Tearing down library building would further show America's wastefulness
Yes, only in America would a perfectly usable building be torn down. In other countries, it would probably be standing many decades from now.
I have been on all floors of the downtown library, and I am impressed with the solid feeling of the building and the layout in general. I never experienced any difficulty regarding accessibility.
I have read nothing that convinces me that what appears to be a perfectly sound building should be razed to the ground. Are the foundations crumbling? Is the building falling apart? Are the patrons clamoring for a new building? Has a survey been done? Has the board obtained an impartial expert opinion, apart from that from an architect with a vested interest?
Personally, I am outraged at the utter wastefulness of this ill conceived and totally unnecessary destruction. To repeat . . . only in America!
Stuart J Baggaley
Ann Arbor
Comments
JK
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 6:53 p.m.
Updating plumbing and other building infrastructure in the Main Library shouldn't cost $65 million. Nor should installing network cables already obsoleted by wireless (for desktops too.) Heck, for $65 million we could subsidize laptops for all district residents. Our Library is quite adequate and isn't the Michigan Theater. Isn't the AADL always touting its five star rating?
A2Onward
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.
"I was on the Library Board from 2000 – 2008. The buzz during that time was that the Internet would make libraries obsolete. Quite the opposite happened: At the same time we were adding more computers and digital media, visits to the Downtown Library (and the branches), plus circulation, increased dramatically." - David Cahill, June 16, 2012 http://annarborchronicle.com/2012/06/12/aadl-board-whats-your-library-vision/
A2Onward
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.
"Any building's useful life can be extended if you are willing to spend a bunch on maintainence. Also, you have to be prepared for little "surprises". A few years ago, a plumbing fixture broke in the Downtown Library, spraying what is euphemistically called "raw sewage" all over a basement service room. The fixture was no longer available commercially and had to be fabricated, causing the Downtown Library to be closed for a few days." - David Cahill, 2010 http://annarborchronicle.com/2010/08/12/library-board-candidates-meet-with-staff/
Ann Dwyer
Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 5:20 a.m.
I remember when that happened. It wasn't pleasant.
A2Onward
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 1:51 p.m.
Apparently a pipe burst in the library building yesterday and flooding offices and forty years of archived material. The building really is falling apart people.
Meral
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 11:56 a.m.
Thank you Mr. Baggaley enlightening some AA voters. Like you I've asked some of my librarian friends the answer is NO. Most people seems like ending up using branch libraries. Why do we need 400 seat auditorium?We are offended by the careless act of AA City counsel these days. Like yesterday 8-2 votes they have approved to go alone with new rail system. Where will these careless acts end? You are over taxing the AA home owners and seniors. You are doing away with many services like leaf pick up yet you will not mind a perfectly good building to demolish. Shame on you.
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 10:38 a.m.
"Not every family in our community can afford a computer at home." Or food on the table. Or, property taxes Mr. Gunn.
Arboriginal
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:25 a.m.
Wasn't this approved some years back and the library board decided to not go forward? Funny how the sky is suddenly falling. Yeah, I know, thumbs down.
Jay Thomas
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:10 a.m.
I continue to ask the question: "Why is it that government buildings and housing projects need to be rebuilt every 30-50 years, while in the private sector they last for over a century?"
Halter
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:22 p.m.
ABsolutely agree with the OP, and based on the many many threads we have on this, its looking like it will pretty much be voted down (thankfully)....now go out there and vote against all this nonsense on the ballot this year.....
brimble
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 8:05 p.m.
The campaign to pass this bond is thoroughly disingenuous. Do we, as a community, benefit from great libraries? Absolutely! But dare we to define the system and its value within the confines of a single building? The model of information technology and access is in the middle of great flux today, and we most likely cannot accurately predict what it will look like in, say 20 years. Libraries will still be critical, most likely, but the idea of a large, central library building may be laughably antiquated. Electronic information delivery will probably continue to grow, and with that, a decentralization of library resources. Neighborhood branches, including a downsized downtown branch, stand a good chance of being useful, but there is no clear picture that this demolition and reconstruction project is the best projection of a future for our library system. Too many questions, too much cost, too much waste. No thanks.
John of Saline
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 7:49 p.m.
First-world problems.
Jamie Pitts
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 9:01 p.m.
We do live in the first world. And why not strive for better? We should try to live in the Zeroth-world, or create it.
Jamie Pitts
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 7:21 p.m.
