UCD Competition

Who’s on the shortlist

http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2007/000032.html

I agree it is a surprise and it would be interesting to see what standard the domestic entries were as a number of Irish practices can certainly compete at any level, particularly civic buildings given the number of those commissioned over the past 20 years.

The entries look a very mixed bag and some of the entrants past work featured whilst very high quality doesn’t strike as being directly relevant to the brief.

If ya ain’t got turnover of a 50 million euro project (them’s da rules), ya can’t get ta bat! What more d’ya want? Hugh’s an American… And we’re all fucked.

Was that a requirement of the competition, then?

Eligibility
In order to be eligible, firms shall demonstrate that they have extensive experience in the design of institutional/commercial buildings of or in excess of 20,000 gross square metres. They must also demonstrate experience with the design of large civic spaces and associated landscape and open space design. Firms must have successfully completed prime consulting contracts for major capital works in excess of €50,000,000.
http://www.ucd.ie/gatewayproject/htm/competition_info/index.htm

From reading that link, it seems anonymity did not feature. Big mistake.

It’s interesting to note that there seems to have been a turn away from domestic practices in this competition, whereas in the 1960s one it was an uphill battle to make the competition international rather than a closed, Irish-only one.

Is this an evolution…? Still, what should we expect from a president who wants his university to be the next member of the Ivy League? Or is it the next member of the Forbes Rich List? What’s next- privatisation?

this sounds to me to be restrictive trading and unfair. No one in Ireland or Scotland and not many in the UK or indeed internationally would comply on this basis. surely . Consequently there are only a few practices that could make the cut. Is this a European directive or one composed by UCD?.

The directive is here

Training of architects
1. Training as an architect shall comprise a total of at least four years of full-time study or six years of study, at least three years of which on a full-time basis, at a university or comparable teaching institution. The training must lead to successful completion of a university-level examination. That training, which must be of university level, and of which architecture is the principal component, must maintain a balance between theoretical and practical aspects of architectural training and guarantee the acquisition of the following knowledge and skills:
(a) ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical requirements;
30.9.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 255/47 (b) adequate knowledge of the history and theories of architecture and the related arts, technologies and human sciences; (c) knowledge of the fine arts as an influence on the quality of architectural design; (d) adequate knowledge of urban design, planning and the
skills involved in the planning process; (e) understanding of the relationship between people and buildings, and between buildings and their environment, and of the need to relate buildings and the spaces between
them to human needs and scale;
(f) understanding of the profession of architecture and the role of the architect in society, in particular in preparing briefs that take account of social factors;
(g) understanding of the methods of investigation and preparation of the brief for a design project;
(h) understanding of the structural design, constructional and engineering problems associated with building design;
(i) adequate knowledge of physical problems and technologies and of the function of buildings so as to provide them with internal conditions of comfort and protection against the climate;
(j) the necessary design skills to meet building users’ requirements within the constraints imposed by cost factors and building regulations;
(k) adequate knowledge of the industries, organisations, regulations and procedures involved in translating design concepts into buildings and integrating plans into overall planning.
2. The knowledge and skills listed in paragraph 1 may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 58(2) with a view to adapting them to scientific and technical progress. Such updates must not entail, for any Member State, any amendment of existing legislative principles relating to the structure of professions as regards training and the conditions of access by natural persons.

Article 47
Derogations from the conditions for the training of architects 1. By way of derogation from Article 46, the following shall also be recognised as satisfying Article 21: training existing as of 5 August 1985, provided by ‘Fachhochschulen’ in the Federal Republic of Germany over a period of three years, satisfying the requirements referred to in Article 46 and giving access to the activities referred to in Article 48 in that Member
State under the professional title of ‘architect’, in so far as the training was followed by a four-year period of professional experience in the Federal Republic of Germany, as attested by a certificate issued by the professional association in whose roll the name of the architect wishing to benefit from the provisions
of this Directive appears.
The professional association must first ascertain that the work performed by the architect concerned in the field of architecture represents convincing application of the full range of knowledge and skills listed in Article 46(1). That certificate shall be awarded in line with the same procedure as that applying to registration in the professional association’s roll.
2. By way of derogation from Article 46, the following shall also be recognised as satisfying Article 21: training as part of social betterment schemes or part-time university studies which satisfies the requirements referred to in Article 46, as attested by an examination in architecture passed by a person who has been working for seven years or more in the field of architecture under the supervision of an architect or architectural bureau. The examination must be of university level and be equivalent to the final examination referred to in Article 46(1),
first subparagraph.

