History
MLK library may be on the move
The often maligned Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library may move to a new building at a different location. A panel of developers and planners associated with the Urban Land Institute could make that recommendation later this month.
Photo by the author.
"It's important to note that the panel will not address the need for a central library," Chief Librarian Ginnie Cooper said. She continued, "the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library will continue to exist and be located downtown." Instead, the five-day advisory panel will discuss the ideal location for a downtown central library.
According to the DC Public Library (DCPL), "national research suggests that a central library should be about 225,000 - 250,000 square feet." At 400,000 square feet there is a desire to either downsize MLK, the only city library open on Sundays, or construct a smaller future central library. The panel will discuss "potential uses of and development around" the MLK library, and conduct interviews with library users and community leaders.
An anchor of downtown since its opening in August 1972, the library was the city's first public memorial to the slain civil rights leader. Momentum to build a new central library began during the second mayoral administration of Anthony Williams. Released in November 2006, a report by the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force recommended an overhaul of the neighborhood branches and the replacement of "the current functionally obsolete central library."
With a price tag of nearly $300 million, President Bush proposed $30 million in federal funds for a new downtown library. The current site of CenterCity DC was discussed as the most logic location. However, Williams' administration was unable to push a proposal through the DC Council.
Backed by a new administration, the building, designed by pioneering architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, became a historic landmark in late June 2007, preventing its demolition.
The DCPL Board of Trustees first mentioned the ULI panel at their meeting last month. When a smattering of questions arose about the intent of the panel, and whether the library's name honoring MLK was safe, it was clarified that no matter where the central library is located, it will retain Martin Luther King Jr.'s name, and continue to be a memorial to him.
Photo by the author.
Problems at the library
Since Cooper arrived in August 2006, MLK Library has undergone important functional and cosmetic upgrades making the building more inviting. The public bathrooms are no longer dungeons, the Black Studies and Children's Divisions have been refurbished, and a metal detector no longer greets visitors upon entry. The Adaptive Services Division, helping the deaf community, visually impaired, older adults, veterans and injured service people, received updated technology, the light plane of the ceiling of the Great Hall was revamped to better illuminate the cavernous lobby, and in 2009 a new room opened for teens.
However, MLK Library is still perceived as a homeless shelter and nicknamed "MLK Mission." The pervasiveness of the homeless and those with mental health issues obscure the library's vast collections and resources, according to members of the library staff.
The homeless are supported by a network of social service agencies such as the United Planning Organization. In the morning and evening, buses to and from homeless shelters use the front entrance of the library as a drop-off and pick-up point. G Place NW, behind the library, was the location point until the Secret Service objected.
Photo by the author.
Future of MLK Library
"The design of the building, while iconic as architecture, has failed to create the type of loved, dynamic and heavily used central library that would best serve the city," says Terry Lynch, a community activist who served on Mayor Williams' Blue Ribbon Task Force on libraries. "It is past time for a state of the art, new central library and conversion of this building to a more appropriate, adaptive reuse."
Over the next year MLK's first floor will be undergoing significant changes. A solicitation for proposals to "complete the interior improvements to the Business Science and Technology Reading Room and the Great Hall" closed two months ago. Construction is planned to be completed by August 2012.
Robin Diener with the Library Renaissance Project says citizens have advocated for a Citizens Task Force on the Future of MLK since the Williams Administration. Diener says, "In our view, the information gathered by a ULI panel could be a very useful contribution to the complete picture, but it should be presented to a task force of library users from around the city that Mayor Vincent Gray should appoint."
The ULI panel will present their finding and recommendations November 18th, 9 am to 11 am at MLK Library. The public is invited and encouraged to participate.
 | John Muller is a local journalist and historian. His first book, Frederick Douglass in Washington, DC: The Lion of Anacostia, was published by The History Press last year. John is now at work on Mark Twain in Washington, DC.    |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Suitland Parkway Trail is a mess. Will leaders seek change?
by Scoot on Nov 3, 2011 10:55 am • link • report
by David Garber on Nov 3, 2011 11:13 am • link • report
The new Phoenix central library is about four times the square footage of MLK.
