Vertigo? U2 tower to be taller

wow………

Here we go again.

If the competition were properly judged to begin with, maybe issues such as feasibility would have been sorted out. The suggestion that by “inflating” this project will improve its performance is incredible since the footprint of the site is the restricting parameter.

Is the fact that the DDDA is talking to Liam Carroll, owner of the adjacent site, an indication that it realises the site footprint is too small? Also, if the site footprint and/or the shoulder height is changed, don’t other entrants now have a right to sue for the costs of entering the competition?
How was the original muck-up sorted out, or was it?

@Andrew Duffy wrote:

Is the fact that the DDDA is talking to Liam Carroll, owner of the adjacent site, an indication that it realises the site footprint is too small? Also, if the site footprint and/or the shoulder height is changed, don’t other entrants now have a right to sue for the costs of entering the competition?
How was the original muck-up sorted out, or was it?

why should they sue? the competition was staged and enterred upon certain criteria. admittedly the winner wasn’t the best entry, nor was the jury system transparent. but surely the DDDA have the right to alter the winning design to suit changing requirements? i would imagine all entries signed away the right to regain any expenditure or entrance fees.

The tower next door hopefully being ditched is excellent news.
As for the extra height & bulk for U2, as long as the design can absorb it then fair enough – but also as long as this will be deemed one of those ubiquitous ‘landmark’ buildings and will not set the level for the area.
It’s going to look fantastic next to the water there.

my fave was the nicola mongelli entry.
http://www.irish-architecture.com/unbuilt_ireland/dublin/u2_tower/nm/index.html

Does anyone else feel the winning building is one of the most disgusting buildings ever? And it just got bigger, oh god.

it is a pretty appalling piece of ugly. the high concept rotational stuff is straight out of a calatrava sketch-book, but lacks any of the finesse or detail.

The OMS scheme with full P.P. that’s being shunted is far better than this.

i am new to this forum … and I am not an architect either, sorry – just an italian bloke living in dublin and passionate about great architecture.

i am looking for any publications available in hard-copy (book, catalogue, blueprints, etc.) regarding the U2 / Landmark Tower Competition, that I can buy to add to my personal collection.

tried both websites of craighenry.com and ddda.ie but no luck.

any help will be very much appreciated.

thanks,
roby

the brief and some of the losing entries are hear (aswell as the winner)

http://www.irish-architecture.com/unbuilt_ireland/dublin/u2_tower/index.html

@sw101 wrote:

the brief and some of the losing entries are hear (aswell as the winner)

http://www.irish-architecture.com/unbuilt_ireland/dublin/u2_tower/index.html

thanks shaggy, but anything available in hard copy …
i work with pcs and keyboards every day, i’d like to have some old-fashioned paper-based material to read in the evening

thanks a mil,
roby

ring the ddda. or print off some images.

Sorry, but nothing in hardcopy was ever published by DDDA or others, apart from a stapled, photocopied text list of the entries by number and name (at the time of the public exhibition in Clarion Quay) and a postcard with an image of the winning, ‘twisting tower’ design. Best print off the pages from this site – there were lots!

It can be tricky finding information on the DDDA site. Sometimes the interesting documents are not linked to from their main pages. You could try looking in the uploads directory using a search similar to this one
Google for U2 in /uploads
As these tend to be pdfs they will print well and provide roby with plenty of bedtime reading!

Here’s another doc that doesn’t seem to have been indexed yet by google.
Tender to complete u2 tower (memo)

i may be missing something but which is it??
[ATTACH]2588[/ATTACH]

or is it –
[ATTACH]2589[/ATTACH]
edit – i see now they’re actuallty the same!
edit – is the ‘watchtower’ the stw apt building at point village

Why don’t they pull the spire out of O’Connell St., and stick it on top of the U2 Tower? Not only will it improve the look of the capitals main thoroughfare, but it will double the height of this ‘landmark building’. 🙂

Will the “watchtower” be the HQ for the Jehovah’s witnesses in Ireland?

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

PRESS RELEASE

The Docklands Authority is seeking developers to provide development
services including the design, construction and finance of the U2 Tower and
adjacent Britain Quay Development. Developers are invited to submit
expressions of interest demonstrating significant previous experience of
design team members in delivering high rise tower developments of over 100
metres high.

It is expected that the successful development team will be selected in
2007 and the construction of the Tower will commence in 2008. The closing
date for receipt of Request for Proposals is 12 noon, on the 16th October
2006.

so they are looking for people to design a tower while they keep showing us pictures of tower that hasn’t been designed yet?

@lostexpectation wrote:

so they are looking for people to design a tower while they keep showing us pictures of tower that hasn’t been designed yet?

This has me completely confused … they are currently digging the foundations for the tower . Does anybody know what is going on ?

As for the extra height & bulk for U2, as long as the design can absorb it then fair enough – but also as long as this will be deemed one of those ubiquitous ‘landmark’ buildings and will not set the level for the area.

Why? I really dislike the aesthetics and even the idea of ‘landmark’ standalone towers which dominate entire areas of the city. Someone in the other thread posted a series of photos of European cities which have tall buildings. The ones which adopted a “clustered” approach to tall buildings – Frankfurt, Paris, etc. – are far more appealling than having individual towers dispersed around a generally low rise city. I’d rather have this, the Point “tower”, Heuston Gate, the Barrow St./Thomas St./Tara St./etc. proposals all bunched together somewhere down the docks instead of ending up with having the low rise historic bits of the city compromised by “landmark” towers.

weve been through this before but i agree. clustered areas of high rise make more visual and econnmic sense. It would allow Dublin to develop and still keep the charecter of the city. Paris/ La defence is the classic example of co existence.

@a boyle wrote:

This has me completely confused … they are currently digging the foundations for the tower . Does anybody know what is going on ?

where did you hear this? in the july 16th report on ddda.ie they were looking for developers who would focus on the street level of the tower as the nearby streets are prone to flooding, so how can the foundation be underway already if there is no developer picked?

i was down there a week ago. they are busy digging like mad . in light of the papers i have no idea what they are doing.

Boyler, if you’re down there again ask one of the builders what they’re doing. It’s possible that they are just excavating the whole site in preperation for the new developments.

@Morlan wrote:

Boyler, if you’re down there again ask one of the builders what they’re doing. It’s possible that they are just excavating the whole site in preperation for the new developments.

i ‘ll consider it. i don’t think the local natives are particularly gratefull for every tom dick and harry going by to have a look, and these natives are particularly mobile , and. … … …

@a boyle wrote:

i ‘ll consider it. i don’t think the local natives are particularly gratefull for every tom dick and harry going by to have a look, and these natives are particularly mobile , and. … … …

well if they’re excavating the site, i wonder who is paying for it? unless these broadsheet reports are well out of date…

They’re looking for ancient books of psalms and other religious curios

perhaps the site is split into different parts ?

@The Denouncer wrote:

They’re looking for ancient books of psalms and other religious curios

more likely bodies encased in concrete :p

did anyone see this image of both u2 and point towers?

They will look great flanking the Sam Beckett Bridge.

The Samuel Beckett Bridge will be a bit further down the quays as far as I know.

Point Tower, eh gotham city anyone ?? judging by that render anyway !

any more detailed renders ?

Anyone got a bigger picture of that Point Village render above?

@Morlan wrote:

Anyone got a bigger picture of that Point Village render above?

You can have a look on the (Beano comic inspired) website http://www.pointvillage.ie They’ve got balloons !!!

ha ha, good one ….that’s hilarious!

(…a place of worship and all there.)

@GregF wrote:

ha ha, good one ….that’s hilarious!

Hardly an apt advertisment for something supposedly to be the bees nees

thanks for the link RC…

Well it looks better than the original image…glass elevators? I like the slanted roof, (i hate flat roofs on tallish buildings)

Pity we can’t get a larger image of the rendering, to give us a proper look instead of the cartoony image on the site 🙂

I always said there should be more advertising blimps in the city

I wonder who’s going to grab the TV studio at the top with the fine views.

I see the East Link roundabout is getting a makeover too.

Considering how dramtic and realistic many development proposals can look, this one looks plain silly…perhaps refreshingly so.

Huh? Whats this proposed U2 experience then?

I heard the want to move the tower to holland

Where lostexpectation?

@jimg wrote:

Why? I really dislike the aesthetics and even the idea of ‘landmark’ standalone towers which dominate entire areas of the city. Someone in the other thread posted a series of photos of European cities which have tall buildings. The ones which adopted a “clustered” approach to tall buildings – Frankfurt, Paris, etc. – are far more appealling than having individual towers dispersed around a generally low rise city. I’d rather have this, the Point “tower”, Heuston Gate, the Barrow St./Thomas St./Tara St./etc. proposals all bunched together somewhere down the docks instead of ending up with having the low rise historic bits of the city compromised by “landmark” towers.

Fully agreed with you jimg – Frankfurt in particular looks fantastic. What you quoted above referred to the fact that we’re never going to get such a cluster in Dublin, not in the medium term anyway, so the best we can hope for is a number of ‘landmark’ towers sited relatively coherently and as closely together as possible in the Docklands, preferably standing guard close to the river, in and around the Grand Canal Dock area.
My advocating of such buildings must certainly did not refer to a scattergun approach across the city! – alas precisely what we seem to be getting 🙁

Anybody else wondering whether the awarding of the U2 tower construction project is already a done deal? Just think about what was due to be built next to it and how that is no longer mentioned even though it has planning permission.

@jdivision wrote:

Anybody else wondering whether the awarding of the U2 tower construction project is already a done deal? Just think about what was due to be built next to it and how that is no longer mentioned even though it has planning permission.

😉 Planning in Ireland eh? Money talks.:D…or walks,,to Holland.

the U2 tower seems to be getting some unsettling press around the world – saw a few articles online about locals, and some people go as far to say ‘dubliners’ who are odjecting tower. I think it’s mad to say that a tiny group of residents objecting the tower get more press than the tower itself. I guess the only newsworthy stories are bad news. Also the fact that there is such a long-windeda debate over a 100m tower is laughable. Many cities build them unnoticed and get on with it.
Anyway i wonder if they will still build the studio on top since U2 are moving to Holland? And will they still call it the U2 tower?
We have been talking about this tower since 2002 and now it will not commence until 2008? It is only worth waiting that long for the Shanghai World Financial Centre which has taken 10 years to get off the ground…and that is almost 500M tall!!!
I dont see why there should be such a the delay between the tender deadline in October 2006 and commencing construction in 2008? 2 years? I am convinced it will be under way before then…unless they cancel the whole thing…ha ha ha

U2 aren’t moving to Holland, just their finances. Therefore you will see them heli-coptering on top of their tower as planned, in 2009.

@The Denouncer wrote:

U2 aren’t moving to Holland, just their finances. Therefore you will see them heli-coptering on top of their tower as planned, in 2009.

Is there a helipad in the design now? i thought they had a ‘dedicated’ lift?

@The Denouncer wrote:

U2 aren’t moving to Holland, just their finances. Therefore you will see them heli-coptering on top of their tower as planned, in 2009.

😉
The foresight of U2 eh!
Do you think when they were recording in Windmill Lane Studios all those years ago they knew the tax breaks would come to an end?…Windmills,,Holland!!:rolleyes:

Is U2 actually going to own this building or are they only renting the top few floors :confused:

i seen one article in an Aussie paper claiming that U2 were building the tower as if they were financing it or worse can you imagine Bono and the boys out doing a bit of bricklaying? 😀

When is the U2 Tower going to be finished? I heard that it would be opened in 2008 on one site and on another it said 2010, what’s the exact date?

Hopefully some movement on this; (i,ve taken the liberty to highlight the biggest ‘what the f…’ moment of the article)

U2 Tower rises as it goes to planning
Edel Morgan

The long awaited planning application for the U2 Tower on Dublin’s south Docklands has been lodged with the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) – and outlines plans for a tower that is substantially higher than expected at 130 metres, 10 metres higher than the Spire.

According to the DDDA’s Director of Architecture, John McLaughlin, the 30-storey twisting tower at the end of Sir John Rogerson’s Quay will be mostly apartments – up to 100 metres – but will be crowned by a recording studio for U2 in a penthouse and a pinnacle that will give it a total height of 130 metres above street level.

The DDDA can fast track the application so it will not be held up by a public appeals process.

The anticipated completion date is 2008/2009. When it is built Bono and the boys will be able to take a dedicated lift down to the café and terrace at its base after a hard session in their recording studio.
Whether they will have first dibs on any of its 182 one, two and three-bed apartments remains to be seen. The apartments will have “stunning views of the bay and back out towards the mountain”, says McLaughlin, as well as a high degree of glazing, generous floor sizes and high specifications across the board.

One estate agent reckons that two-bedroom units will be €1 million to €1.5 million “depending on how high up you go and whether it has a view of the sea. As it twists, the views will differ.”

McLaughlin describes the building, designed by Burdon Craig Dunne Henry (BCDH), as having a sculptural quality. “Like a Brancusi sculpture, it looks different when you look at it from different angles.”

It will twist gradually as it rises, “with the last floor rotated 45 degrees in relation to the first floor and the tower will have a width of 26m”. While construction costs of €55 million to €100 million are being bandied about, McLaughlin says it is impossible to estimate.

“We don’t yet have a building this tall and the tallest building in Dublin so far was built 30 years ago. It’s quite a new construction type. Most builders are used to building six to eight storeys but this is something new.” The DDDA has advertised for a development team with experience in delivering high-rise towers and it is believed that all the major developers such as Liam Carroll of Zoe and Treasury Holdings will compete for the job. Pre-selection for a development partner should take place by the end of the year.

© The Irish Times

First they lodge a plan for a 60 metre tower and then the DDDA say they’ll raise it to 100 metres. And now second they put in the planning application and they want 130 metres:eek: Nothing against them doing it really, I think there’ll be little if any extra impact with the 30 metres but it really sounds like this is turning into the ‘Incredible Expanding U2 Tower’

I say go for it. In my view a building becomes a skyscraper at around 150m. What I mean by that is a building really starts to be impressive due to height at this point, below this tall buildings are just “highrise”. 🙂
Of course it depends on the design but I don’t think it depends a lot on context. For example when I walk by the county hall I’m always impressed with how much the renovation improved it but am never impressed by the height, even though it’s the tallest in Ireland

It sounds like the building it sticking to 100M at the ‘shoulder’ but the 10m will be added to the rooftop feature which is a substantial part of the overall building. I think it would look great though, and make it a real icon for the city centre especially if it was lit up and a lot of detail was put into the roof feature. And more importantly it now surpasses Hueston gate’s height of 123.55M!

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

First they lodge a plan for a 60 metre tower and then the DDDA say they’ll raise it to 100 metres. And now second they put in the planning application and they want 130 metres:eek: Nothing against them doing it really, I think there’ll be little if any extra impact with the 30 metres but it really sounds like this is turning into the ‘Incredible Expanding U2 Tower’

😮 Does anybody feel that a landmark building such as the U2 tower should be planned in conjunction with the City Council from the drawing board on, rather than adding a bit here, a bit there to gain height for heights sake?
I’m all for a statement building BUT the way this project is going seems to be some sort of penile or height substitute, sorry Bono!!:eek:

The announcement on the preferred tenderer will be made later today, I’d be shocked if it’s not Liam Carroll

EDIT: Sorry I think I got mixed up with the NCC preferred tenderers

Dermod Dwyer, Chairman/CEO of SDICC stated: “On behalf of the whole SDICC team, I am pleased to welcome the Minister, The NCC Steering Committee and our respective teams to Spencer Dock and to acknowledge the pro-active role all have played to bring the Public Private Partnership (PPP) tender successfully to this penultimate point in the process. It is a real recognition for Kevin Roche, the architect, the NEC group as designated managers, CMP/Sisk the building contractors, the extensive Irish and international professional team, and the other major stakeholders particularly the promoters Spencer Dock Development Company (SDDC) – led by Treasury Holdings, all of whom have demonstrated a strong commitment and belief in this project over many years.”

He continued “This is a unique PPP project which requires the successful Tenderer both to provide the site, and to design, build, finance and operate Irelands National Conference Centre for 25 years. The finished iconic NCC building would be where Ireland and Dublin host the world for conferences, meetings, exhibitions and related events. Its proposed central location and high specification would undoubtedly put Dublin in a strong position to attract and compete for international conferences. The SDICC management team, in co-operation with the major sector stakeholders, are now ready and willing to get on with this important business. Already firm enquiries have been received in respect of a number of large international meetings including the world congress for a large professional body.”

JDivision

Did you say you had news about the Spencer Dock development ?

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

JDivision

Did you say you had news about the Spencer Dock development ?

Not huge but they are conducting a tall buildings survey in the north Lotts area and it is likely to result in significantly higher buildings being allowed in certain areas, Spencer Dock is expected to be one of the areas to benefit.

@jdivision wrote:

Not huge but they are conducting a tall buildings survey in the north Lotts area and it is likely to result in significantly higher buildings being allowed in certain areas, Spencer Dock is expected to be one of the areas to benefit.

i think they realise the bollocks that has been made of the rest of the docklands..to little to late?

I believe there is a crane being erected right in the middle of the site. Can anyone confirm?

There’s currently about five cranes on site, all dealing with the construction of the PWC offices (fronting on to the Liffey) and the apartments behind. The site of the National Conference centre is currently being used as a storage area for building materials.

apparently it’s a “building with a shoulder parapet at 100 metres above street level crowned with a new recording studio for U2 in a penthouse to a final height of 130 metres above street level” so 130 metres then?

It’s a pity it’s a section 25 application. Had it been a normal one, someone could have appealed and asked for an oral hearing. And given Boo’s penchant for attending these types of events, we coulda gone and looked on in awe/heckled/got an autograph/thrown fruit… whatever floats yer boat

Are U2 going to need a studio in three/four years time. Surely the African Queen will be out of bombastic stadium dross by then. Then again, look at the Stones (or Status Quo) !

At 26m’s wide this buildng will look like a match stick. The dimensions dont seem to fit. How are they going to twist it with such a narrow width and within 130m’s by 45 degree’s? I dont believe thats even practical. Expect larger and taller structure IMHO higher then 150m’s. Could an architect comment on this?:rolleyes:

^^ That’s only a 5 to 1 ratio, nothing compared to some being built around the world at 10 to 1 height to width ratio or more. The fordham spire in chicago goes through a 360 degree twist and is around 500m tall. That gives 90 degrees every 125m

yep, its a similar footprint to trump tower, ny, which rises to 270m or so.

Off Topic – the highest slenderness ratio i have come across is 11:1 for trump tower,… i’ve read that 12:1 is considered the upper limit for buildings (that was in a book published 15yrs ago). Has anyone come across any higher slenderess ratios? How high can we go, would say a 15:1 ratio be possible?

I think it depends on the building. Obviously the more populated your building is the more elevators you need and the thicker your tower has to be. Super-luxury residentials could probably go really high since there’ll never be a large amount of people inside.

The highcliff in hong kong is also a really thin one:

Another tower I came across, is to be built in dubai I think and is about 400m. I think this is around the limit.

@malec wrote:

That thing looks amazing, Imagine if THAT was the U2 Tower…*sigh*… if only.

@Morlan wrote:

I believe there is a crane being erected right in the middle of the site. Can anyone confirm?

There seems to be a crane (albeit not a very tall one) right on the footprint of where the tower will go – think its only gone up in the last week so….

@NeilA wrote:

There seems to be a crane (albeit not a very tall one) right on the footprint of where the tower will go – think its only gone up in the last week so….

I was down there yesterday and can confirm it’s still one big hole in the ground.

Was down there a few days ago. There is a lot of activity on the site. Pipe laying and pile-driving.

Looks promising … I hope to get down there on Monday so I will have chat with the builders to see whats going on.

Re: pic above
Is its just me or does that look like some form of concrete foundation that has been laid over in the far left corner…. and i think this is exactly where the tower will go ? :confused:
I’m purely an interested layman so i’m curious as to what that could be….

I say NOOOOOOOOOO to a bigger tower. It would look far too bulky. If the bottom few floors flared out a little, that would prabably be ok. Something other than a cube beside it would be good too, maybe something like the wireframe sketch.

@skenn_ie wrote:

I say NOOOOOOOOOO to a bigger tower. It would look far too bulky. If the bottom few floors flared out a little, that would prabably be ok. Something other than a cube beside it would be good too, maybe something like the wireframe sketch.

I agree. Anything above 4 floors is just idiotic for this area. It’s far too close to the city centre.

