Papers of James Meenan – Move of UCD to Belfield

Foreword

We all welcome the decision of the Government to provide for the accommodation needs of University College, Dublin. But whether the new College should be built in the City centre or in the suburbs is hotly debated, and raises issues of great importance for the future of higher education in Dublin.

This pamphlet, which is the work of a research group organised by the Dublin Branch of Tuairim, argues that the proposal to move U.C.D. to the Stillorgan Road is undesirable and unnecessary.

As with other Tuairim pamphlets, the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily of Tuairim as a whole.

This pamphlet was originally circulated in stencilled form to members of the Government as well as to educational leaders and other prominent citizens. It attracted considerable attention and was widely accepted as an outstanding contribution towards a solution of the problem with which it deals.

Initially we shrank from the cost of printing the pamphlet, but many of those who read the stencilled copies thought the argument presented so important that they pressed us strongly to give the general public a chance to read it in full. Members of the College staff, graduates and other persons interested in the welfare of the College and the City offered us generous financial support and we decided to go ahead and print.

Tuairim (the name is derived from the Irish word meaning 'opinion') was founded some years ago to encourage young people to formulate, by means of study and discussion, informed opinions on Irish problems, and to influence by means of lectures, writings and speeches, the opinions of the public.

At present Tuairim has eight branches, and others are in the course of formation. The names of secretaries of the existing and the contemplated branches are given on the back cover. Each secretary will be glad to hear from anyone interested in joining the branch in his area.

Anyone interested in buying pamphlets, or in contributing towards the cost of the present or future pamphlets, or in finding out more about the general work of Tuairim should contact the Hon. General Secretary.

13a, Brookville Park, Malahide Road, Coolock, Dublin. Telephone 337670

Donal Barrington President January 1960

L956/1182

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN AND THE FUTURE

A MEMORANDUM FROM A RESEARCH GROUP OF TUAIRIM, DUBLIN BRANCH

on

THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ACCOMMODATION NEEDS OF THE CONSTITUENT COLLEGES OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND

With Special Reference to the Proposal to Transfer University College, Dublin, to a New Site

Revised Edition

'To enquire into the accommodation needs of the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland and to advise as to how, in the present circumstances, these needs could best be met.' (Terms of Appointment of the Government Commission)

'. . . . It would be their task to examine the problems objectively and to relate them to the national need.' (From the speech of the Minister for Education at the first meeting of the Commission, 15.10.1957)

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

I. THE COMMISSION AND ITS REPORT 6 Narrow View of Terms of Reference Haste in Deliberation

II. DUBLIN'S UNIVERSITY AREA 7 Advantages as a University Site Misleading Comparisons The Cultural and Education Complex Government Offices Comprehensive Plan Needed Mr. de Valera's Views

III. PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED MOVE OF U.C.D. A. The Effects on the Various Faculties 12 B. The Problem of the Medical School 15 C. The College and the Community 17 D. The Cost of U.C.D. Expansion 20 1. The Capital Cost, Including Cost of Equipment 2. Provision of Staff Increase 3. Increased Running Costs 4. Need for Economy E. The Other Institution of Higher Education in Dublin 27 1. The Institutes of Technology 2. The Institute for Advanced Studies 3. Trinity College, Dublin

IV. U.C.D. ACCOMMODATION NEEDS A. Space and Consequent Site Requirements 35 B. Criticism of the Commission's Standards 38 1. Use of the 'Rule of Thumb' 2. Attitude to Building Heights 3. Types of University Layout 4. Attitude to Compulsory Purchase

V. A STUDY OF ADJACENT SITES Page A. The Commission's Rejection of Adjacent Sites 44 B. A Reconsideration of these and other Adjacent Sites 45 C. Long-term Expansion 48

VI. SUGGESTIONS TOWARDS A SOLUTION ON PRESENT AND ADJACENT SITES 51

SUMMARY AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 54

POSTSCRIPT 57

APPENDICES A. A Note on the College's Efforts to Expand 60 B. Comments on the Views of the College Authorities on the Science Buildings, Merrion Street 61 C. A Note on Alternative Uses for the Stillorgan Road Estates 62 D. A List of Cultural, Educational, and Professional Bodies, Schools and Hostels in the General University Area 64 E. A List of Government and Semi-State Offices in the Area 65 F. Details of the Harcourt Street Station Site 66 G. Sir Eric Ashby's Comments on 'Inefficient Utilisation of Plant' 67 H. Leading Article from 'The Irish Independent' 68 I. An Article from 'Irish Builder and Engineer' 70 J. Some other Views: (i) An Article from 'The Tablet', 72 (ii) Professor Stanford's Views 73 MAP: The Vicinity of Earlsfort Terrace

INTRODUCTION

The essential thesis presented in regard to U.C.D. by the Report of the Commission on Accommodation Needs of the Constituent Colleges of the National University of Ireland is that, while it is desirable to seek a solution for the urgent accommodation needs of the College by expansion from the present sites, such a solution is impracticable.

