May 4, 2006
Mayor Submits Library Plan
D.C. Mayor Williams officially introduced legislation Tuesday to approve the financing of a new Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. Dubbed the Library Transformation Act of 2006, the Mayor's plan calls for a new "State-of-the-Art Central Library" to be located at the nearby site of the old convention center. The new Library would act as an anchor for a larger development plan that would include "new office, retail and housing" space around the site. The stand-alone measure will allow the D.C. Council to debate the $180 million plan, which was previously tucked inside the 2006 Budget Support Act.
The plan was submitted after a marathon, 5-hour public meeting held April 22 at which the Mayor solicited opinions from residents. While there seemed to be no trouble reaching a consensus that, in its current state, the building, designed by famed modernist architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, will be inadequate to meet the future needs of a central library, questions remained about what would be done with the landmark under the Mayor's plan. Williams has previously proposed leasing the building out to a private entity, but with no such entity already in place, it seems unlikely it will be easy to find a renter for a space with as many problems (insufficient heating/cooling, out of date mechanical and electrical systems, etc.) as the current MLK Library. No mention was made of a plan for the older building's fate by the Mayor on Tuesday.
Another interesting section from the Mayor's press release:
"I continue to believe that it is not enough to try to renovate the 900 G Street, NW, location for the central library. In short, I think it will be just as expensive to do a renovation of the central library but without the added benefits of creating unique public space in the center of downtown, attracting residents as new patrons, and enticing visitors and scholars alike."
As far as we understand, no study of the actual cost of renovating the Mies-designed building has been conducted to date, but the Mayor seems awfully convinced he is right. What do you think?
|
To his credit, Tony isn't using definitive phrases. He said "I believe" and "I think" it's not worth it. He's not saying that it's definitely the case.
Besides, I think his central point is not necessarily that the cost to renovate the MLK Library will be the same as or more than what it would be to build a new one (although he did say that), I think his central point is that even if it would be cheaper, it wouldn't be worth it. In other words, it would be throwing good money after bad money.
I'm not sure what it would cost to do a study, but if it's a significant amount of money, I'd prefer more of a gut call. Because there are more nerve endings in your gut than in your brain. Look it up.
But in all seriousness, I really think this is all about aesthetics. People will want a new library not because it's cheaper but because they think the old one is ugly. And people who don't want the new library will mostly do so because they don't want to abandon the old building. Whether one option is more expensive than the other will not likely sway too many people from one camp to the other.
I took 9 pages of notes at the 4/22 meeting (and simply haven't had the time to transcibe them into something meaningful on my blog), but I can tell you that Mayor Williams wasn't there to "solicit opinions from the residents." According to said notes, he left at 2:15pm, long before the public witnesses began speaking (please correct me if he was hanging out in the back of the lobby listening).
It's easy for the Mayor, Fran Buckley (he stayed, but dozed off now and then), and the Trustees to believe they are right when the only opinions they are hearing are their own, even at the Listening Sessions earlier this year. At this meeting there was no "consensus that, in its current state, the building, designed by famed modernist architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, will be inadequate to meet the future needs of a central library." The majority of public speakers (at a meeting with very little public notice) want the library to stay put, want to know the proposed costs of renovation, and want some of this revenue stream put into their branch libraries (my branch, Woodridge, hasn't had a working elevator for at least 6 months, and is not in ADA compliance in a neighborhood with a number of seniors).
I'm not a fan of the current building, but I'm far more offended by an $180 million agenda being spun in a press release as the only solution.
Reid,
Its a bit more than aesthetics. Everyone knows the the MLK library is horrible to use. Tempature and lighting problems to name a few things. Although I agree that the building is ugly, its also just plan disfunctional.
I guess what I was trying to say is that if you were to ask people whether they want a new building or want to keep the old with renovations without regard to cost, I bet that it would break down to about the same as it would if costs were known. That's assuming that the cost to build another building and the cost to renovate the old one are not hugely disproportionate.
Jamie, I don't understand exactly what you're saying. Are you saying the attendees were against moving the library, but also against spending money on renovations? What revenue stream are you talking about?
the mayor is wrong again.
the mayor is wrong again.
I'm with Evans when he says: the old convention site is one of the most valuable on the entire east coast, that DC already has plenty of attractions to draw people downtown (hello?), and that the MLK (which is likely to be landmarked, anyway, and so is highly unlikely to be torn down) would cost much less to renovate than it would to build anew.
why is the friendship heights / tenleytown library going to reopen? it's been closed for at least 5 years and scheduled to reopen in "2004" then it was "2005" and now "2006."
wtf.
