Papers of James Meenan – Move of UCD to Belfield

20 U.C.D. and the Future

The Report gives no indication that the Commission gave serious thought to any of the above considerations. This failure is a major defect.

D. THE COST OF U.C.D. EXPANSION

1. THE CAPITAL COST, INCLUDING COST OF EQUIPMENT

The total estimated cost of building the whole new College on Stillorgan Road is £6,700,000 (exclusive of the cost of purchasing the site and of its maintenance to date). This figure was arrived at by accepting the College's estimate of £5,812,000 calculated in 1952 and allowing for a 15% increase in building costs since then.

The original estimate includes a provision of only £123,000 for furniture and equipment. The Commission states (Report, p. 125) that the final estimate is exclusive of the cost of 'furniture and additional equipment.' Hence we must assume that the Commission regarded the original provision as negligible compared with the real cost. The sum estimated for 'furniture and equipment' in 1952 for Science (£30,000) was specifically stated to be 'exclusive of special scientific equipment,' but no such reservation was then made in the case of the other faculties. The sum then proposed in the case of the 'Engineering and Architecture' building was £10,000 which would hardly provide for the requirements of the architectural section alone.

Obviously in the case of the faculty of Engineering there is a need to prepare an estimate of the cost of the required equipment. It is highly improbable that the equipment at present in Merrion Street — the lathes and other workshop machines, the demonstration generators, motors, engines, etc. — will suffice. We believe that extensive re-equipment of the faculty will be necessary by the time the move takes place and that the cost will be very considerable. The total floor space at the disposal of the faculty is to be increased more than three-fold; and the faculty must be equipped for teaching and research in at least four major fields, viz. civil, mechanical, electrical and chemical engineering. At least £126,000 has been estimated for equipment for the new engineering department at the Institute of Technology in Bolton Street, which is concerned mainly with mechanical engineering.

The faculties of Science and Medicine will also need considerable further equipment if their greater floorspace is to be utilised adequately. It must further be remembered that the need, hitherto confined to science and technology, for equipment and apparatus is spreading to the Arts faculty, and that several expanding subjects will need specialised equipment not possessed before. Even in this faculty, and in the Library and Administrative Buildings, there is little point in estimating for the buildings if the furniture and equipment which are needed to enable the extended departments to function are not allowed for. It must be remembered that the total floor space to be furnished and equipped in the proposed new College is about three times the floor space at present in use.

All these considerations suggest that Mr. Aodhogan O'Rahilly may not be unreasonable in saying in his Minority Report (Report p. 48): 'The cost of the new University, if it is properly equipped, will be nearer to £10 million than £5 million.' For the purpose of the table which we give below, we have been

Problems in the Proposed Move 21

extremely conservative and have set the cost of equipment and furnishings at £1,000,000.

We urge that the College authorities be requested to prepare detailed estimates of the equipment requirements of all the faculties on the assumption that the complete set of new buildings is to be provided.

Whatever such detailed estimates would reveal, it is noted that the total capital cost of the Stillorgan Road project is to be offset by an allowance of approximately £1,500,000 for premises surrendered. It is intimated in the Commission's Report that the premises might be acquired for use as Government offices. A most important consideration arises out of this. In effect the Report recommends to the Government an expenditure of £5,200,000 on new university buildings and a further expenditure of £1,500,000, plus the cost of adaptation, on the acquisition of additional Government offices. The Commission state (Report, p. 37):

'The Commissioners of Public Works have informed the Commission that both the College of Science and the Earlsfort Terrace buildings are suitable generally for purposes of Government departments, but in each case extensive alterations would be needed; and at this stage the Commissioners were not in a position to hazard a guess what the cost of these alterations might be.'

We will be a little bolder and hazard a guess. Information is provided by the Commission in relation to the conversion to new uses of existing buildings at Galway. They write (Report, p. 120):

It is commonly recognised that estimation of the cost of adapting old buildings is difficult and that actual cost may prove as high as the cost of providing an equal amount of accommodation in new buildings. For this reason we are of the opinion that the rate of £3.10s. (per sq. ft.) now estimated is as good as can now be furnished.'

If U.C.D. moves out of town the floor area to be surrendered to the Government, for a consideration of £1,500,000 is approximately 150,000 sq. ft. nett in sound buildings. This approximates to 200,000 sq. ft. gross. At £3.10s. per sq. ft. the cost of conversion would therefore be £700,000. Of course it may be said that the unit cost of converting Earlsfort Terrace to Government use would be very much lower than this estimate — but conversely the unit cost of converting the Science Buildings would certainly be very much more.

