Una Mullally: Money talks with Dublin City Council when it comes to spaces for artists

At this stage, one should never be shocked by the communication skills of Dublin City Council, but nevertheless, they still keep some surprises in the tank. Recently, they rattled the arts community in Dublin (again), with some correspondence from Richard Shakespeare, the assistant chief executive of the council.

On Richmond Road in Dublin 3, a group of artists have been struggling with uncertainty over their studio space. It looks like the building will be sold, so they approached the council for help. Mr Shakespeare was not forthcoming. “The fact that you find yourself in an ‘unacceptable’ position where you have to find alternative accommodation and potentially go through an open and transparent process to gain access to City Council property, is your issue, not the City Council’s,” Shakespeare wrote to the artists. “The belief that the City Council is the panacea to your problem is nothing short of astounding.” The rest of the letter ended with, “At this point in time I do not see the need to discuss the matter further.”

It’s very obvious that these artists are desperate for help, and open to any kind of support or offer. Like many they were operating in a “meanwhile use” situation in their building. They are low key, head down, doing their work, and trying to provide artists with an affordable haven in a city devoid of them. How awful, when you do ask for help, this is the response from the local authority.

But one thing in Shakespeare’s correspondence stuck out to me. Shakespeare mentioned the “open and transparent process” that is necessary when it comes to council buildings. So why then, did Dublin City Council go down this route when it came to a building they did in fact own, and were approached not by artists, but by Holtend Ltd, a business within Paddy McKillen jnr and Matt Ryan’s Press Up group. Holtend approached the council late in 2021, when an artist studio they were running in Dublin 2 essentially faced an eviction scenario. Dublin City Council agreed to enter into an 11-month license, with rent set at €20,000 for the year. The building is on Chatham Row, formerly TU Dublin’s Conservatory of Music and Drama, and is now called The Dean Arts Studio.

‘I’m alone pretty much all the time. The older I become, the less hopeful I am this will change’

---

Brazilian Deliveroo rider who intervened in Parnell Square attack: ‘I had time to think about what my purpose in life is’

---

The least famous best player the NBA has ever had: ‘I really wish nobody knows me’

---

Look inside: Regency villa near Monkstown seafront for €3.75m

---

When I asked Dublin City Council where the “open and transparent process” was in this case, they said there was none. “Given the special circumstances that applied in relation to the Chatham Row premises and especially the fact that only an 11-month temporary licence was being offered, the normal requirement for an open and transparent process was waived,” they told me. So who is made navigate an open and transparent process, and for whom is that waived? And why? The council has also engaged Colin Mulberg Consulting to assess the building’s suitability, most likely for a small museum. It would obviously be better, given the needs in the city, if the building was kept for working artists.

For some, this kind of set up is exactly what the council should be doing. An entity with deep pockets, such as Press Up, wants to take a building, put some money into it, and house artists there out of the goodness of their hearts. This happened quickly and efficiently, and now the building houses a diverse collection of artists who no doubt are very grateful for a space in a city that has bulldozed them in recent years, given the scale of corporate and commercial gentrification ongoing. I don’t think anyone can fault or blame an artist or group for availing of a space offered to them. Perhaps there is a symbiosis that can be reached, where corporate entities, the council, and artists can all benefit from this kind of collaboration. Given the cultural space and amenities crisis in the capital, perhaps we need to demand that commercial development comes with a purchase and renovation of a derelict building then gifted to the council or co-operatives for artistic use.

Don’t get me wrong, we all want more artist studios, but what does it say about a broader value system when public buildings for artists seem to only be viable when there’s a large corporate entity involved. Who gets to own the city? If we have now ended up in a scenario where corporate entities are pushing an open door in the council, and independent artists are having one slammed in their face, how can this be made work for everyone? And if a new fast-track process has been created, how can this be extended to everyone to create an equal playing field?

Arts funding has increased during the pandemic, but everyone knows pilots such as the artist basic income — while very welcome — will see a lot of cash rerouted back to landlords. The issue is rent affordability and access to space. The Arts Council, and the Minister, need to prioritise capital funding to secure buildings for artists. If the council is unequipped when it comes to managing buildings, making buildings safe, liveable and functioning, then why is that? Why are they so badly resourced that they outsource? Where is the funding to secure studio spaces and buildings for artists on long-term leases or in co-operative models? Studio spaces are disappearing faster than they are emerging, and yet dereliction in the city is rife. We need a culture-first approach to empty units and vacant buildings not suitable for housing, instead of public servants snapping at artists left scrounging for scraps.