Normally I'm a big library booster, but before we go and spend $180 million on a library shouldn't we make sure someone's actually going to use it first? Are MLK and most of the neighborhood libraries in DC unused, depressing hellholes because they're underfunded, or are they underfunded because they were unused, depressing hellholes in the first place?
I use to be all for pumping more money into the system, but now I think it'd just be a waste to build a big one downtown that people would never use. Schools and universities already have their own libraries, adults can make use of the Library of Congress for research, and many adults have better internet access at home than they'd be able to get at the library. If the issue is providing internet connections for kids and those without their own internet connection, well, then improve the small libraries in their neighborhoods and adapt them to their communities' needs.
Knowing how the District takes care of its surplus property, the current MLK Library will be left to rot after no tenant is found, and a new library is built.
I agree with JohnS and jaime, perhaps the right question is not whether to build a new central liberary or renovate the current, but invest in utilized libraries or try to develop underutilized ones. I would favor putting money into neighborhood libraries that already have demonstrated community support first.
"the MLK (which is likely to be landmarked, anyway, and so is highly unlikely to be torn down)"
Is it? First, what landmark standard are you talking about? And second, is that a landmark status that prevents it from being torn down? Even buildings on the national register can be torn down (I think). Does DC have a particularly strong historic preservation law that would protect the building? I know it forces a lot of new construction to maintain the facade of the old one as much as possible, but would it really step in to protect the library? Especially considering it's a public building.
I'd be surprised if the city couldn't tear down the building if it chose. Whether there's a will to do so is another thing.
Also, while I agree that dedicating a footprint on the old convention site is giving up potential revenue, that could be easily made up for by tearing down the old building and selling that footprint.
Again, it seems the question will still devolve to "do we want to save this building or not".
Ironically, I had just posted a picture of the newly designed library in Del Ray on my website when I read this posting.
I'm torn. On one hand, I recognize the clean lines of the building and understand that many buildings of worth are destroyed in the first few decades after they're built, because not enough time has past for them to be appreciated.
On the other hand, I often wonder if buildings designed in this "modern" style were built to please communities or architects.
The building may have clean lines, but it's also austere and drab. Is this really the kind of place that people are attracted to and want to spend any time in? And how difficult is it to design a square anyway? I'm no architect, but it seems to me that square buildings with clean lines should be "Architecture 101."
Ornamentation is harder.
Delrayder
http://delradius.blogspot.com/
I can't help but think about the fact that $180 million divided into ten neighborhood libraries would mean $18 million per library for renovations, repair, upgrades and additions in areas that actually need to be served. A behemoth central library is a waste.
DC has very strong historic preservation laws and lobbies. That is one of the reasons we have empty buildings still downtown - because we can't tear them down but developers don't want to invest in restoring them. I think it is questionable that the National Register would put this building on the list - I haven't checked if it is - but this is not a good Mies building, it's even questionable that he was involved in the design and it was value-engineered in construction to the point that the value of the design itself is in question. It never was a building to inspire anyone - including architects. People don't visit it for it's value. It will however be listed on the DC register which is far more restrictive (as is typical across the country) than the National Register.
However, I don't think anyone here is arguing for it's design value - rather 'let's reuse the building to save money'. Anyone involved in revovation of a historic property, which this will be treated as, can assure you that it will be very expensive. Every bit of construction will cost more because the workers have to work around/in and within an object that must be preserved. Contractors charge a premium for that on top of their premium for working downtown. In addition, the requirements to upgrade the library to meet today's standards would make this renovation very expensive.
I think investment in a new library is exactly what this city needs - not for visitors but for locals. We are more than the nation's capitol, more than a tourist destination, more than a field trip for america's youth. We are a city with people worth investing in - and it is high time we do it. If you view the city as only a place for tourists and politicians - you're not thinking about this city yet. A public library in an investment in us all - youth and adults - and I think that is important - as a symbol and as an act of faith in the potential of the city.
I agree with the Mayor in this case. The current MLK library is a dysfunctional, depressing eyesore, and would remain so even if renovated. It's ugly. A new library on the old Convention Center site would be great.
The MLK library is no destination, and not very useful either. I visited the new Seattle library, and that building was a great addition to downtown Seattle. All sorts of people were using it, and the design was really unique, but useful, too.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/library/photogalleries/spl1.html
Mies had some dreary designs. Maybe if Vincent Orange gets elected he could repaint it orange. It needs a major overhaul if it's going to regain any of its lost glory.
Do people really believe that, if we reject the design principles of Mies, the citizens of Washington will find a sense of civic purpose and flock to a new library? I mean, that's certainly the idea behind the design of buildings like libraries -- how to make it a welcoming civic center, etc. -- but are people really convinced that it will make that big of a difference?
