Design in a Day

In December 2006, Library Journal held its first Design Institute (DI), a day-long seminar at Queens Library in Flushing, NY, that drew some 100 librarians, architects, and capital improvement and facilities managers together to discuss both the 21st-century library and the practicalities of library building projects. Many of the themes in the panels, presentations, and breakout sessions emerged from submissions made by librarians to LJ about their particular building “challenges,” including shifting public service needs, creating multiple-use spaces, imbuing a library with a WOW factor, wooing Millennials, updating a Carnegie, and much more.

Princeton PL director and American Library Association (ALA) president Leslie Burger tapped a primary theme early on. “The library of the future is about people,” not about protecting books, she said. “It's about creating space that is welcoming.” Noting that the new Salt Lake City Library describes itself as the place where democracy happens, Burger, whose own new building opened in 2004, said, “We need to provide spaces where people learn from each other and where they can talk about issues critical to democracy.”

With the help of Elisabeth Martin, MDA designgroup, who moderated one of the panels and is a former head of both Brooklyn and New York public library capital projects, we chose six “design challenges.” These became the core for the afternoon breakout sessions, each led by a library architecture and design firm. We wish to thank our participant sponsors for helping to brainstorm questions for the panels and for gamely taking on the sessions and producing such fine results: Beatty Harvey Associates (BHA), Todd Harvey; BKSK, Harry Kendall and George Schieferdecker; David Milling Architects, David Milling; MS&R, Jeffrey Scherer; PSA-Dewberry, Denelle Wrightson; and Tappé Associates, Jeff Hoover. (Session coverage begins on p. 6.)

We also wish to thank the panelists and moderators, who in addition to the aforementioned also included Louise Schaper, executive director, Fayetteville PL, AR; Susan Kent, chief executive, Branches, NYPL; and Princeton's and ALA's Burger.

Of course, none of this would have taken place without immeasurable support from the Queens Library team, who made it possible for us to hold the seminar at the beautiful Flushing regional branch: Thomas W. Galante, director, Queens Library; Joanne King, associate director, communications; and Peter Magnani, director of capital and facilities management, Queens Library, whose presentation “6 Tips to Surviving Library Construction” is on p. 14.

Queens Library was an apt place to hold the Design Institute, since it is renovating/building anew all 63 of its facilities; 14 were completed by the end of 2006. The Flushing branch itself, one of the busiest libraries in perhaps the busiest U.S. library system, has an unprecedented 8000–10,000 visitors a day. These numbers reinforce Director Galante's statement that “we're in the people business.”

Echoes of Galante's comments infused the day's discussions, including two panels—on the future of library design and on the building process, respectively. The first panel had much back and forth on the idea of the virtual space vs. physical space, with most panelists agreeing that while Google, MySpace, and YouTube create e-communities, people still need a physical community. Instead of asking, “How should the library space be modified to be like the virtual space?” said BKSK's Schieferdecker, “maybe the virtual space needs a physical space.”

Burger's recollection of hundreds of screaming fans watching World Cup soccer at Princeton PL reinforced the point. “Anyone could have watched at home. They chose to come to the library to be part of a community,” said Burger, lamenting only that she didn't have a beer license. Election night drew another (bipartisan) crowd to the library to await the returns.

MS&R's Scherer said that besides melding the physical and the virtual in the library, “wireless technology is allowing us to create social space.”

As for what the new library should look like, Scherer and other panelists noted that the 20th-century library aesthetic, a one-size-fits-all model “has gone by the wayside.” Whether renovating old or building anew, Scherer said, architects need to “[drill] down to the local level and [tailor] libraries to their communities,” in the same way that librarians are doing.

“Form and function are an iterative process,” said DMA's Milling. It's not form vs. function or form follows function but “form, function, and program,” said Schieferdecker. “We're designing places that are much more open and dynamic...where various kinds of interactions can happen.”

Responding to community needs kept surfacing as a primary consideration. Scherer warned against getting caught up too soon in the look of the building, as if it were “going down the runway” at a fashion show, instead of “listening to the community that uses it.” He urged librarians “to empower different age groups to make choices themselves”—to pick their computers, the colors of their iMacs—so “they own that space.”

Moderator Martin broached an issue that resonated with many in the audience: to renew Carnegies or other old buildings, or tear them down? Having worked as both director of Brooklyn PL's capital program and of the library unit of the New York City Department of Design and Construction, Martin has vast experience in this area. Milling concurred. “Enhance, add to, and make stronger the original building,” said Milling. “To do it right is expensive,” said Scherer, so “politicians make it impossible to redo it.... It takes courage, tenacity.”

