Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Aberdeen high-rise residents plead for council NOT to take ‘cheaper option’ of demolishing their homes

Residents in eight city multi-storeys agree that something needs to be done, however, asked for "minimal" upgrades to be carried out so they don't have to face the "upheaval of more intrusive works".

Virginia Court, one of the Aberdeen high rises under threat of demolition.
Tennants and home owners in eight Aberdeen high-rises - including Virginia Court (pictured) - were asked to share their views on the state of the buildings. Image: Kami Thomson/DC Thomson.

Hundreds of Aberdeen high-rise residents are fighting to save their homes amid the threat of demolition.

Eight tower blocks could be reduced to rubble as the council faces staggering costs to modernise them.

Those living in the buildings agree that something needs to be done, raising fears about how energy efficient they are at times of increasing fuel poverty.

But almost half of those who responded to a recent survey pleaded with the authority to leave them standing.

Greig Court, one of the Aberdeen high rises under threat of demolition.
Greig Court is located near George Street. Image: Kenny Elrick/DC Thomson.

This would mean a potential price tag of £480,000 per property over the next 30 years, to ensure they meet modern standards.

At a meeting today, councillors agreed to press ahead with a business case outlining the best way forward for the listed Brutalist landmarks.

What were the options put before high-rise residents?

The local authority put five options before high-rise residents last year, seeking their views on the future of the eight tower blocks at risk of being demolished.

Nearly 750 homes in Marischal Court, Virigina Court, Seamount Court, Porthill Court, Greig Court, Hutcheon Court, Thistle Court and Gilcomstoun Land took part.

Hutcheon Court, one of the Aberdeen high rises under threat of demolition.
Hutcheon Court is among those earmarked for demolition. Image: Chris Sumner/DC Thomson.

The options ranged from splashing millions on a full refurbishment and heating upgrades, to a less pricey alternative which would cover only repairs and maintenance.

City chiefs warned that each one would cost “significant” amounts of money, but demolishing the buildings would be cheaper than bringing them up to standard.

So what did residents say?

And while residents agreed that the listed buildings are in desperate need of some TLC, they seemed reluctant to consider leaving their homes to allow for any costly upgrades.

They complained of mould plaguing the communal areas, leaky windows, poor heating systems and broken lifts that make it impossible for elderly tenants to get home.

However, nearly half of those who took part in the survey said they would prefer to do “the minimum” instead of having to face the “upheaval” of more intrusive works.

The results of the survey carried out among Aberdeen high rise residents.
The results of the survey carried out among high-rise residents. Image: Aberdeen City Council.

In fact, 33% of home owners said they would rather sell than endure any revamp disruption.

Others said they would not want to move at all – either if it’s just temporarily while the works are carried out.

And many were concerned they might be asked to chip in for the pricey upgrades.

What happens next?

The report was today put before city chiefs, with housing officers recommending they stick to residents’ feedback and invest “a minimal amount” into fixing up the high rises.

This would, however, still cost the local authority between £7 and £12 million per year to upgrade the properties and maintain over the next three decades.

Corporate landlord chief Stephen Booth. Image: Kath Flannery/DC Thomson

Chief corporate landlord Stephen Booth said: “Feedback from residents showed that tenants favouring the minimum option did so as they did not want the upheaval of more intrusive works.

“Owners who favoured this option did so due to concerns over potential cost.

“There are concerns about the likely success of taking forward any of the more intrusive options as there could be a high level of residents who will choose not to participate.”

Councillors will now weigh in their options and see how each would affect the local authority’s coffers before making a final decision on the high rises’ future.


Read more:

Conversation