DogsonFire-2
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Yes! we have no bananas!”
You know it was the Romans who first brought that fabulous “F” word to middle and Northern Europe…………along with straight roads and central heating. Nothing much has really changed since then; still have the “F” word, a desire for immediate transport and unhealthy disregard for the environment. Remember Nero and his harp and burnt bits-and-pieces. Seems strangely familiar here also! The Main Man just needs to gain some weight!
I agree whole-heartedly that the tragedy of the world surpasses that of this is sorry affair. Who really cares if it’s a harp , a dog biscuit , a penis or all three. It’ll become history and all will forget. The Taj Mahal was built in this manner, with the reigning Taj commenting on completion that he’d now idea why they had built it. The Eiffel tower ( read-Roland Barthes) was attacked as being “ugly†and “useless†when it was announced it was to stay in Paris for ever.
But. what of the ID, the-they and existentialism…………. Hey it’s not to say that it matters, it simply a fact that it exits and it prevalent in most architects. It’s that Freudian thing………….it’s simply part of the psyche……….nothing more nothing less, and therefore conditions how, for example, an architect behaves.
OK, seminar over chaps, let’s get back to the drink
I just love this passion that is being aired here!…………..maybe this is the best result of the competition…………….DEBATE………….and..DISCOURSE! The owners of this site should publish the whole set of communications and illustrations/Images as some sort of up-beat “Honeywell Diaries†( anyone remember that one?)….make a fortune…..hey! and that was my idea so I expect a cut on the royalties chaps!
But sadly that is the only good thing …………..the rest is just like bottled Guinness….sounds and looks good………but when you drink it…………nothing like the real thing!
As for Internationalism and Nationalism…………….. wake up chaps, you’ve missed the war……….let’s get it on collectively and wear sandals and dufflecoats. It not about any of this………….It about EGO…………….the one things that drives the Architect…..there is of course a difference of presentation of the ID………..some call it arrogance others genius………………it’s just a question of how much sense of humour and confidence you include.
It’s just a shame there was really no supernatural sparks from this event…………….just a rather damp fart.
Well, I guess you guys were more informed than we were! but pretty dumb of DDDA to do such a thing, but in retrospect, in keeping with all other issues surrounding this competition!
I would agree generally that soemthing does not “smell” good here but infortunately it is only those with an interest and appetite who can help here. Question: who should be interested?; well certainly these chappies from London who clearly got taken to the cleaners ! But it looks like they took the money rather than open the box…… which is borne out by this “statement”. What a terrible shame ! but knowing the legal scenarios DDDA might have spun for 3W “commercial decisions” often prevail over those of the emotional nature unless of course you are well hung financially in which case you can feed those lawyers till you get the result you want.If anybody remembers, the entry form asked only for a telephone number. Price Waterhouse Coopers then telephoned all (or most or some!) asking for data to be sent by e-mail. From my understanding that is it. DDDA did not contact any entrant directly until after the results. PWC had the e-mail addresses.
But what the hell! it’s all the same at the end……….a total fowl-up which is at the expense of the Architectural community….nothing new there I’d say! What a gullible lot Architects are……..and as stated way before, eccentricity drives Competitions…..BUT likewise institutes who perport to provide stable and up-right attitudes should look again at their trousers and see if there are any stains.If anybody remembers, the entry form asked only for a telephone number. Price Waterhouse Coopers then telephoned all (or most or some!) asking for data to be sent by e-mail. From my understanding that is it. DDDA did not contact any entrant directly until after the results. PWC had the e-mail addresses.
But what the hell! it’s all the same at the end……….a total fowl-up which is at the expense of the Architectural community….nothing new there I’d say! What a gullable lot Architects are……..and as stated way before eccentricity drives Competitions…..BUT likewise institutes who perport to provide stable and up-right attitudes should look again at their trousers and see if there are any stains.“Were it to sue the DDDA, 3W would run the risk of damaging its good name” Quoate from the Times.
It’s a sad day when Goliath get’s patched up because the legal scenarios suggest bad behaviour if action is taken. What ever happened to fairness and rights!….sorry that’s a bit old fashioned I suppose and naive ……..but reflects on a comminuity as a whole.