The total sum therefore that the Government is prepared to spend on acquiring new premises is approximately £2,200,000. This makes no provision for the furnishing and equipment of such new Government premises and it takes no account of the future fate of the unsound buildings at Earlsfort Terrace, which will have to be adapted, or demolished and replaced.

It is clear that the capital expenditure involved in acquiring, adapting and furnishing for Government use the premises vacated by the College is well in excess of £2,000,000. We hold that, given the decision to spend even £2,000,000 on new Government premises, it can be decided to move some Government departments from their present offices to new blocks, elsewhere, thus releasing property of inestimable value to the College. Then, given about

22 U.C.D. and the Future

£5,000,000, cannot the College solve its accommodation problems by expansion from its existing buildings? We urge that the total cost of the various complex operations, including the reshuffle of College and Government property and the various alternatives, should each be calculated in full.

Total Cost of Current Proposals in Dublin

Those most in favour of the Stillorgan Road scheme claim that the sum involved is only £5,200,000. However, the proposals of the Commission should be viewed in the context of the total capital expenditure involved in all the proposals (and their consequences) now being considered in Dublin, if all proceed independently as at present projected.

£ New buildings for U.C.D. at Stillorgan Road site ... 6,700,000 Furniture and equipment for same ... at least 1,000,000 Buildings at Kevin Street and Bolton Street ... 1,350,000 Furniture and equipment for same ... say 700,000 Total £11,936,000

Faculty of Agriculture, U.C.D. ... ? Faculties of Veterinary Medicine, U.C.D. & T.C.D. ... ? Provision for T.C.D.'s other accommodation needs ... ? Provision for new University Church for U.C.D. ... ? Provision for student hostels at new site ... ? ?????

Of course, not all of these monies would have to be provided directly by way of parliamentary grants, but all of them would have to come from the pockets of the community.

2. PROVISION FOR STAFF INCREASE

A College on the proposed scale, whether it be built at Stillorgan Road or elsewhere, provides a level of accommodation for staff and students of the standard required by a modern university. It is well to realise just what is implied in this raising of U.C.D. to such a standard.

The memorandum from the Science departments states (p.2 of Appendix VI F, to Chapter I of the Report) that what is being planned for is 'staff on the levels normally provided in British universities' and the Commission in its final chapter (p.128), says that 'Our standards in this age must be international.' This implies first and foremost a great increase in teaching and technical staff.

Problems in the Proposed Move 23

It implies that the ratio of full-time teaching staff to full-time students be improved to something approaching the level in operation elsewhere. In British universities in 1956-57 the ratio stood at 1:7.2 students (a few years earlier it was better at 1:7) and the British University Grants Committee are not yet satisfied with the position. The ratio in U.C.D. was 1:19 students for the year 1952-53 and 1:20 for 1953-54 (the most recent years for which figures have been published).

Taking a more conservative view than that reigning in Britian the target might be set at a ratio of 1:8. This is approximately the ratio advocated in the memorandum of the Engineering faculty on its requirements (Appendix VI E to Chapter I of the Report). This means that in the new College the number of full-time teaching staff is to be increased by a factor of 2.4 from the 1953 figure of 157 staff for 3,046 students to a figure of 380 for the same student body (or to 625 for 5,000 students).

3. INCREASED RUNNING COSTS

Having regard to the total of new buildings contemplated and the increase in staff, an effort may be made to calculate the probable annual running costs of the new College.

To do this, one can take the published expenditure accounts for a recent year and multiply each item by a factor thought to be appropriate to the new situation. This has been done in a table set out below to which a series of notes on the various items is appended.

Comparative Table of Present and Estimated Future Annual Expenses

26 U.C.D. and the Future

(x) We realise that the above table may be criticised on matters of detail. This has not, however, deterred us from making the calculation, as our main point in so doing has been to show that such a forecast of future running costs can be made. We urge that a more accurate forecast on the above lines be made and published by those who have at their disposal more detailed and more recent data than we had.

No account is taken in these attempts to estimate future running costs, of any interest or other annual charges on the capital required for the new buildings. As one estimate makes the capital sum as high as £10,000,000, the annual charges could be of the order of £500,000 if the sum were raised as a loan. Of course if the cost of building were to be paid out of current revenue over, say a period of 10 years, an annual sum of the order of £1,000,000 would have to be raised in addition to running costs.

