union Street and the Bon Accord etc?

Well the people of Aberdeen will decide soon enough, and rightly so

Not at all Taco, it's an interesting debate in the wider sense. It's not necessarily the empty units on Union St, I think it's the general shabby appearance of it. Buildings are filthy, with various things growing on them, chewing gum on the pavements etc. This has been recognised as they successfully passed the BID recently for the area but it needs more.

Many people do head straight to Union Square these days, it offers plenty of parking and is the cheapest, coupled with housing the likes of Apple, Hollister, Hugo Boss etc. However most of the malls/shopping centres, whatever you want to call them, are doing very well. Off the top of my head U.Square has 4 empty units, Trinity has 1, St. Nicholas has 1 and Bon Accord has 1. They're all within a relatively small area from each other too.

Swaying off topic there, but apparently out of the 165,000 ballots sent out for the Gardens, 46,000 votes have been cast with a week to go.

[Glom]

Originally Posted by Scot87

Not at all Taco, it's an interesting debate in the wider sense. It's not necessarily the empty units on Union St, I think it's the general shabby appearance of it. Buildings are filthy, with various things growing on them, chewing gum on the pavements etc. This has been recognised as they successfully passed the BID recently for the area but it needs more.

Many people do head straight to Union Square these days, it offers plenty of parking and is the cheapest, coupled with housing the likes of Apple, Hollister, Hugo Boss etc. However most of the malls/shopping centres, whatever you want to call them, are doing very well. Off the top of my head U.Square has 4 empty units, Trinity has 1, St. Nicholas has 1 and Bon Accord has 1. They're all within a relatively small area from each other too.

Swaying off topic there, but apparently out of the 165,000 ballots sent out for the Gardens, 46,000 votes have been cast with a week to go.

Union Street is more of a place for booze anyway. They should replace the empty shops with churches so they can be turned into bars.

[loose canon]

Well i've had a look at the design from above and looked at how it is on google satalite view the new design looks the part from the air better that the street level renders, I always remember one of the conditions of the dual carrageway being built was that it was to be covered over and that was back in the eighties I'm sure what may be built now will be better than what was preposed back then. It's just on of these things where you hate to see places you grew up in drasticly change. Just remeber concrete and scotland has quite a checkard history

[Dan]

If this gets voted down, it will be SUCH a shame. I am just upset that 'shire people don't get to vote, otherwise they'd have two yes votes from us.

[Pious Fraud]

Aberdeen bypass legal challenge refused

BBC News 29th February 2012

Campaigners trying to prevent the construction of the Aberdeen bypass have lost their legal challenge.

The 28-mile Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) was originally given the go-ahead by Scottish ministers in December 2009 after a public inquiry.

William Walton, from protest group Road Sense, lodged a legal bid to block construction of the £400m road.

A judge rejected that and Mr Walton then appealed against the decision.

The appeal, before judges in Edinburgh, was heard in December.

Road Sense argued the process of route selection was "fundamentally flawed and unjust".

However, many business leaders in the area support the scheme.

The appeal went ahead after it was agreed Mr Walton's costs would be covered, win or lose.

The full appeal ruling will be released later.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-17202885

[Scot87]

Good news but never really in doubt. Their argument was never a winning one, yet the persist.

Hopefully this will be the end of their fruitless legal challenges but it wouldn't surprise me if they take it to the Supreme Court in London.

The wonders of democracy when 60 or so can delay a piece of infrastructure which would benefit a city and shire population of a bout half a million people.

[RapidTaco]

Originally Posted by Scot87

Good news but never really in doubt. Their argument was never a winning one, yet the persist.

Hopefully this will be the end of their fruitless legal challenges but it wouldn't surprise me if they take it to the Supreme Court in London.

The wonders of democracy when 60 or so can delay a piece of infrastructure which would benefit a city and shire population of a bout half a million people.

Just get on and bloody build the road! How many more appeals do they need?!

[Glom]

Originally Posted by The judge

For all the foregoing reasons the reclaiming motion is refused.

Have you ever heard such a lyrical in your life? It just melts on your tongue like Lindor.

[Scot87]

Originally Posted by RapidTaco

Just get on and bloody build the road! How many more appeals do they need?!

Can only hope that this will in fact be the last one, espicially considering the below. One would have imagined his lawyers would have informed of this to begin with...?

[Scot87]

Nearly 700 days after the Aberdeen bypass scheme was brought to a halt, judges have found that William Walton’s appeal against it was flawed from the beginning.

More than £1million has been spent fighting the university lecturer’s challenge against the Scottish Government’s orders to begin work on the £400million project.

It emerged at the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday that even if the 41-year-old had won, his arguments would still not have been enough to scrap the scheme. Lords Clarke, Bonomy and Philip have ruled against him, saying the basis of his case was “misconceived”.

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2662950

[Scot87]

THE demolition of one of Aberdeen’s worst eyesores – St Nicholas House – is to start within months, the Evening Express can reveal today.

Work to bring down St Nicholas House on Broad Street, Aberdeen, is due to get under way in the autumn.

However, Aberdeen City Council chiefs said the 40-year-old St Nicholas House tower block could be left standing – if the right offer is made for it and councillors approve the deal
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/2664479


(Photo copyright of Urban Realm)

Not sure even with the right cladding they could make it look good? Fingers crossed it comes down.