And more importantly -- does anybody really think that today's architecture is so much better?
Isn't this just like the baseball stadium? An opportunity for the mayor to commit a billion dollars (to be paid off when he's long gone) and leave his personal mark on the city, rather than the decidedly less-sexy renovation and real infrastructure investment. Except this makes even less sense, because a retail boom doesn't generally follow the construction of a library.
I can't speak for everyone, Ezra, but my answer is "yes." I strongly believe that architecture and urban planning today are far superior to that of the last few decades. Compare what's happening around China Town and U street with L'Enfant Plaza and Columbia Plaza (at Foggy Bottom). Architects today have a better understanding of the need for variation, inviting doorways, mixed uses, etc.
Does anyone know of a bland, austere building that acts as a focal point for a community or that attracts people just wanting to hang around? It's been my experience that people prefer places that are small and quaint or large and ornamented.
Alex: You seem familiar with the preservation laws, would they restrict the DC government from tearing down its own building? It seems a lot of those empty buildings you reference are privately owned and may be subject to different restrictions than a publicly owned building.
Ezra: I think it is important for that part of town to have civic institutions present. I think it is currently straddling the border between a part of town for Washingtonians and a part of town for visitors. I think it's important for it to remain a place that Washingtonians use for their own purposes. Will that necessarily draw a lot more people to the library from far away? Maybe not. But it will help anchor a residential feeling for the central city, plus serve all Washingtonians that for whatever reason need to access the main library's catalog or attend civic events there.
And I don't think this is like the baseball stadium. You're correct, you never expect a retail boom because of an investment in a library. But that's not why we build them. It's the retail booms from things like the MCI Center that enables the city to build things like a grand library. It's always a money loser to build a library, but that's not the point. The point is that libraries serve important civic functions.
Reid, sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I haven't been near a computer since I last posted....
I am saying that the majority of public witnesses were against moving the library while at the same time were in favor of desperately needed upgrades. Part of the problem is that Williams hasn't been definitive with the cost of renovations; in essence sweeping that option under the rug without the community's consensus. No one who is in favor of renovation is against spending the money to get the job done.
WRT the revenue stream here is the breakdown in the cost of a new central library:
New Library Construction $150,000,000; Moving Costs $700,000; Library Furniture $5,000,000; New Books and Media $15,000,000; Information Technology $8,500,000; Public Art $800,000 = $180,000,000.
Here are the assumed sources: Federal Contribution $14,000,000; Existing MLK PILOT (tax revenue) $50,000,000; Private Fundraising $40,000,000; Future Funding Needed (to be written into the FY08 budget) $13,800,000; FY07 CIP $2,200,000; Existing Central Library Lease (99 yr. lease paid upfront as the building is to remain in public trust ad infinitum) $60,000,000 = $180,000,000.
I see at least $100,000,000 up in the air here; there are no bites for a lease on a building that's been deemed unusable without substantial renovation costs, and private fundraising hasn't, to my knowledge, begun. From the paperwork distributed at the meeting: "As a part of his legacy, the Mayor has proposed $170 million in capital funding under the FY 2007 budget for the necessary renovation and reconstruction of the library system. While the Mayor's budget goes part of the way toward achieving a 21st century library system, financing the plan will rest on constructing a new MLK, Jr. Memorial Library on the old convention center cite and leasing the existing building to generate critical revenue." Who's jumping on a 99 year, $60 million lease on a building that's been publically denounced as dysfunctional?
WRT revenue to update the branch libraries, again from the handouts: "The new MLK, Jr. Memorial Library will be the hub of the library system and will serve as the catalyst for the restoration of the District's 26 branch libraries by leveraging the engine of downtown development and taking value of the central library to fund branch libraries." We can't wait - the four neighorhoods with closed branches can't wait. Taking care of the branches should not be incumbent on a new building with a shaky funding plan.
Also see Ed Lazere's recent testimony (toward the bottom of the page).
And they are expecting a bit of a retail and real estate boom with the new construction - the proposals we saw at the meeting included space for both stores and condos.
Again, I'm not sold on either option, but I want all options laid out with full disclosure. (apologies in advance for typos and missing zeros)
Aesthetically, MLK makes a brutalist block like the FBI Building look like a log cabin with toasted marshmallows on the hearth. Blow it up and rebuild the ward libraries. Or better yet, put it in biodiesel-driven bookmobiles. Don't those things even exist anymore?
