In regard to Board discussion of this project at its Feb. meeting:

“Kaplan asked about the large lit sign, wondering if it would be possible to see the shadow of someone walking behind it. She was concerned that the passageway behind it might feel “tunnel-y” to walk through. Lavigne told the board that his firm would need to do a full-scale mockup to get a better idea of how it would look. They plan to use existing brick columns as the frame, and would need to decide on a level of translucency. With the light pouring out of the sign, plus two picture windows on the building looking into the library, plus new lighting in the soffit, the walkway between the sign and the building would be very bright, he said.”

The last time I noticed, the two picture windows that I think Mr. Lavigne refers to (north end of building facing Fifth) have been covered over and don’t seem to allow much, if any, light in or out. Will they be opened again, and will that present any other issues? Also, will lights in the sign and the new soffit lights remain on 24/7 or only at night?

Also, I tend to agree with Mr. Surovell that there’s strong potential for creation of an informal shelter between the proposed light box sign and the building. I don’t know the extent to which nighttime “campers” are an issue for Downtown’s covered walkway now, but there’s no reason to think it might not be in the future. I doubt that light would be a deterrent, and I am under the impression that AADL does not employ overnight security staff.

As an aside, it seemed to me a stretch when Ms. Rosenthal concluded that the AADL Security staff was “comfortable” with the proposed new design just because “[Parker]added that these plans have been shown to the library’s security and facilities staff.” Showing plans to staff and seeking input from staff about the plans are two different things, and I don’t find the latter included in the report of this part of the discussion.

Finally, as always, thanks again to Mary and Dave for your full and prompt responses to commenters’ requests for additional info. and clarification.

Thursday, March 13 at 5:30 p.m. at the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth.

The library board has not been able to make a convincing case that their new model (mostly meeting space) is a proper mission for a library board. If the demise of printed books – or printed books not bought from Amazon – is the future, the real response may be that we no longer need a library, or a library board. Meeting space is great, but that’s not a library, and it’s not obvious that this is a public function. At the very least, it’s not obvious that we need new public meeting space when the public schools have auditoriums that are unused most evenings.

We all applaud a private company that re-invents itself in the face of new products and changing markets. However, in the case of a public institution, the appropriate response to mission obsolescence may be to dissolve the institution. New needs are probably better met by new institutions, which are not burdened by irrelevant institutional memory and assets. it is not a good use of resources to support a public institution in search of a new mission because its original mission is obsolete.

In the meantime, it certainly does seem that the library is a well run place.

I’m not the first to notice that while the “conventional” library model is in transition, it remains an indispensable community resource that is truly open to the public–year-round–and enriching to all ages.

I am still saddened by the millage failure to expand AADL’s contribution to the community. By all accounts, the AADL leadership has been extraordinarily effective with our tax dollars. I’m confident that one day they will present a bold vision as a grand, proud, year-round community gathering space and positive activity generator that’s worthy of a larger investment. I’ll be there to vote for it.

There is a use of language that puzzles me in the Behavior Policy. Can anyone explain why the behavior policy refers to a violator “Losing their library privilege”, and then defines “Losing library privilege” (“Not being allowed to enter or use the library”). Why not just say that violators will “Not be allowed to enter or use the library”, and dispense with the phrase, “Lose library privilege”, and the resulting need for a definition. Is there some advantage to retaining the “Losing their privilege” phrase?

In the “Freedom to Read” policy, I see that the word, “Bookman” has been abandoned for a gender-neutral word. I’ve never seen this word “Bookman” before. I understand the impulse to be gender-neutral, but “Bookman” presents more heft, more authority, more sense of mission, than the pedestrian phrase, “Publishers and librarians”. Besides, “Bookmen” conforms to Rule 13 of “The Elements of Style”. All in all, seems a shame to abandon it.