|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Between shelves at the Main Library Tuesday night, Palo Alto city leaders unveiled their latest presentation on the city’s library needs and plans before about a dozen uninvolved Palo Altans.
A second presentation will be held tonight, Wednesday, April 30, from 7 to 8:30 p.m. at the Mitchell Park Community Center, 3800 Middlefield Road.
The presentations are in preparation for an anticipated $80 million library bond measure on the November 2008 ballot.
In the 30-minute talk, Library Advisory Commission Chairwoman Valerie Stinger explained the current libraries’ many deficiencies, while Dawn Merkes of Group 4 Architecture outlined the plans for improvements to Downtown and Main libraries, and screened an animation of the proposed new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, which would replace and combine the existing facilities.
The libraries are too small, dark, outdated, energy-inefficient and lack meeting rooms and study spaces, Stinger said.
“They’re not the places they were when they were built many years ago,” she said.
She reminded attendees that Mitchell Park and Main libraries were constructed with a voter-approved bond measure in 1958.
Since then, the city’s population has doubled, she said.
Former City Auditor Sharon Erickson didn’t even intend to consider facilities when she began an audit of library operations last year, but when she visited other libraries, Palo Alto’s inadequacies jumped out at her, Library Director Diane Jennings said.
The city is currently spending about $4 million to renovate College Terrace Library and the Children’s Library was rehabbed with public and private money recently.
But the city just doesn’t have enough money to pay for fixes for the other three branches, Stinger said.
According to current plans developed by the city’s commissions, city staff members and Group 4 architects, Downtown Library would receive a $4 million interior rehabilitation and the addition of several group study rooms, Merkes said.
Main Library would have a new program room, new restrooms and an interior renovation costing nearly $20 million.
And the city would take down the existing Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, replacing it with a joint $56.1 million facility with a 36,000 square foot library and 15,000 square foot community center.
Attendees questioned the city’s plans to install water-saving landscaping, adequacy of parking and the schedule for the projects.
Merkes said the new Mitchell Park facility could open within three years, Downtown’s project would take two years and the Main Library could be expanded within four years.
Does the city really need meetings rooms?, one attendee asked.
Stinger and Merkes responded that there is high demand for meeting spaces and that smaller areas would be available to library users if a program wasn’t scheduled.
And a café at the new Mitchell Park library, isn’t that extravagant?, the same woman asked.
The small snack bar would be part of the community center, Merkes said. The city could allow non-profits to run it or lease it to a business, she said. It could even generate revenue.
In addition, most new libraries have cafes and teens have indicated interest, Stinger said.
Do the libraries really need that much more space?, one man asked.
“We are seriously, I mean seriously, over capacity (at Mitchell Park),” Jennings said.
Stinger told attendees that the project was not a grand compilation of the city’s wishes.
“This is not a Jaguar, this is a very serviceable Prius,” Stinger said.
Resident Tom Ashton said he didn’t think he could support a project that maintained all five branches, a system he views as inefficient.
“The branch question has been hanging over our heads for years and years,” Jennings said. “I feel very strongly that we can debate this issue forever, but when are we going to move ahead with improving the libraries?”
A third community library meeting is scheduled for Saturday, May 10 from 10 to 11:30 a.m. at the Mitchell Park Community Center, 3800 Middlefield Road.
Additional information about the library projects is available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/city_projects/city_facilities/library_projects.asp .
How about just one Uber-library? Works for a lot of cities…
Hey ,How about the same for me.
City Fields questions about the Fireman, or from the fireman??
I’m confused. The article states : “about a dozen uninvolved Palo Altans” attended the meeting. Seems to me that those twelve are the only involved (i.e. concerned) in town.
Whether or not the branch library issue has been hanging over our heads for years is moot. Until we get a vote from all residents instead of those who show up at City Hall or answer a non-scientific survey. it will continue to be a bone of contention.
“How about just one Uber-library? Works for a lot of cities…”
Watch out… or else Mike will come along with his argument about the bazillion studies done about the returns of libraries.
Let’s see how long it’ll take for his to post here.
From the article–
“The city is currently spending about $4 million to renovate College Terrace Library and the Children’s Library was rehabbed with public and private money recently.
“But the city just doesn’t have enough money to pay for fixes for the other three branches, Stinger said.”
$4 MILLION for College Terrace but not enough for the other branches?? Where are the city’s priorities? It’s time to drop a branch or two. Actually, the time to drop them was $4,000,000 ago.
The College Terrace library has always been a marginal operation in an out-of-the-way part of town. How on Earth does it warrant $4 million in improvements?
But then I suppose nowadays you can’t build an outhouse in Palo Alto for less than $4 million.
