RabidGiraffe Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Monstrosity. First I wasn't keen on the whole project. Then I went to look at the designs and thought there was potential. Now I'm back firmly in the no camp. When I voted at the exhibition I had this one in my bottom 3. Design completely unsympathetic to it's surroundings. I'm not surprised that it won though. Duncan Rice, head of the judges, is the man that decided to build the Borg spaceship/giant cube library in the middle of the oldest part of the city. Not a bad building in itself, but completely out of place. Link to comment
fatshaft Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Don't think it necessarily does mean it'll date quickly FS. The Chicago Park District (which is where Wood got his inspiration from in the first place) gets updated every 5-10 years with new sculptures, fountains, stages etc and its paid for by local businesses. Chi Town paid for it all in the first place but now the big businesses see it as a way of advertising. Even the Chicago Bean which cost something like $50m was paid for privately. If this is pulled off and its done properly (yeh, I know, lot to ask for ACC) then it could be the beginning of a modern, vibrant city centre. Don't get me wrong, I love some of our old buildings on Union Street, UT and the surrounding areas but they all need a good spruce up and having a clean, smart park in the centre of it all will only encourage the regeneration.Agree with all of that, but this is the wrong project at the wrong cost imo. The Peacock plan would surely have cleaned up the gardens just fine, and the money that the counci l now want to lavish on this scheme, could have gone towards cleaning up the abomination that is now Union Street, particularly what was usually the better top/west end of it, that has now become a hellish mess. Link to comment
dervish Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I just don't know why they would go for this choice, it looks fucking horrible. Unless there is some other series of pictures that makes it look ok. Link to comment
zander Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Think its going to look fucking ridiculous, the new St Nicholas house in 30 years. Link to comment
RabidGiraffe Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Think its going to look fucking ridiculous, the new St Nicholas house in 30 years. I don't think it'll take that long. 10 years max, or most likely the day after it's built. Link to comment
OddJob Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Think its going to look fucking ridiculous, the new St Nicholas house in 30 years.What?? No way is it anywhere near as bad as that Link to comment
spamspamspam Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Agree with all of that, but this is the wrong project at the wrong cost imo. The Peacock plan would surely have cleaned up the gardens just fine, and the money that the counci l now want to lavish on this scheme, could have gone towards cleaning up the abomination that is now Union Street, particularly what was usually the better top/west end of it, that has now become a hellish mess. The Peacock plan though didn't have the funding, didn't have the interest and would've still cost the council Link to comment
beer gut Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Which of course means it will date very quickly. I was rapidly tuirning against this whole plan, just can;t see why the vast expense is reuqired, very much in the woohoo camp myself. However now these faceless idiots have seen fit to over-rule the public preference, I'm not turning against it, I've turned, I'll be a no vote. Monstrosity. First I wasn't keen on the whole project. Then I went to look at the designs and thought there was potential. Now I'm back firmly in the no camp. When I voted at the exhibition I had this one in my bottom 3. Design completely unsympathetic to it's surroundings. I'm not surprised that it won though. Duncan Rice, head of the judges, is the man that decided to build the Borg spaceship/giant cube library in the middle of the oldest part of the city. Not a bad building in itself, but completely out of place. Agree with all of that, but this is the wrong project at the wrong cost imo. The Peacock plan would surely have cleaned up the gardens just fine, and the money that the counci l now want to lavish on this scheme, could have gone towards cleaning up the abomination that is now Union Street, particularly what was usually the better top/west end of it, that has now become a hellish mess. Think its going to look fucking ridiculous, the new St Nicholas house in 30 years. I like it. Its simple, functional and low maintenance. I'm glad they didn't go with a glass structure. All new buildings nowadays seem to be made of mainly of glass. Tey look nice until the seagull shit takes hold. Everything dates, it isn't a bad thing. Look at Marshall College. You could say it's dated but it still works. It's a stunning building. When you build something you should build it of it's time and if it's good it will endure. Unsympathetic to it's surroundings?? What a granite structure surrounded by Granite buildings??? What would've happened if the Peacock lost funding or went bust for some reason? We'd be stuck with a building in the middle of union st that would either become shops or another effing charity shop. And be honest. Who goes to see art anyway? It would be way under used and a waste of space IMO. Comparing it to St Nicholas House is a bit OTT. Link to comment
RabidGiraffe Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The Peacock plan though didn't have the funding, didn't have the interest and would've still cost the council Link to comment
