Two cases of culpable homicide (1)
Kenneth Roy
Two cases of culpable homicide (2)
Bob Cant
No room for this in George Square. Photograph by Islay McLeod
The citizens of Aberdeen were allowed to have the final say on the City Gardens Project that would have replaced the historic Union Terrace Gardens in the city centre. The citizens of Glasgow are currently being denied any similar right over the extraordinary scheme to transform the equally iconic George Square in the heart of the city. Why is this the case? Who has made this decision?
Politicians of all political parties now talk endlessly about devolving choice to the people, about curtailing the role of officials and experts, and above all about highlighting transparency in relation to how exactly decisions are made. Over the issue of George Square, Glasgow City Council has a golden opportunity to transform all this rhetoric into reality.
Last year a decision was made (by whom?) to begin consultations on the future development of George Square. A council spokesman has said: ‘We carried out an exercise last year involving resident focus groups and in-depth stakeholder interviews. This played a role in establishing what the future vision of the square should be, as well as priorities in terms of the redevelopment’. As always, the language used makes it clear where this ‘exercise’ is coming from: we are instantly in the PR world of focus groups and ‘stakeholder’ interviews – inevitably ‘in-depth’ ones.
Less clear though is what exactly the ‘priorities’ were that these interviews apparently established. What we do know is how many people were interviewed: 42, and not all of them were in favour of the major changes to George Square being proposed. On the other hand, we also know exactly who the seven so-called ‘stakeholders’ were – all of whom turned out to be enthusiasts for a radical redevelopment of George Square. The list makes interesting reading: the Glasgow Hoteliers’ Association, the Glasgow Restaurateurs’ Association, Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, the Glasgow Marketing Bureau, the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS), and perhaps more oddly, Strathclyde Passenger Transport and Strathclyde Police.
George Square’s ‘stakeholders’ turn out not to be the ordinary people of Glasgow, but more or less exclusively those involved in the business, commercial, and entrepreneurial life of the city. Who has decided that the ‘priorities’ of this narrow section of the city’s population should have such privileged status?
In any event, the planning report based on last year’s ‘consultation’ led to the decision to set up an architectural competition – only major companies need apply – organised by RIAS, and designed to create a brand new, up-to-the-minute George Square, fit for the 21st century. Council leader Gordon Matheson has been an enthusiastic proponent of this scheme. According to him, ‘it is absolutely essential we choose the very best designer-led team to create a new George Square fit for the 21st century. I look forward to working with the winning design team, and the people of Glasgow, to give the city the George Square it deserves’.
An alternative version of Mr Matheson’s comments has him saying he looks forward to working with the winning design team ‘to develop their design and give the people and businesses of Glasgow the George Square they deserve’. In any event, exactly how Mr Matheson will be working with the people of Glasgow is left unexplained.
If nothing is done to stop or delay the process, what the people of Glasgow will see in the next few weeks is the fulfilment of the planning report’s principal objective: the creation of a new George Square based on ‘a wholesale re-examination of its image and functions in order that it can be regarded as a place fit for the 21st century’. The winner of the architectural competition will be announced in the next few days. And the £15 million programme of work will begin immediately – because the spruced-up square has to be ready in time for the Commonwealth Games.
The most controversial aspect of all six designs submitted to the competition – they are currently being exhibited for a few days in Glasgow’s Lighthouse Gallery – concerns the status of the dozen memorial statues that are at present a major component of George Square. As far as one can make out, a decision was taken in advance (by whom?) that the existing statuary (other than – surprise, surprise – the Cenotaph) could be either shifted around within the square or simply permanently removed. As a result, all six of the competing schemes involve the moving or removing of some or all of the existing statues. Why was this decision taken from the outset? Well, according to at least one report, Glasgow City Council’s leader believes that the statues are no more than ‘unknown, lifeless relics from a bygone era’. Clearly unfit, then, for an up-to-the-minute 21st century.
Presumably not all of those involved in the creation of a new George Square agree that the statues of such figures as Robert Burns, Sir Walter Scott, and James Watt have no relevance to the 21st century. But the universal agreement that the existing statues cannot be left exactly where they are gives the game away over what the proposed modernisation of George Square is really about. The existing statues are clearly seen as blocking the entry of George Square into the brave new world of 21st century free-market, capitalist entrepreneurship. The anticipated image and function of the proposed new square emerge exclusively from the world of business and commerce, marketing and selling, enterprise and wealth creation.
A George Square fit for the 21st century is a George Square given over to the commercialised world of shows, fairs, exhibitions, promotions, pop concerts, and sporting events. The statues belong to a different world – so sideline or dump them.
The truth is rather different. George Square, with its statues, is at the heart of Glasgow’s reputation as one of the world’s great Victorian cities. The statues in George Square speak of the literary, scientific, military, and political history of Glasgow and the whole of Scotland. They symbolise and represent the kind of achievements that gave Glasgow and Scotland their worldwide identity and reputation. To remove them is to demean the city and betray its past.
Will the judges of the planning competition agree? Somehow I doubt it. Who are they? (And who chose them?) One is the current organiser of the ‘T in the Park’ pop concerts. Another was the designer of the Barcelona Olympic village. Two are modernist academics linked to the Mackintosh School of Architecture. Gordon Matheson is also a judge, while the secretary of RIAS – best known in Glasgow as the planner of a night club in the city’s Botanic Gardens – has a role as an observer on the judging panel. At the very least a mechanism should be created that allows the Glasgow public to react to this panel’s verdict. Anything less would mean that Mr Matheson’s promise that the redevelopment of George Square would only proceed with the involvement of the people of Glasgow was utterly meaningless.
Of course, action of some kind is required over George Square. If nothing is done, it will follow the example of once proud Sauchiehall Street into increasingly shabby and dismal decline. But a reckless rush into a modernising ‘fitness for the 21st century’ is not the answer. Council leader Matheson and his colleagues might like to ponder this question: what would Boris Johnson say to a planning proposal for a 21st century Trafalgar Square that involved the immediate removal of Nelson’s Column?
Andrew Hook is a former professor of English literature at
Glasgow University
