New U2 Tower may leave DDDA in a twist

The fallout from the U2 Tower competition may include litigation by disappointed underbidders, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor

IN ANY competition, there can only be one winner. But in the contest to build the U2 Tower in Dublin's Docklands, the three losing consortiums feel very sore about the outcome - and not just because each of them invested at least €1 million in the effort to snatch this glittering prize.

The decision earlier this month by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) to award the project to Geranger Ltd, a consortium made up of Ballymore Properties, Paddy McKillen and the U2 rock group, was also seen as unfair by the disappointed underbidders - and there may be litigation over it.

What the DDDA plumped for was a tilted triangular tower by Foster + Partners that would soar higher than the O'Connell Street Spire.

Quite how much higher is still open to question, but it could ultimately rise to 180m (nearly 600ft), including a battery of vertical wind turbines and a huge solar panel above them.

According to the authority, the Norman Foster-designed tower would be 130m above ground at its highest point. At the level of 100m, above the luxury apartments it would contain, there would be a public viewing gallery beneath the egg-shaped U2 studio, which is suspended in empty space from the pinnacle.

"The architects have proposed an 'energy centre' comprising wind turbines and solar panels that could rise to a point 50m above the top of the tower, bringing the overall height to 180m," the DDDA says. "But this was not considered in assessing the competition as it is outside the guideline heights".

Foster + Partners maintain that the renewable energy facility would enable the building to generate its own electricity, substantially reducing the scheme's carbon footprint and making it more sustainable, while the DDDA says it "may consider the energy centre in due course subject to technical and planning criteria".

In the documentation issued to the four bidders - Geranger, the Riverside Partnership, Mountbrook Homes and Treasury Holdings/Sisk - the authority made it clear that its development objectives for the 1.87-acre site at Britain Quay included the U2 Tower and an adjoining building immediately to the south of it.

It recalled that an earlier international architectural competition, held in 2003, resulted in the choice of "a stunning twisting tower design" by Blackrock-based BCDH Architects. This was to be a mere 60m high, but under an amendment made in 2006 to the Grand Canal Docks Planning Scheme this was raised to 120m.

No reference was made to the debacle that mired the 2003 contest, in which - bizarrely - the original winner chosen by the jury couldn't be identified because the number assigned to the entry could not be matched with a name. This led to a website being set up called "www.amithewinneroftheu2towercompetition.com".

Explaining its rationale for holding the latest competition, the DDDA's documentation said BCDH's original design had been "further refined" and the authority had also decided to combine the Britain Quay site with the U2 Tower site "to establish an attractive development context for the private development sector".

Bidders were requested to frame their bids based on the original (or "reference") scheme. "However, it is important to note that the authority expects bidders to reappraise the internal layouts and construction and technical solutions suggested by the authority's design team and develop their own solution on these issues."

It was a mandatory condition of the competition that bids would be based on the reference scheme; indeed, this was identified as a "design absolute". But bidders were also offered the option of submitting an alternative, or "variant", scheme based on the authority's design and development objectives.

These were outlined in the documentation provided, and bidders were also advised to read in full the Grand Canal Docks Planning Scheme (as amended) "to appreciate the authority's intent" - not least because any development certified by the DDDA to be consistent with this scheme would be exempt from planning control.

The amended planning scheme is quite specific about the U2 Tower. It says the main element of this landmark "should not exceed 100m in height to the shoulder above existing street level. Accommodation above this level should be well set back and consistent with architectural and service elements.

"Such elements will be permitted subject to a maximum overall building height not exceeding 120m above existing street level," it says, adding that "architectural features having non-useable floorspace above the maximum recommended heights will be considered on a case-by-case basis".

In the documentation issued to bidders, the DDDA noted that "the height of the tower up to its 'shoulder' is prescribed in the planning scheme", and said the authority "is committed to the 'twisted' sculptural nature of the tower design" although it was asking bidders to reappraise its design in detail.

This was intended to ensure "a coherent and sculptural relationship" between the tower and the adjoining building on Britain Quay. "The higher element of the Britain Quay building would need to be adjacent to the U2 Tower," it said. The planning scheme also specified that this building would step down from the U2 Tower.

However, in selecting the scheme by Foster + Partners, the DDDA abandoned its stated commitment to the "twisted" form of the tower and also the apparent requirement that the higher element of the Britain Quay building would be closer to the tower; in Foster's scheme, it is further away while the tower has no "twist".

The two bidders who submitted only "reference" schemes - Mountbrook and Riverside - were wrong-footed as a result. Riverside's "variant" scheme by Uruguayan starchitect Rafael Vinoly was not adjudicated upon - apparently after he had been told by the DDDA that it contravened the maximum height limits.

According to one source, the basic problem that confronted bidders was the inherent difficulty of combining a twisting tower with a flanking building alongside - though Anthony Reddy and Associates and Danish architects 3XN achieved some unity in their "reference" schemes for Riverside and Mountbrook, respectively.

The jury - 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 - appears to have taken the view that the two "variant" schemes by Foster + Partners and deconstruction diva Zaha Hadid fitted the bill.

Zaha, as everyone calls her, designed a scheme for Treasury-Sisk that had the imprint of a vertical motorway interchange, with a vast arch linking her tower to a flanking block on Britain Quay, creating an enormous undercroft that might not have been such a pleasant place, particularly at night. "It was a bit like Dubai," one source said.

In the end, it is understood that the jury gave Foster and Hadid equal ranking - either of them could have won, in other words. But architecture only counted for 45 per cent of the overall marks - the rest went to the financial offer made by bidders (40 per cent) and their resource commitments to the project (15 per cent).

The DDDA's documentation also specified that plant rooms were to be accommodated in a double-basement beneath the tower, as well as refuse storage and car-parking. Five of the six schemes submitted for adjudication had an energy centre at basement level; the sixth, by Foster, proposed putting it on the roof instead.

According to the DDDA's director of architecture, John McLaughlin, what gave it the edge was that its public spaces were "really well-handled", providing a gateway to a new bridge over the River Dodder, where it joins the Liffey, springing from Britain Quay.

However, it is impossible to say with any certainty why it really won.

The entrants

Geranger (Ballymore/PaddyMcKillen/U2):Foster + Partners

Treasury Holdings/Sisk:Zaha Hadid/Henry J Lyons and Partners

Riverside II Partnership:Anthony Reddy and Associates/Rafael Vinoly

Mountbrook Homes:3XN Architects, Copenhagen