June 15, 2006
Williams Pushes Forward With Library Plan
D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams testified before the City Council's Committee on Education, Libraries and Recreation today in favor of his proposal to build a brand new Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library at the site of the old convention center, a few blocks from its current site. We've debated this issue before at DCist. But we thought it might be fun to do a little point/counterpoint with the Post's Benjamin Forgey, writing today in response to Williams' plan. First up, Mayor Williams:
"Approval of this bill will enable the District to fulfill the true legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. by providing a new set of modern and effective tools to combat our education crisis … low levels of literacy, the digital divide, the poor high school graduation rate of our children."Way to play on our sympathies, Mr. Mayor. Regardless of whether you believe it's appropriate to just remove the MLK Jr. memorial plaque from the current library and attach it elsewhere, of course no one disagrees that the main D.C. library needs drastic improvement that should be oriented toward educational goals. Forgey's response?
The idea that the 1972 Mies building cannot be renovated into a first-class 21st-century library is absurd. (It's also predictable. It was advanced in a consultant's report for the city that -- surprise, surprise -- agreed with the wishes of its client.)
Forgey continues:
Yes, the building has suffered from years of poor maintenance. All its internal systems -- heating, ventilation, plumbing, electricity and such -- are in need of immediate, thoroughgoing attention. Yet as architect Arthur Cotton Moore pointed out recently in a letter to the editor of The Washington Post, the building (unlike, say, a 19th-century stone pile) was constructed in a way that would make infrastructure replacement a relative snap.Well, we're not entirely sure that's true, because no one, as far we know, has actually drafted a complete plan to renovate the Mies building. It sure would be nice to have one to compare with the Mayor's plan. More from Williams:
"This bill is not about a downtown real estate transaction. The bill clearly lays out that a long-term lease of the 901 G Street property, together with a payment in lieu of taxes, could help pay for a new central library at the Old Convention Center site. It is a new and exciting central library for all District residents that is at the core of this bill."The lease he mentions is a 99-year lease, though no entity is in place who actually has any interest in renting the Mies building. We have trouble imagining what kind of private organization would find the current MLK Jr. Memorial Library an ideal property. Forgey?
The city's idea of selling the Mies building to help pay for its new toy is shameful. There is simply no other way to put it. It is to treat a significant work of architecture as if it were a trifling leftover.Well, technically the city isn't selling the library, though a 99-year lease comes awfully close. Besides, Mayor Williams thinks architectural significance isn't the issue:
"I have become increasingly concerned that some have gone off track with a debate exclusively over architecture. While the physical investment is the construction of a new library, let me be clear. This is a social issue. Our educational aspirations and social goals must be the driving principles behind the building of any library. Form must follow function."We dare say there isn't a single D.C. resident who doesn't want to see a functioning, even flourishing main public library. But we also think that the architecturally significant Mies shouldn't be abandoned as a public building. Forgey proposes what is perhaps the only appropriate plan, but one which, because of costs, is probably the least likely to happen:
There is, of course, another idea. Why not renovate the Mies building and have a new library? The building was designed to be -- and is -- a proud public structure. That is its essence. It would take vision, and more money, to find another innovative public issue for this great pavilion. But then, vision is what great planning is all about.Ok commenters -- do your worst.
Picture snapped by Muckraker
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
The idea that a prototypical modern building by a giant in the field of architecture- the kind of building that successors around the country are modeled after- can't be beautifully rehabilitated (and completed) to serve as a library is just ridiculous on the face.
There, I said it.
Warning, I am about to commit architectural blasphemy: just because the Mies library is 'architecturally significant'doesn't mean it isn't ugly. I appreciate the contribution Mies made to the profession, but what we are talking about is a building that needs to perform as the 'living room of the city' as Rem Koolhaas' Seattle library and Will Bruder's Phoenix library do. The current MLK branch is a ghost town - I am in there often and it is hardly a social hub, despite its central location. This building was not designed to engage humans, it employs an architectural style that is self-gratifying and not terribly approachable or user-friendly. I think Mayor Williams' idea is dead on and I hope he fights for the new central branch.
Warning, I am about to commit architectural blasphemy: just because the Mies library is 'architecturally significant'doesn't mean it isn't ugly. I appreciate the contribution Mies made to the profession, but what we are talking about is a building that needs to perform as the 'living room of the city' as Rem Koolhaas' Seattle library and Will Bruder's Phoenix library do. The current MLK branch is a ghost town - I am in there often and it is hardly a social hub, despite its central location. This building was not designed to engage humans, it employs an architectural style that is self-gratifying and not terribly approachable or user-friendly. I think Mayor Williams' idea is dead on and I hope he fights for the new central branch.
