Papers of James Meenan – Move of UCD to Belfield

60 U.C.D. and the Future

Appendix A

A NOTE ON THE COLLEGE'S EFFORTS TO EXPAND

During the last twenty years the College might have acquired a number of important properties in its immediate vicinity on the open market. Until about 1949, however, it seems that the necessary bank accommodation was not forthcoming and as a result the garage at the corner of Earlsfort Terrace and Hatch Street, which came on the market in 1942 and which could have been bought for £30,000, was not in fact acquired. Similarly, in 1945, the College wanted to purchase Mespil House and its 5 1/2 acres, but it was 'working on an overdraft and could take no action without the approval of the Department of Finance. The price which we were allowed to offer was exceeded by another semi-State body, and this chance was lost' (Report, Chapter 1, Appendix X). In 1946 'The Laurels,' Peter Place, was rejected as unsuitable for College purposes. It has recently been purchased by the Dental Hospital.

During the past ten years in which the accommodation problem has become so acute, the College seems to have abandoned any idea of expanding on the present site and to have committed itself entirely to the Stillorgan Road project. If even the Earlsfort Terrace site had been fully utilised by completing the original plan for the College, and the perimeter of Iveagh Gardens built on, a high percentage of the College needs would have been met and the gross overcrowding of the past decade would never have been experienced. The extra space required over and above that extension would now present a far less difficult problem.

The College quoted the building of the civil service canteen as its reason for deciding against expansion on its present sites (Report, Chapter 1, Appendix X): 'We made it clear that should the proposed canteen building proceed, the College could not remain at Earlsfort Terrace. In the event, that building was erected, and so the College began to look for sites in the Stillorgan Road area.'

This seems extraordinary in view of the fact that the canteen building occupies only a fraction of an acre. Very much more than this area became available in succeeding years. For example, since 1949 almost the whole of Upper Hatch Street and of the west side of Earlsfort Terrace has changed hands.

In 1949 the acquisition of the Stillorgan estates began with the purchase of 'Montrose' and 'Whiteoaks' for £64,083. 'Merville' was bought for £103,917 in 1951 and Woodview' for £22,835 in 1953. All these were bought on an overdraft. On December 1st, 1953, Dail Eireann gave its approval to a supplementary estimate enabling a capital grant to the amount of £200,000 to be made to the College in respect of its bank commitments. In the discussion on the estimate, the acting Minister for Finance said that the passing of the estimate in no way committed the Dail to any scheme of buildings at Stillorgan or elsewhere and the Government had not approved any such scheme.' (Report, p. 10, and Dail Debates, Vol. 143, cols. 1317-8).

In November 1956 the Government provided 'a grant of £20,000 for the development by the College of its grounds at Belfield.' The work carried out under this grant was not, however, confined to Belfield--the major project being the laying of a 20 ft. road, approx. 3,900 ft. long from the southern end of the site at Owenstown Park to Ardmore.

Appendices 61

Subsequent purchases, 'Byrne's Fields' in 1954, 'Belgrove' in 1955 and 'Thornfield' in 1958, and the exchange of 'Montrose' for 'Ardmore' in 1957 with the co-operation of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, completed the College's present holdings at the Stillorgan site.

'The total cost of all the properties, excluding the Belfield sports ground came to £255,438.' This public money was spent without any public approval and before ever the Government decided to set up a commission to consider the accommodation needs of the College. Indeed, the testimony of Dr. Roger McHugh to the Commission (Report, Chapter 1, Appendix IX) indicates that even members of the Governing Body of the College could not always gain access to the information with regard to these transactions to which we would expect they were entitled--the purchases, presumably being in their name.

Appendix B

COMMENTS ON THE VIEWS OF THE COLLEGE AUTHORITIES ON THE SCIENCE BUILDINGS, MERRION STREET

The letter quoted on pages 13-16 of the Report makes two of its points effectively: That the Science Buildings are inadequate for the number of departments housed there at present; and that they are far from satisfactory from the point of view of the Engineering faculty. With these we agree, and we point out elsewhere that they could largely be remedied by the removal of the Engineering faculty (and Geology) to another building and handing over the space they occupy to the remaining Science departments.

The letter makes four other points against these buildings:

(i) 'In the centre block all the rooms face north-west, and the sun shines on the corridors.' Light from the north is ideal for the work carried on in scientific laboratories and workshops and direct sunlight is frequently troublesome and even harmful. For this reason we cannot agree that this is a valid objection to the buildings.

