![]() |
| Library?- The design to 'replace' Donnell |
Who knows what will serve as inspiration for the fertile imagination? Or, as the case may be, for the
not-so-fertile imagination.Previously, it was once supposed that the design (
above) for the largely underground and bookless “library” that is supposed to suffice (at less than one-third the size) as a replacement for the formerly magnificent and beloved Donnell Library (sold off to net only a fraction of
its value to the public) was the design (
below) for a very non-library space, a Prada store. See: Friday, May 24, 2013,
Previews Of The Proposed New Donnell Library: The NYPL Unveils Its Version Of The “Silk Purse” Libraries It Envisions For Our Future.
![]() |
| The Prada store the library design resembles |
Close enough, I suppose, but now it turns out that there is a good chance that inspiration for the non-library design came from another source (see
below), the Musashino Art University Museum & Library.
The design for this space, part museum and art gallery (and part. . . what else?). . . intentionally flaunts its absence of books as it ostensibly
“proposes a new relation between the user and the books” (or, more precisely, the physical
absence thereof). (See:
Musashino Art University Museum & Library / Sou Fujimoto, 28 Jun 2011. ArchDaily, accessed October, 31, 2013.
Going to the Architectural Daily link provided above you can hear architect Sou Fujimoto explain that while in
formation technology has
no concrete existence, people with physical bodies need to feel like they live in a
real world (with the light shifting during the day and seasons being important!). Apparently to give that sense of
reality he filled this environment with its theme of empty bookshelves. He’s quoted:
“I imagined books, bookshelves, light and the atmosphere,” a
“dreamlike” space
“made from [empty]
bookshelves.”The concept of the
“idea” of books filling in for actual books may explain a lot. When the design for the new shrunken underground Donnell was presented to the local community board the architect was asked about one rendering involving many books that stood out amongst the multiple others that showed very few books: The rendering showed a high wall of books that was literally impossible because it would have violated codes, regulations together with basic practicality and safety itself (see
below). The architect explained that this was
not a
real depiction of books or the way that they would be. The rendering was only intended to show that the idea of books is
conceptually important, “just simply to say that books are important to us, the books are important to the library.”![]() |
| A slide shown in both presentations showing what the books in the library won't really look like, but showing that having books in a library is conceptionally important |
That concept could have cribbed from the Japanese gallery meditation on books as a
dreamlike theme suggesting reality rather than the real thing.
Is it just coincidence that NYPL’s design for what is to replace Donnell is so similar to the earlier Japanese one? When asked, the architect for the NYPL design said that NYPL officials hadn’t specified anything in terms of a book count or a required square foot area for books. But what if it was actually the reverse? What if, instead of just neglecting to express an NYPL goal of having a minimum number of books on site, the library administration officials overseeing the project had instead expressed a goal of having some sort of
`library of the future' that would avoid physical books? Wouldn’t the architects then, perhaps simply by Googling it up, have come across the bookless Japanese space whose empty shelves suggested the
motif of books while actually dispensing with them?
It could have happened that way, or maybe the inspiration came from the fact that the shelves of New York City libraries are already actually beginning to look much like that sparse Japanese space as they are emptied in preparation for sales as the system is shrunk to manufacture real estate deals. Compare the photos below of the Japanese space with the New York library shelves from the following article (where even more such photos can be found): Saturday, September 14, 2013,
Empty Bookshelves As Library Officials Formulate A New Vision of Libraries: A Vision Where The Real Estate Will Be Sold Off.
![]() |
| Mid-Manhattan Library, up for sale |
![]() |
| Brooklyn Heights Library, RFP out for its sale |
![]() |
| SIBL, Science, Industry and Business Library, being sold- more pictures of empty shelves in various libraries being sold here |
However well the aspiration of having bookless libraries may fit in the goals that current library administrators have of vacating the library real estate they are preparing for sale, those administrators should give some thought to the fact that a recent Pew poll says that people still want
physical books in the libraries, including the new young
“tech-savvy” generation just as much as the old, if not more so. (See:
School Library Journal: Pew Study: Teens Still Love Print Media, ‘Traditional’ Library Services, by Karyn M. Peterson, June 25, 2013).
Before library administration officials rush to adopt new models that exile physical books from the premises perhaps they should read the Scientific American article this past month that tells us that our brains are probably hardwired to learn and retain facts better when reading
physicalbooks. See:
The Reading Brain in the Digital Age- Why Paper Still Beats Screens (Why the Brain Prefers Paper), by Ferris Jabr, November 2013.
If award-winning author Neil Gaiman were advising our library administration officials, he too would caution them about the criticality of retaining physical books. In a speech he gave this month covered by Britain’s The Guardian he addressed the value of reading, the importance of defending libraries and spoke about the future of physical books saying,
“I do not believe that all books will or should migrate onto screens” observing that:
a physical book is like a shark. Sharks are old: there were sharks in the ocean before the dinosaurs. And the reason there are still sharks around is that sharks are better at being sharks than anything else is. Physical books are tough, hard to destroy, bath-resistant, solar-operated, feel good in your hand: they are good at being books, and there will always be a place for them.
(See:
Why our future depends on libraries, reading and daydreaming, October 15, 2013.)
Let’s hope that one place where there will always be a place for physical books is
in our libraries.I want to thank the troops of
Citizens Defending Libraries (petition
here), a group I helped found to protect libraries from being sold off to benefit developers, not the public. Without their help I might have overlooked the Musashino Art University Museum & Library design and some of the articles I have mentioned above.
![]() |
| Mock up of portion of Musashino |