The mayor clearly isn’t willing to make the investment of time and money that it would take to get an accurate estimate of the cost of renovating the current MLK. And getting an estimate would require both those things: money and time. I completely understand the argument that we need those numbers to make a valid decision between the two options, but it’s not as though you can just snap your fingers and an estimate appears. I don’t know whether the mayor is just concerned about getting a new vanity project underway quickly, before he leaves office (cynical view), or whether it’s a matter of not putting city funds into investigating an option he strongly feels is not workable (possibly naïve view).
I use MLK probably once a week -- research is my day job, and it’s the closest library to the office for picking things up on short notice. By “use,” however, I mean that I get call numbers online and then dash in and out of the building as quickly as possible. Biggest gripe: the stairwells! Why do I have to duck under the plastic sheeting holding up the ceiling and dash like a crazy person up flights of darkened parking-garage stairs, terrified of meeting Deep Throat, in order to get to the second floor?
DC’s lack of a beautiful and even usable public library embarrasses me. I do believe that libraries make a statement about the values and priorities of the city. I confess, though, that I'm a library junkie. I live on Capitol Hill, and I regularly use the public libraries in DC, Alexandria, Arlington, and Montgomery County, in addition to the libraries at UMD. But if I want to spend a Saturday afternoon at a library -- browsing, following my curiosity, and having the glorious power of taking any book I fall in love with home with me -- I will always leave the city for the central libraries in either Alexandria or Arlington, which are better locations than any that our nation’s capital has to offer.
so where will the homeless sleep?
Re: Or better yet, put it in biodiesel-driven bookmobiles. Don't those things even exist anymore?
Well, I'm pretty sure it doesn't run on biodiesel, but the four neighborhoods without branch libraries get the X-treme Mobile for a whopping 4 hours a week. It's better than nothing, but it's just a tiny band-aid on a gaping wound.
I disagree with some of the earlier comments about using the $ for the local libraries, central library be damned. The city needs a good central library with a larger collection than any of the local branches can support. When I was in high school(13 years ago), it was horrendous trying to do any kind of research papers using the city library system - there was just not enough of a collection and many books were missing or horribly damaged. From what I understand, things have gotten even worse since then. My point is, until the DC library has a better collection, no one is going to be enticed to go there, whether it's a renovation of that ugly box or a brand new MLK library.
I think DC needs a good central library with a larger collection than any of the local branches can support. When I was in high school(13 years ago), it was horrendous trying to do research papers using the city library system - there was just not enough of a collection and many books were missing or damaged. From what I understand, things have gotten even worse since then. Until the DC library has a better collection, no one is going to be enticed to go there, whether it's a renovation of that ugly box or a brand new MLK library.
LOC is the best local library for DC. We get all the benefits of a first rate national library but can consider it local because, heck, its in DC.
Since we were relatively new to living downtown we decided to go to the MLK Library get our library cards and check out some books. That was over a year ago and we have not been back. The building itself is dark und uninviting (almost scary). The number of homeless people that have temporary or permanent camps under the overhang is unbeliveable. Once inside it does not get any better. What books are there even in the best-seller section are in bad shape (and most are not current best sellers). A good demolition is the best thing that could happen to this library but if the city wants to save it perhaps they can operate it as a homeless shelter (since it practically is that already). Needless to say, we just buy new books to read!
The LOC is an amazing resource, and I would imagine few DC residents know that they can get a free reader card and use it to their heart's content. BUT... it's really more of a book museum than it is a traditional library. You can go and visit almost any book in print, and if you have the hours to spend there, you can even read the book in gorgeous surroundings. But it's hard for residents to use it as a primary library, with no ability to check books out (excepting congressional staff), no ability to browse the shelves, loooooong wait times for book delivery, and very expensive photocopying. And hey, I don't fault the LOC for any of those things! Serving as the DC public library is not its function or mission, and I don't think it should be expected to do that.
1. What's with all the complaints about homeless people at MLK? Maybe it's just my experience, but West End Branch has a much more thriving homeless community.
2. I don't see why people are even complaining about the cost of repairing MLK. It needs to be done anyway if we expect to lease it -- and if not, it will just sell for that much less. This means electrical, elevators, hvac, and yeah those stairwells. Unless you want to tear it down, this is money you can consider spent.
A bigger capital investment would be renovating in the way Kriston has mentioned -- like the design already includes (I read somewhere) a fifth floor and a 2nd-to-roof skylit atrium. As for the outside, I say plant some damn trees or something. A nice place to sit on a bench with a book would seem appropriate.
3. I'm glad that somebody mentioned what is obviously the most important thing in a library -- books! How about $100 million for books?
4. Much more important than a grand central library destination themepark are the neighborhood libraries. Especially if in five years you won't be able to find anything around the old convention center that isn't a luxury condo.