(ii) 'The ventilation at times ceases to extract air.' Surely this could be remedied by simpler measures than vacation of the building?

(iii) 'The drainage system does not cope adequately with the effluent from the chemical laboratories.' Again, improved drainage should not be unduly difficult, and should certainly be much less expensive than vacation of the building and its conversion to a different use.

(iv) 'Althought Merrion Street is only about five minutes walk from Earlsfort Terrace, it operates very much as a separate unit . . . Thus, we lack another important feature of university life, the mingling of students of different faculties. This isolation also affects the staff in Merrion Street, many of whom never set foot in Earlsfort Terrace.'

To this there are a number of replies, for example the College's comments on the subject of the faculty of Agriculture (page 20 of Commission's Report) 'The separation of the third and fourth year students from the general body of students, the Commission was told, is not greater than the separation of the third and fourth year science students immersed all day in their laboratories, even though these laboratories are in the College proper. The real association

62 U.C.D and the Future

is in extra-curricular activities of societies, clubs, meetings, etc.' We may add that the same arguments apply to students of medicine, in their dissecting rooms, laboratories and hospitals, and to engineering and architectural students in their drawing offices, workshops and studios, as to the science and agricultural students.

In short, after their first year, all univsity students apart from those taking the humanities are segregated in workshops of one kind or another. And even the humanists, if they are working at their subjects, will be in their libraries and seminar rooms, equally segregated from each other and from the rest of the student body.

The fact of the matter is that any university student, if he is working at his subject is out of contact with the student body in other faculties during the working day. His contact with them is made briefly at lunch-time, and essentially in extra-curricular activities, in 'the pubs and coffee shops,' in the digs and halls of residence.

Again, the isolation which the staff of the Science Buildings are said to feel could best be overcome by the provision of adequate dining and common room facilities shared with the rest of the college staff.

If the Commission's recommendation to spread the proposed college more loosely over the whole of the 250 acre site at Stillorgan Road were to be followed, this isolation of the different faculties would be much greater than at present.

Appendix C

A NOTE ON ALTERNATE USES FOR THE STILLORGAN ROAD ESTATES

If it were decided to maintain U.C.D. on its present and adjacent sites the question arises of what to do with the estates on the Stillorgan Road, apart from the land at present in use as playing fields and required for their extension.

Several projects spring to mind:

1. The erection of student (and staff) halls of residence, recreation rooms, etc. after the model of the Cite Universitaire of Paris. The student body would thus be living adjacent to the sports fields, swimming pools etc., surely a better solution than having these amenities outside the classroom windows. (Some lesser recreational facilities might be retained on the city site, e.g. the tennis courts at present provided in Iveagh Gardens and, say, a small gymnasium).

2. Some of the inadequately housed and overcrowded schools in the city area might be offered sites at Stillorgan Road. The removal of some of these schools to the suburbs would benefit both them and the College by leaving property available in areas adjacent to Earlsfort Terrace. If for example, Alexandra College, the Sacred Heart Convent, Loreto College, or the High School were to vacate their sites their acquisition would enormously benefit U.C.D. in its programme of expansion.

3. Some Government offices might be transferred to new buildings on the

Appendices 63

Stillorgan Road site. A move in this direction has, in fact, already taken place as a result of the Government's decision to locate a central Radio and Television Authority on the 'Montrose' estate, thus removing Radio Eireann from the G.P.O. Buildings.

4. It is to be noted that, because of pressure in the city centre—in particular traffic and parking problems—there is a growing tendency, favoured by Dublin Corporation, for industrial and commercial concerns to move out of town and that the Stillorgan Road is a district of choice. We may mention in this regard the recent move of Esso Ltd. to this area.

Further, the open land immediately adjoining the College estates on the west (and southwest) is gradually being encroached upon by industry. Indeed the College's Architectural Advisory Board is concerned by this matter (Report, Chapter 1, Appendix IV) and recommends that 'Consideration should be given to the acquisition of additional lands adjoining Byrne's Fields as a safeguard against unsuitable future developments and incidentally to eliminate an inconvenient enclave.'

Considering all the above points it is obvious that there would be little difficulty in finding alternative use for any land surplus to the College's requirements for playing fields, student amenities and halls of residence in this area. In fact a handsome profit might yet accrue to the College by the development of any such surplus.