I have used a wheelchair all my life. For people who use wheelchairs and others with mobility problems, a flight of steps in a public building is the same as "whites only" signs in Jim Crow times.
Sadly, New York ( I lived in NY/NJ for 35 years) has a long history of indifference to ADA and inclusion. There is no accountability and the shameful discrimination against the disabled continues.
24
Stairs are good - very good! The library needs to plan a strategy on how to deal with strollers but the library is gorgeous and NY'ers should be encouraged to take the stairs whenever possible. These details can be worked out.
33
Chris McVoy sounds like an apologist.
It is not a small wrinkle. It is a FLAW in the design.
He should be embarrassed.
27
Am I the only one who this this stroller thing is out of control!! Why are they so big? They have become as big as grocery carts. Maybe we need to start creating parking spaces for strollers and their own lanes on the streets right next to the bike lane.
22
amazed something like this could happen today. we dealt with and resolved a somewhat-like access issue with Rem Koolhaas's (OMA) Seattle Public Library design over fifteen years ago. and Chris McVoy, this flaw is NOT a new and evolving issue ("evolution").
13
It reminds me of the fiasco with the French National Library in Paris.
"The towers contain more than one design flaw. For example, it was realized too late that a library built from transparent glass would provide little protection for the books from sunlight; and that in fact, excessive sunlight would actually overheat the towers (and pose a risk of turning them into blazing infernos!). In addition, the glass design failed to account for condensation, another threat to delicate books."
How do you not account for books in designing a library?
https://www.pps.org/places/french-national-library
19
Why does beauty always have to be a casualty ?
Convenience, practicality, and accessibility are all important, but they don't always have to be paramount.
The disabled have rights, just like everyone else, but some lobbyists for the disabled strike me as uncompromising and selfish. Everything can't be ideal for everyone. If some can't access everything, that doesn't make the design a mistake, or a failure.
6
I find it absolutely stunning that 29 years after the ADA was passed that architects haven't learned to seamlessly and almost invisibly incorporate physical accommodations into their functional and aesthetic designs.
Retrofits are almost always ugly and you would think by now the egos of architects would worry how these ugly retrofits would subtract from the look of their masterpieces.
And this: "Queens Library officials responded that librarians could simply retrieve those books for disabled patrons, a solution in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and noted that the first of the four terraces did have elevator access."
Talk about hiding behind the letter of the law. Have any of these officials ever heard of browsing. Lots of frequent library users browse their favorite section for books they might not be aware of. You shouldn't have to know what your looking for every time you visit the library. I wonder how many of these officials actually use the libraries.
24
So I guess the public library is also designed to fully accommodate discrimination in hiring. Um, to be honest, I guess they really didn’t think people with disabilities actually work.
The ADA is the law of the land since 1990. But civil rights is so hard, right? They needed more time to practice federally-compliant wokefullness. Amazing enough that the architects slept through Architecting 101, what happened to the city’s permitting, plan approvals, and building inspections?
I didn’t realize elevator science has evolved to the point of never-maintenance or failure either. The stroller photo could be captioned stroller-mageddon. It’s a fire trap. But it’s art!
15
The first question for any architect on any project should be: how is this building going to be used? Clearly that principle was not applied here. Form should follow function, not the other way around.
18
When the library in my village in upstate NY was renovated in 1999-2000, the plan originally did not include an elevator, and those of us advocating for one were also told that "the librarian will get you the books you want." We persevered and ultimately convinced the power-that-be that full access was the only real answer -- and we got that elevator. I love being able to get to every part of my library. Shame on those architects of the Queens library for thinking it's OK to treat disabled, mobility-impaired, and elderly people as second class.
11
I guess it’s impossible to explain the third class status of being disabled.
What everyone takes for granted reduces me to tears anymore. For 50 years since the debacle of the Vietnam “police action” I’ve tried to keep up a stoic demeanor but at the same time I think why is disability so hard to understand?
Saying “A librarian can get what one needs” sent a wave of nausea through me. Being able to simply wander among shelves of books is a wonder unlike anything else. Perhaps it’s because I’m not a digital native that simply the touch of a book, feeling the heft, turning the pages to feel the texture is a delight unlike anything else.
I have been fortunate to have had service dogs that fill in for my deafness and warn me of onset of seizures. I trained my own “Endeavour” but also train working dogs for the military, police, search and rescue, and for all levels of disability---an avocation that completes me and helps those who can’t afford a $40K dog to stay active. I even train dogs to maneuver wheelchairs.
But one curb, one door one can’t open, takes away freedom.
I met a woman at a store and the subject turned to our being widows. She loved my dog, invited me to a church luncheon for widows the next day.
