April 23, 2006
Opinionist: Library Plan Serves Mayor, Not D.C.
Today's Opinionist comes to DCist from local art blogger Kriston Capps.
For all this time, D.C. Mayor Williams has billed himself as a supporter of big boxes in the District. During yesterday’s town hall meeting to discuss the fate of the city’s public library system, the Mayor revealed himself to be no friend to our most notorious big box—the Mies Van der Rohe-designed Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. And he made no new friends among those who have legitimate doubts about the Williams administration’s plans to secure himself a lickety-split library legacy, a plan that fails to consider every option or the best value. Consider me among those doubters: the Mayor’s plan is rushed and opportunistic. Mayor Williams should reconsider—and he should dedicate his administration to renovating the Mies.
The first fault in the Mayor’s presentation, hosted yesterday by Council-member Kathy Patterson at the MLK Library, was a classic bait-and-switch. The centerpiece of his $450 million plan to restore the District’s library system is a new, $180-million flagship facility, to be located on the site of the old convention center. During the discussion, Mayor Williams and Library Board of Trustees President John Hill showed photographs from 21st century libraries across the country. He and his boosters spoke about the central libraries in Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and—of course—the Rem Koolhaas-designed library in Seattle.
But none of these stand-alone libraries remotely resembles the building Williams has in mind for the District. The new library would be a mixed-use facility, complete with commercial outlets, offices, or condominiums. To borrow an analogy from another of the Mayor’s development projects, it’s a bit like promising the city a Camden Yards but delivering an RFK, sandwiched row-style between a Hecht’s and a Linens ’n Things.
This isn’t to say that, as things stand, the Mies is a viable central library. As Williams and his supporters are quick to point out, the library faces significant structural problems, including an air-conditioning system that has been wonky for years. The building lacks the wiring to facilitate computer networks, broadband, and all the other perks that seem to be necessary hallmarks of a contemporary library. This is, of course, an unfair criticism of the Mies—it was built before the dawn of the Internet, and can be updated like every other building built before 1990. In the case of the Mies, fire-retardant materials would require the building to be closed while the various mechanical systems were upgraded.
So here’s a simple question: What would it cost to renovate the Mies? You might think that that question would be first and foremost in any evaluation of a library system upgrade, but the numbers don’t exist. Earlier this year, the Committee of 100 requested that Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi prepare an estimate, but so far, work hasn’t started on the request. Former DCPL trustee and current ANC Commissioner Alexander Padro, a Mies supporter, has described a renovation cost not exceeding that of building a new facility. The cost of temporary housing for the MLK collection during a restoration should be considered against the $100 million in site acquisition costs, reported in the Washington Post—but curiously absent in the $180 million breakdown offered by the Mayor on Saturday. The money might very well play in favor of the Mies.
At the very least, the money doesn’t add up for a new facility. At least $100 million of the new building cost is to come in the form of a 99-year lease of the Mies and payments in lieu of property taxes. But if we’re to believe the statements of developer and library board facility committee member Richard Levy—“Besides being depressing, and aside from all the deferred maintenance, the Mies building is a very inefficient building”—well, who’s going to pay premium prices for a dud? If you’ve been inside the building, you know it’s a purpose-driven design. Though it might be possible to adapt its design to something other than a library, it could only ever be a public building. It just ain’t office space.
Conventional wisdom holds that it’s easier to mount a public fundraising campaign for a new building rather than a restoration. Let recent experience nip this bit in the bud—ask the Corcoran Gallery of Art how their Frank Gehry–designed facade courted public support. (It didn’t.)
Sure, financial considerations mask what may ultimately be the driving concern for those who want a different central library: aesthetics. Specifically, lots of people think it’s ugly. This is somewhat unfair; after 30 years of neglect, disrepair, and mismanagement, any building on the National Mall might not look all that inviting, either. Nevertheless, the severe International School design is at the heart of the discussion (if not necessarily at the heart of the library system’s real problems).
