hippy
ONE<br>love, blood, life
Why U2 still haven’t got what they’re looking for
By Neil Callanan
Seven years after it was first mooted, the proposed U2 tower for Dublin’s docklands remains strangled in red tape, design-related disagreements and planning squabbles.
The U2 tower was intended to define the docklands area of Dublin: an emblem of new Ireland, an elegantly twisting structure close to the emerging centre of commerce in Dublin. Instead, it is in danger of becoming a symbol of planning logjams and indecision.
In July last year, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) sought expressions of interest to develop the tower and an adjoining campshire site. The closing date for submissions was October 2006, and a decision on the winning bid was expected by the end of the year.
But, nearly a year after the initial deadline for expressions of interest, an announcement on the winning bidder has yet to be made. Shortlisted bidders had been expecting an announcement by September 11,but that deadline passed and the winning bidder’s identity remains a secret.
A spokeswoman for the DDDA said that, ‘‘due to scheduling issues, it is now likely to be early October, at the next meeting of the board of the Authority’’ before a decision is made. However, that could spark off yet another set of problems for the project.
One shortlisted bidder for the project has told The Sunday Business Post that he hopes his bid will not be selected because of knock-on effects from the recent downturn in the housing market. He said that property developers had bid for the site when the market was still strong, but that the fall in residential prices would make it more difficult for the project to be viable.
The recent tightening in the credit markets - the so-called ‘‘credit crunch’’ - is already affecting the funding of projects such as the Shard of Glass tower in London, and could make securing the finance to develop the site more difficult.
The shortlist of five bidders for the tower was announced by the DDDA in February. It comprised Ballymore Properties; Royal BAM Group; a joint venture between Treasury Holdings and Sisk; Sean Dunne’s Mountbrook Homes; and the River II Partnership, made up of the Kelly, McCormack, Elliott and Flynn families, who are involved in property development.
When the shortlist was announced, the five bidders were also told to submit design proposals for an adjacent site on Britain Quay, and to provide an integrated plan for that site and the tower. The developers were required to bid for the pre-agreed design for theU2 Tower, and also to bid for their own architects’ designs for the sites.
However, it subsequently emerged that the members of U2 were in fact bidding for the tower site themselves, in a joint venture with Ballymore. The DDDA has not explained why U2’s involvement was not initially disclosed, or whether it was even aware of it when the bids were submitted.
The DDDA, through its solicitors, did write to the other companies on the shortlist to say that the rock superstars would ‘‘not have any role or involvement, directly or indirectly’’ in examining bids for the project.
Since the DDDA’s decision to allow bidders to use their own architects’ designs, there has been sustained speculation that the original design of the tower will be scrapped. A spokeswoman for the DDDA said she could not comment on the matter.
Felim Dunne, a principal in architecture firm BCDH, which designed the tower, did not return a call seeking comment on whether his firm had been told that its design was no longer to be used.
Two of the shortlisted bidders have told this newspaper that if theU2 tower site design is used, the site of 2.5 acres will sell for at least €75 million, and possibly as much as €100million,when the cost of providing the upper floors of the tower for U2 is included in the cost.
However, they stated that bids for the variant tower designs were significantly below those figures. Ballymore/U2 and Treasury Holdings/Sisk are understood to have submitted variant tower designs, and the Ballymore/U2 bid is the favourite to win.
The competition to design a tower for the site was run in 2003, but the identity of the original winning design could not be ascertained. It subsequently emerged that it should have been disqualified in the first place, so BCDH’s proposal was declared the winner.
The BCDH proposal is for a tower with a 45-degree twist, a feature that has become increasingly common in towers worldwide. International architecture firm Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM) designed the 80-storey Infinity Tower in Dubai, which has a 90-degree twist.
Architect Santiago Calatrava, who designed the Samuel Beckett bridge for the docklands in Dublin, has designed numerous twisting buildings, including the Chicago Spire, which is being developed by Garrett Kelleher’s Shelbourne Developments.
The U2 tower was originally meant to be 60 metres high but, by 2005, the height of the proposed building had increased to 100 metres.
When planning was eventually sought last year, the tower had more than doubled in height to 130 metres.
Planning was later granted for the 36storey tower over two storeys of basement accommodation, measuring a total of just under 35,000 square metres. The development was only put out to tender after talks between the DDDA and property developer Liam Carroll, who owns a large adjacent site on Britain Quay, broke down.
The minutes from a DDDA council meeting in July 2005 show that the authority was in active negotiations with Carroll to seek a joint development of his property and the U2 tower site. The DDDA entered the talks because it wanted only the U2 tower built on that side of the river.
The problem was that Carroll already had planning permission for a 100 metre tower on his site. The DDDA proposed that it would offer Carroll two options for a joint development of his property and the DDDA site, but one of the conditions was that only theU2 tower would be built.
After the meeting, the DDDA was accused of being ‘‘breathtaking in its arrogance’’ by Gerry Fay, one of its council members, for assuming that its tower should take precedence over Carroll’s, which already had planning permission.