If the library intend to build a new home, there should be an international design competition, much like the one for the new Stockholm library.
by JP on Nov 3, 2011 11:15 am • link • report
The other problem is that most of the space in the Carnegie building has been promised/leased (I'm not sure) to the convention center, as a way of saving the lease that the Historical Society of Washington (HSW) has on the space.
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 3, 2011 11:28 am • link • report
by Crickey7 on Nov 3, 2011 11:39 am • link • report
by DCster on Nov 3, 2011 11:39 am • link • report
by David Garber on Nov 3, 2011 11:40 am • link • report
by w on Nov 3, 2011 11:43 am • link • report
My bet would be to move the library to both get a nice anchor in a neighborhood that could use one and build something with the dignity of the old Carnegie library.
Every librarian who has worked in this building hates it, and the average passerby won't think much more about it, but seeings how those criteria are irrelevant to the architectural community (in general) let's make the best of this possible move.
by Thayer-D on Nov 3, 2011 11:56 am • link • report
by tom veil on Nov 3, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report
Why not sell the space and move the library to the under-utilized Reeves center on U Street?
by Anony on Nov 3, 2011 12:25 pm • link • report
As for the Architecture I want to pick on "w" for a moment. I think the reason the building seems so "dismal" is because of modernism's proliferation. Before Mies there weren't many if no purely glass exterior curtain wall buildings. I know it seems SO simple, but he really changed our landscape. Everyone has their beefs with Mies, but its only one building in the city and his last one before he passed. Let's celebrate architecture instead of destroying it.
As for the dislike of Bauhaus design, If anyone enjoys the Iphone, or Apple products in general, they are making a disingenuous comment.
by Matthew on Nov 3, 2011 12:36 pm • link • report
It's DC for godsake. The LOC is not "our" library.
by HogWash on Nov 3, 2011 12:37 pm • link • report
by spookiness on Nov 3, 2011 1:07 pm • link • report
Put a reasonably sized library downtown. Make it nice, and design it so that it satisfies the needs of approximately 90% of the downtown library users.
For the other "10%," build a huge "main" library on an easily accessible location in the outskirts of town, where space is less precious/expensive to house the more obscure bits of the collection, as well as administrative offices and other functions that don't really need to be located downtown. The UDC campus would be a fantastic place for such a library, as it would benefit our languishing public university, while also providing a valuable asset to the city at large.
Also, DC would likely get a pretty penny for selling the current library. If the Library could become the ground-floor tenant of a larger building, the city could very well make a profit.
Alternatively, the Portrait Gallery and Building Museum would both make incredible libraries, if new homes could be found for their current tenants.
by andrew on Nov 3, 2011 1:15 pm • link • report
My guess is the majority of technophiles from San Francisco to New York will prefer traditionaly styled home over a glass and steel tower, if prices are any indication. The main reason is the designs of pre-modernist architecture functions better on both an urban/pedestrian and sustainable level. Strolling past a decorated masonry building in the setting sun isn't the same human experience as pulling out a phone from one's pocket to tweet about whatever.
That logic was the backbone of modernism's ideology, becasue our machines look a certain way, we chould build similarly. As thought experiments, this simplistic view has led to some interesting fashion, music and many an art form as cultural expression, but it still holds no water.
It reminds me of the early modernists complaint that we should wear togas around classically styled buildings. On second thought, I'll ditch my 19th century collared shirt and suits in favor of a nice Star Trek or Jetsons suit.
As an architect.
by Thayer-D on Nov 3, 2011 1:19 pm • link • report
The Bauhaus focused on the unification of function and design, while focusing on a reduction of unnecessary ornamentation.
Although this is readily apparent in Apple products and the MLK library, I'd argue that the Bauhaus's philosophy also discourages architecture from being held in any sort of artistic reverence, especially when its design is no longer suited to the way that the building is being used.
