University College Dublin and the future : a memorandum from a research group of Tuairim, Dublin branch, on the report of the Commission on Accommodation Needs of the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland : with special reference to

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

38 U.C.D. and the Future

of the College should first be solved before the building for future expansion is undertaken. It writes (Report, p. 38) (our italics):

'The allowance for expansion in the estimate, 100,000 sq. ft. nett, is not an immediate requirement and in so far as it may be possible to do it the erection of this 100,000 sq. ft. nett of building should be postponed until the minimum nucleus (500,000 sq. ft. nett) has first been built. Our purpose in making this suggestion is to relieve public funds of the cost of buildings not yet required . . .'

Again in its summary of conclusions (Report, p. 45):

The estimates of the College's total accommodation requirements, 610,000 sq. ft. nett, contains an allowance for expansion of 20%. The College's total immediate requirements is therefore of the order of 500,000 sq. ft. nett. So far as it may be possible these immediate requirements should be provided first . . .'

It must be remembered, of course, that these quotations refer to the building of a complete new College. If expansion takes place from the existing buildings then the immediate requirements to be provided first amount to only 340,000 sq. ft. nett, i.e. 500,000 sq. ft. nett less 160,000 sq. ft. nett of existing sound floorspace.

In order to site faculty buildings so as to allow of convenient future expansion by the estimated 20% (or somewhat more if possible), we regard it as desirable that sites adjacent to the present holdings be acquired. The Engineering school in particular must be evacuated from Merrion Street and it would be preferable to place it elsewhere than on Iveagh Gardens. Consequently we recommend the acquisition of adjacent sites between the College and the Canal as discussed full in Section V.

B. CRITICISM OF THE COMMISSION'S STANDARDS

1. USE OF THE 'RULE OF THUMB'

The 'rule of thumb' suggested by architects to the Commission, that one acre of ground space is required for the erection of any building in which the gross floor space is one acre (43,560 sq. ft.) is adopted to ensure that sufficient light and air, and enough land for approaches, dispersal, etc., be available around the building. It is not, however, an inviolable 'rule.' It is a useful guide when buying land. It is usual in reckoning the area of a city site to include in the measurement of the depth of the site the footpath and adjacent roadway to the midline. This has not been done in the areas considered above and consequently the floor areas of the buildings contemplated might be appreciably increased.

When a projected city building is to lie alongside a park or other open space (e.g. excellent wide roadways), then obviously the associated open space need not be purchased in order to provide the light, air, approaches, etc., required by current architectural practice.

Suppose, for example, the College were to acquire the houses on St. Stephen's Green, South, from the corner of Earlsfort Terrace to the Passport

U.C.D. Accommodation Needs 39

Office. The total ground space occupied by these houses is approximately 26,000 sq. ft. There is no architectural rule which would prohibit the erection on the same area of a building having a gross floor area of 104,000 sq. ft. distributed over four floors, for this is close to the floor space that exists on this site at the moment. There is no architectural rule which would prohibit the provision of still more floor space in a much higher building on this site. The necessary light, air, approaches, etc., are provided by the expanse of the Green and the surrounding roadways.

Indeed, it can be said that if skyscrapers were to be erected in Dublin, then the above and similar sites alongside our open spaces would be the sites of choice. The Commission was aware of the necessity of having open space associated with high buildings, when it wrote (Report, p. 30): 'High buildings require a considerable area of open space about them.' But it did not, in its brief dismissal (Report, p. 32) of the possibility of acquiring any property on St. Stephen's Green, South, take into account the fact that the sites of existing houses here are surrounded by open space — Iveagh Gardens at the back and the Green on the front. We will refer to this area again in Section V of this Memorandum.

2. ATTITUDE TO BUILDING HEIGHTS

In a short paragraph in Chapter I, p. 30, of the Report occur two statements of crucial importance:—

(1) 'High buildings in the Iveagh Gardens would be out of character with the existing buildings and the surrounding neighbourhood'

(2) 'High buildings are generally considered not suitable for the ordinary purposes of a University.'

