A LIBRARY FOR ALL When Seattle voters
approved the ‘Libraries for All’ bond measure in 1998, $290.7 million was allocated towards reinvigorating the Public Library (SPL) system, resulting in the replacement and renovation of 22 existing libraries and the construction of a new downtown flagship – Seattle Central Library.1 With this came the opportunity for not only the revitalisation of the library system but also the revitalisation of architecture in Seattle as a whole.
FIG. 1
Around the turn of the millennium, Seattle was almost reticent to receive grandiose architectural
FIG. [3]: MoPOP
projects2 – many remained slightly scarred by the extravagance of contemporary work deemed to be ineffective uses of public space: Frank Gehry’s blob-like Museum of Pop Culture, plopped beneath the iconic Space Needle; or even Robert Venturi’s Seattle Art Museum.3 For a city so intertwined with the innovative and visionary such public sentiment is seemingly paradoxical. Nevertheless, a relatively overwhelming number voted for the “[redefinition] of the library”4 that this initiative would bring – possibly convinced by the expectation of playing a critical role in a taxpayer-funded project. Thus, Central Library provided the opportunity to dispel the doubt of the past and become a symbol of Seattle’s newfound architectural confidence, a “civic icon”5 acting as physical proof of the city’s capability for efficient, democratic public space usage.
Rem Koolhaas’ firm OMA – with locally-based LMN Architects – were The
met with the significant challenge of an institution at a crossroads. The library is a space whose value is inherently linked with that of the paper-bound book, yet here was one being built at a time when the rise of digital media threatened to disconnect the tether between the two.
Moreover, this media evolution represented just one facet of a greater concern; where the ever-changing nature of the library’s purpose and usage meant that modern examples had to be designed to accommodate this. Those built before the advent of digital media would have to make rearrangements to house, for example, computers. An effective interpretation of public space was required, essentially utilising spatial flexibility to insure against potential complications arising from an inevitable evolution in the way libraries are used.
FIG. [2]
With Central Library, however, the architects’ vision was not for an immediate reinvention of the institution; rather, it was the “[repackaging of the library] in a new way,”6 retaining
FIG. [5]: Architects’ visualisation of public library evolution
by four interstitial ‘unstable’ areas. ‘Stable’ clusters are designated as such for their defined, unique purposes; each varying in size, density and opacity, equipped for “dedicated performance.”8 Composed of what might be
considered the natural components of a library, these platforms are physically shifted, creating the characteristic overhangs and protrusions of the building. These conform to OMA/LMN’s ‘repackaging’ in an aesthetic manner, modifying the traditional vertical arrangement of floors
FIG. [7]: Unstable Areas
its traditional essence while embracing newer media so they may be presented together with older forms as “a regime of new equalities.”7 This idea manifested itself in its purest form through the organisation of the structure into five ‘stable’ clusters arranged on overlapping platforms separated
FIG. [6]: Stable Clusters
FIG. [4]: Architects’ visualisation of media evolution
FIG. [8]: Book Spiral
in American high-rises.9 Aided by a more conservative choice of cladding in glass and steel, it exudes a restrained extravagance; more refined and harmonious than Gehry’s screaming, shouting MoPOP. It’s almost a statement – architecture in Seattle does not have to be so avant-garde it borders the egregious. The Book Spiral is the highlight of this repackaging; an answer to the institutional issue of overflowing literary collections, resulting in older or lesser used material being relegated to basements, off-site storage, or even unrelated departments.10 In its uninterrupted, ramp-aided journey from the library’s 6th to 10th floors, this “continuous ribbon”11 allows for the coexistence of book sections alongside each other without any ruptures in between. It is a flexible, effective method of storage: at the library’s opening the Book Spiral’s 6,233 bookcases held 780,000 books; without having to add any additional bookcases, the Spiral can hold up to 1,450,000.12
“WHAT WE SAW WERE BUILDINGS THAT WERE VERY GENERIC, AND WORSE…NOT
ONLY DOES THE READING ROOM LOOK LIKE THE COPY ROOM LOOK LIKE THE MAGAZINE AREA – IT MEANT THAT WHATEVER ISSUE WAS TROUBLING THE LIBRARY AT THAT MOMENT WAS STARTING TO ENGULF EVERY OTHER ACTIVITY THAT WAS HAPPENING IN IT.”14
- JOSHUA PRINCE-RAMUS, OMA FIG. [9]: Mixing Chamber
This notion of flexibility and future-proofing is abundant, forming the thesis behind the ‘unstable’ areas. OMA’s Joshua Prince-Ramus asserts that these indeterminate spaces, “things like reading rooms, whose evolution in 20, 30, 40 years, we can’t predict,”13 must have the capacity to operationally evolve. These are areas mostly dedicated to librarian-patron sociability, with the third-floor Mixing Chamber centrally placed to act as the library’s hub, “a trading floor for information orchestrated to fulfill an essential…need for expert interdisciplinary help.”15 It is not limited to purpose in the way the Book Spiral is – with little to define it beyond computers, desks, tables and chairs, it is thus multidisciplinary; suggestive of a more efficient and lasting spatial design.