Article 48
Pursuit of the professional activities of architects
1. For the purposes of this Directive, the professional activities of an architect are the activities regularly carried out under the professional title of ‘architect’.
2. Nationals of a Member State who are authorised to use that title pursuant to a law which gives the competent
authority of a Member State the power to award that title to Member States nationals who are especially distinguished by the quality of their work in the field of architecture shall be deemed to satisfy the conditions required for the pursuit of the activities of an architect, under the professional title of ‘architect’. The architectural nature of the activities of the persons concerned shall be attested by a certificate awarded by their
home Member State. L 255/48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.2005

Article 49
Acquired rights specific to architects
1. Each Member State shall accept evidence of formal qualifications as an architect listed in Annex VI, point 6, awarded by the other Member States, and attesting a course of training which began no later than the reference academic year referred to in that Annex, even if they do not satisfy the minimum requirements laid down in Article 46, and shall, for the purposes of access to and pursuit of the professional activities
of an architect, give such evidence the same effect on its territory as evidence of formal qualifications as an architect which it itself issues.
Under these circumstances, certificates issued by the competent authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany attesting that evidence of formal qualifications issued on or after 8 May 1945 by the competent authorities of the German Democratic Republic is equivalent to such evidence listed in that Annex,
shall be recognised.
2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, every Member State shall recognise the following evidence of formal qualifications and shall, for the purposes of access to and pursuit of the professional activities of an architect performed, give them the same effect on its territory as evidence of formal qualifications which it itself issues: certificates issued to nationals of Member States by the Member States which have enacted rules governing the access to and pursuit of the activities of an architect
as of the following dates:
(a) 1 January 1995 for Austria, Finland and Sweden;
(b) 1 May 2004 for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus,
Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and
Slovakia;
(c) 5 August 1987 for the other Member States.
The certificates referred to in paragraph 1 shall certify that the holder was authorised, no later than the respective date, to use the professional title of architect, and that he has been effectively engaged, in the context of those rules, in the activities in question for at least three consecutive years during the five
years preceding the award of the certificate.

I can see nothing in the directive that allows an exclusion on the basis of not having previously completed a build of c20,000 sq m assuming a build cost of €2500 per sq m. Where this gets really interesting would be what if a talented Estonian architect had built 50,000 sq m at a build cost of €1000 per sq m and was excluded on the basis of turnover?

Anyone know if you can get to see the entrants. Would love to see what Zaha Hadid has put forward, certainly she’s one of the most interesting architects currently at work internationally.

“Plans were today unveiled for a dramatic new redevelopment of University College Dublin’s main campus by an internationally renowned architect.

The project will see huge new curved buildings, fronting onto one of the capital’s busiest roads, that will enclose a revitalised “green oasis” at the heart of the site.

It will also incorporate a striking new ‘Gateway’ into the university from the N11 as well as a culture and exhibition centre, cinema, hotel, student residences, office and retail facilities, crèche and medical centre.

The design by award winning German architect Christoph Ingenhoven, best known for Lufthansa’s new headquarters in Frankfurt and the new European Investment Bank headquarters in Luxembourg, follows an international competition involving 62 firms from across the globe.

Dr Hugh Brady, President of UCD, said the university was delighted with the architect’s vision which has yet to get the green light from planners.

“The creativity of the design from Christoph Ingenhoven’s team meets the vision we set out to create a precinct of modern beauty which blends with the natural landscape of the campus and surpasses environmental standards for energy usage,” he said.

Inside the new enclosed area green spaces will be bounded by a tree-lined belt walk with pathways creating stronger links between the various campus buildings.

The architects want to reduce the size of the existing lake and soften its edges to create space for the new circular green spaces.

The centrepiece of the 13 hectare redevelopment will be a huge six-storey high open air ‘Gateway’ covered with a glass roof and a pedestrian plaza.

The Gateway buildings will include the new exhibition centre, cinema, hotel and 1,000 new student residences as well as other attractions.

“The new facilities will enable the university to expand its academic and non-academic conference provision and increase the out-of-term usage of the campus,” said Dr Brady.

The design includes a proposed lightweight arch design for an extension to the N11 flyover with a new bridge providing a safer pedestrian environment at the entrance to the campus where people will be given priority over vehicles.

