Is Provost's Garden freely accessible from campus?

Anita Blow

There's also pool tables in the GMB.

As has been said, there is a shortage of development space on-campus, but there's by no means a shortage of green space. We have the cricket pitch, new square, the rose garden, fellows square and that little green outside the physics building to sit and relax, and you'll even find many people sitting out in front square.
I think a lot more is lost, in terms of the provost's quite reasonable right to have a private garden for him and his family, than is gained in terms of another green space which will likely be underused.

In my opinion, not everything in the college has to be a commodity that should be exploited to encourage more tourists etc. The rare nature of students getting to experience the garden on Trinity Monday, or the other seldom occasions the garden & house is opened up to others such as the Global Graduate Forum last Summer adds to the character of the garden and how lucky it is as a student of the college to be invited there.

hfallada

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Trinity annoys me soo much, sometimes! Why couldn't students pay a quarter of the fee for every year of use they get? We don't have a venue for gigs or nightclub, though. The sofas in the Arts Block cater only for that end of campus and aren't in any way sufficient, and Goldsmith Hall is most unpleasant. IMO, TCD campus life is pretty bad, and having somewhere with pool tables (not ones that cost six quid!) and general hang-out areas would encourage more people to stay on campus during lunch, and bring about more activity on campus during evenings. A university without a student centre is, surely, most unusual.

Edit: just reread. "Over €100" PER YEAR? :eek:

TCD couldnt possibly be any more in the center of the city. Why does TCD need a nightclub when there is about 20 within 15 mins walk? Plus everyone in TCD has a different taste in music.

A student center is need in UCD and DCU, where the campus is miles from the city and anything entertaining. There is countless cinemas, cafes,restaurants, bars within mins walk of TCD. A student center would be nice, but not necessary. Why do people need to hang there during lunch? IMO its better to go to a different place to eat everyday, rather than being forced to eat the daily special in a massive, dull dining hall like NUIM.

Lawliet

There does need to be more places to hang out and eat lunch, but there doesn't need to be an entire Student centre for that, if they could just get more seating in main areas and find a few more rooms around campus to throw some tables and chairs into. Very simple and low cost.

Mr Pseudonym

Anita Blow wrote: »

There's also pool tables in the GMB.

As has been said, there is a shortage of development space on-campus, but there's by no means a shortage of green space. We have the cricket pitch, new square, the rose garden, fellows square and that little green outside the physics building to sit and relax, and you'll even find many people sitting out in front square.
I think a lot more is lost, in terms of the provost's quite reasonable right to have a private garden for him and his family, than is gained in terms of another green space which will likely be underused.

In my opinion, not everything in the college has to be a commodity that should be exploited to encourage more tourists etc. The rare nature of students getting to experience the garden on Trinity Monday, or the other seldom occasions the garden & house is opened up to others such as the Global Graduate Forum last Summer adds to the character of the garden and how lucky it is as a student of the college to be invited there.

The GMB pool tables were referred to in a previous post: I said, "...somewhere with pool tables (not ones that cost six quid!)..."

One is not allowed on the grass at New Square, Fellows' Square, Front (Parliament) Square, or Library Square.

I feel I'm being painted as someone who wishes to rob the Provost of privacy, and remove all luxury. Allowing public access to the garden would not effect the Provost's privacy, though it would reduce the luxuries of the position. I'm really quite surprised that so many posters feel that a private garden the size of Fellows' Square is justifiable!

The best argument for the retention, IMO, is that it is primarily used for ceremonial occasions. Are you really arguing that it should remain private so that the experience of the overwhelming minority of students is heightened at the expense of others, though?

hfallada wrote: »

TCD couldnt possibly be any more in the center of the city. Why does TCD need a nightclub when there is about 20 within 15 mins walk? Plus everyone in TCD has a different taste in music.

A student center is need in UCD and DCU, where the campus is miles from the city and anything entertaining. There is countless cinemas, cafes,restaurants, bars within mins walk of TCD. A student center would be nice, but not necessary. Why do people need to hang there during lunch? IMO its better to go to a different place to eat everyday, rather than being forced to eat the daily special in a massive, dull dining hall like NUIM.

