Today's Library hearing testimony

There were hours of testimony today, I missed much of it. Still some good points were raised, as well as some obfuscations.

First, I have to say that I don't like modernist buildings much, and I don't think the MLK Library is all that functional. On the other hand, it seems INSANE to advocate for a smaller central library facility, albeit one that is newly constructed. That point alone is making me think we need to stick with the MLK Library, as much as I hate it.

Second, the numbers bandied about are questionable. According to this article about the Seattle Public Library, "Meet your new Central Library: It's both a testament to and test of civic chutzpah," the SPL was built at a cost of $273/square foot and the San Francisco PL was built at a cost of $480/square foot.

While the Mayoral estimates are that $100 million in private donations will need to be raised to build a new library, Seattle raised $14 million in donations (note that Portland raised private funds in its recent library renovation, to ensure the installation of high quality furnishings and other accoutrements).

The new SPL is 362,987 square feet. The SFPL is 376,000 square feet. Yet the plans for a new DC Central Library are for about 225,000 square feet.

The problems with the current proposal are:

1. The plan for a new library isn't comprehensive. (See the testimony below about the need for broader and comprehensive cultural development and management planning.)
2. To incorporate other functions, a new Central Library would have to be as big as the current facility at a minimum, or more likely bigger. Yet the current library is about 400,000 square feet (albeit poorly utilized), and the plans are for a facility at least 1/3 smaller!
3. Some people spoke in a misleading way about the cost of renovation vs. building new. Typically, rehabilitation is less expensive than new construction, especially if considering like quality construction. This is not what people said.
4. Some people had some good suggestions, but the proposed space in a new building likely can't accommodate much in the way of innovative uses. Teens from the Cesar Chavez School advocated for a teen center, while a representative from the Washington Philharmonic Society advocated for high quality performing arts spaces to complement other cultural functions and collections of the Main Library. The SPL devotes 116,000 square feet to books and printed materials.

One interesting quote from the SPL article:

Designers calculated that the downtown Barnes & Noble bookstore had 40 times the people traffic, per square foot, as the old library. Why? What was the public sector doing wrong that the private sector is doing right? They want to compete.

More resources:

Paper Chase: Nicholson Baker makes a case for saving old books and newspapers, a review of the book Double Fold. From the NYT review:

When Baker first began what looked like a second career as a ''library activist'' -- a 1994 New Yorker piece about the iniquity of dumping card catalogs, a 1996 speech in the San Francisco Public Library's auditorium, after that institution had sent books to a landfill because there wasn't room to store them -- I thought it was a noble, quixotic and essentially bum idea, like Rimbaud taking up gunrunning.

Today's Post has a piece by Ben Forgey advocating for keeping the current building, "Through Glass Darkly: D.C.'s Poor Vision for Library." And Mayor Williams had an op-ed in the Post a couple days ago about why we should move on..."Why D.C. Needs a New Library."

Here's my testimony (slightly edited):

Thank you Councilmember Patterson and members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak to you today about the "Library Transformation Act of 2006."

The bill calls for (1) leasing the current MLK Library building; (2) using the revenues from the lease to build a new library; (3) issuing $90 million of bonds; (4) $50 million to go towards the Central Library; and (5) $40 million to fund improvements to neighborhood libraries.

At this time, the bill raises a great many more questions than it answers and therefore it is premature to move this bill forward.

1. The Mayor's desire to put the DC Public Library system on a renewed path is laudable. We do need to build a community of learning.

2. The Library Task Force did a lot of work, but the conclusions are for the most part ordinary, and the report did not consider broad issues concerning the creation of a community committed to learning and knowledge. (For example, school library planning in conjunction with broader library planning, and access to school library and learning facilities at night and in the summers.)
3. Many "best practices" library and mixed-use library facilities were not discussed in the Task Force reports, including the Signature Theater-Library combination in Arlington County, Virginia, the Children's Theater and Library in Charlotte, North Carolina (Imagion); the combined San Jose Public Library-San Jose State University Library in California; the combined library and museum at Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri; the library-affordable housing mixed use development in Portland, Oregon; as well as the trends in the construction of new College "Unions-Learning Centers" and Libraries (which should mean the consideration of much later hours for the Central Library, perhaps even a facility with certain sections open 24 hours).

Part of the reason that many citizens fear mixed-use public facilities is that "as a community" the conversation and understanding of the urban design and placemaking advantages of such spaces has been inadequate (see the work of Jane Jacobs and others, especially the Project for Public Spaces) and so most citizens fear that mixed-use proposals are subterfuges designed to promote the privatization of public spaces and public assets. This is true of the Library Planning Process and in particular the "Listening Sessions" conducted under their auspices.

4. Also left undiscussed are the changing expectations that libraries must respond to as a result of changes in bookselling, in particular the quality of surroundings and selection in book superstores such as Barnes & Noble and Borders. This came up in the Listening Sessions numerous times.

