Were 3W the architects the DDDA were looking for?

Postby el architino » Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:11 pm

el architino
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 4:46 pm
Location: omnipresent


Postby pepe » Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:08 pm

still in denial

U2 Tower Design Takes Centre Stage
October 7th, 2003

Submitted as part of the international U2 Tower Architectural Design Competition, the 100+ shortlisted entries will be exhibited at the IFSC in Docklands from October 9th – 19th. The top 4 commended entries and the winning design by Burdon Dunne Architects/Craig Henry Architects of Dublin will also be on display.

The winner of the competition organised by the Docklands Authority to design a landmark tower development at Britain Quay in Dublin’s Docklands was announced in August. The winning design featuring a unique twisting tower was selected from well over 500 entries from across the globe. The proposed tower is to include an exclusive recording studio for U2 on its top two floors.

The Docklands Authority is currently reviewing development options for the proposed concept design and it is hoped that the tower would be developed during 2004/2005.

The jury specially commended a further four entries which will also be on display as follows:

• Simon Innes and Stephen Barton, architects, London, United Kingdom • Thomas P. Mont Alto, Mont Alto Architecture Inc., Ohio, USA • Niall Scott, architect, Scott Tallon Walker Architects, Dublin, Ireland • Hervé Tordjman, HTA – Architecture. H. Tordjman & Partners, Paris, France The competition, which was prepared in association with the RIAI, invited architects to submit concept proposals for a slim “point” block over four or more substantial floors providing recording studios, offices and ground floor bar/restaurant/entertainment venue. Entries were submitted to a jury put together by the Docklands Authority which included a member of the U2 band.

The exhibition will be housed in a temporary art gallery from October 9th – 19th on Excise Walk in the IFSC (opposite the Clarion Hotel). Opening hours are Monday – Saturday, 11am to 5pm and Sunday, 12 midday to 5pm.
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 11:26 pm

Postby Paul Clerkin » Thu Oct 09, 2003 11:53 pm

There is a statement being issued on Friday
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
Posts: 5427
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Postby b.ray » Fri Oct 10, 2003 1:05 am

so how was the exhibition opening Paul? Did they serve you a fine beverage and chat like nothing ever happened?

Just curious about the event. Great work on your part.
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: usa

Postby Paul Clerkin » Fri Oct 10, 2003 8:39 am

I wasn't at the exhibition.
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
Posts: 5427
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Postby Paul Clerkin » Fri Oct 10, 2003 5:26 pm

The current state of play is that there will be a statement made by both parties next week.
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
Posts: 5427
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan


Postby pepe » Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:11 pm

When did this become about two "both" parties.
Who are these parties.

3W and the DDDA
Burdonne dunne and craig henry
U and 2
ONes lawyers the others lawyers
Bush and Sadam

Who knows who is going to hijack this whole issue.

This is a very complex situation with at 595 interested parties who deserve a refund of the EURO 100 entry fee and a full written apology.

This is not about two firms fighting over the rights to build a tower.

This is about a method of procurement that has raised serious questions about the nature of anonymous (or otherwise) competitions.

And to be honest having witnessed this whole saga I would be extremely wary of entering into any agreement with the DDDA.

If I was the "original" winner I would not sign any contract with the DDDA. No matter how much money or prestige is involved.

Stand up for some principles. Find out the truth but do not have anything to do with those people who are trying to/have tried to cover up the situation.

Say thanks for the compliment and move on.

Everyone seems to be acting in completely selfish interests with the only loser being the truth.

Even if 3W were the original winner. Their entry was not validated.

Personally I do not believe that 3W design was the original winner. Until I see an independently published audit of the proces with documentation of hard copy format and a signed affidavit from all the jury members.

Until then Its an open question. And the lack of an entry fee is something that is a key question here.

(as outlined by the DDDA on their website following the initial comments regardin number of entries and various disqualifications)

How many people submitted designs without the entry fee?

The answer is 12.

How many of these were succesfully traced prior to the judging process commencing.

The answer is 11.

There is one entry that in their original statement (now removed form the website) that did not have an entry fee and they were unable to verify whether it had been paid or trace (through third parties or otherwise).

This entry was apparently disqualified, along with the 42 late entries.

This situation therfore was hanging in the balance right from the first statement.

My understanding is this.

That somehow this single unpaid entry: Managed to somehow (god only knows how) slip through the system and come before the jury.

That 3W claim that they defnitely (triple checked) paid the entry fee and have a receipt that their entry was fuly in order and the money received? Means that unless the DDDA lost the record of the entry fee or the entry fee itself. Then the original winner is not 3W.

And that there is another firm out there, who may or may not have paid the entry fee, and somehow got through to the judges. AND ARE STILL AT LARGE

A NOD (from someone close to the jury) IS NOT ENOUGH CONFIRMATION.




Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 11:26 pm

Postby notjim » Sat Oct 11, 2003 9:24 pm

so which do people prefer, for my part, yeah i quite liked the original winner, but the 3w is really lovely, very elegant.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Postby trace » Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:28 pm

From today's Sunday Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-850910,00.html :

London talks with the real U2 winners
Scott Millar

THE Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) has accepted that an entry from a London architecture firm was the first one chosen by a jury in a competition to design U2’s new recording studio.

Peter Coyne, the chief executive of the DDDA, is to fly to London tomorrow for discussions with 3W, whose entry was the design to which the jury was first predisposed, the authority has conceded.

The DDDA hopes to reach an an amicable resolution with the firm. The deal is likely to include official recognition that 3W had the best entry, and the firm could get preferred entry in future DDDA competitions.

3W was identified as the original winner two weeks ago after Irish-Architecture.com, an internet site, asked all entrants to publicise their designs. The London firm was surprised to discover that the DDDA had commissioned an independent audit by Price Waterhouse Coopers to verify entries. 3W was not contacted by the consultants.

The architects contend that all was proper with their entry and it included all the necessary documentation, including the €100 entry fee.

Yesterday Andrew Wells, an architect on the 3W design team, said: “We want to see this issue resolved next week. There are a number of questions which must still be answered.

“Why if the entry was invalid was Price Waterhouse and legal opinion called in, in an attempt to find the designers of the originally selected entry?” A spokesman of the DDDA said: “We have been in communication with 3W to explain what happened to its entry, just as the DDDA has been in contact with a number of other firms. That process of explanation is continuing.”

The 3W design included a 100-metre concrete tower with an observation platform.
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 1:00 am

Postby shadow » Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:58 pm

It would be more helpful if the jury published a detailed record of the assessment procedure, including the way in which projects were assessed and eliminated. The exhibition is wide in approach and certainly wild in expression. I would be most interested in how the requirements of the brief were achieved; by all or none of the entries and how that aspect of the assessment took place. If Price Waterhouse could be hired to carry out an audit of the entry process surely that investment would have been better spent on the assessment of the "valid" entries in the first place...... Also a book publishing all the entries in the following structure:
Winner 1st
Commended Last 4-5
Short list 30
Exhibition 70
The Rest 400

The scale of reproduction could follow the position in the competition, which would allow everyone to see. If cost was a major issue, reproduction in Black & White would be possible and still not make a major dent in the €50,000+ of fees gained.

The Sunday Times article also refers to preferable treatment in future DDDA competitions for 3W. It seems if you shout loud enough and be prima donnish you will be rewarded beyond justice.
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 1:00 am

Postby pepe » Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:58 pm

All the information, including what happened to all designs.

And the publication (web would be cheaper) and paul is already half way there. Should include every design.
Even those that were disqualfied and didnt make it infront of the jury.

Apart from these articles there has been no actual proof of anything regarding this competition.

and from my experience you cant trust a journalist as far as you could throw them

they will simply head for the best story and edit out anything they dont understand or doesnt fit with what they are trying to get out of it.
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 11:26 pm

Postby trace » Sun Oct 12, 2003 9:53 pm

Hey, pepe, you big ge-ril-a, you - http://www.archinect.com/discuss_cgi/groups/1556.html - among the broad range of projects we have completed is "February 2003: “DDDA Landmark Tower for U2” Dublin" - how come you haven't posted your own entry at archeire.com yet? Don't be coy!
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 1:00 am


Postby pepe » Mon Oct 13, 2003 12:04 am

theres no harm in being angry
but i have no idea what you are talking about?
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 11:26 pm

Postby DogsonFire-2 » Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:06 am

As was raised before the “simple” solution is for the DDDA to agree with the Jury a Jury report, in essence a short log-book of «how they proceeded to make decisions». Not a complex or unusual document (many competition results include such a report) , but one which closes the circle, for all others, discussions of how, when and who. The Jury must physically sign the document and therefore demonstrate unanimously that all written in the report is an accurate version of events.

IF such a document cannot be drafted then it is a poor show indeed. I know what the answer may be, “oh yes we thought of that but we have no minutes of the sessions so we cannot possibly write this as a postscript”. A good enough reason, on face value , but in the circumstances a little smelly really. The Jury may not unanimously agree to it either for obvious reasons UNLESS all wish to see some fair play and meaningful conclusion. It may be that some will have to hide their heads in shame but isn't that a necessary thing if this affair is to be resolved. Why must there be the drawn out interlude of impropriatory action, subdivisions and out-right deceit. You get found out eventually! Unfortunately it is perhaps too late for such meaningful attitude and therefore all concerned will have to skirmish to the death! And an expensive funeral it will be!
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:40 pm

Postby Jeremy » Tue Oct 14, 2003 12:16 pm

Is there some personal connection between Burdonne Dunne / Craig Henry and U2?
Somebody is somebody's brother-in-law or soemthing?
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 1:00 am


Return to Ireland