A nice 3 story block would be perfect for this site. Although, I think 3 sotries would be a bit overkill for the whole area.

I read on the AJPlus website that the designs for U2 tower may be scrapped, and that a couple of british architects (one being Foster) are working on a new scheme. Can anybody shed some more light on this? Is it alright to quote the full aj article here?

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/news/news_article/?aid=57978&sid=49

@Morlan wrote:

I agree. Anything above 4 floors is just idiotic for this area. It’s far too close to the city centre.

A nice 3 story block would be perfect for this site. Although, I think 3 sotries would be a bit overkill for the whole area.

😮 Are you serious? The whole Docklands is full of unremarkable blocks of only a couple of stories, we desperately need something tall and something with a bit of ‘wow’ factor.

There’s nothing else there as the area was a wasteland before the revamp began. Its a blank canvas so should be built up to a great height as much as possible.

@cokedrinker wrote:

I read on the AJPlus website that the designs for U2 tower may be scrapped, and that a couple of british architects (one being Foster) are working on a new scheme. Can anybody shed some more light on this? Is it alright to quote the full aj article here?

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/news/news_article/?aid=57978&sid=49

TBH I always thought the twisting design would not look right at just 130m. I think it would need to be taller. I do hope that article is wrong though because we dont want any more delays with this really.

@Morlan wrote:

I agree. Anything above 4 floors is just idiotic for this area. It’s far too close to the city centre.

A nice 3 story block would be perfect for this site. Although, I think 3 sotries would be a bit overkill for the whole area.

I’m not so sure. 3 storey might be fine for that particular site but what signal would it send out?

Thin end of the wedge stuff really – next thing you know and it is being cited as precedent for all sorts of high falutin high rise.

Surely we have learned from the excessive heights along the quays?

Yes good point
There should be a blanket ban on any structure over 3 floors – effective immediately
This isn’t new york or tokyo or barcelona or sydney or melbourne or rio or london or most city
in the rest of the civized world.
This is Dublin and we dont do – so called ‘sustainable development’
It is every citizens right, in this great country, to be entitled to a front and back garden with a large park minutes away
Let the next generation worry about sustainability
Just like the global warming crisis

Shortlist for the site:
Ballymore Properties
Royal BAM Group
Treasury Holdings/Sisk
Mountbrook Homes
River II Partnership
In order to achieve a compliant tender, developers are required to bid for the current U2 Tower design and their architect’s design for the Britain Quay site.

Who did they acquire the Britain Quay site off and does anybody know who’s involved in the River II partnership

EDIT: site was acquired years ago by DDDA and while it is not commenting on who’s involved in River II partnership The Sunday Times has said that Paddy McKillen is involved in it

Article here by Deyan Sudjic from the website Paul posted relating to the Van Allen Institute’s Gateway Park Competition which might be of interest in relation to the U2 tower architectural competition:

http://www.vanalen.org/gateway/why_politicsofdesign.php

It is in Pdf format towards the bottom of the page and entitled ‘Design Competitions: The Pitfalls and the Potential.’

If there’s such a comnflict over the design of this building, than what exactly are those builders doing down there?:confused:

Are they just pile-driving for the fun of it while the DCC mandarins wrangle and prevaricate?

It must be the biggest playground in the State then if the current(if there’s any) design has been thrown out and is being redrafted.

I may be a simpleton, but building something without a firm idea or plan of what that thing is, strikes me as insane.

This whole project (U2 tower) is at serious risk now not just because of architectural deficencies (which are denied by DDDA in the Irish Times today) but because the housing boom is over. Thats the biggest threat to this tower tbh.

I don’t believe that for a second. Prime location, a first for highrise-living in Ireland – they’re bound to sell out completly.

You do have to wonder what is going on with this.

A couple of points worth noting are: firstly DCC have nothing to do with this project. Secondly there is no evidence that the housing market is in any condition other than under-supplied in this segment. Thirdly this site has been delivering hold ups for 8 years now.

I hope they get it right and that costs are not cut at the 11th hour and that the end result is the poitive model that this project has often threathened to deliver.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

If there’s such a comnflict over the design of this building, than what exactly are those builders doing down there?:confused:

Are they just pile-driving for the fun of it while the DCC mandarins wrangle and prevaricate?

It must be the biggest playground in the State then if the current(if there’s any) design has been thrown out and is being redrafted.

I may be a simpleton, but building something without a firm idea or plan of what that thing is, strikes me as insane.

I went to have a look at this yesterday. It would appear from what I could see that there is at least one level of an underground services area complete, if not two (car parks etc).

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

That thing looks amazing, Imagine if THAT was the U2 Tower…*sigh*… if only.

couldnt agree more.. we could do with a few of these in the port area should it ever get re developed.

I took a walk down to this site yesterday and I’m not sure if the current building works have anything to do with the U2 Tower. I walked around behind the site and through a Travellers encampment and I think that they are residing on what will be the actual tower site. So unless I’m mistaken, the U2 tower site has had absolutely nothing done as of yet. :confused:

Yep it is the encampment, im using the site to design my own skyscraper for my final year project… Was down checking it out around november and stalled when i came across the mobiles. Spotted a gap in the barriers and plucked up the courage to move in and take photos and video footage with my new k800i and a dvcam, when some wee lad runs out of a caravan asking wtf i was doing. I told him i was a student and i was just taking photos for my class when i noticed he had a bloody STANLEY in his hand lol. I was sure he was after my equipment but he was cool when he realised i was a student…we had a quick chat about U2 and the tower and i got to hell outta there.

Anyway the site appears unbelievable narrow when you’re physically standing in the middle of it, I found it hard to imagine a 120m skyscraper going on it, and it looks like im going to be putting a 240m one on it.

Any pics you could share cokedrinker??!!

Heres a couple taken within the site. Keep in mind the building line is 8m from the quay wall along the long end.

Pretty sure thats not the site, is it not the site next door that is currently being readied?
A lot of mystery regarding this development.Not much info in the public domain

Well the location of the tower is at Britain Quay which is pictured above. The current construction is going on with an entrance from Benson St. Maybe I’m wrong but it would seem strange to build the foundations, car parks of a huge site with out even the plans for the towers agreed upon, let alone tendered out ?

Ok so if the U2 tower is going in on the smaller site, anyone any idea of what they’re planning for the much larger adjacent site ! ?

The Britain Quay site isn’t quite as small as i thought …

It would seem sensible to join the two sites establish a new street and design two reasonable sites as opposed to the elephant and the ant.

thanks for links Paul, thats definitely the site so…
strange the level of activity on the adjoining site, must do some digging for more info… any members that know the story, please enlighten us !

As far as i know Liam Carroll following his acquisition of Dunloe sought and received planning permission for a 120 metre high tower next to the U2 tower.

What is the validity period for S25 permissions?

Ok so its a very small site.I would have thought that it would be at least cleared and cordoned off.I would be very surprised if the U2 Tower project gets up and running this year in its current state.

Can’t find the details of the application but some detail buried in here
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/11/13/story9502.asp

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) has been accused of being “breathtaking in its arrogance” by assuming that its plans for the U2 tower in the docklands should take precedence over a higher tower planned by developer Liam Carroll, which already has planning permission.

That’s the first I’ve ever heard of a second tower, with PP. Anyone any more details?

Was stated by Fay in the letter, been trying to find out more details myself

Peter Fitz, yep, it doesn’t look so small now when i look at it… however back then i was going along with the original site boundaries, in which the northern boundary of the site was in line with the northern boundary of the adjacent site, it felt really tiny, especially when i imagined the building line 8m from the eastern quay wall. This site is actually a comparable size to trump tower nyc, high cliff hong kong…which surprised me alot.

OK, Heres part of a cad map i picked up from DDDA about 3 months ago… It shows the U2 tower in its NEW position, right up against the north quay wall… with the proposed road/bridge dividing the site. It also shows footprints for buildings on the large adjacent site which I have no knowledge of (i didnt take time to research this development as ill make my own proposals here too… I did however at one early stage believe there was to be some sort of tower somewhere on this site??pretty sure i came across images of it here?)

@cokedrinker wrote:

Peter Fitz, yep, it doesn’t look so small now when i look at it… however back then i was going along with the original site boundaries, in which the northern boundary of the site was in line with the northern boundary of the adjacent site, it felt really tiny, especially when i imagined the building line 8m from the eastern quay wall. This site is actually a comparable size to trump tower nyc, high cliff hong kong…which surprised me alot.

OK, Heres part of a cad map i picked up from DDDA about 3 months ago… It shows the U2 tower in its NEW position, right up against the north quay wall… with the proposed road/bridge dividing the site. It also shows footprints for buildings on the large adjacent site which I have no knowledge of (i didnt take time to research this development as ill make my own proposals here too… I did however at one early stage believe there was to be some sort of tower somewhere on this site??pretty sure i came across images of it here?)

It is actually Britan Quay with a sliver of John Rodge to the north.

I remember the SBP piece at the time and I like everyone else am in the dark on the status of the Liam Carroll permission. My take on this is that the site is suitable for a tall building but that the Dunloe permission is now dated. Therefore LC should go back for a new permission which should be judged on quality and its legibility in relation to the proposed U2 tower.

@shadow wrote:

It would seem sensible to join the two sites establish a new street and design two reasonable sites as opposed to the elephant and the ant.

Don’t think i’d agree… I think the U2 site is one of the more attractive sites i’ve come across… nice, long, slender geometry. Its almost begging to stretch across and form the pedestrian connection to the Point Village!! 😉 (On the DDDA map i have, there is proposed, a 16m wide pedestrian only street of the PV – which begins directly across the river from the u2 tower, and runs to Sheriff street at the north. The LUAS stop will be midway up this new street. You can make out where the street would start on Peter Fitzs image above… directly to the right of the 4 pitched roof building)

Anyway, does nobody at all know the nature of the buildings on the larger site??? Heading home for a few days and i may take a trip to the big city itself. Do you think the builders on site would be willing to divulge any information about the grand plan for the area?

The easiest way to find out what the plans are would be to contact the DDDA planners and ask. If they have no record of a permission it would be reasonable to assume that the 1999 permission is a 10 year grant and that the owners are putting in foundations in accordance with that permission to ‘substantially complete’ the development prior to the 2009 expiry of that grant. If this is the case I would hope that a second application is made as that permission is dated at this stage and the location of the tower may affect the sight lines of the U2 tower from the city centre. A new design may compliment the U2 tower and less impressive point village watchtower. An attractive cluster would be a great addition to the City conversely a jumble would be a really wasted opportunity.

Hope that DE tower goes ahead.

Hey im new to this forum but im quite interested in all the recent developements in the docklands and im very curious into why no work has started on this U2 tower yet
Surely the plan of the U2 tower and the watchtower by the point as a gateway will be spoilt if this also goes ahead

http://www.oms.ie/

or has this been scrapped?

It all seems like a bit of a mess-as if they forgot about this proposal above when planning the U2 tower or something!
Anyone shed some light because im very confused with this situation
Cheers

Read the thread, there’s a competition underway to select a developer. Then it’ll be built.

The development proposed in Sir John Rogersons Quay is an impressive structure.It may block the view of the U2 tower looking down river but the U2 Tower will be built by the waterrs edge and will be 40 metres higher so should be pretty dominant still.

There is no suggestion though that the 80m DE tower is even going ahead. Is there? That was proposed years ago.

just seen according to the sky scraper news page DE was cancelled..wonder why? is it common for developers to go through the expenses of employing architects to draw up plans and do detailed renders and recieve permission and then not go through with it? I assume it adds value to a site ect

@shed wrote:

just seen according to the sky scraper news page DE was cancelled..wonder why? is it common for developers to go through the expenses of employing architects to draw up plans and do detailed renders and recieve permission and then not go through with it? I assume it adds value to a site ect

That’s not true. Construction on the substructure has begun and the proposed development is subject to a legal dispute.
From The Sunday Times last month:
THE property developer Liam Carroll is limbering up for a court battle with Dublin city council over the scuppering of his plans for a 100-metre skyscraper to rival the proposed U2 tower in Dublin’s docklands.

The structure, twice the height of Liberty Hall, would be part of a huge proposed development at the old Hammond Lane Metalworks at Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, right next door to the proposed 130-metre U2 tower that local development authorities are promoting.

A development plan for the area published by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) only allows for one of the skyscrapers to be built.

Carroll had been in talks with the authorities to build the U2 tower, but was not on the short list of tenders announced by the DDDA last month. His Burwood House Developments (Ireland) has now filed legal action against the council in a division of the High Court over the council’s refusal to extend five-year planning permission for his rival tower.

Dunloe Ewart, the property company taken over by Carroll in 2002 after Noel Smyth, its chairman, was ousted, received permission from An Bord Pleanala for the Hammond Lane tower the same year, but it is yet to be built.

Carroll applied to the council for an extension to the permission last year, but the council refused on the ground that substantial works had not commenced on the site. The developer is understood to be arguing that sufficient works have begun and has applied again for an extension to the planning permission. The council is currently considering the second application and a decision is expected within the next two weeks.

The council is expected to contest Carroll’s legal action, however, if the matter reaches court in the meantime.

This development would enhance the docks if it goes ahead.It would not take away from the U2 Tower as this acts as a get way coming up the river from Dublin port and the DE Tower is after it and is lower in height and further in from the rivers edge than the U2 Tower.
Anyway at least Carroll is getting a move on unlike the DDDA regarding the forever proposed U2 tower.The width of the river at this point makes building more than one tower appropriate.The conservatism is frustrating from Dublin City Council.

From The Sunday Business Post yesterday:
Carroll’s time extension plea refused

Liam Carroll has been refused an extension of time for the development of a tower building and three other blocks next to the proposed U2 tower.

Dublin City Council has ruled the limited nature of works which have been carried out at the former Hammond Lane metalworks site, compared to the overall scale of the development, mean the extension should be refused.

It follows an earlier refusal, in November of last year, to grant an extension of time to complete the development.

In anticipation of the refusal, Carroll lodged proceedings in early March in the commercial court, using a vehicle called Burwood House Developments (Ireland), challenging the council’s refusal to extend the five-year planning permission.

Carroll has also had builders working on the site in recent months and is arguing sufficient works have been carried out in order for the extension of planning to be granted.

If Carroll loses the case he is unlikely to be allowed to develop a tower on the site.

Last year, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) brought in an amended planning scheme for the Grand Canal Dock area that makes the siting of the landmark tower site specific, meaning the only allowable site is the adjoining one on which the U2 tower is to be built.

‘‘The requirements for such a tower would not be satisfied by any other landmark tower that may be permitted or constructed in the Grand Canal Dock area,” stated the draft amendment.

Permission for the Carroll development was originally sought in 1999, when Dunloe Ewart was still controlled by Noel Smyth and was finally approved by An Bord Pleanala on February 7, 2002.

That plan proposed the construction of almost 26,500 square metres of offices, 231 apartments, a leisure centre, creche, shops and restaurants.

The scheme involved the construction of three blocks, ranging from five to seven storeys, and the tower block rising to just under 100 metres, which was to be 19 storeys with an additional mezzanine floor.

There would also have been almost 450 car parking spaces.

When the DDDA decided to invite applications to develop the U2 tower site, Carroll was regarded as favourite to be named as preferred developer of the 120-metre U2 tower site, but in a major surprise he wasn’t on the shortlist, which comprises Ballymore Properties, Royal BAM Group, a joint venture between Treasury Holdings and Sisk, Sean Dunne’s Mountbrook Homes and the River II Partnership.

The shortlist of developers are now required to bid for the current U2 tower design and their own architect’s design for the Britain Quay site.

That is a very well researched article with the last line being most telling of all ‘their own architects design’

Carroll’s Tower:

Bit of a squeez..

[

there just has to be amenity issues in relation to proximity and shadowing there. What’s the distance between the towers?

This debate sends an apalling message to anbody who is remotely interested in planning and development in Dublin.
Here we have a situation where one Planning Authority (Dublin City Council) have refused permission for a development that they approved a number of years ago (lets call it the Carroll’s Tower for the sake of simplicity even though it predates Liam Carroll’s involvement in that company).
The second Planning Authority (Dublin Docklands Develoment Authority) are trying to develop their own tower, by means of an international architectural competition and a subsequent developer’s competition(?). In between times they are attempting to increased the height of the Tower (let’s call it The Twisting Tower for the sake of simplicity).
They are also attempting to persuade the first developer not to develop the Carroll Tower. Furthermore, they can proceed to build the Twisting Tower without recourse to third party appeals to An Bord Pleanala, but they will require the approval of the Minister of the Environment.
The third planning authority, An Bord Pleanala, who approved the Carroll Tower a number of years ago on appeal can do so again but have no jurisdiction over the Twisting Tower!!
Cowboys, Ted, a bunch of fecking cowboys!!
😮

I hate the idea of “landmark towers” – giving a monopoly on the right to build high to one particular building within an area. It reminds me of the restrictive laws which effectively prohibit someone opening a pharmacy within a certain distance of another.

Either an area is suitable for tall buildings or it isn’t. As a proponent of tall buildings for Dublin in this forum, I would rather there be none rather than the odd outlandishly tall building dotted around the city scape. Buildings should have sympathy for their context; it seems obvious to me (but not to the city planners apparently) that scale and grain apply to height as well as width and bulk.

Remember, today’s “landmark” will be tomorrow’s Evening Herald’s “most hated building in Dublin”. Look at Liberty Hall to see how fickle the public are in regard to conspicuously tall buildings. Liberty Hall is relatively graceful and “light” yet it seems to provoke venomous bile and demands for it’s instant destruction from it’s many detractors; many of whom seem to be the same characters on the forum who bemoan the lack of tall “new” buildings in Dublin. I wouldn’t advocate it for a minute at that particular location but if Liberty Hall were part of a cluster of similarly scaled buildings, then I believe it would be far more popular than it is.

The current planning spat provoked by the appalling idea of, gasp, having two tall buildings near each other in here seems ludicrous to me. I’d much rather see a cluster of various tall buildings on the area bounded by John Rogerson’s Quay and the Grand Canal dock and allow the future generations judge the success or failure of the individual buildings. Picking disparate sites around a low rise city and deeming them suitable for a “landmark” is not the way to go for Dublin and smacks of unbelievable egotism and hubris on the part of the planners responsible.

Liamo is not having a good week of it. His office development accross the Liffey (half way down stream between Spencer Dock and the Point) has been refused for being to high/dense/uninspiring/OTT and this may give the anchor tennant, Anglo Irish Bank enough reason to run. Seemingly their staff were not thrilled about the move in the first place.

An article in the Property section of todays IT explains it all better than I have.

Well look at that, I copy and pasted.

Council blocks Anglo-Irish HQ

Liam Carroll’s Danninger company is in danger of losing one of the largest ever office lettings in Dublin after being refused planning permission this week for a €300 million development on the former Brooks Thomas site on the North Wall Quay in the Dublin docklands. Danninger had already agreed to rent around 18,580sq m (200,000sq ft) to Anglo-Irish Bank after undercutting competing developers on the rent. The bank may now look elsewhere for a new HQ. A second letting of 9,290sq m (100,000sq ft) had been agreed with solicitors O’Donnell Sweeney.

City planners objected to the plot ratio of 3.8 in the eight-storey block, saying that it was in excess of the indicative plot ratio of 2.5/3.0 set out in the current development plan. The planners also criticised the “excessive bulk and massing of the buildings” which could result in traffic congestion in the vicinity. They also said it would set an undesirable precedent. It described the proposed ground floor uses onto the proposed urban square and the Liffey quays as “poor” and said it would not create a vibrant public domain or act as a focal point.

Why do we keep hearing about the notion of a ‘gateway’? Has anyone here ever approached Dublin up the Liffey from the bay? This concept is about as valid as calling the U2-Point pair ‘two fingers to Europe’. Can we drop it, please?

jimg- not that I’d advocate it in this area, but are you familiar with the idea of ‘Tradeable Development Rights’? In effect, a landlord sells his right to develop upwards to a neighbour, in perpetuity. It wouldn’t solve the isolated towers / monopoly problem, but it would at least see to it that the competitive aspect of the height game was removed, as any developer would have to buy the rights of others beforeproceeding, in effect compensating them for the loss of development potential, unlike the current method which is typically Dublin in its crudeness.

Liam Carroll should just go ahead and build the damn thing and then apply for retention. DCC seems to be entirely lacking in the enforcement area, so he’d have little to worry about in the current climate.

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

It described the proposed ground floor uses onto the proposed urban square and the Liffey quays as “poor” and said it would not create a vibrant public domain or act as a focal point.