There are good reasons why Apple periodically changes the design of their products. A similar argument could be made that the design of the MLK library no longer fits in with the needs of the neighborhood or the library.
by andrew on Nov 3, 2011 1:25 pm • link • report
by MDE on Nov 3, 2011 1:26 pm • link • report
by MDE on Nov 3, 2011 1:27 pm • link • report
That said, I agree with the comment that the proliferation of modernism has been its real downfall. It worked when it was the exception. Now that it's the rule we're left with overly boring cities.
by BeyondDC on Nov 3, 2011 1:29 pm • link • report
I get that the building isn't some Beaux-Arts masterpiece like the Boston Public Library. I get it. It's an International Style building by Mies, so 50% or more of the population (outside of Chicago) is not going to like it. But it also has an open functional floorplan with an elegant main hall, floor to ceiling windows on the ground floor that open onto the street, and a ground story loggia that could be great if it didn't always smell like homeless people camped out there.
The problem with the library has always been a poor management culture imho. The homeless people congregate there in large numbers and the management seem resigned to accept that fact, driving off potential users. They drive off more users by closing absurdly early before most people even leave their offices and hop on the train to head home. Perhaps that wouldn't be so bad if they were open more on the weekends, but they aren't open very long on the weekends either. There go more users. And the dingy bathrooms, people sleeping inbetween the stacks, burnt out lights...those are all management issues.
DC doesn't need a new library. I understand that the building is expensive to maintain, but so was the Carnegie Library in Mount Vernon Square. Any 400,000 sf building is. However, simple fixes like interior sun shading devices, a green roof or solar panels and more efficient HVAC systems could make a significant dent in maintenence costs.
Building a new central library would result in a moderately more efficient building, but if no one cleans the new bathrooms they'll get dingy, if no one replaces the new lights they'll burn out, if no one yells at the guy sleeping between the stacks he'll keep sleeping between the stacks, and shelters will keep shuttling people to the front door every morning.
by Merarch on Nov 3, 2011 1:31 pm • link • report
But not a large library for huge and growing metro area.
Perhaps this library whats needed is an integration of the public library systems across the region, and creation of a central library for the whole region, funded by the whole region?
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 3, 2011 2:10 pm • link • report
by Novanglus on Nov 3, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report
by w on Nov 3, 2011 3:09 pm • link • report
1.5 acres of the some of the primest real estate in town, putting it back on the tax rolls AND getting that maintenance nightmare off the taxpayer backs, its a win-win for everyone.
Some rough numbers...
The building across the street at 701 9th St (The building Zatinya is in) sits on an ~acre of land pays 3 million a year in property tax, is assesed at 174 million. The land value is assesed at 50 million.
The land underneath the MLK is assesed at 87 million all by itself. Assuming an office/retail tower like 701 9th street, the city would be collecting about 5 million a year thereafter in property tax.
So lets recap. City sells land for somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 million, then nets another 5 million a year forever in property tax.
If the city absolutely NEEDS a library in the central biz district, they can enter into an agreement as others have said to lease some space in the new building.
by freely on Nov 3, 2011 3:20 pm • link • report
by Bisonette on Nov 3, 2011 3:29 pm • link • report
The architecture reflects the same anti-pedestrian ethos of the era that is constantly criticized on this site. Case in point: Dark unmarked stairwells hidden behind solid black doors. Even if you know they're there you feel like you're not supposed to take them, and fear somewhat for your safety at who might be hiding there.
Let's admit it: the theory behind the modernist architecture removed the human element and like sprawling suburban highways, created places inhospitable for humans to walk around, sit, enjoy and feel inspired. MLK's form is the antithesis of what a library should be - and is detrimental to its function. Without a new building no amount of management fixes will ever enable the central library to achieve its potential.
by DCxNW on Nov 3, 2011 3:56 pm • link • report
Ive been in or seen some really wonderful modern buildings. Gropius law school dorms at harvard. The seagrams building in Manhattan. The guggenheim museum in manhattan. as for wright, his robie house open floor plans are I think the basis for some of the internal layouts in the post millenial condos that urbanists here seem to like.
In the right hands it was a refreshing change from the fakery and banality of late victorian architecture. And the mass ornamentation of earlier times, like it or not, was based on cheap artisan wages. Post modernism has rejected lots of modernism, but massive ornamentation of the old style hasnt come back.
