This section is the nub of the Bill, the really important and critical part of it. I thank the Cathaoirleach who allowed me in my Second Stage speech to deal, very strictly within the confines of the planning scheme under this section, with Le Corbusier and the other architectural historians that I quoted. We should learn from the costly lessons of the past. What I wanted to say really was condensed in one part of my contribution where I quoted from Utopia on Trial, Vision and Reality in Planned Housing, London Shipman, 1985 which stated:
...most of the design features that have failed our tests prove, in retrospect, to stem from this Utopian vision. He was fundamentally right in one respect — that design can affect the character of a community — but whether the effect will be good or ill is something that can only be determined from factual evidence. Creativity is not enough. It should also be rooted in reality....
The central point I want to make was that creativity will not be enough. Neither will flair nor ingenuity. Realism is necessary. With regard to the scheme for this site — I am speaking of the 27 acres — it seems unlikely that housing can be fitted into it. We can fit houses and offices into many inner city areas. The suggestion has been made with regard to this area that we provide an entertainment complex which would have a cultural influence. I am sure that is something that should be considered, something along the lines of the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen which attract visitors from many countries. We have no major centre of that nature. Perhaps with regard to the docks area we could include a maritime museum. The idea of a museum which would be relevant to the walled area of the city was discussed in great detail. Something on the lines of the Pompidou centre in Beaubourg, Paris, for the performing arts which attracts visitors and is stimulating for the city, could be considered. Of course, there are developments such as Disneyland which attracts large numbers.
The vast bulk of the site we are talking of was zoned for industrial use. The Amiens Street strip and the ramp up to Connolly Station would seemingly preclude residential development. In this section there is only an obligation to consult Dublin Corporation. I would prefer if there was some greater input by the corporation and if they ensured that no encouragement was given to build offices across the street. Anything that could be built anywhere else in the city must not be built on this site.
There should not be too much emphasis on what is known as municipal housing because we have that all around us. With regard to the development the Minister spoke about, it is generally felt it is possible to have a six storey development in some areas before running into trouble. Of course, great care is necessary in the Custom House area. The Minister referred to a scheme which had eight storeys in parts. I recall that it was decided that no other building as high as Liberty Hall would be allowed in that area. Yet afterwards Irish Life got permission for a building 14 storeys high, almost directly opposite the Custom House. The Minister said that there is an interesting old warehouse there, the Crimean, where a banquet was held to celebrate the end of the war of the same name. I am glad that it may be considered desirable to retain that building.
It is important to think big. Without doing that we cannot achieve the success we want. When something is done properly it is appreciated. There are very many examples. Everything connected with DART was done well and I am not just talking about the carriages and engines. A new image was created and the public response was good. A large amount of money was very well spent on the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham. The private toll bridge linking Ringsend with the North Wall built by the Roche concern is commendable. As regards most of the inner city housing development, even though it might have been copied directly from London, I do not condemn it on that account.
Other examples are the parks, and Malahide Castle. Marley Park on the south side of Dublin has a high standard of landscaping and on that account there is very little litter. The Bray Road is pleasant to drive on and looks so good. We have the Powerscourt Centre, an attractive modern shopping complex, and the Irish Life Centre in Abbey Street. Design is important,
The Minister referred to sacrosanct rules. These should not exist. There are many areas where things do not work out. In my own town of Kells — I just mention this in passing — we have a mix of houses and flats for the elderly in the same housing scheme. The case was made by planners that this was the correct thing to do. One of the big headaches public representatives have in relation to elderly people living in those flats is that they complain about the problems they have with young people. The drawing board should be clear to start off with. The basic rule should be applied and that is that function comes first. Aesthetics are important as well but if the functional end is not achieved the whole scheme will be a mistake.
With regard to my amendment about retaining features, it is a basic rule in designing not to interfere with contours and features or to interfere with them as little as possible. This is always a problem. In rural areas the general guidelines are not to interfere with banks, hedges or ditches. People who build houses and develop around them want to have those removed. In the housing scheme in Kells when a beautiful bank and hedge were left as a feature, representations were made to the local authority to have them removed. They were removed unfortunately.
Consultation is very important. Depopulation of the inner city was mentioned. It is easy to get people out and to force them out but I am not sure if it is as easy to get them back. A culture has been lost there.
We do not have costings for this scheme but it would be helpful if we had some. Senator McMahon referred to the Minister's commitment with regard to this Bill. I do not doubt that in any way. When problems arose in the past I could not complain at the reception I got from the Minister. He was always understanding and as helpful as possible. I hope that while the Minister was not able to take on board any of my amendments he will accept them in the spirit in which they were offered. I am very pleased that he accepts the general idea in amendment No. 7. Perhaps in his guidelines he will be able to incorporate the spirit of some of my amendments. I take this opportunity to wish the scheme great success.
