March 2009
by Amanda Abrams
For a moment, the Feb. 24 meeting on the future of the Mount Pleasant Library appeared to be on the verge of spinning out of control. After a presentation by DC Public Library staff that seemed to be stonewalling rather than answering questions, a restive crowd began shouting out specific accusations about how DCPL had failed to engage the community.
But to their credit, library staff remained cool. And with the help of Ward 1 Councilmember Jim Graham as mediator, the meeting regained a civil tone and even closed with an agreement among various stakeholders to hold discussions over the next month before moving forward.
It’s a positive step in a process that has been largely characterized by dissention. Residents and library officials alike agree that the Mount Pleasant Library – which serves all of Ward 1 – needs to be upgraded: it’s cramped, crowded and could use more computers. But community members claim that DCPL officials set new priorities for the library and chose a renovation design this fall without seriously seeking local input.
“The library staff is doing things backwards,” said Robin Diener of the Library Renaissance Project, an advocacy group. “The public is being engaged on the back end.”
By all accounts, Mount Pleasant is a fractious community with a number of vocal groups that frequently disagree with each other. On this issue, however, they are unified against the current design, which adds a large glass wing to the western side of the library.
“This is the most significant building in our historic district, and yet the library people proposed an unsympathetic and totally inappropriate design,” said Fay Armstrong, president of Historic Mount Pleasant. Her group prepared the application that led to the building – a Carnegie library built in 1925 – being designated a historic landmark and feels that the glass addition wouldn’t harmonize with the rest of the building.
Like many others, Armstrong claims that community meetings to review the design plans were poorly advertised and sparsely attended. By the time she finally met with DCPL in January, she said, the design had already been determined.
Also unhappy is the Mount Pleasant Condo Association. The group says that the library’s new wing would block the fire escape of a condo building next door, but the residents weren’t notified of the plans until a few months ago.
“Their outreach efforts have been deplorable,” said Sean Gannon, president of the condo association. The group met with DCPL officials in October, but according to Gannon, the discussion was largely superficial. “They were gracious, but it soon become apparent that they’d invested in their plans already,” he said.
DCPL staff, for their part, claim they have conducted extensive outreach. “We mailed postcards, put notices on listservs, and sent e-mails to elected officials,” said George Williams, a library spokesman. He added that DCPL hired a Spanish-speaking consultant to do outreach with the broader community; that report was recently finalized.
Williams also pointed out that, despite residents’ impressions, the design process isn’t finished yet. “We’re still pulling together the design that best represents the community’s needs,” he said.
That recently turned out to be truer than DCPL staff may have hoped. On Feb. 19, the federal Commission on Fine Arts, which has jurisdiction over some government projects in DC, ruled against the library’s new plans and encouraged more community involvement in the design process.
In a sense, then, the Feb. 24 meeting at the library was a chance for DCPL to start over and solicit fresh input. The room was packed with ANC commissioners and representatives of local groups.
Councilmember Graham opened the meeting by encouraging DCPL to listen to community grievances. “I’ve learned the hard way that if you believe people have been engaged, but they don’t believe they’ve been engaged, you have a problem,” said Graham.
Even Graham’s conciliatory presence didn’t prevent the discussion from heating up. But Henry Myerberg, a New York-based architect whose firm created the new design, gave a presentation outlining his decision-making process, and the audience was welcome to comment at length. And gradually, the frustration in the room dissipated.
At the end of the meeting, Graham suggested that the design process pause for 30 days to allow groups and DCPL to together come up with a design that the community would be satisfied with. DCPL and residents agreed to give it a try.
Phil Lepanto, the ANC commissioner of a neighboring Mount Pleasant district, actively followed the dispute over the past few months and attended the meeting. “It’s exciting to see how the neighborhood has come together over this issue,” he said optimistically. “Now let’s try to get this process back on track through open and honest dialogue.”
Original Source Here
LIBRARY
DYNAMOS