But it should not go without question that Mayor Williams has the right to assume the mantle of the city’s aesthetic arbiter. At one time, a plurality of officials and District citizens thought that Mies was a solid bet—not only for the library, but for the architectural reputation and civic identity of the District. Revising that decision should not be done on a whim, especially since it won’t be done without consequences—endangering the public status of one of the premier specimens of 20th century architecture sets a bad precedent, damages our standing among cities with high architecture, and risks our future ability to court the greatest architectural minds. And furthermore, plenty of people disagree that the Mies is intolerable—not just pointy-headed architecture enthusiasts but longtime library users, many of whom testified to that end during yesterday’s 4-hour proceedings.
Tastes differ; the Mayor’s tastes shouldn’t be ground for revising the architectural history of the city. His business should be business, and by neglecting a very real option—siding with the workable, architectural landmark we already have, and at the very least, abandoning a plan that is centered on hopeful projections—Mayor Williams is putting his own legacy before the legacy of the city.
|
This article stated that "The new library would be a mixed-use facility, complete with commercial outlets, offices, or condominiums."
I was under the impression that the new library would be part of a mixed-use facility on the grounds of the old convention center site. What is wrong with that?
Ok, so I agree that we should keep the Mies Van Der Rohe architecture in the city. I also agree that we should move the central library to the old convention center site. I like the mayor's plan to lease the current library building for 99 years to a developer and use the proceeds to build another central library. I think it is a nice balance for all sides.
MLK library was Mies Van Der Rohe's only library design. It failed miserably. Use it for something else now. Let us move on.
Plus, the building's ground floor overhang is awful, awful, awful.
Ok, now my personal opinion on the current MLK library building. The building gives absolutely no respect to graceful architecture which stands up to the test of time. The building is not distintive at all for the nation's capital. It is a failure. Great architects have bad days too.
This article stated that "The new library would be a mixed-use facility, complete with commercial outlets, offices, or condominiums."
I was under the impression that the new library would be part of a mixed-use facility on the grounds of the old convention center site. What is wrong with that?
I also was trying to reference that a mixed-use facility can be a combination of stand-alone buildings on a site or adjoining sites. A stand-alone, new central library at the old convention center site is fine with me. If the new cental library is to be inside a single building with other purposes like condos and office inside the same building, then that configuration might be a mistake.
There needs to be more focus on the value of the MLK building. I am very, very leary of any "99-year lease" for what has to be, Metro-wise, one of the most centrally located properties in this city, between the Gallery Place and Metro Center exits. I have read about plans, or at least ideas of one, for building an underground walkway connecting Gallery Place and Metro Center. Imagine what that property will be worth if there's an underground entrance between the two most heavily used Metro stops in the city? The pressure for air rights over that building will be considerable. The MLK building may be, by square foot value, the most important property owned by this city. As far as the Mies Van Der Rohe's design -- it's worthless. The interior design was cobbled together; the exterior reflects its cold and emotionally vacant interior. A library helps ideas find life and its architecture should reflect that; this building warehouses books.
I say let the homeless people move into the building if everyone is so set on keeping the ugly thing. Oh, wait ... they already have moved in.
The article also stated that revising this architecture "damages our standing among cities with high architecture, and risks our future ability to court the greatest architectural minds"
Since when does the current MLK central library represent high arhitecture? I do not think so.
We already have great architects right here in the city who do not have an outlet for their "high architecture" simply because very few are willing to put up the money to support that "high architecture". It is sort of like some of the engineers who work at NASA. They have all these ground-breaking designs ready to go, but nobody wants to pay for it. All the engineers can do is just keep up the maintenance on an outdated design (i.e. Space Shuttle), which is a losing task. The point is, they do not have an outlet for what they went to school for and that is to build better, efficient technology.
The reason why DC and so many other places end up with mediocre architecture is that we are not willing to go the full distance to see that we get the most distinctive architecture.