We accept the basic fact that U.C.D.'s accommodation needs are urgent and must be met without delay. We differ emphatically from the Commission in its belief that those needs cannot be met except by moving to Stillorgan Road.

The cost of a complete new College must be borne in mind, but this is not the only factor involved; we believe and hope to establish, that the move would have grave consequences, both for the College and for the City. The future of higher education in Dublin would be radically affected and the cultural and educational centre of the Capital would be disintegrated.

The Commission by devoting its attention primarily and almost entirely to matters of space and sites, and by not fully investigating all the other very important factors involved, recommended a move to the suburbs. Having done that, it did not even thne fully consider and give due weight to all the consequences of the proposal.

We are convinced that the Commission is in fact wrong in its belief that expansion is impracticable from the present sites: it follows that the decision to move to the Stillorgan Road must be considered in the light of the consequences to which we have referred.

In short, the Stillorgan Road project is, in our view, both unnecessary and undesirable.

6 U.C.D. and the Future

1. THE COMMISSION AND ITS REPORT

The Commission on Accommodation Needsof the Constituent Colleges of the National University of Ireland was appointed on 26th September, 1957. Its terms of reference were: 'To enquire into the accommodation needs of the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland and to advise as to how in the present circumstances, these needs could best be met.'

The Report of the Commission was published on 2nd June, 1959. It consists of four chapters, the first of which, on the needs of U.C.D., had been presented to the Government as an interim report on 14th June, 1958; the second on U.C.C. was presented on 18th October, 1958; whilst the third on U.C.G. and the concluding chapter were presented on 1st May, 1959.

The first chapter and the concluding chapter give the Commission's view that the space requirements of U.C.D. cannot be met on or near its present site, and that the only solution is for the College to move to a site on the Stillorgan Road over a period of five to ten years. The Commission further recommends that the Government should make £6,700,000 available to the College over this period for building needs.

Narrow View of Terms of Reference

The Commission admits (Report p.3) that 'other solutions might present themselves if the terms of reference had invited views upon co-ordination within the University or over a wider field.'

We do not believe that the Government intended to fetter the Commission by limiting the possible solutions to the problem. Neither can we agree that its terms of reference compelled it to treat each College as if it existed in isolation and to exclude all examination of the possibility of co-ordination within the N.U.I. (leaving the 'wider field' aside for the moment).

It was not, for example, excluded by the terms of reference from considering the duplication of faculties (particularly the expensive medical and technological faculties) within the N.U.I. Can, or need, the N.U.I. adequately develop its three medical schools or its three engineering schools?

In fact, the Commission did insert one recommendation in this regard, when it says (Report p.77): 'The provision for the accommodation needs of the Faculty of Agriculture in University College, Dublin will require adjustment if a full Faculty of Agriculture is established in Cork.' But why the reference to agriculture only - what about medicine, engineering and the sciences.

Such questions were, we maintain, well within the terms of reference of the Commission and should have been considered by it particularly as it was required to consider the needs of the N.U.I. within the framework of present conditions. The financial considerations involved in duplication and triplication of faculties are of paramount importance.

The Minister for Education at the first meeting of the Commission (15th October, 1957) said that 'it would be their task to examine the problems objectively and to relate them to the national need.' This latter task the Commission failed to accomplish.

Dublin's University Area 7

Taking its narrow view of the terms of reference, the Commission has attempted to produce an answer to a purely artificial question: 'What would be the needs of each College of the N.U.I., if it existed in isolation, serving the community immediately surrounding it, and if no other institutions of higher learning or of medical, agricultural or technological education existed in the country?'

To this hypothetical question the Commission has provided one answer. But we are as far as ever from a realistic solution of the problems of university education in Ireland, or even of the problems of U.C.D. Indeed, we hold that the Commission's recommendations on U.C.D. have only bedevilled the matter.

Haste in Deliberation

The Commission may partly be excused for its narrow view of the terms of reference by the fact that it was under considerable pressure to complete its study rapidly owing to the urgency of the accommodation needs of the colleges and particularly of U.C.D. It is regrettable if the Commission allowed itself to be rushed by this. A temporary solution by limiting student numbers, or by providing temporary accommodation, would have been preferable to an incomplete examination of the problem.

This was the first public examination in many years of any part of the Irish university question and the very first examination of U.C.D.'s acquisition of the Stillorgan Road estates. It took place at a time critical to the development of the Irish universities and of higher education in general including, in particular, technological, medical and agricultural education. The times are critical also in the wider spheres of national economics and industrial development, spheres in which the universities will have to play an important role. After so many years of official inactivity in the matter of the University College, the fullest, unhurried consideration should have been given to all the factors involved.

II. DUBLIN'S UNIVERSITY AREA

Advantages as a University Site

Few, if any, capital cities in Europe have within their university areas as much open space as exists in Dublin in the area extending from Trinity College southwards to the Grand Canal. We, have, in turn, College Park, Merrion Square, Leinster Lawn, St. Stephen's Green, Iveagh Gardens and 'the Lawn.'

Further, the built-up areas between and around these open spaces have a very low density of building. Virtually all the existing buildings in the area were dwelling houses (though now converted, in most cases, to office use) having long back gardens and, frequently, extensive mews (vide - the area between Merrion Square South and Baggot Street, or between Lr. Earlsfort Terrace and Leeson Street, or between St. Stephen's Green East and Pembroke Street).

University College, Dublin, is not hampered in its desire for expansion, as were older universities in other capitals, by being surrounded by edifices of great historical, cultural or architectural value (as in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Vienna) or by extremely valuable commercial property of very high density (as in Stockholm, Copenhagen, London or in the British industrial cities).

8 U.C.D. and the Future

Indeed, quite close to the College, the whole area south of Harcourt Road stretching to the Canal and extending from Peter's Place to Charlemont Street is essentially an area in poor condition which will have to be cleared and the inhabitants rehoused either elsewhere or in flats on the same site.

Further, the shopping streets within this general area, Merrion Row, Lr. Leeson Street, Charlemont Street, are of relatively low value as compared with principal shopping streets in a capital city -- a consideration, if any such streets had to be acquired for university expansion.

It is not of course suggested that the public squares named above should be built on, but that buildings in their vicinity should gradually be acquired for university and other cultural and educational requirements.

Misleading Comparisons

In its Report (p.34) the Commission says -- 'in the English and Danish universities we visited we found that the authorities were dealing with problems similar to that of Dublin.' The universities visited were Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, Reading, and in Denmark, Copenhagen and Aarhus. The commission also made use of information supplied by the universities in Wales, Edinburgh, Exeter, Liverpool, Sheffield and Southampton. We believe that it is misleading to assert that the problem in Dublin is similar to that in these cities. Only one capital city was visited -- Copenhagen -- where the old university was situated in the densely built-up old part of the city. In this case we are told also (Report p. 34) that 'details of the area of the sites of the University of Copenhagen are not yet available to the Commission.' Aarhus is a provincial University of 1800 students.

The conditions in the British industrial cities bear no comparison with those in Dublin. A description written about those very universities mentioned by the Commission -- 'buildings frequently dingy and cramped and sometimes sordid, set in an environment of smoke and slums' -- could never be applied to Dublin. Overcrowding of incompleted buildings we have -- and that can be relieved on the present sites -- but sordidness and smoke and slums we most decidedly have not in our general university area.

In none of the cities mentioned by the Commission is there a cultural and educational complex such as we have in the university area of Dublin. Those few British universities which are moving out to a campus site in the suburbs are in no case leaving an area which houses a second university with a worldfamous copyright library, a National Library, Gallery and Museum and the headquarters of so many professional institutes.

Dublin's great good fortune in the matter of its centrally situated university area has frequently been the subject of envious comment. We have quoted two such recent comments in our Appendix J.

Further, as the authorities of U.C.D. have frequently pointed out, the College may be regarded as the direct successor of Newman's Catholic University. The present site is associated both with Newman's effort and other Irish aspirations after university education.

Taking the above facts together, a university in any other capital Dublin|city would

Dublin's University Area 9

consider itself very fortunate in having such opportunities for development, nor would powers of compulsory purchase be denied to it, if required.

The Cultural and Educational Complex

The existence of the many institutions in this area must be taken into account:

1. The principal museums, galleries, and the National Library. 2. Trinity College, Dublin. 3. Various other cultural, professional and educational bodies (e.g. Institute for Advanced Studies, Catholic Central Library, Royal Irish Academy, Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Surgeons, Royal Institute of Architects, Royal Society of Antiquries). 4. Several university hostels, under Catholic ecclesiastical control (see Appendix D for a list). 5. A great deal of other property under esslesiastical and/or educational control. Much of this consists of schools inadequately housed in converted dwelling houses and falling below modern standards and requirements for such schools (See Appendix D.) 6. The Houses of the Oireachtas, which are inadequately provided for, and Government offices which are expanding.

This whole complex of Government, university, cultural and educational establishments should be considered as a whole and no one aspect of it (such as the needs of U.C.D.) can be properly studied without taking into consideration all the factors involved in the planning of this area. One can, however, say straight away that to dismember this complex, by removing U.C.D. from it, is the least happy of solutions.

If the removal of U.C.D. from the area presented a final solution to the other conflicting problems that exist within it, then there would be that much extra to recommend the move. But it does not present such a solution. Now is the time to ask what is the final solution to be aimed at in providing adequately for the needs of:

The Houses of the Oireachtas The Government departments The National Museums and Gallery The National Library The National College of Art The Institute for Advanced Studies The many schools in the area Trinity College

Government Offices

One possible solution to many of these problems would be a Government decision to remove the Houses of the Oireachtas and at least some of the Government offices to another site. Kilmainham has often been mentioned, and the site there is large enough to provide for a single solution. The difficulty