Later on she stopped at my house to tell me that the ladies were leery of such dogs because ppl lied about service dogs. “It’s all over the news.”
Really? As with these library patrons I had to go through this AGAIN?
No excuse! Uneducated, unthinking, unempathetic!
17
Can't common sense intelligence and elegant design exist at the same time in the hallowed halls of architectural design? What a disaster, an aborted opportunity once again. WHO is steering the ship?
7
From Steven Holl, what else would you expect? For him aesthetic is everything; function is an afterthought. Or else he's good at the aesthetic part and bad at the functional! Consider how striking the MIT dorm as seen across the soccer fields, but how bad it is inside!
9
Architects need to lose their obsession with staircases, or switch to sculpture. Stairs are inherently dangerous for kids and anyone with the slightest mobility problems, yet architects continue to treat them like a something that adds curves, or height, or whatever. I've seen staircases in private residences that would tax the able-bodied. Basta.
3
This says it all:
"Now more than a month old, the library is navigating what Ms. de Bourbon called “significant growing pains” as staff learn how to adapt to the realities of running a branch library in a vertical work of art."
Architecture that places art over meeting the functional needs that a building will be used for is failed architecture.
9
Why are so many bashing the architects? The City Government is responsible for making the decision to go forward with this design and ultimately the City Council as well. Really a travesty to spend all that money and not suit the needs of the public with such an important building.
5
Beautiful building. Totally unsuitable as a library. Even the "able bodied" don't want to climb up and down 5 flights of stairs to browse or search. No matter how artistic the bleachers. My old suburban hometown has a wonderful, attractive library built in the 1930s. The commuity made it accessible and spent less then $1million.
The LIC library is a an ego trip for the architect. It insults the community it's supposed to serve. 1 Elevator for 5 stories?
21
Beautiful building. Totally unsuitable as a library. Even the "able bodied" don't want to climb up and down 5 flights of stairs to browse or search. No matter how artistic the bleachers. My old suburban hometown has a wonderful, attractive library built in the 1930s. The commuity made it accessible and spent less then $1million.
The LIC library is a an ego trip for the architect. It insults the community it's supposed to serve. 1 Elevator for 5 stories?
5
"By that point, Mr. Walcott said in an interview, the focus was on finishing the building, not in rethinking its details."
The proliferation of steep stairways, dangerous for children, inaccessible to many children and almost all senior citizens -- those are not "details."
No matter which way you look at this so-called design, the entire library is a disaster, as are the other libraries subjected to the same architects who appear never to have used a library, or they would have known how much people enjoy browsing -- without having to climb stairs or find the elevator. And those people got paid for 'designing" these buildings! Unbelievable. The so-called "educated" seem to be getting dumber by the year.
If people want a view of NYC -- get on the #7 subway and stand in the front-car window!
9
Most likely librarians were not consulted on any of the committees before the architects rendered their plans. In my experience, (32 years as a public librarian), administrative staff do not use the library or see how busy it can get. The stroller bottleneck is an accident waiting to happen as are the stairs. I wanted to visit this library to see how it looks and functions but now there is no reason to. I would not be able to navigate the stairs either. I find it insane that no one thought of these things.
17
Interesting to hear the architect try to defend the functionality of the design despite the experience of those trying to use the building. Reminds one of the new Whitney Museum - externally gorgeous, with claustrophobic internal passageways confounding anyone attempting to move from floor to floor on crowded days.
7
This is what comes of hiring designers who do not actually use what they are designing. A handicapped person would have immediately seen the inherent problems with this design, as the parents did when they saw the steps in the children's section.
And those specious, self-serving excuses about changing standards? You can just turn around and motor on out of here with that gas-lighting. Accessibility is not a new concept. And apparently ignoring function in favor of looking cool isn’t either.
17
The reason that this building is not accessible is because no one demanded it.
3
Since they didn’t design with the ADA in mind, didn’t they break the law? So sue them. The settlement can go toward fixing the problems. And hopefully it will teach them a lasting lesson in their arrogance.
10
These architects should be approached with caution in the future. They obviously care more about their "art form" than the purpose of architecture - for the benefit of the end user.
3
So many important and even crucial New York City pathways, for instance, key subway stations such as 68th and Lexington, remain inaccessible to many, excluding people who want and even need to enter. Why heave all these attacks on a valuable library trying to find its way?
Why?
2
Why? Because every new yorker, be they disabled or toddler, deserve a library that gives them the same access you have.
10
That stroller situation looks like not only like a man-made (as in Holl et al) trip hazard waiting to happen, but also a severe fire/emergency evacuation impediment. All due to poor design and lack of concern for actual use and function.
10
It's not a "masterpiece". It is an architectural disaster, for the reasons stated in the article.
Its architects should never get another commission. They don't know their job, which is to design a building that will fulfill its users' needs, and to do so at minimum cost.
14
Just looking at that long, basically unbroken, multi-story flight of stone or concrete stairs gives me the willies. They seem ripe for a long and painful and likely deadly fall should someone slip or otherwise lose balance. Clearly, also, the designers (architects etc.) have never provided direct day-to-day care of children, particularly children under the age of 5 or 6, for whom staircases, especially those
not padded in carpeting, can be and often are a serious hazard; or children between ages 8-17 for whom sliding down five continuous floors of handrails would be an almost irresistible but hazardous temptation.
And it's not just kids or people with trouble walking who would find such long staircases (or any set of steps) hazardous: people who don't have use or full control of their hands or arms would find the downward climb especially risky (impaired or no grip, impaired ability to regain balance); those with inner ear or other balance-impacting conditions, those with cardiac or pulmonary conditions -- including the common urban condition of asthma, people undergoing chemo or radiation or other energy-draining treatments, etc. etc. are devalued and endangered by over-reliance on staircases for daily access. A single elevator to serve all patrons AND staff AND for deliveries in a brand new urban building whose primary function is the circulation information and the physical objects that are books -- whose idea was that?
10
This blatant example of self-congratulatory collaboration between the city and architect represents the blatant hypocrisy of design-for-designers’ sake with public value be dammed. Adding to the dishonor is the praise lavished on this barely usable and even dangerous-to-children building by the New York Times architecture writers. What sort of a bubble do these people live in?
The taxpayers who had to pay for it deserve their money back.
11
This library design is such an embarrassment. I believe the architect's excuse is an admission of negligence.
15
Corruption and incompetence strikes again. A library designed for mountain climbers, not children.
4
From Bauhaus to Your House, modern architecture is not about actual people!
5
Each person in our aging population has two knees. Those knees seize up after age 60, and we can no longer navigate stairs as well or at all. In 1983 our new library opened with ramps connecting the floors — 35 years ago that architect was picturing my knees of today. Queens should have hired him instead.
6
Actually, not every person in our aging, or general, population has 2 knees, or even one knee. Including too many young military veterans. McVoy's obnoxious and erroneous statement and the building his firm designed and QPL board members and city administrators somehow approved is quite a way to say "Thank you for your service and sacrifice."
6
McVoy says, "'This will be a new standard for libraries, and that’s great. But that doesn’t mean it’s a flaw in the design. It’s an evolution.'"
Sorry, McVoy, but that evolution happened decades before you started designing the building in 2010 and even longer before it was built (plenty of time for corrections).
Clearly, the evolution that needed but failed to happen was in your particular practice of architecture and in your personal character and set of values.
I'm not an architect but 30 years ago even I had heard of Universal Design and its increasing use in building and landscape architecture and in product design. UD goals and principles were and remain perfectly matched to public works such as new public libraries serving one of the largest and most diverse cities in the world.
Personally, I wouldn't call making an entire floor inaccessible to an known protected (ie, historically discriminated against) class of fellow human beings a "wrinkle" rather than a flaw or a fail. But perhaps you are right: the biggest flaw isn't in the design, but in the designers and those who rubber-stamped their work and the (poor) values they represent and promote.
Separate but equal has been passé for more than half a century, but apparently, your firm never got the news; and your structure didn't provide even for that. It was separate and unequal; and snide or bitter comments from you don't change that.
15
Another example of an architect's "vision" getting in the way of practicality. When I visit my library, I want to easily browse the collections and I expect the handicapped to be able to do likewise. Shame on these guys for wasting $41 million bucks.
5
To Mr. McVoy and colleagues at Steven Holl, and to QPL, and to the NYT architecture reviewer who originally assessed the quality of this project:
Blue (disability access) is a necessary color to make green (LEED). Take it away or fail to include it in the first place, and all you have is yellow (hazard).
And that leads to a whole lot of red (tape; costs/debt; anger and embarrassment).
2
Uhmm Mr./Mrs./Ms. Librarian, Could you scamper up those steps and fetch me that book about... Oh, never mind.
3
This building is the worst case of form over function I have ever seen. As visually stunning as the building may be, the problems of functionality and accessibility make the design a failure. It is perfectly possible to design a visually attractive public library that functions well for both citizens and staff. But the architects and planners decided to create a “work of art,“ functionality and accessibility be damned. As someone who has had a physical disability since childhood and as a librarian, I’m dismayed by this situation.
14
It's not so stunningly beautiful. More of a gimmicky eye-sore to many, made worse by the knowledge that excessive amounts of public money was spent paying a fancy firm to design and build a brand new public building 1/5th of which doesn't serve as anything but a slap in the face to about 1/4th of the population.
There are many ways to get a view of New York City; the one offered by this library design is rather ugly.
7
“To be honest, we hadn’t thought, ‘O.K. we have to provide an exactly equivalent browsing experience,’” he said. “This will be a new standard for libraries, and that’s great. But that doesn’t mean it’s a flaw in the design. It’s an evolution.”
Clearly they hadn't thought much about use and function.
Sections that are not accessible to all and only one elevator in a public building with this many floors are FLAWS
Not allowing all patrons to browse the adult non-fiction section -arguably one of the most 'browsed' sections in the library - is a FLAW
Returned books are usually sorted into carts by section - they are then pushed by a staff member who puts them back on shelves in the correct location. How are those carts supposed to access those 'terracelike levels without an elevator. Are they carried up stairs a few at a time?
In a $41 million PUBLIC building there should have been AT LEAST two elevators (providing a back up if one goes down). With all those floors, four would be better. A 'staff only' elevator would make more efficient use of staff time and make reshelving go faster.
9
If it is not fit for purpose, it should be torn down as soon as possible. This would strongly discourage architects from committing this type of folly.
7
@seattle expat
How much were the architects paid for this absurdity?
It is clear that the design is NOT fully accessible and that there are significant problems with traffic flow. Just looking at the stairs shown in the photo makes me shake my head.
You also have to wonder who approved this design.
FUNCTIONALITY trumps appearance - something that too many architects have NEVER learned.
I've always been astounded at the worship of Frank Lloyd Wright. They may be pretty but rarely are functional. His houses are structurally unsound with extreme cantilevers cracking floors. The Robie House in Chicago has plywood leaning up against the exterior to deflect water away from the house when it rains. Chains instead of downspouts really don't work in controlling water. A flat roof in snow prone Chicago seems crazy.
4
Almost all public agencies have some sort of ADA committee. These people want new usable projects and in my experience are ready to help clueless architects. Access is not the only ADA issue since blind people, hearing impaired and others have access problems. This is all basic design. Meeting LEED standards but failing access is all too common these days.
3
Fascinating case study of media vs architecture. What was designed to be a high design neighborhood library akin to the great libraries of the past becomes a magnet because of pop media (like the NYT) and then nitpicked by social media. A small wrinkle that nobody would have cared about suddenly becomes media fodder ... I think the lesson is that the crazy left types won’t let good design happen anymore, while government will continue to prioritize mediocre but PC design by politics—though the good news is that the architecture will outlive its critics most of whom will never visit the building itself. The NYT needs clearer criticism with authority to explain to the public what this is and what is at stake. Visit your local library, don’t turn someone else’s place into a museum for you Twitter rage.
5
Lack of accessibility for the disabled is not a “wrinkle”, it’s a huge problem for members of the public that cannot use the stairs. Good design in public spaces takes into account the needs of all members of the public, able and disabled.
16
The strollers keep getting larger. I believe much of our population wants a really big purse, and that translates to public transit, vehicles on the road and strollers. Chicago buses have to contend with huge strollers that block access to the front door. If ever there is a fire some people will be toast. Parents should consider lightweight strollers where space is at a premium, unless their children are disabled and require special equipment. One new neighborhood library here on Aberdeen is chock a block with big strollers within the front door area.
3
I think one of the biggest failures that people have not been mentioning about this library is it's failure to hold a sizeable collection of books. There's quite amount of wasted space inside the building because of the structure of the staircases and layout.
9
@Seyi
Sounds very similar to our Museum of the North expansion (designed by a NYC architect). The thing
is a monstrosity which due to cost overruns made
several local contractors go bankrupt. Most of the
'new' space is not very usable for exactly the same
reasons. And the great potential views of the Alaska
Range to the south were blocked by huge blank walls !
(Which apparently are supposed to represent a 'calving glacier', like we really need to see that, there).
The old, interesting museum displays are still crammed into the original much smaller museum footprint, and the huge archives of items in the basement are still there -- because there is still no display space to bring them to light. What an ongoing boondoggle, green lighted by the museum board which was composed of a bunch of well heeled locals who wanted the new 'improved' building to be their legacy.
5
And how do they get shelving carts up and down the stairs???? Failure to attend to mere basics.
10
This appears Norman Foster bad. By that I mean it looks fantastic but is actually useless for the job its supposed to do (for example, see his FootBridge across the Thames that swayed so violently that people were too terrified to use it)
1
"So are architecture buffs, eager to see a structure that a New York Times review praised as “among the finest and most uplifting public buildings New York has produced so far this century.”"
That Kimmelman essay was more like a puff piece about an unopened library than a review of architecture.
Elevators (plural) not capable of stopping at every floor, both public and non-public, is not a minor glitch/oversight--"small wrinkle".
2
Why can't we have stairs and accessibility? As a woman who likes using stairs I'd love to have the option in the open, not in a stairwell.
3
"... finest and most uplifting public buildings New York has produced so far this century.”
Apparently, not uplifting enough, particularly for people who, for any number of reasons, can't easily use stairs! And their friends, family members, colleagues, and constituents.
Not to mention city/library employees or prospective employees, or even visiting authors, who have a disability.
6
I’d also argue that $41 million is overpriced. My firm recently did a new 23,000 square foot public library for Fort Bend County here in Texas; the budget was less than $6 million.
.
And ours doesn’t have accessibility problems.
5
I’m guessing you’ve seen the Austin Public Library? Beautiful, amazing, assessable, functional! Most importantly, welcoming to all!
3
The architects blew it and don't want to admit their abject failure. Design for looks, while not being functional, is always an architectural failure.
14
To The NYT:
"It has also raised the question of how the pricey public building, nearly two decades in the works, made it through the lengthy planning process without more consideration for accessibility."
The same can accurately be said of your architecture critic, Mr. Kimmelman, whose September 2019 review of the building also completely failed to consider how well (or not!) the architects and others addressed accessibility for all city and community residents and library users.
Creating universally-accessible spaces is part of the challenge of practicing architecture, and is an important measure of an architect's knowledge, values, creativity, and practical abilities.
Accordingly, a thorough and thoughtful consideration and discussion of whether and how an architect or firm achieved this important aspect and function of architecture and engineering should be a standard part of any review.
12
A "masterpiece" to other egghead, conceptual architects and their fawning critics . A dysfunctional waste to every one with a pragmatic stripe who, I imagine, just want a wide selection of books, plenty of comfortable chairs and sturdy tables, and good WIFI. Sounds to me like this building could be another waste of the taxpayer's dollars like that bridge to nowhere written about in this paper a few days ago.
7
In this day and age this is inexcusable, architectural triumph of not. This is certainly not a case of form following function. Whatever happened ADA implantation? Braindead.
6
The Times breathless review focused on design esthetics while criticizing the city's construction bureaucracy never once mentioned accessibility. Kimmelman gave Holt & Company a pass.
So, we shouldn't be surprised that one of the firm's senior partners could to so arrogantly and outrageously dismiss the lack of accessibility as a "small wrinkle in an incredibly successful project."
10
IMHO, a public or publicly-used building is not beautiful nor a gem nor worth much if it coneys the message that the needs, sensibilities, and value of an entire class of people and, in this case, approximately one forth of the population, aren't worthy of attention or action.
Like person who is selfishly thoughtless, cruel, or otherwise morally/ethically corrupt, such internal character flaws greatly diminish any outward attractiveness. At least to persons of taste and common decency.
Any review of such a building that claims otherwise isn't worth the time spent reading it nor the money spent producing it.
1
It took only a single glance at the lead photo to see that the building interior is going to be a horrible noisy reverberation chamber, where any sound from the lobby area is going to echo through the entire building. The building is yet another failed project based on the discredited open office/work space concept.
I would loathe spending any amount of time in such a user-hostile stress-inducing environment.
I pity the unfortunate staff who have to do thought-work in a miserably designed space that seems purposed to propagate acoustic distractions.
The building is an salvageable failure, that is going to make a generation of library staff and library users abjectly miserable.
The architects who designed it are arrogant frauds, poseurs, and probable functional illiterates who would be challenged to design a decent pissoir.
7
@J. Skinner
--- un-salvageble ---
1
Wonder who dropped the ball in the NYC Planning Department to approve a blatantly ADA non-compliant building. The heck with a retrofit. I hope they tear it down and make the pile of rubble a monument to insensitivity.
11
The architects did the same thing at the new 53rd Street branch, a much smaller library that replaced the beloved Donnell (most of the site is a luxury hotel now). There are stairs along bleacher seating, with a hand rail on the up side and nothing on the down side. When I criticized this as dangerous, I was told that I could use the elevator. What is the deal with this bleacher seating anyway? A library is not a stadium.
