pepe

There would be plenty of opportunity to co-ordinate the approach.
The drainpipe thing is something i would see as petty.
Although it does identify the property lines, and provides interesting jusxtapositions. (different colours)
What i dont understand is when this happends but its painted in effectively the same colour, year on year, but at different times, just painting over the dirt. And this is just mind boggling.
Why not share the price of the paint with your neighbour, and one person paint the top half and one the bottom?

BUt back to the refurb question.

OUr questionaire was very simple.

Where do you live?
Where would you like to live?
Whats good about where you live?
Whats bad about where you live?
If you could change one thing what would it be.

For the last question.
Our man from barbados came up with a very fast and honest answer.

BLOW IT UP!

our design was essentially then an attempt to address the issues he had raised and convince him that there is an alternative to “Blowing it up/Demolition”

Each flat does have identifiable borders. And they are separated by the overall structure of the tower.

Will enable email from my profile
so we can take this off somewhere else.
glad it is of some help
look forward to talking.

Just completed (for a competition) an unusal project.
Rennovation/refurbishment of a council tower block in East London.
5 towers originally built in the 1960’s following teh bombing of the victorian streets in teh are during WW2.

one tower was demolished this summer, and another is scheduled for demolition next year, and is currently being decanted (residents rehoused)

The three other towers are planned to be renovated.

One by an appointed architect and two others by way of the competition.

The structure of the towers (14 stories) very standard for the time.
Concrete frame infil brick panels and single galazed steel frame windows.

Countless problems with the area and the towers themselves.

We interviewed a 60 yer old resident from barbados who had lived there for 20 years.

Expected budget is between £5 and £6 million for each tower (and landscaping)

interesting as the council plans to temporarily house residents elsewhere whislt work is being carried out and then rehouse them in same apartments (wonce rennovated)

so quite a big project management task.

Its not at a stage where its been costed in any real way and our budget plan was simply working back from the proposed figures.

half the money (£2.8m) to be spent on communal facilities (lobbies lifts stairs and services) and landscaping/external areas
With the other half (£2.8m) to be split “equally” between the residents for use on their own apartments.
There are 4 apartments per floor which makes 56 in total, so we were proposing approx £50,000 for each apartment (although half are 1 bed and half two bed) so it needs more research into current occupancy patterns.
and maybe make it a £60,000 and £40,000 respectively.

the consultation will then interview all residents to facilitate teh production of a catalogue of key concerns and (possible solutions) which will then be able to be selected by the individual residents.

ie (larger balcony) £5,000
kitchen type 1 £5,000
addition of dining area (bolt on) £10,000
bathroom type 6 £5,000
Re flooring throughout choice of finish £5,000

etc etc

that way the residents know how much is being spent and have control over what happens to their apartment (within set/reasobably limits)

ie no gold taps!

but the external appearance of teh towers is thus designed/developed by the combination of individual choices.

small image attached of one of many possible external appearences.

If you want any more info/want to use it as a case study. very intersted in helping out/developing it further

and if you have construction management skills would be nice to chat!

might send larger images t paul for unbuilt section (but depends on what happens with the results!)

fingers crossed

El architino never fails!

Its a shame he is not offered more commisions by underhanded back alley dealings.

I hope he enjoyed his relaxing retreat to the west bank.

The design reminds me of time spent in finland.

Where in the depths of winter the bus station become a comunal toilet for the drunks of the city.
Now this is not all that bad as in most cases the urine freezes on impact with the cold ground.

However the lasting impression comes form the morning after where the sun beats down and defrosts/melts the frozen rivers of piss and the steam clouds from the urine are something that has to be seen and smelt to be believed.

I am sure if you were so inclinded these fumes must be at least 90% proof, but noone has thought of bottling them!

Mind you.

I think that instead of the single toilet, some urinal channels would be much more useful.

Otherwise there is gonna be one almighty queue to sit on the golden thrown!

