Pages 38 & 39

OverviewTranscribeVersionsHelp

Facsimile

Transcription

Status: Indexed

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 build-
ing 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. Con-
sequently 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 semi-
basement 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 semi-
basements.

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

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page