184
i guess i would hesitate to call this issue a "small wrinkle in an incredibly successful project," since a non-zero portion of the public literally cannot browse the shelves.
wait, i guess if i were steven holl, i probably WOULD describe it that way. success in their world is not defined by creating a "functional facility." it's defined by "cool photos for the website" and "media attention." mission accomplished.
10
This looks like a nightmare for staff as well as patrons. Getting the books back on the shelves so they can be accessed takes actual people — usually low paid or volunteers. Shutting out older and disabled people from these jobs is ridiculous. Also how will the books travel up those stairs? A few at a time by hand?
185
"Queens Library officials responded that librarians could simply retrieve those books for disabled patrons" AND “To be honest, we hadn’t thought, ‘O.K. we have to provide an exactly equivalent browsing experience,’” are two of the best lines of this article. These are the people building our cultural institutions With our money! Shame on them.
468
@Micharl - Exactly. And then they have the gall to claim that it's all just a "small wrinkle". Large fail is more like it.
95
And the Americans with Disabilities Act became law in 1990, a full 20 years before this library was planned. Shame on the architects...
120
@Micharl -- "These are the people building our cultural institutions With our money! Shame on them."
Well, they can fix it with our money -- the money paid already to them for Good Design -- not a for pretty, yet dysfunctional, building.
It's a Library, for goodness' sakes.
Architects -- pick up a book!
45
Haven't any of these architects ever actually used a library themselves? Browsing the shelves oneself is one of the greatest pleasures of a library, allowing for discovery of new authors, new books, etc., that one didn't know existed until then. Having a staff member just go to a shelf to get a previously-chosen book, I would argue, doesn't qualify as reasonable accommodation. Not to mention a ridiculously unnecessary burden on library staff. What were these architects thinking?
537
@Lynn Spann Bowditch
And given how municipalities are cutting public funds for things like library staff, does anyone really believe that this library will have the staff needed to accommodate all the requests coming in?
61
@Lynn Spann Bowditch I think having the librarian retrieve a book could be a reasonable accommodation if you're dealing with, say, a 120-year old building and it's not possible to retrofit ramps/lifts/elevators. But why on earth would anyone design a new building that way? Sheer idiocy...
63
@Lynn Spann Bowditch If I know what titles I want to look at, it is much more efficient for me to use the holds system.
I'm not in New York, but in my own location (Edmonton, AB, Canada), I can browse and place holds from my own computer and then pick them up at the location of my own choice. No need to bother a busy librarian.
No librarian, however talented, can substitute for the freedom of browsing and making accidental discoveries.
27
I’m an Architect.
Accessibility is one of the single most important thing you are tested on throughout the licensure process before receiving your certification from the state to practice architecture.
The notion that Holle Architects is attempting to describe their lack of accessibility as a “feature” is insulting at best and negligent at worst.
Tired of “Starchitects” continuing to get away with this kind of none sense.
I hope they have the sense to listen to the complaints and make this otherwise wonderful building fully compliant for all people, as it should have been from the opening day.
779
Sounds like it will cost $10M or more to fix these problems, in the process destroying the architect's vision. Too bad.
23
@Solo.Owl
Agreed! It’s a shame the Architects didn’t consider these issues more important during the design process.
To have it be in a library, a public institution designed to be open to ANYone, just adds salt to the wound
58
@Solo.Owl "The architect's vison" was myopic, at best.
59
Quit bringing up the ADA. Laws have loopholes.
This is about basic consideration.
It is not hard to construct a 5-story building with 2 elevators that serve every level, step-free — a public building everyone can use.
6
@Jaclyn
I would only say that the ADA is exactly the appropriate legislation to insure "basic consideration" - thats its mission. Architectural buildng codes do not have loop holes most of the time, because people's health and safety are at stake and professional engineers, architects and the Dept of Building examiners must be diligent to adhere to the spirit, not only the wording or semantics of any reqgulation. Building codes are designed to make buildings safe, accessible and healthy for humans and projects often do not comply as does this project. It is surprising that their 2010 approval with the Dept of Buildings they did not flag the circulation issues of physical access. For users AND staff. More of a deep crease than a small wrinkle.
4
You do not need a palace designed by world-famous architects that gobble up taxpayer dollars that could be better spent on books, periodicals, and staff to sate the need for a public library. Growing up in Philadelphia, the two neighborhood libraries I went to were in bicycling distance, had single floors, thousands of books, a children's section with floor space, and were tucked into business districts that had pre- mall, chain and box store things like family shoe stores, fruit, fish and meat vendors, dry cleaners, and variety stores. I always had a few books borrowed from them.