More challenges for el architino

Dogsonfire:
I am afraid that you are misinformed regarding the DDDA contacting entrants directly.

There was a mail out i received after the deadline which was cc’d to approx 1/3 of the entrants. Informing them of the web adrdess where news regarding the publication of results would be found.

This simple fact not only indicates that the anonymity of entrants was not maintained by the DDDA but also indicates that 3W were on the mailing list.

as far as the entry form goes.

It required the name of the architect/practice their address and telephone number as well as details of the contents enclosed.
And it seems that many people added their email addresses to this information.

(Maybe only 236 of the entrants) but one of them was 3W

Something still smells fishy to me

Excert from word document of entrant email addresses.

3W appear at no 125 on a list of 236.

their email adress appears between these two (other entrants.

hamilton-assoc.com, swalker@3w.org, P.A.Hadfield

attached is screen shot showing that the date the document was created was

Wed, May 7,2003, 4:40pm

If anyone else has a copy of the original email from the DDDA they will be able to corroborate this evidence more conclusively.

so if the DDDA had the email address, but there was no entry form, where did the email address come from????

October 19, 2003
Comment: Michael Ross

Last Monday the chairman of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, Peter Coyne, travelled to London to meet architects from the unfortunate 3W practice, whose design won the competition for the U2 docklands tower, only to be discarded in secrecy when the development body was unable to identify the entrant.

In their meeting, Coyne acknowledged that 3W’s entry was indeed the initial choice of the competition jury. He maintained the DDDA line that the entry had been invalid and so had to be discarded. 3W, for its part, had a receipt to prove its payment of the entry fee and maintained that its paperwork was checked several times before it was submitted. Nevertheless, a détente of sorts was reached.

A joint statement from the DDDA and 3W later acknowledged that the firm’s entry, “although disqualified, had been considered as a potential winner by the competition jury.” Andrew Wells, a 3W partner, said the practice was “absolutely distraught to discover that our entry had found favour with the jury but was disqualified”.

There the matter rests, with 3W and the DDDA agreeing to differ on the salient facts. 3W, veterans of architecture competitions, know that there is no hope of having BDA/Craig Henry, the eventual winners, deposed.

Were it to sue the DDDA, 3W would run the risk of damaging its good name. Having lost the U2 tower through no apparent fault of its own, it could end up losing even more by getting a reputation as troublesome and litigious. Better to acknowledge graciously the worth of the competition winner, as it has, and to maintain good terms with the DDDA.

The DDDA emerges from the matter, however, with its reputation in shreds. Even the agreed statement is laden with the mendacity and dissimulation that have characterised the authority’s behaviour in relation to the U2 tower controversy. It is more than merely misleading to maintain that 3W’s entry “although disqualified, had been considered as a potential winner by the competition jury”. The entry was the jury’s choice as winner. Only when its authors could not be identified, and when a hurried and ham-fisted investigation added to the chaos, was it discarded.

The DDDA’s economical approach to the truth was reinforced in the weeks that Culture’s architecture critic, Shane O’Toole, spent working on his exposé of the U2 tower competition, published three weeks ago. Even up until the last moment before the piece went to press, the DDDA maintained its line that we had got the story wrong. Only when we stood our ground did it finally acknowledge the truth, and the not until last week.

Had the DDDA, instead of seeking to obfuscate the chaos of the competition, come clean at the outset about the problems with the winner, Dublin might now be faced not with BDA’s interesting twisted tower but 3W’s more inclusive building, a landmark which would not just look good but would, particularly because of its daringly elevated observation deck, draw people to the Grand Canal Basin. Instead, the DDDA’s sustained dissimulation made — and continues to make — a bad situation worse.

not specifically directed at you my honorable friend

infact your initial question about the harp was very funny

as was acitos response!

i however personally feel that a building with references to a celtic harp (guiness branded or otherwise) being much more relevant to the irish people than that of the twisty winner

a spinning top??????

does this have some incredible significance in the irish subconcious.

and even so, does the bulding remind you of a spinning top?

