Comments on The many definitions of a "modern library" - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by William

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:34:03 EDT

Allison, What you suggest would not have been possible 24 hours ago. However, as of this moment, the possibility exists to work with LCOR and the City to create just such a space. Rather than complain about the process, why not deal with the facts that this is here, so make the best of it.

Comment by Allison

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:06:28 EDT

William, your characterization that opposition to the Tenley mixed-use project is all about 1950s NIMBY is not only wrong but unfair. It is possible to be in favor of mixed-use development and yet still oppose a specific project for valid reasons. More residential density on Wisconsin Ave should happen in the same way as it does elsewhere - through the development of private property, with good zoning and long-term planning by the city. Not by giving away rights to public property which is, and will remain, in high demand, unless there is a HUGE over-riding reason. I have yet to see that. It was very much the open-minded Janney School community that pushed for a rapid mixed-use PPP on the library land in the first place, thinking it could be a win-win for all. This was at a time when DCPS lacked leadership and was not going to expand the school for many years. DCPS has since stepped up and acknowledged the pressing needs. Yet the Tenley project has taken on a life of its own, becoming "mixed-use" development for the sake of it, with questionable short-term benefits to the school system and with specific long-term risks. Not to mention the library and other potential community needs as the area naturally increases in density. The Janney community now has more questions than ever. The people involved with the library have never really been in favor. I believe the ANC even questioned the legality of the process. So who is driving it at this stage? The Mayor's economic development office? Why? From local demand? Do they need to fill an investment quota in somebody's action plan? Does it have to be at the expense of future community facilities development, which will only be in more demand as time passes? Is Mary Cheh certain that her ear is to the ground on this one? I don't know .... The real question for smart growth in the Tenley project would be this: Why can't DCPL, DCPS and maybe DCPR get together to create a library/community meeting center that will draw people to the area, while helping Janney through the provision of underground parking, and while complementing the retail, residential and Metro access that already exists on that corner?

Comment by Richard Layman

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:09:51 EDT

William, I can see that point. ALthough I think that the ANC3(E?) people make good arguments about the expansion needs for the school, given its burgeoning enrollment. Remember I tend to focus on broad brush stuff and don't and can't get into the nitty-gritty of the specifics of every proposal and project out there. BUt I don't think your characterization is fully fair--empty storefronts? But the real problem is DCPL more than anything. They are the ones not into mixed use, and adamantly opposed to consideration of high quality facilities with multiple purposes. I happened to have a conversation with a high level DC Govt. official about this a couple weeks ago (i ran into him on the street after Bike to Work Day--well, actually I was drinking coffee at Starbucks and reading the Post...) and we talked about this. I asked why the Mayor doesn't fire all the recalcitrant DCPL staff and reconstitute the board? Of course, then he got a call that he had to take, and he left, giving me no answer to my suggestion. Anyway, I am very busy now because I am moving and having to deal with various workmen and projects at the new house in advance of our final move in next weekend, so I can't write very much but I will try to blog about this general issue of recreation vs. community centers and libraries vs. expanded community serving facilities. I had a great conversation with one of the workman about the Rec. Center that he has used his whole life (he is 27) and he gave me a lot of stuff to think about and leverage.

Comment by William

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:14:36 EDT

Richard, the problem in Tenley is not DCPS, DCPL or the Mayor's office, it is the 'let's keep everything at 1950 status' NIMBY crowd which would rather have empty storefronts and empty lots than anything shiny and new.

Comment by Bribes

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:58:06 EDT

I would absolutely love to have a Barnes & Noble or Borders style library in Tenleytown. Coffee, comfy couches (commercial bookstores have too few), quiet areas for study, music, books, and a social setting... all for free!! I would spend days there. Putting the library in the context of a community center, with say, a well maintained public pool in the same complex, and a small food vendor area, would be heaven. And while I'm dreaming, a climbing wall would be nice.

Comment by Richard Layman

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:10:38 EDT

I don't know what DC LRP's position is on Tenley specifically, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT OPPOSED TO MIXED USE LIBRARY CENTERS, INCLUDING NON-GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS because I am working with them on a specific project, and we have discussed some of the other activities they are involved in, including another particular project. Specifically wrt Benning Library, they are one of the best advocates for mixed use out there. I would really check in with them, because, as I said--other than Tenley which I don't know about--two projects I have consulted with them on (one for $ one not) they are quite good, a real positive inclusive, high-quality force. And the Library master plan was never adequately vetted. It sucks. It's about 30% good. I can't find it online anymore though. I tried through archive.org and I couldn't find it there either.

Comment by DC

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:46:55 EDT

The Seattle Library, which is much like the good libraries they describe, is fantastic. People just hang out in it. Some people go for the whole day. Not every library can be that big and complete, but every library can be good.

Comment by Laurence Aurbach

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:28:34 EDT

"Architecture "of our time" apparently means architecture from half a century ago." No, no, you don't understand! This one has louvers. Louvers! That's the key!

Comment by Boots

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:47:20 EDT

Reading through the meeting notes with the citizenry they post on the site, I see no reason why they would require a library that "looks almost nothing like a traditional library." Either we listen to the design charette participants, who in their ideas, came up with some fairly conventional ideas about what a library should be. (suprise!) While some comments were useful, making it an urban icon, making it URBAN not suburban, while others contradictory. Telling the designers to make a building urban and then requiring parking is just plain silly. The idea of logical balance is needed. Seems to me that the designers couldnt discriminate between what people really wanted and what some nimbys had to say and their own design predispositions.

Comment by Boots

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:34:08 EDT

BeyondDC, I couldn't agree more. Not only does the city scam the citizens out of a building but the architects foist ugly monstrosities that will likely be out of date within 10 years. I'm sure that the MLK library was up to date and modern in its time. The shame is that people want to save that but tear down the old Carnegie library.

Comment by BeyondDC

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:52:03 EDT

I don't understand how anyone can take architects seriously when they continue to push the same glass boxes they've been pushing for 50 years as in any way "striking" or "contemporary". Architecture "of our time" apparently means architecture from half a century ago.