I LAUGHED out loud driving to work, so preposterous seemed the idea I'd just heard on the radio. Due to the renovation of Leinster House, the Seanad would be moving into the Natural History Museum, itself now closed for renovation.
Obvious puns aside, the museum has been closed for months so that preparations can be made for the first comprehensive refurbishment of this landmark building and its collections.
In the midst of complex arrangements for storage and refit, the museum staff must now be experiencing uncertainty and pressure, as the possibility increases that their own renovations will be delayed, and the Office of Public Works appears willing to risk the long-term integrity of one historic building for the benefit of another.
The longer this absurd plan hangs in the air, the more likely it is to become real.
Since 1922, there has been a history of government nibbling away at the space and funding of the Natural History Museum to suit its own purposes.
Leinster House was the museum's original home, taken over in 1922 from the Royal Dublin Society by the nascent Free State.
The Dáil restaurant is located where there was once an annexe housing fossils and geological collections.
In July 1929, in response to a Dáil question about the availability of the collections, minister for education JM O'Sullivan replied: "The section of the museum buildings available for the display of. . . the special collection of Irish geological specimens was in use until recently for the purposes of the Dáil restaurant, kitchen, buffet, etc. It is hoped that these rooms will be restored at an early date for museum use . . ."
Nearly 90 years later, the museum is still waiting to recover that space - the annexe was subsequently demolished and no replacement space provided, though the Dáil restaurant and bar live on.
The long curved corridor connecting the museum and Leinster House, which also held display areas, was similarly appropriated, never to be replaced.
The records of Dáil and Seanad debates are peppered with similar instances indicating government's willingness to compromise the museum's resources.
In a 1957 debate on the Tourist Traffic Bill, Senator Owen Sheehy Skeffington of Trinity observed: ". . . in thinking about the Natural History Museum, we might recognise that these houses of parliament of ours are largely responsible for the cramped conditions in the museum.
"By force of circumstances, we have encroached upon space which could all have been well used by them. I am afraid we have had to link their problems rather with the problems of our own space economy in our own building here. In that sense, we are doubly responsible. . ."
Does the responsibility multiply in the case of the same expedient solutions being employed yet again?
The most infuriating part of the current suggestion is the idea that this iconic institution and the experience it provides will be denied to its adoring public for longer than necessary, when alternatives are feasible.
The Natural History Museum is very much a people's museum, attracting a broad spectrum of admirers with its odd charms. The collections, housed elsewhere, would not be the same; this museum is a discrete totality of objects, architecture, design and history, wherein all the pieces create a rich and unique whole.
The building itself is central to the overall configuration, demonstrating a Victorian thought process in which science, learning, aesthetics and the variety of life itself were woven inextricably together. There are few places in the world where one can experience this 19th century reasoning directly. The renovation and reopening of this one should not be delayed for the convenience of a few while it is denied to the many.
In order to make this "portakabin," as one senator would have it, habitable, plans are afoot at Government level to spend millions in outfitting the existing space for the Seanad's temporary occupation. In addition to the fact that this process will place further pressure on a building already in need of attention, the money would be far better spent in reversing the historical neglect to which the museum has been subjected.
Historical renovations are often costly and time-consuming, and the publicised budget of €15 million for reconditioning a Victorian building, which has had no comprehensive repair since its construction in 1856-57, seems inadequate.
Quilligan Architects, engaged by the Office of Public Works to do the renovations, have a lovely image on their website showing the proposed extension which will finally provide proper facilities for visitors, rooms for special exhibitions and well-lit working areas for staff, redressing some of the historical deficits in space for exhibitions and facilities.
The sooner they commence their work, the better, and we can have our wonderful landmark back, sparkling and sound with improved access and amenities.
As to portakabins, if they are deemed suitable for schoolchildren all over the country, I see no reason why any senator should object to being housed in one. Perhaps several in the "temporary" car park which was once Leinster Lawn would suffice for interim chambers - a few small chandeliers might dress them up, leaving money and resources free to restore the museum to its public as soon as possible.
Sherra Murphy is a lecturer in visual culture at the Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology, and is currently pursuing a PhD on the Natural History Museum at UCD's school of history and archives" The budget of €15 million for reconditioning a Victorian building, which has had no comprehensive repair since its construction in 1856-57, seems inadequate