Being an architect myself I don't feel ashamed to say that the MLK Library really sucks. Someone once said that DC is where architects go to do their worst work. That statement isn't entirely true but with Mies it definitely is. The MLK Library is crap in comparison to his buildings in Chicago and NYC. His style just doesn't work when applied to DC's unique typology of 120' tall buildings.
The major issue here however is that the building is just past it's time. Mies and his peers weren't concerned with designing buildings that would last more than a generation. I think the best situation would be for the city to build a new state of the art library/media center that would be a lasting DC landmark for at least the next 100 years. As for Mies' building it would be a great venue for a new museum to help ease the pressure on the Mall.
The thing with that building is that even its strongest defenders seem to rely almost wholly on the idea that the building is important because of who designed it.
I still feel this building is the epitome of the Emporer's New Clothes. It's ugly. It has never been well liked by the public and the most spirited defense is to point not to the instrisic value of the building but to the intrinsic heft of the designer. Shouldn't the most important judgment of a public building be whether the public has ever actually liked it and been drawn to it? Whether or not a tortured formula from a late 20th century architecture textbook would declare that building immaculate, isn't it on its face a failure?
Listen, LeCorbusier was an important man. He made some great buildings and law firm lobies will always be grateful for his couches. But he designed some terrible and downright destructive public housing. They were built upon fundamental misunderstandings of citylife and probably ruined countless people's lives. Nobody should be expected to live with these designs simply because he was an important man.
I understand the response that designs should be protected from the periodic lulls in popularity. But frankly this building was never popular. In my opinion, historic preservation of buildings should be aimed at preserving buildings that contribute positively to the urban experience not just buildings that are old. Someday the FBI building will be 100 years old, yet never will that building be anything but a scar.
We have the capabilities to judge a building's worth to the life of our city beyond relying on who has been deemed "important". To deny that is to throw out any sensical idea of what makes a public building great in the first place.
Anicia, you are right. I personally find much of neoclassical Washington down right disgusting. Overwrought. Unapproachable and completely without merit.
But you know, to each his/her own.
Why not do what Chicago did when it replaced its main library (which was built in a Neoclassical style way before Mies ever arrived into -- City Hall, the Main Post Office and the rest of Daley Plaza, are Miesian, though)? The main library is now the Chicago Cultural Center, which includes rotating international exhibits -- I saw a superflat show there a few years ago, a museum of television and radio and the office of the city's cultural czar (Jacob Weisburg of Slate's mom) and her department.
They left the building, mostly because they out grew it. The new library is enormous. The old library still serves a public function though. The new library is a giant pink post modern disaster, by a Canadian architect, but that's another story.
Or why not follow the example of San Francisco, they built a new library (to meet modern earthquake codes and SF's stricter disability requirements)? The old library -- right across the street -- after a significant renovation and expansion an Italian contemporary architect, Gae Aulenti, is now the much praised, city-owned Asian Art Museum.
Again, the old library was neo-classical (although the expansion is not) and the new library is a metal clad post-modern building completed by the same architect that did the Holocaust Museum and the Reagan International Trade Center in DC.
Reid. I think you are actually wrong about Corb. Of the recent violence in public housing in Paris, it was very specifically absent from the Corbusier designed projects. Which still hum along as models of good design: self-sufficient communities in which the residents take pride. As in most things, it was the second-rate copycat artists that really screwed things up.
DC1974, I appreciate your comments on the neo-classical buildings in Washington, but I think there's a bit of a difference. The neo-classical buildings in DC are huge, imposing, and, like you said, not the most approachable buildings in the world. But then again they're not supposed to be. They're agency buildings. They're there strictly to project power and permanance. Both of which I think they do quite well. Quibble if you want with the value of these goals, but nonetheless those are the goals that most of federal DC is built upon (I realize some neo-classical buildings are meant to be approached, like the National Gallery and the Archives, however, most are not).
A library has a totally different goal than the Department of Justice or Treasury Department. It must be inviting and draw people to it. It does not necessarily need to project power, however, I do think a library should project some sense of authority. But more than that, it needs to be welcoming.
Also, I'm not against keeping the building as some sort of an exhibit space. But only if we can't find a suitable tenant. (although, we already kind of have an exhibit hall at the Carnegie Library, and remember how well that worked out?)
Also, I wasn't talking about the Parisian apartments with Corbusier. I was talking just about public housing in the U.S.
I too think DC is where architects go to do their worst work. I remember when I was a young artist living in Paris, I designed this little tower that they put in the middle of town. I could have never done that in DC. A few years after that I moved to Itlay, I designed a cute little soccer stadium which they insisted on calling the Coliseum. I also enjoyed my stints in Chicago and San Francisco where those cities gave me the latitude to design and constuct all sorts of wonderful museums and parks, something they never would have let me do in DC. Looking back in hindsight I am really appreciative of having grown up in Brooklyn where I acquired a superior knowledge of architecture, something DC kids will never have the opportunity to do.
