SOC
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SOCParticipant
For those pedantic members who take exception to the odd typo in my last posting, please note that this article is directly from today’s Sunday Tribune.
Commercial
The Drawing Board
Garry MileyPrint version Email to a friend
THE Dublin Docklands Development Authority was established in 1997 to plan the urban-renewal of the vast, derelict area of Dublin’s old port.
Because the government recognised that our unsophisticated planning system would prevent anything from being built in the Docklands area ever, they came up with a new system where applications for development within the area could bypass the usual localauthority application/objections/Bord Pleanala route.
The DDDA planning system could hardly have been more different from the one which applied (and more or less still applies) to the rest of the country. The way things work within the DDDA area is that planning approvals are really just a matter of routine, provided the proposal doesn’t stray outside the terms of an overall master plan.
The DDDA planning system . . . copied from approaches found abroad . . . wasn’t refined enough. So this is what happened: in 2002, an architectural competition was held by the DDDA to design a new skyscraper . . . the U2 Tower . . . for a prominent site within its area. A winner was selected. But by 2005 everyone realised the winning scheme was too small to be economically feasible. So the building was redesigned to the point that, when finally built, it would be the tallest occupied structure in Ireland.
Because the bewildering planning process that applies to you, me and everyone else in Ireland doesn’t apply to the area within the Docklands, the tower redesign was approved with the minimum fuss. No protracted Bord Pleanala hearings, no Prime Time Investigates.
At the start of this year the DDDA invited developers to tender on the approved, enlarged building. But on 12 October, when the ‘provisional’ winner of the tender competition was announced, the design of the building had, somehow, mysteriously, completely and utterly changed.
Instead of the design-competitionwinning-but-enlarged proposal which had been approved by the nodding of a few DDDA heads in 2006, we were now to have a totally different building which no one had ever seen before. A Norman Foster. In making the announcement for the radically changed design, the DDDA . . . knowing they wouldn’t be hindered by planning setbacks . . . predicted the Foster Tower would be completed by 2011.
Now, since the 12 October announcement of the ‘provisional’ winner, newspaper and internet chatter has focused on the kind of business-page minutiae which only investment portfolio anoraks really care about: will sore-losing developer X sue the DDDA over some possible breach of fine print/conflict of interest/competition regulations? Or will X hold their whisht in the hope of having a crack at some new money printing project the DDDA have up their sleeves for further along the river?
What I can’t understand is why the media, the opposition parties, the local community and everyone else whose been following the game has managed to avoid asking the central question, which is: how can it be, in a country where the average citizen can spend years of their life waiting for An Bord Pleanala to refuse planning permission for an inconsequential house extension, that the emirate of the Dublin Docklands can publicly present the soon to be tallest building in the state . . . a below-par McFoster . . . as a fait accompli through some shoddy, press-leaked 3-D images?
Am I the only one who thinks this is strange?
SOCParticipantThis was in yesterday’s Sunday Business Post, written by Neil Callanan
Winning bid for U2 tower is almost €30m under highest offer
The winning consortium for the U2 tower is believed to have bid almost €30 million less for the site than the highest bid submitted. The Riverside 2 Partnership is understood to have bid about €75 million. The Geranger consortium which comprises Ballymore Properties, Paddy McKillen and U2 band members and management is believed to have bid a figure of slightly more than €70 million for the site.
McKillen is believed to own only a small slice of Geranger, whose bid is said to have been a relatively straightforward cash offer.
The Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA), which ran the competition to select a developer of the tower and a new design (the third) for the building, said it could not comment on the price offered by Ballymore and its partners and how it matched up against other bids.
“The tender process is ongoing,” said a spokeswoman.
“This is commercially sensitive data which cannot be released at this time.”
It is estimated that the U2 Tower scheme will cost over €200 million to design and build. Construction is expected to start in 2008 and be completed by 2011. The winning bid comprises a 120-metre tower with a hotel, shops and apartments designed by Foster + Partners.
At the top of the tower will be a suspended egg-shaped pod which will house U2’s studios. So far, the DDDA has only released a night time render of the building. Night time images are notoriously difficult to judge a building’s quality by because, among other things, they don’t show the materials used or shadowing impacts.
When asked why it has not released daytime renders, the DDDA said “that the release of images is a matter for the docklands authority. All images will be released at the end of the tender process.” However an alternative image of the design has been obtained by users of architectural discussion forum https://archiseek.com and posted on their website.
The new tower design was described by the DDDA as “inspirational” and “one of the most significant architectural projects to be delivered in the regeneration of the Docklands area”. DDDAQ chief executive Paul Maloney said the “submission exceeded the expectations of the brief with the emergence of a breathtaking design uniquely suited to this prominent docklands site”.