Existing surface carparks will be replaced with multi-storey and underground parking with the reclaimed land being used as green space in the beltwalk parks.

The ‘Gateway’ complex will integrate low energy and building control systems to reduce total energy consumption, intelligent facades to provide insulation, natural ventilation and maximum daylight, the architects say.

Efficient lighting systems, solar and geothermal-backed conditioning systems and “non stand-by” technologies will also reduce energy demand, according to the designer.”

more here
http://www.ucd.ie/campusdevelopment/announcements/072407_gateway.html

N11 bridge looks pretty cool anyway…

They’ve Calatravaed up the bridge-will it be as good for the guards to hide out under with the speed guns?-good to see all the hideous bus stops gone as well. get all dem lazy student feckers to walk into town I say.Any bets on what the giant glazed ball in the left foreground will be used for?

I see STW did’nt even make the long list 😀

And this after a screening process. Very repetitive

@tommyt wrote:

They’ve Calatravaed up the bridge-will it be as good for the guards to hide out under with the speed guns?-good to see all the hideous bus stops gone as well. get all dem lazy student feckers to walk into town I say.Any bets on what the giant glazed ball in the left foreground will be used for?

Maybe the giant glazed ball is an IMAX type cinema for dem lazy students:;)

@alonso wrote:

“
The design includes a proposed lightweight arch design for an extension to the N11 flyover with a new bridge providing a safer pedestrian environment at the entrance to the campus where people will be given priority over vehicles.
…

The bridge carries four directions of traffic
N11 northbound-Montrose housing
Montrose Housing – City
UCD-N11 southbound
N11 southbound-UCD
This will continue. How will people be given priority over vehicles? Longer traffic light sequences?

The new buildings look a bit like the Elm Park office development near Merrion Gates. If anything, the Elm Park offices look more innovative and prettier.

UCD campus is too spread out. People drive between buildings that are separated by pointless left over spaces. UL is worse.

UCD should be more walkable and less industrial.

The entrance gate is a nice idea though.

Balls.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

UCD campus is too spread out. People drive between buildings that are separated by pointless left over spaces. UL is worse.

UCD should be more walkable and less industrial.

The entrance gate is a nice idea though.

way off the mark there. UCD is hardly too spread out. it’s not dense, but that’s hardly a crime. the supposedly left over spaces are pitches, amenity areas, grassland and planted areas that are sorely lacking within a 6-10 mile radius of dublin city centre in most directions. the pack-em-in idea is never going to generate a decent quality built environment. what UCD have created is a great setting with defined boundaries where infill buildings add to, rather than diminish, the character of the area. the quinn building would be a fine example of how these interventions can positively contribute to the built environment.

(as an aside, the glucksman gallery in UCC is similarly beneficial to the overall character of the campus without forcing more density)

walking from one side of UCD to another will never take longer than 20 minutes, which is hardly unwalkable for most people. the pedestrianisation of much of UCD by stimying the rat run at peak times has further assisted the maintenance of a campus-like pedestrian-friendly space. the car is a third class citizen behind the pedestrian and cyclist.

to suggest that UCD is industrial is farcical. the closet thing to industry is NOVA which is a centre for innovation and technology, hardly the sandyford of belfield, where brainpower is king, not industry.

the gateway is a nice notion, but one of the strongest elements of belfield’s character at the moment is that there is no front door, no gate, no separation from the world or society. it is the people who study there, who use the spaces, who play sport, cycle, walk, work and play there who make it the success that it is, not the gates that hold people out or the boundaries that hold people in.

as an example of an open educational institution that is generous, welcoming and successfully integrated with its surrounding in almost every sense, UCD is a triumph. i hope that any development will serve to enhance rather than restrict this success.

@sw101 wrote:

way off the mark there. UCD is hardly too spread out. it’s not dense, but that’s hardly a crime. the supposedly left over spaces are pitches, amenity areas, grassland and planted areas that are sorely lacking within a 6-10 mile radius of dublin city centre in most directions. the pack-em-in idea is never going to generate a decent quality built environment. what UCD have created is a great setting with defined boundaries where infill buildings add to, rather than diminish, the character of the area. the quinn building would be a fine example of how these interventions can positively contribute to the built environment.