The huge variety of options in Dublin has the effect of fragmenting the student-body, and doesn't encourage a community.

There are bars in Dublin, yet TCD has one. So, there may be reasons for having a club despite an abundance elsewhere. But, I wasn't suggesting there be a regular nightclub - just that there be a space where one could be hosted.

The Lost Sheep

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

The GMB pool tables were referred to in a previous post: I said, "...somewhere with pool tables (not ones that cost six quid!)..."

One is not allowed on the grass at New Square, Fellows' Square, Front (Parliament) Square, or Library Square.

I feel I'm being painted as someone who wishes to rob the Provost of privacy, and remove all luxury. Allowing public access to the garden would not effect the Provost's privacy, though it would reduce the luxuries of the position. I'm really quite surprised that so many posters feel that a private garden the size of Fellows' Square is justifiable!

The best argument for the retention, IMO, is that it is primarily used for ceremonial occasions. Are you really arguing that it should remain private so that the experience of the overwhelming minority of students is heightened at the expense of others, though?

The huge variety of options in Dublin has the effect of fragmenting the student-body, and doesn't encourage a community.

There are bars in Dublin, yet TCD has one. So, there may be reasons for having a club despite an abundance elsewhere. But, I wasn't suggesting there be a regular nightclub - just that there be a space where one could be hosted.

There is huge variety in all places. Trinity doesn't need a space where a club could be hosted it would be a waste of time and resources better used elsewhere
Allowing public access would definitely affect the Provost privacy

Mr Pseudonym

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Trinity doesn't need a space where a club could be hosted it would be a waste of time and resources better used elsewhere. Allowing public access would definitely affect the Provost privacy.

...In your opinion. Obviously, I'm entitled to mine.

The Provost's House is accessed from the front; the living quarters are on the upper floors. How would it effect privacy?

bscm

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

The Provost's House is accessed from the front; the living quarters are on the upper floors. How would it effect privacy?

Simple right angled triangles. The line of sight in that garden extends to the upstairs windows. You'd have to tint them to keep privacy (or keep all visitors close to the windows to prevent their line of sight from reaching the windows). Not an easy task on a listed building as I've mentioned earlier.

Also there's the noise issue, unless the Provost has some sort of super, sound-proofed glazing, he's going to hear loud students and tourists all day (it's impossible to keep people quiet outside, unless we steal UCD's Librocop and install him in this garden).

I personally wouldn't want to look out my window and see a group of Spanish students hitting a football against my door (seen that play out at the pomodoro today), or students sunning themselves with cans of Bav.

Mr Pseudonym

bscm wrote: »

Simple right angled triangles. The line of sight in that garden extends to the upstairs windows. You'd have to tint them to keep privacy (or keep all visitors close to the windows to prevent their line of sight from reaching the windows). Not an easy task on a listed building as I've mentioned earlier.

Also there's the noise issue, unless the Provost has some sort of super, sound-proofed glazing, he's going to hear loud students and tourists all day (it's impossible to keep people quiet outside, unless we steal UCD's Librocop and install him in this garden).

I personally wouldn't want to look out my window and see a group of Spanish students hitting a football against my door (seen that play out at the pomodoro today), or students sunning themselves with cans of Bav.

Given that the house is in the centre of town, I'd imagine the windows are sound-proofed! Windows are far from the ground, and one is unlikely to be able to see into them during daylight hours (gardens would be closed after that).

Librocop? Hmm...Provocop? Actually, no - PSNI might think we're moving in on to their turf.

I won't argue on this point any more, but I think you and others exaggerate the level of potential activity. I don't ever remember seeing someone playing football anywhere but on the pitches, so don't think it's gonna happen. Garden is close to the security hut in Arts Block, so could be monitored.

Anyway, based on responses to this thread, I won't make it a central pillar of any potential run for SU presidency!

234

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Given that the house is in the centre of town, I'd imagine the windows are sound-proofed! Windows are far from the ground, and one is unlikely to be able to see into them during daylight hours (gardens would be closed after that).

Librocop? Hmm...Provocop? Actually, no - PSNI might think we're moving in on to their turf.

