Good morning.
I’m not going to talk about supporting the library master plan. I’m going to guess that everyone here is in favor of
education, reading, self-improvement, opportunity, and inspiration. However, I would like to make three points about
the proposal for a new Central Library.
- A new building is justified in an area that lacks library service or in an area where the existing building is bursting
at the seams. To construct a building as a show-piece, to keep up with the Joneses in Seattle is to my mind a waste of
resources.
- The current Central Library was a show-piece in its day and can still function as an excellent flagship for the system.
A central library should be a support for the whole system serving to feed, train, and assist the branches with its
specialized staff and in-depth collections. A Central Library is much more than its outer shell – its success depends on
collections, staff, and a spirit of service; it is these aspects of the library that should be nourished and funded. The
previous director destroyed departments, decimated collections, and drained the system of good staff; let’s restore Central
to its former glory and not just replace its outer form.
- A new Central Library added to the bond referendum will significantly lessen its chances of passing. It will be seen,
not as a solid addition to a list of worthy projects, but as an element of glamour and glitz, a feather in a political cap
during a period of serious economic hardship when such projects should be curtailed, not acclaimed.
And one last thought: On July 2nd we saw some impressive architectural renditions of a hypothetical new Central. But when
the next tornado strikes, where would you rather be: in a Marcel Breuer bunker or in a house of glass?
Thank you.
|
.com