Architects are normally quite gracious about the results of a design competition, even though they've burned the midnight oil and then end up with nothing to show for it. But for several of those who had their eyes on Abbotstown, losing out has been a bitter pill to swallow.
Epithets such as "favouritisimo", "cronyism" and "nepotism" are being bandied about, and at least seven leading architectural practices have formally written to Sports Campus Ireland (SCI) - the state company set up to plan the "Bertie Bowl" et al - seeking an explanation for their exclusion from the selected panels.
It may seem like a case of sour grapes, but there can be no doubt that egos have been bruised; this was inevitable when such established firms as RKD, Henry J Lyons and Partners, Gilroy McMahon, O'Mahony Pike, Anthony Reddy and Associates and Andrej Wejchert were told that they hadn't made the cut.
After all, with a price-tag of £500 million-plus - and that's just for openers - Abbotstown is by far the largest project ever planned by a state company. And whatever doubts architects may entertain about its environmental sustainability, none of them would have turned down a slice of the action.
Hackles were raised by the disclosure that member practices formerly involved in Group 91, of Temple Bar fame, all made it onto the panels of architects for lesser facilities on the 500-acre site, such as a velodrome, golf academy, etcetera. Laura Magahy, who had worked with them in Temple Bar, is now heading up the Abbotstown project.
Michael Cullinan, a brother of Eve-Ann Cullinan, former secretary of Temple Bar Properties and now Ms Magahy's chief assistant in her consultancy firm, also made it on to the second panel, no doubt because of his track record. But other small practices, with equally impressive portfolios, were overlooked.
Altogether, 34 Irish practices were deemed not up to scratch for inclusion on the panels from which bidders for the Abbotstown contract are required to select designers. The fact that many of them had won awards for their work, even including gold medals, seemed to make no difference to the adjudicators.
Serious discontent among the also-rans surfaced at the last council meeting of the RIAI, which ran the competition on behalf of SCI, with John Graby, the institute's director, acting as the registrar. One source described it as the most acrimonious council meeting for years and said there was nearly skin and hair flying.
In the past, younger architects would frequently complain that they had little chance against the bigger firms in many architectural competitions. Now, the shoe was on the other foot, with up-and-coming talents such as Bucholz McEvoy, Tom de Paor, Fagan Kelly Lysaght and Hassett Ducatez pipping them at the post.
These rising stars in the architectural firmament are trendy, of course. They qualify as "boutique architects", in Ms Magahy's phrase. Anyone commissioning them for a project could be certain that most of the work would be done by the principals, rather than members of staff in a large architectural practice. John Graby insists that the assessment of some 150 submissions for inclusion on the second panel for Abbotstown was done in accordance with the criteria specified in detail by SCI and published in the EU's official journal. A number of people have sought explanations for their exclusion and they're entitled to that under the rules.
He also pointed out that the competition jury consisted of Michael O'Doherty, principal architect at the Office of Public Works; David O'Connor, the Fingal county architect; Ciaran McGahon, a senior OPW architect; Stefan Behnisch, the German architect who had won the master plan competition, and Laura Magahy.
The notion that any of the architects who made the selection could be "got at" by Laura Magahy or Paddy Teahon, SCI's chairman, is frankly absurd, said one close observer of the process. If you were faced with selecting a group on the basis of quality architecture, who would you pick that's not on that list?
SCI's criteria called for evidence of achievement in architecture and design as shown by completed work, awards, publications and exhibitions together with the ability to realise high-quality significant buildings. Entrants also had to show that they were capable of delivering complex multi-functional buildings.
It would appear, however, that some firms took it for granted that they would be included on the second panel. (The 13-strong first panel, for the stadium and indoor arena at Abbotstown, was open to large firms with big turnovers; that explains why Scott Tallon Walker and Murray O'Laoire were the only Irish firms to feature).
Many of those who pitched for the second panel submitted entries which were not complete, thereby failing to comply with the criteria. In some cases, they didn't illustrate a sufficient body of work over the previous three years; in others, the required financial statements were missing. At least one submission was a single-page fax.
We could only make our judgment based on what was before us, which is all you're allowed to do in competitions, said one of those involved. Some practices may feel they have a right to be in there because of their size and experience, but what innovation have you seen from them in recent years?, he asked pointedly.
However, it does seem rather unfair that Gilroy McMahon were knocked out on a technicality. Their entry referred to a submission previously made for the master plan competition, which was in Sports Campus Ireland's possession, and they simply didn't realise that a new version would be required for the latest contest.
The fact that Gilroy McMahon designed the new Croke Park would probably have counted against them in the end, even though they were not in contention for the stadium panel - again, on turnover grounds. But they are the only architects in Ireland to build a new stadium, so at least they had experience of major sports facilities.
Laura Magahy is adamant that the selection of both panels was done on the basis of demonstrated design talent, and was not an old pals' act. Indeed, the idea of promoting quality buildings derives from her own commitment in this area; there is certainly no obvious architectural champion on SCI's board of directors.
It must be assumed that this commitment will be recognised by the seven international consortia interested in bidding for the Abbotstown project. They'll do what it takes to win the bid. If that means decent buildings, they'll give you decent buildings. If you don't specify that at the outset, you'll get crap, one source said.
As for the bruised egos among the also-rans, another source suggested that many leading architects have had a very easy ride over the years and they're upset by harsh scrutiny of their work and, perhaps, its lack of originality or genius. This in itself may be a harsh judgment - but it may also be true.
Two panels of architects were selected for the Sports Campus Ireland project at Abbotstown, from which international consortia bidding for the contract to build it are required to choose. It is intended that the project would be delivered on a "design, build, finance, operate and maintain" (DBFOM) basis by the winning consortium.
The first panel of 13, for the design of major facilities costing more than £100 million (€1.27m), has been subdivided between the 80,000-seat stadium and the 15,000-seat multi-purpose arena, while the second panel of 19 is for the design of other facilities, costing between £10 million (€1.27m) and £100 million (€1.27m), such as the velodrome and golf academy. The final decision on which consortium is chosen will be made by Sports Campus Ireland.
Panel One
Stadium
Uncommon Grounds, Cahir
Auer and Weber
Chaix and Morel
Dominique Perrault
Jean Nouvel
Paul Andreu/Murray O'Laoire
Richard Rogers
Arena
Bligh Voller Nield/BDP
Gerkan Marg
Michael Hopkins/NBBJ
Nicholas Grimshaw
Scott Tallon Walker
Valode and Pistre
Wilkinson Eyre
Panel Two
Benson and Forsyth
Bucholz McEvoy
Caruso St John
deBlacam and Meagher
De Paor Architects
Derek Tynan
Fagan Kelly Lysaght
Future Systems
Grafton Architects
Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop
