Papers of James Meenan – Move of UCD to Belfield

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).

40 U.C.D. and the Future

of buildings on the site to a height at least equal to the tallest existing buildings around St. Stephen's Green, or even a storey or two higher, with still taller blocks if required, e.g. for a library 'stack.'

It is worth pointing out that on the site recently acquired by Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann Teo. (which runs from Earlsfort Terrace, almost opposite the College, to Lr. Leeson Street), we understand it is proposed to erect what newspapers headlined as a 'Skyscraper for Dublin'—an office block of eight storeys. We understand also that the Harcourt Street Station site might yet be acquired by an interested party, with the object of erecting on it a multistoreyed hotel block. In fact it might be said that only high buildings would be in character in this neighbourhood.

(2) The second of these sweeping statements of the Commission — 'High buildings are generally considered not suitable for the ordinary purposes of a University'—is put forward as a matter of fact. We contradict it and indicate our evidence below.

Neither we, nor any reader of the Report, know what exactly passed between the expert and the Commission. We have only the Commission's very brief version of the evidence, and with this we cannot agree. We most certainly cannot agree that 'buildings of two or three storeys' are 'orthodox' for a modern university either inside or outside a city. From the facts given above regarding the number of storeys in existing buildings in the neighbourhood it will be seen that two or three storeys are not orthodox even for dwelling houses in this part of Dublin.

Let us now look at some modern university and similar teaching blocks elsewhere. Amongst the new university buildings in Britain recently completed, under construction or planned—some of which were visited by members of the Commission and plans and models of others were shown at the exhibition which they saw at Reading—we may note the following:—

Sheffield—an Arts block of 13 storeys with other blocks of six and seven storeys for Biology and Physics. Southampton—a block of ten storeys for Engineering. Birmingham—a seven-storey Chemistry block. Liverpool—a nine-storey Physics block adjoining the laboratories and workshops. Aberdeen—a five-storey Chemistry block. Cambridge—a Chemistry block of seven storeys. Oxford—blocks of seven and nine-storeys for science and Engineering. Dundee—a 12-storeyed tower for teaching and administration. Imperial College, London—a Mechanical Engineering block of nine storeys. Newcastle—a six-storey block for Physics. Manchester—an Arts extension of six storeys.

Amongst colleges of further education we note:- Harrow—eight storeys. Ipswich—eight storeys. Harrow—seven storeys. Mansfield—six storeys.

U.C.D. Accommodation Needs 41

It must not be imagined that all the above buildings have been forced upwards by restricted sites—some of them are planned for quite open sites. A judicious balance of tall tower-like blocks with lower buildings grouped around them is common modern architectural practice for such complex institutions. If one wishes to keep five thousand students, and the university staff, in reasonably close contact with each other, then one must build upwards.

We could go on to quote innumerable examples of multi-storeyed university buildings in other countries abroad but we will content ourselves with pointing out that the most common height of the relatively new buildings at Rome is five storeys above ground level. We understand that at least one member of the Architectural Advisory Board went and inspected the Rome buildings on behalf of U.C.D.

In view of this evidence we feel that it is perverse to favour what the Report calls 'an orthodox two or three storeys' for new university buildings in this country. We have failed to locate any modern university that has confined itself to two or three storeys. The nearest approach to such an arrangement is that at Aarhus, in Denmark, where three and four storeys are the rule. This institution, however, is neither the largest in its country nor is it the university of a capital city, nor does it cater for five thousand students. The mere fact that a 'domestic style' of architecture has been found suitable for Aarhus would be no reason for suggesting that the same style is suitable for U.C.D.

We should like to make it clear, however, that if a reasonable amount of ground is acquired in the vicinity of Earlsfort Terrace (e.g. the 8.8 acres suggested in our sample scheme), the total requirements of U.C.D., including 20% for expansion, could be met there by building to no more than four or five storeys.

3. TYPES OF UNIVERSITY LAYOUT

Three main types of university layout are at present recognised:

1. The Collegiate—typical of the older 'Oxbridge' universities in which the buildings in the main centre around quadrangles, the 'colleges' being essentually residential.

2. The City Block type—characteristic of the newer 'Redbrick' universities and centred in industrial cities.

3. The Campus Style of university—essentially American in origin—having the buildings disposed over a wide area of parkland.

It is the third type which the Commission recommends building on the Stillorgan Road site. It accepts without question the College's prior decision to build such a university. That decision was taken as early as 1949, without any public enquiry as to suitability and without a thorough examination of possible alternatives.

It has yet to be shown that the Campus type is better or even as good as the other type of layout. Authoritive opinions can be quoted to the contrary. It is certain that it disposes its students and staff over a much wider area than the other types and equally certain that it is by its nature isolated from the city and from the community.