GREATER SHAW COMMUNITY
Last Chance Library Survey – RESULTS ( 70 surveys )
November 19, 2008
The Shaw Library Study Group -- an informal affiliation of local residents and groups who have been actively following developments for the new Watha T. Daniel Library – conducted a survey over the months of October and November 2008 regarding the new library’s features and amenities. Below is a list of issues that have been raised repeatedly during the course of the design process but have not been fully addressed by DC Public Library leadership. The Shaw Library Study Group sought more input to prioritize the remaining concerns to pursue with DCPL leadership – they are listed in the order of priority.
Survey respondents graded the issues from 1 as the lowest priority and 5 as the highest priority. The number next to the issue title below is the average respondent score.
Security: 4.67
One of the great successes of the interim facilities has been the sense of a “safe place.” This sense comes from the visible presence of security personnel on the premises at all times, plus very open and clear sight lines between library patrons and staff.
If security is as high a priority for DCPL as it is for the community, then DCPL needs to acknowledge it definitively by outlining how it will provide security and what it will cost to secure a three story library. DCPL has mentioned, with very little detail, a closed circuit security system, but DCPL leadership say they have not yet decided about security staffing plans.
Training Space in Classroom Format: 4.25
Although DCPL keeps insisting that it must have totally flexible space in the new library, in fact, it is planning many specialized spaces: the storytelling room for children, various age specific spaces, periodicals, etc. Given the need for instruction, computer lab, literacy, other classes, etc DCPL’s bias against dedicated training space does not make sense.
Not having a room for these purposes, means that DCPL does not plan to provide or support these services. Will there be a program of computer classes covering such things as keyboarding and basic email use, internet research and web design? The same goes for adult literacy classes, which could range widely according to need from ESL classes for the foreign born, to “adult basic” skills in phonics, vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and comprehension, to entire areas like health literacy, financial literacy, and family literacy. Reading groups for beginning adult readers are also popular and needed.
In so far as these classes require a classroom set up and a door to close for soundproofing, they needn’t take significant space away from other activities.
Green Living Roof: 4.19
This is a planted vegetative surface to cut down on water runoff and improve water quality. It also provides insulation to reduce heating and cooling costs. The community seemed to embrace the idea of a living green roof, depicted in the initial designs shown to the public in January 2008, but DCPL now says it is not feasible and is no longer in the design plans as shown on 9/4/08.
DCPL has not adequately explained how they could have proposed a green roof in the first place if the building would not support it, as they now claim. Moreover, what about a compromise with just part of the roof being planted, or other alternatives like solar panels?
Ambient Sunlight in the Lower Level: 4.19
In June, DCPL architects spoke about an unforeseen problem, well water under the library grounds. DCPL’s architects got buy-in from the public about lifting the building up a few feet, which in turn would allow for sunlight to come directly into the lower level. On 9/4/08, the water issue seemed to have disappeared with no explanation and the design now calls for the lower level to be a dark warren of rooms. Ambient light will have to find its way from the main level down the stairwell, painting a much bleaker picture than what was being described at a design meeting held only a couple of months earlier.
More Lavatories on Main Floor: 4.04
The current library plans show only one toilet on the main floor. Concerns have been raised by residents including seniors and parents that if the only bathroom on the main floor is being used, then they will have to mobilize quickly, perhaps too quickly, to get to a toilet on another level. Parents have asked for greater supervision of children on other floors with bathrooms, especially the lower level.
Staff work room: 3.99
Currently, library floor plans show a large walled-off staff work room on the main level. DCPL should tell us how this room will be used, and why it is so large and disconnected from users. Chief Cooper often says that she has learned lessons from the interim libraries that she is incorporating into the new libraries. One of those would seem to be how well the open accessibility of the staff / information area has worked – essentially a big desk in the center of the interim library. That accessibility is not reflected in the new plan. A walled-off staff room also raises more security concerns unnecessarily.
Café or coffee shop: 3.75
A café may be the least important feature of the new library from the point of view of its mission to provide educational opportunity, however as many acknowledge, libraries face competition from bookstores and other places that serve as popular community hang outs. If the library is to have the greatest appeal, a café or coffee shop should be considered.
The Chief Librarian has relegated space for vending machines to a tiny alcove in the basement. No café would want to operate out of that location, so if plans are left as they stand, there will be no possibility of a café “down the line,” as alluded to by the Cooper. Residents have also mentioned looking at an exterior seasonal courtyard café but DCPL leadership has not given any meaningful response.
CONCLUSION:
In January 2008, the Greater Shaw community was promised the “Jewel of Rhode Island Avenue” – a new library touting modern glass design with a vegetative green roof. At that same meeting, many of the issues listed above were put on the table in hopes of a discussion with DCPL leadership. There was no communication between DCPL and the public for more than five months.
Then in June 2008, DCPL leadership shocked the Greater Shaw community when they presented a completely redesigned library very reminiscent of the former brutalist library that some called a “bunker.” There is still no adequate explanation as to why this happened. The result was a diversion away from broader transparent discussions about important library amenities, inside and out, with DCPL leadership. Instead, over the summer, library advocates focused on making sure the “jewel” would return.
This is why the Greater Shaw community deserves at least one last design meeting with DCPL leadership and the architects so to more thoroughly discuss remaining important library amenities before construction begins.
See the PDF of the results here.