Wizard wrote:
>So far, I sense a lot of 'monument to
>the board and director' feelings behind the idea of a new
>structure. It's far more important to me that the structure
>exhibit a design suitable for a public library as opposed to
>a research library (like the Vatican archives) or a library
>like the Library of Congress designed for copyright
>information and to serve the Congress of the US.
I agree that we should be looking at the proposed
designs and not just the architects -- it seems downright
dumb to pick an architect without looking at what they
have in mind to have built.
On the other hand...having grown up in the Washington
area with the Library of Congress as my Mecca, I could
think of far worse models to emulate. It is a beautiful building
that is much more than a repository for copyrighted materials
and a lending library for Congress. It is part museum, part
research library, and a totally cool place to hang out and
read in. I spent most of my freshman summer plowing
through the LoC's back issues of "Astounding Science
Fiction," which was simply not available from any of the
other county or city libraries in the area.
>For example, MPL boasts a sizable collection, but much of it
>is hardly usable. First, there is a massive amount stored
>in a warehouse because it's seldom used and is allegedly for
>"research" purposes. However, to save space, the books are
>stored by size, which makes it usable only by virtue of a
>lot of staff time hunting for particular volumes.
I find it hard to believe that this is the case. I have asked
the staff for some fairly obscure 19th century works which they
have been able to produce in less than an afternoon -- if they
do in fact have rare or seldom-used materials off-site, I daresay
they are tracking it better than you think they are.
>Besides which, a public library is not a research library, even
>though MPL tries to tout that feature.
Tell that to the schoolchildren and college students who
use MPL for that very purpose. I and my children have mined
the neighborhood and Central libraries for years to find materials
to cite in our papers. Research is always one of the functions
of a great library, which the MPL certainly is.
>Second, it's been a long many years since MPL has done a
>thorough weeding of books. If, for example, the large
>collection has 25 copies of a 1920 etiquette book and
>similar numbers of other outdated books, the size of the
>collection is misleading. Part of the plan for the new
>library is a thorough weeding.
This already goes on at both branch and central libraries.
I have bought a fair number of books over the years from the
Friends bookstore which have been "remaindered" from the
MPL collection, and find it very hard to imagine that they are
keeping even half a dozen copies of something as ephemeral
as a Jazz Age etiquette book.
>(Book antiquarians, save your
>pennies.) Third, a public library worth it's salt has open
>stacks. After the new library is built, will a good 90% of
>the collection be avilable in open stacks? I don't think MPL
>is aiming that high.
This is a matter of opinion here, and after getting a good
look at some of the habitues of the central library I'd be appalled
if they kept even 50%^ of the collection in the open stacks.
Librarians have to walk a fine line between preserving the best
of their collection for future users and making certain that the
whole collection is available. It's a tough call, and I'm not sure
throwing 90% of the collection out into the open stacks is the
right call.
>In building a new library it is essential to keep the
>mission of public libraries in the forefront: to level the
>playing field between the haves and the hope-to-have-somes
>and thus raise the general education and self-education of
>all the public.
Isn't this what the public schools are supposed to be doing
by giving students an education that enables them to do something
more than flip burgers and vote the straight DFL ticket? I agree
that the public libraries are supposed to be a resource for people who
want to better themselves, but it is also supposed to be a place to
have fun and discover new worlds in the pages of prose and poetry.
To reduce a public library to the level of a tool chest or garden shed
is just sad.
> It is also important that the new library be effecient, both
> for customers and library staff. Library staff are there to
> help for at least 8 hours a day; if the library has to be
> coped with, it's uncomfortable for all. Our current library
>is good example of "coping with" design--it's a pain in the
>tookus, both for staff and patrons.
I have always found it easy to use, myself, once I
figured out how the collection was split up between the
two floors. They have these handy diagrams all over the
library that help with this, and signs, too! As for the staff,
I gather their problems with the existing library have more
to do with the lack of space for books than any lack of
comfortable work spaces. Still, in designing any new library
there will have to be compromises between what is most
convenient for the users and what's most convenient for
the staff. I'd bet my boots you won't make both groups
completely happy, no matter what the design.
>I have confidence that the committee which will choose the
>architect will keep those things in mind and do a good job.
>Where my confidence falters is in considering whether we are
>building a library for the 21st Century where books will not
>fade from view, but computers and internet and, in the
>future, all manner of other information configurations will
>come into play.
My personal opinion is that the libraries should get out
of the computer business. You can go out and buy a Pentium-
class machine suitable for surfing the Net until your eyeballs
fall out for around $100, or you can get a WebTV, or you can
get an Internet appliance that lets you do surfing and e-mail
and chat for dirt cheap. The digital divide is mere anecdotal
bullroar made up by demagogues and other exploiters of
divisions real or imagined.
> I know it will happen, but I'm not sure we
>are ready to build for it at the moment. Building the best
>20th Century library won't quite cover the bases.
Why not? Paper lasts a lot longer than any digital medium,
and that's the main stock in trade of libraries today as it was
in the days of the Egyptian Pharaohs. Bring on the marble,
the bricks, and the high glass windows! Adorn it with stone
gargoyles and brass statuary! Give the kids who troop through
the doors a sense of their connection to the Irish monks, Arab
scribes, "rich white men who owned land" like Thomas Jefferson,
Andrew Carnegie and the others who made our libraries what
they are today. God save us from a plain gray concrete and
glass box that can't be told apart from any six suburban office
towers save for the books dimly visible through the windows!
>I wish the
>implementation committee all the luck in the world. This is
>a knotty problem/opportunity.
Worst case, they build an enornous warehouse for books
and other lendables. Best case, we get something barely
within the budget but a real jewel in the city's crown.
My thought on the downtown grocery stores is that we already
have a mess of them...there is the Red Owl at 12th & Nicollet,
three small markets downtown (I include Dayton's Marketplace
in this along with the Tom Thumb down by the Post Office)
and the Super Valu over by Our Lady of Lourdes. There are
also a couple of warehouse-style groceries (Cub & Rainbow)
easily accessible by bus from downtown, to say nothing of
driving to them. I don't see the need for a Lund's downtown,
especially one that's going to be a zero in the property tax
equation for some years, and I agree with David that a coop
is not the answer for somebody who is looking for inexpensive
food. I don't think there are any good answers to this one.
Kevin Trainor
6-10, East Phillips
Last of the Black Irish Southern Catholic Redneck Jewboys
