Better Know a Proposition: Prop. Six

"Bitch about the location all you want, those are Cap Metro problems, not the Austin Public Library's."

Yeah, sure. Cap Metro will just reroute all their major bus lines on a three block bulb-out out of their way (you do remember, don't you, that they all end up crossing the 1st Street or Congress Ave bridge downtown, right?)

NO to Prop 6.

First off, everytime I go to the central library it does not seem that crowded at all. But that is just a personal argument.

Moreover, the city should just look at the future of libraries and not be focused on a center of town "hot spot" for a new library. First, Austin is a college town. All Austin colleges and universities have libraries which satisfy our student population and are open to the public for at least some number of hours daily.

Also, with the explosion of the internet, most people with internet access will never need to physically go to a library in their lifetime. Albeit this is a sad fact of life, it is not necessary nowadays to have a mass storage of hard materials. The library should just add more computers by clearing space taken up by newspapers and periodicals which are available on the internet.

Finally, didn't we adopt the idea of branch locations for libraries so Austin, being the spread out city that it is, would not need to rely on a "strong" central library?

The central library now is a joke, but by voting for Prop. 6 it would become a bigger, more expensive joke.

Oh by the way, some of us don't want to "reform the city's identity as we struggle into the 21st century." I like the city's identity. It's why everyone is moving here. If this is struggling I don't want to see the opposite of your definition of struggling. God forbid.

I think anyone really interested in libraries envies Austin's library resources. We have a Presidential Library, multiple world-class libraries on the UT campus (Austin residents can use them through the TexShare program), and the Texas State Library and Archives (great for genealogy research).

The superficial non-library using snobs will vote for this eye-candy. Meanwhile, we library-using people will suffer when funding is used to pay for maintenance and cafes instead of books and librarians.

I think anyone really interested in libraries envies Austin's library resources. We have a Presidential Library, multiple world-class libraries on the UT campus (Austin residents can use them through the TexShare program), and the Texas State Library and Archives (great for genealogy research).

The superficial non-library using snobs will vote for this eye-candy. Meanwhile, we library-using people will suffer when funding is used to pay for maintenance and cafes instead of books and librarians.

I think anyone really interested in libraries envies Austin's library resources. We have a Presidential Library, multiple world-class libraries on the UT campus (Austin residents can use them through the TexShare program), and the Texas State Library and Archives.

The superficial non-Library using snobs will vote for this eye-candy. Meanwhile, we library-using people will suffer when funding is used to pay for maintenance and cafes instead of books and librarians.

Big box McLibrary? Have you seen what we have now? It's embarrassing that a city of the size and education of Austin has Faulk as its main library.

Every time I go to Faulk, I see all the computers full except for the catalog units. I almost always get one of the last few spots in the lot, or have to park in the street.

Raising the shelf height means adding a significant weight load to an already outdated building for all those new books.

Bitch about the location all you want, those are Cap Metro problems, not the Austin Public Library's.

When I was a kid, we had a perfectly good branch library where I lived (unlike now, where my APL branch library is a store front in a damn strip mall!) But we still drove downtown frequently to visit the main library, because it was a really cool enormous old 19th century building stuffed with every book you could ever want. I know we're not going to get that here, but a library can be a destination.

This place is so provincial sometimes. We chase away great ideas like the original Blanton design or a showpiece library, public spaces that could help reform the city's identity as it struggles into the 21st century. But we fight like hell to keep every mediocre Mexican restaurant open in the name of keeping Austin weird.

I've never been to the current library, and will probably never go to the new one, if it gets built, unless the architecture is interesting, and then I will probably just go once, cuz I have a computer, and a living room, and lots of books that I haven't read. I'm not really campaigning for the new library though. I'd rather see, for example, a Barney's get built there (with condos on top, natch). Maybe I'd go when I get some kids, cuz my kids will probably be dorks and they probably won't have enough money to buy books, like I do.

Oh, and I've never seen every single computer there in use. Granted I don't go often in the middle of the day... but unlike many people campaigning for the new one, I actually do use the old one.

Getting shelves higher than midget-sized, moving the existing books onto those shelves, then replacing some of the newly empty space with computers == way to reutilize current space.

Of course, I obviously think this is more about suburban parking entitlement complex (oh my god! I have to PAY to park?) and a trophy building than it is about space for books OR computers.

ooh, I love the Seattle library . . . at least I love the photos I've seen of it.

And I am a dork.

Another Statesman article making my basic point - that this is not really about more space for books:

http://www.statesman.com/life/content/life/stories/style/10/30/30newlibraries.html

An interesting statistic from this article - public libraries are the No. 1 point of online access for people without Internet connections at home, school or work. That indicates to me that this library would be better served by having a lot more that 75 computer terminals. Providing computer/internet access to people who would otherwise be unable to get it seems like a more valuable service than a bunch of books. I saw on TV that studies have shown that 93% of people that read books are dorks.

Note that "transit-dependent patrons" is a broad brush including all of the following:

1. People too poor and/or too young to own cars (computer use and books) but who actually have jobs. Yes, Martha, these people do exist.

2. The homeless who actually want to better themselves (computer use, maybe books) rather than just hanging out in the A/C

3. The elderly and otherwise physically infirm (I'm in this group some days)

Group #1 will be discouraged from attending the new library (a transit trip there will be less convenient, usually involving an additional transfer). Some will still come; others will not.

Group #2 will be unaffected. It'll be a real selling point for rich loft dwellers to rub elbows with the bums just in it for the free A/C, though, won't it?

Group #3 is going to be drastically affected. Once again, until you've spent a few weeks with a foot so fucked up that you can't even walk a block, you have no right to comment about how easy it is to walk a few.

People for whom the new library will be much more convenient:

1. Suburbanites who don't like to have to pay to park their car.

How many of those folks are gonna be coming to the library, even a new shiny one, anyways, given the high bum contingent?

Here's the article that chart went with, which has more explanation:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/30/30library.html

How about we spend the money on people to shelve books and on improving the branches? I don't want a big-box McLibrary (with a cafe, ooh!) on the outskirts of town.

The plans for the new library seem to indicate that more room for books isn't the real objective. There is an interesting chart in the Statesman today:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/30/WEBaustinlibrarycomparison.html

It looks like the primary difference is the addition of meeting rooms, an auditorium, study rooms, exhibit space and gathering areas - there is more space for books, but not that much more.

There are several of new condos going up in that area, and if this would bring those residents together with "transit-dependent patrons" then this would really have some value. To make that happen, pedestrian and transit access would have to be the primary focus of the design, and it is not clear to me that is the case.

90 million *impressed whistle*....that's a pretty expensive homeless shelter...

90mil *whistle*...that's a pretty expensive homeless shelter...

The ill-conceived plans remind me of the 'Monorail' episode from The Simpsons.

Or the 'Light Rail' episode from from recent Austin history, for that matter.

The argument that we're out of space for books is really absurd given the short height of shelves in the main library. (Nobody but me ever talks about this; the pro-library campaigners act as if it's not true, but check the link in my sig which has links to pictures).

Combine that with the poor siting of the new library for transit-dependent patrons (who are the ones who really NEED the library), and I'm afraid this is starting to look more like a trophy building than a true public need.