I have had quite a bit of involvement in the Central Library, having been one of the persons who worked directly on getting the referendum passed. And I am now one of the citizen representatives on the Implementation Committee who is charged with the oversight of the construction of the new library. I also have to admit that I am shamelessly a heavy user of the libraries, someone who has a rule that she can't check out more books than she can carry at one time because it is just too tempting to get more. (and yes I read just about every one...) Given these three things, I have spent a large amount of time talking to citizens about what they want this new library to be. In the debate for which block the Library should be on I voted for the South Block. And I wanted to lay out why I did so.
First off, I think the overarching selection criterion should be what builds the best library. Once this criterion is met, other criteria can be taken into account. But we have a crappy building right now because people compromised on what made a library a good library. And we need learn from this and put the needs of the library as a library first. Having said this, the largest factor for me is that the librarians, the people who work in the building and talk to the users every day, have said that they believe that the smaller site will compromise the needs of the library users. The North site is only two thirds the size of the existing site and you simply can't fit as many things on the first floor because the first floor can't be as big. It may mean moving the Teen room to the second floor. It may mean moving Fiction to the second floor. Or it may mean making these areas smaller which then affects how many books we can have in those areas and what retention policies we can have. Over the next four weeks, the librarians and the architects will be discussing in detail exactly what the different alternatives are and exactly what compromises would be. It may be that the compromises are minor. It may be that they are significant. Either way, I believe that this analysis should be pivotal to the final decision. On Wednesday, Cesar Pelli and his team also outlined other factors that the Committee should think about when making this decision. Some of my thoughts on the points that they outlined: Pedestrian Access: For pedestrians, most walking traffic will come from the core. For people who have walked from the center of downtown to the library, you know that it is quite a haul. Moving the library would add another block to this walk. I think it is better for the library to be closer to the people who are going to use it. Parking: For people coming by automobile, the north site simply will not accommodate even the average projected number of underground parking spaces needed. In reading and listening to citizen comments, one of the largest reasons people do not use the existing library is because they cannot park. The committee has said it does not want to build an above ground parking ramp on either site. Nor does it want to burden the housing project with having to build parking for the library. We cannot build a destination you cannot get to by car. One of the goals of the library project is to build a building that is accessible to a wide variety of people. Families with children, persons with disabilities, and the elderly will not be able to walk several blocks nor take buses with their books. Selecting the North site will substantially hamper their ability to use the library. And libraries are different than most other destination locations because libraries are fundamentally about carrying things, i.e. books and other materials. You have to make it easy for them to do so if you want them to come to the library. Planetarium: With the current site, the Planetarium can go either on top of the building or above one floor of the Library. With the alternative site, the Planetarium can only be on the roof. The funding for the planetarium is currently requested from the State. It has not been secured and it is not clear whether or not it will be secured. If we have to construct a Planetarium later, it will be much easier to build on the second floor rather than the sixth floor. In addition, it will be much easier to get the 270 people up and down to the second floor rather than six floors. The alternative site also moves the Planetarium further from the theater district. The City has worked to consciously create an entertainment district along Hennepin Avenue (State, Orphium, Schubert, etc). As is, the current site is far from the other theaters and moving it further lessens the synergy that it can gain from other theaters. Housing: This project is a two block development, one block for the library and the other block for housing. The housing consultant has stated that the block closer to the river is more desirable for housing. It is closer to the rest of the housing in downtown which is clustered along the river, and will result in a better housing project. In addition, the block closer to the river will generate more money for the project if housing is built on it because even though it is smaller, it will create more attractive housing. Open Space: If the Library is built on the existing site, there is room for some open space. This is currently presumed to be a plaza. This area could be used for people who want to sit outside and read and it could also be available for programming by the library. The alternative site simply isn't large enough to accommodate a plaza and this option is lost by selecting that site. Cost: No cost estimates have been done of the two sites. But I see three factors currently affecting cost. First is that the housing will generate more money for the project if it is on the north block and the library on the existing site. Second, if the planetarium has to be constructed later, it costs more if it has to be built on the roof rather than on the second floor. Third, it is more expensive to move people to the planetarium on the sixth floor than on the second. Given all these factors, I voted for the existing site. The biggest factor for the other site is its "civic presence". I worry though that we bandy around this term without really knowing what it means. I asked Cesar Pelli what this exactly meant. His response was that you could see the building from far away better (i.e. the view from the Hennepin Avenue Bridge was better and from the plaza across the street) and that having a front on Washington Avenue was more prestigious than having fronts on Third and Fourth. I agree with what he said and if it were possible to overcome many of my concerns with the alternative site, I would vote for it. I am looking forward to the ideas Mr. Pelli and the library staff return with and I hope that the committee can come together around a solution for this problem. I would be open to an idea where we did not construct housing on the north block and instead put underground parking and a plaza/park on the site. I think it would be wonderful to restore some visage of Gateway Park. The biggest question is whether or not it can work financially, a question that the project team will have to address. The housing was originally going to generate $10 million for the project and this would have to be replaced or things cut from the program. I will make sure it gets raised with them regardless. Carol Becker Longfellow _______________________________________ 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
