shadow
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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 400The 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.
Same image as published in the Irish Times today. The other short listed architects (fronting the developers) include Scott Tallon Walker, Hennegan Peng, SOM. All have a vaguely ship like prow with more than a nod to either Libeskind or other prow like buildings such as Piano’s in Holland.
If commerce gets to decide the nature of important public spaces, without any countervailing social/design pressure this will be more of the same.
No information about an opening party or launch indicated in the envelope or on the card. Yes I was an entrant in the competition.
Exhibition of U2 Entries
9-19 October 2003
Excise Walk North Wall Quay IFSC
Mon-Sat 11.00-5.00
Sun 12.00 -5.00The short list is a bit mysterious since it does not appear on the DDDA web site. What is the progeny of the list? And yes, post it…..
Maybe this is too simple:
How was an entry, which was in technical breach of the competition regulations, presented to the jury for evaluation? This is one of the most fundamental aspects of competitions. The DDDA went to great effort to ensure that material not requested (images etc.. ) would not be shown to the jury. Yet on this fundamental level, if this is true, it seems an entry that did not comply to other regulations got through. I think that the rules (all rules) should be applied evenly. If however, the entry was technically complete (A4 report, fee etc..) subject to proof, then the whole competition should be suspended and re-run. However due to the sheer number of images published this is now impossible.
What a pickle?????
The “hole” in the bridge plate is not a drill hole. It is a puncture. That aside, I find that the assesment procedures in competitions (Ireland) tend not to be rigorous enough or tailored to deal with the issues in depth or even shift in principle to suit the assesors.
The damage under discussion are the result of a number of events.
LED lenses are cracked. Since these are below the level of the metal (aluminium) it would take considerable effort with something quite small in diameter, probably metal, to inflict the damage. Even heavy set people in stillettos are unlikely to cause this. Currently someone has placed stickers (musical notes) over these.
The ribs on the planks are being eroded from wear, or dragging of (again) heavy (stone/metal) over parts of the bridge.
There are a number of puncture holes in the planks. These could only be inflicted by driving a sharp tool (pointed crowbar or other spike like item into the plank. Aluminium is relatively soft in comparison to other metals.
It is clear that most of the damage is deliberate. It is very unlikely that the horses are the cause of the damage above, although the steel shoes will cause some wear on the raised grips (serated edges).
Just to be clear, Garret Fitzgerald inherited an already bankrupt economy from a Fianna Fail government which, if memory serves me, cancelled domestic rates leading to the downgrading of local democaracy in favour of centralised politics.
In truth we are all responsible for the previoous and current mess.
“Then you have his young student at MIT, Philip Johnson who managed to compromise the purity of the Farnsworth design solution, and build the Glass house and other little houses. “
Johnson was a student at Harvard, a mature student, who built in Cambridge a neo miesian house,while studying there under gropius.
The descent into style was originated by Johnson while curating at MOMA “The International Style”… book with Hitchcock as well, funded heavily by family interests…….
An ideas competition is a competition where the organiser seeks ideas in relation to a project (or issue), whose terms are not finalised, but may be finalised depending on the ideas that the competition identify. From which point a new competition or commission is organised based on those ideas.
An architectural competition (other than ideas) is one where the ideas have been properly formulated and the terms and references for the Brief clearly stated. In this instance certain criteria are identified which must be fulfilled.
In relation to this “competition” (U2) it was presented in a fashion much closer to the latter. It had clear terms of reference for use, density, height (parapet height – usually meaning the last usable floor+balcony/parapet rail), set backs etc..)
There have been too many competitions where the basic premise or conditions of the brief have been ignored or rewritten during the judging process.
For instance during the judging for the “Spire” the jury changed from considering all possibilities (brief) to consider only those that had no access, (climbing, lift, stairs etc.). One of the jury members, in the offical report, indicated that since people had access to “ryanair” there was no need to climb the “tower” to see the city. If that was a basic premise of the competition perhaps there would be a more unified and higher quality response to the problem. Not to mention this change ignored the wonderful opportunites that an occupied tower might have had for the city centre and the ability of its citizens to possess in real terms the public realm.
While “real” comptetitions contain ideas (obviously very important) they are measured by the basis upon which they are judged.
It is a common misconception that architects retain a propritery right over their completed work. In fact once the work has been completed, the contract at an end, they have no input or rights to dictate what happens. It is in the good graces of the client if anything remains as intended. Frank Lloyd Wright would often visit his clients’ houses, sometimes uninvited, and rearrange the furniture to that as envisaged, greatly to the annoyance of the people who lived there. Seeking to have one’s work “listed” for preservation is one option but that would indicate an certain level of arrogance about the value of such work. When Mao was asked about the value of the French revolution he replied it was much too early to say.
I have heard that the dealy in starting LUAS (to review whether or not we should have a metro instead of LUAS) which was ordered by then Minister O’Rourke lost Ireland in the region of €350 million in EU subvention funds.
And assuming 100% usage over 4 stories (for the “podium”) adds another approximately 3,200 sq m gives a total of 6,700 sqm…… still short and this does not even discount stairs lifts etc. Is this the case….?:
If the tower is 15 x 15 metres the total area (including circulation) for the tower will be in the region of 3500 sqm, a long way from the density guidelines indicated in the brief……
What is the value of an idea if it cannot be executed?
The objective of the competition was I believe to achieve a point block that complied to very specific requirements such as slenderness ratios and density of use.
There was an obvious conflict between achieving the densities required while holding onto the ratio.
The use of comparative images from the same angle was certainly a step in the right direction for comparative assesment, but this should have been carried further to include a technical 3d rendering (axon, iso). A lot of the CGI images look out of scale to the surroundings or patently unreal (hyper-real?).
Regarding fire escapes. All buildings are required to meet Part B of the Irish Building Rgulations. Part B in turn refers to a number of British Standards mainly BS 5588 (various parts) relating to specific building uses.
A number of people have identified that travel distance as an issue in respect of number and location of fire stairs, this is complicated also by density (number of people). Because a high rise has a cascading effect on numbers normally 2 stairs (minimum) are required (<45 degrees apart),one usually doubling as a fire fighting stair (fireman's stair). A building may also be engineered to a different standard but there is not a lot of high rise fire engineered buildings in Ireland to prove the viability of a single stair high rise. A single stair medium rise residential (low density) building is possibile but alternatives such as zones of refuge must be provided. Hope this helps..Burdon Dunne Architects/Craig Henry Architects of Blackrock, Co. Dublin has today been announced the winner of the Docklands Authority’s Architectural Competition to design a landmark tower development at Britain Quay in Dublin’s Docklands. 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.
Designed as a symbolic landmark at the end of Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, the architects intended the building to be a new interface between the solidity of the docklands area and the ever-moving landscape of the tidal Liffey and Dodder rivers.
Peter Coyne, Chief Executive of the Docklands Authority, said today “the winning design provides a unique and remarkable landmark for the city. Overall, we were delighted with the response to the competition, not only in terms of the huge number of entries, but particularly by the impressive quality of the work received.â€
The Docklands Authority will now be reviewing development options for the proposed concept design and it is hoped that the tower would be developed during 2004/2005. In the meantime, the winning entry along with over 100 entries shortlisted by the judges will be on view at an exhibition in September (date and venue to be announced).
The jury specially commended a further four entries 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
