Regarding anything coming out of the Minneapolis
library board or library staff, I take with a large
grain of salt.
The Minneapolis Public Library Board rightfully fired
Director Mary Lawson. Twelve years ago they had to
golden parachute a "talking head" director named
Joseph Kimbrough because he became too much of a
liability. Four years ago the MPL Director left under
circumstances which a retiring Board Member was not
willing to reveal, although the Board Member had very
positive feelings about the departing director.
It's a library system that can't keep their inner city
libraries open on Saturday, nor properly staff. MPL
only has a l/2 time children's librarian at Franklin
Library, and they got rid of both the Children's Room
and Meeting Room at Franklin Library.
When this library system is measured against its
historical service standards, it's apparent that it's
been a consistent downward slide for fifty years.
So I take anything coming out of the Minneapolis
Public Library system with a huge grain of salt.
If they don't know how to run a library system
now--why should anybody believe they can predict the
future.
My concerns with a new downtown library are:
1. What are the operating costs of a new downtown
library going to be?
Is it going to suck even more money out of the
neighborhood libraries?
2. What's the point of moving the central library
twice? And for at least 3 years having
dramatically reduced library services in the
City of Minneapolis? And spending an incredible
amount of money to rent temporary space?
Your approach rather than avoiding the mistakes of the
past of the present central library, I believe, upon
closer reading will reveal a repeat of the same
mistakes and process. See Bruce Benidt's, The Library
Book (A History of the Minneapolis Public Library),
pg. 175??).
That being said, your efforts and explanations are
appreciated.
Steve Carter
Gratia Countryman Society
--- Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
_______________________________________
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