Everytime I go to the Main library, I see the same people there.
Kids have their computers at home to do research and homework.
It seems that most people go there to check out free DVD’s.
This is not reading. Most people prefer to read at home (if they have the time)
We visited a new library up North in San Carlos or Redwood City.
It looks nice. Modern and ugly without any charm.
It was practically empty.
The attached coffee shop was a dumb idea. No one was buying anything and you can’t bring in food and drinks into the library. Whoever thought of that idea wasn’t thinking.
Fancy new facilities will not make people read more.
Most of the libraries on the East Coast are historic buildings and small.
What is the deal here? What is wrong with the Main Library as it is?
It is peaceful and comfortable.
It sure resulted in a lot of smart people who grew up here – many never even used the library.
Most kids have their computers and ipods and study at home – get real.
I’m voting against this bond measure. Our City Council needs to get the message that we can’t afford these branch libraries and they should be closed. Part of this excessive bond measure goes to refurbishing the Downtown Library which I consider a waste of money.
College Terrace branch have very vocal supporters and they know how to mobilize and get what they want from the city i.e. excessive traffic calming(and we know how vocal minorities get their way here in Palo Alto). We have already seen what happened when the past library director suggested closing branches.
Our council does not have the spine to stand up to them, regardless of the fact that we do not have the money for fixing all the need or the need for so many branches
That is why i will be voting against the library bond, as it is now, and will encourage everyone else to do the same.
I use the Mountain View library often (by the way, they only have one). There are always a lot of people there, seniors and small kids during the day. Students etc. in the afternoons and evenings. It is a light filled welcoming place. And I can always find new fiction that I’d like to read actually IN THE LIBRARY without going on-line to put it on hold or have it transfered…
I’ll vote no on any library bond which includes money for anything but the main library and Mitchell Park.
“It sure resulted in a lot of smart people who grew up here – many never even used the library.”
With logic like that, why not have ONE library that many don’t use?
“The College Terrace library has always been a marginal operation in an out-of-the-way part of town. How on Earth does it warrant $4 million in improvements?”
Its supporters want to renovate it and apply for historical protection, in essence handcuffing the city into keeping it forever.
I’ll vote against any library bond issue because City Hall has its priorities all wrong. Our infrastructure is crumbling and the greeniacs at City Hall want to ban plastic bags. The greeniacs are like the musicians on the Titanic. I think we have better uses for eighty million dollars.
We should maintain our wonderful branch library system.
“I want a poor student to have the same means of indulging his learned curiosity, of following his rational pursuits, of consulting the same authorities, of fathoming the most intricate inquiry as the richest man in the kingdom, as far as books go, and I contend that the government is bound to give him the most liberal and unlimited assistance in this respect.” – Antonio Panizzi
“I would make the case that libraries in fact have significant economic impact, in a number of ways. Does the value of real estate, for instance, go up in the vicinity of a library or a new branch? Do libraries draw to their vicinity potential customers for nearby stores and restaurants? Does crime and unruly behavior, with the attendant economic impact, go down where kids have access to library programs and services to ward off boredom?
How about the ways that libraries and librarians affect the economic lives of ordinary people? Many libraries offer ESL training for new citizens, and workshops on survival skills like jobhunting, test preparation, resume writing, word processing and spreadsheet programs, investment information, home buying, and such. What do we know about the people who’ve attended these programs? Have they gotten jobs or college scholarships as a result? Built their retirement accounts? Purchased a new home? If so, we have added to the tax base of the community as well as to its human capital.” – Marylaine Block
Resident – all of those benefits would also be true without the College Terrace and Downtown branches.
i’m a palo alto native currently graduating from architecture school. i’ve used the libraries growing up and am very fond of my hometown, keeping the faith that we can do what’s right for our community. i am not a licensed architect nor am i a politician, but this is my perspective:
i think the branch system is spreading us thin on resources and is no longer a benefit. i agree with many posts here and think that having one central library or rather, two brand new libraries on the sites of mitchell and main would work best. maybe one specializes in more community oriented activities (this is you, mitchell) and the other, more of a mix on traditional ideas of a library translated in a modern way.
i have looked into G4, the design firm who has done the study and agree with their findings to a certain degree, minus the other branches as i’ve explained above. however, i am somewhat disgusted by their design. having seen their website, their mitchell park proposal looks too much like another library they are working on. this is not to say i have a design solution, but we can do better, and palo alto deserves better. does G4 have someone on their design team that’s a native palo altan? why isn’t any firm from palo alto representing our colors?
having gone to architecture school, i wonder if the new architecture program at stanford could assist in bringing forth student ideas as food for thought. or could the city’s architecture design committee come up with their own design as ideas to spread around? where has all the creativity gone, seriously?