A strong precedent was established to involve and consult the public during the
design process – over 4,000 people attended presentations and public events put on by the architects between May 1999 and March 2001.16 Library staff were organised into 37 work groups to provide design feedback, as did a range of users from all age groups to express their hopes and dreams for the new library.17 This involvement extended directly to the project’s fundamental features like the Books Spiral, with library users testing two mock-ups.18 City Librarian Deborah Jacobs expressed a desire “to do things differently”19 with regard to the architects’ norm of “[waiting] until there is a more completed design before presenting anything to the public.”20 Cynically, questions have been asked of whether this was just a formality; positing that the design outcomes conceived by OMA/LMN were part of an architectural vision achieved independently of this consultation process.21 However, there is much to contradict this: when library users raised concerns over the Spiral and Mixing Chamber’s impact on special subject areas and librarians, modified designs saw the incorporation of space for subject staff. When doubts additionally formed over the Spiral’s
Yet many remain unconvinced of the design altogether, lamenting the thirdfloor Living Room as “[having] the feel of a vast indoor park…not conducive to intimacy with a book.”23 The tenth-floor reading room – a space ostensibly designed and designated for reading – was met with similarly negative feedback, being described as “badly designed and cheesily [sic] detailed.”24 FIG. [10]: Section 1
As a library, such feedback is indicative of ineffective institutional design; as a public space, a similar notion arises: optimisation towards enhancing the experience of users is essential – implying that, for instance, “if you’re spending the day studying or reading on the 10th level, [then] the nearest restroom [should not be] on the seventh.”25 This lack of functionality remains a constant complaint, with the building’s layout labeled “not user friendly for a firsttime visitor,”26 “confusing,”27 and “random.”28 Perhaps in conceiving this ‘stable’ and ‘unstable’ rearrangement OMA/LMN became so engrossed in the overall vision that functionality was overruled – for example, while the Book Spiral presents an innovative solution to inadequate media storage it lacks user-friendliness, being “cluttered, uneven, unpredictable”29 and “no
FIG. [11]: Section 2
FIG. [12]: Living Room
monotonous ribbon of books, workspaces were introduced throughout the shelves to punctuate its continuous nature. Floor layouts were rearranged, corridors were rerouted, and accessibility was increased; all in response to public feedback.22
easier to negotiate than discrete floors.”30 The ‘central hub’ Mixing Chamber could not provide the solution to users missing a “central location for all floors to get from one floor to the next,”31 instead designated a “profoundly dreary and depressing environment,”32 contradicting OMA/LMN’s concept. Considering that much of the building went through a series of design revisions33 in response to public feedback this does beg the question: to what extent was this feedback implemented? Certainly, evidence exists to suggest the public played a more pivotal role in the design than what is the norm; overall, however, there is enough to allege that the architectural vision superseded the democratic process. With this, Central Library met the grander requirements of its brief – reinterpreting institutional space while successfully launching the SPL into a new era, granting Seattle its architectural icon.
“IT HARVESTS AND ENERGIZES ROUTINE NOISE; CONVERSATIONS FROM HUNDREDS OF FEET AWAY COALESCE AS AMBIENT BABBLE. THE VAST OVERHEAD SPACE, A THRILL TO LIBRARY VISITORS, WORKS AGAINST READERS – MOST OF US INSTINCTIVELY CRAVE SMALL, PRIVATE SPACES WHEN CURLING UP WITH A BOOK34 – LAWRENCE CHEEK,
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Yet there remains an overbearing sense of
impersonality; from the vast interior spaces to the extensive use of exposed concrete. One critic remarked that Central Library is “insulated from downtown Seattle … sealed away from the sidewalks and streets around it,”35 and in many ways, this is accurate. The value of a public space lies in its usability and relation to the individual – and while Central Library initially appears cool and cutting-edge, the issues emerge when individuals begin to use the building as it is intended: as a library.
