Papers of James Meenan – Move of UCD to Belfield

10 U.C.D. and the Future

in such a proposal is the capital cost involved (but see Section III D below). However, it costs nothing to take a decision and to make a plan which could be gradually implemented enabling other interests to formulate long-term plans.

One might consider in turn various possibilities for U.C.D. if any one of the following Government offices were to be moved:

(a) External Affairs from St. Stephen's Green, South (b) The Office of Public Works from St. Stephen's Green, East, and Earlsfort Terrace. (c) The Department of Agriculture from Upper Merrion Street. (d) The Land Commission and adjacent offices from Upper Merrion Street.

(a) External Affairs: These buildings adjoin property already held by the College on St. Stephen's Green and might become the administrative centre for the College. Iveagh House might provide an official residence for the President of U.C.D.

(b) Office of Public Works: Nos. 50 & 51 St. Stephen's Green (once the home of the College of Science, before the Merrion Street block was built) might form a fine administrative centre for the College and act as a link between Merrion Street and Earlsfort Terrace. The houses occupied by the Office of Public Works in Earlsfort Terrace would prove a welcome addition to the College property, presenting a frontage of 220' along Hatch Street.

(c) Department of Agriculture: The removal of certain Government offices from the main Merrion Street block would go a long way to providing for all needs of the science departments already housed there. The removal of all Government offices and the transfer of the Engineering faculty to a new site would provide more than enough space for all the needs of Chemistry, Botany, Zoology and Geology at present located in that building.

(d) The Land Commission and Adjacent Offices: The Land Commission and the offices of the Comptroller and Auditor General occupy a number of Georgian houses in Upper Merrion Street. On the west side they have a total frontage of 450', the depth ranging from 85' through 140' to 300'. The evacuation of these houses would also help the College. The existing Government and Science buildings on the west side of Merrion Street were built on the site of a similar Georgian terrace acquired for the purpose by compulsion about 1903.

We understand that the work of the Land Commission is gradually decreasing. Could not these houses be made available to the College as the Land Commission staff gradually shrinks?

Further there are grounds for believing that many of the Georgian houses are drawing towards the end of their useful lives. Some are so far gone as to be in need of extensive repair amounting to complete reconstruction, or replacement - witness the fact that two Georgian houses occupied by Government offices in Kildare Place had to be pulled down in recent years because of their dangerous condition. Much of Georgian Dublin in this general area must, sooner or later, be completely reconstructed or replaced, irrespective of any plans for U.C.D.

Dublin's University Area 11

A Comprehensive Plan Needed

We urge that serious consideration be given to the idea that any reconstruction or replacement in the area should take place in the interests of higher education, and of the universities in particular, in the furtherance of a plan to preserve the general area for cultural and educational purposes.

The question of U.C.D. requirements, whether they are to be fulfilled by expansion from the present site or by complete removal to ouside the central city area cannot be considered in isolation. The question involves essentially a problem of town planning in a most important area of the capital.

An overall detailed development plan for the area should be prepared without delay by a suitable planning authority, armed with the necessary powers to see that the plan is implemented as circumstances and the degree of national prosperity permit.

As a minimum there should be retained in this area the universities, the Institute for Advanced Studies, the College of Art, the National Library, and the National Museum, or at least its Division of Irish Antiquities and the botanical, zoological and geological collections. To remove any one of these collections from the area to, say, Kilmainham, whilst transferring U.C.D. to the Stillorgan Road, would be unjustifiable.

The alternative to a long-term plan is the gradual disintegration of the area. The conflicting pressures within it will lead in time to many of the institutions concerned leaving the district one by one. If the ideal of the planners of this complex of cultural and educational buildings is to be preserved, action now is imperative.

Mr. de Valera's Views

We are happy to note that His Ecellency, President de Valera, speaking as Chancellor of the National University, on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee Celebrations a year ago and some six months after the Commission had presented its first interim Report (which contained their recommendations in respect of U.C.D.) expressed himself in the following terms (we quote from the "Irish Press," 4th December, 1958);

"Once he had had the idea that the portion of the city running from Hatch Street and Earlsfort Terrace down to Pearse Street, including Kildare Street and Merrion Street, might become the cultural centre of the city.

They had there the great libraries -- the National Library; the library in Kildare Street of the Academy, and the National Gallery of Art, and the National Museum.

