Pages 44 & 45 - V. A Study of Adjacent Sites

44 U.C.D. and the Future

could be subject to the approval of the Government, or exercised by it on
behalf of the College). Further, the granting of thesse powers does not neces-
sarily mean that they would ever be invoked. The mere possession of them
would render more easy the acquisition of property by normal means.

V. A STUDY OF ADJACENT SITES

A. THE COMMISSION'S REJECTION OF ADJACENT SITES

"We began with our work,' writes the Commission (Report, Chapter I,
p. 28), 'by seeking for a solution of the College accommodation problem
in the vicinity of the main College buildings at Earlsfort Terrace.

Every circumstance indicated to us that that was the proper course
-the necessity for maintaining the pysical unity of the College, the
College's place in the city and in proximity to libraries and galleries,
the avoidance of disturbance to the life of the College which would
occur if the College were to be moved, and considerations of economy.'

In short, the Commission was convinced that a move is undesirable and
that if a solution to the problem of the College's accommodation needs can
be found in the neighbourhood, that solution should be adopted. We propose
to show, having regard to the facts outlined in the preceding sections, that
such a solution can be found, and without the 'large-scale compulsory acquisition
of valuable residential, business and hotel premises' which the Commission
seems to think necessary (Report, Chapter 4, p. 124). We contradict it in its
assertion on this point.

The Commission gave 'lengthy consideration' to two blocks of property
which together stretch from Hatch Street to the canal and are marked 'B1'
and 'D' on the outline plan of the Earlsfort Terrace area (Attachment IV to
Chapter 1 of the Report. See also our Map* at the end of this Memorandum).
It also considered the question of acquiring the whole of the east side of
Harcourt Street as far as Hatch Street together with the whole of St. Stephen's Green, South, and made a passing mention of the impossibility of acquiring
the whole of the blocks bordered by Lr. Leeson Street, Adelaide Road and
Earlsfort Terrace. Naturally the immediate purchase of the whole of any
one (or any combination) of these latter blocks would cause widespread
disturbance, and such ideas were dismissed by the Commission as impracticable.
We contend that such widespread acquisitions are not at all nececssary, that
more limited objectives will suffice, and that these can be achieved with little
or no resort to the machinery of compulsory purchase.

The Commission made no mention whatsoever of the block marked 'B2,'
the Harcourt Street Station site, although it was long known that C.I.E.

*Our map covers the same area and carries the same letters to denote the blocks
as does that given by the Commission. However block D as considered by us is slightly
different from block D as considered by the Commission. We include the C.I.E.
property and exclude the houses in Adelaide Road and Harcourt Terrace, the Commission's
block includes these houses and omits the railway viaducts.

A Study of Adjacent Sites 45

intended to close the line, and indeed the closure was carried out and the
advertisements for its sale had appeared in the press before the Commission
presented its final Report.

Having considered blocks B1 and D the Commission writes (Report, p. 31):

'We came to the conclusion, however, after considerable discussion
that a solution of the problem by extension towards the canal was not
practicable. These blocks, we are satisfied, could not be acquired within
a reasonable period except by the exercise, in large measure, of compulsory
powers. We would hesitate to recommend the granting of compulsory
powers. The disturbance to homes and business would be too
great.'

Presumably, if these blocks could be acquired within a reasonable period,
and if compulsory powers did not have to be invoked, or only in small measure,
and if the disturbance to homes and business were not too great, the Commission
would have come to a different conclusion. We propose to show how
this desirable result of acquiring sites contiguous to the College can in fact
be so achieved.

B. A RECONSIDERATION OF THESE AND OTHER ADJACENT SITES

Block B1

We agree that at the moment the acquisition of block B1 would be difficult.
We note that when the Commission was first appointed a large section of this
block, formerly the site of St. Matthias's Church had not yet been built on;
it is now fully occupied by the new premises of the General Electric Company.
If this building could be purchased, it is of a type that could readily be used
as laboratories, workshops or drawing offices. We also note that in this block
two houses in Upper Earlsfort Terrace which might be used by the College
for, say, its administrative staff, are occupied by the Department of the Gaeltacht.

Block D and Adjacent Areas South of Adelaide Road to the Canal

The C.I.E. property in this area, hitherto occupied by railway lines as
they fanned out to enter the station - a series of viaducts covering store-rooms,
etc., is now available and could be demolished. This property presents a
frontage of 200' along Adelaide Road.

Without at present acquiring the houses along Adelaide Road or the houses
in Harcourt Terrace, a block of aproximately 4.5 acres can be obtained in
this area by acquiring the following:

(a) 'The Lawn' (recently purchased by the Dental Hospital).
(b) The C.I.E. property extending from Adelaide Road to Charlemont Place on the Canal.
(c) Three houses and gardens - Nos. 10, 11, 12 Peter's Place.
(d) A small light engineering company occupying the site of No. 9
Peter's Place and the old railway engine shed.
(e) Three further small light industrial projects - Nos. 15, 21a and 22 1/2
Charlemont Place.