Comments on: Library to Restart Downtown Facility Review

By: Joe S.

Joe S. — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:03:36 +0000

The library decided to take the word “reading” out of the summer game, but also wants us to come along for a $50 million ride on the traditional book warehouse express?

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 02:17:15 +0000

I hope and assume we’re past the point where the Library Board tried to justify a new building just because the old one is “old.” Or because of maintenance costs, when those costs are far below the cost of a new building.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:33:30 +0000

I agree with M.C. Zacharias regarding the present building, which I favor being rehabilitated.

An interesting factoid relating to #10: I believe that the current main building is on property that really belongs to the Ann Arbor Public Schools (a legacy of the time when the library was part of the school district). As I understand, if they give up that space, they lose it, which would mean that they’d have to pay to acquire a new spot, especially one in the heart of Ann Arbor’s State Street commercial district (where parking is problematical).

I’d hate to see that happen also because the Library is serving as an anchor for the William St. axis in that part of town.

By: Mary Cambruzzi

Mary Cambruzzi — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:39:26 +0000

I like the current location. But after visiting Borders for years and seeing it function as a gathering space as well as a place to find great books, I wonder what the feasibility of a library in the old Borders space might be…

By: m.c. zacharias

m.c. zacharias — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:40:58 +0000

When will the insanity cease?
It makes NO SENSE to demolish the existing building only to erect new brick and mortar in its place.
The downtown library is a fine building with strong bones and a unique character. I proudly bring out-of-town guests into the building to see its fabulous stairway and the gorgeous two-story skylight-capped space between the third and fourth floors. At almost 110,000 square feet of serviceable area, it is a travesty to even think of losing this building.
And please, let’s take any consultant’s opinion with a grain of salt. It’s easy (and safe) to start over — true creativity and responsibility will come only from working with the existing structure.

By: Kerry D.

Kerry D. — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:35:13 +0000

Thank you, Mr. Cahill.

By: David Cahill

David Cahill — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:08:10 +0000

Thanks for #3, Dave!

Kerry D., I was on the Library Board from 2000-2008. As I recall, the property tax revenues are received in one big lump, which then funds the Library for a year. As the article says, the surplus for the most recent fiscal year is only a bit above $200,000.

By: Kerry D.

Kerry D. — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:09:26 +0000

I do not understand why there is a balance of 14.7 million dollars?

Why is it so big? Is the AADL having huge operating profits? Do they have any big obligations coming due?

Can anyone explain why the AADL has so much cash?

By: DrData

DrData — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:38:11 +0000

My guess is that this committee will take a year or so to come up with a recommendation so maybe she's operating on the positive uptick in consumer confidence: [link] I know that 3 years ago the library couldn't have floated a bond; I think that market is a bit more fluid than it was 3 years ago and that's pretty important for an expensive undertaking. However, the citizens of Ann Arbor (and even moreso for the US in general) are much less likely to support spending on anything, so getting a majority of voters to support the committee's recommendations may be difficult. After all, isn't Amazon loaning books out now? Some may think there is no need for a new library, especially downtown where (a) folks have issues with paid parking; (b) where some portion of the patrons will be using the facility as a warming shelter.

By: Mary Morgan

Mary Morgan — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:47:26 +0000

Re. #1: “Did Ms. Parker suggest that economic conditions are now much better than they were three years ago? Possibly I missed discussion of this in the article. Was there some other explanation for why Now is the right time?”

Her remarks were relatively brief, and there was not a detailed discussion about why now is a better time than three years ago. It’s possible that she went into that level of detail with the finance committee – that’s a meeting I didn’t attend. Its members are Barbara Murphy (chair), Nancy Kaplan, and Ed Surovell. Of the three, only Nancy Kaplan attended the Nov. 22 board meeting.