5. The City lacks a comprehensive Cultural Resources Development and Management Plan, and this bill proves it. The Arts and Culture Element in the Comprehensive Plan should be looked to for guidance on this issue and yet, it possesses no such language. (This element of the draft plan needs to be completely rewritten.)

6. If the City wants to make a case for statehood, it could start by managing its cultural resources in a comprehensive manner, comparable to how states do so. For example, the Louisiana State Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism manages:
-- state parks, historic sites, and the state arboretum
-- state museums (5 in New Orleans, 1 in Baton Rouge, and 3 others)
-- state library and archives
-- historic preservation management including archeology
-- other cultural programs
-- tourism development.

7. Similarly, the State of Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission operates the State Museum, the State Archives, 25 other museums around the State, and the State Historic Preservation Office.

8. Yet, while the Executive Branch is pursuing the course outlined in the Library Transformation Act, it is for the most part ignoring other pressing Cultural Resources Development functions that should be incorporated into the planning processes for the Library system.

9. The City Museum failed to succeed financially, yet there is great demand for the kind of work it attempted to do*. Citizens expressed a strong desire for the library system to be involved in this kind of work at the Citizen Summit. Additionally, the DCPL Washingtoniana Collection and Georgetown Room are examples of the kinds of resources that complement the idea of a City Museum. It is reasonable to provide city funds for such efforts. (I have written extensively about this, including "Who Loves DC? -- More about DC tourism.")

10. Similarly, Washington, DC lacks a visitors center to orient visitors to the city both in terms of the Federal or National Experience that everyone thinks of when they think of Washington, as well as the local culture and historical tradition, as well as to serve as the primary staging point for tours.

List of the day's tours posted at the Annapolis Visitors Center, which is the primary staging point for tours of the city.

11. District Government archival requirements should be planned in concert with the Library Planning initiative. For example,
a. DC Archives should have easily accessible facilities available to researchers.
b. The Recorder of Deeds does not manage its collection of historic documents in a security and conservation controlled environment.
c. Many other DC Government agencies possess important documents that are inadequately stored and managed, such as the Department of Transportation, which stores important documents in unused freeway tunnels.

12. The Mayor has not presented a convincing case that the Martin Luther King Jr. Central Library is not capable of being renovated. And note, I say this as someone who is no fan of "modernism" architecture, and with the belief that as designed, the current library is nothing more than an office building outfitted with some books, and that it is impossible to make a great place out of such a "machine-like" place.

13. The Mayor has not presented a convincing case that a new Central Library, smaller than the current facility, would be an improvement.

14. It is unclear that the additional non-public funds to construct a new Central Library can be obtained.

Last week, the DC Library Renaissance Project had a teach-in on renovating and expanding the current MLK Library. I'm torn. The current library stinks. But it is bigger than the proposed new central library.

Moving to a smaller facility makes no sense--is no one familiar with the debacle of the new San Francisco Central Library, which did not provide for adequate space for storage--although it has grand public spaces including an atrium--which forced the library to "discard"--throw away--more than 100,000 books. We are by no means at a point where digital information has supplanted the need for (and space required to store) printed materials.

I don't agree with a number of the points made by the DC Library Renaissance Project. Mixed use isn't a bad thing, and it can help stabilize and revitalize neighborhoods. Plus, given the relative compactness of the city, it might make sense to have fewer neighborhood libraries but with greater depth and quality (although I think overall we do need more and better neighborhood libraries) given the easy accessibility of the Central Library from much of the city east of the Anacostia River.

(One way to consider this would be to have the Central Library, fewer but better neighborhood libraries, and to redevelop school libraries as joint School System-Library System ventures open to the public during non-school hours.)

I also think they are wrong in stating that improving neighborhood libraries is a more serious priority than improving the central library. These are equally important objectives.

The central library should be as good as a college library, with different kinds of depth and strengths of course. The DC Central Library doesn't compare to the average college library, with the exception of the Washingtoniana Collection. Overall, the collection is weak. I can't help but compare the DC Central Library to some of the central libraries I've visited such as New York City, Brooklyn, Cleveland, Houston, Portland, etc. (not to mention the cities with newly constructed libraries) and I shake my head.

Too often, architects, especially modernists such as the late Mies van der Rohe, design buildings as objects, personal expressions, rather than thinking through the issues and designing buildings to be great places for people. That's the difference between architecture and placemaking.

It's why I wonder if it is possible for the Central Library to be remade into a decent library.

In any case, I hope that this testimony communicates why it is premature for your Committee to move this bill forward.

The discussion up to now about these Cultural Management and Development issues has been inadequate. It is essential to deal with these issues. But we cannot afford to make mistakes.

It is up to the Mayor and his Cultural Affairs staff, as well as the Library System and the Task Force, to answer the many questions that have been asked throughout this process, but have been left unanswered.

Thank you.

Index Keywords: libraries