I think it's an awful idea to tear down the Mies building. However, if the city could set up a 99 year lease modeled after the one used for the Monaco Hotel I'd be satisfied. At the Monoco (7th & F across from the Verizon Center and the gallery) they did a great job renovating a 175 year old building that was in horrible condition. Now the place looks terrific. Why not do something simiar at MLK?
As someone who actually attended most of the 8 hours of testimony today (and set through all 8 hours of similar discussion on April 22), I think almost everyone is missing the actual points in this discussion.
There is legislation in front of Council that would delegate ALL decision-making on this issue to the Mayor. The Mayor wants an answer from Council no later than July 2 so he can complete the deals before he leaves office. There is no reason to rush to judgement on the main library.
The city needs to re-open libraries in Anacostia, Benning, Shaw and Tenley before they take on a new construction project downtown. The problems in the current MLK building need significant funding NOW to keep the building operational over the next 3-7 years while it is still in use.
The Council, the Library Trustees and the Mayor should all step back and let the new library director come on board (she starts July 27) and get a handle on things before we commit to a building that will be smaller, farther from Metro and sandwiched between retail, high-end housing and offices.
There is no reason to rush this decision.
"Warning, I am about to commit architectural blasphemy: just because the Mies library is 'architecturally significant'doesn't mean it isn't ugly."
Anica, you really hit the nail on the head here! Benjamin Forgey is on crack. Why do all newspaper architecture critics have to be lock-step modern/international style apologists? That building is a piece of architectural garbage. Lightbulb moment: let's gut it and turn it into a trash transfer station, preserving the "beautiful, historic" facades. Eesh, whatever was there BEFORE the Mies Monstrosity was built should be reconstructed.
You can't argue with a librarian about a library. The branches that are currently closed absolutely DO need to be addressed, also why are none of the libraries open on Sundays? Access to libraries should be increased, and exisitng facilities should be maintained and operable.
However, that being said, aesthetics are a major factor in a building experience and however small, far from Metro and sandwiched a new library may be, it can't help but be more appealing and draw in far more DC residents and visitors than MLK. And ultimately, don't we all want people to WANT to hang out in the library?
Also Reid, I agree about Corbu's destructive public housing projects and even his upscale residences - Villa Savoie is lovely to look at and architecturally significant, but it leaked from day one, was abandoned by two sets of owners b/c it was uninhabitable and eventually used as a hayloft. Just because we studied it architecture school doesn't mean it works for the people that have to use it.
I would be interested in hearing from the librarian how functional and/or pleasant MLK is to work in and how s/he sees patrons using or not using the facility.
Y'know, I'm with the homeless folks who use the library's exterior as a toilet. This brutalist relic has gotta go.
Better yet, sell it to Doug Jemal on condition that he keep the Waffle Shop open. THERE's a piece of architecture we can't afford to lose.
I remember something that Kingsley Amis said in reference to modernist literary giants like Joyce and Woolf and Ford: "importance isn't important. Only good writing is." For him, "good writing" was writing that tried to bring pleasure to a reader or an audience, rather than treat them as if they were an invading horde of Phillistines possessed of debased sensibilities. I think the same principle applies here: Mies may have been “important,” but good architecture should will out. I say raze it and erect a building that people actually want to go into, spend time in.
Stop wasting my money Mr. Mayor! You already have an ediface (stadium) that all will remember you by (for better or worse). Instead of dumping money into a pit where no one lives how about selling the building/land (which you can get top dollar for because of the location) and using the cash for three things (split the money three ways):
a) buying the manuscripts and documents the King family is putting on the auction block and creating an MLK museum somewhere in the Penn quarter
b) set-up an early retirement buy out (or re-training program) program to reduce the city payroll (35,000 employees is ridiculous for a city our size). Maybe I am missing something here; would be interesting to know the ratio of population of simualar size cites to their public employees headcount. NO mayoral canidate will say this (in order to get elected) but come on already!
c) Using the remaining third of the cash to fix up the libraries through the city that need it the most based on real and potential foot traffic (where is the need the most)?
Spending all that moeny for a new ediface downtown is simply a waste of money that smells of hubris not the actual needs of the people (and taxpayers).
Why are critics focusing on how depressing MLK is? Regarding the exterior: My understanding is that it wasn't even completed in keeping with the original design? Something about the cladding and a floor being missing?
Regarding the interior: It's a frigg'n modern buiding with huge windows all 'round, not a victorian or earlier relic! Why can't it be rehabed for the cost of an interior demo and new infrastructure? And isn't that obviously less costly than building a new edifice from scratch? We should let the private sector do that...
Leaving out the argument of location, how am I wrong.
Is the city council really going to give the lame-duck mayor authority on this? That's pathetic, if so. Half the council is running for mayor -- why not take the issue to the wards and see what voters think about another building downtown while their branches are closed.
I agree with anti-MLK people that the building is ugly, although frankly it ain't much uglier than the new convention center or much else that gets built. But how about some priorities -- you know, books? Hours? People reading?
The elephant in the room: the MLK library is located right next to a homeless shelter. Now I don't think homeless people shouldn't have the right to use a library like everyone else, but shit, having the library right next to the shelter means that there are so many homeless people there that they interfere with the libraries operations.
My question is how this Mies clown was ever was granted the title "architect." My 2-year old nephew just learned to draw rectangles, so he can now design a building that looks exactly like the MLK library. To think that Mies was actually paid to design such a hideous library is nauseating.
"The elephant in the room: the MLK library is located right next to a homeless shelter."
The elephant that ate the elephant in the room: for all intents and purposes, the MLK library IS a homeless shelter.
"b) set-up an early retirement buy out (or re-training program) program to reduce the city payroll (35,000 employees is ridiculous for a city our size). Maybe I am missing something here; would be interesting to know the ratio of population of simualar size cites to their public employees headcount. NO mayoral canidate will say this (in order to get elected) but come on already!"
-------------------------------------------------
How many cities in the country have state functions like DC? DC operates as a city and a state. Therefore it needs more employees than a similarly-sized city to run those functions.
From www.dc.gov
The Government of the District of Columbia holds a unique status in the country's political system, functioning as a state, county, and city. The complexity of the District government is seen in the many different roles performed by individual agencies. Specific functions of the District government that are usually performed by state–level governments include: state courts, driver licensure, liquor control, unemployment compensation, food and drug inspection, health care facility, professional licensure, designation of development zones and lottery, just to name a few.
Bless you L for stating the obvious. I live next to the library and can attest to that fact that the loitering homeless are a significant deterrent to well intentioned individuals attempting to use the library. The need to avoid this cannot be overlooked in the design of a replacement. Why build a library if no one feels safe to occupy it?
And, Yes this god-forsaken building needs to be removed. I'm no architect but I understand aesthetic. A building should be in harmony with its neighborhood and this awful thing couldn't be any less harmonious. It's dark, practically black. If you need any greater symbol of urban blight, its a squat, dark, concrete build. This is the stuff gothic novels are written about. Tear the thing down and put something classically beautiful and harmonious in its place.
Thanks for agreeing kxb. Since you live nearby have you been inside? Unlike many of the armchair architects out there I have, and the crazyland people inside are quite possibly worse than what's happening outside. They should spend a day in that building trying to read/study and get back to us.
A couple thoughts.
-I like it just because it's different. DC does not need another neoclassical stone pile.
-Many of the problems with it could be solved largely by rearranging the furniture. You've got all those windows and light, but in most cases the book stacks are near the windows or block the windows, which is bad for the books, and wastes the natural light which is best to read by.
-I like the street-level loggia, any escape from the hot summer sun is welcome.
-To tear it down would be a waste. Most of the complaints about the building are due to broken systems and bad floorplan, not because of any fault of the structure itself, which was designed to be rational and adaptable.
-To the person who referenced the Seattle library, that is not a good case to emulate. The building is certainly cool looking, but it's a very uncomfortable and unsettling place. It's noisey and feels like you are in a huge warehouse. It is difficult to settle down and relax, and I can't imagine being able to spend an extended time there reading or studying. It also has the homeless problem of the MLK Library. When I was at the Seattle PL, I tried to sit down and read, but I had to move 3 times due to vagrants snoring, giving off horrific BO, carrying on solitary conversations, or frankly just plain scaring me. When I was at the public PC terminals, I had to put up with a lady who I thought was talking on her cell phone- then I realized she was talking to an imaginary friend who wasn't there, or one of her many personalities. I'm not anti-homeless, and I think public spaces should be accessible to all, but this issue is a serious one that we have to figure out. If libraries become default homeless shelters (or babysitters- but I digress) then their public support will deteriorate because fewer and fewer taxpayers will interact with them and thus feel the need to support them.
I disagree with the idea that we're stuck in a dichotomy between neo-classical and the International Style. This overlooks the fact that DC has a very rich stock of non-neo-classical buildings, particularly Victorian, not to mention successful modern design (e.g. East Wing of the NGA). But that's kind of beside the point anyway. No one is proposing another neo-classical building. I don't think anyone is even proposing what I'd call a neo-neo-classical building (e.g. Reagan Building). The final design of the new library would probably be closer to the old one than to the Library of Congress on the great spectrum of architectural design.
DC is full of non-neoclassical buildings for which you can list scores of worthy attributes before you'd fall back to "at least its not another neoclassical stone pile". That it's top of a list defending the library once again demonstrates the building's failure.