Was it cheapened by over use, and poor execution - sure. Was it antiurban - often - but the implications on community of auto dependence were not known - and the cities of the time - with their concentrations of extreme wealth and poverty, werent necessarily the vision contemporary neourbanists hold. Its well and good that architecture has moved on from modernism - but the devaluation of it here, to the extent of wanting to tear down its creations out of spite, seems misguided. In earlier eras many people (including modernists) had similar dislike of what preceded them - its a good thing that much of that was saved.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 3, 2011 4:16 pm • link • report
I know I often see them at the West End branch.
by HogWash on Nov 3, 2011 4:34 pm • link • report
"In the right hands it was a refreshing change from the fakery and banality of late victorian architecture."
Late victorian architecture is what constitutes the majority of buildings in Adams Morgan, DuPont Circle, Kalorama, etc. If these neighborhoods are banal and fake, then most people must be fools.
Nobody wants to tear down these buildings becasue of spite (?), they want to tear them down becasue they're depressing.
I wonder if the massive ornamentation of the TajMahal, Chartres Cathedral, The Coloseum, and any other great building has something to do with why people travel to see them? It's not the ornament, it's how you employ it, and if you train architects to be mini-modernists, they're not going to understand how to use it.
by Thayer-D on Nov 3, 2011 4:42 pm • link • report
by John Muller on Nov 3, 2011 4:59 pm • link • report
Several people have mentioned poor-quality materials -- actually, part of the library's problem is that the materials used (granite, powder-coated steel, terrazzo, bronzed glass) are expensive to fix and replace. Mies ("God is in the details") himself always specified high-quality finishes; his followers often didn't, the contractors sometimes cut corners, and the public mistreated the furniture, but this is a misplaced criticism.
MLK is a great example of Mies' "universal space" concept and could easily be adapted to any number of other uses -- particularly retail and office. (The building's foundations were designed for another floor, and today's offices are lighter still, so maybe two floors could be added.) That said, a library use seems like a poor fit. The stacks are at the ends of the building, where the blinds always have to be drawn; finding things can be a challenge since vertical circulation is severely constrained.
by Payton on Nov 3, 2011 5:11 pm • link • report
And we wouldnt be building the Taj or Chartres in this day, modernism or no. Look at the works of the generation of architects who despise modernism, and tell me which ones are like those.
And I think I was able to appreciate the seagrams building, and some other delights of modernist manhattan, when i first saw them. Exactly why it was so iconic, might need some background - especially because it was so widely copied.
BTW, the seagrams building was NOT built in the last 50 years. It was built in 1957.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 3, 2011 5:17 pm • link • report
I havent been to the MLK building lately. But much of the rhetoric I have seen in this thread does not particularly distinguish MLK from better modernist buildings, many of which are in fact inspiring, not depressing at all.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 3, 2011 5:19 pm • link • report
if so would you tear down the William James Building? The GSD? The science center? The dorms designed by Gropius?
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 3, 2011 5:21 pm • link • report
Fashions do change, which doesn't mean all previous styles should go away. The style of the landmark Old Post Office building was considered passe not long after its completion and survived many attempts to demolish it in favor of the greek revival buildings of Federal Triangle. I for one am grateful it was preserved, even though it broke the cohesive style of the Triangle. It is exceptional in many ways, and has adapted to many different uses that make it valuable beyond style.
But tearing down the current MLK library would not be out of spite for a passe style, but rather because it simply isn't well suited to the needs of a modern library. Perhaps it could be preserved in some form and repurposed for some other use, but buildings must ultimately exist to serve some purpose. Preservation for the sake of keeping examples of past architectural style may be necessary, but not sufficient justification.