From certain angles, the tower bears a resemblance to Deutsche Bank Place, the bank’s headquarters at 126 Philips Street in Sydney in Australia, which was designed by the same architects.
The losing members of the shortlist are believed to have met last week to discuss their options. They each spent at least €1 million, according to one well-placed source, and one of the bids cost as much as €2.5 million.
When the shortlist of developers was announced, the DDDA’s press release omitted to mention U2’s involvement with Ballymore in the process. U2’s involvement with Geranger was, however, made known to all bidders prior to bidding, the DDDA spokeswoman said.
It only became publicly known that U2 was involved with Ballymore when the authority’s legal representatives, A&L Goodbody, wrote to all the other bidders, stating that the band and its representatives had not had any role in drawing up the rules for the contest. That letter was then leaked to the media.
To “underpin the independence” of the assessment process, the authority felt it necessary to appoint 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, to advise it on the bids.
They decided that the Foster design and Geranger bid was the best submission for the site.
SOCParticipantFrank McDonald’s piece in Thursday was excellent. Did anyone else see it? One by one he stipped away all the reasons the DDDA had given for selecting the Ballymore/U2 bid. Even though the DDDA had initiated the piece in an attempt to correct the earlier mistakes on height and energy centres, Frank wasn’t going to be used as a stool pigeon and duly took his revenge. Talk about eating the hand that feeds you.Having demolished the case in support of the Ballymore/U2 bid, unfortunately he stopped short of explaining why this bid has ended up being declared the ‘provisional’ preferred bidder. Expect more.
From a very early stage in the competition process Ballymore/U2 have been assured of winning. And if you’re Ballymore/U2 and you know you’re going to win, what’s left to do but maximise your position. You do this by proposing a building that’s cheaper than the reference design (bottom drawer Foster) and then bidding less than anyone else for the exclusive right to build your design. It’s very simple: bid less, build cheaper. It’s a double whammy.
And then you laugh all the way to the bank.
SOCParticipantAnyone else see this in yesterday’s Daily Mail? A little behind the times now, but interesting all the same!
“It’s Bono the builder – Controversy as U2 are set to be revealed as docklands winners”, written by Andrea McCullagh.
SEVEN years after it was first mooted, the U2 Tower, Ireland’s tallest skyscraper, will finally get the green light today – but not as we know it.
Sources have revealed that the DDDA will finally bite the bullet and announce what has become the city’s worst-kept secret – that the megarich rock band have won the contract to build the tower that will bear their name.
U2’s joint bid with developer Ballymore Properties, designed by Clarence Hotel architect Sir Norman Foster, is understood to have been chosen at a top-level DDDA meeting earlier this week.
The Ballymre/U2 bid was one of a shortlist of five that also included Sean Dunne’s Mountbrook Homes and a joint venture between Sisk and Treasury Holdings. But the authority delayed the announcement until today, anticipating yet more controversy in a saga that has already had more than its share.
For the success of the Ballymore/U2 venture means the authority has abandoned the daring twist design that it announced as the winner of a prestigious international prize in 2003.
That stunning glass tower was designed by the Dublin architects, Burdon Craig Dunne Henry (BCDH), of which Felim Dunne, brother-in-law of U2 manager Paul McGuinness, is a senior partner.
It is understood that BCDH will take its grievance to the High Court if it transpires the Ballymore U2 bid incorporates a new, Norman Foster design – a case that can only cause friction between the McGuinness family and the band members.
Also believed to be heading to court is developer Sean Dunne, whose unsuccessful bid was based on the assumption that the authority was committed to the BCDH design.
The saga started in 2001 when a compulsory purchase order was placed on U2’s Hanover Quay studio. The band negotiated a deal with the DDDA giving them the top storeys of whatever tower was built along with the naming rights.
Yesterday a spokesman for Ballymore Properties was not available for comment and a spokesman for U2 also declined to comment on the issue – but all is likely to be revealed during the day.
SOCParticipantDid anyone hear the discussion on ‘Drivetime’ (RTE Radio 1) on Thursday evening about the Giants Causeway / Heneghen Peng debacle? Some architectural commentator was questioning the value of international architectural competitions in the light of Heneghen Peng’s winning design for a visitor centre at Giants Causeway apparently having been dumped in favour of some private developer design and citing Zaha Hadid’s Cardiff Opera House too.
I wonder if BCDH’s twisting tower will be the next victim of this insidious trend?
Shame on John McLaughlin (DDDA) if this is his legacy!
SOCParticipantStrong rumours that Paul Maloney will announce the result of his ‘competition’ on Monday 10th of September, henceforth to be known as ‘Murky Monday’!
SOCParticipant@Mick wrote:
Critics brand Docklands development a farce as design untwists (by Colin Coyle, The Sunday Times, August 5, 2007)
It is a story that already has as many twists as a Joshua tree. But the latest shift over plans for the landmark U2 tower in Dublin’s docklands isn’t a twist at all, it’s quite the reverse.
