Papers of James Meenan – Move of UCD to Belfield

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