We've lost lots of great buildings from the past and while it's great to see the photos or visit a few select examples, I think we're all better off for having razed many of those which couldn't adequately meet current needs.
by DCxNW on Nov 3, 2011 5:22 pm • link • report
Homeless people use libraries everywhere. OTOH, the church next door provided a magnet for them and it would make more sense for social service agencies to find a drop-off location that is more integrated with transportation and for the suburban and Ward 3 do-gooder churchgoers to do something in their own backyards. Mies' open, modifiable spaces are more suited to a library than a pseudo-quaint building. I was at the Chicago library for a meeting a few months ago and impressed at the wasted space. I used to teach on a campus designed by Mies and the buildings grew on me with my daily walk to the "L". Mies' buildings have received restorations that help make the clean lines more and other features more apparent and attractive. If there's "too much space" then the library should consider how to generate income or at least traffic from community orgs--book clubs, for example. Getting a development lobby like the Urban Land Institute is exactly the wrong approach to take.
by Rich on Nov 3, 2011 8:29 pm • link • report
The building was apparently designed to be elevator-only, but when one elevator is out of service the wait becomes unbearable. There's no reason to take the elevator when you're just going 1 or 2 floors up.
It seems like this problem could be resolved without building a whole new library.
by jcs on Nov 3, 2011 10:26 pm • link • report
1. where's the citation?
2. It depends on program. E.g., the point I made years ago that the Central Library could include archives, museum, and visitor center functions () would require a larger facility
3. Most of the central libraries in other center cities are larger than 225,000 square feet, including more newly constructed libraries. E.g., the Central Library designed by Rem Koolhaas in Seattle is 362,500 s.q.
The Harold Washington Central Library in Chicago is more than 700,000 s.f.
NYC has several "Central Libraries" because the borough library systems in Queens and Brooklyn are separate. Even so in Manhattan there is the main library at Bryant Park and a separate large business library.
The problem with this ULI process is like with the previous process. It is disconnected from the public and a public planning process and a civic engagement process. Although, I guess you could say this will be a form of "scoping" and not a full planning process.
by Richard Layman on Nov 4, 2011 5:24 am • link • report
Definitively not accepting that number as gospel. That is why I qualified it with, "According to DCPL..."
by John Muller on Nov 4, 2011 7:18 am • link • report
The homeless people congregate there in large numbers and the management seem resigned to accept that fact, driving off potential users.
This is a HUGE issue for all urban library systmes, and it's not really a library management issue (they're doing their best) but a city services issue. Like it or not, the homeless have just as much right to use the library as anyone else as long as they are following the rules (which do include "no sleeping" in most places). It's related to Item 1 on the American Library Association's Code of Ethics (http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics.cfm)
"We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests." (emphasis mine).
It may seem silly and I know it's annoying but there's a greater point here. We can't start preventing rule-following people from using the library (whatever that use may be) just because we don't like them. In the Information Age things are a bit different because libraries are no longer the main/most easily accessible repositories for information (that would be the Internet now), but imagine you ban the homeless because you don't like them? Then who? Teens? The elderly? Republicans? Who gets permission to access a publicly funded information repository?
Further, library systems can get sued when they start to limit access to anyone, including the homeless: http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2006abc/september2006a/worcester.cfm
Finally, the people who run libraries are...librarians. They aren't trained to deal with the types of behavioral problems that can occur with the homeless. What are they really supposed to do?
The real problem here is the lack of City services to help the homeless. The fact that homeless outreach centers drop their clients off at the library ought to say something....sometimes there's NO other place in the city for them to go that actually has heat during the day.
We should fix that problem, so maybe libraries would no longer be the de facto daytime homeless shelters in this city.
@AWalkerInTheCity
Perhaps this library whats needed is an integration of the public library systems across the region, and creation of a central library for the whole region, funded by the whole region>
Nice idea in a way but nneeeevvverrr gonna happen (a regional central library funded by the whole region). We can't even manage to fund Metro as a region, we're not going to get it together for a library.
But, the upside is that you can get a library card in just about any jurisdiction around here that you want one in, all jurisdictions have extended borrowing privileges to each other's citizens. Now, you need a seperate card for each, and need to search each one's catalog seperately to check availability (now THAT would be a nice fix) but it's still a great service, especially because most of the jurisdictions have downloadable eBooks and audiobooks, and among all the region's library systems (that allow cross-borrowing of those types of materials) that's a LOT of instant availability.
by Catherine on Nov 4, 2011 10:00 am • link • report
by Catherine on Nov 4, 2011 10:04 am • link • report
I realize it wont be easy. I think in some ways its easier - the funding isnt as massive - Im not necessarily talking about one single system, with one budget - but multiple systems sharing the central library. Right now Fairfax doesnt really have a true central library worthy of a jurisdiction its size - it has a couple of regional libraries that are comparable to the Alex and Arlington central libraries. I think MoCo is similar.