It was ‘‘patently obvious that the DDDA completely underestimated the scale of development required at this location in 2000,when the original plans were drawn up’’, Fay wrote in a letter to the DDDA.
‘‘The DDDA were caught ball-watching - rolled and mugged, once again they are now playing catch-up.”
The DDDA wants only one tower built on the south docks because it wishes to create a ‘‘landmark entry’’ to Dublin via the U2 tower on the south docks and the Watchtower building being planned by businessman Harry Crosbie on the north docks.
The reasoning behind this has yet to be fully explained, given that very few people will enter the city by passing the sites.
Last year, the DDDA decided to add an amendment to its planning scheme for the Grand Canal Dock area. It said that only one tower was to be developed in the area and made it site-specific, meaning that the only place where one could be built was on theU2 tower site.
‘‘The requirements for such a tower would not be satisfied by any other landmark tower that may be permitted or constructed in the Grand Canal Dock area,” stated the draft amendment.
This proved a significant move, because Carroll was not even close to completing the development of his site and the planning permission was due to expire.
Carroll started work on the site, but Dublin City Council, which had granted permission for his tower and associated developments, ruled that insufficient works had been carried out and an extension of the planning permission would not be appropriate. An appeal was also turned down.
Carroll lodged legal proceedings in the Commercial Court in March challenging the council’s decision. If he does not win the case, he is unlikely to ever be allowed build a tower on his site.
An informed source told The Sunday Business Post last week there had been talks between the DDDA and Carroll on the issue and suggested a possible solution might be reached, by allowing increased density on his site in return for reducing the tower’s height. A senior industry source also said the DDDA was in talks with Carroll to acquire some of his site.
It is not clear why the DDDA is so emphatic about only having one tower in the south docks. The docklands has few high-profile buildings - a point emphasised by the artists shortlisted for a sculpture for the docks, with sculptor Dorothy Cross branding the area ‘‘generic and second rate’’.
Perhaps in acknowledgement of this, the DDDA commissioned a tall buildings study for the North Lotts area and is also part of a consortium planning high rise development on the South Wharf site in Ringsend.
Most property developers believe the authority will eventually have to back down and allow more high-rise development in the docklands.
Many developers have already prepared for it, developing buildings with foundations strong enough to allow them increase their property heights when the DDDA eases its height restrictions.
Going up seems a matter of when, not if - but, as those involved in the U2 tower process have found to their cost, ‘‘when’’ can be an awfully long time where the docklands are concerned.
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+FEATURES-qqqs=news-qqqid=26843-qqqx=1.asp
By Neil Callanan
Seven years after it was first mooted, the proposed U2 tower for Dublin’s docklands remains strangled in red tape, design-related disagreements and planning squabbles.
The U2 tower was intended to define the docklands area of Dublin: an emblem of new Ireland, an elegantly twisting structure close to the emerging centre of commerce in Dublin. Instead, it is in danger of becoming a symbol of planning logjams and indecision.
In July last year, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) sought expressions of interest to develop the tower and an adjoining campshire site. The closing date for submissions was October 2006, and a decision on the winning bid was expected by the end of the year.
But, nearly a year after the initial deadline for expressions of interest, an announcement on the winning bidder has yet to be made. Shortlisted bidders had been expecting an announcement by September 11,but that deadline passed and the winning bidder’s identity remains a secret.
A spokeswoman for the DDDA said that, ‘‘due to scheduling issues, it is now likely to be early October, at the next meeting of the board of the Authority’’ before a decision is made. However, that could spark off yet another set of problems for the project.
One shortlisted bidder for the project has told The Sunday Business Post that he hopes his bid will not be selected because of knock-on effects from the recent downturn in the housing market. He said that property developers had bid for the site when the market was still strong, but that the fall in residential prices would make it more difficult for the project to be viable.
The recent tightening in the credit markets - the so-called ‘‘credit crunch’’ - is already affecting the funding of projects such as the Shard of Glass tower in London, and could make securing the finance to develop the site more difficult.
The shortlist of five bidders for the tower was announced by the DDDA in February. It comprised Ballymore Properties; Royal BAM Group; a joint venture between Treasury Holdings and Sisk; Sean Dunne’s Mountbrook Homes; and the River II Partnership, made up of the Kelly, McCormack, Elliott and Flynn families, who are involved in property development.
When the shortlist was announced, the five bidders were also told to submit design proposals for an adjacent site on Britain Quay, and to provide an integrated plan for that site and the tower. The developers were required to bid for the pre-agreed design for theU2 Tower, and also to bid for their own architects’ designs for the sites.
However, it subsequently emerged that the members of U2 were in fact bidding for the tower site themselves, in a joint venture with Ballymore. The DDDA has not explained why U2’s involvement was not initially disclosed, or whether it was even aware of it when the bids were submitted.
The DDDA, through its solicitors, did write to the other companies on the shortlist to say that the rock superstars would ‘‘not have any role or involvement, directly or indirectly’’ in examining bids for the project.
