I join with other Deputies in congratulating Deputy S. Dunne on bringing forward this matter for discussion. Some people might think that, with various serious things happening in the country today, it takes the form of fiddling a bit to concern ourselves about the issue of whether or not a line of houses is removed but I do not think that anybody seriously holds that view. All naturalised Dublin people and Dublin people who have lived here all our lives are so attached to Dublin that any change in it is a change in our environment and, being conservative as most people are, in matters of this kind, at any rate, we resent the change and are frightened of what the change might bring.
It seems a little ungracious to say that I have not been completely convinced by the case made by people who want to retain these houses. It is rather an unusual situation for me that I am still in two minds about what is the best thing to do. Possibly Deputy S. Dunne may be able to help in replying to a few points which I think neither he nor any of the speakers completely brought out to my satisfaction. As to the ESB and their decisions, my general feeling about the ESB is that on the whole they have a good record in regard to standards in building. I do not agree with Deputy T. Lynch about aesthetic values in the building of a power house or substation. Maybe he has seen some ugly ones in Waterford but I have seen some in various parts of the country and I was surprised to find out that they were sub-stations. They appear to be attractive and at the same time functional, serving the two important needs of any building nowadays. It is quite likely that the ESB have these values very much in mind when they put forward proposals of this kind.
I have not been impressed by Deputy Dunne's suggestion that these houses could be used for living accommodation. In my view, they are most uncomfortable to live in and would not be manageable as residences any longer. Even assuming they could be made structurally sound—and that is suspect —I do not know if they could be made to provide flat type accommodation which would repay the outlay involved. I could agree with Deputy Cummins that the Gardiner Street attempted adaptation has turned out a complete fiasco. If given a choice of living in the converted Gardiner Street houses or in the flats that have been built opposite, I should certainly opt for the flats. That is a simple and important test. I have talked to people living in both types and there is no doubt that the Dublin people would prefer to live in the flats rather than the converted houses.
I do not think there is much validity in the suggestion that we could use these houses to provide the additional accommodation which is so badly needed in the city. I think such accommodation could be provided otherwise much more quickly and probably much more economically. A certain amount of criticism has been made of the ESB. They are a semi-State organisation and have acquired what we now know to be, at present market prices, an almost priceless piece of property. On the whole, we must give credit for this to the ESB. They bought this property when it was not in tremendous demand and it is now a great capital asset as a building site from the strictly functional point of view. There is great attraction in that idea. If we tell organisations such as the ESB—and this is common policy of the Parties— that they should be strictly functional and run on the lines of strictly paying their way, I do not think we can fairly ask the ESB not to develop this capital asset to the maximum and get the most value out of it. If that site were held, as has been said, by a commercial interest in the city, it would be developed to the full and, judging by precedents, without any serious regard to aesthetic results.
The ESB happen to have this very valuable property and you must make up your mind whether you will ask them to act the part of a national trust —it should be the function of such a body—and ask the consumers of electricity to foot the bill for maintaining this monument to Georgian Dublin. It seems to me that in this way you could retain this monument for the people generally. I know, as most people agree, that you cannot live in this type of house nowadays; neither can you work in it. Anybody who knows the vast rooms and high ceilings appreciates it is impossible to carry out, I should imagine, efficiently, the day-to-day work of the ESB in them. It might be possible for dress firms or embassies or people of that kind to work there but the buildings are not suitable as office accommodation. There is one exception, for what it is worth, that is, the blood transfusion service. Those responsible made a rather fine adaptation of their houses and allied the functional to the aesthetic. From what I can gather, I believe it would not be possible to do that with the Fitzwilliam Street houses.
You cannot work in them or live in them and the only case for retaining them is to do so as a sort of national monument. If you want to do that, clearly you must pay the price and somebody, presumably the State, must establish some sort of national trust to buy these buildings from the ESB at market price, which is very considerable. If people are serious about this proposition, they must face the situation that this must become a national charge and must be paid for in the form of taxation of some kind.
It is wrong to abuse the ESB for not doing something which the community should already have taken steps to do if they were conscious of the loveliness of the Georgian period and its influence on Dublin and its development. We should have ensured this dilemma would not arise. It is wrong to exonerate, as appears to have been done, the people responsible for the fact that Dublin town is falling down due largely to neglect of landlords over the years to maintain these houses in structurally sound condition. That is going back, all water under the bridge, and the realities are that the town and the houses are falling down and we are in the position in which if it is decided to keep these buildings, it is a matter for the Dáil and the Minister to decide. If Deputy Dunne is successful in persuading people to maintain this fade from Holles Street to Leeson Street a quite different body should be asked to take on that responsibility and the ESB should be compensated for their foresight in purchasing this most valuable property.
I speak now as somebody deeply devoted—if one can so express it—to the city of Dublin. This attempt to retain the existing physical environment is a rather worrying thing in a generation at any particular point in time. I worry about it because I feel that the forward-looking approach to it should be to say: "We must make our contribution towards this city. The city is a growing dynamic living thing and it is no good trying to fossilise or mummify it or keep it absolutely static at a point in time." There is some similarity between this movement— they may see it themselves and I feel great sympathy with them—and the language enthusiasts, because they are in the same dilemma, attempting to retain something that is hardly a practical propostion in existing circumstances. It is very sad and it is regretted by everybody. At the same time, it is a victim of the passage of time, the reality, and the possibility that we simply must move over and remove these buildings.
