Were 3W the architects the DDDA were looking for?

Wow, well done. 3W must be gutted?

fair play Paul, some great investigative journalism (or just good old hard work) on your part.

cool! well done.

“as an outstanding initial concept for an architectural statement on this critically located site” -ddda

if that quote is accurate i think its enough to discredit this competition as no more than a farce. whatever about corruption and stupidity, i find that someone trying to tell me that felim dunnes proposal is anything approaching outstanding to be a massive insult.

you show the idiots what for paul. bravo

From Archinect

“We the undersigned believe that the ddda have acted with a complete lack of common decency in their dealings with the_entrants to the competition. A state of total and paralyzing incompetencey_ and an inability to tell the whole truth when asked even the simplest of_ questions. Many (the designers, the jury, the band and the people of Dublin’s) hopes and dreams were placed on the_table, the ddda has effectively swept aside these dreams and is attempting_ to cover their tracks with unpublished audits, and the threatening of legal_ action. They seem to be completely unaware of anything that they may have done wrong._ Refuse to admit that they have made mistakes, and ultimately have allowed_ lawyers to make the decision that should have rested with an independent_ jury or with the people of dublin. These people have no idea what it takes to_design something. The hours of work and simply the dedication and passion to work late nights and even all night to meet a deadline. They only understand_ two things. Money and Preventing key information being made public. The RAIA_ should not allow the DDDA to run another single architectural_ competition (ON ANY SCALE) in the
future.”

signed

where are the RAIA ?………….in many ways the ball is in their court….or are they too going to put their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away.

This situation doesn’t give much credence to these “establishments” who wish to stake a claim on respectable and honourable (even) behaviour. The word “professional” is one which is drowning here and “establishments” like the RIAI must look again at how they view their own use of this word. but…. for us lesser mortals the high priests who seem to hold the exclusivity to such attributes look a little dated but sadly in control! Tragic but true…….we need that Jonathan person to challenge the Corporation!

ok
so I guess the “original” winner (if they are infact 3W) need to get their national proffessional body.

THE RIBA. to represent them!

TO be honest I dont think this should become a showdown with proffessional bodies making claims to represent anyone.

On a legal level.

ok

but this is not about legality.

This is about design.

The DDDA need to publish the “original entry” in full. On a website and at the exhibition.

Confirm or Deny whether it is the design featured in the Times.

At this point what do we have.
“a nod from someone close to the jury!”

This needs complete clarification on all counts.

What if its not 3W design?

then there is still somebody out there who lost out.

In any event.

I think what should happen is that when the original winner is identified.

They should move on to a newly organised stage 2:

Run by the RAIA (or anyone else whos interested) or U2 themselves

Give the two teams a couple of grand and a month to develop their designs further.

With no restrictions on presentation material.

Animations etc allowed

Have public presntations with question and answer sessions.

Then have a complete and open public vote on which one people want to get built.

Or maybe just rerun the whole competition from start to finish.

There was a competition about 4 months ago run by the UIA for a logo.
All entrants payed $10 and th initial judging was done by the entrants themselves.

The 50 or 100 with the most votes from their peers went through to the second round with the judges.

The judges also got to select any ones they really liked.

But as we have seen this leads to complications and accusations even with a “anonymous” competition

SO say its completely open to those people who entered.

Round 1 selects the top 100 then round 2 cuts it down to 10 then there is daily voting and one gets chopped every 24 hours.

aka “pop idol” could do a tv show “POP architect”

now that ideas my copyright so if there are any tv execs from endemol then get in touch

If Paul could get all the entries online then we havve a starting point.

I am sure the UIA would be interested in re-using their web voting technology.

and all entries should be accepted.
Even those that were disqualified.

The DDDA were approx 4 months late with their decision.

Some people not finding out the status of their entries till six months later.

only to find out that they were 1 second or 1 minute or 10 minutes late. Or there was a queue when they handed in the submissin. Or the DDDA’s clock was wrong and that they were disqualified.

“No period of Grace Allowed”

Which is apparently “sticking to the rules”

but I ask what other rules have the DDDA adhered to?

a) all of them
b) not many
c) none

We need some solidarity within the architectural community.

Print you T-shirts and get the exhibition opening.