And don't think that the wasteful rebuilding the downtown library will lead to an aesthetic improvement. Take a stroll around the concrete garden that was built next door and you'll see what we could have in store for us. Sometimes I wonder if this parking lot is a historical exhibit about the Berlin Wall! An architectural pattern is hard to kill; it is like a virus and it could blight our entire city if we do not put your foot down. Is it so hard to make things look charming? The current path the city is taking in terms of aesthetics and usage is disturbing, and the proposal for this library does not offer us any idea as to what the result will look and feel like.
millermaple
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 7:16 p.m.
Just read the November Harper's article about the Seattle Public Library's main building, that might change minds about a new expensive building.
rsa221
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:14 p.m.
What did the article say?
capersdaddy
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 7:02 p.m.
i do not want more taxes/millages - but I'm voting YES on this one. Why? I love the Ann Arbor District Library - love it. I think the Malletts, Traverwood and Pittsfield branches are fantastic. If these facilities weren't so great, then I would certainly not support this initiative. But I think they built beautiful libraries - so i will trust them to do so downtown. If this was a discussion about giving more money to those responsible for the City Hall renovations and the water fountain - then i would absolutely vote no. i support libraries with pleasure. public art? not so much.
Linda Peck
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 7:01 p.m.
I so agree with you, Mr. Baggaley. I personally have heard of no one who supports this proposal except for library staff and of course city council who love to spend our money.
Townspeak
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 6:07 p.m.
I agree completely with the author. No serious evidence has been presented of the need for a new library, and it seems that only those with vested interests in it want a new one. My wife and kids go tot he various libraries around town and enjoy them. Until such time as evidence of true need comes, i say no new building. Wasteful, burdensome and unnecessary.
Daniel Piedra
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 6:06 p.m.
If public buildings were constructed with traditional architectural norms rather than modernist norms, there wouldn't be any need to tear down these types of buildings. Unfortunately, the City will opt to replace one hideous design with another; and, naturally, they'll have to tear it down again in 2062. Yet, Angell Hall will stand, timeless and enduring. Liberalism is a disease.
Cathy
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 9:44 p.m.
After looking at that hulking eyesore they call the "Municipal Center," I really hesitate to support another new city building.
Leah Gunn
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 5:56 p.m.
The existing library building is indeed not "perfectly usable". The library did a thorough study of the building. It is not energy efficient, it is not ADA compliant, and there is not enough room for the programs that are presented there. The childrens' area is especially inadequate, and the young adults have little space. There is often a long line waiting for the computers, and the electrical system is no longer adequate to install more. Not every family in our community can afford a computer at home. A new building would be energy efficient and would have enough materials, including books, which are still precious to many of us, to serve the community. And, unlike Amazon, it's free.
BobbyJohn
Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 8:05 p.m.
Ms. Gunn Our library isn't perfect, but as one who is a frequent visitor to it, it is still serving it's purpose quite well and is certainly not a priority to teardown. be without for 3 years, have Fifth St. closed down forever again, and spend $130,000,000 when you include the interest.
thorj97
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 10:19 a.m.
"The childrens' area is especially inadequate". Really? Our kids love it, and it's filled kids having a great time almost every time we go. I can't recall ever hearing the kids say "This area is truly inadequate". Those pushing the destruction of our library could care less what the users need. What will be inadequate is when this terrific space is torn down and the children in the area have no library for the three-plus years until the new conference center/library is complete. Yes, I've heard the vague promises of "continued services" downtown, without any details. I think there's a reason voters aren't told the details. Until I hear concretely what will happen in the interrum, I will vote NO.
kathryn
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:44 a.m.
Please don't relocate Westgate...it's just fine where it is.
mtlaurel
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 12:14 a.m.
westgate library branch should be relocated and improved. Ann Arbor could use another branch as well....The trend is more use at branches,rightfully so. That does not require what is being asked of the citizens.
cindy1
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.
as a frequent downtown library user, i wonder if you've ever been there. almost all of your characterizations are inaccurate, in my 9 years of observation.
Sam S Smith
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 7:48 p.m.
Aren't you the head of the DDA?
lynel
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.
$65,000,000, isn't free!
TommyJ
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 6:02 p.m.
It is most certainly not 'free'.
Chris Hall
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 5:44 p.m.