The DC government and its citizenry should, occasionally, be willing to put up the money for the most distinctive architecture in the world. We deserve it and our future generations will appreciate it too! What is wrong with doing it right the first time. If the cental library was though out right the first time around, we wouldn't be discussing where to move it right now.
This article is dead on target. I have long noticed that the mayor is not truly interested in building a library. Instead, he wants to build a commercial development centerpiece for downtown. For the mayor, this development centerpiece happens to take the form of a library. But he wouldn't care if it took some other form, like a performing arts center or something. Problem is, with an attitude like that, the city might not wind up with a good library.
The city's got money to build a ballpark, while the public libraries are a disgrace. The MLK library has broken elevators, leaky ceilings, and a musty smell--all blocks from the White House. For shame.
"The city's got money to build a ballpark, while the public libraries are a disgrace. The MLK library has broken elevators, leaky ceilings, and a musty smell--all blocks from the White House. For shame."
Yes, because of the building's inefficient design.
"The city's got money to build a ballpark, while the public libraries are a disgrace. The MLK library has broken elevators, leaky ceilings, and a musty smell--all blocks from the White House. For shame."
You can blame the District of Columbia's elected officials for all the irresponsibility. DC could have and should have dealt with this issue decades ago. It did not happen. It might not have been so expensive. You know, the cost of inflation increases every year we wait. Also, the cost of materials, etc. increases the more we wait. What was the holdup?
Good job DC for continuing to elect some of the most non-decisive humans on the planet. The legacy of a good leader is the ability to make a sound, effective, and swift decision and then stick to that decision. Every decision has supporters and non-supporters - so be it.
I'm all for sandwiching the new library between as many stores, offices, or condos as it takes, if it means that it'll actually look like a library and not a ghetto. Building a new facility a few blocks away would get the library away from the homeless shelter, and hopefully, do away with the necessity of having a metal detector.
And the "architectural history" argument would be more persuasive if the building was actually attractive. As it stands now, I don't see how the city would be harmed if the whole thing was razed tomorrow.
"Let recent experience nip this bit in the bud—ask the Corcoran Gallery of Art how their Frank Gehry–designed facade courted public support."
Or possibly it could be that people in DC don't like modernist designs. I was happy to see the Corcoran plan fail. It was completely inconsistent with its surroundings. And what more, how much of a one-trick-pony can Gehry be? It's like the same exact thing every time.
Personally I think the library is ugly. Let all those that like it come forward with money to save it. I'd rather not be paying rust bills on the place in 10 years. I refuse to be cowed by the fact some view Mies as great. I don't. I dislike modernism, and I think this is a poor example of a bad idea. We should not be burdened by it.
I think it would be a fitting end to a style that rejected history for it to be rejected itself.
I should correct myself and say that Gehry's project is more post-modern than modernist. So it indicates that DC doesn't either either modernist or post-modernist design.
I also think that the District is better off without the Gehry facade at the Corcoran. It was a hopelessly starry-eyed plot from the start, and the aim of the project was not consistent with the Corcoran's needs.
I'm also extremely disappointed to see some critics cite the District's homeless, who do congregate in and near the library, as indicative of some failure of the architect's design. Homelessness in the District doesn't go away when and if the library is dislocated, and it's insensitive and frankly classist to suggest that city officials ought to make a policy decision based on what will make our very real problems the least visible to those who want to enjoy a gentrified neighborhood without experiencing pangs of conscience.
I was under the impression that the new library would be part of a mixed-use facility on the grounds of the old convention center site. What is wrong with that?
Nothing per se, except that 1) as such, it won't be an excellent architectural sample, and 2) I found it incredibly insincere for Mayor Williams to present photographs and speak about excellent architectural samples to argue for his new library, when it's clear by design that the District would get nothing of the sort.
