Comments on: Board Renews Library Building Discussion

By: Maureen

Maureen — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:10:04 +0000

I’m appalled by the whole discussion of a new building or a renovation for a building that was just rehabbed/expanded 20 years ago. The library board needs to revisit its mission and focus more on increasing access – web resources, neighborhood branches, etc. Let go of the idea that a new building downtown solves anything.

By: m.c. zacharias

m.c. zacharias — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:09:03 +0000

“….falling apart” – strong words Mr. Surovell.
The library, in fact, has strong bones. I know. I was part of the architectural team that designed the renovations in the late 1980s, and I have visited the building on almost a weekly basis since.
The steel structure, masonry veneer and window systems are solid. Yes, the HVAC and electrical systems need periodic maintenance and upgrade — not unlike any building transitioning into the digital age.
What I would like to see is an UNBIASED building analysis. Where is the expert “testimony” to support Mr. Surovell’s allegations?

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:05:07 +0000

Kathleen is correct. There appear to be constant problems in the new buildings, much of which the staff accept as typical and expected and not something that should be fixed (or not be happening at all in a brand new building). I would like to see some accounting on how the upkeep of the new buildings is going so much better before we invest so much in another one. We have a perfect source of data to support the building of a new library – show us what a success the other new ones are.

Yes, it is great thing to fund libraries. But the fact that it is a good cause does not free it from the need to be executed properly. The fact that the previous buildings were built without any sort of millage just means we have been paying too much in library taxes to begin. Before the buildings, where was all of that money going (especially since it was not going to maintain the downtown branch). Now we are asked to trust another $60 million to a group that has a proven record of not being able to maintain buildings? No thanks.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:19:35 +0000

Does Surovell read Josie Parker’s blog? If he did, he might have noticed the problem of closing a library because of a building problem seems more prevalent in the newer library buildings, not the downtown library. Traverwood has been closed three different times since it opened in June 2008 (lost power, unexplained maintenance problem, and an entire week last summer for floor repair). Mallets Creek also had to be closed for a week in June 2007 for floor repairs.

By: ChuckL

ChuckL — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:29:01 +0000

The problem with the PD (Police/Courts) building was that the question of funding was not put before voters. If the Library Board puts the question before voters in the form of a millage increase and the millage passes, I’d have no problem with that (I am/was against the PD building.) I’d like a new Library to go above the Library Lot far better than a hotel/conference center that will not work out well anyway. The vacant lot left by the demolished old library could be turned into a Public Commons area.

By: cjenkins

cjenkins — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:07:01 +0000

The new library building, which we don’t really need IMO, is going to cost around 60 million? Isn’t that quite a bit more than the police/courts building which we do need?

Larcom is truly falling apart and some complain that the city did not rent space somewhere else instead of constructing a new building that will save money in the long run. The Library appears to be more than adequate right now and some want to knock it down and construct a new building for the sole purpose of modernizing it. Larcom employees had to deal with asbestos, leaky ceilings, mold and more and some still did not feel that justified moving out of the building. Why does the library think their problems justify a new building?

hhmm…there seems to be a contradiction.

How many of you who are against the police/courts building are actually for a new library? I am for police/courts but not for the library.

The Ann Arbor news building, which recently became available, would be a fine building for a new library. Move to that site, allow your corner lot (sell it) to be developed for a different purpose. That would be something that would help the city as a whole.

By: Julie

Julie — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:25:59 +0000

“You can walk into a Barnes & Noble and find what you want like that. Why shouldn’t we have that here?”

Whoever said that obviously has never tried finding a specific book at Barnes and Noble :)

Look! It’s not scary at all!

* 000 – Computer science, information & general works
* 100 – Philosophy and psychology
* 200 – Religion
* 300 – Social sciences
* 400 – Language
* 500 – Science (including mathematics)
* 600 – Technology
* 700 – Arts and recreation
* 800 – Literature
* 900 – History, geography, and biography

Mr. Dewey makes is much easier to find a book on a particular subject when you don’t know the author’s last name!

And there’s no way you can classify music and movies under this system…. that’s why they’re by “genre.” Albums and movies didn’t exist in Mr. Dewey’s day (late 1800′s). :)

By: MargaretS

MargaretS — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:02:11 +0000

I don’t understand how a building completely remodeled and expanded in the late 1980s can be falling apart today. If this is the case, the problem is extremely poor maintenance and perhaps financial planning for maintenace. Perhaps the library’s new goal should be to create a consistent source of funding for quality maintenance. By their argument, if we build a new library now, it will be a tear down again in 30 years. Is building life span that short? Over and over, we are told what new buildings will do for us, they are built with bond money, with vague (if any) plans for where the operating funds will come from (Skyline, City Hall, Near North). Why should we invest in new buildings now if there is no funding for keeping them operational?

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:52:30 +0000

The new library was going to cost around $60 million. Debt service on that has to be at least 5% annually, let’s say $3 million. And yet having to spend up to $500,000 annually to maintain the old building is considered unworkable.

The newest part of the Graduate Library is not much newer than the oldest part of the public library. The oldest part of the Graduate Library is about 130 years old.

Something stinks here.

By: John Retzer

John Retzer — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:29:55 +0000

They should include a new library in the parking lot hotel/shopping/conference center plans. That would enable them to double the footprint of the overall project. The library would occupy three or four floors in its approximate current position, and above that, conference space and hotel rooms.