Sir, - I read with interest Frank McDonald's excellent article on drinking in Temple Bar and the indignant responses it has provoked. Leaving aside the one or two letters supportive of McDonald's article, those responses can be divided into two groups: those from the representatives of subsidised institutions in Temple Bar (The Ark, Arthouse, The IFC and Temple Bar Properties among others) who cite the success of those institutions as evidence that the "objectives have been attained" and those that take McDonald to task for what they see to be his class bias. More than one response, like that of Laura Magahy of TBP (April 24th) has even ingeniously combined the two defences. All of them seem to have missed the point, however, which is this: There is too much drinking in Temple Bar and this situation could have and should have been prevented.
Ah, yes, but too much drinking for whom? For "those who may prefer a bourgeois cultural quarter all to themselves"? Or, to ask the related but more nebulous question put forth by Antoinette O'Loughlin (May 1st): "What is culture,?" Why is not drinking to excess in a pub just as legitimate a manifestation of culture as is, say, photography or street theatre? Well, surely it is and not simply because its effect is to make the view out my window on any given night resemble a scene out of Hieronymous Bosch. Indeed, as a recent immigrant, to this country, I can say that it is one of the elements of the culture that I have learned to accept and even, yes, enjoy.
But just as it would not do for Dublin's Cultural Quarter to have street theatre groups getting in one another's way on each and every corner, surely it is unacceptable for that one aspect of culture - drinking - to dominate the area as it does. Indeed, street theatre on every corner would be preferable to the current situation for at least theatre spectators don't (usually) vomit after the experience. And this is the important point. Far from "containing a comprehensive mix of everything that one wants in the city centre" as Magahy puts it, Temple Bar is rapidly becoming an area hospitable to only two sorts of entities and their patrons: heavily subsidised institutions that serve up art and heavily subsidised (via tax incentives) institutions that serve up beer. There are of course other heavily subsidised institutions like the IFC and the Temple Bar Music Centre that have hedged their bets by serving up both, as McDonald points out.
If the artistic institutions are a welcome part of the Temple Bar experience, the excessive numbers of pubs have made the area an inhospitable one for residents and businesses alike. If this is not so, perhaps Laura Magahy can address some of the points made in McDonald's article: why is it that businesses such as Padania, the Italian grocery, have closed while what would seem to be prime retail locations remain vacant? As for the residential side, how is she to explain that my brand new building with its quite attractive apartments has at least one apartment (out of nine) that has been vacant long term, and has also seen a very high rate of turnover in the rentals of the other apartments in the nine months that I have lived here, despite the fact that the rents are comparatively reasonable?
Here's a hint, gleaned from my conversations with some of those who have left: it's the drinking. Please note that the form in which the alcohol is consumed is irrelevant. When faced with the vomiting and abusive gangs that pass by my apartment every weekend it is entirely immaterial whether they are tanked up on Guinness or on Chateau Yquem. Furthermore, Laura Magahy doesn't seem to realise that the excessive drinking in Temple Bar is being carried out by people who are bourgeois for the most part. Its not as if beer is somehow in itself a working class drink.
One need only look at more vibrant and successful areas in other cities to have an idea of what Temple Bar could have been had the developers of the project been a little more forward thinking or conscientious. Haight Ashbury in San Francisco is an example of a mixed use area that works: a vibrant neighbourhood with an excellent mix of commerce, cultural activities, residential areas for people of various incomes and a few bars. True, the Haight has historically had something of a drug problem. But it differs from Temple Bar in one important respect: in Haight Ashbury the conditions for the abuse of intoxicating substances have not been put in place by the authorities. In Temple Bar, unfortunately, they have. - Yours, etc.,
Temple Bar Square,
Dublin 2.