"Nothing per se, except that 1) as such, it won't be an excellent architectural sample, and 2) I found it incredibly insincere for Mayor Williams to present photographs and speak about excellent architectural samples to argue for his new library, when it's clear by design that the District would get nothing of the sort."
Kriston, thanks for responding.
I was not at the meeting this Saturday, so I do not have all the upfront details on the event.
If the mayor is not committed to "high architecture" for the new central libary and cannot rally the DC Council behind his proposed plan, then I would rather keep the MLK library at the current site. DC has committed to countless projects which proposed dinstinctive architecture only to see them get watered down through budget cuts.
Did the mayor present any architectural sketches for his proposal at this meeting?
Also, if DC decides to keep the central library at the current site, then everything needs to be relocated so they can totally gut that building, add the additional floor from the original renovation plan, add the sky-lit atrium on floors 2 through 5 from the original renovation plan, attempt to do something with that awful ground-floor overhang, and reinstate everything that was cut from the architect's original design back in the late 1960's. That is the least the DC government can do. If DC can accomplish all of that, then maybe I will like this building a little bit more than I do now. But I still must maintain that there is nothing about Mies' design that is timeless in its current configuration. Nothing. Maybe the library was a victim of budget cuts which resulted in another watered-down, mediocre design.
I just want DC to do it right the first time, then maintain the building through regular maintenance like a responsible, caring government is supposed to do.
If the mayor is proposing a new central library that lacks the outstanding architecture and precedent that Washington, DC deserves, then it is not even worth the effort.
Any underground walkway between Gallery and Metro Center would run under G st, a block south of the site.
The MLK Library's failure has less to do with Mies' design, and more to do with shameful neglect on the District's part.
And for a city that is supposedly so well educated, it surprises me to see so much ignorance and shortsightedness when it comes to modern architecture. I imagine you would all rather see a new library designed to look like your turn of the century rowhouses! Why not go to your neighborhood library, and read up on the modernist style? Perhaps you would come away with a much greater appreciation for this little piece of architectural history in our city.
History will show Mies Van der Rohe to be one of the most overrated architects ever. The ugly pile of junk library should be razed and replaced with something more in keeping with the grand architecture of the monumental core of DC. The old city library in Mt. Vernon Square was so superior to the Mies building it's ridiculous. Anyone who argues that the current MLK library is anything other than a cold featureless office box must be deluding themselves. It is a warehouse at best, an offensive pile of architectural manure at worst. Note to all architecture/design hipsters: can we please stop admiring ugliness just for the sake of being "different?" If everyone is doing it, you're not cool and your perspective isn't unique. Gehry, Mies, IM Pei = flashes in the pan. Architects who will stand the test of time and worthy of preservation: Stanford White, Daniel burnham, Warren & Wetmore, etc.
"I have long noticed that the mayor is not truly interested in building a library. Instead, he wants to build a commercial development centerpiece for downtown. For the mayor, this development centerpiece happens to take the form of a library. But he wouldn't care if it took some other form, like a performing arts center or something. Problem is, with an attitude like that, the city might not wind up with a good library."
Do you actually think the library would be the draw for the development? At that location?
Quite frankly nothing is stopping the Mayor from advocating that the old convention cener site be fully commercially developed with no public purpose present at all. That would be the most cost/revenue effective solution for a city with far too much non-tax revenue generating uses to begin with. So, efforts to call him insincere or uninterested are driven by a broader agenda.
Perhaps DC should forgo a downtown central space and invest all of the money in new neighborhood libraries.
Historic and sentimental significance aside, MLK is a mid-century concrete glass and steel structure. All the talk of deficits in the building focus on piddly things- wiring, carpet, a/c... So we can, I think, safely assume the structure itself is sound.
Therefor, keeping and updating the existing structure is obviously less expensive than ripping it down just to rebuild a bigger and less desired version of the same. This shouldn't even be a topic of serious debate.