12 noon 9th of October

Ok………….I go along with the issue that RIAI ( or any other “body”) not not be sent forward as the champion for the cause and yes it’s about quality of design and decision making . BUT……. if such organisations even exist what then is their mantra supposed to be? Sit around ! Should they not have a “profesional” opinion… after all that’s what they are always barking on about in support of themselves. Why pay membership to any “professional” body if that body is a stiff one! Don’t get me wrong ,I’m not against represenstation as that’s what I’m suggesting here is the issue. .well OK………history shows that “issues” are not changed by the “establishment” but the “people” and therefore it is the “people” ( in large numbers though) who will change the issue.
Speculation at this level either gravitates to inertia or comes to the boil……… I guess we’re waiting for the great cloaked dons of the DDDA to come out of Noddy Town and make a declaration. Clearly the lawyers fees are rising and whatever is made said by DDDA will be very gaurded and aggressive. Or they are waiting for the hot-dogs and beer to run out and the crowd to disperse! Therefore “people”, decide……….. make a formal lobby, crash the gates and gain access or go home to tea and crumpets!

Why pay membership to any “professional” body if that body is a stiff one!

DONT
IF THEY ARE STIFF
EITHER

DEMAND A CHANGE
if this doesnt work
RUN FOR OFFICE
if this doesnt work
DEMAND A REFUND
if this doesnt work
REVOKE YOUR MEMBERSHIP

you can get stuff built anywhere wihout an raia or any other proffessional member involved in the project.

jesus i’m not even half way qualified and i have built stuff!

I hav’nt really followed this one as diligintly as most of you – probably because the whole ‘Big Bildins’ thing is’nt really my cup of Earl Grey –

That said – I really liked the 3W images (a whole lot more than the winners) which I thought were very subtle and well composed.

What really interests me though is the RIAI’s role – true it was’nt their competition However two of the adjudicators were ‘distinguished’ members of that body namely Jimbo and Arfur.

I’m a RIBA member myself but if their code of practise and conduct is anything like ours surely this pair can be called in by the RIAI, firstly to explain their presence on the jury of an unapproved competition

and secondly to verify to the professional body regulating the architectural profession in this country that they were’nt mainly there to put ‘lipstick on the Gorilla’!!.

By the way in the past the RIAI have made a point of circulating members of unapproved compo’s warning them off particularly where Design and Build has been involved and more than one Local Authority has fallen foul of this. Presumably the same would apply to their members being involved in the organising or adjudication of such affairs?????

I believe there are more than a “few” questions

Who were the two RIAI members involved? Jimbo and arthur i mean

jimbo= jim barrett

arfur=arthur gibney

Is that jim barrett of the city architect? why am i labouring the point?

If it can be proven that the decision was compromised or contrived in any way by mistakes or oversights, then justice has to prevail. 3w’s proposal looks like a winner in my eyes

Dont put all the eggs in one basket.

There were over 40 entries that were disqualified for various reasons.

It could be any one of these.

Chances are they have not been contacted by the DDDA

And Were no contacted by PWHC

The only way for this to get resolved is for the DDDA to admit there was another initial winner.

And to publish details of it on their website.

That way everyone will know where they stand and wont have to waste time on lawyers fees for something that might turn out to be a wild goose chase.

can’t one of those losers involved in the selection process get up the nerve to publish an image of what they believed in- the true winner…..what would be the harm in that?

Wasn’t it written in one of the articles that a couple of jurors were going to resign over this- well here’s your chance to get your spine back and rectify the situation.

post it – I dare you!

Unless there is a “real” threat to DDDA they will remain, i think, silent on this matter. They have no “formal” obligations beyond what they have already said and done. For those not in touch with the modern world “morals” do not come into business at some levels and this is one of those levels. To have real objection there is a requirement to have real teeth with which to make the first bite. It is for this reason that “establishments” like RIAI exist, but as has been determined thus far this organisation are not likely to initiate an action without some formal prompting from its membership. But more emphatic would be a legal writ….but who has the balls and money to engage in that, unless key parties come forward to give expert witness statements!
Clearly an uprising by the “people” which simply dwarfs the DDDA by shear numbers would also necesitate action. Well the only gentlemen likely to be able to stir and give voice to those people are part of the establishment now unfortunately ( i.e. U2) .
It is indeed shameful that this has come to this point, as the opportunity for the “win-win” scenarion is surely lost.

It truly is a sad day when those who were previously “revolutionary” become ingratiated by business interests (their own or others). And whilst they may meet presidents and petition against global injustices they are not willing to take a look in their own back yard and indeed on their own front door step or within their own house and deal with the problems at hand.

We all know that a certain band would have enough money to buy the land, select their own choice of architect from all the schemes, and build a tower that dublin deserves. The question is whether the other organisation would sell the land in the first place. And whether they would block a planning application.

U2 spokesman:BD Feb 14th 2003

“i’m sure you can appreciate that the members of U2 operate as individuals”

oh really.

