U2 studio entries

Great minds think a like…..

Threr also seems to be alot of variations of the tower with ‘bow-shaped’ river facade as well.

One more thing — if I didn’t make it clear, I’m interested in hearing from both those who like the winning entry and those who don’t. Gotta present both sides of the reaction.

I’m also interested in speaking with those of you who have mentioned issues regarding the practical issues raised by the winning design — the fire escapes, the likelihood of this design ever being built as shown, etc.

Thanks again.

Yeah, I’ve heard of people who have received email from the DDDA

Regarding fire escapes. All buildings are required to meet Part B of the Irish Building Rgulations. Part B in turn refers to a number of British Standards mainly BS 5588 (various parts) relating to specific building uses.
A number of people have identified that travel distance as an issue in respect of number and location of fire stairs, this is complicated also by density (number of people). Because a high rise has a cascading effect on numbers normally 2 stairs (minimum) are required (<45 degrees apart),one usually doubling as a fire fighting stair (fireman's stair). A building may also be engineered to a different standard but there is not a lot of high rise fire engineered buildings in Ireland to prove the viability of a single stair high rise. A single stair medium rise residential (low density) building is possibile but alternatives such as zones of refuge must be provided. Hope this helps..

To examine the technical details based on the actual submission material is perhaps falling short of what was intended by this competition. It was(is) an “ideas competition which seeks to find an “idea” or “concept” which can be developed with an investor’s participation and actual hands-on engineering.
Therefore detail compliance with any Regulation is not viable at this stage. This does not excuse a blatant avoidance of regulations but provides the window through which both the competition organisers and indeed the authors can climb in any claim at this stage that the project does not comply with a building regulation. Therefore we must examine the “concept” to find what intentions the authors had/have in addressing any such issues; and indeed the concept was in the most part to be one of “visual” impact ( hence the mandatory 3D images). Without a jury report it is very diffiult to see how a decision was reached, what was the discussion, the main criteria and the main protagonists in this discourse. Still, as has been said before, the main issue here is, did DDDA act within the bounderies of the Competition Rules or not in the actual process of the Jury. Clearly the “Jury” were impressed by this entry and made a decision which is fine, but all the other’s want to know is, who was/is the Jury and what process was engaged here ( including the mysterious Audit !).

A discussion Supramanism and all matters of the expressive zeitgeist would be interesting! but perhaps a little lengthy and certainly in my opinion not with this project as a vehicle!
I do agree that not to be able to execute the idea would be unfortunate, but to say that the contents of 2 A1 panels represents the end- game on “do-ability ” is a rather benign point I think and again represents the clumsiness of the competition process. But , yes, I agree, if the said proposal clearly flaunts the regulations then off with its head! If one is to be critical of the winner then I can but say it lacks the lustre which makes one jump up and say “hey……now I don’t what exactly going on here but it has something…….a presence!” – call me simple but that’s the real mark of a good totem, not whether its staircases work which in this day and age one would expect from any architect worth their salt. I do not belittle the technical discussion but must understand such a project on the level it is presented and question those values in the context of the do-ability. If it doesn’t go out to intellectually challenge then quite frankly I don’t care if the staircases have triple treads and double risers! I would however expect that the authors of a stimulating project would also have the same acumen to achieve the technical issue of execution. That is not to say that all doodles are works of genius and therefore as I opened with, I am not at all sure this situation merits such a hiatus. If this is the norm in Dublin then fine……….onwards and be happy.

Intermission:
FYI: I added another 3 entries late last night
/ Intermision

If the tower is 15 x 15 metres the total area (including circulation) for the tower will be in the region of 3500 sqm, a long way from the density guidelines indicated in the brief……

And assuming 100% usage over 4 stories (for the “podium”) adds another approximately 3,200 sq m gives a total of 6,700 sqm…… still short and this does not even discount stairs lifts etc. Is this the case….?:

Did U2 really get the tower it was looking for?

Architectural Competition

Apart from The Spire, no major project in Dublin has generated as much heated debate in architectural circles as the U2 tower for Dublin’s docklands, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor

Few would disagree that the “twisting tower” which won the architectural competition for a landmark building in Dublin docklands has a dynamic quality. What’s at issue is whether it really was head and shoulders above more than 500 other entries from around the world.

The fact that it was co-designed by Felim Dunne, a brother-in-law of U2’s Paul McGuinness, raised eyebrows – and some hackles. Several of the dozens of e-mails to a discussion forum on the Irish architecture website, http://www.archeire.com, were so libellous that they had to be suppressed.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/property/2003/0904/2141241465RPU2TOWER.html