The enlarged Mitchell Park branch will require additional staff because of the larger size. So much for savings on the small branches. Savings will be minimal, if any.
palo alto mom, how do you know? Your assumption is rather naive, given that attendance is quite high at all branch libraries.
I like branches, how do you know? Obviously, you know little about staff saving technology that is planned for Mitchell Park.
I went to the library presentation at Mitchell Park. Only about 15 non-library related people were there. It boggles my mind that so few people showed up.
I brought up the point that we don’t NEED five branches and it was fiscally irresponsible of the council to make their decision to keep all branches open without any financial analysis. Diane Jennings and Bern Beecham (who made the presentation) said that the majority wanted all the branches based on the survey. I said the survey was done several years ago and proved nothing because the survey didn’t say how much five branches cost us now or in the future.
One woman said she remembers how many people found refuge in libraries during the depression. I’m sure that was true, but these are different times. I don’t think we’ll see many Palo Altans piling their possessions on a truck and heading for work camps.
Someone said, “As the cost of other entertainment goes up, libraries become more significant. People in Palo Alto have a unique educational level and the desire to have everything. Regardless of cost, we’ll do it! We value the community village within the city. Libraries will focus on that community with meeting rooms etc. It may be great for Mt. View to have just one library but that’s not Palo Alto.”
Where does this pervasive sense of elitism come from? Mountain View has many more amenities today than Palo Alto will ever have!
One of the library folks said that in the past 6 years, circulation has increased 45%. I don’t really know what that means. Are there more people going to the library or are the same people checking out more items? Is the increased circulation in books or DVDs or CDs? Are people checking out free movies because it’s expensive to go to theaters? Is circulation up at ALL branches?
Someone asked about the estimates for library building costs, particularly the contingency fees that were shown. (I don’t have the details. The only handouts provided were photos of the Mitchell Park Plan.) A library person said that “the 10% design contingency goes away when we go to bid. And there’s 10% allocated for the architects, who typically take 10% of construction costs.”
There is also an independent citizen’s group looking at the numbers. There will be a study session with Council on May 19 to discuss costs.
The Library Foundation is working with Friends of the Library to raise money for collections and other things.
I asked where the money would come from for operational costs and staffing, which I assumed would be more, given the bigger buildings and additional services. Diane Jennings said those costs would be presented in June. Bern Beecham said that there would be lots of technology, RFID, etc. That costs money, too!
Since furniture, technology, upkeep, utilities, staffing, etc. can’t be paid with bond money, it will be very interesting to hear how they will be funded. We already know from Sharon Erickson’s library audit — and from common sense — that the existing branches use more staff than a single library.
Mike, I know there will be more staff needed at Mitchell Park becausei the library director said so at the public meeting. Of all people you should know that too.
Whether RFID will save staff time is an open question. Staff will still have to replace the books on the shelves. How much will it cost? I don’t know … you should know that too.
Pat, I agree, it is a shame that the town won’t do what’s right on the branches. I believe, unfortunately, that the only path is to defeat the bond measure to force them to go back to the drawing board. What a sad lack of leadership.
I like Branches, Long term, the library may be able to run on less staff. You need to dig deeper.
Wrong again Mike, I don’t need to dig deeper. The people who are advocating this big expenditure need to lay out the justification.
Your homework assignments are so obnoxious.
I think the role of a library will change.
In terms of providing access to information, it is already kaput. It is anachronistic and indulgent to physically go to a library (in our traffic! it’s not green…) and peruse the collection to find information.
Or entertainment for that matter.
Electronic distribution is cheaper, faster, cleaner, more equitable.
But libraries will take on the role that a physical location can take on – bringing people together. For a purpose, because of common interest, or because of randomly aligned schedules. It doesn’t matter.
With this in mind, local branches have more value in the future than they did in the past.
A single large library will be a place for crowds to gather, not for communities to form or grow.
A large room full of people who are each using a computer would be valuable service to those who don’t have computers (and to those who need but don’t have a parent or guardian available for their supervision). But it’s not a library.
The “library” in that case is already on-line.
Provide wireless access to the city and call that a library, that would be better naming.
I’m kind of late to the library scene. Has there been any quantifiable research into things like:
-circulation by branch over the last 10 years
-circulation by item (books, periodicals, DVDs, CDs, etc.)
-use of library computers by branch (hours)
-number of bodies in each branch over the last X years
-number of people who drive/bike/walk/take public transpo. to each library
Have the plans to update and maintain all 5 branches taken into consideration the increasing electronic delivery of information and entertainment (and how that will affect/change the way people use libraries)?
