You can update an awful lot of mechanicals, and install a lot of fiber optic cable, for $10 million or so. As others have pointed out, the full cost of the library will not be the $65 million construction cost, but the $130 million of construction plus interest.

If the library board believes that its mission is becoming obsolete, that sounds more like an argument for scaling back, not doubling down to enter a new line of business that is, in the end, really not at all related to providing books and periodicals, in what ever form.

That would be *some* people, not all, and whether it’s a matter of preference, simple convenience (e.g., proximity), or something else is unclear. You’re generalizing beyond usefulness, David.

Actually, your kiosk idea sounds kinda cool—except for the drive thru part and the attendant. But wouldn’t if great if there were library kiosks similar to those red DVD dispensers, where, within easy walkling distance you could pick up reserved library material with a swipe of the library card and drop off returns?

By evaluating the available data I’m trying to understand where library patrons prefer to get materials and services. What is the efficacy of each branch in providing those materials and services? While items circulated per sq ft may not, by itself, be the most compelling datapoint, in concert with the other figures there is an indication to me that people prefer going to the branches rather than the Downtown Library.

Are there metrics you would suggest using in evaluating the relative usage and effectiveness of the AADL’s branches, including downtown?

I don’t find the circulation per square foot numbers compelling. If I did, then I’d be advocating for library kiosks scattered throughout the city where one person in a drive-through hands out books on hold and takes book returns. Just think of the circ per square foot you could get if you minimized the square footage of the library.

1) The AADL”s own facts and figures info sheet says that the Downtown Library has 56% of total items available for checkout. I would not consider that the “vast bulk” of the collection. If you take into account the square footage of the various branches in the system, 56% for Downtown is an average to low figure.

2) One of the points being made in support of the Library millage is that the Downtown Library is heavily used, near capacity, and numbers like 600,000 visitors or 30% of total internet sessions, etc. are being used to support that claim. But as the data shows, if you take into account the space available for “customers”, the Downtown Library is, by far, the least busy in the system.

3)EVEN IF a large number of items are being brought from downtown to the branches isn’t that indicative that people prefer doing their “business” at the branches? For me, that’s one of my underlying points—-people appear to love the Branch Libraries, they visit and use them with a much greater frequency than the Downtown library. Since branches seem to be where the action is, I think they should be the first focus of any future capital investment.