Comments on: Conflicting concepts emerge over new downtown library

By: LH

LH — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:07:47 +0000

To all of the above, please note that the plans above really are just representations of square footage. RKTL, who worked through the charette process is not the architecture firm that will design the library space. The real issue (which is not clear from these pictures) is whether you want a 12+ story building on Bonifant (as large as the Crescent building) with the 5 story library on Wayne. Or if it’s in the community’s interest to have them swapped (with the large building on Wayne and the smaller on Bonifant). Also, the plan with the library on Bonifant allows for growth in the future. The orange space is county office space that could be co-opted by the library if (when) there is a need for expansion. Design issues will come in the coming months. What’s important now is working out the details for how the land will be used.

By: Woodsider

Woodsider — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:21:22 +0000

Thayer-D: Agreed re differences of opinion–that’s what makes the world go ’round. My prior post responded to specific criticisms: I referenced IM Pei’s building not because of the “asutere blank wall”, but becasue of the acute angle of the building. It was the “wild angles” that MM said made him nauseous. And your follow-up post criticized the architects for saying the masssing wasn’t a final design, but you assumed they’d throw a glass & steel skin on it. They didn’t say that did they? For all you know, it might have traditional architectural detailing like NYC’s beloved Flatiron Building–an acute angle if there ever was one. My point is that we shouldn’t be too quick to judge any design from conceptual massing studies.

By: Thayer-D

Thayer-D — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:38:10 +0000

Woodsider,
It’s only an opinion on asthecits, some people prefer glass and steel and some people prefere masonry, wood, glass, and steel. This has nothing to do with style and everything to do with how materials age in nature. Since this building will presumably be there for a while, but architectural fashions will come and go, why not build for the ages? I would go so far as to call that the truely “green” approach. And, nothing against the master I.M. Pei, but god forbid we should get an asutere blank wall whether stone or not, to help deaden what should be a jewel on our streets.
Vive la differance!!!

By: Woodsider

Woodsider — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:55:29 +0000

MM said (and Thayer D agreed): These designs make me a little nauseous. Why can’t we have a simple elegant practical design? What’s with all the wild angles and empty spaces?

What “wild angles” and “empty” spaces are you talking about? What about the massing models makes them unelegant and impractical? The library site has exceptional spacial constraints: horizontal to accomodate the purple line and vertical to accomodate the height limiations. We are left with a space that doesn’t fit into a neat rectangle or square block. The developable space at the corner of Wayne & Fenton is an acute angle and there is no working around it. The architects have done what any good designer does–make lemonade out of lemons.

Would you lob the same criticm of the I.M. Pei’s design for the East Wing of the National Gallery of Art? He responded to a similar acute ange with astonishing effect.

And what are “empty spaces”? Surely the architects explained that those would be animated landscaped pedestrian plaza type areas filled with benches,shade trees, lighting and perhaps sculpture and/or a fountain. Would you call the great piazzas of Europe empty spaces? Or even the “Silver Plaza” area on Ellsworth? Criticize the stucco blandness and new construction there all you want, but this “empty space” is wildly successful and popular.

And finally, what exactly is wrong with a “chic glass and steel skin”? That’s exactly what’s on the Discovery Building. Are you saying that the only type of architecture that you consider appealing is traditional?

The criticism of the architect’s massing studies/models (and that’s all they are) seems to come from an inability to visualize how a detailed finished product might look. I’m sure I’ll get lots of “feedback” on my opinion, but it sure seems the truth based on how the prior posts were phrased.

Editor’s note: Play nice, people. — JD (Nov 23, 2008)

By: Mimi

Mimi — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:40:16 +0000

Amen to that, Buzz. There already IS parking. I don’t understand some people’s fierce arguments for additional (WILDLY expensive) underground parking there.

And I actually like Leggett’s preference better, and agree with Stith that as long as an (the?) entrance is on Fenton, it will help pull people further from DTSS and boost the Fenton corridor more.

By: Buzz

Buzz — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:00:38 +0000

What is it with “parking”? Certainly most patrons COULD walk, bike, take the bus, or take the cool Purple Line which will stop at the front door once we get over out phobias. For those who can’t conceive of these options.- let them park in the garage we have already built at great public expense. “Where will I park” is so last century.

By: Jennifer Deseo

Jennifer Deseo — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:47:26 +0000

I received an email this afternoon from my man Ben Stutz, legislative aide and policy analyst to council member Valerie Ervin:

“Cool article on the library. One edit: The “community preference” costs $78M with the underground parking. Also, a zoning text amendment to change the allowable height from 110 to 143 feet takes time. But because the library is being built separately, it wouldn’t add to the library’s cost.”

Thanks, Ben! I’ll correct the story.

By: Thayer-D

Thayer-D — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:49:41 +0000

MM – I couldn’t agree with you more. I went to the charettes and asked the architects the same thing, they said the models are not “designs” but just massing models. That’s ludicrous. How the form of a building is not part of the design escapes me. Essentially architects say that to deflect criticism, then they layer some ulta chic glass and steel skin on the “massing” and Voila, you’ve got your Library. Just what the community asked for.
NOT.

By: MM

MM — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:27:58 +0000

These designs make me a little nauseous. Why can’t we have a simple elegant practical design? What’s with all the wild angles and empty spaces?

By: Sligo

Sligo — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:34:54 +0000

They should have done this years ago when everyone wasn’t poor. As usual, they took forever arguing about it and holding charettes. Now where is the $78 million going to come from?

Since I will no doubt be unemployed sooner or later, I would have liked to have our new library available to kill time in during the day.