Shame DCC couldn’t apply the same logic to Dame Street. :rolleyes:

As I don’t believe there is a thread dealing specifically with the DDDA I’ll post here.

Their website has had it’s long awaited/overdue revamp.

http://www.ddda.ie

You can have a look at all the future projects and watch their deadlines fly by. Unsurprisingly they havn’t even bothered to guess when the U2 tower will be completed.

ammm when are they actually going to build the u2 tower seems like they have been talking about it for years…

Did anyone else see this in Monday’s Irish Times?

The headline was “U2 bid to develop tower named after them” by Frank McDonald.

It said:
Rock band U2 are bidding to develop the tower that will carry their name on Britain Quay in Dublin’s Docklands, in partnership with Ballymore Properties, The Irish Times has learned.

However, the Dublin docklands Development Authority, which owns this pivotally-located site, has assured the rival bidders that members of the band “will not have any role or involvement, directly or indirectly” in assessing bids for the project.

After concerns were raised by other bidders about potential conflicts of interest, the authority’s lawyers, A&L Goodbody, wrote to them last week saying that “neither U2 nor its representatives have had any role” in setting ground rules for the contest.

The solicitors’ letter said the docklands authority would “enforce a very strict policy on conflicts of interest” in assessing the four bids and that it wished to “remind bidderst hat any conflict of interest should…be disclosed to the authority”.

To “underpin the independence” of the assessment process, the authority has appointed Chris Wilkinson of Wilkinson Eyre Architects: Amanda Levete, of Future Systems Architects: and Michael O’Doherty, former principal architect at the Office of Public Works, to advise it.

Apart from Ballymore Properties/U2, the bidders are Mountbrook Homes, controlled by developer Sean Dunne; the Dutch-based Royal BAM Group; Treasury Holdings-Sisk; and the Riverside 2 Partnership, a consortium formed by the Kelly, McCormack, Flynn and Elliot families.

It is understood that the Ballymore/U2 group has engaged international architects Foster and Partners to design its scheme, while New York-based Argentinian architect Rafael Vinoly is acting for the Riverside consortium. and Baghdad born Zaha Hadid for Treasury-Sisk.

All of the bidders are required to submit “compliant bids” based on the 2003 competition-winning scheme for the U2 tower by Blackrock-based Burdon Dunne Craig Henry. However, they may also submit “variant bids”.

As originally envisaged, the tower was to be 60 metres high. The docklands “strong architectural statement” said authority chief executive Paul Maloney.

He stressed that U2’s involvement was strictly limited to two agreements with the authority – one covering “naming rights” and the other dealing with the provision of studios for the band at the top of the tower, to replace their former studios on Hanover Quay.

Mr Maloney said the authority was “thrilled” to attract architects of the calibre of Wilkinson, who has won two Stirling prizes from the Royal Institute of British Architects, and Levete, who also won a Stirling prize, as well as O’Doherty to give an Irish perspective.

The deadline for submitting bids for the project is June 18th

@Morlan wrote:

Carroll’s Tower:

Those apartments beside the U2 tower are a joke.

GGGGOOOOOO ZAHA

Can’t wait to see these new proposals, particularly zaha hadids… i didnt know she was working with one group of developers

those aparements are a joke, and as was posted, the area is either suitable for high rise or it isnt, this area could accomodate tens of thousands along with the glass bottle site etc if it were developed properly, obviously the land prices arent high enough if they can afford to put up those small blocks on the supposedly prestigious sites…

Thanks for the news on this, nice to see the run up to the tower’s construction heating up

Yeah maybe some day they’ll actually build it..

Keen, you’re right. It really does seem to be gathering momentum! As my last quote was so well received… this one’s from last week’s Phoenix – the writing’s not great but the points it makes are interesting!

The heading was “U2’s Building Blocks”

It said:

U2 fans must be wondering whteher they’ll ever see any of the various building projects that the lads have planned for Dublin, At present the rockers-cum-developers are involved with incredibily ambitious plans for two developments – one being a skyscraper by Ringsend docks, while the other will effectively quadruple the size of the Clarence Hotel – which involves gutting and demolishing a number of protected structures. Both of these projects are facing significant opposition.

Down at the docks, the projected – and humbly titled – “U2 Tower” has more than doubled in height from the 60-metres originally permitted to the 2003 competition winner to 130 metres – ie ten metres taller that the Spire. Confusion has been the order of the day here and the scheme has come in for flak, with The Irish Times earlier this year asking “Does the U2 Tower stack up”, citing that the UK-based Architects’ Journal had “reported that the BDCH design had been binned”.

But who are BDCH anyway? It emerged that the firm was deemed the winner of the design competition when the name of the original winner was mislaid and Burdon Dunne Architects and Craig Henry Architects (BDCH) got the nod. One of the principles here, Felim Dunne, is a brother-in-law of U2’s manager, Paul McGuinness. In the intervening years the project went on the back burner but in February this year a press release was issued announcing the firms shortlisted to develop the tower, with Paul Maloney, ceo of the Dublin Development Docklands Authority (DDDA), stating, “We are delighted with the calibre of teams engaged and to see the involvment of eminent architects including Foster & Partners, Rafael Vinoly and other internationally recognisged architects.”

The identity of the “other internationally recognised architects” is unclear and there’s now no specific mention of Felim Dunne or BDCH, but Paul McGuiness is once again involved, and one of the developers on the shortlist – Sean Murray’s Ballymore Properties – has teamed up with, er, U2. Four years on from the original competition, and not a block has been laid but Goldhawk is aware that a complaint has been sent to the European Commission by ‘The Environment Group for Ringsend Irishtown Sandymount’ attacking the entire manner in which planning has been going on in the DDDA area.

Meanwhile, progress is also very slow at the Clarence Hotel where Bono, the Edge, Derek Quinlan and Paddy McKillen have joined up forces in proposing a massive redevelopment – designed by Norman Foster – that would almost double the height of many of the existing buildings. Predictably, this has attracted a raft of criticisms – with nine objections filed formt he likes of Conor Martin (who owns neighbouring Bad Bobs), The Georgian Society, An Taisce, and also one from it’s former chairman, Michael Smith, whose house faces the Clarence across the Liffey.

A crucial issue here is that the Planning Act requires “exceptional circumstances” in order for substantial alterations to be allowed to listed buildings. Hence, a recent request for additional information by Dublin City Council, in which the planners have asked about the hitherto unconsidered option of refurbishment rather than complete redevelopment. This is not a request Bono et al will have welcomed.

Those close to the developer comp. say that two of the bidders are proposing BDCH design only! These two, at least, will be watching the assessment process like hawks!

I don’t know if that’ll help SOC. Apparently Paul Maloney is very close to Ballymore…

I just passed the DDDA offices on John Rogersons Quay and saw a beautiful model of the new U2 tower in their lobby. It looks fantastic!

what is the problem with skyscrapers casting shadows? (not that the U2 tower is actually a skyscraper!) compare frankfurt, which is absolutely deadened and made boring by the distance between skyscrapers and empty plazas between them, and new york, which is made utterly fascinating by the proximity of its tall buildings. some parts of wall st. and around grand central station never see the light of day, and yet are absolutely captivating, adding enormously to the energy of the areas.

@shanekeane wrote:

what is the problem with skyscrapers casting shadows? (not that the U2 tower is actually a skyscraper!) compare frankfurt, which is absolutely deadened and made boring by the distance between skyscrapers and empty plazas between them, and new york, which is made utterly fascinating by the proximity of its tall buildings. some parts of wall st. and around grand central station never see the light of day, and yet are absolutely captivating, adding enormously to the energy of the areas.

I agree, the issue of tall buildings’ shadows is blow out of all proportion, Its not the end of the world to be in a bit of shade, especially in a city. Dublin is usually lit with ambient light from cloud cover anyway. 10/20+ storey buildings should be clustered in districts around the edge of the city centre as in other European cities (which I think is happening… gradually).

Building restrictions should be enforced to a degree in the historical core of the city, regarding any inappropriate building, not just tall ones. But we need a LOT more high density in Dublin generally, otherwise the low-density urban sprawl will get out of hand.

@SOC wrote:

I just passed the DDDA offices on John Rogersons Quay and saw a beautiful model of the new U2 tower in their lobby. It looks fantastic!

I saw a presentation of the new U2 Tower a few weeks ago including photographs of that model and the new CGIs. I agree, really fantastic!

I’m not sure what all the secrecy is about, all the new information was to have been published in the Irish Architect this month but the publication was stopped by DDDA. I assume they don’t want anyone to see the new design in case they decide to change architect…

The four bidders presented their proposals last week, two of the bidders opting for the new design and two opting for designs by either Norman Foster or Zaha Hadid. No obvious winner has emerged although Paul Maloney is supporting Ballymore/U2/Foster, so that’s the one to watch. Decision to be announced sometime after Thursday next.

“How. much. is. that. U2 model. in the window?”

I went into the DDDA office today to take some photos of the U2 tower but the secretary said the model had been moved to a different room.

They didn’t let me go into the meeting room where all the other GCD models were, so I went around the side of the building and took some photos through the window.

I returned 20 minutes later and low and behold, there was the U2 model! Someone must have put it back after I enquired about it.

Anyway, here’s some pics. Excuse the reflections on the glass, there wasn’t much I could do about it.

And here’s two pics of the GDC model:

great stuff. What;s that leaning tower that appears to be straddling the DART to the right of the gasometer?
sorry ex-gasometer

Cheers. Yeh it had me confused. I like the last proposal best but christ you can’t have something like that! Poeple might actually form opinions on it rather than trundle past it on the DART without as much as a shrug.

Well done to the DDDA again, their choice is awalys spot for always opting for the insignificant dud. Bless them for they have to be the most boring people to be around. Grey suits, cups of tea and early nights! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
What a magnificent pile of shite they have assembled in the Dublin Docks, and as the years go by it doesn’t get any better. Billions of euros worth, that looks fuck all. My foreign relatives and friends laugh at the assemblage of lego blocks for they can’t understand why it is all soooooooooo conservative. Poor fool who believes in the shite and buys an appartment here. Who wants to live in squat block land and pay half a million for an appartment cell?

@Morlan wrote:

“How. much. is. that. U2 model. in the window?”

I went into the DDDA office today to take some photos of the U2 tower but the secretary said the model had been moved to a different room.

They didn’t let me go into the meeting room where all the other GCD models were, so I went around the side of the building and took some photos through the window.

I returned 20 minutes later and low and behold, there was the U2 model! Someone must have put it back after I enquired about it.

Anyway, here’s some pics. Excuse the reflections on the glass, there wasn’t much I could do about it.

And here’s two pics of the GDC model:

What a shower of hooligans! They’ve smashed up the U2 Tower model.

It looked really great when I saw it last, the glass cladding rose to a point enclosing a beautiful rooftop garden with trees and terraces. It looks like when Paul Maloney said he was going to f**k the U2 Tower design into the bin he really meant it!

I wonder what this cock-up is costing the taxpayer?

Article in todays Sunday Times about the tower and saying how its become a complete farce. Also insinuating that U2 may be influencing whats going on with the tower:mad: What the hell does it have to do with them anyway?:mad: 😡 Original design likely to be dropped. Its thought U2 want a ‘star’ architect to win the tender at the expense of the original twisting design.

@darkman wrote:

Article in todays Sunday Times about the tower and saying how its become a complete farce. Also insinuating that U2 may be influencing whats going on with the tower:mad: What the hell does it have to do with them anyway?:mad: 😡 Original design likely to be dropped. Its thought U2 want a ‘star’ architect to win the tender at the expense of the original twisting design.

Its well known that some U2 members know Gehry personally. They met with him prior to original compitition. Frankly i’m getting sick of the whole process. The model in the above photos is spot on.

Can somebody with knowledge of building structure please comment on this please –

The images of the model above, show what seems to be structural columns which are twisting in the same direction at the perimeter of the building. My take on it (as a student), is that these twisting columns are connected to the structural core within each floor level by steel beams , and that this is the primary structure of the building : twisting columns, beams and core. The twisting columns would also support the glazed facade. Does this sound right? or is there something else going on.

Im asking because i have a similar structural solution with my design project (columns which twist in the same direction)… earlier in the year one of my tutors told me i would need columns running in the opposite direction also, to counteract the forces or whatever.

@cokedrinker wrote:

Can somebody with knowledge of building structure please comment on this please –

The images of the model above, show what seems to be structural columns which are twisting in the same direction at the perimeter of the building. My take on it (as a student), is that these twisting columns are connected to the structural core within each floor level by steel beams , and that this is the primary structure of the building : twisting columns, beams and core. The twisting columns would also support the glazed facade. Does this sound right? or is there something else going on.

Im asking because i have a similar structural solution with my design project (columns which twist in the same direction)… earlier in the year one of my tutors told me i would need columns running in the opposite direction also, to counteract the forces or whatever.

I dont see why, considering how small the floor plates are, there would be a need to have a supporting structure in this location. Unless it is supporting the facade system which is possible, but I doubt its part of the primary structure. On the other hand, it might just be there to hold the model itself together, and will not feature on the finished building.

Regarding your project with twisting colus and the tutors comments, I assume he was refering to a lattice type structure similar to that of Fosters Gerkhin in London?

yep he was referring to the double helix type structure of the Gherkin. Infinity tower in dubai is similar to the u2 tower only much taller. From what i’ve read, the primary structure of that tower is the structural core and the perimeter columns which all twist in the same direction

Inifinity Tower

@darkman wrote:

Article in todays Sunday Times about the tower and saying how its become a complete farce. Also insinuating that U2 may be influencing whats going on with the tower:mad: What the hell does it have to do with them anyway?:mad: 😡 Original design likely to be dropped. Its thought U2 want a ‘star’ architect to win the tender at the expense of the original twisting design.

Has anyone got a copy of that article please?

Not sure if anyone has seen this artical before but its quite interesting, although, it still sheds no light on when construction will begin

http://www.ddda.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=97&pID=327&nID=328

Who designed the Infinity Tower?
*edit* just found out it’s the same ones who do most of Ballymore’s stuff in the London docklands.

@SOC wrote:

Has anyone got a copy of that article please?

Critics brand Docklands development a farce as design untwists (by Colin Coyle, The Sunday Times, August 5, 2007)

It is a story that already has as many twists as a Joshua tree. But the latest shift over plans for the landmark U2 tower in Dublin’s docklands isn’t a twist at all, it’s quite the reverse.

The twisty design that won a competition for the site seems to have disappeared and left its critics to complain that the project has turned into a farce.

In 2003 a panel of judges selected by the site owner, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA), announced that a Dublin based firm had beaten competition from 541 other entrants to design the 60m tower on Britain Quay. The winning design of Burdon Craig Dunne Henry (BCDH), a twisting tower incorporating apartments and a recording studio for the eponymous band, generated plenty of excitement in architectural circles.

However, it now appears it wasn’t what either the DDDA or U2, who co-sponsored the competition, were looking for.

When the DDDA sought tenders to build the tower last year, bidders were told it had more than doubled in size to 130m, which would make it the tallest building in Ireland. An element of “new design” would be permitted as a result.

Now it has emerged that two of the five designs on a short list to be announced in the next two months have dropped the competition-winning notion of a twisting block.

One design is being promoted by U2, who have teamed up with Sir Norman Foster, the British architect, and Sean Mulryan, the property developer, to produce a design that is described as “radically different” from BCDH’s concept.

The twisted tower has also been ignored in a plan submitted by Treasury-Sisk and designed by Zaha Hadid, the award-winning international architect. It is understood that the three other finalists have remained faithful to the original design.

One of the former entrants, who asked not to be named, criticised the DDDA’s decision to allow proposals that ignored the original winning idea.

“The first competition was a farce. But what’s happening now is effectively a new competition to ensure the result they want – a tower designed by an international star like Foster or Hadid”.

This new controversy is a headache the DDDA could do without. The 2003 competition hit the headlines when the design originally chosen had to be scrapped because the architects could not be identified.

To guard against conflicts of interest, the judging panel had been provided with numbers corresponding to projects, with entrants’ names withheld to ensure anonymity. But when the winner was picked, no number corresponding to its entry could be found. The organisers considered posting an image of their first choice on a website to track down its creators, but were advised this could result in a legal challenge.

The DDDA has dismissed criticism of the new competition. It said all five short-listed candidates were given scope to submit “compliant bids [based on the original design] and variant designs for both the U2 Tower and Britain Quay”.

Architecture Ireland, the official journal of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, planned to publish images of the five entries in its latest edition. Sources claim it postponed publication when the competition’s organisers claimed this could prejudice the decision-making process. But the journal said yesterday there was no pressure from the DDDA. “It was a normal editorial decision,” it stated.

BCDH would not comment on the latest developments until a winner had been chosen.

Foster, one of the world’s best known architects, is also collaborating with U2 on the €150m redevelopment of the band’s Clarence hotel in Dublin, another project mired in controversy. Michael Smith, a former chairman of An Taisce, described plans to create a new nine-storey hotel on the Liffey as “execrable”.

Dublin city council said the planning application for the hotel was dormant and has given U2 untilthe end of September to reply to a lengthy list of questions about the development.

U2’s involvement in the development of the Britain Quay site emerged earlier this summer.

After rival bidders raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest, the DDDA released a statement insisting members of the band “will not have any role or involvement, directly or indirectly” during the assessment.

@Morlan wrote:

There’s an awful lot of visual masturbation going on with the U2 tower. Every time you see any image of it, be it model or montage, it looks different. I mean, what is that (above)? It doesn’t even look like a building. Everyone knows the finished building would look nothing like that ….

@Mick wrote:

Critics brand Docklands development a farce as design untwists (by Colin Coyle, The Sunday Times, August 5, 2007)

To guard against conflicts of interest, the judging panel had been provided with numbers corresponding to projects, with entrants’ names withheld to ensure anonymity. But when the winner was picked, no number corresponding to its entry could be found. The organisers considered posting an image of their first choice on a website to track down its creators, but were advised this could result in a legal challenge.

Was this intrigue ever solved? Was the architect of the winning design ever identified? How come in all this time since 2003 an image has never surfaced of the winning design? Will it ever be seen? It’s all so strange ……

I think there was an image of the winning design. I’m pretty sure I saw it.

@Mick wrote:

Critics brand Docklands development a farce as design untwists (by Colin Coyle, The Sunday Times, August 5, 2007)

It is a story that already has as many twists as a Joshua tree. But the latest shift over plans for the landmark U2 tower in Dublin’s docklands isn’t a twist at all, it’s quite the reverse.

The twisty design that won a competition for the site seems to have disappeared and left its critics to complain that the project has turned into a farce.

In 2003 a panel of judges selected by the site owner, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA), announced that a Dublin based firm had beaten competition from 541 other entrants to design the 60m tower on Britain Quay. The winning design of Burdon Craig Dunne Henry (BCDH), a twisting tower incorporating apartments and a recording studio for the eponymous band, generated plenty of excitement in architectural circles.

However, it now appears it wasn’t what either the DDDA or U2, who co-sponsored the competition, were looking for.

When the DDDA sought tenders to build the tower last year, bidders were told it had more than doubled in size to 130m, which would make it the tallest building in Ireland. An element of “new design” would be permitted as a result.

Now it has emerged that two of the five designs on a short list to be announced in the next two months have dropped the competition-winning notion of a twisting block.

One design is being promoted by U2, who have teamed up with Sir Norman Foster, the British architect, and Sean Mulryan, the property developer, to produce a design that is described as “radically different” from BCDH’s concept.

The twisted tower has also been ignored in a plan submitted by Treasury-Sisk and designed by Zaha Hadid, the award-winning international architect. It is understood that the three other finalists have remained faithful to the original design.

One of the former entrants, who asked not to be named, criticised the DDDA’s decision to allow proposals that ignored the original winning idea.

“The first competition was a farce. But what’s happening now is effectively a new competition to ensure the result they want – a tower designed by an international star like Foster or Hadid”.

This new controversy is a headache the DDDA could do without. The 2003 competition hit the headlines when the design originally chosen had to be scrapped because the architects could not be identified.

To guard against conflicts of interest, the judging panel had been provided with numbers corresponding to projects, with entrants’ names withheld to ensure anonymity. But when the winner was picked, no number corresponding to its entry could be found. The organisers considered posting an image of their first choice on a website to track down its creators, but were advised this could result in a legal challenge.

The DDDA has dismissed criticism of the new competition. It said all five short-listed candidates were given scope to submit “compliant bids [based on the original design] and variant designs for both the U2 Tower and Britain Quay”.