4. THE NEED FOR ECONOMY

The attempt at estimating running costs set out above, is not to be taken as an attempt to throw cold water on the scheme for expansion of U.C.D. on the grounds of costs. We accept that university expansion must take place, that it will be expensive, and that greatly increased annual sums will be needed by our universities and colleges for their running costs. We welcome the Government's decision to accept the Commission's recommendations in so far as that decision implies the acceptance of the necessity to spend many millions on the universities.

But we think that the Government should be told the full magnitude of the sums involved, and that the proposed scheme for U.C.D. expansion involves greatly increased running costs as well as capital expenditure. We suggest that the following points deserve careful attention:

(i) If the project is undertaken, funds must be available for its completion within a reasonably short period. Should the building be stopped or delayed the College would be dismembered. On the other hand expansion on the present site affords the advantages —(a) the College remains a unity at all stages and (b) the necessary expenditure could be spread over a longer period.

(ii) Money must be found to staff and equip adequately a College on this scale, while at the same time badly needed help must be given to other institutions of higher education. To build a larger College than could be staffed adequately, or to build it to the neglect of existing institutions, would be wasteful.

(iii) It is important that every opportunity for economising by sharing buildings, staff, equipment, and other resources between the institutions of higher education in Dublin be examined at the present time. There is undoubtedly a great deal of duplication and some of it could be avoided. Such economies would become much more difficult if U.C.D. were to move to the suburbs.

(iv) It is necessary to consider what effect the U.C.D. project would have on the Colleges at Cork and Galway and whether it would be possible or desirable to effect economies by eliminating some of the existing duplication within the N.U.I.

Problems in the Proposed Move 27

We believe that by an examination of these questions considerable savings could be made. It is important, however, that opportunities for the expansion of U.C.D. on its present site do not disappear while such problems are being studied. Too many such opportunities have been lost in the past. We suggest that the areas which we deal with later, in the vicinity of the College, should be acquired or at least an option on them secured immediately.

Economies for the College by Expansion near Present Sites

1. A saving of the capital cost of replacing existing sound buildings, and their fixed furniture and fittings. 2. Avoidance of the need for duplicate teaching space within the city for evening, part-time and extra-mural students. 3. A saving of the cost of provision of roads and services already available in the city, but which would have to be provided on the Stillorgan Road site. 4. Avoidance of the maintenance costs of these roads and services. 5. Possibilities of saving by co-ordination, and sharing facilities (space, equipment and staff) with other institutions. 6. The possibility of providing the facilities of the 'clinical institute' in existing city hospitals, and thus avoiding heavy additional building costs. 7. The continued use of part-time staff. 8. The possibility of spreading the cost of building over a longer period while maintaining the physical unity of the College. 9. The possibility of developing the Stillorgan estates as a capital asset.

E. THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN DUBLIN

1. THE INSTITUTES OF TECHNOLOGY

The College of Technology, Bolton Street, provides courses to primary degree standard in Architecture and Engineering. The College of Technology Kevin Street, provides similar courses in Electrical Engineering and in Science. The City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee has long maintained that it is necessary to provide these courses (a) as an incentive to the mass of students and (b) as an outlet for the small number of students who possess the requisite talents.

With these motives we thoroughly agree. We think, however, that the provision of these courses, side by side with similar courses in the universities, is wasteful of resources. Further, the cost borne by the community for each student who qualifies as an engineer or architect through the institutes of technology is much higher, due to the small numbers involved, than the cost borne in producing a university trainined engineer or architect.

Some of the news expressed by a deputation from the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee as reported by the Commission (Report, p.42) appear, in our view, to be self-contradictory. They are stated to have assured the Commission that there would be no duplication of expensive facilities. But we do not see how professional courses, exactly similar to technical degree

28 U.C.D. and the Future

courses can be run without such duplication. Also they are reported as stating that the Vocational Education Committee had in Kevin Street and Bolton Bolton Street a building problem which would cost 'up to £1,000,000 in the long run.'* They were interested in the Commission's Report from the point of view of knowing what accommodation would be provided by the University, to enable them to form their plans.

The problem involved is not peculiar to our circumstances. It has arisen years ago in the more advanced countries. In many countries it has been solved by integrating the technological courses in the institutes with their counterparts in the universities. We have in mind the kind of collaboration or integration that exists in various forms at Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow, Manchester and elsewhere. Some of these examples we outline below.