The opinion of an expert is quoted as indicating that the buildings should be of 'orthodox height' and favouring 'groups of two or three-storied buildings.'

We must examine these statements in some detail for it is largely by the acceptance of these and misapplication of the 'rule of thumb' that the Commission drives itself from the Terrace/Gardens site and compels itself to declare that no solution is possible, other than the erection of a complete new college on another site.

(1) The first statement is a matter of opinion—similar opinions are always expressed whenever a 'modern' building is to be erected alongside those of earlier days. We do not agree that high buildings would be out of character with the existing buildings and most certainly, they would not be out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. The dwelling-houses in Earlsfort Terrace (now occupied by Alexandra College) rise four storeys above a semibasement and look down on the existing College buildings, as do the dwelling-houses in Upper Earlsfort Terrace which rise four and five storeys above a semi-basement. The houses along Harcourt Street and St. Stephen's Green, South, rise at least four storeys above a basement or semi-basement, and are at least as high as the College buildings. On the east side of the Green houses rise to five and, on the north side, to even six storeys above semibasements.

We see no reason for rejecting on aesthetic or any other grounds the erection

40 U.C.D. and the Future

of buildings on the site to a height at least equal to the tallest existing buildings around St. Stephen's Green, or even a storey or two higher, with still taller blocks if required, e.g. for a library 'stack.'

It is worth pointing out that on the site recently acquired by Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann Teo. (which runs from Earlsfort Terrace, almost opposite the College, to Lr. Leeson Street), we understand it is proposed to erect what newspapers headlined as a 'Skyscraper for Dublin'—an office block of eight storeys. We understand also that the Harcourt Street Station site might yet be acquired by an interested party, with the object of erecting on it a multistoreyed hotel block. In fact it might be said that only high buildings would be in character in this neighbourhood.

(2) The second of these sweeping statements of the Commission — 'High buildings are generally considered not suitable for the ordinary purposes of a University'—is put forward as a matter of fact. We contradict it and indicate our evidence below.

Neither we, nor any reader of the Report, know what exactly passed between the expert and the Commission. We have only the Commission's very brief version of the evidence, and with this we cannot agree. We most certainly cannot agree that 'buildings of two or three storeys' are 'orthodox' for a modern university either inside or outside a city. From the facts given above regarding the number of storeys in existing buildings in the neighbourhood it will be seen that two or three storeys are not orthodox even for dwelling houses in this part of Dublin.

Let us now look at some modern university and similar teaching blocks elsewhere. Amongst the new university buildings in Britain recently completed, under construction or planned—some of which were visited by members of the Commission and plans and models of others were shown at the exhibition which they saw at Reading—we may note the following:—

Sheffield—an Arts block of 13 storeys with other blocks of six and seven storeys for Biology and Physics. Southampton—a block of ten storeys for Engineering. Birmingham—a seven-storey Chemistry block. Liverpool—a nine-storey Physics block adjoining the laboratories and workshops. Aberdeen—a five-storey Chemistry block. Cambridge—a Chemistry block of seven storeys. Oxford—blocks of seven and nine-storeys for science and Engineering. Dundee—a 12-storeyed tower for teaching and administration. Imperial College, London—a Mechanical Engineering block of nine storeys. Newcastle—a six-storey block for Physics. Manchester—an Arts extension of six storeys.

Amongst colleges of further education we note:- Harrow—eight storeys. Ipswich—eight storeys. Harrow—seven storeys. Mansfield—six storeys.

U.C.D. Accommodation Needs 41

It must not be imagined that all the above buildings have been forced upwards by restricted sites—some of them are planned for quite open sites. A judicious balance of tall tower-like blocks with lower buildings grouped around them is common modern architectural practice for such complex institutions. If one wishes to keep five thousand students, and the university staff, in reasonably close contact with each other, then one must build upwards.

