Pages 60 & 61 - Appendices

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 forth-
coming 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 over-
crowding 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 over-
draft. 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 depart-
ments 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 scien-
tific 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