The twisty design that won a competition for the site seems to have disappeared and left its critics to complain that the project has turned into a farce.
In 2003 a panel of judges selected by the site owner, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA), announced that a Dublin based firm had beaten competition from 541 other entrants to design the 60m tower on Britain Quay. The winning design of Burdon Craig Dunne Henry (BCDH), a twisting tower incorporating apartments and a recording studio for the eponymous band, generated plenty of excitement in architectural circles.
However, it now appears it wasn’t what either the DDDA or U2, who co-sponsored the competition, were looking for.
When the DDDA sought tenders to build the tower last year, bidders were told it had more than doubled in size to 130m, which would make it the tallest building in Ireland. An element of “new design” would be permitted as a result.
Now it has emerged that two of the five designs on a short list to be announced in the next two months have dropped the competition-winning notion of a twisting block.
One design is being promoted by U2, who have teamed up with Sir Norman Foster, the British architect, and Sean Mulryan, the property developer, to produce a design that is described as “radically different” from BCDH’s concept.
The twisted tower has also been ignored in a plan submitted by Treasury-Sisk and designed by Zaha Hadid, the award-winning international architect. It is understood that the three other finalists have remained faithful to the original design.
One of the former entrants, who asked not to be named, criticised the DDDA’s decision to allow proposals that ignored the original winning idea.
“The first competition was a farce. But what’s happening now is effectively a new competition to ensure the result they want – a tower designed by an international star like Foster or Hadid”.
This new controversy is a headache the DDDA could do without. The 2003 competition hit the headlines when the design originally chosen had to be scrapped because the architects could not be identified.
To guard against conflicts of interest, the judging panel had been provided with numbers corresponding to projects, with entrants’ names withheld to ensure anonymity. But when the winner was picked, no number corresponding to its entry could be found. The organisers considered posting an image of their first choice on a website to track down its creators, but were advised this could result in a legal challenge.
The DDDA has dismissed criticism of the new competition. It said all five short-listed candidates were given scope to submit “compliant bids [based on the original design] and variant designs for both the U2 Tower and Britain Quay”.
Architecture Ireland, the official journal of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, planned to publish images of the five entries in its latest edition. Sources claim it postponed publication when the competition’s organisers claimed this could prejudice the decision-making process. But the journal said yesterday there was no pressure from the DDDA. “It was a normal editorial decision,” it stated.
BCDH would not comment on the latest developments until a winner had been chosen.
Foster, one of the world’s best known architects, is also collaborating with U2 on the €150m redevelopment of the band’s Clarence hotel in Dublin, another project mired in controversy. Michael Smith, a former chairman of An Taisce, described plans to create a new nine-storey hotel on the Liffey as “execrable”.
Dublin city council said the planning application for the hotel was dormant and has given U2 untilthe end of September to reply to a lengthy list of questions about the development.
U2’s involvement in the development of the Britain Quay site emerged earlier this summer.
After rival bidders raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest, the DDDA released a statement insisting members of the band “will not have any role or involvement, directly or indirectly” during the assessment.
This isn’t a farce it’s a stitch up.
Paul Maloney and Ballymore have stitched this up between them but they have completely miscalculated the sh*t that will hit the fan when they make that announcement. I doubt Paul Maloney’s actions and trips over the last year will bear the scrutiny they are about to get.
SOCParticipant@darkman wrote:
Article in todays Sunday Times about the tower and saying how its become a complete farce. Also insinuating that U2 may be influencing whats going on with the tower:mad: What the hell does it have to do with them anyway?:mad: 😡 Original design likely to be dropped. Its thought U2 want a ‘star’ architect to win the tender at the expense of the original twisting design.
Has anyone got a copy of that article please?
SOCParticipantI just passed the DDDA offices on John Rogersons Quay and saw a beautiful model of the new U2 tower in their lobby. It looks fantastic!
SOCParticipantThose close to the developer comp. say that two of the bidders are proposing BDCH design only! These two, at least, will be watching the assessment process like hawks!
SOCParticipantKeen, you’re right. It really does seem to be gathering momentum! As my last quote was so well received… this one’s from last week’s Phoenix – the writing’s not great but the points it makes are interesting!
The heading was “U2’s Building Blocks”
It said:
U2 fans must be wondering whteher they’ll ever see any of the various building projects that the lads have planned for Dublin, At present the rockers-cum-developers are involved with incredibily ambitious plans for two developments – one being a skyscraper by Ringsend docks, while the other will effectively quadruple the size of the Clarence Hotel – which involves gutting and demolishing a number of protected structures. Both of these projects are facing significant opposition.