Architecture Ireland, the official journal of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, planned to publish images of the five entries in its latest edition. Sources claim it postponed publication when the competition’s organisers claimed this could prejudice the decision-making process. But the journal said yesterday there was no pressure from the DDDA. “It was a normal editorial decision,” it stated.

BCDH would not comment on the latest developments until a winner had been chosen.

Foster, one of the world’s best known architects, is also collaborating with U2 on the €150m redevelopment of the band’s Clarence hotel in Dublin, another project mired in controversy. Michael Smith, a former chairman of An Taisce, described plans to create a new nine-storey hotel on the Liffey as “execrable”.

Dublin city council said the planning application for the hotel was dormant and has given U2 untilthe end of September to reply to a lengthy list of questions about the development.

U2’s involvement in the development of the Britain Quay site emerged earlier this summer.

After rival bidders raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest, the DDDA released a statement insisting members of the band “will not have any role or involvement, directly or indirectly” during the assessment.

This isn’t a farce it’s a stitch up.

Paul Maloney and Ballymore have stitched this up between them but they have completely miscalculated the sh*t that will hit the fan when they make that announcement. I doubt Paul Maloney’s actions and trips over the last year will bear the scrutiny they are about to get.

Why do Architects, world renowned or otherwise, allow themselves to be exploited by Clients or Sponsors who promise juicy commissions but yet cannot deliver. Not just once but again and again. In this case the Client, who is also the Sponsor believe that they are also an unaccountable Planning Authority. But they are not the final arbiter. Public derision and the High Court beckon! How many wasted man/woman hours are involved in this farce?

Strong rumours that Paul Maloney will announce the result of his ‘competition’ on Monday 10th of September, henceforth to be known as ‘Murky Monday’!

christ will dey jus hurry up and start building/

Apparently they are just waiting on a new meccano set and a few doozers and they will be underway in jig time;)

I just found these on the DDDA website.

http://www.ddda.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=97&3nID=327&nID=328&aID=409

http://www.ddda.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=97&3nID=327&nID=328&aID=412

I think this must be the announcement of the new design! It looks fantastic!

The winning tender is being announced tomorrow I believe acording to the SINDO………

oh thank god bring it on before the the watchtower is built and occupied before they lay a brick..

Are thay gonna build this at all? ….or is it all talk and no action as usual.

i’d say it’s all talk and no action. i’d say it’s all talk and no action with the watchtower too.

are you sure it’s the watchtower though?

off topic i know but yet another skyscraper approved for London, getting out of control now..

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2894

Anger over structure demolition . . . . . .[From this weeks Dublin People]
THE Dublin Docklands Development Authority has been criticised for demolishing a protected structure as part of plans for the new U2 tower.
The old hailing station, on the corner of Sir John Rogerson’s Quay and Britain Quay, was torn down as part of its development plans for the Grand Canal Dock area.
The hailing station was built in 1907 and was used to direct ships as they docked along the quays. Dockers also congregated at the station to seek out potential employment opportunities.
The structure is listed on the Dublin City Council register of protected structures.
However, under the Dublin Docklands Development Act 1997, the Master Plan for the Docklands Area takes precedence over the Dublin City Development Plan including its record of protected structures.
Former Environment Minister, Dick Roche, signed an order before he left office to protect the hailing station by record only.

This means that the only remaining record of the structure is on paper.
The DDDA commissioned Christopher Southgate & Associates to prepare a conservation report on the hailing station.
The report stated: “The Hailing Station is not an architecturally significant building. However, its function is of historical and social significance….”
The report considers the building to be of local significance and recommends conservation by record.
One of the conditions of the demolition was that the footprint of the Hailing Station “be outlined in red brick salvaged from the building and incorporated into the landscape plan insofar as it was consistent with the development of the U2 Tower”.
A spokesman for the heritage council, An Taisce, said they do not approve of the manner in which the hailing station was demolished.
“The hailing station was a significant example of maritime history in the Docklands,” he said.
“The DDDA should be doing all they can to conserve what remains of the area’s past and not wipe it away,” he said.
“The building should be preserved in some form. An Taisce did not approve of the manner in which it was removed from the record of protected structures. There was no consultation or notification with locals or heritage groups.”
Damien Cassidy of the Ringsend Environment Group complained that there was no consultation regarding the demolition.
“At no stage were locals consulted about this,” he claimed.
“The first people knew about the demolition of the hailing station was when we noticed it had disappeared.”
However, a spokeswoman for the DDDA rejected claims that the authority had not adequately consulted with the public and heritage groups on the move.
“What we generally do is put the planning scheme out to all the local communities and anyone who wants to make any submissions then can,” she said.
“We have the same standard process as the city council would use for planning. We advertise the plans in the papers and state that people can come and make submissions.
“We go right into the communities, in community centres, in our own offices and different parts of the city and then we have it [the plans] available on the website as well.
“An Taisce can make submissions on any of our plans as part of the public consultation. As regards the public, we open it as far as we can and the plan was fully available to the public to make submissions on it as well.”

@cubix wrote:

off topic i know but yet another skyscraper approved for London, getting out of control now..

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2894

had a look at that, awful. Bring on the U2 tower, and the Berkeley Court for that matter.

I don’t think its too bad,perhaps a bit asian looking.. hopefully the U2 tower will be better!!if they get around to building the dawn ting

I am so eager to see the Foster and Hadid proposals, when can we expect some images to be released!

@cubix wrote:

off topic i know but yet another skyscraper approved for London, getting out of control now..

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2894

While I’d like to see more high quality high rises in the docklands, this London bullding shows the danger. I think I’d rather our 6 floor stumpy IFSC buildings than that yoke, they’re monotonous but inoffensive/inconspicuous compared with that.

yeah i probably used a bad example to illustrate that a lot of them are being approved..out of interest are there many other high rise proposals waiting for planning permission right now. In dublin that is..?

@JoePublic wrote:

While I’d like to see more high quality high rises in the docklands, this London bullding shows the danger. I think I’d rather our 6 floor stumpy IFSC buildings than that yoke, they’re monotonous but inoffensive/inconspicuous compared with that.

I think the Watchtower is as bad as that building TBH

I really hope they don’t f**k this up, we don’t need another bloody Carlton

I saw these pics of a similar tower to U2 on another website. The tower is in Sarajevo.

It’s been delayed again.

Cant say im supprised but how do you know? It was supposed to be revealved last week who won the tender,

Does anybody know who’s on the assessment committee?

Did anyone hear the discussion on ‘Drivetime’ (RTE Radio 1) on Thursday evening about the Giants Causeway / Heneghen Peng debacle? Some architectural commentator was questioning the value of international architectural competitions in the light of Heneghen Peng’s winning design for a visitor centre at Giants Causeway apparently having been dumped in favour of some private developer design and citing Zaha Hadid’s Cardiff Opera House too.

I wonder if BCDH’s twisting tower will be the next victim of this insidious trend?

Shame on John McLaughlin (DDDA) if this is his legacy!

Anyone see the Dave McWilliams programme on Monday night about the demise of our economy and the ‘Celtic Tiger’ etc….. It showed the gleaming new glass towers and edifices of China and Dubai, shining in the sunshine against a brilliant blue sky and then switched to the Dublin docks of grey skies and insignificant squat block land. Hard to believe there was ever a boom on here by the looks of it 🙁

@GregF wrote:

Anyone see the Dave McWilliams programme on Monday night about the demise of our economy and the ‘Celtic Tiger’ etc….. It showed the gleaming new glass towers and edifices of China and Dubai, shining in the sunshine against a brilliant blue sky and then switched to the Dublin docks of grey skies and insignificant squat block land. Hard to believe there was ever a boom on here by the looks of it 🙁

Lets be realistic here, although the docks has been a missed opportunity in many respects it is far from the finished article.The watchtower and the U2 tower will give a new dimension to this area and other on going projects will bulk up the area.
Dublin is no Dubai or Shanghai and is never going to be.We have had a boom here fair enough but on a world scale it is insignificant. If Irelands economy imploded the world economy wouldnt even blink.Dublin has changed hugely in 20 years for the better but to expect this to compare to Shanghai or Dubai is crazy.

Regarding the U2 tower the delays are incredible.Also anyone know whats happening to the site beside it where contruction has been halted for some timenow?

@mcdanish wrote:

Lets be realistic here, although the docks has been a missed opportunity in many respects it is far from the finished article.The watchtower and the U2 tower will give a new dimension to this area and other on going projects will bulk up the area.
Dublin is no Dubai or Shanghai and is never going to be.We have had a boom here fair enough but on a world scale it is insignificant. If Irelands economy imploded the world economy wouldnt even blink.Dublin has changed hugely in 20 years for the better but to expect this to compare to Shanghai or Dubai is crazy.

Regarding the U2 tower the delays are incredible.Also anyone know whats happening to the site beside it where contruction has been halted for some timenow?

Ireland’s economy was the fastest growing economy in europe in 2000 something line 9% and we are one of if not the fastest growing country in Europe in respect to population. Our economy is larger than Nigeria’s for christ sake (Population 120 million). , and our economy is larger than the UAE – that must be hard to swallow? Our economy ranks arouns 50th in the world based on GDP, not even taking into account population.
In the terms of pace of development, we must be one of the slowest in the world…
We could have made something out of the boom we had for sure, we threw a few competitions, we marketed a few changes, then there was the NDP plan – but we always seems to hit on mediocrity??? Where is our ambition, and then the follow ups to make it happen? This U2 farce is just boring at this stage. It’s a pity because the tower got a lot of us excited

Yeah cool – if we lived in a dictatorship we could have big glass towers built by borderline slavery.

Yes we had a fast growing economy, but we were coming from borderline bankrupcy so it was a very small base that we were actually growing from (we were catching up with the rest of western Europe anyway) and rate of growth means bugger all when your economy is tiny anyway. Anyone old enough to remember the early 80s will tell you how much Dublin and the economy has changed.

people can look at it whatever way they want, the bottom line is in a 15 year construction boom 95% of everything we built is bland boring shite…

McWilliams is very experienced in financial world, Hobbs less successful. From McWilliam’s own website:
He was educated at Trinity College Dublin and the College of Europe Bruges, Belgium and before moving into writing and broadcasting he spent ten years in banking. First as an economist with the Irish Central Bank, where he helped draft the Irish Submission to the Maastricht Treaty and advised the authorities during the 1992-93 exchange rate crisis.

He then moved to investment banking with UBS – European’s largest bank – where he was appointed the youngest Director ever at the age of 27. He was the first economist to predict the 1990s boom in Ireland which later became known as the “Celtic Tiger” in a 1994 in-depth report on Ireland, its economy and its prospects. He traveled extensively in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, devising bank strategy in both regions

He moved from UBS to BNP where he was Head of Emerging Markets Research.
During his time there, the Emerging markets team was the most profitable unit of the Banque Nationale de Paris world-wide.

As for having nothing to moan about in this country, I take it you’re being sarcastic.

@jdivision wrote:

As for having nothing to moan about in this country, I take it you’re being sarcastic.

If there’s one thing the Irish ARE world leaders at, it’s moaning

All I’ll say is if we were rich enough to build so much shite we were rich enough to build higher quality stuff. To accept the built environemtn created by the boom without question smacks of Irish self deprecating “sure it’s grand, we’re only Ireland” ballsology. The Docks is a monument to this attitude. It’s better than what it was, but totally useless compared to what it should have been. It’s not “moaning”, it’s striving for a better country…

@alonso wrote:

All I’ll say is if we were rich enough to build so much shite we were rich enough to build higher quality stuff. To accept the built environemtn created by the boom without question smacks of Irish self deprecating “sure it’s grand, we’re only Ireland” ballsology. The Docks is a monument to this attitude. It’s better than what it was, but totally useless compared to what it should have been. It’s not “moaning”, it’s striving for a better country…

You do have a good point Alonso, there’s just a balance to be struck – the Irish (imho) are far too negative about Ireland generally. Yes the docklands could certainly be better. Hopefully better things to come.

@JoePublic wrote:

If there’s one thing the Irish ARE world leaders at, it’s moaning

If you’d lived in the docklands you wouldn’t be saying that. I did. I moved out after six months. It was horrendous. Things will improve eventually but the IFSC phase 2 in particular has largely been a disaster

@jdivision wrote:

If you’d lived in the docklands you wouldn’t be saying that. I did. I moved out after six months. It was horrendous. Things will improve eventually but the IFSC phase 2 in particular has largely been a disaster

I actually live in Grand canal dock, for the last year 😀

I think gc dock will be seen as mostly successful, agreed the ifsc is pretty crap.

I’d agree that GCD looks to be better. There’s already 2 medium rises breaking the monotony on the southside compared to the muck in the IFSC

A new northside v southside debate begins:)

I’ll do a pre-emptive even-it-up exercise by saying Laguna’s better than the Ocean Bar so 🙂

@JoePublic wrote:

If there’s one thing the Irish ARE world leaders at, it’s moaning

Must disagree with you there JP, the French are streets ahead of the Irish when it comes to moaning !

@constat wrote:

Must disagree with you there JP, the French are streets ahead of the Irish when it comes to moaning !

But is it that the French moan about everybody else, whereas we moan about ourselves? 🙂

@alonso wrote:

All I’ll say is if we were rich enough to build so much shite we were rich enough to build higher quality stuff. To accept the built environemtn created by the boom without question smacks of Irish self deprecating “sure it’s grand, we’re only Ireland” ballsology. The Docks is a monument to this attitude. It’s better than what it was, but totally useless compared to what it should have been. It’s not “moaning”, it’s striving for a better country…

Spot on….I agree!

From yesterday’s Sunday business post

---

U2 still haven’t got what they’re looking for
23 September 2007 By Neil Callanan
Seven years after it was first mooted, the proposed U2 tower for Dublin’s docklands remains strangled in red tape, design-related disagreements and planning squabbles.

The U2 tower was intended to define the docklands area of Dublin: an emblem of new Ireland, an elegantly twisting structure close to the emerging centre of commerce in Dublin. Instead, it is in danger of becoming a symbol of planning logjams and indecision.

In July last year, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) sought expressions of interest to develop the tower and an adjoining campshire site. The closing date for submissions was October 2006, and a decision on the winning bid was expected by the end of the year.

But, nearly a year after the initial deadline for expressions of interest, an announcement on the winning bidder has yet to be made. Shortlisted bidders had been expecting an announcement by September 11,but that deadline passed and the winning bidder’s identity remains a secret.

A spokeswoman for the DDDA said that, ‘‘due to scheduling issues, it is now likely to be early October, at the next meeting of the board of the Authority’’ before a decision is made. However, that could spark off yet another set of problems for the project.

One shortlisted bidder for the project has told The Sunday Business Post that he hopes his bid will not be selected because of knock-on effects from the recent downturn in the housing market. He said that property developers had bid for the site when the market was still strong, but that the fall in residential prices would make it more difficult for the project to be viable.

The recent tightening in the credit markets – the so-called ‘‘credit crunch’’ – is already affecting the funding of projects such as the Shard of Glass tower in London, and could make securing the finance to develop the site more difficult.

The shortlist of five bidders for the tower was announced by the DDDA in February. It comprised Ballymore Properties; Royal BAM Group; a joint venture between Treasury Holdings and Sisk; Sean Dunne’s Mountbrook Homes; and the River II Partnership, made up of the Kelly, McCormack, Elliott and Flynn families, who are involved in property development.

When the shortlist was announced, the five bidders were also told to submit design proposals for an adjacent site on Britain Quay, and to provide an integrated plan for that site and the tower. The developers were required to bid for the pre-agreed design for theU2 Tower, and also to bid for their own architects’ designs for the sites.

However, it subsequently emerged that the members of U2 were in fact bidding for the tower site themselves, in a joint venture with Ballymore. The DDDA has not explained why U2’s involvement was not initially disclosed, or whether it was even aware of it when the bids were submitted.

The DDDA, through its solicitors, did write to the other companies on the shortlist to say that the rock superstars would ‘‘not have any role or involvement, directly or indirectly’’ in examining bids for the project.

Since the DDDA’s decision to allow bidders to use their own architects’ designs, there has been sustained speculation that the original design of the tower will be scrapped. A spokeswoman for the DDDA said she could not comment on the matter.

Felim Dunne, a principal in architecture firm BCDH, which designed the tower, did not return a call seeking comment on whether his firm had been told that its design was no longer to be used.

Two of the shortlisted bidders have told this newspaper that if theU2 tower site design is used, the site of 2.5 acres will sell for at least €75 million, and possibly as much as €100million,when the cost of providing the upper floors of the tower for U2 is included in the cost.

However, they stated that bids for the variant tower designs were significantly below those figures. Ballymore/U2 and Treasury Holdings/Sisk are understood to have submitted variant tower designs, and the Ballymore/U2 bid is the favourite to win.

The competition to design a tower for the site was run in 2003, but the identity of the original winning design could not be ascertained. It subsequently emerged that it should have been disqualified in the first place, so BCDH’s proposal was declared the winner.

The BCDH proposal is for a tower with a 45-degree twist, a feature that has become increasingly common in towers worldwide. International architecture firm Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM) designed the 80-storey Infinity Tower in Dubai, which has a 90-degree twist.

Architect Santiago Calatrava, who designed the Samuel Beckett bridge for the docklands in Dublin, has designed numerous twisting buildings, including the Chicago Spire, which is being developed by Garrett Kelleher’s Shelbourne Developments.

The U2 tower was originally meant to be 60 metres high but, by 2005, the height of the proposed building had increased to 100 metres.

When planning was eventually sought last year, the tower had more than doubled in height to 130 metres.

Planning was later granted for the 36storey tower over two storeys of basement accommodation, measuring a total of just under 35,000 square metres. The development was only put out to tender after talks between the DDDA and property developer Liam Carroll, who owns a large adjacent site on Britain Quay, broke down.

The minutes from a DDDA council meeting in July 2005 show that the authority was in active negotiations with Carroll to seek a joint development of his property and the U2 tower site. The DDDA entered the talks because it wanted only the U2 tower built on that side of the river.

The problem was that Carroll already had planning permission for a 100 metre tower on his site. The DDDA proposed that it would offer Carroll two options for a joint development of his property and the DDDA site, but one of the conditions was that only theU2 tower would be built.

After the meeting, the DDDA was accused of being ‘‘breathtaking in its arrogance’’ by Gerry Fay, one of its council members, for assuming that its tower should take precedence over Carroll’s, which already had planning permission.

It was ‘‘patently obvious that the DDDA completely underestimated the scale of development required at this location in 2000,when the original plans were drawn up’’, Fay wrote in a letter to the DDDA.

‘‘The DDDA were caught ball-watching – rolled and mugged, once again they are now playing catch-up.”

The DDDA wants only one tower built on the south docks because it wishes to create a ‘‘landmark entry’’ to Dublin via the U2 tower on the south docks and the Watchtower building being planned by businessman Harry Crosbie on the north docks.

The reasoning behind this has yet to be fully explained, given that very few people will enter the city by passing the sites.

Last year, the DDDA decided to add an amendment to its planning scheme for the Grand Canal Dock area. It said that only one tower was to be developed in the area and made it site-specific, meaning that the only place where one could be built was on theU2 tower site.

‘‘The requirements for such a tower would not be satisfied by any other landmark tower that may be permitted or constructed in the Grand Canal Dock area,” stated the draft amendment.

This proved a significant move, because Carroll was not even close to completing the development of his site and the planning permission was due to expire.

Carroll started work on the site, but Dublin City Council, which had granted permission for his tower and associated developments, ruled that insufficient works had been carried out and an extension of the planning permission would not be appropriate. An appeal was also turned down.

Carroll lodged legal proceedings in the Commercial Court in March challenging the council’s decision. If he does not win the case, he is unlikely to ever be allowed build a tower on his site.

An informed source told The Sunday Business Post last week there had been talks between the DDDA and Carroll on the issue and suggested a possible solution might be reached, by allowing increased density on his site in return for reducing the tower’s height. A senior industry source also said the DDDA was in talks with Carroll to acquire some of his site.

It is not clear why the DDDA is so emphatic about only having one tower in the south docks. The docklands has few high-profile buildings – a point emphasised by the artists shortlisted for a sculpture for the docks, with sculptor Dorothy Cross branding the area ‘‘generic and second rate’’.

Perhaps in acknowledgement of this, the DDDA commissioned a tall buildings study for the North Lotts area and is also part of a consortium planning high rise development on the South Wharf site in Ringsend.

Most property developers believe the authority will eventually have to back down and allow more high-rise development in the docklands.

