The library article in the paper today, and the recent article about historic Bridge Square and Gateway Park, suggest that people are thinking more about external architectual statements than about internal library operations. It reminded me of the public hearing recently at Heritage Hall where the architects showed beautiful, bright, arching spaces for all sorts of events, but said little about books and spaces for scholarship.
Let's not forget that we are building a library, and that function should be the prime consideration. (Makes we wonder if we need a meeting to talk about "what is a library, what is it for, what services should it provide, what interactions should it encourage, what tone should it set?) Let's not let the tail wag the dog on this, let's not worry more about making a statement or reencountering our past (look at the debatable park improvement at "Bridge Square"--Linda Mack asked the Stone Arch Discussion Group--"Do you want to spend time there?") Instead make the location work for the books and internet terminals and study areas and book club spaces. Remember the Federal Reserve needed the "Bridgehead" site because it needed large (multiblock) contiguous space--on one level. Is critical mass of surface area more important for check processing than for learning and human interaction? To shoehorn library (and planetarium) functions into a truncated block for external considerations subverts the purpose of the referendum and the confidence of the voters who supported it. Alan Shilepsky Downtown, and willing to walk an extra block to get to the South site, if it makes for a better library! _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
