I attended yesterday's (1-16) Implementation Committee meeting, although I left before the voting took place. What struck me early on was the tone of a brief presentation by a senior library staff person to the Committee, emphasizing the time and effort that went into functional planning as documented in a lengthy report she held up for all to see. I interpreted her comments as a staff statement that the staff's functional criteria/plans for the new library could NOT be accomplished on the North Block site-- period. (BTW, this functional plan was 10 years in the making, which leads me to question its robustness for a building just now being designed). I did not consider it an objective presentation, but rather an attempt to lobby Committee members during the meeting. Then, in today's paper, I read that Library Board President Savran says the Library Board is "100 percent" behind the South Block site, indicating that if the Committee had voted for the North site, the Board would probably have rejected the recommendation. I'd say what we have here is a 'failure to communicate.' And I'd also add that I don't believe the Library Board is 100 percent behind the South site-- I think some members remain open minded on the issue.
I agree with Russell Peterson's list comments that "the library board needs to start thinking a little more outside of their box. Don't hold onto things just because the plan might not be going the way you had originally wanted. Hold onto them only if other solutions aren't workable, but make sure you keep an open eye to other more interesting solutions that don't necessarily compromise primary functions... Think more three dimensionally...Can the building go under or over the street? Can any major operations be paired with the cavernous space under the old Federal Reserve Building?" Today's Star Tribune library article states, "The delay avoids what Minneapolis City Council Member Lisa Goodman called a potential train wreck: a scenario in which the committee and City Council prefer the north site, which has visual prominence, and the Library Board prefers the south site, which better accommodates the library's function." More oversimplified assumptions. It bears mentioning however, that the City Planning Dept. has endorsed the North Block as well. I have previously voiced my reasons for supporting the North Block site here on the list, but I also want a functional library, and believe we can have both. On the list, Terrell Brown adds, "While which block has "visual prominence" may well be somewhat dependent on the design of the other block and to a lesser extent the block of surface parking to the east leading to the Old Fed plaza, I find it hard to believe that Cesar Pelli cannot meet our visual needs on either block." Bravo!! Terrell continues, "BTW, can the Library Board override the decision of the Implementation Committee?" Yes, the Implementation Committee serves an advisory role. The more pertinent question is whether the City Council can override the Library Board, since the City Council authorized the referendum and will be the entity to authorize the bond sale. DeWayne Townsend says, "I will take function over form nearly every time... I would prefer a fully functional library over visual prominence." Again, an assumption that we can't have both a fully functional library and a visually prominent gateway structure. Form follows function... they are not mutually exclusive! We can have it all. We have one of the best architectural design teams in the world working with us to help assure that our needs are met... all of our needs-- that's what we are paying them to do! And don't forget that the designers also have some library experience to add to this design function. I studied architecture and urban planning as an undergrad many years ago. Today's new urbanism is largely yesterdays New Town movement with 30 years of better data and technology added. I've worked with designers and citizen groups on many occasions over the years and it has been my experience that a good dialogue between the parties helps assure that form and function can be melded to meet the client's needs. I hope the Pelli-Architectural Alliance team works closely with library staff in an effort to fully understand and implement their functional needs in a prominent design for the North block-- at least to the extent of addressing major functional concerns prior to the next meeting-- hey, that's why we pay them the BIG bucks! If not done already, I'd suggest a focus group meeting between designers and the principal parties involved with the 'functional study' referenced earlier-- identify problems and work them out, or at least identify options to be considered. To paraphrase another one of Russell's comments, the world changes quickly and we don't want to underestimate the value of flexibility in both form and function. Good luck to both Implementation Committee and Library Board members-- my advice: Keep an open mind. Don't throw up obstacles, rather identify them and resolve them. Make it work! Michael Hohmann 13th Ward www.mahohmannbizplans.com _______________________________________ 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
