Pages 40 & 41

OverviewTranscribeVersionsHelp

Facsimile

Transcription

Status: Indexed

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 multi-
storeyed 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 neighbour-
hood 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 con-
trary. 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.

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page