Many developers have already prepared for it, developing buildings with foundations strong enough to allow them increase their property heights when the DDDA eases its height restrictions.

Going up seems a matter of when, not if – but, as those involved in the U2 tower process have found to their cost, ‘‘when’’ can be an awfully long time where the docklands are concerned.

What a bunch of morons at the DDDA
Absolute lack of any vision whatsoever
They should prosecuted for holding back the development of a nation….

I see the Members of the Travelling Community have finally been moved on from Britain Quay and concrete girders have been placed all about to stop them coming back.

@Devin wrote:

I see the Members of the Travelling Community have finally been moved on from Britain Quay and concrete girders have been placed all about to stop them coming back.

I think it is a shocking failure on the part of the DDDA that they have made no attempt to develop culturally appropriate urban accommodation for travellers in this area. Although there is no existing model for traveller accommodation in a medium or high rise urban context, I do not accept that this means that it could not be acheived and, I feel, it was the responsibility of the DDDA to be at the vanguard in this regard.

Like stacking their caravans?

I kid, but i disagree. It’d be nice to think that a functioning, clean, halting site could be provided in this area, but all you would hear would be a collective cry of “there goes the neighbourhood” echoing up the Liffey.

@notjim wrote:

I think it is a shocking failure on the part of the DDDA that they have made no attempt to develop culturally appropriate urban accommodation for travellers

I dont.

@notjim wrote:

I think it is a shocking failure on the part of the DDDA that they have made no attempt to develop culturally appropriate urban accommodation for travellers in this area. Although there is no existing model for traveller accommodation in a medium or high rise urban context, I do not accept that this means that it could not be acheived and, I feel, it was the responsibility of the DDDA to be at the vanguard in this regard.

Although halting sites are acceptable in principle in nearly every statutory zoning context in every Development Plan I think any travellers hoping to settle legitimately in the Docklands only hope is that they get shunted down Poolbeg between the incinerator and the water treatment plant. They’re not quite there yet but that would be par for the course. I guess it’s the same family grouping that have been drofting ever Eastwards as the Docklands develop, they’ve been around the South Docks at least 10 years at this stage.

I’m a fairly liberal person with most issues,
but its preposterous to think that any group of people can set up and move in,
anywhere,on any piece of real estate
Especially a prized chunk of land like in docklands
Why should i have to work my ass off saving and working?
Maybe i should head to woodies or somethin pick up some ply wood and nails
and build my own little house in Stephens green

@paul h wrote:

I’m a fairly liberal person with most issues,
but its preposterous to think that any group of people can set up and move in,
anywhere,on any piece of real estate
Especially a prized chunk of land like in docklands
Why should i have to work my ass off saving and working?
Maybe i should head to woodies or somethin pick up some ply wood and nails
and build my own little house in Stephens green

That would be an ecumenical matter. What other way has land come into private ownership over the centuries in that area other than the method you outline above?
Maybe Sir John Rogerson’s descendents should go down there and reclaim their stone that’s keeping the place from becoming a salt marcsh once again:)

@paul h wrote:

I’m a fairly liberal person with most issues,
but its preposterous to think that any group of people can set up and move in,
anywhere,on any piece of real estate
Especially a prized chunk of land like in docklands
Why should i have to work my ass off saving and working?
Maybe i should head to woodies or somethin pick up some ply wood and nails
and build my own little house in Stephens green

If you and your family had been living on Stephens Green as long as anyone could remember and your house building plans were sympathetic to good planning and the local built environment, I would have no trouble with you building there and if you belonged to an abused and marginalized minority with a distinct, ignored and valuable culture, I would actively support you and your little house.

Ballymore are behind the pan peninsula towers in London plus a few other planned and approved projects in the city.These are nearly finished..

But were designed by SOM not Foster

If they are, then blame the DDDA. They’re the ones they issued as being shortlisted.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

This thread has been edited due to the poster known as Jimllfixit removing all his posts which destroys the continuity of the thread.
Hence I have had to remove replies directed at his misguided allegations.

The plot thickens

there was an article today in IMoS all about this, and the court cases that will inevitably ensue after the DDDA board meeting tomorrow.

More importantly Archiseek gets a mention! Hurray!

“In the immediate aftermath of the controversy (original decision) Archiseek.com, a popular online resource for architects, canvassed competition entrants and found six that had not been contacted by the auditors”

Not exactly a riveting mention, but a mention nonetheless. Tomorrow should bring interesting news though. Maybe the title of this thread should then be changed to “War? – U2 Tower to be Taller”

There should be an option to disallow people editing their own posts after X days. the potential for abuse is greater than the annoyance caused by genuinely needed edits having to go though a moderator IMO

Just to clarify – Is the DDDA finally to make a decision tomorrow? – and – will we see additional infomation on the tower itself I wonder:confused:

according to the article they will. Don’t know if we’ll get any more info though

Any word? Im sure I could be forgiven for thinking we have been led up the garden path again:rolleyes:

Is it just me or was a decision meant to be announced on the 8th?

The article was:

“Tower’s latest twist will pit McGuinness against U2 and end up in court” by Michael O’Farrell. Published in The Irish Mail on Sunday 07/10/07.

Tomorrow, in the board room of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, eight men and women will finally give the go-ahead for the U2 Tower – one of the most controversial construction projects Ireland has yet seen.

With millions of euro, not to mention huge prestige, at stake, some of Ireland’s and Europe’s top developers, architects and lawyers will be watching closely. So will the four band members of U2.

But whatever decision the board reaches, it is unlikely to signal the final chapter in what has already been a seven year saga replete with disagreement, mishap and administrative difficulties.

For it is now widely believed that the authority has abandoned the futuristic “Twisted Tower” design that it announced as the winner of a costly and problem-fraught architectural competition in a blaze of publicity in 2003.

If that turns out to be the case, then at least one disgruntled architect and one severely miffed property tycoon, the Irish Mail on Sunday has learned, will take their grievances to court.

The fallout could even lead to some serious friction between U2 and their manager, Paul McGuinness. For the band’s joint bid with Ballymore Properties is now the hot favourite to win the multi-million contract – and McGuinness has close family ties to the Blackrock-based architects, Burdon Craig Dunne Henry (BCDH), whose winning design now seems to have been shelved.

That ‘Dunne’ is Felim Dunne, Mr. McGuinness’s brother-in-law, whose close relationship once resulted in the architect doing work on U2’s Hanover Quay studio, where the entire saga began.

Now, however, U2 have a new favourite architect – Sir Norman Foster, who designed the controversial glass-donned expansion for Bono and The Edge’s Clarence Hotel. If the Ballymore Properties/U2 tender does get the go-ahead tomorrow, it will mean an entirely different, Foster-designed project will be built – opening the door for BCDH to go to court to have their design reinstated and stop the U2 design form being built.

He won’t be the only Dunne beating a path to the Four Courts, either. One of four tenders rivalling the Ballymore/U2 proposal has come from Sean Dunne, the Baron of Ballsbridge. But his tender is based on the original BCDH design that won the architectural competition. If Ballymore/U2 get the contract – and sources close to the band are confident they will – Sean Dunne, too, will head to court, arguing that the docklands authority effectively changed the rules.

One source close to Sean Dunne said: ‘Sean is hopping mad about this. He’s spent a lot of money preparing his bid on the basis that the DDDA was adamant that the twisting design was the one it really wanted. Now it looks as if that was not the case and he was wasting his time and cash.’

The taxpayer will be pretty miffed too, for the State-owned DDDA is rumoured to have spent €10m – on the competition itself, architects’ fees and ‘pre-development’ work – on the ‘Twisted Tower’

The saga began in August 2001 when the DDDA served a compulsory purchase order on U2’s Hanover Quay studio alongside the Grand Canal Dock.

The authority wanted to demolish the studio to make way for a civic public space around the canal basin. Initially, U2 fought the order , lodging four appeals to An Bord Pleanala in an attempt to save the studio they have recorded in since 1994.

However, in a shrewd move, the band instead concluded a valuable deal with the DDDA after letting it be known that they would ‘definitely consider moving to somewhere in the vicinity should a suitable property be offered as an alternative’.

The result was that U2 came away with the top two floors of the new landmark tower, which would also bear the band’s name.

Announcing the deal in and international design competition, Bono was typically loquacious. The once ‘extraordinary’ city of Dublin has been ‘defaced and vandalised’ through ‘corruption and cronyism’, he said in the summer of 2002.

‘Its hard to argue with people who know what they’re doing,’ he said of the decision to destroy the Hanover studio.

‘We just have to get out of the way. It’s not the best thing for U2 but we have to concede it’s the best thing for the city.’

But the sheer pulling-power of the U2 name resulted in the DDDA being completely swamped with more than 600 entries from architects as far flung as Texas and the Dominican Republic.

The judges, including U2 bassist Adam Clayton, chose a winner. But a complicated system set up to protect the impartiality of the process had backfired. No on e know who had actually submitted the winning entry and not even a full audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers could get to the bottom of the mystery. So a new winner was chosen.

In the immediate aftermath of the controversy, Archiseek.com, a popular online resource for architects, canvassed competition entrants and found that six had not been contacted by the auditors.

The DDDA has always disclaimed responsibility for lost or missing entries though sources close to the selection process suggest that the volume of paperwork simply overwhelmed administrators.

Ultimately, BCDH’s Twisted Tower was officially named the winner and, following a tendering process, five development consortium’s were short-listed to build the tower and develop the area around it. The five were Ballymore, the Dutch Royal BAM Group, which owns contractor Ascon Rohcon; a joint venture between Treasury Holdings and Sisk; Sean Dunne’s Mountbrook Homes and the River 2 Partnership.

There was more controversy when it emerged that U2 was associated with the Ballymore bid but the DDDA moved to reassure the other four bidders with a letter form its lawyers A&L Goodbody.

‘Neither U2 nor its representatives have had any role in setting rules for the contest,’ the letter read.

But rumours that the DDDA had dumped the twist design have long circulated possibly because the height of the tower has been more than doubled from 60m to 130m since the competition or perhaps because of the perceived difficulty and cost of actually constructing such a complex structure which would have been the tallest building in Ireland.

But sources suggested that most of those who submitted tenders never expected to have to work on the original concept.
‘There’s no way they expected to have to work on the original design. If they did, they wouldn’t enter’ said one associate. Under the stated rule of the tender process, all bidders were required to submit ‘compliant bids’ based on the competition-winning BCDH design.

However, the rules also allowed ‘variant bids’ or completely new proposals. It is known that many of the development bids have brought completely new architects on board.

Others, such as Sean Dunne, are understood to have sought and received reassurances that the original design is the preferred option and that any failure to submit a new design would not leave his bid disadvantaged.

Mr. Dunne is understood to be considering a legal challenge if tomorrow’s decision goes in favour of an altered design.

Peter Halpenny, director of property and development at Sean Dunne’s Mountbrook Homes, declined to comment on the possibility of a legal challenge. However, it is thought that any legal action taken by Sean Dunne would rely on a key sentence in the tender document sent out by the DDDA to the five short-listed developers.

It says: ‘Following an international architectural competition, a stunning twisted tower design, prepared by BCDH architects, was chosen by the authority as its preferred design. The design has now been further refined and the authority has undertaken critical elements of the pre-development work to establish an attractive development context for the private development sector.’

If, as MoS understands, Sean Dunne has put in the most competitive bid for the ‘preferred’ design, his lawyers will want to know precisely why he hasn’t won the contract.

Although Felim Dunne also declined to respond to requests for comment from the MoS, it is understood that BCDH, too, is considering a legal challenge if its winning design is dropped.

Asked about the possibility of legal action, the DDDA declined to make any comment in advance of tomorrow’s board meeting.

But whatever decision the DDDA board reaches tomorrow, the ongoing saga surrounding Ireland’s would-be tallest building seems far from over.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

winner shall be in the mornings Irish Times….
expect this one to run and run

OOOH I’m going to have to stay up till it’s on the website now 😀

Great!! There’s just too many twisting towers already for it to have been interesting – Turning Torso, Sarajevo tower, Chicage Spire … it would have looked SO tired by the time it was built.
But whatever is built will need to very distinctive … needs to much more distinctive than a square block tower …

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

The twisting design is toast….

Well we’ve already got Libeskind and Calatrava. I wonder what other notches the DDDA would like to have on its bedpost?

Mind you, if it clears the way for the quiet disappearance of Hotel UFO at The Clarence…

Won’t they have to reapply for planning permission?

Yes I wonder if the hotel would be incorporated. It’d save them a heck of a lot of hassle – especially given Mr Smith’s recent determination to go all the way to the High Court – while also going some way towards validating the more recent ‘hiccups’ of the tower project.

@JoePublic wrote:

Won’t they have to reapply for planning permission?

Dear DDDA,

Re. Section 25 Application

Can I build it?

Thanks.

Yours,

N.

PS One tall building is just like another, right?

http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/14739gcdpischeme06q4.pdf

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/images/2007/1012/1192086851291_1.html

😮

Docklands skyscraper to soar to 180m

A skyscraper soaring 60m (197ft) higher than the Spire on O’Connell Street has been chosen by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) as the winner of the latest competition for the U2 Tower at Britain Quay. Frank McDonald , Environment Editor, reports.

The sensational new scheme has the rock band’s eggshaped recording studio suspended beneath a battery of vertical wind turbines and a huge solar panel at the top. This “energy centre” will raise the overall height from 130m (427ft) to 180m (591ft).

The tilted triangular tower, designed by Foster + Partners, will include a public viewing platform offering panoramic views over the city and Dublin Bay. This will be located just below U2’s “pod” studio, which will be separated from the structure for acoustic reasons.

The scheme by Norman Foster’s practice, best known for the Swiss Re or “Gherkin” tower in the City of London, was commissioned by Geranger Ltd, a consortium consisting of Ballymore Properties, developer Paddy McKillen and the members of U2.

Geranger was selected as “provisional preferred bidder” for the €200 million project. It was chosen ahead of rival tenders from: Treasury Holdings/Sisk; Mountbrook Homes, controlled by developer Seán Dunne; the Dutch-based Royal BAM Group; and the Riverside II Partnership.

The Treasury Holdings/Sisk scheme, designed by Zaha Hadid, came second in the competition, which was assessed by Chris Wilkinson of Wilkinson Eyre Architects; Shih-Fu Peng of Heneghan Peng Architects; and Michael O’Doherty, former principal architect at the Office of Public Works.

DDDA director of architecture John McLaughlin said the Foster scheme “had the edge because its public spaces were really well handled” and it provided a gateway to a new bridge over the river Dodder where it joins the Liffey alongside Britain Quay.

In addition to the tower, which will largely comprise luxury apartments, the scheme includes a five-star hotel in a flanking building to the south, oversailing a block of 34 social and affordable apartments, which comprise 20 per cent of the overall residential content.

As part of its renewable energy agenda, the south facade of the tower will be clad in solar panels, while the east and west facades will have a three-dimensional quality, “like fishscales”, and the north facade will be “quite sleek”, Mr McLaughlin said. The crinkly east and west facades will conceal generous balconies. Their treatment, as well as the overall profile of the scheme, was inspired by the saw-toothed roof of a warehouse that once stood on the site.

DDDA chief executive Paul Maloney said the authority was “conscious that this is the most sought-after development in Dublin” and he paid tribute to all the bidders for the “immense amount” of work they had put into their entries and the “very exciting” designs they produced.

“What we have is the combination of a very strong financial offer with a striking architectural result,” he added. Architectural quality took pre-eminence in the criteria used for judging the competition, accounting for 45 points compared to 40 for the financial aspects of each bid.

Mr Maloney said the Geranger bid had been selected because it “exceeded the expectations of the brief with the emergence of a breathtaking design uniquely suited to this prominent Docklands site”, and it would provide an “inspirational landmark” for Dublin.

The original U2 Tower, a twisting structure designed by Blackrock-based architects Burdon Craig Dunne Henry, was judged not feasible to build at a height of just 60m (197ft). So the bar was raised to 130m (427ft) and an adjoining site was added to “make the sums stack up”.

It is expected that construction will start next year, with a view to completion by 2011. No planning permission is required, as it is already covered by the Grand Canal Docks planning scheme.
© 2007 The Irish Times

There’s your hotel, Graham. ‘Oversailing’ the 20% S&A Housing (required under the 2000 GCD Planning Scheme).

Re-reading the 2006 Amendment to the GCD Planning Scheme (http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/…scheme06q4.pdf – it’s the same link as I posted above) I see the following (my emphasis):

3.2.4 Building height
Building heights within the blocks will vary in order to achieve appropriate
urban scale. Maximum numbers of storeys are prescribed for both
commercial and residential development as shown in Diagram 5. The
controls will allow for vertically mixed use buildings with commercial,
residential and other use storeys. The main element of the landmark tower
should not exceed 100 metres in height to the shoulder above existing
street level. The shoulder is the top of the front wall of the building,
excluding any parapet. Accommodation above this level must be well set
back and consistent with architectural and service elements. Such elements
will be permitted subject to a maximum overall building height not
exceeding 120 metres above existing street level.

In this regard, please note the headline of the Irish Times article. Perhaps PP will not be as straightforward as was initially presumed?

(For those unfamiliar, a development proposal in the DDDA area that complies with a prepared scheme doesn’t require PP in the normal way, but the proposal must be in keeping with the scheme which, in this case, is the GCD Planning Scheme as amended in 2006. If it is in keeping, it gets a Certificate of Compliance. If not, then…)

*** *** ***

Graham-

I note from the GCD Amending Planning Scheme document that a hotel was suggested as a use in this location. The question then becomes Will Norm be happy with just the one riverside flop house?

from the other side

Bears a resemblance to the Deutshe Bank in Sydney, also designed by Norman Foster.
Probably one of the least successful new high rise buildings in Sydney

Let me get this right, the previous “winning” design was rejected because it’s author “could not be identified” and the previously announced winning design (the Twisting Tower) has now been rejected because “it was not economical to build”.
The promoters are also telling us that no planning permission is required (because they are their own planning authority) and there are no third party rights of appeal.
Due process?!

Resized

What’s that on the top.. the Eye of Sauron?

DDDA have certainly changed their tune on building height all of a sudden.

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=540736

Foster stuff is always kinda cool, but this is terribly angular, compared to all the curvy ‘organic’ shaped stuff today, ie…the Gherkin. Kinda hard to get used to it, after visualising the twisting tower here instead.

Isn’t it nice that all these developers and architects are fighting each other to build a signature tower in Dublin – so why do they all want to build them in one place? eg. let Treasury build their zaha hadid tower in Spencer dock.

@JoePublic wrote:

Isn’t it nice that all these developers and architects are fighting each other to build a signature tower in Dublin – so why do they all want to build them in one place? eg. let Treasury build their zaha hadid tower in Spencer dock.

Because they’re not allowed to. DDDA will only allow two towers, that and the Watchtower. Why? Haven’t a clue.

180m!!!!!!! This is more like it!:D Not sure whether they should have dropped the twisting design though.

Strangely the DDDA dont seem to acknowledge that it is 180m high?? They say 120m?

I have to ask is Frank McDonald sure about the height? It does not look 180m high?

@jdivision wrote:

Because they’re not allowed to. DDDA will only allow two towers, that and the Watchtower. Why? Haven’t a clue.

Time to amend the plan again 🙂

Come on DDDA, you know you want to.

@Morlan wrote:

What’s that on the top.. the Eye of Sauron?

Bono’s halo!

I bet it’ll be a candidate for the Sterling Prize when it’s built.

@darkman wrote:

180m!!!!!!! This is more like it!:D Not sure whether they should have dropped the twisting design though.

Strangely the DDDA dont seem to acknowledge that it is 180m high?? They say 120m?

I have to ask is Frank McDonald sure about the height? It does not look 180m high?

Doesn’t he say that includes the wind turbines on top

@GregF wrote:

Foster stuff is always kinda cool, but this is terribly angular, compared to all the curvy ‘organic’ shaped stuff today, ie…the Gherkin. Kinda hard to get used to it, after visualising the twisting tower here instead.

His Hearst Building in New York is pretty angular, as is his contibution to the new world trade centre. On first glance this has more going for it than either of those buildings, IMO

Okay, so we have an idea of form – which is eye-catching – but that’s about it thus far. What is Foster’s love affair with night-time renderings?! Even with no planning hurdles to jump through and their requisite glitzy illuminated smoke screens, we still only get a dusky shot. Day-time is what matters.

Morlan, I would have thought the tower is deliberately tilted to the front?

