Re: [Mpls] Central Library
From: "David Brauer" > Friendly correction here: the library folks have a contingency list of > Central Library items that could be delayed **IF** fundraising runs > short.right now, they are short of a November goal, but such a gap is > possible, not certain. ... > The fundraising shortfall was accurate as of mid-September. If anyone from > the library system has an updated figure, could they let the list know? The original funding plan for the new Central Library assumed that $15 M would be raised from private donations. It is also true that we do not have all of these funds in hand today. It is premature to say that there is a "shortfall" however. There never was an assumption that all of the funds would be raised by this point in the project. In fact, we assumed that it would still take time to raise these funds, especially as the fundraisers haven't had a lot of time to work on the campaign. Also, the City's sometimes waivering commitment to the project has not helped the fundraising. There are several years yet until the project is complete and at least several more years to complete the fund raising. So I think it is a bit unfair to say that there is a "shortfall" when the fundraising work isn't complete. We have talked about what things that could be deferred in case the project doesn't raise all of the funds that were originally projected. This hasn't just been restricted to $4.3 M (which would be the savings from not finishing half the fourth floor) but to all the remaining funds to be raised which are about $10 M at this point. That is the prudent thing to do. I will also say that if these things were to be implemented, some of them would seriously compromise the plan for the building. So we are looking at other options to make sure that the project meets budget. I am confident that we will find a way of making it work. Staff are developing these options for future meetings. Carol Becker Longfellow Central Library Oversight Committee Member REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Central Library site
If the new library is going to be on the 'south' block (meaning the site that the current library is located), then I feel very fortunate since my office (the OLD Federal Courthouse, now known as the 110 Building) is a mere 100 or so yards from it. And wouldn't you know, my cubicle faces the library! YAY! Bob Velez Shingle Creek Ward 4 ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Central Library site
Russell W Peterson wrote: > Frankly, it looks like the library didn't want to give on > any of it's program AND wants the presentation of the > building as a city statement as many others had wanted. So > they are asking for more from the people without > demonstrating flexibility within their own needs. This is > the kind of bureaucracy that scares people - hold on to your > pocket books. ;-) Mr. Peterson is correct in the fact that the library didn't want to give on its program. The north block simply wasn't large enough to do everything and something had to give. The final alternatives for the north block all required splitting Fiction from Literature. First off, Fiction and Literature is the mostly highly used collection on a per book basis in the library. Second, splitting Fiction from Literature meant that if you wanted to read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, you would find the novel on the first floor but you would find the book explaining all those sixteenth century words on the third floor. Wendell Berry? Wrote a novel (first floor), short stories (first floor), unless the short stories are in a compelation of short stories with other authors (third floor), essays (third floor), and poetry (third floor). This simply wasn't good for library patrons. Other alternatives were worse. So, it is true that the Library Board didn't want to give on its program but for very good reasons having to do with how user-friendly the building will be. 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
RE: [Mpls] Central Library site
>Frankly, it looks like the library didn't want to give on >any of it's program AND wants the presentation of the >building as a city statement as many others had wanted Being one of the people who have had major questions about the library program plan, I found the presentation by the Peli team convincing that it really can not work well. The Peli team even brought in their own library planner. The staff even proposed shrinking some of the program space. It was still a tight fight. I actually think this work was useful. It started a good review of the previous planning efforts. > >The much more plausible plan would have been for the library >to give a little on it's program and create a grand plaza >perhaps paired with the planetarium on the south block. If building the library on the north block is tight (which everyone agrees with), how do you get space for a grand plaza and library on the north block? Building the planetarium separate from the library will not work. It would greatly increase both the construction and operating cost of the planetarium. It also reduces possibilities for the synergies between the library and planetarium (which actually work better on the south block). Regarding having a park on the north block. Carol provided a lot of the reasons. I have a couple others. * First, that block would tie the gateway park to the old fed reserve plaza. * Second, a park on the north block would work great for a larger space for performances by using both the Fed Res. plaza and the north block park. * Third, it ties to history. The old Gateway park was there. * It opens up views from the inside of the library to something other than buildings (remember, in 10 to 20 years, all the blocks will likely be built up with tall buildings. Finally, views of the building. The NW Tower is a landmark because you can see it. The Weisman is a landmark (some like, some hate) because you can see it. The new Walker and Guthrie will be landmarks because you will be able to see them. The courthouse is a landmark because you can see it (on the skyline and with plazas on two sides). Without the North block park, there will be NO good view of the new library. I would also argue that it is important that the library be a landmark. The public library in a city is probably the best monument and reminder of our egalitarian democracy, of US history. It is the monument to freedom of speech and the Bill of Rights. ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< Sheldon Mains, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Seward Neighborhood, Minneapolis "Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories." --Laurie Anderson as reported in Wired ___ 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
RE: [Mpls] Central Library site