Is Deputy Dunne justified in his fear? I disagree with Deputy Cummins over a point he made. Look at Dublin. Deputy Cummins spoke of the tremendous achievement we have made over the years. Deputy Dunne is justified in being frightened of the next step. I do not believe Ballyfermot, Crumlin, Drimnagh and all these other places would be considered a tribute to our aesthetic values and our understanding of beauty. I consider it quite scandalous, while driving or walking through these places, that people live in the appalling anonymity of these houses. They are like one dog kennel after another. It must be terribly demoralising to live in them. I do not believe in time to come we will want to take steps to preserve those places.
If one looks around the city of Dublin at the present time and sees the buildings which are going up, I do not believe one will agree with Deputy Cummins that Dublin is a beautiful city. I consider the Dublin we are creating is appalling. I consider the new Liberty Hall and the other sheet plateglass buildings which are going up are horrible. I know there is one new building along the canal, the new insurance building, which has some beauty. Most of the buildings going up are without any personality and without any aesthetic value at all. Our churches are, pretty well without exception, vulgar and unimaginative. They are pedestrian at best in their general design and interior decoration, decor, furnishings and general equipment. Our hotels are much the same. They are completely lacking in imagination. There is appalling vulgarity in inside decoration.
I do not know where one can look to see some sign of hope that we will be able to create something as beautiful as, or even more beautiful than, the thing we are taking away. Deputy Dunne's fear is pretty well justified. I do not believe a country can lose, as we have lost, 1,000,000 people, and not lose artistic, cultural and intellectual talent of every kind. When we come to replace the Georgian fade with something as beautiful or more beautiful, we will find we simply have not got the talent to do so. In fact, we have not got any particular quality of people in any of our professions, medicine, engineering, journalism or politics. We have not got any particular architectural sense. We have not got anybody to equal such personalities as Joyce, Becket, Shaw and, even more recently, people like John Kenny, who have left the country and have left us mostly like hens pecking our own eyesight out. We are a dull, mediocre collection which has little or nothing to offer to the creation of a really beautiful Dublin to replace Georgian Dublin.
I am, as I say, torn between the functional and the beautiful. I do not see why one cannot marry the two, why it is impossible to have the two. The Taoiseach made a passing remark and said he was all for strictly functional. I know he was speaking without any serious thought but I am slightly frightened by that approach because it is one I tend to myself. I like things to be efficient and it occurred to me if one takes that view, one could take silver plaques and salvers and melt them down and make halfcrowns. You would have something much more valuable, in simple terms, than the silver salvers. Perhaps it is an expression of the faint-minded to say you can replace Georgian buildings with something as beautiful. I do not see that we have anything with which we can replace those buildings or that we have anybody who is likely to replace those beautiful fades.
At the same time, we have seen that it is possible to replace old buildings with new buildings which will blend with the old surrounding buildings. Deputy Dunne has to face that choice. Does he believe that the Georgian fade can be replaced by anything as beautiful or more beautiful? We have seen what has been done in various places in this regard. Trinity College is a very good example because it has tended to grow over the centuries. Some of the buildings are of appalling vulgarity and others are of absolute impeccable beauty. We have the engineering school on the one hand and then the horrible building which faces it. There is the likelihood that they will be able to produce a very beautiful library there.
I suggest to Deputy Dunne that it is possible to merge the beauty of generations with new buildings and to create ultimately a wholly beautiful block of buildings. The new Royal College of Physicians in London, I understand, merges with the old surrounding buildings. Most people say it is a very beautiful modern building. While it fits in with the old beautiful buildings, it does not appear to be offensive. It merges in with the surrounding buildings. So it is possible, I presume, that we could try to get that type of merger of a modern building with the old.
The only difficulty I face is that the Minister for Local Government cursorily said this afternoon that he had looked at plans which were to replace the site and he did not like them. He did not like those presented by the ESB and sent them back, asking that changes be made and when the changes were made, he said. "They are all right now and fit in with the Georgian architecture generally and you can go ahead." I think it was presumptuous to say that and I do not know what authority he had behind him to say that or justify the imprimatur he seems to think he could give on the design, as to what was acceptable, what fitted in and what did not.
It boils down eventually to an act of faith in our own time. I have no reason to believe we have any right to have any faith in the creative talents of our own time. I know none of the products of our architects generally which would lead me to believe that we can trust them with this replacement. Where we have had open competitions for the building of new buildings, such as University College Dublin new buildings and the Trinity College new buildings, none of our architects made any significant impact. It is presumptuous to say so but that situation tends to support one's view that they are not competent to cope with a problem of this kind.
Is it possible then, and would the Minister consider it desirable, because of the seriousness of the decision he has taken, and because of its importance, to lay down that it is most unlikely that we could create this ourselves? It is regrettable but it is true. You cannot have an environment, education and background such as ours and not have a full appreciation of the beautiful by artists or architects who might fully understand these things operating in these terms. In these circumstances, can the ESB be permitted to go ahead working on designs, the product of open competition on the same lines as competitions carried out elsewhere? If it is felt that is not possible, that it cannot be done and that it should be restricted, and that we are not likely to get as good, or more beautiful, then presumably you would be justified in retaining the fade.
With regard to asking the ESB either to take them over as a national trust or to build behind the fade, it does not strike me as a practicable proposition, and I would not be keen on it. There should not be an attempt merely to preserve them for another generation, a generation who possibly might not take them as of our generation. The general principle is that the beautiful is not really a negotiable commodity. Because of that, they should be preserved, irrespective of the price. They have the creative genius of a Frank Lloyd Wright or a Corbusier who could produce something so lovely that that generation would turn to them and say: "These we created." Instead, we are at the moment hiding behind an excellently fraudulent fade of derelict buildings. To me it is a measure of our own inadequacy and if we can do anything else, I shall be greatly surprised.