Personally I feel the square shape of the previous tower, evenly denoting this special corner site from all viewpoints in the city, was a more elegant solution. I’m not sure how apt this multi-faceted tower is to such a location, but we’ll see how it pans out.

@GrahamH wrote:

Morlan, I would have thought the tower is deliberately tilted to the front? .

I think you’re right. It just looks odd to my eyes.

Ok we can summarise this as follows:

Hold a competition, appoint a winner, decide you don’t like it after all, have another one, change the brief, ignore the original parameters, accept the general consensus that Hadid’s scheme is the best and appoint a different starchitect who’s fees are being paid by the “client”. oh, and make it 1/3 taller than you were allowed to while you’re at it.

That’s what you want – consistency, competency, fairness and integrity. Rock n roll

Anybody seen what the Hadid design was? Any links or renders? Gotta say, I’m glad that the twisting design has gone. It seemed to me to be too much of a current trend to last the test of time…

“spectacular!!” designs aside….this whole thing is starting to turn into one big yawnfest. I mean how hard is it to design and build something!

The great EL ARCHITINO would like to express his abhorrence at mister foster’s decision to spread his grubby money-soiled fingers across the Irish sea.

EL ARCHITINO’s highly developed and cultivated sense of xenophobia has been accosted by the proposition of someone who, not only has not lived on the site for several years, but has never even set foot in this country, designing these projects in Dublin.

mister foster should stick to what he does best, that is to accrue titles from the royal family and place transportation machines in open fields. His buttered oafish hands have not the delicacy of movement and lightness of touch befitting these sensitive sites. Only EL ARCHITINO could understand the cultural nuances and spiritual significance of this U2 site and that of the Clarence Hotel having slept on the prior by day and urinated in the later by night for the past 16months.

As no one else is brave enough to ward off this insensitive behemoth from across the water let EL ARCHITINO be the one who shall accept the challenge. mister foster I will meet you at the giants causeway, a site littered with the detritus of architectural war………

Im a little confused about just what height this building is going to be. Frank McDonald says 180m in total yet on the DDDA website all it says is

The consortium’s architects, Foster + Partners, have proposed a stunning design for the 120 metre high tower and adjacent Britain Quay site uniquely situated at the confluence of three waterways, the River Liffey, River Dodder and Grand Canal. The inspirational building will include a public viewing platform at 100 metres

That would actually be a reduction of 10m:confused: :confused: :confused: If its 180m why dont the DDDA just say so!? Im confused – what height is it? Wind turbine sticking out of the top thatt would be 60m high would look rediculous surely.

I wouldn’t trust anything the DDDA says in relation to anything to do with this project.They’ve gotten facts wrong consistently along the way and issued inaccurate information, by intention or by design, to the media.Anyway there’ll be at least one court case in relation to this

180m!! are you kidding me?From practically no high rise building in land to a full blown skyscraper.Prefered the twisting tower as theres still very few of them around but any progress whatsoever is welcomed.Wheres the day time renders…

there will be something regarding the tower on this evening’s six one news. tune in now to find out. it should be on shortly.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Entrance to building
http://ireland.archiseek.com/news/2007/000292b_lge.html

Looks cool, is that the road going through it? Kinda looks like it from the main picture. Big enough to take buses?

Usual moaners on the news just now. What the hell has this got to do with An Taisce?:mad: Go away.

As for the residents I sense the NIMBYism is about to rear its head again:rolleyes: ‘Get it the hell away from ringsend’ – Well if he does not mind us asking just where the hell are we going to be able to build tall buildings in Ireland?

Also to note that standards of RTE journalism remain low. Not once was the 180m figure mentioned. Clearly just absorbed the DDDA press release.

120m according to Brian Dobson (and who am I to argue?)

Good to see the objectors already making their voice heard (on this evenings news). Not sure if I can go along with the Ringsend resident group that only wants maritime-connected buildings to be built in this area.

I’m sure a brand-spanking new Whaling Station by David Chipperfield would fit right in, but it would bring environmental concerns of a wholly different sort….

@Pepsi wrote:

there will be something regarding the tower on this evening’s six one news. tune in now to find out. it should be on shortly.

Ug they had this nimby from the Ringsend environment group or something on the news saying a tower on the site wasn’t suitable as it’s not a mariatime building or some such nonsense. Honestly, freedom of speech is great and all, but does it really have to apply to stupid people :rolleyes:

British architect chosen to design U2 Tower
12/10/2007 – 18:06:25

Internationally renowned British architect Norman Foster was today announced as the visionary behind Ireland’s first skyscraper – the U2 Tower.

The €200m scheme, which will soar 120 metres over Dublin’s docklands, will house the iconic rock band’s egg-shaped recording studio at its peak.

It was commissioned by Geranger Ltd, a consortium including property developers Ballymore and U2 members Bono, The Edge, Larry Mullen Jnr and Adam Clayton.

Mr Foster, whose notable projects include the Gherkin in London and the Millau Viaduct in France, was chosen by Dublin’s Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) as the project‘s design winner.

Paul Maloney, DDDA Chief Executive, said: “We are delighted to have achieved our ambition of realising an inspirational landmark design, while at the same time maximising public usage and access.

“This design will be a very special building for Docklands and Dublin City while integrating the Britain Quay and U2 Tower buildings in a distinct and coherent fashion on the waterfront,” he said.

As well as the band’s recording studio, the inspirational building will include a public viewing platform at 100 metres, a public amenity area at the base, hotel, retail and residential accommodation including 20% social and affordable housing.

Advertisement
“It will also provide visitors the opportunity to experience spectacular views across Dublin city and bay, and for the community offers significant social and affordable housing potential,” Mr Maloney said.

An original U2 Tower plan – a twisting structure designed by a Dublin-based architectural firm – was to be built at a height of just 60 metres.

But following a recent planning amendment for the area, the tower was redesigned and increased to 120 metres in height with an adjoining site added.

The announcement of preferred bidder status for Geranger Ltd followed a EU tendering process where submissions from four short-listed consortia were considered.

Mr Foster is an internationally acclaimed architect, having designed some of the world‘s most iconic structures.

These include the Millau Viaduct in France – the tallest vehicular bridge in the world – the Bilbao Metro and New York‘s Hearst Tower.

The U2 Tower will be located in the Grand Canal Dock area, where DDDA is working with some of the world’s leading architects on projects such as the Studio Libeskind-designed Grand Canal Theatre, the Manuel Aires Mateus designed hotel, and the recently opened Martha Schwartz designed Grand Canal Square.

Work on the landmark project is due to begin next year with a completion date expected by 2011.

For goodness sake I dont know why this 120m figure keeps doing the rounds. I hope the DDDA correct their press release before we end up talking ourselves into building a 120m tower instead of a 180m tower:rolleyes:

Someone has it wrong. Its either the Irish times or the rest of the media. In a way im thankful that RTE told that Ringsend resident it was 120m – imagine if they said, actually its 180m!

I’m glad to see the back of the twisty tower but am disappointed by Foster’s corporate looking structure. I’d be interested to see Hadid’s proposal.
Hopefully U2 will have split up by the time this thing’s finished.

@darkman wrote:

Im a little confused about just what height this building is going to be.

It’s all a bit confusing alright.

Let’s assume that the building in the render is 130m in height.

100 metres consists of 32 stories with a public observation deck.
30 metres is an open-air space with U2’s recording ‘pod’ suspended in the centre.
50 metres of an ‘Alernative Energy Centre’ with solar panels and wind turbines (not shown in the render).

I would like Frank McDonald to clarify this because its after creating unnessacary confusion. The DDDA has said 120m – however they have not countered the 180m claim – probrably because they have not been asked! Frank McDonald however has not shown a render of this ‘energy center’ so id like to know what the sources were that told him 180m. Or maybe its the DDDA being economical with the truth because Id say it would have to go back in the planning process if they said 180m. This is very confusing.

@JoePublic wrote:

Looks cool, is that the road going through it? Kinda looks like it from the main picture. Big enough to take buses?

Buses? 😮

It’s four stories high (see red lines), so plenty of headroom for double deckers. Don’t tell Bus Átha Cliath that.

No, I reckon it will be a set down only arrangement for the hotel.

@darkman wrote:

This is very confusing.

:rolleyes: I tried. :p

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

I reckon the design will change again – 60 of wind turbines / antennae etc seems a lot when already 120m off the ground – i think the building will creap unwards perhaps taking another 30m of this height over….

Is that not exactly what I’ve done? :confused: :p

@massamann wrote:

120m according to Brian Dobson (and who am I to argue?)

Good to see the objectors already making their voice heard (on this evenings news). Not sure if I can go along with the Ringsend resident group that only wants maritime-connected buildings to be built in this area.

I’m sure a brand-spanking new Whaling Station by David Chipperfield would fit right in, but it would bring environmental concerns of a wholly different sort….

that was actually an surprising point, consider it for a second what maritime related buildings could you build there?

maybe the the dublin port should expand into this so called commercial areas then they wouldn’t have to move, makes alot of sense

did he say something about new york skyscrapers though, ?? those would be the buildings in the port authority area :rolleyes:

has there any new sea related buildings been built down there at all? every city seems to have one of those ship shaped centres. or perhaps a yacht club like the building nominated for the stirling price, or simply a new ferry terminal or industrial shipping dock?

@Morlan wrote:

:rolleyes: I tried. :p

Sorry, I know you did (nice pic btw, love the batman sign;) ) however im annoyed now that none of us actually know how tall this building is going to be. Are the DDDA saying they have knocked 10m off the U2 tower? I find the DDDA frustrating at the best of times but this is farcical that on this forum – on the the day the final design is unveiled that we dont know what fuppin height its going to be!?

Ive a suggestion. The DDDA has kindly given email links on its press release for more info and images if we want them. So I suggest we bombard them with requests until we know for sure. 😉

OK so we should take it then that Frank McDonald is wrong and the actual height in total is 120m and the DDDA have knocked 10m off the original tower – well this puts a new perspective on the building itself because if thats the case it is very disappointing IMO.

You see the problem is no one from the DDDA or anywhere else AFAIK has actually said it wont be 180m. Seems a bit strange considering the Irish times is suppose to be a highly reputable newspaper.

Foster and U2 to Rock Dublin Skyline
Published on 2007-10-12 by Skyscrapernews.com

More plans have been proposed for the so-called U2 Tower in Dublin’s Docklands, this time designed by Foster and Partners.

The new plans for a largely residential tower that reaches a height of 180 metres to the tip of its pinnacle have been developed by Geranger Ltd, a joint venture between Ballymore Properties, Gerry McKillen and members of U2 as the culmination of a long competition into the future of the site.

The winning 200 million Euro proposals that beat off a second place entry from Zaha Hadid are wedge-shaped with what appears to be an undulating surface on the east and west sides but in reality is contoured to conceal the balconies of the 136 apartments.

In the crown there is an acoustically separated egg suspended in mid air housed that will be the new recording studio for the band the scheme takes its name after whilst immediately below this will be a new observation platform open to the public all year round.

A second building stands to the south that will house a hotel and the 34 affordable apartments that make the housing figures balance up. This is allows the developers to take advantage of the increased revenues in the area by combining both plots so that the main tower can be taller than the sums would otherwise be allow.

Most of the top of the structure is however given over to the creation of renewable power with solar panels and wind turbines planned to be fitted that will help generate the building’s power.

Whether the architects have factored in the hot air created every time Bono opens his mouth and the sun that shines out his backside has not yet been revealed.

This is not the first time that U2 have teamed up with developers to construct a tall building that will be topped by their own recording studio. Since 2003 numerous plans have been increased in scale from an initial 70 metres tall but fallen by the wayside including a twisting tower penned by Craig Henry Architects in 2003 that was at one point the favoured concept.

Thanks to the planning regulations that Grand Central Docks has to encourage development on the site at Britain Quay, they won’t even need to apply for permission to build. The developers hope that this time construction can begin as soon as 2008 for a 2011 completion.

@Morlan wrote:

Buses? 😮

It’s four stories high (see red lines), so plenty of headroom for double deckers. Don’t tell Bus Átha Cliath that.

No, I reckon it will be a set down only arrangement for the hotel.

Well from what I understand, the bridge across the Dodder will be a public transport corridor, so I assume buses travelling across the dodder, through the U2 tower, and on down the quays….

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

okay this is starting to irritate me – they say that the top of the power centre will be 180m but the building tops out at 120m — how hard is this to understand?

they say that the top of the power centre will be 180m

…….God give me strength…….lets assume that someone actually decided to attach this power center to the building……….that makes it part of the building’s structure. How small do you anticapate this ‘power center’ would be? Are you saying that it will probrably not be bulky enough to be considered an integral part of the building? If your talking about 60 wind turbines and a ‘huge solar panel’ stretching 60m above the shoulder of the building then I would regard that as sufficient to be included in the full building height – end of story. The building is either 180m high or it is not. Are you satisied with the render given Frank McDonald’s assertion this morning? The ‘energy center’ is not on that render as far as I can see.

With respect, they dont look like shafts to me and are far from bulky enough to carry 60 wind turbines and a solar panel in all honesty. I think it is just light beams drawn for effect.

Simply the ‘battery’ at the top is not on the render so I fail to see how we can even judge the building until we see more renders.

@JoePublic wrote:

Well from what I understand, the bridge across the Dodder will be a public transport corridor, so I assume buses travelling across the dodder, through the U2 tower, and on down the quays….

That’s true, I forgot about that. Perhaps DCC will reserve right of way through the development. :-/

I’m looking forward to seeing the master plans for this site.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

and what are the two shafts going into the sky off the top of the building?

CAD > Light Source > Exaggerate & Amplify.

This ‘battery’, as Frank McDonald describes it, IMO would change the look of this building significantly (60 metres high after all). Basically a liberty hall on top of the building in the render. I hope we get a render of it shortly as it would clear everything up.

As an aside its very important that we know because there is an enourmous difference between 120 and 180m. 180 tall anything will have a significant impact on Dublin.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

I can considered that but i also assumed that maybe it was indicitive as in why mention it at all otherwise?

It’s a bit of a mystery alright. I honestly can’t invisage 50/60 metres of paraphernalia hanging off the top of the tower. They’ve deliberately left something out from the render.

@Morlan wrote:

It’s a bit of a mystery alright. I honestly can’t invisage 50/60 metres of paraphernalia hanging off the top of the tower.

Could not have put it better myself. I was thinking what wind turbines and a solar panel stretching for 60m would look like in the context of the structure and the mental image I have of it is not good. Would it be straightly vertical? It would have to be. It would change the look of the building significantly. I wonder does the fact they left it out tell us anything about the final product!?

hmm, not impressed with this at all – looks so evil :/

The buildings adjacent to the tower are 7 stories so about ~30m high… from the render published i would suspect the height of the tower to be 180m at the level where both beams of light originate. I can’t see this ‘energy centre’ being a 60m addon to what is rendered – i would think it will be contained in the open area above the u2 studio, maybe the turbines are fixed to the horizontal structure shown at the top. Anyway, i guess everything will be cleared up soon enough, but that render certainly does not show a 120m structure (unless the scale is screwed, which i doubt).

In fact, when i look at it again – is there some sort of turbine being shown (very vaguely) between the top of the egg and the horizontal structure (x marked above what may be its centre point)?

Blah… i’d like to see the zaha hadid proposal

@Morlan wrote:

That|s classic.:D Thank you Morlan / Bruce Wayne.

Anyone else see this in yesterday’s Daily Mail? A little behind the times now, but interesting all the same!

“It’s Bono the builder – Controversy as U2 are set to be revealed as docklands winners”, written by Andrea McCullagh.

SEVEN years after it was first mooted, the U2 Tower, Ireland’s tallest skyscraper, will finally get the green light today – but not as we know it.

Sources have revealed that the DDDA will finally bite the bullet and announce what has become the city’s worst-kept secret – that the megarich rock band have won the contract to build the tower that will bear their name.

U2’s joint bid with developer Ballymore Properties, designed by Clarence Hotel architect Sir Norman Foster, is understood to have been chosen at a top-level DDDA meeting earlier this week.

The Ballymre/U2 bid was one of a shortlist of five that also included Sean Dunne’s Mountbrook Homes and a joint venture between Sisk and Treasury Holdings. But the authority delayed the announcement until today, anticipating yet more controversy in a saga that has already had more than its share.

For the success of the Ballymore/U2 venture means the authority has abandoned the daring twist design that it announced as the winner of a prestigious international prize in 2003.

That stunning glass tower was designed by the Dublin architects, Burdon Craig Dunne Henry (BCDH), of which Felim Dunne, brother-in-law of U2 manager Paul McGuinness, is a senior partner.

It is understood that BCDH will take its grievance to the High Court if it transpires the Ballymore U2 bid incorporates a new, Norman Foster design – a case that can only cause friction between the McGuinness family and the band members.

Also believed to be heading to court is developer Sean Dunne, whose unsuccessful bid was based on the assumption that the authority was committed to the BCDH design.

The saga started in 2001 when a compulsory purchase order was placed on U2’s Hanover Quay studio. The band negotiated a deal with the DDDA giving them the top storeys of whatever tower was built along with the naming rights.

Yesterday a spokesman for Ballymore Properties was not available for comment and a spokesman for U2 also declined to comment on the issue – but all is likely to be revealed during the day.

That Dunne would probably take legal action (as well as some of the other bidders) and that the architects would too has been known for ages in fairness.

I see the Indo stole the title to this thread..

Dump the whole thing, from the sublime (maybe this should be subprime) to the ridiculous.

The wastage of time, effort, talent, the innuendo, the scandal, stacked juries, lost documentation, the awful designs…..

How about running a proper fully international, properly organised and properly researched appropriate brief (rather than the anorexic one that was produced before or even the obese one we see now) with a proper secure and audited process of elimination.

UIA perhaps….

These selected (limited) competitions are certainly not getting anything better out of the so called “big boys” than you would see in open competition.

The current design suffers from overarching belief in a simple form, the icon as building. The “sure” analogy has to go on a T-shirt. Maybe it is so that the DDDA and U2 can finally stop perspiring over this.

So has anyone emailed the DDDA on height clarification and more renders?it would be a shame if they chopped 10 metres off it but at least it looks like finally going ahead.

No mention of it yet on Foster & Partners website…………….
http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Projects/ByLocation/Ireland.aspx

I’m happy to see the back of the twisting effort, it was flawed from the start & lets face it, a rip off.

This jobee looks interesting, but as always the devil is in the detail, of which there is very little. They could be proposing to clad it in egg cartons from what we’ve gotten so far.

If the north facade is actually leaning, thats a very curious render, attempting to divert attention from what would surely be a primary feature ?

We need views from up & down the quays and eh cut the crap with the perfect evening shite :rolleyes:

We’d like to get your opinion on something. We were entrants in the U2 Landmark Tower Competition
a few years back when all the hullabaloo about the winning design, the winner’s relationship
with the Client, etc. was at hand.

I just read the other day that DDDA may tip Foster
to ultimately do the new tower for U2/DDDA. This would not have been a shocker in any
other circumstance, until I saw the image of the proposed scheme that looks (we believe)
similar to ours. including the gesture at the entry with an ocular view to the rest of the harbor. Coincidence?

Your thoughts…?

[ATTACH]5987[/ATTACH][ATTACH]5988[/ATTACH]

@htd2008 wrote:

We’d like to get your opinion on something. We were entrants in the U2 Landmark Tower Competition
a few years back when all the hullabaloo about the winning design, the winner’s relationship
with the Client, etc. was at hand.

I just read the other day that DDDA may tip Foster
to ultimately do the new tower for U2/DDDA. This would not have been a shocker in any
other circumstance, until I saw the image of the proposed scheme that looks (we believe)
similar to ours. including the gesture at the entry with an ocular view to the rest of the harbor. Coincidence?

Your thoughts…?

Vaguely similar but hardly a total rip-off, foster’s looks better overall. Please don’t sue, this project has little enough chance of ever proceeding as it is 🙂

obviously some similarities, but hard to judge from that proximity, any more renders ? not that we know a huge amount about fosters proposal either.

Must be 130m then. (so why does the DDDA say 120m on its website). The lack of clarity with the entire project from start to finish has been a disgrace tbh. Easy to see why its hard to take anything the DDDA says seriously anymore. Did you refer to the ‘180m’ that was mentioned for the renewable energy thingy on top when you asked? Poor old Frank got it wrong. Obviously some bright spark at the DDDA told him 180m for the laugh. The incompetence is incredible really. 🙁

To top it this is right in front of them in the Irish times. No clarification, nothing. You have to ask to get it.