In NYC Brooklyn has a central library - but its not really comparable to NYCPLs central Reference library - NYCPL has a prime branche (or did) MidManhattan across the street. Of course all the NYC systems BPL, QPL, and NYCPL are funded out of the same budget (and the main reference branch is essentially self funded by private donations, IIUC) Im thinking something along the lines of MOco funds its branches, DC funds its branches, Fairfax funds its branches - but there is a single reference center, funded heavily privately, and perhaps getting seed money from multiple jurisdictions, that serves all the jurisdictions.
Ive NEVER been involved in library management, and could be completely barking up a tree here. Just trying to think outside the box a bit.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 4, 2011 10:14 am • link • report
That said - 1. some above indicate the building COULD be repurposed as office space, possibly with floors added.
2. How long a time and how many chances does it get? How much time did Union Station get before becoming successful? How much time was Grand Central kept as an oversized, inefficient, commuter railroad station/Off track betting parlor before increased commuter train usage and revived manhattan retail made it look more positive? Not saying MLK is as well beloved as those train stations, but just thinking.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 4, 2011 10:20 am • link • report
by Alex B. on Nov 4, 2011 10:26 am • link • report
by w on Nov 4, 2011 11:52 am • link • report
LOC's not our library, but maybe people use it as an excuse for why we shouldn't build a second one?
Great capital cities deserve great libraries. Rome, Alexandria, Baghdad, Ephesus, New York -- all built glorious libraries that were simultaneously imposing monuments to knowledge and art, and also seats of learning for the most important scholars.
The MLK library, on the other hand, is a pathetic modernist can. It's ok to complain that it's basically just a homeless shelter; we should complain more because it doesn't actually do anything else. It seems to have an insultingly dismissive posture toward the image of the capital of the most powerful republic in history.
Ideal building size? National research? Rent some floors somewhere else? TAX REVENUE? You guys have apparently all given up. Our main library should be a temple. It should be where we have statues of our greates scientists and writers (show our kids you can be glorified for more than wearing a jersey). People should come to DC to see our Capitol and our Library and leave feeling that they've seen what the power of ideas looks like. It should be enormous, and it should be the best.
by Ronald on Nov 4, 2011 2:40 pm • link • report
by w on Nov 4, 2011 3:08 pm • link • report
I like the MLK design - perhaps its problem is that it isn't old enough yet.
The MLK Library needs to be refurbished to its original designs (lighting, hvac, chairs, etc) and modernized as the other libraries into more of a community gathering place -- coffee shop, art gallery and such, practice space for music, etc.
by neb on Nov 4, 2011 3:21 pm • link • report
Agreed. The one big structural change that I'd consider making would be for improved vertical circulation.
by Alex B. on Nov 4, 2011 3:58 pm • link • report
But a regional central library in the DC area really makes no sense, because people shouldn't be expected to have to travel a great distance to it from the various jurisdictions. E.g., how would you like to go to the DC based central library and you live in Fairfax. (or vice versa) Not to mention that the jurisdictions have different needs and would want their collections and services to reflect that.
It's an idea in search of a need. Not to mention that all the main library systems have free reciprocity (Takoma Park you have to pay for).
OTOH, the City of San Jose has a combined central library with San Jose Sate University, which is a potential model. E.g., it could have been done with GWU, which is the city university library closest to the city center.
But DC people (city, library, and universities) have so little vision that creating such a facility would take decades to create, if possible.
wrt neb's comment, I haven't been to the libraries in Denver and Minneapolis, but the Seattle library is much different in physical organization and layout than MLK. Plus it's newer. Yes, there is the one big area with tables comparable to how the MLK is set up, but that has to do with the computer area.
The other problem, not discussed, isn't the location of the library, so much as the quality of it and its collections.
