U2 studio entries
- This topic has 273 replies, 54 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
i can only guess the ddda are preemptively covering their asses.
because of the anonymity controversy at the beginning of the process, they have called in a heavyweight auditing company to ensure the process was anonymous, therefore if someone threatens court action after the result they can wave their big fat audit in the air and say ‘not guilty and we have the papers to prove it, ha ha!’
Originally posted by cajual
i can only guess the ddda are preemptively covering their asses.because of the anonymity controversy at the beginning of the process, they have called in a heavyweight auditing company to ensure the process was anonymous, therefore if someone threatens court action after the result they can wave their big fat audit in the air and say ‘not guilty and we have the papers to prove it, ha ha!’
That’s what I thought too! which implies………FG may be the winner! What a surprise!
Hopefully it doesn’t happen. FG is repeating his curved metal piece everywhere right now which is very sad.
6 months ago, this u2 competition had it all : client, site, open entry. As today … ? Can it be any worse? Let alone the Gerhy scandal, the time process or the program; they reportedly hired Pricewaterhouse coopers to contact some of the competitors. Here is why : they apparently lost the connexion between some of the sealed enveloppe and the presentation boards. How many is not known.
So, they sent out the problematic ‘sealed enveloppes’ out to be opened by pwhc (remenber they got 600*100 euros – 12000 = 48000 euros pocket money). Pwhc then contacted the competitors asking them to submit a email copy of their writting report.
Isn’t it that weird? Why not asking for an image to quickly link the competitors to the panels?
The second theory is much more appealing to the contacted ones, pwhc is gathering information for a larger report and as the competition process takes ages, they asked the docklands for a short list.of course the above are just possiblities.
I just can’t imagine docklands hiring pwhc to make 500 phone calls. Pwhc doesn’t come cheap.sorry for the monologue.
The main question for me right now is why asking to resubmit the presentation sheet?
Can’t they just send out all the sealed enveloppes to pwhc, choose someone, call pwhc saying we go for number xxx, pwhc opens the enveloppe and here is the winner.What they have done now is opening the letters, finding out who’s who. Doesn’t sound very anonymous competition friendly.
If what they are trying to get is credibility following the anonymity controversy , weird thinking.
THEY HAVE OPENED THE SEALED ENVELOPPES!the only proof of anonymity.
Please can someone explain me this?well, i would assume by giving the envelopes to a third party (pwc) they maintain the process of anonymity- which is the reason they don’t carry out this audit themselves and they hire someone independent.
as for asking for an image to identify the project, i would say most offices would be very reluctant to email images to someone in case they are abused in some way- leaked to the press, copyright infringement etc… so asking for the report is like asking for the least sensitive document of the submission.
however, i agree that what started as a great opportunity for all parties has degenerated into a bit of a mess. the ddda are absolutely not fit to carry out an architectural competition of any size, let alone one this big. starting from the provision of a half-assed brief, the awarding of ONE prize which is one sixth of the entry fees, the lack of two-stages, no association with the RIAI (i think), complete confusion as to how to pay the entry fee (they told me to send cash in an envelope!!), then the complete lack of a deadline for the results, and now the hiring of an independent auditing company to verify the process….
well, lets hope it’s worthwhile, and they pick a winner that is in the spirit of an open architectural competition- something new, interesting, and not dependent on reputation…
i should also add that the Great Egyptian Museum competition was run incredibly smoothly, with 1600 competitiors, and because of it’s openness and fairness it gives a talented ‘unknown’ the opportunity to shine- lets hope the DDDA do the same….
If all this PWC issue is true then it makes for an interesting jury scenario- Architecture Competion judged by accountants….mmmmm I always know really that Architecture is but a toy to many who become instant experts ……..a frail truth of the profession I’m afraid. What are they auditing ? how many words or colours were used or quantities of lines or different shapes……..maybe how many cliches have been employed! And anyway who are the Jury? So many questions , so many scenarios………..and above all so much confusion! surely something PCW are familiar with in their dealing with suspect clients around the globe (did I mention Aurther Andersons?) Money for old rope……….and that’s what Architecture is right now….old rope!
the same question remains:
1) Why did they have to open the enveloppes for?
