Buildings             Discussion Forums             Architecture Competitions
Ireland
Is the U2 tower going to be quietly dropped?

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority has selected a shortlist of developers to proceed to the second stage of the tender process to design, construct and finance the U2 Tower and the Britain Quay Development. Since the original design competition, the Docklands Authority has assembled an adjacent, substantial site on Britain Quay which has been included in this tender.

Tenderers are invited to submit design proposals for this site and to provide an integrated solution with the U2 Tower. This is one of the most significant architectural projects to be delivered in the regeneration of the Docklands area. Paul Maloney, CEO of the Docklands Authority, welcoming the proposals, said, "we are delighted withthe calibre of teams engaged and to see the involvement of eminent architects including Foster & Partners, Rafael Vinoly and other internationally recognised architects.

In order to achieve a compliant tender, developers are required to bid for the current U2 Tower design and their architect's design for the Britain Quay site. In a statement to The Irish Times , the authority said it was a condition of the tender for developers bidding to develop the site at Britain Quay that their schemes would include "the current U2 Tower design" by Burdon Dunne Craig Henry architects. However the Architects Journal ran an article last week in which it questioned the DDDA's committment to the design.

It seems unlikely that architects of this stature are going to get involved in a project where their work will be playing second fiddle to an uninspiring design by lesser-known architects. The original architecture competition was shrouded in controversy when the DDDA hired the auditing services of PriceWaterhouseCooper after allegations that the winning entry could not be identified. Even after the audit, Archiseek.com was able to identify at least six entrants who were not contacted by PWC calling into question the entire procedure of the competition. The running of the competition was flawed, and the lack of any real progress after almost four years suggests that the winning entry may never be built.

The Arts Council