I can see them doing that right now.

SHAME ON YOU . ALL OF YOU. SHAME ON YOU

so what we need now is a tv programme featuring and explaining the two designs along with a recounting of the whole sorry saga and personal recommendations by the great and the good and then a vote by the public. it would be great fun.

obviously

still in denial

NEWS
U2 Tower Design Takes Centre Stage
October 7th, 2003

Submitted as part of the international U2 Tower Architectural Design Competition, the 100+ shortlisted entries will be exhibited at the IFSC in Docklands from October 9th – 19th. The top 4 commended entries and the winning design by Burdon Dunne Architects/Craig Henry Architects of Dublin will also be on display.

The winner of the competition organised by the Docklands Authority to design a landmark tower development at Britain Quay in Dublin’s Docklands was announced in August. The winning design featuring a unique twisting tower was selected from well over 500 entries from across the globe. The proposed tower is to include an exclusive recording studio for U2 on its top two floors.

The Docklands Authority is currently reviewing development options for the proposed concept design and it is hoped that the tower would be developed during 2004/2005.

The jury specially commended a further four entries which will also be on display as follows:

• Simon Innes and Stephen Barton, architects, London, United Kingdom • Thomas P. Mont Alto, Mont Alto Architecture Inc., Ohio, USA • Niall Scott, architect, Scott Tallon Walker Architects, Dublin, Ireland • Hervé Tordjman, HTA – Architecture. H. Tordjman & Partners, Paris, France The competition, which was prepared in association with the RIAI, invited architects to submit concept proposals for a slim “point” block over four or more substantial floors providing recording studios, offices and ground floor bar/restaurant/entertainment venue. Entries were submitted to a jury put together by the Docklands Authority which included a member of the U2 band.

The exhibition will be housed in a temporary art gallery from October 9th – 19th on Excise Walk in the IFSC (opposite the Clarion Hotel). Opening hours are Monday – Saturday, 11am to 5pm and Sunday, 12 midday to 5pm.

so how was the exhibition opening Paul? Did they serve you a fine beverage and chat like nothing ever happened?

Just curious about the event. Great work on your part.

When did this become about two “both” parties.
Who are these parties.

3W and the DDDA
Burdonne dunne and craig henry
U and 2
RAIA RIBA
ONes lawyers the others lawyers
Conservatives-Labour
Bush and Sadam

Who knows who is going to hijack this whole issue.

This is a very complex situation with at 595 interested parties who deserve a refund of the EURO 100 entry fee and a full written apology.

This is not about two firms fighting over the rights to build a tower.

This is about a method of procurement that has raised serious questions about the nature of anonymous (or otherwise) competitions.

And to be honest having witnessed this whole saga I would be extremely wary of entering into any agreement with the DDDA.

If I was the “original” winner I would not sign any contract with the DDDA. No matter how much money or prestige is involved.

Stand up for some principles. Find out the truth but do not have anything to do with those people who are trying to/have tried to cover up the situation.

Say thanks for the compliment and move on.

Everyone seems to be acting in completely selfish interests with the only loser being the truth.

Even if 3W were the original winner. Their entry was not validated.

Personally I do not believe that 3W design was the original winner. Until I see an independently published audit of the proces with documentation of hard copy format and a signed affidavit from all the jury members.

Until then Its an open question. And the lack of an entry fee is something that is a key question here.

(as outlined by the DDDA on their website following the initial comments regardin number of entries and various disqualifications)

How many people submitted designs without the entry fee?

The answer is 12.

How many of these were succesfully traced prior to the judging process commencing.

The answer is 11.

There is one entry that in their original statement (now removed form the website) that did not have an entry fee and they were unable to verify whether it had been paid or trace (through third parties or otherwise).

This entry was apparently disqualified, along with the 42 late entries.

This situation therfore was hanging in the balance right from the first statement.

My understanding is this.

That somehow this single unpaid entry: Managed to somehow (god only knows how) slip through the system and come before the jury.

That 3W claim that they defnitely (triple checked) paid the entry fee and have a receipt that their entry was fuly in order and the money received? Means that unless the DDDA lost the record of the entry fee or the entry fee itself. Then the original winner is not 3W.

And that there is another firm out there, who may or may not have paid the entry fee, and somehow got through to the judges. AND ARE STILL AT LARGE

A NOD (from someone close to the jury) IS NOT ENOUGH CONFIRMATION.

MANY OF THE SCHEMES ARE VERY SIMILAR.
SOME ARE WIDELY VARIED

HOW MANY DISQUALIFIED ENTRANTS ARE STILL UNNACOUNTED FOR.

JUST PUBLISH THE ENTRY FOR CHRISTS SAKE.

PEOPLE JUST WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH

so which do people prefer, for my part, yeah i quite liked the original winner, but the 3w is really lovely, very elegant.

From today’s Sunday Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-850910,00.html :

London talks with the real U2 winners
Scott Millar

THE Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) has accepted that an entry from a London architecture firm was the first one chosen by a jury in a competition to design U2’s new recording studio.

Peter Coyne, the chief executive of the DDDA, is to fly to London tomorrow for discussions with 3W, whose entry was the design to which the jury was first predisposed, the authority has conceded.

The DDDA hopes to reach an an amicable resolution with the firm. The deal is likely to include official recognition that 3W had the best entry, and the firm could get preferred entry in future DDDA competitions.

3W was identified as the original winner two weeks ago after Irish-Architecture.com, an internet site, asked all entrants to publicise their designs. The London firm was surprised to discover that the DDDA had commissioned an independent audit by Price Waterhouse Coopers to verify entries. 3W was not contacted by the consultants.

The architects contend that all was proper with their entry and it included all the necessary documentation, including the €100 entry fee.

Yesterday Andrew Wells, an architect on the 3W design team, said: “We want to see this issue resolved next week. There are a number of questions which must still be answered.

“Why if the entry was invalid was Price Waterhouse and legal opinion called in, in an attempt to find the designers of the originally selected entry?” A spokesman of the DDDA said: “We have been in communication with 3W to explain what happened to its entry, just as the DDDA has been in contact with a number of other firms. That process of explanation is continuing.”

The 3W design included a 100-metre concrete tower with an observation platform.

It would be more helpful if the jury published a detailed record of the assessment procedure, including the way in which projects were assessed and eliminated. The exhibition is wide in approach and certainly wild in expression. I would be most interested in how the requirements of the brief were achieved; by all or none of the entries and how that aspect of the assessment took place. If Price Waterhouse could be hired to carry out an audit of the entry process surely that investment would have been better spent on the assessment of the “valid” entries in the first place…… Also a book publishing all the entries in the following structure:
Winner 1st
Commended Last 4-5
Short list 30
Exhibition 70
The Rest 400

The scale of reproduction could follow the position in the competition, which would allow everyone to see. If cost was a major issue, reproduction in Black & White would be possible and still not make a major dent in the €50,000+ of fees gained.

The Sunday Times article also refers to preferable treatment in future DDDA competitions for 3W. It seems if you shout loud enough and be prima donnish you will be rewarded beyond justice.

All the information, including what happened to all designs.

And the publication (web would be cheaper) and paul is already half way there. Should include every design.
Even those that were disqualfied and didnt make it infront of the jury.

Apart from these articles there has been no actual proof of anything regarding this competition.

and from my experience you cant trust a journalist as far as you could throw them

they will simply head for the best story and edit out anything they dont understand or doesnt fit with what they are trying to get out of it.

Hey, pepe, you big ge-ril-a, you – http://www.archinect.com/discuss_cgi/groups/1556.html – among the broad range of projects we have completed is “February 2003: “DDDA Landmark Tower for U2” Dublin” – how come you haven’t posted your own entry at archeire.com yet? Don’t be coy!

trace.
theres no harm in being angry
but i have no idea what you are talking about?

As was raised before the “simple” solution is for the DDDA to agree with the Jury a Jury report, in essence a short log-book of «how they proceeded to make decisions». Not a complex or unusual document (many competition results include such a report) , but one which closes the circle, for all others, discussions of how, when and who. The Jury must physically sign the document and therefore demonstrate unanimously that all written in the report is an accurate version of events.

IF such a document cannot be drafted then it is a poor show indeed. I know what the answer may be, “oh yes we thought of that but we have no minutes of the sessions so we cannot possibly write this as a postscript”. A good enough reason, on face value , but in the circumstances a little smelly really. The Jury may not unanimously agree to it either for obvious reasons UNLESS all wish to see some fair play and meaningful conclusion. It may be that some will have to hide their heads in shame but isn’t that a necessary thing if this affair is to be resolved. Why must there be the drawn out interlude of impropriatory action, subdivisions and out-right deceit. You get found out eventually! Unfortunately it is perhaps too late for such meaningful attitude and therefore all concerned will have to skirmish to the death! And an expensive funeral it will be!

Is there some personal connection between Burdonne Dunne / Craig Henry and U2?
Somebody is somebody’s brother-in-law or soemthing?