We could go on to quote innumerable examples of multi-storeyed university buildings in other countries abroad but we will content ourselves with pointing out that the most common height of the relatively new buildings at Rome is five storeys above ground level. We understand that at least one member of the Architectural Advisory Board went and inspected the Rome buildings on behalf of U.C.D.

In view of this evidence we feel that it is perverse to favour what the Report calls 'an orthodox two or three storeys' for new university buildings in this country. We have failed to locate any modern university that has confined itself to two or three storeys. The nearest approach to such an arrangement is that at Aarhus, in Denmark, where three and four storeys are the rule. This institution, however, is neither the largest in its country nor is it the university of a capital city, nor does it cater for five thousand students. The mere fact that a 'domestic style' of architecture has been found suitable for Aarhus would be no reason for suggesting that the same style is suitable for U.C.D.

We should like to make it clear, however, that if a reasonable amount of ground is acquired in the vicinity of Earlsfort Terrace (e.g. the 8.8 acres suggested in our sample scheme), the total requirements of U.C.D., including 20% for expansion, could be met there by building to no more than four or five storeys.

3. TYPES OF UNIVERSITY LAYOUT

Three main types of university layout are at present recognised:

1. The Collegiate—typical of the older 'Oxbridge' universities in which the buildings in the main centre around quadrangles, the 'colleges' being essentually residential.

2. The City Block type—characteristic of the newer 'Redbrick' universities and centred in industrial cities.

3. The Campus Style of university—essentially American in origin—having the buildings disposed over a wide area of parkland.

It is the third type which the Commission recommends building on the Stillorgan Road site. It accepts without question the College's prior decision to build such a university. That decision was taken as early as 1949, without any public enquiry as to suitability and without a thorough examination of possible alternatives.

It has yet to be shown that the Campus type is better or even as good as the other type of layout. Authoritive opinions can be quoted to the contrary. It is certain that it disposes its students and staff over a much wider area than the other types and equally certain that it is by its nature isolated from the city and from the community.

42 U.C.D. and the Future

In disagreeing with the suggested site plans proposed by the College's Architectural Advisory Boards and in suggesting (Report, p. 38) that the faculty buildings should be spaced out over the whole of the 250 acre site, the Commission has shown itself less wise than the experts. For the architects were aware of the grave difficulties attendant on such open planning as is recommended by the Commission and of the attempts currently taking place in Britain to rectify the worst excesses of the sprawl-planners, as at Keel, Reading and Nottingham. In the case of the last-mentioned, which has 'for the first time in a University, an "open" plan based on access by car, motorcycle or bicycle,' efforts are now being made to have at least part of the original plan 'drastically tightened up and re-landscaped,' although 'unfortunately the rest of the scheme seems likely to be left in its present scattered state.' All this, after the university has been half built!

We consider that the sites extending from St. Stephen's Green southwards to the Canal (or, taking the broad view, extending from the Green northwards to Nassau Street) are ideal for the development of a sequence of quadrangular enclosures. Such expansion by cellular or courtyard plan would embrace all the essential qualities needed in university buildings. Both teaching and residential blocks in Trinity College are so disposed around quadrangles, and the Science Buildings in Merrion Street might be considered as another such enclosure. Others could centre on Iveagh Gardens, the 'Station site' and 'The Lawn' (see sections V & VI). These three quadrangles would be immediately adjacent to each other, and the Science Buildings (if retained) would be only five minutes' walk away. Thus the faculties of the College would be more closely united than in the Commission's scheme. Such a quadrangular type of development is at once compact yet bright and airy, keeps both students and staff in close contact, and even within a city faces inwards, like the 'Oxbridge' colleges, enclosing its own precincts and shutting out, but not completely excluding, the outside world. Such a university within a capital city appears to us to be the ideal—it makes the best of both worlds.