7
The design discipline as a whole is fueled by ego and self congratulatory peers. Accessibility isn’t considered because the designer is more concerned about it being “sexy” rather than functional. From room dimensions, color choices, type sizes, door entries, packaging, etc.. the world in which we live would look very different if the Design world would stop taking itself so seriously.
6
Was the library faction not asked by the hired architect to sit down in small groups to freely throw out ideas about what a library should be philosophically and functionally? You know, the “wouldn’t it be wonderful to have....” or the “one thing in our present library that has always bugged me is....”. It is not a new idea to include the users, from visitors to staff— including custodians, by the way, who know their old building intimately. I was trained that way as a city planner 40 years ago: The professionals know the macro-theories and the users experience their micro-environments. Together they can create near-perfection. I hope the library problems will be respectfully corrected by the architectural firm. Then they truly can be proud of their creation.
7
Architecture should concentrate first and foremost on function; it doesn't matter if a building looks "pretty" if you need to use workarounds and retrofits -- often ugly and expensive -- to actually use a building the way it is intended. In particular, a public building, likely paid for by taxpayers, should be able to be fully utilized by everyone, not just people who have no trouble with stairs.
Any architect who designs a building without input from a variety of the people who will actually use it has not done their job correctly. I find it sad that the architects won't even admit that there's a fundamental problem or that they made a mistake, but blame other circumstances -- because it means they will repeat those mistakes.
11
Where I live (Columbus, OH) the new 'concept' for libraries is similar - though nothing on quite so grand a scale as this. Our mewest is a three-story, ultra-modern design with a cafe, blah, blah, blah. (It is handicapped accessible.)
I hate it. It feels like a big mausoleum. It's dead quiet. There's absolutely no 'life' in the building, even when there are a couple of hundred cars in the parking lot.
I quit going. I found a smaller, branch library, where kids laugh and people talk to one another.
Bigger and more modern isn't always better.
8
This paper ran an article 2 months ago praising this building including many of the elements that are criticized today. 2 months ago it was the standard for how we should build public buildings. Now we're saying the the design decisions are inexcusable. I'm not sure what it will take (although it's clearly outside the skill set of the NY Times) to divorce ourselves from hyperbole and to recognize that some things are just hard. Architecture is hard. Politics is hard. Saying the right thing all the time is hard. Let's stop putting what we think is perfect on a pedestal (because it probably isn't perfect). And let's stop tearing things down for mistakes (because they were likely unintentional and can be addressed over time). Or keep doing what you're doing and count on your readers not remembering what they read yesterday.
3
In this case, and especially in light of the ignorant and bigoted comments by architect McVoy and some library decision-makers, it likely wasn't an accidental mistake. Rather, it was willful ignorance and negligence.
7
What an expensive disappointment for residents with disabilities. Clearly, the realities of navigating life as non-able bodied was completely lost on the architect and designers of this project. It's evident of continued marginalization of communities with disabilities and physical limitations, including the elderly (the second largest group in the U.S. are considered baby boomers and are 65+). My parents are older adults, live in Queens, and paid for a community resource they would not be able to enjoy.
Plain and simple, this is lazy design, created by able-bodied people for able-bodied people, with complete disregard for everyone who falls outside of that narrow window. QPL and Steven Holl should be embarrassed. This is not a triumph, but rather another way to make life more inhospitable for people with disabilities.
5
Actually, many human conditions wouldn't be disabling or as disabling if things, including buildings, were designed differently.
If we designed everything for use only by 8-armed goddesses or for those with a dog's ability to hear, having a mere two arms and hands or inability
to hear extremely high- or low-pitches sounds would be disabling.
Disability is largely, though not entirely, socially constructed -- through our beliefs and attitudes, our built environment, and our chosen processes.
Premier architects, of anything from libraries to software to pedagogy and beyond, are in the business of creative solutions and setting the tone and expectations of our societies. At least they like to present themselves and their work/products as such. They have both the ethical responsibility and the enticing creative challenge to do better.
8
How disappointing to learn that the NYT has praised this inaccessible "gem" !
Perhaps one solution is that libraries should have more disabled individuals on their boards as they might be able to persuade the architects, some who frequently allow their egos to get in the way, to consider the needs of all patrons, including those with disabilities and small children.
3
I remember reading the glowing review of this building by the NYT's architecture critic a few weeks ago. Even then, readers in the comments section were pointing out the problems with access -- the stairs, the levels, the lack of elevators.
I mean, come on; this isn't, as they say, rocket science. It's pretty basic stuff. No matter how beautiful a building may be (and that's, of course, debatable), if it's not functional for so many people, then it doesn't work.