Finally, on themed children's rooms, panelists agreed. Unless, you have the money to keep refreshing the theme, keep away from them. No one was more emphatic, however, than Burger: “If I see one more tree in a children's room, I'm going to chop it down.”

“What's the next significant cycle of change,” asked Martin? For Milling, it is energy conservation. “Even if every building were LEED certified, we do not save enough energy,” he said. “Librarians can take on the role of raising ecology in their communities.” Scherer believes it is the “dissolution of political boundaries between libraries and other institutions” like senior centers, government and social agencies, even private entities like condominiums. He also noted that “savvy librarians are following commerce” toward open source solutions. “Distribution, movie downloads,” said Burger. “We need tremendous amounts of bandwidth, kiosks of iPods. Stacks of media shelving will go away.”

The issue of change drove the second panel, too, though its focus was on the building process. Nevertheless, there was plenty of nitty-gritty advice. Moderator Schaper, whose new library also opened in 2004, kicked off with the phases of a building project. Which comes first, the plan and design or the funding? The program planner or the architect? The plan or community input? “There's not one answer for everybody,” said BHA's Harvey.

In fact, the panelists noted, funding and planning are “a series of chicken and eggs chasing each other around,” as Tappé's Hoover put it. On the one hand, he continued, “You have to have an image to sell in order to get people inspired.” “Eventually,” said Harvey, “the community will say, 'This is what we can afford,' You need to plan first, [though] you may have to modify.” And PSA-Dewberry's Wrightson suggested, “Do enough to plan for a realistic budget. You need to get a professional involved,” to really understand the costs for fees, the site, surveys, technology, and so on through the opening-day collection. NYPL's Kent proposed that librarians should take a step back to do a “prebuilding program” that includes “service goals for the future,” as well as “escalating construction costs, ongoing costs of the building...and additional staffing...five years, ten years, 20 years out.”

As for hiring a library planner/programmer, Wrightson endorsed the team approach of architect and planner. And Hoover noted that “a good programmer does well on demographic analysis, facilities review, and needs assessment,” as well as “design review at each step.”

“When do you get the community involved?” a librarian in the audience asked. Though Wrightson noted that “different communities work in different ways,” the consensus was that you can't talk funding without community input. “I can probably give you more examples of libraries that didn't get communities involved and failed [to get funding] than the reverse,” said Harvey. Hoover advised controlling communications and the flow of information. “You can't count on the press coming to you,” he said. “You have to send out milestones.”

“Public libraries are politically based institutions,” said Kent. “Ignore the political and you ignore reality.” She reinforced the need to identify stakeholders and those who need to be brought into the loop: the board, Friends, community, civic, business, and youth groups, the staff, elected officials, regulatory agencies, potential donors, and so on.

In a counterintuitive “a-ha” moment, panelists suggested planners embrace naysayers as an opportunity to educate them and bring them on board. “Put those who say, 'You don't need the library, you've got the Internet' on your building committee,” said Wrightson. “Show the naysayers [like council members] other [new] libraries across the country.” Hoover pointed out that resistance often comes from library staff. However, he noted, “We're designing libraries for users, not librarians.” To get staff on board, Kent recommended, “Tell them to look at architectural magazines, share architects' brochures, articles, designs.”

All of the architects on the panel had horror stories about project opponents, some of which turned into success stories because of good communication. Wrightson told the story of a director who had a long, positive history with the local newspaper. The mayor, who had been in office longer than any other mayor in the state, went up against the project, while the paper came out for it. “The mayor lost the next election,” said Wrightson.

Another way to build support for the new library is by partnering and collocation. In addition to the obvious partners, like cafés and bookstores, Harvey suggested partnering with the parks department or an environmental center. Kent pointed to a project in Battery Park City in New York that combined a private developer (a condo and retail space), a public entity (the library), and a nonprofit (Poet's House). “We bring a lot to the table, more than any other institution in the community,” said Kent, “so partnering with libraries gives them some [of our] patina and credibility.”

Despite that upbeat assessment, Kent expressed concern about the future. “We continue to build the same library. I don't think we've addressed the issue of people using Google. How are we re-creating the library to meet the reality of...kids who are brought up digitally.” She admitted she didn't have an answer, but urged, “We need to be much more radical.”

Ultimately, the architects and Schaper harkened back to a theme from the earlier panel: the library of the future is going to be a place for people to come together to share ideas and resources. “You need to sell service,” Hoover said. “What's most important to your community.”