FIG. [13]: Reading Room
ENDNOTES (Mattern 2003) (Mattern 2003) 20 (Mattern 2003) 21 (Mattern 2003) 22 (Mattern 2003) 23 (Cheek 2007) 24 (Cheek 2007) 25 (Cheek 2007) 26 (Dalton and Hölscher 2016) 27 (Dalton and Hölscher 2016) 28 (Dalton and Hölscher 2016) 29 (Dalton and Hölscher 2016) 30 (Cheek 2007) 31 (Dalton and Hölscher 2016) 32 (Cheek 2007) 33 (Mattern 2003) 34 (Cheek 2007) 35 (Fried 2004)
1
18
2
19
(The Seattle Public Library n.d.) (Mattern 2003) 3 (Mattern 2003) 4 (OMA/LMN 1999) 5 (The Seattle Public Library n.d.) 6 (OMA/LMN 1999) 7 (OMA/LMN 1999) 8 (OMA/LMN 1999) 9 (OMA/LMN 1999) 10 (ArchDaily 2009) 11 (ArchDaily 2009) 12 (Office for Metropolitan Architecture n.d.) 13 (Prince-Ramus 2006) 14 (Prince-Ramus 2006) 15 (Office for Metropolitan Architecture n.d.) 16 (The Seattle Public Library n.d.) 17 (The Seattle Public Library n.d.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY ArchDaily. (2009, February 10). Seattle Central Library/OMA + LMN. Retrieved March 2018, from https://www.archdaily.com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn Cheek, L. (2007, March 26). On Architecture: How the new Central Library R. Retrieved March 2018, from Seattle Post-Intelligencer: https://www.seattlepi.com/ae/article/OnArchitecture-How-the-new-Central-Library-1232303.php?source=mypi#photo-674846 Dalton, R. C., & Hölscher, C. (2016). Take One Building: Interdisciplinary Research Perspectives of the Seattle Central Library. Taylor & Francis. Fried, B. (2004, June 30). Mixing with the Kool Crowd. Retrieved March 2018, from Project for Public Spaces: https://www.pps.org/article/mixing-with-the-kool-crowd Mattern, S. (2003, September). Just How Public is the Seattle Public Library? Publicity, Posturing and Politics in Public Design. Journal of Architectural Education, 5-18. Office for Metropolitan Architecture. (n.d.). Seattle Central Library. Retrieved March 2018, from http://oma.eu/projects/seattle-central-library OMA/LMN. (1999). Seattle Public Library Proposal. Prince-Ramus, Joshua. “Behind the Design of Seattle’s Library.” Filmed 2006. TED video, 19:55.
The Seattle Public Library. (n.d.). Central Library: Building Facts. Retrieved March 2018, from http://www.spl.org/locations/central-library/cen-building-facts The Seattle Public Library. (n.d.). Central Library: Construction Facts & Timeline. Retrieved March 2018, from http://www.spl.org/locations/central-library/cen-buildingfacts/cen-construction-facts-and-timeline The Seattle Public Library. (n.d.). Libraries for All: Libraries for All Building Program. Retrieved March 2018, from http://www.spl.org/about-the-library/libraries-for-all/libraries-for-all-building-program
IMAGES FIG. [1]: Ruault, Philippe. Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 3, 2018. https:// www.archdaily.com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/572196fce58ecea06b000007-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-photo. FIG. [2]: Ruault, Philippe. Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 3, 2018. https:// www.archdaily.com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/57219724e58ecea06b000009-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-photo. FIG. [3]: EMP|SFM. Digital image. Wikimedia Commons. October 19, 2008. Accessed April 3, 2018. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial_view_of_EMPSFM.jpg. FIG. [4]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily. com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/572187c5e58ece53e100000d-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-books. FIG. [5]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily. com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/5721950ce58ecea06b000001-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-public-library. FIG. [6]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily. com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/5721910fe58ece9438000003-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-diagram-platforms-2. FIG. [7]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily. com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/57218876e58ece2292000015-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-diagram-inbetweens. FIG. [8]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily. com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/5721879ae58ece229200000e-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-diagram-book-spiral.
FIG. [9]: Photograph I took, July 19, 2016. Seattle, United States of America FIG. [10]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily. com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/57219561e58ece408a000003-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-section-1.
PRINCIPLES
FIG. [11]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily. com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/57219551e58ecea06b000002-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-section-2.
OF
FIG. [12]: Baan, Iwan. Digital image. Office for Metropolitan Architecture. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/apps.o5.no/oma/www/20180330134822-654-r22t/700.jpg. FIG. [13]: Ruault, Philippe. Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily.com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/57218922e58ece9d38000002-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-photo.
CONDUCT Architects must be competent in providing and communicating the appropriate knowledge, ability and skills to complete a project in an impartial, honest manner Architects are expected to be competent in the conduction of professional work. This is centred on communication between members of a project so a vision is ultimately expressed that is not just the client’s or just the architect’s; but rather, a culmination of all involved stakeholders. This competency thus maintains the reputability of architects. As such, work should be undertaken that is within the means of the architect to complete, whilst the client should clearly convey their requirements. Communication and honesty is essential; when either of these is missing, serious issues arise. In 2011 Oxfordshire architect Frances Morrow was fined for “unacceptable professional conduct and serious professional incompetence”1 after failing to ensure vital elements such as sewage treatment units and water drainage were the models she had specified. Whilst Morrow was rightly faulted for this, it might be inferred that the contractor installed
inadequate systems without informing the architect or the client – in any case, a failure to communicate effectively between the involved parties resulted in serious repercussions. Architects must consider the requirements of each stakeholder accordingly Each stakeholder in a project must be established as early as possible to ascertain their respective requirements and therefore, a design can begin to materialise around these requirements. Ultimately, the architect’s first priority is to adhere to those of the client; however, there may be instances whereby a client’s demand is made at a stakeholder’s expense. For instance, the helipads on Mukesh Ambani’s $1 billion2 residence, Antilia, have been the subject of controversy for violating noise pollution laws: helicopters reportedly emit double the acceptable noise level in the area.3 At the expense of neighbours and the local community, the client’s requirement was met. Thus, the architect has a responsibility