Library? I discovered these cool new things called Google and Amazon. You should check them out. At least, that's what our family does. And, I have a sneaking suspicion that the next couple of generations that will be paying for this new library will not have the need for it at all - long before it's paid for. Yes, yes, I know some of you will say "I like the feel of books" or "not everyone can access the Internet" Very well, we can build a much smaller library to serve the needs of those people. Or, heck, just leave the building as is and fix the ADA problems.
Halter
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:27 p.m.
Chris, I don't know whose voting against you, but you are absolutely correct... As someone who sits on many ADA committees across the state, I guarantee that the ADA problems in the current Library building are easily fixable...at a very low cost. To think that our populace needs a big new Library building as we go forward is completely counter to all signs of where culture is heading in the next 10 years -- which is onto the internet and away from paper-based materials. They argue we need more meeting rooms and breakout space....SO SO true -- which what community centers are for, not lIbrary's. I'd love to see a proposal for a community center that includes 20 breakout rooms and two theaters inside along with rehearsal rooms, and storage space. If that is what we need, then that is what needs to be designed and proposed, not some odd way of redoing the Library which will never truly fit these needs.
Wolf's Bane
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 5:42 p.m.
Completely agree!
simone66
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 5:35 p.m.
I absolutely agree with the author of this editorial. As a UofM student back in the mid 90s, I found the library then to be an outstanding building, and it still is to this day. I think those who are caught up in all the new building that is going on downtown, including the proposed new downtown AATA bus depot, along with the new underground parking, that some think a new library would blend in better. The building is perfectly fine and functional. Maybe 20 years from now they can review plans to build a new library, but it's not needed now.
Kathy Griswold
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 5:31 p.m.
The downtown library was built and renovated when it was part of the Ann Arbor Public Schools. I am told over 60,000 square feet, of the 110,000 square feet total area, was constructed in the early 1990's, making it newer than the majority of our schools. AAPS has a major initiative to make all of their buildings Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. And the voters just approved an AAPS technology bond that did not call for the demolition of any of the schools. The downtown library could do the same. In 2002 "experts" recommended that the Huron and Pioneer high schools be expanded. After the expansion bond failed, "experts" recommended that a new high school be built and the 2004 bond passed. Based on my experience as an AAPS trustee, "experts" can be found to support any position. What then justifies demolishing the building? The existing building cannot accommodate a 400-seat auditorium and other conference center elements. Please do not be fooled by the claims it is needed for ADA compliance and technology upgrades. Again, look at AAPS's progress in these areas.
David Cahill
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 5:27 p.m.
Well said, Mr. Baggaley!
gsorter
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.
Hey, it isn't "real" money, it is our kids money, and it is only $65 million. I say we issue bonds for a subway next, that would only be a couple of billion or so.
ordmad
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.
What's wasteful is the 20 seconds it took for me to read this "opinion" which is based on apparently nothing but your brief walk through the building. Rather than engage the reader with an articulate discussion of the plethora of facts out there (both pro and con), or an articulate discussion of anything for that matter, you simply state your conclusory opinon and wait for the mindless hordes to give you a big thumbs up. Thanks for absolutely nothing. And (btw), had you bothered to check, the patrons are in fact clamoring for a new building. OK - here come the thumbs down.
catbehindthecouch
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:37 p.m.
"Are the foundations crumbling? Is the building falling apart? Are the patrons clamoring for a new building? Has a survey been done?" Most of your questions can be answered by reading survey results here: http://www.aadl.org/node/205030 and by viewing video of the community forums here: http://www.aadl.org/node/205889. Having an opinion is great, but it's nice if it has some research behind it, especially when information is so readily available.
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.
Most of her questions were rhetorical.
Mitch
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.
Very good to see reasonable rational in this crazy town. There is no need to raise this building.
Wolf's Bane
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 5:42 p.m.
"raze"
northside
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:58 p.m.
It is quite ironic that a town which prides itself on environmental awareness may destroy a perfectly good building. One of many reasons why I'll be voting no.
lynel
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:40 p.m.
Like many Ann Arborites there has never been a millage I wouldn't support, however, I will be voting NO on this one.
Superior Twp voter
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.
"further show America's wastefulness" ???? So each one of us is "wasteful" eh? As your letter begins with such a premise, I find your opinion questionable - wouldn't matter what issue you were writing about.
Itchy
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 5:43 p.m.
Yes, Americans have a tendency to be wasteful. Do you throw away food not eaten?
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:49 p.m.
you are drawing an inaccurate conclusion. Just because someone invokes the cliche "only in ABC can xyz happen" that, in no way, implies everyone in ABC is guilty of xyz.