Just re-posting part of my previous comment regarding the height issue:

Re-reading the 2006 Amendment to the GCD Planning Scheme (http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/…scheme06q4.pdf – it’s the same link as I posted above) I see the following (my emphasis):

3.2.4 Building height
Building heights within the blocks will vary in order to achieve appropriate
urban scale. Maximum numbers of storeys are prescribed for both
commercial and residential development as shown in Diagram 5. The
controls will allow for vertically mixed use buildings with commercial,
residential and other use storeys. The main element of the landmark tower
should not exceed 100 metres in height to the shoulder above existing
street level. The shoulder is the top of the front wall of the building,
excluding any parapet. Accommodation above this level must be well set
back and consistent with architectural and service elements. Such elements
will be permitted subject to a maximum overall building height not
exceeding 120 metres above existing street level.

All of which makes the following highly suspect:

The Norman Foster designed tower […] is 130 metres above ground at its highest point. […] There are a further ten metres of empty space [above the 120] that form the peak that the studio is suspended from. This is shown in the image. These heights are the same as those of the reference design that the DDDA issued to all competitors.

What exactly is a ‘reference design’? Is this the original U2 tower?
Did the DDDA revise the allowable height in the tender documentation?
Did the DDDA revise the revised Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme without telling or asking anyone?
Does the DDDA know the meaning of the word ‘maximum’?

To state it baldly: this proposal is not in keeping with the GCD Planning Scheme and beyond the provisions of a Section 25 Application.

This saga, more than just about any other scheme/proposal in the Docklands, shows just how inept the DDDA has become, effectively re-writing the rules as it goes along to suit… to suit what? Or who?

All I can do is echo shadow’s comments above, and reiterate previous comments of mine made elsewhere (here, for example) re the DDDA and its sell-by date- probably necessary in the mid-1990s, now an anachronism.

‘Ten meters of empty space that form the peak’?

That dosn’t make sense.

Personally I’m disappointed to see the twisting tower won’t be built. I thought it looked fantastic. So there’s a few more around the world, so what? It still looked great. This new design just doesn’t compare. Crying shame. 🙁

My original montage was correct then :rolleyes: 🙂

do foster and partners have a dublin office?

Yes, Fosters have an office above Habitat…

Personally I really like the new scheme, much more distinctive and dynamic than the stumpy twisting tower. This will have real presence and will certainly put the deadly dull “watchtower” across the river to shame. Great to hear that the developers arent trying to squirm out of their responsibilities to provide social and affordable units – apparently 30 or more will be included in the development according to a story in this evening’s herald.

@BTH wrote:

Yes, Fosters have an office above Habitat…

Personally I really like the new scheme, much more distinctive and dynamic than the stumpy twisting tower. This will have real presence and will certainly put the deadly dull “watchtower” across the river to shame. Great to hear that the developers arent trying to squirm out of their responsibilities to provide social and affordable units – apparently 30 or more will be included in the development according to a story in this evening’s herald.

Harsh on the wathtower tbh. Renders can be misleading.

@BTH wrote:

Great to hear that the developers arent trying to squirm out of their responsibilities to provide social and affordable units – apparently 30 or more will be included in the development

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

It’s a condition of the GCD Planning Scheme that all developments must include the 20% S&A provision if they want to get Section 25 Approval, so I don’t think too much praise should be directed at the developers / architects in this case.

What remains to be seen is whether the 20% S&A will remain when the authorities realise that the building is not compliant with the GCD PS- if they have to apply for regular PP owing to the height exceeding the maximum specified in the GCD PS (as I’ve argued they must), will they take it as an opportunity to quietly remove the 20%?

Does anyone know what materials are being used for the bumpy textures on the side of the building. It could either look great or awful..depending on what is used. As has been said renders can be misleading and a night time view of this doesnt ive much detail. Its an ok design but will depend hugely on the materials used. It could look very out of place and out of scale if it is not done right..just curious..i won;t have to look at it every day but would hate to see something built for the sake of building a “skyscraper” for Dublin

cstephion wasn’t there an amendment to the GCD scheme last year that allowed increased height. As others have said, the 20 per cent was a requirement, no getting out of it. Watchtower looks awful in fairness but what’s being built is a massive improvement on the STW proposal.

jd-

See my previous posts earlier in the thread on this subject- the amendment allowed for a building up to 100m to the ‘shoulder’, up to a maximum height of 120m.

Also, I think the ‘others’ you refer to was me. 😉

My first mention of the S&A matter: https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=72463&postcount=248

My first mention of the height issue: https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=72466&postcount=249

My restatement of the height issue: https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=72814&postcount=316

I note also that, since I posted the last of those linked comments, Paul amended this post to include mention of the extra 50 metres. That info wasn’t there when I replied. It (the extra info, not Paul’s amendment) makes the whole thing even more farcical. Not that I’m surprised…

Aha, so this energy centre thingy is not in the render we have I take it, 50 meters of windmills, sounds pretty wacky! Want to see a picture of it…

But if they want to increase the height let them just apply for planning permission or amend their scheme (again), no need to get all hung up on it.

If there is any difficulties, they will amend the GCD scheme as this conveniently papers over the planning cracks. They have in fact done this already. DDDA will not under any circumstances open this project to even the remotest possibility of conventional planning and resultant 3rd Party appeals, An Taisce, high court actions etc. As long as they can make up the rules, and keep changing them accordingly, they will.

Yes, exactly.

But it’s the fact that it’s been done already that concerns me. Makes a nonsense of the whole concept of a Planning Scheme, really, doesn’t it?

@&quot wrote:

As long as they can make up the rules, and keep changing them accordingly, they will.

@ctesiphon wrote:

effectively re-writing the rules as it goes along to suit… to suit what? Or who?

Great minds… 😉

Well the height that was set in the planning scheme was set because of the height they wanted to build at the time. Now they’ve changed their minds and they want to go bigger again, I say let them.

There’s no point being too strict with disallowing amendments to the planning scheme: the worst outcome for the remainder of the docklands is if they DON’T amend it! – Otherwise we’re going to just get more of the same 6/7 storey boxes until all the available land is used up.

Don’t worry – if you don’t like this design another one will follow shortly

@Rory W wrote:

Don’t worry – if you don’t like this design another one will follow shortly

lol

Most builders in the Docklands have been quite successful at removing the 20% social/affordable requirement by negotiating to build almost exclusively affordable to meet obligations. Affordable does not have the stigma attached that exists with social. DDDA is very happy to accomodate as they are very nervous about social.

As I said in a previous post, the DDDA were trying to direct the social and affordable into the Graving Docks development – this will be the most likely depository for this. They wouldn’;t want their precious facade festooned by tri-colours when Ireland are back playing at Lansdowne, or think of the various guises of santa clauses, raindeers abd all twinkly things festive that would festoon some of the apartments circa Christmas 2011….:) .

It’s also amazing that the DDDA went to such great lengths to ensure the BCDH design remained within the boundary of the SJRQ road – this is afterall owned by DCC, not DDDA, and also has the LUAS / RPA to contend with. There may also be potential title issues with the properties directly above the road way. Looks good on an architect’s drawing board, but good old Irish red tape will soon scupper that.

A bridge at the 7th floor from the BCDH U2 tower to the then MCA designed Britain Quay building was considered earlier but discounted for many of the reasons outlined above. How they change their tune when the starchitect rolls into town…..

@ctesiphon wrote:

But it’s the fact that it’s been done already that concerns me. Makes a nonsense of the whole concept of a Planning Scheme, really, doesn’t it?

TBH, it’s not just through amending the planning scheme that they will get their own way – they have already used their influence to have the Watchtower redesigned, which would certainly be sailing close to the wind in terms of their planning remit. This, as well as the block on Liam Carroll’s development at the site adjacent to the U2 tower, was instigated by DDDA at the most senior level. So the goal posts will be changed and changed again to make sure they stay getting their way….

Right, finally, ive dug deep and come up with something (every little helps) although the scale looks a little off:rolleyes: :

I dont think that render truly reflects its height and scale though amd its obviously hastily put together and the detail is not there.

http://vyonyx.com/index.php/clients/fp/u2-tower#more-1286

Quite different from the original render – implying that it slenders down to nothing … quite like it, in fact it looks a lot better from that angle …

It also suggests that the regular floor glazing pattern ends quite a way short of the top so I wonder does this render include the elusive ‘energy centre’, if so surely it is well underscaled, as said above.

The render I posted is wrong obviously from a height perspective. They have squeezed about 30 floors into the height of Liberty hall so there is no way its a proper reflection of its height. I agree with you that that could be the idea for the energy center. Looks a little odd if its not. The difference with the energy center (if thats what its meant to be) actually looks to improve the general look of the building on that render,

The scale is completely off. Look at the 6 storey block to the right and then count the floors on the tower: 10.

They must be trying to make it look smaller in the renders so that people don’t throw a fit.

I’ve examined the render and scaled it up in Photoshop to match the surrounding buildings.

ugly imo

Does the “new” tower oversail Dublin City Council property – the River and as such does it not fall outside the DDDA juridiciton? At the very least there is a case for a thorough EIS study which encompasses the need to assess the impact from a wide area around the city. Remember the Spire/Spike/Needle embarrasment….

Here’s a solution to all the problems: build all of the competition designs in a nice little cluster down there 😎

I wonder what names the legendary dublin wit will give this if it is built?:rolleyes:

U2’s The wedge

Sorry

The Irish Times has pictures of the Hadid and Vinoly proposals, Don’t think it’s on their website though.

IT article:

New U2 Tower may leave DDDA in a twist

The fallout from the U2 Tower competition may include litigation by disappointed underbidders, writes Frank McDonald , Environment Editor

IN ANY competition, there can only be one winner. But in the contest to build the U2 Tower in Dublin’s Docklands, the three losing consortiums feel very sore about the outcome – and not just because each of them invested at least €1 million in the effort to snatch this glittering prize.

The decision earlier this month by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) to award the project to Geranger Ltd, a consortium made up of Ballymore Properties, Paddy McKillen and the U2 rock group, was also seen as unfair by the disappointed underbidders – and there may be litigation over it.

What the DDDA plumped for was a tilted triangular tower by Foster + Partners that would soar higher than the O’Connell Street Spire.

Quite how much higher is still open to question, but it could ultimately rise to 180m (nearly 600ft), including a battery of vertical wind turbines and a huge solar panel above them.

According to the authority, the Norman Foster-designed tower would be 130m above ground at its highest point. At the level of 100m, above the luxury apartments it would contain, there would be a public viewing gallery beneath the egg-shaped U2 studio, which is suspended in empty space from the pinnacle.

“The architects have proposed an ‘energy centre’ comprising wind turbines and solar panels that could rise to a point 50m above the top of the tower, bringing the overall height to 180m,” the DDDA says. “But this was not considered in assessing the competition as it is outside the guideline heights”.

Foster + Partners maintain that the renewable energy facility would enable the building to generate its own electricity, substantially reducing the scheme’s carbon footprint and making it more sustainable, while the DDDA says it “may consider the energy centre in due course subject to technical and planning criteria”.

In the documentation issued to the four bidders – Geranger, the Riverside Partnership, Mountbrook Homes and Treasury Holdings/Sisk – the authority made it clear that its development objectives for the 1.87-acre site at Britain Quay included the U2 Tower and an adjoining building immediately to the south of it.

It recalled that an earlier international architectural competition, held in 2003, resulted in the choice of “a stunning twisting tower design” by Blackrock-based BCDH Architects. This was to be a mere 60m high, but under an amendment made in 2006 to the Grand Canal Docks Planning Scheme this was raised to 120m.

No reference was made to the debacle that mired the 2003 contest, in which – bizarrely – the original winner chosen by the jury couldn’t be identified because the number assigned to the entry could not be matched with a name. This led to a website being set up called “www.amithewinneroftheu2towercompetition.com”.

Explaining its rationale for holding the latest competition, the DDDA’s documentation said BCDH’s original design had been “further refined” and the authority had also decided to combine the Britain Quay site with the U2 Tower site “to establish an attractive development context for the private development sector”.

Bidders were requested to frame their bids based on the original (or “reference”) scheme. “However, it is important to note that the authority expects bidders to reappraise the internal layouts and construction and technical solutions suggested by the authority’s design team and develop their own solution on these issues.”

It was a mandatory condition of the competition that bids would be based on the reference scheme; indeed, this was identified as a “design absolute”. But bidders were also offered the option of submitting an alternative, or “variant”, scheme based on the authority’s design and development objectives.

These were outlined in the documentation provided, and bidders were also advised to read in full the Grand Canal Docks Planning Scheme (as amended) “to appreciate the authority’s intent” – not least because any development certified by the DDDA to be consistent with this scheme would be exempt from planning control.

The amended planning scheme is quite specific about the U2 Tower. It says the main element of this landmark “should not exceed 100m in height to the shoulder above existing street level. Accommodation above this level should be well set back and consistent with architectural and service elements.

“Such elements will be permitted subject to a maximum overall building height not exceeding 120m above existing street level,” it says, adding that “architectural features having non-useable floorspace above the maximum recommended heights will be considered on a case-by-case basis”.

In the documentation issued to bidders, the DDDA noted that “the height of the tower up to its ‘shoulder’ is prescribed in the planning scheme”, and said the authority “is committed to the ‘twisted’ sculptural nature of the tower design” although it was asking bidders to reappraise its design in detail.

This was intended to ensure “a coherent and sculptural relationship” between the tower and the adjoining building on Britain Quay. “The higher element of the Britain Quay building would need to be adjacent to the U2 Tower,” it said. The planning scheme also specified that this building would step down from the U2 Tower.

However, in selecting the scheme by Foster + Partners, the DDDA abandoned its stated commitment to the “twisted” form of the tower and also the apparent requirement that the higher element of the Britain Quay building would be closer to the tower; in Foster’s scheme, it is further away while the tower has no “twist”.

The two bidders who submitted only “reference” schemes – Mountbrook and Riverside – were wrong-footed as a result. Riverside’s “variant” scheme by Uruguayan starchitect Rafael Vinoly was not adjudicated upon – apparently after he had been told by the DDDA that it contravened the maximum height limits.

According to one source, the basic problem that confronted bidders was the inherent difficulty of combining a twisting tower with a flanking building alongside – though Anthony Reddy and Associates and Danish architects 3XN achieved some unity in their “reference” schemes for Riverside and Mountbrook, respectively.

The jury – Chris Wilkinson, of Wilkinson Eyre Architects; Shih-Fu Peng, of Heneghan Peng Architects, and Michael O’Doherty, former principal architect at the Office of Public Works – appears to have taken the view that the two “variant” schemes by Foster + Partners and deconstruction diva Zaha Hadid fitted the bill.

Zaha, as everyone calls her, designed a scheme for Treasury-Sisk that had the imprint of a vertical motorway interchange, with a vast arch linking her tower to a flanking block on Britain Quay, creating an enormous undercroft that might not have been such a pleasant place, particularly at night. “It was a bit like Dubai,” one source said.

In the end, it is understood that the jury gave Foster and Hadid equal ranking – either of them could have won, in other words. But architecture only counted for 45 per cent of the overall marks – the rest went to the financial offer made by bidders (40 per cent) and their resource commitments to the project (15 per cent).

The DDDA’s documentation also specified that plant rooms were to be accommodated in a double-basement beneath the tower, as well as refuse storage and car-parking. Five of the six schemes submitted for adjudication had an energy centre at basement level; the sixth, by Foster, proposed putting it on the roof instead.

According to the DDDA’s director of architecture, John McLaughlin, what gave it the edge was that its public spaces were “really well-handled”, providing a gateway to a new bridge over the River Dodder, where it joins the Liffey, springing from Britain Quay.

However, it is impossible to say with any certainty why it really won.

bono’s babel?

@shadow wrote:

Does the “new” tower oversail Dublin City Council property – the River and as such does it not fall outside the DDDA juridiciton? At the very least there is a case for a thorough EIS study which encompasses the need to assess the impact from a wide area around the city. Remember the Spire/Spike/Needle embarrasment….

Yes it does, DDDA engaged an EIS consultant on the BCDH tower, so I guess the same is needed on the new proposal. As I said in a previous post, they took great care to ensure the BCDH tower was properly framed so as not to oversail any one else’s property. Oversailing th river will also invoilve potential Foreshore Licences, again another body to deal with.

A portion of SJRQ has to be purchased from Danninger – this is requried to realign the road to go under the tower. Not sure how receptive Liam Carroll may be to this request.

i don’t really like this new proposal to be honest. they should have stuck with the twisting design. it looked way better.

I’ve seen one image of the zaha hadid proposal in todays irish times, and i think it looks quite interesting

@cokedrinker wrote:

I’ve seen one image of the zaha hadid proposal in todays irish times, and i think it looks quite interesting

Any pics?

Based on those pictures in the Irish Times I think the DDDA may have called this one correctly, however the original tower proposal does look well in the Times. I wonder how difficult it would be to accomodate the twisting tower in another docklands location.It will be interesting to see how the green lobby etc plan on dealing with objections to the additional energy centre and also how if at all the DDDA deal with future tall buildings now that the height benchmark regardless of looks is circa 180m.

As I understood it, that wasn’t the original tower in the times CC105, it was a redesign based on the original concept or some such.

I thought the Hadid was very impressive I have to say.

@CC105 wrote:

I wonder how difficult it would be to accomodate the twisting tower in another docklands location.

Yeah there’s nothing about the twisting tower design that makes it only suitable for that location (unlike foster’s which is pretty tailored for that particular site). The DDDA own the design I assume, could they use it elsewhere?

I’d love to see it built where the Boland’s mill silos are opposite Alto Vetro, that land isn’t owned by the DDDA though of course.

Or maybe there’s still time to spice up the watchtower with a twist 🙂

http://vyonyx.com/index.php/clients/fp/u2-tower#more-1286

hmmm thats the link I posted earlier. They seem to have got rid of the info now and the renders. :confused: A bit cloak and dagger is’nt it. God forbid anyone sees a different image of the proposal:rolleyes:

Luckily Morlan was on hand to keep it for prosterity.

A telling sign that this thread is being watched.

Yes, maybe best if you ditch you photoshop render;)

@JoePublic wrote:

Yeah there’s nothing about the twisting tower design that makes it only suitable for that location (unlike foster’s which is pretty tailored for that particular site). The DDDA own the design I assume, could they use it elsewhere?

I’d love to see it built where the Boland’s mill silos are opposite Alto Vetro, that land isn’t owned by the DDDA though of course.

Or maybe there’s still time to spice up the watchtower with a twist 🙂

Yeah but the point behind the twisting tower was the fact that it wouldnt ignore the centre of Dublin like this one will.It directly faces the liffey-most people will only see the side of a building. The original design would of worked better..

@darkman wrote:

I wonder what names the legendary dublin wit will give this if it is built?:rolleyes:

The Tick.

DDDA – “See Our Shite Bay”

kinda looks a bit gimmicky or cartoony….

Right or wrong?

Interesting to note that if this building was built to 180m it would be the tallest building in a city in these Islands outside London.

….as for Foster’s proposal…when the hell does dublin or any place look like that …. I wish architects would actually represent their ideas in reality ….

Those schemes above are unadulterated shit.

Both essays in empty formalism. They make foster’s scheme look considered.

What, on gods green earth someone tell me is the pseudo-rational justifiaction of twisting a tower around?

[Extract from Bord Pleanala’s Inspector’s Report on Ref. 124374- Summary of 3rd Party Appeal on behalf of U2’s Princus Trust against a neighbouring development proposal]
The appeal from BDA, agent on behalf of Princus Investment Trust, owners of 30/32 Sir John Rogerson’s Quay can be summarised as follows. The excessive height of the proposed east elevation will undermine light levels to the existing building at 30/32 Sir John Rogerson’s Quay. Inadequate information has been submitted in relation to the proposed east elevation. Drawings fail to indicate the silhouette of nos. 30/32 as they will appear against the proposed six-storey gable. It is not acceptable that alterations to the proposed façade are to be dealt with by conditions attached to the planning permission. The proposed building in its height, mass, material and overall design fails to respect or address the context and scale of the existing buildings and permission should therefore, be refused.

Planning Application Details
Reg. Ref.: 3938/99
Development: Mixed development of offices and 129 apartments, List 2 stone arch to former Marine School and associated site works at 28 –29 Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, 10 –13 Cardiff Lane, 10 Hanover St. East, Dublin 2.
Applicant: Haytonvale Developments Ltd.
Planning Authority Decision: Grant permission and refuse permission
Appellant(s): Haytonvale Developments Ltd., Princus Investment Trust

Am I alone thinking such a huge building looks kind of ridiculous in the midst of the low docklands skyline? Will it not distract the eye from looking anywhere else ? If there were a few altro vetros nearby then we’d have some sort gradation at least.