As a temporary measure the Parliament was brought into that area. It was intended to be temporary at the time, and he had the hope that with the College of Science at hand they might be able to use that area to meet some of the pressing needs of U.C.D., so that the whole area, including Trinity College, with its magnificent library, would become the cultural centre of the city. Financial and other difficulties arose and that had become an impossible dream.

36 U.C.D. and the Future

of the number of floors over which it is distributed), then the requirement in ground space for a complete new College is 18.7 acres:-

For immediate needs 678,470 = 15.6 acres 43,560

For 20% future expansion 135,700 = 3.1 acres 43,560

The area of the combined Iveagh Gardens and Earlsfort Terrace sites is 13 acres and consequently they can carry 13 acres of floorspace.

Therefore, the extra land required 15.6 — 13 = 2.6 acres for immediate needs

If the Science Buildings in Merrion Street are not surrendered, then the College requirements can be reduced by more than two acres, Hence no extra land is required for immediate needs and only 3.1 acres for future expansion, up to 20%.

It must further be remembered that in the above calculation no account has been taken of the fact that adjoining the above property is the Catholic University property in St. Stephen's Green, South — an area of 1.2 acres on which already exists about 15,000 sq. ft. nett of floorspace devoted to student amenities and, in addition, Newman's University Church.

There is obviously a considerable difference between the above and the Commission's conclusion that the required extra buildings cannot possibly be sited on the present holdings. The Commission justified its view by the following argument:

The area of Iveagh Gardens is 8.5 acres, but under the terms of Lord Iveagh's gift the central 4.5 acres must not be built upon. The Commission writes (Report, p. 29): 'The area of Iveagh Gardens which is free for building is therefore 4 acres situated around the perimeter of the central park . . . In addition to this 4 acres there would also be free for building an area of about an acre, made available by the demolition of the Royal University buildings and the tempory medical buildings; this would give a total area of 5 acres.'

The Commission is implying that the whole combined site can carry only five more acres of floorspace. This simply is not true. The misunderstanding is repeated by the Commission in its summary of findings on p. 44 of the Report:

'We carried out an exhaustive examination of the possibility of providing this additional accommodation on the Iveagh Gardens site. The area of the gardens is 8.5 acres, but under the terms of the Iveagh gift approximately only 4 acres are available for building, and at most, only another one could be provided by the demolition of old and temporary buildings.'

The facts of the matter are as follows. On a site of 8.5 acres one is entitled, accepting the rule adopted by the Commission, to erect 8.5 acres of floorspace.

U.C.D. Accommodation Needs 37

If this were to be provided in buildings of four storeys, then the actual area built upon would be only 2.1 acres, leaving a central park of 6.4 acres free of building—a situation which more than adequately complies with the terms of the gift. Further, if this floorspace were provided in buildings of more than four storeys, then the central park would be correspondingly greater than 6.4 acres.

On page 30 of the Report, the Commission makes a fleeting reference to the possibility of placing all the extra buildings required on the 8.5 acres of the gardens. In this instance they are leaving out of account the under-utilisation of the Terrace site.

On may look at the matter in another way. The area of the combined Terrace/Gardens site is 13 acres. At present it carries only about 3 acres of sound floorspace, i.e. the Terrace site (4.5 acres) is itself not fully utilised in terms of sound buildings. Consequently, accepting the rule adopted by the Commission, the combined site should be made to carry a further 10 acres of floorspace—and as indicated above this does not involve any building on the central portion of the gardens. Indeed, the Terrace site might well be made to carry more than the 4.5 acres of floorspace that is 'permitted' by a strict application of the rule, and consequently still less building would be necessary on the Gardens.

Perhaps the Commission realised the flaw in its argument, for it adds the sweeping sentence (Report, p.44): 'We are fully satisfied that the Iveagh Gardens even if not subject to restrictions could not provide anything like an adequate site for the new buildings required.' We believe that in making this statement the Commission was very strongly influenced by the 1946 site plan (Attachment III to Chapter I of the Report). We hold that the overcrowding suggested by that diagram is unnecessary if adjacent sites are acquired. Further, the buildings to be erected on the Gardens, if Engineering and Science be omitted, would be different in character from those shown in that plan and the arrangement of the blocks particularly at the Hatch Street side could be improved upon. The 1946 plan involved the abandoning of the Science Buildings and did not envisage the acquisition of any extra property—a rather unrealistic approach to the problem.

