darkman

Already posted this but its been overlooked obviously. As soon as a big lift shaft starts going up toward the left hand side and at the back of the current construction – that will be the tower. No sign yet.

@jimg wrote:

I thought you’d decided to ignore me? :confused:

Among other things, you claimed that An Taisce’s court cases were funded by the taxpayer. That’s a lie.

You also claimed that An Taisce had initiated court actions against the M1, the M4, the M7, the M11, the M50, the port tunnel and the Intel expansion. More lies. Yes I know they were involved in court action against the M3 but it certainly wasn’t at the taxpayers expense.

Im not wrong – and the M7 Kildare bypass was taken to court and An Taisce lodged an appeal against the Intel expansion, the Southeastern motorway………..just out of curiosty who do you think foots the bill every time they lose a case on an important infrastructure project? An Taisce?

may be used to spouting ignorant rubbish to your mates in the pub without being questioned on it but here, if you post something ignorant

meh, I will just put you on my ignore list. Its easier.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Your post is so misinformed as to be laughable. What do you mean by ‘yet another idiotic complaint… in the courts’? Let me ask you, how many ‘idiotic complaints’ are you aware of An Taisce having taken to the courts with the associated expense to the taxpayer? A simple list will suffice, thanks; even one for, say, the last 10 years.

Some noticable ones:

The M7 motorway
The M4 motorway
The M50 motorway
The M11 motorway
The M3 motorway
The M1 motorway particularly at Lissenhall – they thought the Swans would die this time.
Every single motorway ever built here was objected to by An Taisce
Dublin Port Tunnel
Spencer Dock development
Intel expansion at Liexlip – now that was unbelieveable! – only 5000 people work there!
I could go on and on and on – and there only some of the ones I remember off the top of my head.

Should I go on?

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….

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!:)

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

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.

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,

@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.