RabidGiraffe Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I like it. Its simple, functional and low maintenance. I'm glad they didn't go with a glass structure. All new buildings nowadays seem to be made of mainly of glass. Tey look nice until the seagull shit takes hold. Everything dates, it isn't a bad thing. Look at Marshall College. You could say it's dated but it still works. It's a stunning building. When you build something you should build it of it's time and if it's good it will endure. Unsympathetic to it's surroundings?? What a granite structure surrounded by Granite buildings??? What would've happened if the Peacock lost funding or went bust for some reason? We'd be stuck with a building in the middle of union st that would either become shops or another effing charity shop. And be honest. Who goes to see art anyway? It would be way under used and a waste of space IMO. Comparing it to St Nicholas House is a bit OTT. It's a very modern design surrounded by Victorian architecture, hence unsympathetic to it's surroundings. Just because it's called the Granite Web doesn't mean it will be made from granite. With the price of granite I can pretty much guarantee you that concrete will be used wherever possible to reduce costs. Who goes to see art? Err, art lovers? There's plenty people visit the Art Gallery nearby. There was also provision for art spaces in all of the garden designs. The comparison to St Nicholas House is perfectly valid. At the time plenty people thought it was a great design that showed Aberdeen was a city with it's finger on the pulse. Now it's ridiculed. I can see this going the same way. Link to comment
beer gut Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 It's a very modern design surrounded by Victorian architecture, hence unsympathetic to it's surroundings. Just because it's called the Granite Web doesn't mean it will be made from granite. With the price of granite I can pretty much guarantee you that concrete will be used wherever possible to reduce costs. Who goes to see art? Err, art lovers? There's plenty people visit the Art Gallery nearby. There was also provision for art spaces in all of the garden designs. The comparison to St Nicholas House is perfectly valid. At the time plenty people thought it was a great design that showed Aberdeen was a city with it's finger on the pulse. Now it's ridiculed. I can see this going the same way. So what are you saying? We should build something Victorian? I don't follow your logic. We should build something modern that compliments the old. We shouldn't copy what's already been built. It ends up looking like a cheap fake. Most art places are 25% funded by the tax payer which i don't agree with. They should pay their own way. If they want an arts centre fucking build one somewhere else. They could try building one in tilly or torry and see how much visitors they get. Pretentious cunts. Link to comment
RabidGiraffe Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 So what are you saying? We should build something Victorian? I don't follow your logic. We should build something modern that compliments the old. We shouldn't copy what's already been built. It ends up looking like a cheap fake. Most art places are 25% funded by the tax payer which i don't agree with. They should pay their own way. If they want an arts centre fucking build one somewhere else. They could try building one in tilly or torry and see how much visitors they get. Pretentious cunts. The design clearly doesn't compliment it's surroundings, that's the point I've been making. You'll find many "art places" as you call them are funded by donations. Try suggesting flattening Tilly or Torry to build a garden and see what kind of response you get. Philstine. Link to comment
spamspamspam Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I see what you're saying about city centre regeneration but I'll pick you up on a couple of points. Firstly I seem to remember Peacock did have the funding, or at least the vast majority of it. As things stand the City Gardens project only has Woodie's £50m (minus the cost of the referendum) plus £5m from another doner. Second, the council cannot fund it through business tax. Business tax goes south, the coucil can't keep it to spend as they like. I completely agree that something needs to be done to revitalise the city centre. Conveting parts of Union Street into something other than empty shops and crap pubs/clubs would be great. I also agree that something needs to be done to improve the UTG area. However, I really don't see what the chosen design will do to enhance our city centre. It's the worst of all possible worlds. Not only is UTG destroyed, but we don't even get something decent in its place. Wasn't it a case of Peacock getting a grant as long as the plans were passed and in place and they had neither? I think they had secured £9m of the £25-30m they said they needed but nowhere near the full amount. All they had was a drawing of a concrete tellytubby land that had an airy fairy arty farty drawing in the window. This is what really put me off when it came to Peacock's objections to the Wood ideas, the claimed it was concreting over the park and their design wasn't but in their plans there was a fucking shit load of exposed concrete. They tried to play on some public opinion and the hype worked with some but when you looked into it they were disorganised and full of shite IMO. They were even trying to lay claim to the Victorian toilets at one point saying they could raise £1m by selling the fixtures and fittings. Not exactly being sympathetic to the history of the park, as they kept claiming. The council have been speaking about a business improvement district tax - BID - that most of the businesses in the area are in favour of, in principle (not for the Wood plan, just in general). Its an addition to their council tax and not an addition to the corporation tax that heads to call me Dave and co. Said it before on here (I think), the reason I was for the plans Wood initially had is because I've seen the Park District in Chicago that his initla idea was based on first hand and its an amazing place to walk round. Said to my missus at the time that Aberdeen would really benefit from something like that but we both said the nimby's would never allow it and if they did ACC would royally screw it up. That was almost 10 years ago and well before any of this was mentioned, shame we were so both spot on but its just what Aberdeen is like and its 75% of the reason Aberdeen is such a shitehole in the city centre now IMO. That and pish poor cooncil planning. They've fucked Union Street with all these pish shopping centres, they've fucked the transport links by allowing the likes of Milne to overload areas with flats and houses without thinking about the infrastructure and they squander money on Olympic size swimming pools and overly expensive council offices when they could've moved into the already built offices behind Total in the city centre and made some small changes to the Bon Accord baths. Oh and lets not forget fucking Len "it wasn't a backhander, honest" Ironside who somehow managed to sell hospitals for 1/5 of their value and keep his post on the cooncil. Its time we got something back from that bunch of crooked cronies... I'm not saying the designs are great, I could've came up with better but it was a start. The way its been handled though by the council, only 1 architect on the committee, forced through by all involved and poorly explained from start to finish means its now doomed to fail. These will now be voted down by joe public and the nae sayers will claim some sort of moral victory while waving big V signs at a man who offered to pump £50m of his own money into the centre of a run down to fuck city. Link to comment