It is obvious that the erection of new buildings, containing ten or more acres of floorspace, would bring great relief to the overcrowding in the College. Not only would they bring relief, but as we have shown above they would, together with the sound buildings at Earlsfort Terrace and the retention of the Science Buildings, provide for all the immediate needs of the College as estimated by the Commission. We maintain that it is incorrect to hold that the existing sites 'could not provide anything like an adequate site for the buildings required.' There are, to quote the words of the College authorities themselves (Report, p. 8), 'extensive building sites on and adjoining Iveagh Gardens.'

Further, the College is fortunate in that its unsound and temporary buildings are so sited that they could be left standing and in use until after major new buildings had been completed on the adjacent land.

The Commission twice makes the special point that the immediate needs

44 U.C.D. and the Future

could be subject to the approval of the Government, or exercised by it on behalf of the College). Further, the granting of thesse powers does not necessarily mean that they would ever be invoked. The mere possession of them would render more easy the acquisition of property by normal means.

V. A STUDY OF ADJACENT SITES

A. THE COMMISSION'S REJECTION OF ADJACENT SITES

"We began with our work,' writes the Commission (Report, Chapter I, p. 28), 'by seeking for a solution of the College accommodation problem in the vicinity of the main College buildings at Earlsfort Terrace.

Every circumstance indicated to us that that was the proper course -the necessity for maintaining the pysical unity of the College, the College's place in the city and in proximity to libraries and galleries, the avoidance of disturbance to the life of the College which would occur if the College were to be moved, and considerations of economy.'

In short, the Commission was convinced that a move is undesirable and that if a solution to the problem of the College's accommodation needs can be found in the neighbourhood, that solution should be adopted. We propose to show, having regard to the facts outlined in the preceding sections, that such a solution can be found, and without the 'large-scale compulsory acquisition of valuable residential, business and hotel premises' which the Commission seems to think necessary (Report, Chapter 4, p. 124). We contradict it in its assertion on this point.

The Commission gave 'lengthy consideration' to two blocks of property which together stretch from Hatch Street to the canal and are marked 'B1' and 'D' on the outline plan of the Earlsfort Terrace area (Attachment IV to Chapter 1 of the Report. See also our Map* at the end of this Memorandum). It also considered the question of acquiring the whole of the east side of Harcourt Street as far as Hatch Street together with the whole of St. Stephen's Green, South, and made a passing mention of the impossibility of acquiring the whole of the blocks bordered by Lr. Leeson Street, Adelaide Road and Earlsfort Terrace. Naturally the immediate purchase of the whole of any one (or any combination) of these latter blocks would cause widespread disturbance, and such ideas were dismissed by the Commission as impracticable. We contend that such widespread acquisitions are not at all nececssary, that more limited objectives will suffice, and that these can be achieved with little or no resort to the machinery of compulsory purchase.

The Commission made no mention whatsoever of the block marked 'B2,' the Harcourt Street Station site, although it was long known that C.I.E.

*Our map covers the same area and carries the same letters to denote the blocks as does that given by the Commission. However block D as considered by us is slightly different from block D as considered by the Commission. We include the C.I.E. property and exclude the houses in Adelaide Road and Harcourt Terrace, the Commission's block includes these houses and omits the railway viaducts.

A Study of Adjacent Sites 45

intended to close the line, and indeed the closure was carried out and the advertisements for its sale had appeared in the press before the Commission presented its final Report.

Having considered blocks B1 and D the Commission writes (Report, p. 31):

'We came to the conclusion, however, after considerable discussion that a solution of the problem by extension towards the canal was not practicable. These blocks, we are satisfied, could not be acquired within a reasonable period except by the exercise, in large measure, of compulsory powers. We would hesitate to recommend the granting of compulsory powers. The disturbance to homes and business would be too great.'

Presumably, if these blocks could be acquired within a reasonable period, and if compulsory powers did not have to be invoked, or only in small measure, and if the disturbance to homes and business were not too great, the Commission would have come to a different conclusion. We propose to show how this desirable result of acquiring sites contiguous to the College can in fact be so achieved.

B. A RECONSIDERATION OF THESE AND OTHER ADJACENT SITES

Block B1

We agree that at the moment the acquisition of block B1 would be difficult. We note that when the Commission was first appointed a large section of this block, formerly the site of St. Matthias's Church had not yet been built on; it is now fully occupied by the new premises of the General Electric Company. If this building could be purchased, it is of a type that could readily be used as laboratories, workshops or drawing offices. We also note that in this block two houses in Upper Earlsfort Terrace which might be used by the College for, say, its administrative staff, are occupied by the Department of the Gaeltacht.