I won't argue on this point any more, but I think you and others exaggerate the level of potential activity. I don't ever remember seeing someone playing football anywhere but on the pitches, so don't think it's gonna happen. Garden is close to the security hut in Arts Block, so could be monitored.

Anyway, based on responses to this thread, I won't make it a central pillar of any potential run for SU presidency!

You have argued yourself into a corner. In order for college to justify taking the garden off the Provost there would need to be substantial student usage. However, this is the same thing that would affect his ability to enjoy the rest of the property.

If you are saying that he won't be put out because not many people will be in the garden then there is no real justification for taking it off him anyway.

Mr Pseudonym

234 wrote: »

You have argued yourself into a corner. In order for college to justify taking the garden off the Provost there would need to be substantial student usage. However, this is the same thing that would affect his ability to enjoy the rest of the property.

If you are saying that he won't be put out because not many people will be in the garden then there is no real justification for taking it off him anyway.

I don't agree. But, I have argued myself to the point of apathy.

Thanks for your contributions.

Extrasupervery

234 wrote: »

You have argued yourself into a corner. In order for college to justify taking the garden off the Provost there would need to be substantial student usage. However, this is the same thing that would affect his ability to enjoy the rest of the property.

If you are saying that he won't be put out because not many people will be in the garden then there is no real justification for taking it off him anyway.

Well spotted. If other green spaces in college are under utilised then why make a fuss of seeking another. This was a silly argument.

Mr Pseudonym

Extrasupervery wrote: »

Well spotted. If other green spaces in college are under utilised then why make a fuss of seeking another. This was a silly argument.

I'm unused to being dismissed in such a manner.

In your previous contribution to this thread you implied that "hordes of people" would use the garden were it allowed. It was relative to that that I cited other areas as not being thronged. However, given that students aren't permitted on the lawns of the squares, and the area outside the Fitzgerald is an unpleasant place to sit, perhaps there are reasons why the other green areas are underused.

As for 234's "well-spotted" argument, the justification for "taking" the garden need only be that better use would be made of it were it publicly accessible.

Lawliet

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I'm unused to being dismissed in such a manner.

Why does that not surprise me.

Mr Pseudonym

Lawliet wrote: »

Why does that not surprise me.

Erm...I don't know. You'll have to tell me.

234

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

As for 234's "well-spotted" argument, the justification for "taking" the garden need only be that better use would be made of it were it publicly accessible.

Not really. Better use might be made of my house if it was opened to the public. Same goes for a lot of private property. You have to balance the public good against the legitimate ownership/occupying interest.

Mr Pseudonym

234 wrote: »

Better use might be made of my house if it was opened to the public. Same goes for a lot of private property. You have to balance the public good against the legitimate ownership/occupying interest.

Were your house owned by someone else, they may, except in some circumstances, legitimately chose to do that.

Edit: I understand your point about "legitimate occupying interest", but I don't believe a half-acre garden (nor, necessarily, any garden) is a legitimate requirement - but let's not argue that again.

234

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Were your house owned by someone else, they may, except in some circumstances, legitimately chose to do that.

Not really. Just because somebody owns property doesn't given them an absolute right to do with it what they will. If somebody else owned my house, but nevertheless leased it to me, they couldn't just decide to open it up to the public.

Similarly, the Provost is not staying there at the whim of college. His entitlement is defined in his contract with the college. It's not some kind of ongoing gift, he has an actual right to it. It is part of the bargain that the college enters into when they elect a Provost.

Mr Pseudonym

234 wrote: »

Not really. Just because somebody owns property doesn't given them an absolute right to do with it what they will. If somebody else owned my house, but nevertheless leased it to me, they couldn't just decide to open it up to the public.

Similarly, the Provost is not staying there at the whim of college. His entitlement is defined in his contract with the college. It's not some kind of ongoing gift, he has an actual right to it. It is part of the bargain that the college enters into when they elect a Provost.

Come on, mate - this is fatuous now. If the College wanted to make the garden public, the Provost is very unlikely to block it on the basis that. Also, neither of us (I presume) has seen the contract.