spamspamspam Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 The design clearly doesn't compliment it's surroundings, that's the point I've been making. You'll find many "art places" as you call them are funded by donations. Try suggesting flattening Tilly or Torry to build a garden and see what kind of response you get. Philstine. I agree with this to an extent... Would you be happier if it was a modern design using older building material? Maybe incorporate granite and marble or something along that lines but with a more modern and contemporary feel to it. Link to comment
woohoo Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Wasn't it a case of Peacock getting a grant as long as the plans were passed and in place and they had neither? I think they had secured Link to comment
spamspamspam Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Don't have time to really debate the rest of this, but if Ian Wood really wanted to help the dire state of the city centre, then that Link to comment
Roo Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Why would Wood just hand over Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Like the church at the end of Marrischal college that hasn't been cleaned up, thus rendering the rest of the cleaning exercise pointless? I'm not averse to something being done to UTG, but i dislike the way that Wood has come in and said 'here's Link to comment
RabidGiraffe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I agree with this to an extent... Would you be happier if it was a modern design using older building material? Maybe incorporate granite and marble or something along that lines but with a more modern and contemporary feel to it. I've been to the architect's website to have a look at some more of the drawings. I think one of my major problems with it is that it's very angular/triangular with a look that can only be achieved with tons of concrete. I think the use of mor natural/native materials and a more curvacious approach would have given it a more natural feel that would fit better with the space and the city. I certainly wouldn't want a faux Victorian design, but I think including some of the granite features of the current gardens would have been a nice touch, linking the old with the new, much like I would like to see the granite facing from the Merkland stand included in or around the new stadium in some way. Link to comment
Ke1t Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Now that's kinda spooky... Link to comment
RealAberdeen Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Don't think it necessarily does mean it'll date quickly FS. The Chicago Park District (which is where Wood got his inspiration from in the first place) gets updated every 5-10 years with new sculptures, fountains, stages etc and its paid for by local businesses. Chi Town paid for it all in the first place but now the big businesses see it as a way of advertising. Even the Chicago Bean which cost something like $50m was paid for privately. If this is pulled off and its done properly (yeh, I know, lot to ask for ACC) then it could be the beginning of a modern, vibrant city centre. Don't get me wrong, I love some of our old buildings on Union Street, UT and the surrounding areas but they all need a good spruce up and having a clean, smart park in the centre of it all will only encourage the regeneration. I can't see anything about Aberdeen centre being vibrant againwhen you look at the state of union street and castlegate. All this megabux ideas will look far better on the model than real life. Link to comment
RabidGiraffe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Now that's kinda spooky... Fits at? Link to comment
Ke1t Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Fits at? 'Structures' that have been photographed on the Martian surface. Link to comment
Bobby Connor Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Speaking as an occasional visitor - why not just tidy up the existing gardens? Ye dinna see any plans for Edinburgh to concrete over Princes St gardens? Seems a bit OTT. Hammer to crush a peanut. Link to comment
weapon Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The money would be better spent building a 12 lane road right through aberdeen so i can get to and from work quicker!!!!! 30 mins to just get out of Dyce is a feckin joke!!!!!!!!!"! Link to comment
Betty Swallicks Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I'd give these bad boys a bit of TLC and ask the council to put in a fraction of the money the plans will cost. To maintain, I'd ask the council to put in a fraction of the effort they have put into bowing to the will of some rugger bugger with a bit of dough. This ^^^^ Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Fergie now revealing his support for the development of the gardens. I hope he receives the same sort of reponse Annie Lennox did as it has been 25 years since he lived here - and he only lived here for about 7 years then, rather than being a local (Fuckin Inaboutcomers) Also, P&J mentioning a "Privately-funded" campaign to get residents to vote in favour - despite the option not being the one preferred byt the public and the fact the public already voted not to change the gardens in the first place. Makes you wonder just why they are so keen to get this done? Link to comment
bruceg1978 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 http://thecitygardenproject.com/ Link to comment
The Boofon Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 http://thecitygardenproject.com/ It looks bloody good on that first picture. I've changed my mind. Fill the fucker in. :thumbs: Link to comment
beer gut Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Like the church at the end of Marrischal college that hasn't been cleaned up, thus rendering the rest of the cleaning exercise pointless? I'm not averse to something being done to UTG, but i dislike the way that Wood has come in and said 'here's Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now