Wishart taken to task over City Hall

Oct 21 2011 by Gordon Bannerman, Perthshire Advertiser Friday

Dear Editor, – I refer to MP Pete Wishart's letter of October 7 where he supports the demolition of the City Hall.

While Mr Linacre has put together an ambitious plan to try to secure the preservation of the building, and also make it economically viable as a market hall, what does Mr Wishart have to offer?

He writes that a square would be useful for certain outdoor events, but large activities which he cites such as the Caledonian Cycle race and Enchanted Forest, are of course not possible, and the other events that he mentions – craft fairs and large civic occasions – could be held in either the Conference Hall or in the City Hall itself.

This is why the City Hall was built – to hold community events in a comfortable and sheltered environment.

Mr Wishart seems fixated with the idea of a square as if it were of crucial importance. Edinburgh does not have a square, but for hundreds of years has managed very well without one.

Perhaps a space for a square may be possible in Perth, but the strong objection of the growing force of people is not against a square somewhere in Perth – it is the destruction of this architectural treasure in order to create one.

He naively or patronisingly writes that there are those "who feel attached to the City Hall because of emotional or historic reasons".

I imagine by 'emotional' he must mean the feeling of civic pride, dignity, stability and reassurance that the citizens of Perth have for this majestic and significant building.

It is difficult to conceive why Mr Wishart fails to understand the value of history in society. Isn't history what gives a city its character? Would he consider knocking down St Paul's Cathedral and replacing it with a square because he had a vague idea that it might benefit the city in the next few years without having any tangible evidence that it would?

There is also no argument for saying that the building has been empty for five years – that would be the case for any building whose owners had made little or no attempt to put it to good use.

Mr Wishart's argument is weak, flimsy and ill-conceived. For someone in his position to promulgate such shallow views on such an important issue is indefensible and irresponsible.

Barry Pringle,

saveperthcityhall@gmail.com