Frankly, it looks like the library didn't want to give on any of it's program AND wants the presentation of the building as a city statement as many others had wanted. So they are asking for more from the people without demonstrating flexibility within their own needs. This is the kind of bureaucracy that scares people - hold on to your pocket books. ;-) The much more plausible plan would have been for the library to give a little on it's program and create a grand plaza perhaps paired with the planetarium on the south block. This would have left a great feature to spur redevelopment on at least three blocks around it. A park/plaza on the north block with wide speeding streets, Washington and Hennepin, on two sides and no chance of redevelopment around on adjacent blocks is unwise. Russ Peterson R u s s e l l W. P e t e r s o n Saint Michael, Minnesota [EMAIL PROTECTED] "You can only fly if you stretch your wings." ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Central Library site
David Brauer wrote: > Somebody, please help explain this eruption of park romance to me. > > Now, I'm all for more parkland in the urban core - say, Block E (but we > all know what happened there). However, in the case of the library's > "north block," is there not a city-subsidized park rising on Marquette > Plaza - right across Nicollet Mall - ready to open this spring? And is > it not just a block or two away from the riverfront, which we're slowly > but surely turning into a linear park? What a park will do is provide an open space much bigger and much different than the plaza across from the north block. It is hard to explain in an e-mail what a three dimentional model shows. The staff from Pelli's group showed what the area will look like when it is all developed. Basically, this area becomes very dense with housing and office buildings over the next ten to twenty years. A plaza or other open space will provide a substantial amenity, providing a break in this development much larger and different than the plaza across from the Nicollet Hotel block will be able to provide. In addition, the open space will help spur redevelopment, bringing new dollars onto the tax rolls much sooner than they would otherwise. Also it is more like four or five blocks from the River if you walk it, creating a plaza/open space substantially closer to the core of the downtown, something that has been debated for the downtown for years (like for the Norwest Center site, Block E, etc). > I can take or leave a parking ramp on the north block...actually, I > agree with the anti-car folks here...you don't need one given all the > parking resources close by. First off, parking is needed for the Library. Going to the library is fundimentally about hauling things (books, videos, etc) and an average of 193 spaces are needed to meet that demand. Providing this alone will take up most of the space under the library building itself. Second, as to parking on the north block, as the surface lots in the immedia te area are redeveloped, both reducing supply and increasing demand, there will be demand for additional parking spaces. Whether an underground ramp on the north block will be financially feasable even with this demand is a question that staff will be working on. >I think the same argument holds true for > parkland...there is a lot nearby. But a housing development, perhaps > with some neighborhood retail, that looms less large with less parking - > something that pays taxes, fills an urban planning need, etc. - seems > fiscally sane while improving Downtown livability. Is there something > I'm missing here? If the housing is TIFFed to fund affordable housing and provide money to the library, there will be no funding for the tax base from a housing project. Open space, however, can spur redevelopment that will actually contribute to the tax base. Financially open space may make the most sense if you are concerned about tax base growth. I don't think that any option has yet been taken off the table - housing, parking, open space, or something else no one has put out there yet. Staff for the Implementation Committee will be working up cost estimates on these various scenarios and will be presenting them to the Implementation Committee so the tradeoffs can be known and recommendations developed. 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
RE: [Mpls] Central Library site
Somebody, please help explain this eruption of park romance to me. Now, I'm all for more parkland in the urban core - say, Block E (but we all know what happened there). However, in the case of the library's "north block," is there not a city-subsidized park rising on Marquette Plaza - right across Nicollet Mall - ready to open this spring? And is it not just a block or two away from the riverfront, which we're slowly but surely turning into a linear park? I can take or leave a parking ramp on the north block...actually, I agree with the anti-car folks here...you don't need one given all the parking resources close by. I think the same argument holds true for parkland...there is a lot nearby. But a housing development, perhaps with some neighborhood retail, that looms less large with less parking - something that pays taxes, fills an urban planning need, etc. - seems fiscally sane while improving Downtown livability. Is there something I'm missing here? David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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
[Mpls] Central Library site
> >Interesting meeting at the Library Implementation Committee this afternoon. Sorry--forgot to sign it >.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.> sheldon mains, seward neighborhood, minneapolis [EMAIL PROTECTED] the shameless agitator in the electronic town square ___ 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
[Mpls] Central Library site
Interesting meeting at the Library Implementation Committee this afternoon. First, the architects discussed the lay-out options for the north (smaller block). They basically said that while it could be done, that they would not recommend the north block because it was too tight--just not enough space to allow for the best layout. They then proposed their brainstorm of putting the library on the south block and making the north block a park. Hey, didn't we talk about that option on this list back three weeks ago. It's interesting that this list wasn't mentioned as the source of the idea(just doing my bit as an E-Democracy board member to get us due credit). The architects proposal included moving the planetarium to the north block with a "large" skyway connecting it to the library. This proposal was from the same team that ruled out a having the planetarium on a separate block because of the cost (construction and operation) a separate building would add to the planetarium. After a lot of discussion: the Mayor preaching fiscal constraint against the park Ellie Webster asking us to consider this in light of seven future generations One citizen member concerned