With the City Square Project consultation well under way, significant rumblings are coming from the arts community, objecting to the fact that Peacock Visual Arts’ proposed new centre situated in Union Terrace Gardens was left out of the consultation. They charge Aberdeen City Shire and Economic Future, who is commissioning the consultation process, with not allowing the people of Aberdeen a proper say on the full range of options for the regeneration of the area. Those supporting Peacock also allege that the Peacock Visual Arts’ proposed development is ready to be built, and vital time is being lost pursuing an apparently ‘biased’ consultation on a project that they believe has no support amongst the general public.
Indubitably, the reality of certain situations are being lost in the struggle between the pro-Peacock supporters and those who favour the City Square to win the hearts and minds of the average Aberdonian.
So what is the truth? Are we sillily considering a pie-in-the-sky major revamp of the City Centre when there is a first class arts centre just waiting to lay the first brick?
The truth is that the two proposals are at very different stages in the process. Peacock Visual Arts have already tabled a planning application for a design by architects Brisac Gonzalez. As part of that planning application, they underwent a statutory public consultation. As a point of note, that consultation in particular was notably understated. There were no big public campaigns. The consultation was not inundated with an enormous amount of representations. Given that the PVA arts centre was heralded as a development of international significance, it is unusual that it motivated so little public interest in terms of support or objections. Subsequently, planning approval was granted to Peacock. It appears to be entirely illogical, certainly from a planning perspective, to consult the public twice on an application that has not been altered in any form.
Besides the idea of a second consultation on the arts centre scheme being illogical and an exception to process, it is also financially irresponsible. Statutory public consultations cost money to carry out, and a second consultation on the unaltered Peacock scheme would be an unnecessary expense to the public purse.
The City Square Project is of course at a much earlier stage of development. It is currently a concept - a proposal to create a street-level civic square over the Denburn Valley and Union Terrace Gardens. The consultation is primarily intended to gauge public support for the proposal. A sensible move at this time, as if public support is not forthcoming, then the project can be abandoned without further expense that would be incurred at later stages. The process is also intended to gather ideas for content of the square from the public. These ideas would inform the architects as to what to include in a design for the area. When a design is prepared, and ACSEF has said that this will be done through an international design competition, the design is then submitted as a planning application. At that stage, the public would be consulted on the exact design, and ultimately granted or rejected planning approval. What these facts demonstrate is that the Peacock and City Square proposals are at two very different stages. Drawing a straight comparison between them at this stage would be like comparing apples and oranges.
Of course there are elements of those who support Peacock’s new home in Union Terrace Gardens who would argue that watching the City Square project consultation unfold is an exercise in futility and that the first brick should be laid on their new contemporary arts centre. While this may be a legitimate stance for Peacock Visual Arts to adopt should it wish - it has planning approval after all - the truth is that it funding difficulties prevents them from doing so.
Their new international culture centre, designed by Brisac Gonzalez, has a costed pricetag of £12.5million. Through dedicated work on securing funding, PVA have raised just over £9million towards the scheme, comprised of a £3m contribution from Aberdeen City Council, a £2m award from Scottish Enterprise and a £4.3m grant from the Scottish Arts Council. The £3m shortfall in funding has proven to be a difficult gap for Peacock to close. For months on end, Peacock has failed to attract further investment to the scheme and has had notably little success in attracting private sector funding. For an arts group, this could prove to be a telling condemnation given the enormous donations that private enterprises bequeath to arts groups year on year. Especially in the Granite City, where resident energy companies take a keen interest in funding cultural activities. An uncomfortable truth is that if Peacock did lay the first brick on their scheme, they would find it extremely difficult to raise the necessary funding to lay the last brick.
Upon considering that PVA have not found the capital necessary to start construction on their centre, the obvious extension to be made is to consider how the organisation would be financially sustainable in a building which is significantly larger than their current premises. Reports as recent as October 2008 that contemporary arts sales are suffering as part of the current financial climate do not make promising reading.
Neither is the realisation that many contemporary arts galleries in the UK do not make working profits, and are more often regarded as a ‘justified loss in the name of cultural expedition’ for those who choose to fund them. Important questions about the financial sustainability of the Peacock scheme continue unaddressed.
An interesting development were the efforts undertaken by both ACSEF and Peacock Visual Arts to integrate a contemporary arts centre especially for PVA into the larger scheme. From the point of view of many, there is a dumbfoundedness at the inability to reach a compromise. However as the debate rages on, it is becoming increasingly evident that what PVA seek is not in fact a new contemporary arts building that they can call home. Rather, the Aberdeen arts community have formed an attachment to a particular building, built in a particular way. If what the City Square promises is to be accepted, a contemporary arts centre (whether PVA choose to dwell there or otherwise) will be a central element to the space. With funding tied to the fundraising for the square as a whole, it offers the tenant of that arts centre the possibility of lower costs, and better prospects for viability. Perhaps more importantly than that, the arts centre would be surrounded by a whole range of new amenities.
However with PVA rejecting the opportunity to become tenants of the wider scheme, they have placed themselves in a strategically dire position. Whereas once they could have perhaps tenuously claimed that they were the only cultural offering for the regeneration of the space - the City Square project now boasts a contemporary arts centre (the tenant of which could be as high profile as ambition allows) plus a whole range of content that appeals to those not interested in cultural amenities.
It is clear that the promulgations of Peacock Visual Arts that their scheme has been given the public thumbs up and the rubber stamp of approval from the authorities and is now ready to go must be regarded with some skepticism. In fact, it is they who have placed themselves in a strategic cul-de-sac and unwittingly presented themselves as the non-option for the regeneration of Union Terrace Gardens and the Denburn Valley.