D. W. Brogan, writing in the 'Cambridge Journal' (1952, V, 210), considers that the great civic university, closely integrated with the life of its city, has a considerable advantage over the older, more isolated cloistered foundations. If that be true of the provincial universities in the British industrial cities, how much more true it could be of a new U.C.D. fully integrated with our capital and situated in its very heart. 'Let the rulers of the civic universities of England (and Scotland) reflect,' writes Professor Brogan, 'that they, not Oxford and Cambridge (or Yale and Princeton) are the normal universities of the modern world.'

4. ATTITUDES TO COMPULSORY PURCHASE

One of the most extraordinary features of the Report is its refusal to recommend powers of compulsory purchase of property. In the case of U.C.D. the Commission writes: 'We would hesitate to recommend the granting of compulsory powers. The disturbance to homes and business would be too great' (Report, p. 31). Elsewhere in the memorandum we show (Section V) that, in fact, the disturbance need not be great.

In the case of University College, Cork, one member of the Commission goes so far as to insist on having a four-line minority report of his own,

U.C.D. Accommodation Needs 43

dissociating himself from the recommendations in so far as they 'may imply or contemplate the control and/or acquisition of adjacent private property compulsorily.' The property in question is open land as yet unbuilt on, which adjoins U.C.C. and which it obviously must have if any logical development is to take place.

We are at a loss to understand this extreme aversion to compulsory control in a matter of national importance. Compulsory powers are available to local authorities and to statutory bodies such as the E.S.B. for daily invocation, if needed, in such relatively minor matters as straightening a road, widening a bridge, or erecting a small transformer station. Under the Town and Regional Planning Acts various powers of compulsion are granted for a variety of matters including, if need be, 'for the preservation of views and prospects.' More interesting still is the fact that all Vocational Educational Committees have (under the 1930 Act, Sec. 28) powers of compulsory acquisition. Yet the University Colleges are to be denied such powers in their pursuit of the important work of expanding facilities for higher education.

It is to be noted that if the recommendations of the U.C.D. Architectural Advisory Board (as set out in Appendix IV, page 4, to Chapter I of the Report) be accepted in full, then for the widening of the Stillorgan Road, if the amenities of the proposed new college are to be preserved, compulsory powers may have to be invoked by the local authority to acquire private property on the east side of the road. Thus the apparent evil which the Commission is determined to avoid on sites adjacent to Earlsfort Terrace may become inevitable on sites adjacent to the Stillorgan estates.

In its final chapter (p.124) the Commission declares: 'A solution of the Dublin College's accommodation problem in the vicinity of Earlsfort Terrace could be made possible only by large-scale compulsory acquisition of valuable residential, business, and hotel premises. We could not recommend such a course.' Reading this, an outsider unacquainted with the district would be led to believe that the College is sited in the heart of a densely built-up residential and business area. One might think that large blocks of important commercial or industrial buildings were involved. But, as we show elsewhere, this is not true and, further, no hotel property need be involved.

It is quite natural to dislike the idea of disturbing people in their homes. But in the areas which we consider might be acquired immediately by U.C.D. the number of homes is minimal, and anyway many people are content to be disturbed if offered a reasonable margin above the current market value of their property. The process of acquiring property in areas adjacent to Earlsfort Terrace does not necessarily involve the legal machinery of compulsory acquisition. The ordinary processes of purchase have first to be tried. We feel that the position in regard to this question was well summed up by Mr. P. Callinan, F.R.I.C.S., when he wrote in the 'Irish Builder and Engineer': 'The College should long ago have had granted to it powers for the compulsory purchase of property, as whatever objections can be raised to the granting of such powers, they are trivial when compared with the handicap on a statutory body of being without them.' (See Appendix I).

In this particular matter the disruption to the life of the College, and the damage to its place in the community, caused by the proposed move would be so great as to far outweigh the objections to granting such powers (which

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 necessarily 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.