234

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Come on, mate - this is fatuous now. If the College wanted to make the garden public, the Provost is very unlikely to block it on the basis that.

The likelihood of the Provost blocking the idea doesn't go to the merits of the proposal. 12 years old children are unlikely to object to cutting the children's allowance, but that doesn't say anything about whether it is a good idea or not.

Mr Pseudonym

234 wrote: »

The likelihood of the Provost blocking the idea doesn't go to the merits of the proposal. 12 years old children are unlikely to object to cutting the children's allowance, but that doesn't say anything about whether it is a good idea or not.

You're now mixing arguments.

234

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

You're now mixing arguments.

I would say that it was in fact you last post that mixed arguments. You conflated the likelihood of opposition with the merits of the proposal.

Mr Pseudonym

234 wrote: »

I would say that it was in fact you last post that mixed arguments. You conflated the likelihood of opposition with the merits of the proposal.

"Conflated the likelihood of opposition with the merits of the proposal"? I did no such thing!

Evan93

I think it has been established that Mr Pseudonym thinks the garden should be accessible. Well, next time I find that the cricket pitch is akin to New Delhi at rush hour I'll just have to take myself elsewhere, but where could somebody find large green areas close to Trinity...oh wait.

the_syco

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

The GMB pool tables were referred to in a previous post: I said, "...somewhere with pool tables (not ones that cost six quid!)..."

They still get damaged regularly?

Mr Pseudonym

Evan93 wrote: »

I think it has been established that Mr Pseudonym thinks the garden should be accessible. Well, next time I find that the cricket pitch is akin to New Delhi at rush hour I'll just have to take myself elsewhere, but where could somebody find large green areas close to Trinity...oh wait.

Using that logic, shouldn't all green areas be built on?

Extrasupervery

Mr Pseudonym

I was lying on the grass behind the Campanile today and was shouted off ("hello...HELLO - get off the grass!"), so I can confirm that there isn't much freely-accessible grass. I was in UCD earlier, and it was a pleasure to be able to lie on the grass by the lake without risk of reproach.

Because of the diversion between Front and Fellows' Squares, I walked right past Provost's Garden. I was surprised that the only boundary is a hip-high railing with a locked gate - there's little privacy. I agree with what someone above said, though - it doesn't look particularly appealing!

Allow me to make another "fuss" - I think we should be allowed on the grass when it's not water-logged or at risk of being damaged. Would that have more support from posters to this thread?! Maybe just Library Square (behind the Campanile) because it's less of a traditional quadrangle lawn.

Extrasupervery

I always thought the 'keep off the grass' signs in college were super wanky. It's grass, ffs.

quadrifoglio verde

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I was lying on the grass behind the Campanile today and was shouted off ("hello...HELLO - get off the grass!"), so I can confirm that there isn't much freely-accessible grass. I was in UCD earlier, and it was a pleasure to be able to lie on the grass by the lake without risk of reproach.

Because of the diversion between Front and Fellows' Squares, I walked right past Provost's Garden. I was surprised that the only boundary is a hip-high railing with a locked gate - there's little privacy. I agree with what someone above said, though - it doesn't look particularly appealing!

Allow me to make another "fuss" - I think we should be allowed on the grass when it's not water-logged or at risk of being damaged. Would that have more support from posters to this thread?! Maybe just Library Square (behind the Campanile) because it's less of a traditional quadrangle lawn.

I would 100% support this. That was the main part of my other argument, the grass is so sacred in trinity, that even if we were for some strange reason given access to it, we wouldn't be allowed on it.

I never understood the whole your not allowed on the grass bull **** in nice decent weather like today. Especially when they go and erect massive tents and have thousands trampling all over it at the ball. :pac:

Mr Pseudonym

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I would 100% support this. That was the main part of my other argument, the grass is so sacred in trinity, that even if we were for some strange reason given access to it, we wouldn't be allowed on it.

I never understood the whole your not allowed on the grass bull **** in nice decent weather like today. Especially when they go and erect massive tents and have thousands trampling all over it at the ball. :pac:

Also, I've seen a few times that if people go on the grass in enough numbers, "they" don't bother clearing them!