Vertigo? U2 tower to be taller
- This topic has 628 replies, 101 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
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 ……
@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’!
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!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