[RapidTaco]

Originally Posted by Scot87

THE demolition of one of Aberdeen’s worst eyesores – St Nicholas House – is to start within months, the Evening Express can reveal today.

Work to bring down St Nicholas House on Broad Street, Aberdeen, is due to get under way in the autumn.

However, Aberdeen City Council chiefs said the 40-year-old St Nicholas House tower block could be left standing – if the right offer is made for it and councillors approve the deal
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/2664479


(Photo copyright of Urban Realm)

Not sure even with the right cladding they could make it look good? Fingers crossed it comes down.

It's certainly a rotter of a buidling at the moment. It's a decent height but looks totally out of place in that photo. Is there any plans to replace it with anything?

[albatross]

There are no plans yet for anything at St Nicholas House apart from the liberation of medievil Provost Skene's House. Its up for sale, so depends on what the winning bidder does with it. They have all said all the usual suff about mixed use development, hotel, and wait for it... maybe a square, civic heart, blah de blah de blah.

It won't be the easiest bit of land to redevelop. Provost Skene's house is slap bang in the middle of the site, and it will require some prominence. Provost Skene's House also abuts Flourmill Lane, which is a bit of a service lane for shops. You'd want to shield the lane from view, but not encroach on Provost's Skene's too much. The area around the Ilicit still and link from Netherkirkgate could be interesting though if done in a small scale way.

While they are it I would be happy for for them to bring back the Wallace Tower from Seaton Park and integrate that into whatever happens on the site. It was originally somewhere in what is now Markies.

[albatross]

The original plan was for the plinth bit of St. Nicholas House to extend all the way to Union street. If you look at the end of the plinth closest to the Illict Still you can see the wall was only clad in corrugated iron, awaiting the continuation to be built.

[Scot87]

Originally Posted by albatross

The original plan was for the plinth bit of St. Nicholas House to extend all the way to Union street. If you look at the end of the plinth closest to the Illict Still you can see the wall was only clad in corrugated iron, awaiting the continuation to be built.

I didn't know that Albatross, what was to become of the old E&M/New Jamie Oliver restaurant, was it to built alongside that?

You're right regarding site development. Aberdeen Council reckon they can get up to £6 million for the site. Be interesting to see what goes up. A couple of fancy skyscrapers either side of Provost Skene's House would do me

For those who haven't seen it, this sits in the shadow of St. Nick's House, with buildings wrapped around it.


Photo courtesy of http://www.itraveluk.co.uk/photos/da...enes-house.jpg

[Scot87]

Results from an early count of online and phone votes cast in a referendum over a redevelopment of Aberdeen’s Union Terrace Gardens have given backers of the plan an early lead.

They show that 21,501 residents voted in favour of the ambitious redevelopment proposal, christened “The Granite Web”, whilst 16,355 voted in favour of maintaining the status quo.

It is promising news for American practice Diller Scofidio & Renfro, Keppie Design and Olin Studio who prepared the competition winning design, but the final outcome will not be revealed until lunchtime today – when postal votes are tallied.

Half of the schemes budgeted £140m costs will be met through private and corporate contributions, chiefly from the schemes architect Sir Ian Wood.

The remainder will be leveraged from a so called Tax Incremental Financing scheme to be submitted to the Scottish Government. This will see Aberdeen City Council take out a 25 year loan repayable from business rates which would have gone direct to the government and will enable redevelopment of the derelict St Nicholas House and improvements to the Art Gallery to proceed as planned.
http://www.urbanrealm.com/news/3391/...den_vote_.html

-Counting the postal votes at the moment, STV updating quite regularly via http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/29...ns-referendum/
Looks like there'll only be a few thousand in it either way. 'Divided opinion' would be a pretty apt description.

[Urban Life]

Yes it's looking close, and as you said, it appears to have divided opinion. I think that was inevitable that there was going to be a split in opinion, over such a hot issue. I'm just left wondering that if the vote to change UTG wins, it could alienate people who wanted to retain. On such an issue, I think it's not conducive to a concerted feeling of civic pride. It's all a matter of opinion I guess...

It will be interesting times ahead whatever the outcome...

RESULT IS IMMINENT!

[Ultima]

Originally Posted by Urban Life

Yes it's looking close, and as you said, it appears to have divided opinion. I think that was inevitable that there was going to be a split in opinion, over such a hot issue. I'm just left wondering that if the vote to change UTG wins, it could alienate people who wanted to retain. On such an issue, I think it's not conducive to a concerted feeling of civic pride. It's all a matter of opinion I guess...

It will be interesting times ahead whatever the outcome...

RESULT IS IMMINENT!

Much like the Independence campaign, those in the "Yes" corner genuinely care about the wellbeing of the place and continuing progress, those in the "No" corner just generally fear change or are indifferent enough to let somebody else make their minds up for them. The "Yes" will win through in the end and the "No" will forget about it in a month.

[Sweet Zombie Jesus]

Originally Posted by Ultima

those in the "Yes" corner genuinely care about the wellbeing of the place and continuing progress,

You don't think progress can often be carried out cack handedly? As someone who genuinely cares about the wellbeing of places in general I'm genuinely convinced this is an over-the-top monster of an idea.

Still, it's up to Aberdeen to decide...

...

Don't do it!