Down at the docks, the projected – and humbly titled – “U2 Tower” has more than doubled in height from the 60-metres originally permitted to the 2003 competition winner to 130 metres – ie ten metres taller that the Spire. Confusion has been the order of the day here and the scheme has come in for flak, with The Irish Times earlier this year asking “Does the U2 Tower stack up”, citing that the UK-based Architects’ Journal had “reported that the BDCH design had been binned”.
But who are BDCH anyway? It emerged that the firm was deemed the winner of the design competition when the name of the original winner was mislaid and Burdon Dunne Architects and Craig Henry Architects (BDCH) got the nod. One of the principles here, Felim Dunne, is a brother-in-law of U2’s manager, Paul McGuinness. In the intervening years the project went on the back burner but in February this year a press release was issued announcing the firms shortlisted to develop the tower, with Paul Maloney, ceo of the Dublin Development Docklands Authority (DDDA), stating, “We are delighted with the calibre of teams engaged and to see the involvment of eminent architects including Foster & Partners, Rafael Vinoly and other internationally recognisged architects.”
The identity of the “other internationally recognised architects” is unclear and there’s now no specific mention of Felim Dunne or BDCH, but Paul McGuiness is once again involved, and one of the developers on the shortlist – Sean Murray’s Ballymore Properties – has teamed up with, er, U2. Four years on from the original competition, and not a block has been laid but Goldhawk is aware that a complaint has been sent to the European Commission by ‘The Environment Group for Ringsend Irishtown Sandymount’ attacking the entire manner in which planning has been going on in the DDDA area.
Meanwhile, progress is also very slow at the Clarence Hotel where Bono, the Edge, Derek Quinlan and Paddy McKillen have joined up forces in proposing a massive redevelopment – designed by Norman Foster – that would almost double the height of many of the existing buildings. Predictably, this has attracted a raft of criticisms – with nine objections filed formt he likes of Conor Martin (who owns neighbouring Bad Bobs), The Georgian Society, An Taisce, and also one from it’s former chairman, Michael Smith, whose house faces the Clarence across the Liffey.
A crucial issue here is that the Planning Act requires “exceptional circumstances” in order for substantial alterations to be allowed to listed buildings. Hence, a recent request for additional information by Dublin City Council, in which the planners have asked about the hitherto unconsidered option of refurbishment rather than complete redevelopment. This is not a request Bono et al will have welcomed.
SOCParticipantDid anyone else see this in Monday’s Irish Times?
The headline was “U2 bid to develop tower named after them” by Frank McDonald.
It said:
Rock band U2 are bidding to develop the tower that will carry their name on Britain Quay in Dublin’s Docklands, in partnership with Ballymore Properties, The Irish Times has learned.However, the Dublin docklands Development Authority, which owns this pivotally-located site, has assured the rival bidders that members of the band “will not have any role or involvement, directly or indirectly” in assessing bids for the project.
After concerns were raised by other bidders about potential conflicts of interest, the authority’s lawyers, A&L Goodbody, wrote to them last week saying that “neither U2 nor its representatives have had any role” in setting ground rules for the contest.
The solicitors’ letter said the docklands authority would “enforce a very strict policy on conflicts of interest” in assessing the four bids and that it wished to “remind bidderst hat any conflict of interest should…be disclosed to the authority”.
To “underpin the independence” of the assessment process, the authority has appointed Chris Wilkinson of Wilkinson Eyre Architects: Amanda Levete, of Future Systems Architects: and Michael O’Doherty, former principal architect at the Office of Public Works, to advise it.
Apart from Ballymore Properties/U2, the bidders are Mountbrook Homes, controlled by developer Sean Dunne; the Dutch-based Royal BAM Group; Treasury Holdings-Sisk; and the Riverside 2 Partnership, a consortium formed by the Kelly, McCormack, Flynn and Elliot families.
It is understood that the Ballymore/U2 group has engaged international architects Foster and Partners to design its scheme, while New York-based Argentinian architect Rafael Vinoly is acting for the Riverside consortium. and Baghdad born Zaha Hadid for Treasury-Sisk.
All of the bidders are required to submit “compliant bids” based on the 2003 competition-winning scheme for the U2 tower by Blackrock-based Burdon Dunne Craig Henry. However, they may also submit “variant bids”.
As originally envisaged, the tower was to be 60 metres high. The docklands “strong architectural statement” said authority chief executive Paul Maloney.
He stressed that U2’s involvement was strictly limited to two agreements with the authority – one covering “naming rights” and the other dealing with the provision of studios for the band at the top of the tower, to replace their former studios on Hanover Quay.
Mr Maloney said the authority was “thrilled” to attract architects of the calibre of Wilkinson, who has won two Stirling prizes from the Royal Institute of British Architects, and Levete, who also won a Stirling prize, as well as O’Doherty to give an Irish perspective.
The deadline for submitting bids for the project is June 18th
-
AuthorPosts