Vertigo? U2 tower to be taller

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.

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…

@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

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

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

@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? 🙂

From yesterday’s Sunday business post

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.

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.

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 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.