Block D and Adjacent Areas South of Adelaide Road to the Canal

The C.I.E. property in this area, hitherto occupied by railway lines as they fanned out to enter the station - a series of viaducts covering store-rooms, etc., is now available and could be demolished. This property presents a frontage of 200' along Adelaide Road.

Without at present acquiring the houses along Adelaide Road or the houses in Harcourt Terrace, a block of aproximately 4.5 acres can be obtained in this area by acquiring the following:

(a) 'The Lawn' (recently purchased by the Dental Hospital). (b) The C.I.E. property extending from Adelaide Road to Charlemont Place on the Canal. (c) Three houses and gardens - Nos. 10, 11, 12 Peter's Place. (d) A small light engineering company occupying the site of No. 9 Peter's Place and the old railway engine shed. (e) Three further small light industrial projects - Nos. 15, 21a and 22 1/2 Charlemont Place.

[left page] 46 [heading] U.C.D. and the Future

(f) Six old houses, Nos. 16-21 Charlemont Place, average P.L.V. approx. £23. (Four of these are described as 'Tenements' in Thom's Directory, 1957).

(g) The roadway and paths of Peter's Place itself.

We submit that the disturbance to home and business premises in this area would be minimal. Only nine houses with a total P.L.V. of £227 are involved. The few businesses are of a kind that can readily be accommodated elsewhere.

Until reasonable offers to purchase have been made, it cannot be said that 'compulsary purchase' will be at all necessary. And in any event, should such interests be given priority over the needs of the University?

The cost of acquiring these 4.5 acres should be considerably less than the cost of acquiring block D as considered by the Commission which contemplated the immediate acquisition of the houses on Adelaide Road and Harcourt Terrace.

The remaining property along the Canal stretching towards Charlemont Bridge, to the west of the site of the former railway bridge, is in poor condition and not very valuable. The back gardens of No. 11 Harcourt Terrace also make up a considerable frontage on the Canal. This whole area would be suitable as a site for the Engineering faculty.* Further, the architectural advantages to a site of an area of open water are mannifold--if the Canal be retained.

It may be, however, that evenually the Canal here would be filled in and built on--thus providing the College with still further ground on to which to expand in the area between Charlemont Street Bridge and Leeson Street Bridge.

We note in passing that the adjoining block of property (marked 'C') extending from the former railway lines to Charlemont Street is also in poor condition, and is in fact to be acquired compulsorily by Dublin Corporation for demolition in the very near future. This would make a further 3.6 acres available. The block to the west of Charlemont Street is similarly to be acquired.

[heading]Block 'B2' -- The Harcourt Street Station Site

This block of property covering an area of 4.3 acres (not 3.3 acres as marked on the Commission's site plan -- Attachment IV, referred to above), and formerly the property of C.I.E. was sold, as one lot, but public autcion on 12th June last for a sum of £67,500. It was bought by a firm of estate agents

[line]

* It is a matter of historical interest that, in fact, the Engineering school of the Royal College of Science was originally located on this area, on the site bordering the Canal to the east of Harcourt Terrace, subsequently occupied by the Turraun Peat Works, and at present occupied by the Department of Agriculture's Butter Testing Station, a Garda barracks and the Film Censor's office. It was only after the engineering workshops had been destroyed by fire that they were moved to Merrion Street. [end of left page] [right page] [heading]A Study of Adjacent Sites 47

and may be resold to a suitable bidder. Several parties are said to be interested in its aquisition. Full details of this property and its leases are given in Appendix F to this Memorandum. We will content ourselves here with pointing out that the leases of all the essential sections will have expired at latest by 1970, i.e. by the time the College could have fully developed the Iveagh Gardens and Earlsfort Terrace sites. The area occupied by the Station proper and associated open spaces amounts to 91,000 sq. ft. and immediate possesion of this available. The lease of the vaults underlying the station (approximately 80,100 sq. ft.) expires in 1968, but the tenant could surrender in 1961 (Appendix F).

The lease of Dunlops' holding (52,200 sq. ft.) expires in 1963. The lease of Autoservices' holding at Adelaide Road (21,753 sq. ft.) expires in 1970.

We do not suggest the acquisition of Autoservices' garage on the corner of the block (held on a 99-year lease) as we do not regard it as vital to the development of the area.

Some of these leases may be renewable and the small property ('Lot No. 4') in Hatch Street, is held on a 99-year lease. It is improbable that compulsory purchase would have to be invoked in order to develop the property for university use.

