I gave notice of my intention, on the Adjournment, to call the attention of the Government to the conflict of opinion regarding the proposed new municipal building at Wood Quay, Dublin, and the conflict between the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland and Dublin Corporation, and, in view of the consequent public uneasiness regarding the project of the municipal building, to suggest Government mediation in the matter.
Now, the Minister has left us with several headaches over this Local Government (Superannuation) Bill, among them the headache of deciding when, for example, unfitness becomes infirmity when we do not know what unfitness is. The Minister may think I am putting down this motion in revenge in order to give him a headache. That is not the case, of course. I am paying him the compliment of thinking he would be an admirable person to offer to intervene or mediate in this current dispute.
The dispute, as Senators are aware, is about the proposed site of the new municipal building, which is bounded on the south by the Liffey, on the north by Christ Church and on the east and west by Fishamble and Winetavern Streets. It is a site which is conspicuously historic and which demands extremely careful planning. The criticisms which have been made of the plans of Dublin Corporation, the published plans, appear to me to fall under roughly four heads. The first is that the planning appears to have been unduly rushed. The selected architects were given a very short time to prepare the plans, and, in fact, were placed under a very severe penalty of £100 a day for delay over the stated period. There also seems to be a certain amount of uneasiness due to the confusion over the type of building intended. The corporation, on the one hand, in correspondence with the Royal Institute of Architects, maintain that they propose a simple building which cannot be regarded as a municipal building in the accepted sense of the term. On the other hand, the plans which have been published appear to be those of grandiose and monumental buildings.
On technical grounds, the institute have levelled certain criticisms against the plans. For example, they show offices only on one side of the corridor, whereas, in modern planning of large offices, the reverse is the case, and it seems to the institute that this present planning, with offices only along one side of the corridor is wasteful of space and is bound to increase cost. Also there is a good deal of public uneasiness over the cost among taxpayers and ratepayers because there seems to be a considerable disparity between the amount visualised by the corporation, which is roughly £500,000, and that roughly estimated by the institute, which is between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000. There is the further fact that the plans show land being built on which is not at present the property of Dublin Corporation at all.
The result has been that professional comment has been extremely critical. The Irish Architect and Contractor has already criticised in an editorial the proposed building and it is pointed out, with some dismay, that, where you have the modern bus station, or modern airport, or even the modern factory applauded when it is contemporary in style, the style envisaged in this proposed new municipal building is about 30 years out of date. Some criticism has also been levelled in the English Architects' Journal, and I would like to quote very briefly from the issue of 6th October, 1955. It says: “We have our fair share of rubbish in this country, but it is mainly sponsored by the dimmer forms of private enterprise. No major city in this country, down to the level of Cardiff, say, would allow its corporation to be housed in the type of building shown here”—it shows a sketch of the proposed buildings—“but bearing in mind the trouble Michael Scott had over his bus station, one might well surmise from this latest effort that the phase for modern architecture is over, or ending, in Ireland.”
I find among the architectural graduates a great deal of uneasiness over these various criticisms which have been levelled against the proposed plans. I do not speak as an architect, but as one who is bound to meet architects, and I find them extremely uneasy about the whole project. Some of them feel that the contention of the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland that the plans are wasteful of space, destructive of the amenities of the river bank and in basic conflict with the Abercrombie plan, is correct. Whether it is or is not correct, it is quite certain that the conflict between the institute and the Dublin Corporation has caused widespread uneasiness. The average Dubliner is fond of his native city and likes to see it well done for, and all Irishmen, I think, would like to see the capital's historic sights properly preserved and added to in the best contemporary style. Young architects, in particular, feel there is little chance for contemporary architecture, which they are versed in, if buildings of obsolete style are to be erected.
Therefore, in the hope that the Government would perhaps exercise its good offices to allay this uneasiness by mediation, I have raised this matter. I have raised it briefly and, I think, in the most correct form because I think a motion which would have divided the House would be a bad thing. I have raised it in a form which would enable the Minister perhaps to mediate. I believe he is quite capable of dealing with this very difficult problem.