(as an aside, the glucksman gallery in UCC is similarly beneficial to the overall character of the campus without forcing more density)

walking from one side of UCD to another will never take longer than 20 minutes, which is hardly unwalkable for most people. the pedestrianisation of much of UCD by stimying the rat run at peak times has further assisted the maintenance of a campus-like pedestrian-friendly space. the car is a third class citizen behind the pedestrian and cyclist.

to suggest that UCD is industrial is farcical. the closet thing to industry is NOVA which is a centre for innovation and technology, hardly the sandyford of belfield, where brainpower is king, not industry.

the gateway is a nice notion, but one of the strongest elements of belfield’s character at the moment is that there is no front door, no gate, no separation from the world or society. it is the people who study there, who use the spaces, who play sport, cycle, walk, work and play there who make it the success that it is, not the gates that hold people out or the boundaries that hold people in.

as an example of an open educational institution that is generous, welcoming and successfully integrated with its surrounding in almost every sense, UCD is a triumph. i hope that any development will serve to enhance rather than restrict this success.

Ah give it a rest would ya? UCD is a nothing place. Dublin stuck for open space? we’ve got praires of featurless nonuser friendly reams of the stuff coming out our ass. UCD is a kip. You must have some deliriously happy memories of the place that are seriously clouding your judgement.

@tommyt wrote:

Ah give it a rest would ya? UCD is a nothing place. Dublin stuck for open space? we’ve got praires of featurless nonuser friendly reams of the stuff coming out our ass. UCD is a kip. You must have some deliriously happy memories of the place that are seriously clouding your judgement.

not in the least. i have little history with place, never studied there, i think i attended the church once.

my experience of the place is passive and i have never felt safer in a sparsely occupied (by buildings) and green area in dublin.

i’d be interested to see what your basis is for a “kip”, what is the comparative generator? non user-friendly (not “nonuser friendly”) spaces in dublin are generated by statutory requirements for open spaces which are then ill-considered and of poor quality, while the developed portion of lands is high density and almost invariably over-developed.

i think all of archiseek’s readers and contributors would appreciate a more coherent and relevant response than “give it a rest would ya” or any similar spurious and infantile ramblings.

@sw101 wrote:

not in the least. i have little history with place, never studied there, i think i attended the church once.

my experience of the place is passive and i have never felt safer in a sparsely occupied (by buildings) and green area in dublin.

i’d be interested to see what your basis is for a “kip”, what is the comparative generator? non user-friendly (not “nonuser friendly”) spaces in dublin are generated by statutory requirements for open spaces which are then ill-considered and of poor quality, while the developed portion of lands is high density and almost invariably over-developed.

i think all of archiseek’s readers and contributors would appreciate a more coherent and relevant response than “give it a rest would ya” or any similar spurious and infantile ramblings.

Cool your jets SW. I enjoy being flippant every now and again. Where do I start?
Disabled accessibility as an afterthought
Not even a conducive cycle environment given the necessity to get around the place beond shank’s mare if you want to cover the ground
Awful awful generic late modernist public realm
Pitiful signposting adding to the air of catholic elitism (as opposed to the more dusty confines of TCD)
massive SLOAP areas-more than any west Dublin 1980s corpo estate
no coherent connection between Clonskeagh and Montrose in even a suburban sense
mono-functional, isolated environment
a terrible waste of what is one of the largest water features in the cityre: general amenity
Will add more as they come to mind.

UCD IS very spread out. Walking from one side of UCD to another certainly takes more than 20 minutes and it certainly feels more than that. The buildings don’t cohere into a place, just isolated buildings plonked here and there.
“… spaces in dublin are generated by statutory requirements for open spaces which are then ill-considered and of poor quality, while the developed portion of lands is high density and almost invariably over-developed.” Ill-considered ..low quality” Exactly right, but the developed areas in Dublin have usually been of extraordinarily low-density.
One of the weakest elements of Belfield’s character at the moment is that there is no front door, no gate, no separation from the world or society. But, in fact.there is a definite separation.The drab densely-planted outskirts make a barrier and not a very pleasant one at that. it doesn’t make any meaningful contact with the outside world, a barrier of shrubs and a few undistinguished buildings glimpsed over far-away trees and across a dual-carriageway. And it’s a rather reductionist and negative view of gates to see them as barriers that “hold people out or the boundaries that hold people in”.The great gates of the world are great architectural feats,valued symbols of introduction and anticipation as much as barriers, that define a place as a presence, a destination, that announces arrival and homecoming,that define it in an iconic sense and welcome guests..

Is there somewhere we can see the other entries?

bump…see any other entries?