Since the DDDA’s decision to allow bidders to use their own architects’ designs, there has been sustained speculation that the original design of the tower will be scrapped. A spokeswoman for the DDDA said she could not comment on the matter.
Felim Dunne, a principal in architecture firm BCDH, which designed the tower, did not return a call seeking comment on whether his firm had been told that its design was no longer to be used.
Two of the shortlisted bidders have told this newspaper that if theU2 tower site design is used, the site of 2.5 acres will sell for at least €75 million, and possibly as much as €100million,when the cost of providing the upper floors of the tower for U2 is included in the cost.
However, they stated that bids for the variant tower designs were significantly below those figures. Ballymore/U2 and Treasury Holdings/Sisk are understood to have submitted variant tower designs, and the Ballymore/U2 bid is the favourite to win.
The competition to design a tower for the site was run in 2003, but the identity of the original winning design could not be ascertained. It subsequently emerged that it should have been disqualified in the first place, so BCDH’s proposal was declared the winner.
The BCDH proposal is for a tower with a 45-degree twist, a feature that has become increasingly common in towers worldwide. International architecture firm Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM) designed the 80-storey Infinity Tower in Dubai, which has a 90-degree twist.
Architect Santiago Calatrava, who designed the Samuel Beckett bridge for the docklands in Dublin, has designed numerous twisting buildings, including the Chicago Spire, which is being developed by Garrett Kelleher’s Shelbourne Developments.
The U2 tower was originally meant to be 60 metres high but, by 2005, the height of the proposed building had increased to 100 metres.
When planning was eventually sought last year, the tower had more than doubled in height to 130 metres.
Planning was later granted for the 36storey tower over two storeys of basement accommodation, measuring a total of just under 35,000 square metres. The development was only put out to tender after talks between the DDDA and property developer Liam Carroll, who owns a large adjacent site on Britain Quay, broke down.
The minutes from a DDDA council meeting in July 2005 show that the authority was in active negotiations with Carroll to seek a joint development of his property and the U2 tower site. The DDDA entered the talks because it wanted only the U2 tower built on that side of the river.
The problem was that Carroll already had planning permission for a 100 metre tower on his site. The DDDA proposed that it would offer Carroll two options for a joint development of his property and the DDDA site, but one of the conditions was that only theU2 tower would be built.
After the meeting, the DDDA was accused of being ‘‘breathtaking in its arrogance’’ by Gerry Fay, one of its council members, for assuming that its tower should take precedence over Carroll’s, which already had planning permission.
It was ‘‘patently obvious that the DDDA completely underestimated the scale of development required at this location in 2000,when the original plans were drawn up’’, Fay wrote in a letter to the DDDA.
‘‘The DDDA were caught ball-watching - rolled and mugged, once again they are now playing catch-up.”
The DDDA wants only one tower built on the south docks because it wishes to create a ‘‘landmark entry’’ to Dublin via the U2 tower on the south docks and the Watchtower building being planned by businessman Harry Crosbie on the north docks.
The reasoning behind this has yet to be fully explained, given that very few people will enter the city by passing the sites.
Last year, the DDDA decided to add an amendment to its planning scheme for the Grand Canal Dock area. It said that only one tower was to be developed in the area and made it site-specific, meaning that the only place where one could be built was on theU2 tower site.
‘‘The requirements for such a tower would not be satisfied by any other landmark tower that may be permitted or constructed in the Grand Canal Dock area,” stated the draft amendment.
This proved a significant move, because Carroll was not even close to completing the development of his site and the planning permission was due to expire.
Carroll started work on the site, but Dublin City Council, which had granted permission for his tower and associated developments, ruled that insufficient works had been carried out and an extension of the planning permission would not be appropriate. An appeal was also turned down.
Carroll lodged legal proceedings in the Commercial Court in March challenging the council’s decision. If he does not win the case, he is unlikely to ever be allowed build a tower on his site.
An informed source told The Sunday Business Post last week there had been talks between the DDDA and Carroll on the issue and suggested a possible solution might be reached, by allowing increased density on his site in return for reducing the tower’s height. A senior industry source also said the DDDA was in talks with Carroll to acquire some of his site.
It is not clear why the DDDA is so emphatic about only having one tower in the south docks. The docklands has few high-profile buildings - a point emphasised by the artists shortlisted for a sculpture for the docks, with sculptor Dorothy Cross branding the area ‘‘generic and second rate’’.
Perhaps in acknowledgement of this, the DDDA commissioned a tall buildings study for the North Lotts area and is also part of a consortium planning high rise development on the South Wharf site in Ringsend.
Most property developers believe the authority will eventually have to back down and allow more high-rise development in the docklands.
Many developers have already prepared for it, developing buildings with foundations strong enough to allow them increase their property heights when the DDDA eases its height restrictions.
Going up seems a matter of when, not if - but, as those involved in the U2 tower process have found to their cost, ‘‘when’’ can be an awfully long time where the docklands are concerned.
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+FEATURES-qqqs=news-qqqid=26843-qqqx=1.asp