WEll, if that’s it then, good luck you chaps in Dublin…………. you have some real fun people running your town!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 postscriptâ€. 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!
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.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!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!
………..and yes-Paul Clerkin is right….the DDDA have that air of superiority which often surrounds such establishments as it is this air which they consider the bedrock of the establishment. What a shame and disappointing really that such attitudes still exist. There was always something which my mother used to say………. something about virtue……….not here I fear!
The List ……………..oh the List……..well if it exists then let’s see it……………air brush marks and all! Is it possible?
Surely this is the type of issue members pay the Royal Institute of Architects to sort out? It’s in their interests to ensure professional protocol is maintained and its members represented. Ok, that the academic line and perhaps a little naive to expect but what then are we all doing here? I agree that to lobby all relevant parties is a good one…..perhaps this notice and text ( aka quoted by b.ray) should be published more widely to allow ALL interested parties to participate.
Originally posted by colinsky
see, that founds much more far-fetched to me than the idea that someone at the DDA misplaced the entry details.Whatever…………… it still does not discount the possible preferred project………..which did not have a name. If this was so, it shouldn’t have been put before the Jury in the first place….so who’s fooling who here! DDDA did reject some entries , and I presume for not complying with entry requirements . i.e no fee and/or no entry form etc etc. ( obvious and normal reasons) so if there was a set of panels in front of the Jury without the correct credentials then they screwed it up at the beginning. Its all speculation at the moment and I’m sure some wise chappies are seeking a clever statement to shape all this……….it they are not then they should be!
so, is it the roll of the drums and crack-a-jack pencils at the ready? I would suggest, the jury are invited to reveal their original choice ( by identifying the “picture”) in a closed session to Paul Clerkin who is on-line in a chat-room scenario with the “anonomous winner” who then sends their picture. That way all is revealed or not, Jury can come out of their oxygen tent , the prodigal winner is enstated if they are the winner and the DDDA must then compensate the “other winners” for the mistake – say 12,000.00 euro. If it’s all wrong then nobody gets hurt and the winner stays at it is and it doesn’t have to be made public unless the winner is truly identified. However IF the story is correct anyway……..the winner should be found. So…..get the dark brown overcoats on and play that banjo……..crack anyone?
Emporers new clothes with a twist! with DDDA as the court jester! It’s incredible that the RIAI haven’t made some noises on this issue. Come on chaps , I’m sure your members pay you well to represent issues, yes/no? As to the the DDDA, what a display of arrogance and disgrace. I suppose the jury is sworn to secrecy, but I suspect feel a little guilty ..well they should do!.a shame of an affair and one not good for the profession or the competition as a vehicle for appointing an architect.
In reading the summary of the statement from DDDA by Paul Clerkin; such suggestions that the poor lambs who “won” the competition will be “damaged” and the sticks are pointing towards their voodoo doll is a poor attempt to defuse the situation and distract the attention away from the responsibility of the DDDA. IF the DDDA really want to become the innocent party then they must present a FULL disclosure of A: how the jury acted ( in the form of a formal Jury Report/diary signed by all members of the Jury) B: a clear unambiguous explanation of why Price Waterhouse were involved unannounced and late and C: last but not least a complete list of entries, the short-listed projects and a catalogue of the exhibition. Whilst this would not necessarily vindicate the outcome it would at least provide the sceptics that there had been fair play (and on a legal level!)
If what Paul Cherkin writes is «actual» then surely this raises the main question again. Did the organisers comply with the Competition rules or not?
If a «seconded» proposal was selected..how was this achieved?…….it is not however as Paul Cherkin writes ,by default if the mechanism for such a situation is not clearly regulated in the first place by the competition rules.Can DDDA and/or the reputable Price waterhouse Coopers provide a clear and unambiguous statement to explain this? Surely this is their legal responsibility. Further to this what is RIAI thinking on this issue, do they think on this issue, do they care about this issue ? and if so what is their statement.
Cards on the table, face up please. Perhaps rather optimistic to expect such behaviour but one would think that the fee paying members of the RIAI would seek some lobby. After all it’s there professional body and their right! Or this is to , how do I put it, academic! Probably, but a damn shame !