about the cost of a park another citizen member urging a park numerous comments that the planetarium needed to be integrated with the library NO real numbers on the cost of the park, the amount of tax increment the housing would generate (other than it was less than they expected), no costs for parking (although they said underground parking was looking more feasible financially than initially. Finally, three separate motions from Carol Becker 1. Library on South Block passed unanimously 2. Planetarium on South block (I think it was 5 yes, Carol and Ellie no, Otis Anderson abstaining) 3. Get real numbers on parking, housing, park, and other options for north block (this is really paraphrased) (appeared to be all yes, Otis Anderson abstaining because he wanted to insure a park) Thank goodness Carol is pushing for real numbers--I thought she has said those would come out at this meeting. The staff seems very reluctant to provide them. One concern of mine is the Mayor's comment that the decision on the north block was not with the committee but with Planning and MCDA--I sure hope that he just mis-spoke. This is clearly a decision for elected officials to make, not city staff. (And with the joint agreement the City and Library Board have on this project, it appears that both have to agree.) ___ 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
[Mpls] Central Library Site
I have no clear personal opinion on the war between the North and the South, with my particular concern being how the MN Planetarium & Space Discovery Ctr. would coordinate with either design. However, I would not cite as evidence RT's note about all the architects saying that the project could work on both blocks. I found most of the presentations to be quite sensitive to the politics of the controversy, and thus they were unwilling to rule themselves out for either the Yanks or the Rebs. Larry Rudnick Fulton ___ 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
[Mpls] Central Library
It's great to see there is list discussion of the central library site choices. I agree with Sheldon Mains that this is the most significant public building Minneapolis will build in the next 50 years, so it's important we hear from more people. My big pitch for doing this building includes the fact that in a period of mass privatization of public space, we are about to build the one place where everyone can come together...for the highest purpose. I am genuinely pleased with either site. Here's my thinking on why I voted last night for the North Block: I've had some level of involvedment with this project off and on for about 10 years and have always thought we should locate this building as close to the central core as possible. Libraries, I've felt, should be the central gathering place for cities so I've always wanted to get this one as close as possible to the 7th and Nicollet area. That's one of the reasons why I originally thought it should be on Block E, and why I have also thought over time we should consider blocks like the one where the Hennepin Center for the Arts is located, or the former Power's block. So when faced with two options...the current library block or one a block further from the core, it would seem I would go for the library block. Closer to the skyway, etc. That's how I entered this process, but my thinking evolved as I heard the various architects interviewed for the project talk about the sites. More and more I began to see their points that the "North Block"---the one between Hennepin and Nicollet, on Washington---is really one of the most pivotal blocks in the city. It's the link between the river and central city, between housing and office-retail, flanked by a park on the old Federal Reserve plaza and remnants of the old Gateway park to the north, the historic link between Hennepin and Nicollet Avs. My problem with its distance from the traditional core of downtown is also changing as it's becoming more and more possible that we can build the "Downtown Circulator." This is a Nicollet Mall shuttle similar to one in Denver that will quickly move people up and down the street. The combination of the shuttle, and a library on the North Site begins to elevate the role of Nicollet Mall. Today it's a retail street. But the library, and the shuttle, help turn this into a civic street...it pulls together convention center, Orchestra Hall, the shopping core, LRT and the library...which becomes a gateway to the riverfront. That happens in a lesser degree if the library is on its current site...but the new building would be somewhat in the shadow of the taller buildings on all sides. That has an impact on larger issues, like whether it would have the dramatic presence we want it to have, and smaller issues like whether reading rooms would be able to have natural light. Those of you who know Seattle will see there is a somewhat similar situation there in which the museum of modern art in downtown may be a significant building but really doesn't stand out as it should because its site is a tight fit between two buildings. The Mall site is better than that but it still has less presence to me than the north block. There are other issues beyond urban design. They include the fact that if we build the library on the North Block the larger south block will be left for development. This is important because tax increment off development on this block will help pay for the library...the more land, esp. closer to the core, the more I believe we can generate to help pay for the library. It was tough to vote against the recommendation of the library staff. They made the case that building on the smaller North Block would mean they would have to shift the layout of departments. This should be taken seriously, but Pelli, and, as I recall, most of the architects interviewed for the project were clear that both sites had sufficient space for the library. Over the years writing about or being part of developments, I've learned to take the "program" of a building...the requirements...seriously...BUT you should not become a slave to them. Often the best buildings are not those on clear symmetrical blocks, and the ones where innovative architects challenge the original assumptions to create something better. The decision we made last night was essentially to direct the architects to double check their conclusion that the library fits and works well on both sites. This will be done by Pelli's team and the library consultant that is part of the team. This is exactly why that consultant was added to the team, and a perfect use of this skill. Knowing the library staff has concerns, let's make sure they are taken into account and can be solved. The month it will take to get this answer is more than worth it in my book. While I voted for the North Site last night, I'm open to be convinced otherwiseI'm encouraging other members of the committee to try to be flexible enough to h
