[Archipants]

I am curious to hear others' comments on the recent central library proposals.

A link to the WSJ story

Fiore's proposal - viewed from W. Wash and Henry

T.Walls proposal - viewed from Mifflin and Fairchild

[ShaneDog]

Fiore has better graphic artists working for them.

[ShaneDog]

Actually disregarding my previous, snarky comment, I really am interested in these two proposals. The most important part, though, is the floor plan layout and internal details which are not available in that article.

[harrissimo]

I love libaries but can we really afford to be building a new central library?

[Uncle Fester]

Modern libraries are basically just homeless shelters with Internet access.

[Henry Vilas]

Modern libraries are basically just homeless shelters with Internet access.

So that's how you are able to post on this forum. Stay warm.

[snoqueen]

I'm trying to overlook differences in the software they used to do the renderings and see the underlying design proposals.

I think the rounded glass tower on the Wall proposal will look dated in a decade or two, as will the lattice thing at the tower's top.

Also, I observe that buildings with one "feature" corner between two relatively boring, long sides do not wear well over time. I'm thinking of both the blue Kastenmeier courthouse design and the Thompson building at the south corner of Fairchild and W. Wash. On the courthouse, nobody even uses the original front door today. The long flat sides of the Thompson building seem monotonous and aren't fully redeemed by the drama on the corner. For that reason I think a conventional rectangular design (like the Fiore plan) might be preferable if attention is paid to making each street face interesting.

On the other hand, I question how sensible the huge south-facing (or southeast) windows on the Fiore design would be in a library or reading room. If people are watching videos or using the internet, a more subdued light level is preferable. If books are stored near the windows, the spines will fade. If people are reading, they'll be asking someone to pull the shades. A computerized sun study will make clear how much of the day those rooms will be in direct sunlight, and how deep into the building the light will go in summer and in winter.

The Wall plan faces north, northeast, and northwest instead of south, but both designs have window/sunlight issues in my opinion. Perhaps the final design will need recessed windows to shade the rooms.

Last, my ideal new library would incorporate either an outdoors garden space or an interior area with plants and sunlight. This is in keeping with the city's new emphasis on green features for all its new buildings. We can't tell yet if either of these proposals incorporates a garden feature.

Overall, I think both these design proposals are too generic to be used for decision-making. They are attractive, but they could be offices, could be ANYTHING. I believe library officials and the city need to draw up a list of desirable features to submit to the developers, who could come back with new designs created around this wish list. For instance, do we want the building to have upper floors dedicated to other uses, or will it be solely a library?

I am offering these comments respectfully -- coming up with a concept for a new building is hard and both these designs are a good start, if only because they give us something to talk about.

[white_rabbit]

Modern libraries are basically just homeless shelters with Internet access.

Do you hate books? Personally, I love books. I love to hold them, read them and I love the smell of musky old books. Books are the depository of all human knowledge, inspiration, ideas and thoughts and should be respected, even in this day of RAM and computers.

There was recent segment on NBC Nightly News about how many people are turning to public libraries during this current Republican caused economic catastrophe to be able to read a book, check out a DVD or apply for a job online. You seem like a bitter, sad and lonely old man. Maybe you should visit the library for a little companionship, you might actually meet someone who has a home or find a book that might help alleviate some of the venom spittle you constantly spew. Peace.

[spanky]

The Fiore proposal is FAR superior in my opinion (based on the limited information provided to date). Here's why:
1) It is a much more aesthetically pleasing design. (I do agree with snoqueen regarding heat gain and shading of the southeast facing facade, I would recommend sunshades and screening at the facade as opposed to an opaque wall or tinted glass).
2) It proposes a library as a stand-alone use not a tenant in a multi-use building - much more appropriate for a civic structure.
3) It avoids the 2-year downtime for the Library inherent in the Wall proposal.
4) The only way to avoid the Wall proposal's downtime is to double move the library to a leased location (where exactly no one seems to know), and then back to it's current site; this generates an added cost that hasn't been accounted for in cost comparisons that I have seen.
5) It locates the library on West Washington which I believe is more appropriate for the Central Library than a Fairchild or Mifflin address.
6) It frees the current library site for a use more in line with the arts district.

[snoqueen]

Double-moving the library does sound expensive and chaotic.

Maybe they could put it in the lobbies of the Overture Center, since that's under-used.

Hey, maybe they should LEAVE it there.

[Archipants]

I agree with Spanky and Snoqueen on this one. T. Wall's design is completely dated. The crown gimmick at the entry element is just that... a gimmick, and will not serve any purpose, being that it is located on the wrong side of the building to provide any sun shading. It's been done... blah. I am really digging Fiore's entry concept. What a novel idea: put the entry on the south side of the block... affording more sunshine and landscaping opportunities. It appears much more civic minded.

It seems that the T. Wall approach is to offer a an office building that the library would fit into instead of taking the opportunity to give the City a truly civic building. From what I understand of the designs, the Fiore concept incorporates natural limestone into the exterior wall system, which might be problem for the T. Wall design, given the price they've offered. One of the biggest flaws of the T. Wall proposal is that the library would be a "tenant" of the overall building. From my understanding, the library will not have access to a freight elevator or a dedicated loading dock. Hello!? This is a central library with many branches - some sort of loading facility will be needed. Closer examination of the T. Wall plan has library deliveries crossing the main building lobby and public spaces... that will get old really quick!

The Fiore concept includes a dedicated loading dock with freight elevator. Because the library is independent of the rest of the development, there will be no conflicts as in the T. Wall plan.

As for the outdoor garden that Snoqueen mentioned. The Fiore proposal did include 16K s.f. green roof on the south side of the block, which I hope would be accessible to the public (at least during the warmer months). The T. Wall proposal, from my understanding offers a "park in the sky"... but not in the library's space AND on the wrong side of the block so it will always be in shade (behind 222 W. Washington).

Interesting stuff...

[green union terrace chair]

... this current Republican caused economic catastrophe ...

lol

Double-moving the library does sound expensive and chaotic.

Maybe they could put it in the lobbies of the Overture Center, since that's under-used.

Hey, maybe they should LEAVE it there.

Best idea I've heard yet.

[TAsunder]

2) It proposes a library as a stand-alone use not a tenant in a multi-use building - much more appropriate for a civic structure.

That's the clincher for me. I don't get why anyone would think that would be a good idea. Is this something common in library buildings?

[green union terrace chair]

2) It proposes a library as a stand-alone use not a tenant in a multi-use building - much more appropriate for a civic structure.

That's the clincher for me. I don't get why anyone would think that would be a good idea. Is this something common in library buildings?

The only valid argument for a multi-tenant building is that it will help pay for the library's construction (and in this economy, that might be a persuasive point).

You've got to weigh that with any cons you see in the arrangement.

[Archipants]

The only valid argument for a multi-tenant building is that it will help pay for the library's construction (and in this economy, that might be a persuasive point).

You've got to weigh that with any cons you see in the arrangement.

I was just talking to a colleague of mine about that very topic this afternoon.

I think the idea of a library as a tenant in a larger multi-use development is a valid idea, specifically in a branch library situation (see the Sequoia branch on Midvale). Though I think building in a dependency on a other leases is a mistake in this economy... if a major tenant falls through, the library is toast (see the Hilldale/Whole Foods development). In the T. Wall proposal, I think it is going to be hard to market the tenant spaces as Class A office space with a civic space sharing the same lobby, the limited parking available under his plan, and the entrance hidden on Mifflin.

Again, the city needs to take a hard look and decide if this is something that needs to be built. This city could sure use a new library, but it could also use a number of other things as well.