Mark, I disagree. Ok, let's put aside the debate over its historic significance. And let's set aside questions of asthetics. Fine. We're then left with an outdated, undermaintained, unspectacular box.
Yes it may be cheaper to make that box better than it is today. But that doesn't mean it's not a reasonable idea to make as much money off the building and land (via sale or lease) and using that money to offset the costs of building a much better building on the new site.
Basically it comes down to this: 1) sell or rent the old libary and use that money to help build a newer and more capable library on the new site, or 2) take the land set aside in the new site for the library, sell or lease that, and use the proceeds to raise the old library from disgraceful to something better. I'm not sure how all the numbers match up, or whether selling or leasing the new site is an option. But if the numbers are even remotely close, I'd prefer to have a new library when it's all said and done, and not have to continuously pay to upkeep that box.
And that's all setting aside asthetics or disputed historical significance. In my opinion, when you consider those elements, it's not even a close decision. Let someone else carry water for the architectural establishment.
If that would give DC a "bad rep" amongst the type of architects that adore buildings like that, then I'd say that's yet another benefit of getting that thing off our hands.
Reid: No matter how many commenters or residents find it ugly, it's a bit misleading to say that the MLK Library's significance is "disputed." If, say, you and everyone you knew hated Ulysses, it would be a stretch to call its significance into question. (Its value, sure. But that's a very subjective question, and if we decided these things entirely by popular vote, we'd probably be left with Five People You Meet in Heaven as one of the greatest books of the century.)
Consensus about these things is never monolithic. Some time in the 50s–60s the government nearly settled upon tearing down the Old Patent Office building (right around the corner from MLK), and only gave up on razing the Greek Revivalist building after community and architectural outrage. At the time, it was considered gaudy by many.
About your other points, I think we need a fair estimate of what our options are and what the consequences will be. We don't have anything like that, presumably because the Mayor has already decided upon a course of action.
Another point on the building's historical significance: An astute observer pointed out that MLK's legacy should not be relegated to a "plaque" that can be moved around by the city as it pleases.
Well, frankly, to take your analogy further, what if there were thousands of books written before and after Ullysses that were nearly the same, and in many cases better. Wouldn't that call into question whether it was a significant? Because that's essentially what we have here. We're not debating the Seagram's Building or Johnson's Glass House (which like the library was more concerned with concept than functionality). The library isn't Ulysses. It isn't Portait of the Artist as a Young Man. It isn't Finnegan's Wake.
If you must think of it in Joycian terms, think of it as a letter written to a fan. Short, impersonal, and insignificant.
And that MLK argument is perposterous. The shame is not in moving his name (I'm sure we'd all be horrified if the new stadium we're named RFK, wouldn't we?), it's in attaching it to that train-wreck in the first place.
As far as 'importance' goes I think we need to separate the arguments. (1) Mies was a great and celarly very inluential architect. (2) The MLK Library is no where near the top of his portfolio. For what ever reasons (budget cuts, lackof maintenance, his death) the building has a never been a good library; even when it was fairly new (I began using it in high school in hte mid 1970's) it was grim & foreboding with inadequate elevators, stairs and restrooms.
I say, let's get a new library and turn this one over to an instution that can make use of it - could it be turned to galleries/studios, reinforcing Gallery Place (with Mather Place studios right across the street? Could it be used by the AIA or the National Building Museum? The Smithsonian? A revived City Museum (uh, scratch that...)
Of course any approach like that would eliminate the rent anticpated, (which will not happen anyhow without essentially destroying the Mies building) forcing the mayor & council to show real commitment to the new library by finding legitimate revenue to build it, so I suppose that ends that thought.
What is illegitimate about getting one property of our hands to help fund another? It's a perfectly sound idea that the city has already put into action with some of its more valuable properties, and which it ought to do with surplus schools.
Why is funding via tax revenues more legitimate than getting unnecessary assets off our hands (and in the process increasing the property tax base)?