Except for Washingtoniana, I rarely use the DC libraries anymore. Instead I use the LC (I am there at least once/week, sometimes twice) and Catholic U (especially the Architecture library, at least once/month), and at times I have been a Friend of the Library at GWU, which gives you use privileges, and the ability to check out books depending on how much you give. Plus I probably use the Foundation Center library about once/month.
I am looking forward to the coming Silver Spring library branch in Montgomery County. I find the branch libraries in MoCo serve my needs better than the branch libraries (Takoma, Northeast, Southeast, Petworth) in DC. Even the Hyattsville branch of the PGPL has a far more extensive periodical collection (but it's less convenient for me to get here) than any DC library except for MLK.
by Richard Layman on Nov 4, 2011 4:10 pm • link • report
I live in Fairfax, and I would travel to DC to use a central library - for one, I work here. For another my kid needed to use LOC on one occasion. And FFX simply does not have a real central library. Maybe FFX will build one as part of the new Tysons, I dont know. That wont be much easier to get to than downtown DC for me.
And I must quibble - Brooklyn Public Librarys funding is mostly from the NYC budget. Maybe the Central lib at Grand Army plaza gets some donor money. Anyway even the Grand Army Plaza library is more equivalent to the mid manhattan branch, than to the main NYPL research library on 42nd street.
Reciprocity gives me access to other suburban library systems similar to fairfax (and despite reciprocity I have to carry multiple cars). The potential need (maybe its not real) is for a serious central library that would rival NYC, Chicago, etc. FFX can't support that. I dont think DC can support that.
Maybe the idea is outmoded today - or maybe University/municipal partnerships are a better idea. I dont know.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 4, 2011 4:46 pm • link • report
The reason that people use MLK is that it is centrally located, has some specialized collections, and compared to most of the neighborhood libraries, has more evening and weekend hours.
by Richard Layman on Nov 4, 2011 5:20 pm • link • report
by Lover of Libraries on Nov 4, 2011 6:42 pm • link • report
Building a new library will not address the anemic operating budget, continual staff cuts, or shrinking acquisition budgets that have plagued the system, although the new Chief Librarian has made a noticable difference in the operation of MLK. A new building will not make it into 1st class research library (without enormous increases in acquisitions) and won't displace the homeless. Enlisting a developer backed "think tank" is perhaps not the best way to consider the libraries future and I'd be more convinced if urban librarians were consulted instead. I tend to think that a long-term plan to rehab MLK would be more in the interest of the library because it could be done over a period of years and be integrated into some sort of plan for improving acquisitions, staffing, and other functions. A new building in the likely far distant future will help delay the kind of short- medium- and long-term planning that the library system needs.
by Rich on Nov 5, 2011 12:29 pm • link • report
by LouDC on Nov 5, 2011 2:01 pm • link • report
by LW on Nov 9, 2011 10:23 am • link • report
I use the MLK Library at least once a week. The children's library is the only service provided by DC City Government in downtown. (No playgrounds nor recreation centers are available in the Downtown BID.) It is a underutilized place for community gatherings and could be so much more.
I think it would be a travesty to sell the land, which is centrally located to the residents living downtown and those working here.
If there is too much square footage in the building, I believe the A Level could become a Rec Center managed by DC Parks and Rec. The enclosed northwest corner outside of the building could be outfitted with cafe tables and loose play toys, like tricycles, for very little money. It would be provide a much needed safe play space in a city that has none.
by Caroline Armijo on Nov 14, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report
by Alan Page on Nov 24, 2011 3:04 pm • link • report
As for tearing it down - since it was designated as having some sort of historical significance that is going to be a problem. The historical significance bit might make it less attractive to developers who might not want to go though the headache of adding extra floor(s) to make it something they want to try and make money off of.
I just don't know that moving it is totally on the table either for no other reason than the budget of the Library is iffy anyway. The only real way to make it so is to move and sell the building. Of course you would have to move it somewhere else and finding a place with the space and structural needs is easier said than done. It also needs to be easily accessible by Metro and putting it where the real estate is relatively cheep in DC proper may mean it is not as accessible. At that point why bother rebuilding one in the first place because a non accessible library in a city where lots of people get around by Metro is a recipe for failure.
by ET on Dec 8, 2011 3:42 pm • link • report
Add a Comment