The Belfast College of Technology. Part of the teaching for the degree in Engineering of Queen's University is done at the College of Technology by staff recognised by the University. The whole of the teaching for university degrees in Chemical Technology, Pharmaceutics, Textile Industries and Naval Architecture is done there by recognised teachers.

The College of Technology and Commerce, Cardiff. Through its affiliation to the University of Wales this College offers courses leading to the degrees of B.Arch. and B.Pharm.

The Royal Technical College, Glasgow. In 1913 this College became affiliated to the University of Glasgow and in 1919 it was recognised as a University College and became eligible for grants from the University Grants Committee. The College has an independent Board of Governors and comes directly under the Scottish Education Department. Through its affiliation with the University of Glasgow the College offers courses of study leading to the Degree of B.Sc. in a variety of subjects. It also offers courses leading to its own Associateship (A.R.T.C.).

The Manchester College of Science and Technology. The Faculty of Technology of the University of Manchester was instituted within the above College in 1905. The Principal of the College is Dean of the University Faculty and heads of departments are professors of the University. The College offers courses which lead either to the University Degrees of Bachelor or Master of Technical Science or to its own Associateship (A.M.C.T.). The M.Sc. Tech. and the Ph.D. and D.Sc. degrees of the University may be conferred on those who have pursued research in the College.

In passing it is well to remember that until 1926 the Royal College of Science for Ireland, an independent non-university institution, offered courses

* In point of fact we understand that the cost of the Bolton Street project is approx. £350,000 and that the sum required for Kevin Street alone will not be less than £1,000,000. These are building costs and do not include furniture or equipment. We understand that the extra equipment for Engineering and Architecture at Bolton Street will cost over two hundred thousand pounds. For Kevin Street it will cost considerably more.

Problems in the Proposed Move 29

that led to its own Associateship (A.R.C.Sc.I.). It co-operated with the University by permitting U.C.D. students to take their workshop courses in Merrion Street. A previous Irish Government, rather than finance the duplication of expensive faculties, compelled its amalgamation with the University. It was handed over to U.C.D. by the University Education (Agriculture and Dairy Science) Act, 1926. University College, Dublin, which has already absorbed the College of Science, might well consider at least co-operation with the newer expanding institutes of technology.

Elsewhere, when technological institutes have grown up in a university city, the time came when they had developed in status and in standards to the stage of providing courses to full professional level. At that point co-ordination with, and even integration into, the technological faculties of the university followed as a natural course. We believe that the same course should be followed in Dublin and indeed that eventually it will follow, but we are concerned that meanwhile U.C.D. may have been transferred to Stillorgan Road instead of remaining on its present sites which are more conveniently situated for cooperation with the institutes.

We urge that serious consideration be given to the above point of view. Apart from the economic advantages of such collaboration we believe that in this way the best interests of higher technological education would be served.

Further, we believe that in view of the continued growth of heavy industry in Cork (steel, shipbuilding, oil refining) a very good case can be made for siting an advanced technological faculty or college in that city and that the establishment of a multiplicity of such faculties in Dublin will militate against adequate provision being made for the needs of the south.

As an example of the position that is arising because of the lack of cooperation between the institutes and the universities, we deal below in some detail with the provision of professional training in Architecture.

The Dublin Schools of Architecture

The Commission's Report accepts the College authorities' estimate of space required for the new school of Architecture: 22,000 sq. ft. nett or 29,730 sq. ft. gross to be built at a cost of approximately £250,000. It is to be noted that this estimate was prepared in 1952 when the numbers in the school were at an abnormal maximum, and the requirements would seem to be excessive for what might be taken to be the average number of students. The records of recent years show a decline in numbers from 150 to 110 (a 27% decrease). The reason for this decline is undoubtedly a 'settling down' of the profession to 'normal' conditions following the post-war building boom when the profession offered very attractive prospects.

If we take the average student number at 110, then the estimate of approx. £250,000 would provide for the ecertion of a first-class school with all facilities. Such a provision is very desirable and would we fully justified were it not for the fact that a second school of Architecture with first-class standards of accommodation is already nearing completion in Dublin. We refer to the school of Architecture at the College of Technology, Bolton Street. When complete (September 1960) this school will have the great advantage of being associated

30 U.C.D. and the Future

with workshops for the building trades apprentices taking courses there -- an asset of great value. The issue therefore which must be decided at top level is whether there is justification for the provision from public funds of two equally elaborate and well-equipped schools of Architecture situated in the one city to serve a maximum number of approximately 200 students.

