U2 studio entries
- This topic has 273 replies, 54 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 12 months ago by
.
- Posts
what an illiterate. surely he means posts to a discussion forum, or entries, or opinions expressed. e-mail? thats so 2002 man.
dont mind advice paul, go kick his editorial ass
I have no argument with Joe the Architect, it is shameful that an Architect is chosen that clearly has not satisfied the rules, and as I said before…………..â€off with his head†…but this is now perhaps too late, as the great ones have sent the white smoke and pronounced the result. I do however still further the issue that it was a concept that was required here and one which, raised the spirits, created enigma and set out to challenge ( the rules even!). For me anyhow there is nothing here in this proposal with these 3 attributes; so if it can not satisfy the technical attributes in tandem then it represents very poor judgement and the investor should think about who represents them on a jury for such occasions.
As to debate, hmmmmmmmmmmm perhaps I will stop doing this now, as I do not wish to continue adding to the possibility of making this project any more infamous than it already is.
This entire debacle doesnt merit the debate of whether it has been an ideas or technically based “competition”.
It has been a farcical excercise in incompetance from start to finish, and a humiliation for the DDDA, the architectural profession and its representatives in this country.
There has been justifiable outrage amongst compeditors internationally to discover the “co incidental” Dunne/McGuinness connection, but this has been further exacerbated by the latest revelation that the REAL winner couldnt be traced because the DDDA had lost their details!
This is becoming a very bad Irish joke……..Must read ALL posts before posting new post.
Sorry for posting that again.
I’m off to make cane myself.An ideas competition is a competition where the organiser seeks ideas in relation to a project (or issue), whose terms are not finalised, but may be finalised depending on the ideas that the competition identify. From which point a new competition or commission is organised based on those ideas.
An architectural competition (other than ideas) is one where the ideas have been properly formulated and the terms and references for the Brief clearly stated. In this instance certain criteria are identified which must be fulfilled.
In relation to this “competition” (U2) it was presented in a fashion much closer to the latter. It had clear terms of reference for use, density, height (parapet height – usually meaning the last usable floor+balcony/parapet rail), set backs etc..)
There have been too many competitions where the basic premise or conditions of the brief have been ignored or rewritten during the judging process.
For instance during the judging for the “Spire” the jury changed from considering all possibilities (brief) to consider only those that had no access, (climbing, lift, stairs etc.). One of the jury members, in the offical report, indicated that since people had access to “ryanair” there was no need to climb the “tower” to see the city. If that was a basic premise of the competition perhaps there would be a more unified and higher quality response to the problem. Not to mention this change ignored the wonderful opportunites that an occupied tower might have had for the city centre and the ability of its citizens to possess in real terms the public realm.
While “real” comptetitions contain ideas (obviously very important) they are measured by the basis upon which they are judged.
i’m confused….is it being stated ( in the article) that the winning entry has no formal entrance information associated with it? Was it (entrance information) lost by the DDDA, what exactly is he saying?
As a competitor I feel totally naive for not having listened to myself when I wondered why such a prestigous competition did not have a defined jury or a defined process outlined for selecting a winner. Should have seen it coming.
I hope that all you locals can organize some sort of presence when and if they have the exhibit…be nice to have the collective voice heard outside the forum.
Truly a confused result on many levels.
When I first read Contradicts message (several before) I misread it to read, “I’m off to cane myself” !…and I thought, how apt in this singular masochistic scenario ! well, it would beat entering the competition! and indeed echoes that of the last message from b.ray. Truly those that entered the competition have been led a merry dance, by the pied piper( aka DDDA) and if there is some truth to the proposition that another project was actually selected for the winner then , what are we waiting for……..call the lawyers! But who dares to?!
They obviously don’t like his type around here! Anyhow, we have to ask ourselves a global question as architects. Do we wish to continue collecting named architects around the world like Rem Koolhaas, or Gehry now. So we can just say, that is our duty to the city done and dusted. . . A Calatrava at one end, and a Gehry at the other, with an Ian Ritchie in between. This has happened in Europe and the United States, all too often. To the detriment of architecture in general.
The major impulse of the architectural profession seems to be quite similar to the dynamics of media-hyped ‘stars’ now. Like the David Beckam needing the media, and the media needing him.
Just added another five entries to the online gallery…..
http://www.archeire.com/unbuilt_ireland/dublin/u2_tower/index.htmlHearing that the name of the original winner’s were lost and could be not matched to the entry….this whole competition definitely reeks of something fishy………especially when there is a bit of nepotism involved in the end.
Bunch of f*cking monkeys who ran the competition. Have a banana……..hold on…
so what was portrayed to use as the winner of the contest was not actually the winner of the contest?
this whole deal is sounding less and less reputable every day.
YES…..
“As part of this exercise, all of the entrants were requested to submit digital versions of their schemes, to aid efforts to match drawings with names in the mountain of material that the competition generated. But even this stratagem did not resolve the issue because no entry form could be found for the one chosen by the jury.
To this day, nobody can say for certain who the original winner was – so some architect, somewhere in the world, has missed out on a prestige commission due to incompetence on the part of the organisers. And Dublin will never know what might have been erected at the end of Sir John Rogerson’s Quay.
Thus, Felim Dunne’s practice, Burdon Dunne Architects, together with Craig Henry Architects – both based in Blackrock, Co Dublin – emerged as the winners by default. Had the competition been left in the hands of the RIAI, which knows how to organise these things, we would be looking at a different result.” Source: The Irish Times
If what Paul Cherkin writes is «actual» then surely this raises the main question again. Did the organisers comply with the Competition rules or not?
If a «seconded» proposal was selected..how was this achieved?…….it is not however as Paul Cherkin writes ,by default if the mechanism for such a situation is not clearly regulated in the first place by the competition rules.Can DDDA and/or the reputable Price waterhouse Coopers provide a clear and unambiguous statement to explain this? Surely this is their legal responsibility. Further to this what is RIAI thinking on this issue, do they think on this issue, do they care about this issue ? and if so what is their statement.
Cards on the table, face up please. Perhaps rather optimistic to expect such behaviour but one would think that the fee paying members of the RIAI would seek some lobby. After all it’s there professional body and their right! Or this is to , how do I put it, academic! Probably, but a damn shame !
will they at least exhibit the “unknown” winner in mid-september? doubt it, probably lost all the exhibits by now!
what a disgraceful event it was.
This is going to run and run…..
My business partner used to work with frank in the Irish Times and said that Frank was the most meticulous journo in there – very little subbing / correcting of facts to be carried out on his pieces…today out of interest I asked the DDDA what their position was on the allegations of the lost winner….. from Peter Coyne:
“We are in touch with the Irish Times in connection with the article.
I can say, without equivocation, that there was no administrative or other error on the part of the Authority which affected the outcome of the competition and specifically we did not lose any application forms as suggested. I want to stress that the winning consortium is the true and valid winner and that they won it “fair and squareâ€. I would request that the issues raised erroneously were not given any further airing at all as they are damaging, not only to the Authority, but to the winning architects who deserve congratulations not innuendo.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