These two blocks--D, as discussed above, and B2, the Station block--constituting together 8.8 acres, and having in addition the amenities of the existing roadways, could be acquired by the College. Taken with Iveagh Gardens, the Terrace site and the University property on St. Stephen's Green, South, the total holding would be 23 acres--enough to satisfy, even according to the Commission's calculations, the present needs of the College, and allowance for a future 20% expansion, and some ground to spare. These properties should be secured forthwith.

[heading]Other Sites

Naturally, we also recommend the acquisition of any other property in the neighbourhood which from time to time becomes available; expecially houses in Harcourt Terrace and Adelaide Road (Block D); or in Earlsfort Terrace and Lr. Hatch Street as far as University Hall; or on the east side of Harcourt Street.

With regard to other blocks of property considered by the Commission for widespread compulsory acquisition, we comment as follows:

(i) Instead of considering the acquisition of the whole of the east side of Harcourt Street and of St. Stephen's Green, South, let us focus our attention on that part of the St. Stephen's Green, South, from the corner of Earlsfort Terrace, No. 65 to No. 87 (the Presbytery of University Church). This property presents a frontage of 735' to the Green. Of this 245' is already in University hands, 160' (Iveagh House and the Passport Office) are controlled by the Government, and 70' (Loretto Hall and the C.B.S.I. Headquarters) can be said to be under ecclesiastical control. There remains only 260' (or 35% of the block) which is privately owned. Therefore, if ever the College did require the whole of this frontage on St. Stephen's Green the only section which might need to be acquired compulsorily would be this 35% of the [end right page]

48 U.C.D. and the Future

whole, the eleven houses (Nos. 67-70 and 72-76). Very few of these are used for business purposes (e.g. two commercial colleges); others are dwelling houses, some being let in flats. These houses include the least significant of all the houses surrounding the Green. If ever this whole block, constituting some 60% of St. Stephen's Green, South, had to be acquired by the College, we submit that the disturbance to domestic and commercial property would be slight compared with the gain to the College, whilst no disturbance to industrial or hotel property would be entailed at all.

(ii) The Commission gave some brief attention to the question of acquiring the whole of the blocks bordered by Earlsfort Terrace, Lr. Leeson Street and Adelaide Road. We consider that this was unrealistic and unnecessary for the College's needs. Much more limited acquisitions would suffice. While the Commission was sitting, Comhluch Siuicre Eireann Teo. acquired a valuable site (approx. 21,000 sq. ft.) stretching from Earlsfort Terrace to Leeson Street. This has been cleared out but not yet built upon. In the triangular block between Earlsfort Terrace, Lr. Leeson Street and Hatch Street two adjoining properties between them occupy more than half of the area-- Alexandra College, with a frontage of 470' on Earlsfort Terrace and the Sacred Heart Convent in Leeson Street. Together these properties cover an area of about 3.4 acres. The Commission might have confined its attention to the possibility of acquiring either or both of these schools, which are inadequately housed, partly in converted dwelling houses.

(iii) Regard might also be paid to the fact that when the new Elm Park hospital is built, St. Vincent's will not require all of its present holdings (approximately 2.7 acres) on St. Stephen's Green, East, and Lower Leeson Street. We understand that the intention is to maintain a private nursing home in the area, but a substantial amount of property should nevertheless be set free. The co-operation of the authorities of St. Vincent's might be sought with a view to their providing on this site the proposed 'Clinical Institute' to be run in conjunction with the Medical school if it be retained at Earlsfort Terrace. The great advantage of such a scheme would be that buildings already exist for it--whereas the Clinical Institute, suggested as a new item for the Stillorgan Road site, has not even been budgeted for.

C. LONG TERM EXPANSION

There remains one further assertion of the Commission in regard to siting, on which we desire to comment. Despite the fact that a complete new College would require only 813,300 sq. ft. gross of floor space (including the provision for 20% expansion beyond present needs) and consequently a site area of only 18.7 acres, the Commission writes as follows (Report, p.32):--

'If the extension to the canal (Block B1 and D) that we contemplated were practicable the College would have at Earlsfort Terrace a total area of about 21 acres. As already stated we entertained the possibilty of finding a solution. Later an examination of the areas of the sites of other Universities and Colleges convinced us that a proper and final solution to the accommodation needs of University College, Dublin, could not be provided for on a site of 21 acres.'