The functions of the two Schools

Until recent years the Bolton Street school did not attract the best entrants to the profession, the U.C.D. school being unquestionably the premier school. While this state of affairs prevailed, the two schools could be said to fulfil separate functions, Bolton Street catering for those who did not matriculate or who could not afford the university course. However, there have been significant changes in recent years, the cumulative effect of which has been to establish the Bolton Street school as equal if not superior. The results of these changes are to be seen in the successful record of Bolton Street students and alumni in recent open competitions and in the high esteem in which the graduates of this school are held by the senior members of the profession, indicative of which was the inclusion of the phrase 'preferably not University trained' in a press advertisement seeking the services of an architect ('Irish Times,' September 29, '59).

Apart from the raising of standards which has taken place at Bolton Street, it is now proposed that this school will be authorised to award a diploma having the status of a university degree, and that admission will be by an examination of the standard of Matriculation. When these plans materialise, the two schools of Architecture will cease to have separate functions, and a powerful incentive will exist for a shift in student numbers from U.C.D. to Bolton Street, as not only will equal or superior training be offered but it will be available at a much lower fee.

The effect of moving to Stillorgan Road

The view is widely held that schools of Architecture are best sited in busy urban areas close to the heart of the local building industry, trade and commerce, and that schools which divorce themselves from the industy tend to become purely academic. Whether the theory be valid or not, the removal of the university school to Stillorgan will take it away from close contact with the Royal Institute Library, the College of Arts, the Building Centre and not least the offices of the practising architects, quantity surveyors, contractors, builders providers and manufacturers. The effect of this must inevitably be to enhance further the status of the Bolton Street school vis-a-vis that of the University.

Conclusion

A possible solution to the problem of the future of architectural education in Ireland may lie in the University school specialising in purely academic and professional formation while the College of Technology would provide the technical training. Any such scheme of amalgamation would, of course, be made much more difficult by the removal of the U.C.D. school from its present location. The problems, however, are properly the concern of the educational committees of the professional institutes, who alone are competent to provide the solutions. The University authorities cannot be ignorant of the problems

Problems in the Proposed Move 31

confronting the profession with regard to the future education of its members and in the circumstances it is difficult to imagine that the University would, if dependent on its own resources, embark on spending £250,000 on a school of Architecture at the present time.

Until the problems are resolved, it would be unjustifiable for the Government to sanction expenditure of this order from public funds for a school which might never be required.

The Inefficient Use of Space and Equipment

In the teaching laboratories and workshops of a university, all too frequently the 'efficiency of plant utilisation is deplorably low.' A discussion of this problem by Sir Eric Ashby will be found in Appendix G.

When overcrowding is absent, the laboratories and workshops, in all but the final advanced years, may be in use for no more than three or four hours a day during term, and in some subjects, and depending on the curriculum and time-table, perhaps on only two or three days a week. However, assuming that a workshop is in use for four hours every day of term and that the college is open from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. with an hour for lunch, then the plant is in use for 50% of the time during term. But three terms extend in all to about 26 weeks in the year so the plant is in use for only 25% of the available time. If it is in use on only three days per week during term then the plant utilisation efficiency sinks to a mere 12 1/2%, i.e. expensive plant which could be turning out much needed technologists and technicians is lying idle for seven-eights of the time during normal 'working hours' on week-days throughout the year. This is not the way to get an adequate return on a heavy capital investment.

The advantage from this point of view in securing co-operation between universities and institutes of technology is obvious. Such institutes cater for evening as well as day students. They also provide part-time and 'sandwich' courses and short specialised courses both in and out of term. Even allowing for the fact that time is needed for 'cleaning up' say one hour after each threehour class, then the plant can be in operation for nine hours each day (i.e. taking a morning, an afternoon and an evening class). Further, the working year for the plant is extended from 26 weeks to something more like a calendar year.

Such considerations are amongst those that have operated in so many centres elsewhere to ensure the co-operation and co-ordination of universities and technological institutes, particularly in the subjects of Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Chemical Engineering in which the capital cost of equipment is very high. In Dublin, can we afford, or is it logical to disregard this example?

Considerations in Regard to the Foregoing

We are of opinion that because of the lack of co-operation between the universities and the institutes of technology, the institutes have been forced into the position of providing full professional courses for those students who either cannot afford, or for other reasons do not wish, to attend a university. A position in the development of the institutes has now been reached in which