NOT I said the cat

not in anyway does it make me think of a spinning top until the architect says so.

spinning tops are about centrifugal or centipetal forces that create a stability through velocity

THAT IS NOT A SPINNING TOP
THAT IS POST RATIONALISATION
THAT IS BRAIN WANKINGG

what if craig henry had justified their proposal by saying that it came up while playing twister! or from eating one of those pink and yellow twister candies.
or from using the distort tools in photoshop on a picture of canary wharf tower?????

as with 3W proposal, what is the attributable significance of a concrete campanile???

sure acitos development of the project was a bit literal/formal in some senses. and a more poetic expression of what an architectural harp could be might have gotten them further???

but to be honest.

none of these proposals acknowledge one very important part of the program.

That this building (which ever one they finally build (ifa any) will be known as the U2 Tower.

Certainly there are questions of whether people would want to rent an apartment in a branded tower. but some of the most significant and specific requirements in the brief were regarding the recording studios and roof top access/facilities for the band.

So in that respect i think all those mentioned above missed the point/a point of the “Landmark” status of the building.

Abbey road is a mecca for beatles fans, as will the original u2 studios be (whatver happens to them)

but this tower will become the new place to pilgramage for U2 fans (a chance to get a glimpse of the band) at the top of the tower.

There was one project which althugh copying anish kappoors marsyrys accmomplished this in some way with a big “ear horn” structure going through the whole building and linking the studios to the ground floor.

Or maybe even el architinos project whch houses the band in a pit/cage for people to look down upon.

as for other specific requirements and back to the fire stair issue.

“i see seven towers, and i only see one way out”

dont know which song this is but its by U2

maybe this is some form of nostradmic prediction?

anyway

more thughts to come.

but i do not wish to surpress your opinions.

mrely poiting out that negtive criticism at this stage does not really benefit anyone, unless it makes them relook at the project and think about what it could of been.

,maybe they are happy with teh formal qualities of the harp.

maybe they think nothing could be added to or taken away without compromising the project.

in which case acito need to start again from first principles and look at a real celtic harp

or maybe a spinning top!

but this forum should be a place for positive criticism

not dumping on people

congratulations on your first class degree

and your successes in architectural competitions.

personally i feel the latter is more important than the former

education being notoriously incestuous

and whilst you may have worked very hard, there are many talented people ou there who do not have a first clss (or even any) degree

tadao ando
FLW

etc
etc

i respect your anonymity

but please email me (through the forum) with some images and explanations of your work! (Prize winning or otherswise)

i would be intersted to se them

ok

got to go for dinner

catch you later

are we not all simians? (genetically)

the problem with young “tyros” as you put it.
Is not that they dont read the brief.

Is that they read it and:

either feel that it is so banally restrictive in both its functional and physical elements and the presentation requirements that its not worth adhering to in anyway.

and thus are disqualified.

or that they dont really give a fuck but read it anyway.

but then maybe six months later could not quote the brief word for word

and are not referring to it in relation to their own work but to someone elses (acito or whichever “winner” they are reffering to)

i really dont think its a matter of anyone being a sore loser.

its a matter of wanting to know what the fuck happened in that lcked room.

and as what? said regarding the exhibition

sounds like they just sat around ate the free buffet then picked a hundred random entries

and this might well have been what happened.

sure we hope that there was some impassioned debate and infact there was (With regard to the disqualification) of the “original winner” but there has been no publsihed report or account of the proceedings

no one is willing to comment on it.

and as such

people who invested their time effort and money are liable to get pissed off with the ignorance or incompetence of the DDDA and therfore have the right to reply. Or at the very least instigate a discussion.

as for the use of obscure wordings “tyro” i have this to say to you.

when did you first hear this word?

did you look it up in your thesaurus.

and heres a couple for you that might enlighten you

ceaseless odium

bathetic black sheep