@ake wrote:

Am I alone thinking such a huge building looks kind of ridiculous in the midst of the low docklands skyline? Will it not distract the eye from looking anywhere else ? If there were a few altro vetros nearby then we’d have some sort gradation at least.

Nope I agree,all in favour of a tall building here but something needs to be built in between it and the other flat buildings along side it

---

although it will probably look better viewed from near Altro Vetro

---

can anybody put together a render of this new proposal combined with the refused Dunloe scheme on the next site, this was done with the twisting design.

@ake wrote:

Will it not distract the eye from looking anywhere else ?

With a bit of luck…:)

I see no issue with height in terms of the surrounding structures. I mean, come on, we will never have more opportunity to do anything then now. I say go with Fosters proposal to 180m and make a statement on the skyline for once. This is a real opportunity. When Liberty Hall went up people were saying Ireland had entered a new age. Everyone was really excited. Thats Liberty Hall! Imagine what this tower would be like!:)

build 2 of these you will get a star!

I quite like it, but every time i see it i think “Sure – it won’t let you down” !! 🙂

Frank McDonald’s piece in Thursday was excellent. Did anyone else see it? One by one he stipped away all the reasons the DDDA had given for selecting the Ballymore/U2 bid. Even though the DDDA had initiated the piece in an attempt to correct the earlier mistakes on height and energy centres, Frank wasn’t going to be used as a stool pigeon and duly took his revenge. Talk about eating the hand that feeds you.Having demolished the case in support of the Ballymore/U2 bid, unfortunately he stopped short of explaining why this bid has ended up being declared the ‘provisional’ preferred bidder. Expect more.

From a very early stage in the competition process Ballymore/U2 have been assured of winning. And if you’re Ballymore/U2 and you know you’re going to win, what’s left to do but maximise your position. You do this by proposing a building that’s cheaper than the reference design (bottom drawer Foster) and then bidding less than anyone else for the exclusive right to build your design. It’s very simple: bid less, build cheaper. It’s a double whammy.

And then you laugh all the way to the bank.

@SOC wrote:

It’s very simple: bid less, build cheaper. It’s a double whammy.

As well as making sure you entertain the CEO at every given opportunity, including trips to Manchester and London. The pre-qualification document from Ballymore was actually based around Pan Penninsula project, they didn’t demonstrate how they were going to build the tower in Docklands. And they still managed to get through. But I suppose a well aimed FOI request would reveal this.

The Ballymore-U2 bid will never get beyond ‘provo’ status.

One of the jurors, close to Urban Capital, is understood to be taking legal advice as he may be challenged in the forthcoming judicial review proceedings in relation to prejudicial remarks made during the assessment process.

That rush you hear is the sound of people running for cover!

This was in yesterday’s Sunday Business Post, written by Neil Callanan

Winning bid for U2 tower is almost €30m under highest offer

The winning consortium for the U2 tower is believed to have bid almost €30 million less for the site than the highest bid submitted. The Riverside 2 Partnership is understood to have bid about €75 million. The Geranger consortium which comprises Ballymore Properties, Paddy McKillen and U2 band members and management is believed to have bid a figure of slightly more than €70 million for the site.

McKillen is believed to own only a small slice of Geranger, whose bid is said to have been a relatively straightforward cash offer.

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA), which ran the competition to select a developer of the tower and a new design (the third) for the building, said it could not comment on the price offered by Ballymore and its partners and how it matched up against other bids.

“The tender process is ongoing,” said a spokeswoman.

“This is commercially sensitive data which cannot be released at this time.”

It is estimated that the U2 Tower scheme will cost over €200 million to design and build. Construction is expected to start in 2008 and be completed by 2011. The winning bid comprises a 120-metre tower with a hotel, shops and apartments designed by Foster + Partners.

At the top of the tower will be a suspended egg-shaped pod which will house U2’s studios. So far, the DDDA has only released a night time render of the building. Night time images are notoriously difficult to judge a building’s quality by because, among other things, they don’t show the materials used or shadowing impacts.

When asked why it has not released daytime renders, the DDDA said “that the release of images is a matter for the docklands authority. All images will be released at the end of the tender process.” However an alternative image of the design has been obtained by users of architectural discussion forum https://archiseek.com and posted on their website.

The new tower design was described by the DDDA as “inspirational” and “one of the most significant architectural projects to be delivered in the regeneration of the Docklands area”. DDDAQ chief executive Paul Maloney said the “submission exceeded the expectations of the brief with the emergence of a breathtaking design uniquely suited to this prominent docklands site”.

From certain angles, the tower bears a resemblance to Deutsche Bank Place, the bank’s headquarters at 126 Philips Street in Sydney in Australia, which was designed by the same architects.

The losing members of the shortlist are believed to have met last week to discuss their options. They each spent at least €1 million, according to one well-placed source, and one of the bids cost as much as €2.5 million.

When the shortlist of developers was announced, the DDDA’s press release omitted to mention U2’s involvement with Ballymore in the process. U2’s involvement with Geranger was, however, made known to all bidders prior to bidding, the DDDA spokeswoman said.

It only became publicly known that U2 was involved with Ballymore when the authority’s legal representatives, A&L Goodbody, wrote to all the other bidders, stating that the band and its representatives had not had any role in drawing up the rules for the contest. That letter was then leaked to the media.

To “underpin the independence” of the assessment process, the authority felt it necessary to appoint Chris Wilkinson of Wilkinson Eyre Architects, Shih-Fu Peng of Heneghan Peng Architects and Michael O’Doherty, former principal architect at the Office of Public Works, to advise it on the bids.

They decided that the Foster design and Geranger bid was the best submission for the site.

alternative image of the design has been obtained by users of architectural discussion forum

hehe its gone now.

SOC’s article printed above is not the actual article. This is. SOC if you’re going to use media articles please reproduce in full and don’t alter it to make it incorrect.

Winning bid for U2 tower is almost €30m under highest offer
28 October 2007 By Neil Callanan
The winning consortium for the U2 tower is believed to have bid almost €30 million less for the site than the highest bid submitted.

The Riverside II Partnership is understood to have bid at least €100 million for the site, while Sean Dunne is understood to have bid about €75 million.

The Geranger consortium which comprises Ballymore Properties, Paddy McKillen and U2 band members and management is believed to have bid a figure of slightly more than €70 million for the site. McKillen is believed to own only a small slice of Geranger, whose bid is said to have been a relatively straightforward cash offer.

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA), which ran the competition to select a developer of the tower and a new design (the third) for the building, said it could not comment on the price offered by Ballymore and its partners and how it matched up against other bids.

‘‘The tender process is ongoing,” said a spokeswoman.

‘‘This is commercially sensitive data which cannot be released at this time.”

It is estimated that the U2 Tower scheme will cost over €200 million to design and build. Construction is expected to start in 2008 and be completed by 2011.The winning bid comprises a 120-metre tower with a hotel, shops and apartments designed by Foster + Partners.

At the top of the tower will be a suspended egg-shaped pod which will house U2’s studios.

So far, the DDDA has only released a night time render of the building. Night time images are notoriously difficult to judge a building’s quality by because, among other things, they don’t show the materials used or shadowing impacts.

When asked why it has not released daytime renders, the DDDA said ‘‘that the release of images is a matter for the docklands authority. All images will be released at the end of the tender process.”

However, an alternative image of the design has been obtained by users of architectural discussion forum https://archiseek.com and posted on their website.

The new tower design was described by the DDDA as ‘‘inspirational’’ and ‘‘one of the most significant architectural projects to be delivered in the regeneration of the Docklands area’’.

DDDA chief executive Paul Maloney said the ‘‘submission exceeded the expectations of the brief with the emergence of a breathtaking design uniquely suited to this prominent docklands site’’.

From certain angles, the tower bears a resemblance to Deutsche Bank Place, the bank’s headquarters at 126 Philips Street in Sydney in Australia, which was designed by the same architects.

The losing members of the shortlist are believed to have met last week to discuss their options. They each spent at least €1 million, according to one well-placed source, and one of the bids cost as much as €2.5 million.

When the shortlist of developers was announced, the DDDA’s press release omitted to mention U2’s involvement with Ballymore in the process.

U2’s involvement with Geranger was, however, made known to all bidders prior to bidding, the DDDA spokeswoman said.

It only became publicly known that U2 was involved with Ballymore when the authority’s legal representatives, A &L Goodbody, wrote to the other bidders, stating that the band and its representatives had not had any role in drawing up the rules for the contest. That letter was then leaked to the media.

To ‘‘underpin the independence’’ of the assessment process, the authority felt it necessary to appoint Chris Wilkinson of Wilkinson Eyre Architects, Shih-Fu Peng of Heneghan Peng Architects and Michael O’Doherty, former principal architect at the Office of Public Works, to advise it on the bids.

They decided that the Foster design and the Geranger bid was the best submission for the site.

Some of the media seem to be mixing up the Clarence hotel revamp and the U2 tower.

http://www.designbuild-network.com/news/news2866.html

Architects Slam Foster’s U2 Project

24 October 2007 16:17

The Foster + Partner’s design for U2 tower has met criticism online, according to online peer review site Archiseek, which found one third of surveyed members did not agree with the end design.

The plans to redesign Dublin’s Clarence Hotel into Ireland’s tallest building should not be allowed to go ahead, architects say.

The skyscraper will feature a skycatcher atrium that resembles spaceship that will be visible across the city.

The Clarence Hotel is owned by Bono and The Edge of U2.

Dublin City Council is looking into their application to demolish four neighbouring listed buildings to transform the site.

By Penny Jones

‘Slammed’ might be a tad harsh. If anything I think that a minority of people here actually dislike Foster’s design. I think most of the problems are not with the design, but rather, the competition. Though I hope this project is held up no longer. I think its time to get on with it or we will be here in 2012 with a new design:rolleyes:

The skyscraper will feature a skycatcher atrium that resembles spaceship that will be visible across the city.

😀 She must be smoking something……surely….

The plans to redesign Dublin’s Clarence Hotel into Ireland’s tallest building should not be allowed to go ahead, architects say.

Buh…?

@theman wrote:

If anything I think that a minority of people here actually dislike Foster’s design. I think most of the problems are not with the design, but rather, the competition. Though I hope this project is held up no longer. I think its time to get on with it or we will be here in 2012 with a new design:rolleyes:

Agreed, just build the damn thing already!

I wonder why they haven’t released any renders showing the tower from the west side, along the quays.
I think it would look really good from that perspective.

Still prefer the original twisting design.

I have one but file size is too big to upload.

@AndrewP wrote:

@darkman wrote:

Some of the media seem to be mixing up the Clarence hotel revamp and the U2 tower. QUOTE]

Weirdest twist yet…

True,….Sky News had it on Monday night relaying across the bottom of the screen and kinda saying that conservation groups were concered for the listed buildings located beside the new U2 tower.

@theman wrote:

@darkman wrote:

I think its time to get on with it or we will be here in 2012 with a new design:rolleyes:

Yeah, but the DDDA won’t – this is going down the road of the DDDA wasting €10m plus on three different designs, without a sod being turned and DDDA dissappearing into oblivion. The CEO will be happily back in DCC when all the fuss has blown over….

woah total confusion wonder who wrote it
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1290655,00.html?f=rss

edited to add

David Norris says it looks one of those prepackaged sandwiches you’d buy in centra… 🙂

so this new image still has these vague lines, where did the image with the solid extension above the peak of the building come from

Penny jones cribbing Larissa Nolan cribbing archseek…

@lostexpectation wrote:

woah total confusion wonder who wrote it
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1290655,00.html?f=rss

I don’t think it is. I think they’re talking separately about the two projects. The sentence structure isn’t great though

Methinks it needs to go to 180m.

Methinks it will.

🙂

More fotos of the Zaha Hadid design – far more dramatic in my opinion

Zaha Hadids design is perhaps the ugliest skyscraper ive ever seen,it amazes me how its even a topic of discussion. BTW those renders look pretty good!now all we need is someone to photoshop in the watchtower??any takers

Have to say I’m really not a fan of Foster’s design for this particular site. It doesn’t address its location properly: presenting a gable wall to the city, while its principal elevation is so narrow as to be at odds with the vast horizontal expanse of the Liffey. It’s as if it’s addressing or pointing to a specific point on the river – by virtue of its leaning character and its narrow main facade – and yet when you get down there, there’s, well, nothing.

This critical corner site is more suited to a proud, upstanding, elegant statement that’s more outward looking; something that addresses the city at large as well as the corner site in question. It needs to be more all-encompassing, more democratic in appearance than what is proposed. What we have is rather self-absorbed – not necessarily a bad thing – but given this is to be the defining building of the Docklands to which all future towers are supposed to bow in deference, I’m not sure we have the right building. This design is more along the lines of one of those very smaller towers that wants to make a bit of a statement with a quirky shape, not the flagship that should be addressing the entire area.

Does it not grate with anyone that a corner site is being filled with what is anything but a corner building? Personally I find it very jarring.

My god – that Hadid proposal is shockingly bad to my eyes, lumpy, bulky and completely lacking in elegance… Then again I think the Foster proposal is great! No accounting for taste eh?Actually I have one qualm – I think it would be better if it wasn’t leaning outwards towards the river, instead rising straight upwards – as Graham says it gives it a directionality as if it’s leaning to acknowlege or point towards something – which it isn’t. I actually disagree that the building is presenting it’s “gables” to the city – to me the main elevations are the sculptural ones with the potentially very interesting cladding design….

if zaha was stainless steel it might work…

but some of zaha’s previous projects are not so impressive and she started by painting?

I admire her line work style but it does not always translate… It only works on some projects

It’s clear from this that foster had the most skilled 3d modeler / presentation / context photo and is a massive cut above the rest…

If I was a judge I would almost know it was foster because of the same style used for the clarence night shot

I would like to see the same artist do zaha’s as well then we could compare them fairly…

Graham H

Future towers, stop dreaming! compared to IFSC II and other DDDA projects this is top quality stuff, hopefully once built it will finally end the highrise phobia. Agreed the building could do more to face the city but hopefully the new city will be built up around it.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

How? They’ve largely just rebuilt the entire area.

Hopefully when Spencer Dock is finished and the other plots between it and the remodelled Point Depot are
built on, the U2 tower will be more joined up with the city.
Now I am dreaming but if that highrise island mooted a while back was built and the port moved then who knows.

Sweet Jesus!!! Zaha Hadid’s design is absolutely horiffic. Hawkins House MkII for the 21st century. Absolutely love Foster’s design though. Top marks 🙂

anyone else have a problem with the crookedness? you can’t see the other part from practically anywhere but the east link bridge.

My opinions on the two designs are switching. Seeing these latest renders, the Leaning Tower aspect of the Foster design becomes much more obvious. And I’m not sure that it works. It’s not counterbalanced by anything; it doesn’t interact with anything. It looks like it’s about to topple into the river, like a drunk stepping off a curb.

On the other hand, the Hadid renders look far more dynamic than I had originally thought. The ratio of the tower is still a little deep for my liking, and the colours chosen a little too grey, but it certainly is iconic (for good or bad).

Now though, like practically everybody else in this thread, I just want them to get on and build something. We’ve had our talks, we’ve had our competitions, there’s no right or wrong answer. Just get on with it….

I have to say I’m glad that Hadid’s design wasn’t chosen. It’s really weird looking. And that bit that slinks along and joins up with the tower element of the building looks stupid the way it juts out over the road/river ( I dont know how far out it goes).

have to take back my initial comments on Hadid’s proposal based on the original render …

Quite like it from the top left shot –

Still overall though, a lot of bulk & brawn from many angles & I don’t think it has the height to carry it off.

Good to see fosters from down the quays,

I’m convinced it needs to rise to its pinacle @ 180m to work.

Here’s some more

You’re killing me here…. 🙁

Great renders but the buildings not getting any better looking…

the images of the hadid proposal are of terrible quality… are they photographs of newspaper images?
I like the view of the tower from the point theatre… the physical model in the bottom right of the last images is nice… but the horizontal element does kind of ruin it

@ake wrote:

anyone else have a problem with the crookedness? you can’t see the other part from practically anywhere but the east link bridge.

It’s like a picture that hasn’t been hung properly… I find myself tilting my head to one side as I look at it. And as people have said, there’s no visual counterpoint to it. Not sure if the poker-straight watchtower on the other side will make this better or worse.
Has the DDDA actually sat down with a render of how both will look alongside each other? Does such an image even exist?
I like it apart from the tilt, though. Hate the Hadid.

Has anyone pictures of the Vinoloy Propsal?

And does anyone know what the fuck is the glittery glitzy finish on the outside of the building?

There was one in Irish Times. Only one I’ve seen

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

image and a detail from it…..
doesn’t show much more that we can make out from the other renders

courtesy of The Sunday Business Post

every time i look at those images it looks more and more like the tail of aircraft heading away from the city. 😀
or a pre-packed sandwich from centra

For those pedantic members who take exception to the odd typo in my last posting, please note that this article is directly from today’s Sunday Tribune.

Commercial

The Drawing Board
Garry Miley

Print version Email to a friend

THE Dublin Docklands Development Authority was established in 1997 to plan the urban-renewal of the vast, derelict area of Dublin’s old port.

Because the government recognised that our unsophisticated planning system would prevent anything from being built in the Docklands area ever, they came up with a new system where applications for development within the area could bypass the usual localauthority application/objections/Bord Pleanala route.

The DDDA planning system could hardly have been more different from the one which applied (and more or less still applies) to the rest of the country. The way things work within the DDDA area is that planning approvals are really just a matter of routine, provided the proposal doesn’t stray outside the terms of an overall master plan.

The DDDA planning system . . . copied from approaches found abroad . . . wasn’t refined enough. So this is what happened: in 2002, an architectural competition was held by the DDDA to design a new skyscraper . . . the U2 Tower . . . for a prominent site within its area. A winner was selected. But by 2005 everyone realised the winning scheme was too small to be economically feasible. So the building was redesigned to the point that, when finally built, it would be the tallest occupied structure in Ireland.

Because the bewildering planning process that applies to you, me and everyone else in Ireland doesn’t apply to the area within the Docklands, the tower redesign was approved with the minimum fuss. No protracted Bord Pleanala hearings, no Prime Time Investigates.

At the start of this year the DDDA invited developers to tender on the approved, enlarged building. But on 12 October, when the ‘provisional’ winner of the tender competition was announced, the design of the building had, somehow, mysteriously, completely and utterly changed.

Instead of the design-competitionwinning-but-enlarged proposal which had been approved by the nodding of a few DDDA heads in 2006, we were now to have a totally different building which no one had ever seen before. A Norman Foster. In making the announcement for the radically changed design, the DDDA . . . knowing they wouldn’t be hindered by planning setbacks . . . predicted the Foster Tower would be completed by 2011.

Now, since the 12 October announcement of the ‘provisional’ winner, newspaper and internet chatter has focused on the kind of business-page minutiae which only investment portfolio anoraks really care about: will sore-losing developer X sue the DDDA over some possible breach of fine print/conflict of interest/competition regulations? Or will X hold their whisht in the hope of having a crack at some new money printing project the DDDA have up their sleeves for further along the river?

What I can’t understand is why the media, the opposition parties, the local community and everyone else whose been following the game has managed to avoid asking the central question, which is: how can it be, in a country where the average citizen can spend years of their life waiting for An Bord Pleanala to refuse planning permission for an inconsequential house extension, that the emirate of the Dublin Docklands can publicly present the soon to be tallest building in the state . . . a below-par McFoster . . . as a fait accompli through some shoddy, press-leaked 3-D images?

Am I the only one who thinks this is strange?

[img]

Spot the difference!

I wonder if anyone in the Ballymore/U2 team realised that they were being sold a second hand pup?

Foster’s design for Deutsche Bank in Sydney is ten years old. Did no-one at the DDDA or any one of the eminent architects on the judging panel notice the remarkable similarity?

Hardly the breath-taking innovative design we were told we were getting, more a case of here’s one I prepared earlier.

@SOC wrote:

For those pedantic members who take exception to the odd typo in my last posting,

Hold on a second. You changed the copy to say that Riverside II had bid e75 million when in fact they had bid more than e100 million. That’s not being pedantic and it’s a lot more than a typo. You changed the copy and made it incorrect.