I believe in and support public libraries, but I still need convincing that we should be upgrading and maintaining 5 branches for a town of our size. I’m open to it, if someone can provide data (not years-old surveys about feelings).
Sadly, it’s not unthinkable that many library-supporters will feel they have to vote against the bond. I’m undecided.
I suggest benchmarking our city library (system) vs. neighboring communities like Mt. View, Menlo Park, Redwood City, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Cupertino…why can’t we do as these cities do, and have one fine main library?!
for those who doubt
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0306/ijge/freedman.htm
Posting erroneous information is a disservice to the community, “anonymous”.
The cities you mention do not have “one fine main library”.
Redwood City has FOUR http://rcpl.info/ebranch/locations.html
Los Altos has TWO http://www-lib.co.santa-clara.ca.us/losaltos/
You can look up the rest to correct your mistake.
I was also impressed by their clear, attractive, logical web sites.
Woodland is one tiny branch serving South Los Altos, which is far away from downtown Los Altos. It’s hardly equivalent to supporting Palo Alto’s downtown, College Terrace, Mitchell Park etc libraries in addition to our Main Library. 90% of everything happening in Los Altos Library is at Main, which is on San Antonio Road in the heart of downtown Los Altos.
Can someone help me understand why $4,000,000 to renovate a library is required? People are building dream homes over 5000 sq ft with full basements, state-of-the-art kitchens (which are very expensive to build), and more for a 1-2 million.
What’s the size of College Terrace? Please convince me that 4 million is required to update this library!
pa resident, Might I suggest you take a stroll downtown, and ask at City Hall. There are reams of plans – including architecture and design studies conducted some time ago. It’s all there, right down to the line item. Do some homework.
THis is an old, historical building, it has been *completely* neglected for the better part of two decades. There are MANY variables that have to be built into public buildings, that residential buildings don’t have to consider. Go out and price an ADA bathroom someday. Things that LAST cost money. CT will be standing long after some of the pressed plywood McMansions around here are long gone.
Mike: I’ll give up my bon-bons if you stop drinking the Kool Aid.
pat, I thought yuo were caravanning outta here. Hurry, it’s getting dark – try to make the Sierras by nightfall!
Is that filthy day care facility still in the College Terrace library building?
The last time I went to College Terrace to use the library, it was closed.
It is a truly fine historical building, but not a suitable site for babies and toddlers.
Yuck! My 5 year needed to use the restroom, and they allowed us in. The whole place was awful and filthy. We decided to go home.
The historic nature of the inside of the building did not “mesh” with a babies and toddlers.
I am not sure how it managed to pass through a state inspection.
How about keeping College Terrace for the Palo Alto Historical collection since they occupy quite a lot of space at the Main Library.
It would seem a like an appropriate place for it.
Looks like CTB is riding pat’s camel into the Sierra’s. ta-ta, cheerio! What a bunch; they’ll probably kill each other before they reach Sacramento. btw, the CT bathrooms are always spotless – looks like CTB has a bad case of “public bathroom phobia”.
Agh. What I wouldn’t give for one conveniently located, state-of-the-art main library (similar to that in Mountain View). Do we really need so many branch libraries in Palo Alto? Especially with the Internet, libraries are becoming less and less popular.
1 Great children’s library; 1 Great adult library. That’s what we need in this town. NOT several run-down facilities that are too expensive to maintain, with incomplete collections and poor integration of services. We should focus our resources on a single new library, close to transit. Next: rotate the collection through our local schools, to maximize accessibility. This will give us the most use from our dollars and the most use from our library resources. Convert the old library buildings to community centers or sell them to pay for our new REAL library. Are you listening City Council? We want a real library, not a 5 rehabed “almost” new libraries.
“Agh. What I wouldn’t give for one conveniently located, state-of-the-art main library (similar to that in Mountain View).”
Yeah. And what I wouldn’t give for ONE well-stocked library like Los Altos. We haven’t got any, despite having plenty.
Sell off a library? are you nuts?
or just a right wing Republican who would like to dismantle or bankrupt government so they can continue to take over.
Mike, (uh) they don’t allow MEN into the toddlers bathroom or even into the daycare. There are lots of naked little tots running around getting diaper changes on towels on the bathroom floors. I can guarantee that you would not have been allowed in. If you were, than this is another reason why that filthy childcare facility needs an inspection. What were you doing in there anyway? You have way too much time!
CTB, that must be hard on the fathers that come to pick up their children. Are they told to stand out the front and have their child brought to them? Very odd child-care arrangement.