2) The enveloppes opened, whydoes pwhc need a document to identify us?
3) 6 months after submission, can there still be 500 competitors to choose from (shortlist)?
4) Has everybody been contacted by pwhc?
from what i hear PWHC were not ready to make 500 phone calls or recieve 500 emails.
it is ridiculous to think that after 4 months of jury deliberation they are still dealing with 500 entries.
either the teams contacted are in some sort of shortlist(positive or negative) , or have been choosen at random for some sort of verification process.
what this means i dont know.
It’s not winning that matters but taking part — and paying €100
Sue continually scans the skyline but can see no sign of work beginning on the proposed €60m studio for U2 in Dublin docklands. Last November the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) announced a “global†competition to find an architectural design for the Fab Four’s new quarters. The winner was to be announced in June . . . and then it all went awry.
First it emerged that a member of the band had been seen leaving the Santa Monica studio of Frank Gehry, a world-renowned architect and competition entrant. As another member of U2 is on the judging panel, other competitors cried foul.Price Waterhouse Coopers has now been called in to oversee the judging process. According to the DDDA this is to meet “European regulationsâ€. But Sue has heard that envelopes containing the competitors’ identities were accidentally opened, threatening the golden rule of anonymity.
There’s no fear of the DDDA losing money on the affair. It has already earned €50,000, with 500 entrants paying €100 each. They say the winner will be announced “within the next three monthsâ€. Sue’s money is still on Gehry.
From the Sunday Tribune:
DDDA still hasn’t found what it’s looking for
SHANE COLEMAN
The Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) has taken the unusual step of hiring consultants to undertake a “due diligence validation exercise” on each of the 500 entries for the architectural competition to design a 60-metre landmark tower on the Liffey, which will include an exclusive recording studio for rock band U2. Competitors – which are understood to include some of the top names in world architecture – were asked to submit the entry form in a separate envelope from their designs to ensure the judging panel were unaware of the architect behind the designs they were assessing.
Now the DDDA has brought in Pricewaterhouse consultants to double-check the designs submitted correspond to the separate competition entry form. This is despite the fact that the regulations stated that the DDDA, on opening each submission, would place a number on each of the enclosed documents and the same number in the envelope containing the offi- cial competition entry form.
Despite rumours in the architecture world that there was a mix-up and the authority was unaware of the identity of certain designs – including the design chosen as the winner – a spokesman for the DDDA said he “categorically denied” this was the case. “The authority has not misplaced any application forms. This is simply an exercise designed to ensure that everything is correct. It is not unusu- al. The DDDA has never had a response of this level before. It’s a huge exercise,” the spokesman said.
He rejected the suggestion that it would have been more efficient and logical for the DDDA to simply contact the top 10 designs to confirm their identity. Emphasising the impotance of the competition, the spokesman said that the process of verification was almost complete but said a winner had not yet been selected.
The DDDA should publish a book containing ALL of the entries, good or bad!
I think that it would be an essential item in every practices library, giving a great insight into how architects approach competitions, from the famous to the unknown.
We could make our own minds up on the outcome of the competition.
The 500 page glossy coffee table book would also be a nice little earner for the DDDA considering the hits and interest on this thread.
There is noe more competition entry to be published in the web: http://www.fsck.it/html/radrob/works/curricula/competitions.html
Should the DDDA wait still a little with its decision, I wouldn´t wonder when all competition entries will be by than public.
that one sort of looks like a cancun hotel to me:
http://www.veloso.com/Imagens/park%20royal%20cancun.jpgThis was indeed a kind of quint-essence of what the DDA had in mind as they wrote out the competition.
And in the tower sits Bono-Rapunzel with wailing hairs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