6
It's to arrogant and frustrating that none of these accessibility issues was a concern for the architects (check out their completely unusable website for reference to their respect toward function: http://www.stevenholl.com) during any of their planning. Obviously they wouldn't be bringing their children here in strollers, their nanny would be doing that.
5
Duh. we are all disabled at some time in our lives- thru accident, illness, injury or birth. This is appalling
5
The capacity of people the winge, whine and generally carry on about very minor inconveniences is astounding. We are talking about building a library in the age of the internet (a.k.a the age of stupidity). The very fact that such a thing was accomplished is worth celebration. Is it possible that design flaws exist? Sure. Big deal. Honestly, some of the "inconveniences" listed in this article seem entirely inconsequential.
How about this horror? " Patrons who want to travel between the children’s levels must now either use the elevator, or take a circuitous route around the library, up and down flights of stairs." Up and down stairs!!! Heavens to Betsy! What is the world to do? Should one be expected to traverse a set of stairs?
Give me a break.
1
@Gregg
Tell that to the military veteran who gave up his or her legs or suffered a brain injury that impairs his gate or lost her arms so that you could guzzle gasoline and work in high rise offices without too much fear of a commercial airliner flying into it.
Then tell it to his two-year old toddler, his 6 year old daughter with a heart/lung condition, and to his wife who's so busy and drawn taking care of them all that story time at the local library is her only opportunity to have some connection with other moms or to step aside for 5 minutes to check in by text with her aging parents.
And let's not forget that libraries are regularly used for important public events, such as candidates' debates and even at times for voting. And trust me, having the "privilege" of waiting on the sidelines to be noticed by staff and then having to reveal to them the book you planned to read but were too embarrassed to borrow or reveal to them your personal vote (and trust them to cast your vote accordingly) is no small indignity. Indeed, regardless of what ADA regs may allow, it is an violation of privacy and an abrogation of civil liberties.
And that, my friend, IS a kind of "horror"
10
Bah! A lot of people made a lot of money "designing" this. Shame on them and thier stupidity.
4
Form vs function. Architects? Are they supposed to know the primary focus of a library is to provide access to books for patrons of all ages?
4
The ADA became law in 1990, a full decade prior to starting the design of this building. Sadly this is just one of many examples of architects being given carte blance to create beautiful spaces with little to no consideration for the end-user:
- restrooms in large venues that force women to stand in long lines while men zip in and out
- hospitals designed for esthetics instead of the nurses who must safely and efficiently care for patients
- massive plaza entries that challenge even fit people to traverse, much less those with mobility issues
- hotel rooms designated for disabled guests with features that are inaccessible to disabled persons
There are few enterprises that involve so much planning, time and money as a new building. That so little consideration is given to the actual users of the spaces (staff and visitors) is unforking believable.
8
Anyone designing structures or programs for children or that may include children should first be knowledgeable about child development.
Human cognitive and physical development has not changed dramatically in thousands of years, let alone in the past, short nine years. The fact that the architects (and library board members) didn't bother to learn about or consider the long-standing and well-developed body of knowledge about child development before or even during the design and approval process says a lot.
9
To every disabled veteran and veteran family in NYC and beyond, this library design and, especially, the snobby, prejudiced comments and attitude of the architect, are obnoxiously disrespectful.
Life and limb and 5 senses weren't and aren't put at risk, or lost, so that "pretty" is a higher priority than equality. Disrespecting or disregarding the needs of disabled veterans and their families isn't just a minor design wrinkle, Holl and company.
Architects are by reputation meticulous and exacting. Wrinkles, whether in clothing or building design, convey laziness or incapacity or disregard for societal norms and expectations. Holl and company can take their pick.
9
My community has just started working to construct a new, expanded library.
Accessibility was a top concern and design criteria.
How in the world was this ever built without a proper review?
13
Elevators are a must and only one in this building? How is that up to code?
Likewise about the stairs. Are they up to code?
Seems there is a need for redesign and modifications to this building already.
8
Classic architect's ego and lack of user friendly foresight played out without anyone to hold the hired designer to the fire. In this age of concern about our environment and resources, form follows function should be the first concern in mind.
If doctors and lawyers take an oath, architects should take both a pledge and an oath to the notion of function being paramount. No excuse for anything less, those days of Gehry wastefulness should be over.
Next, airports...how do you account for the heating and cooling of such a open and wasteful building with looming 40+ foot ceilings and so on.
8
Title II of the ADA - which prohibits discrimination in public facilities and spaces - existed in 2010 so there's no excuse. accessibility should have been baked into the design. the architects and planners seem to suggest that the beauty of the space should absolve them from their failure to consider the disabled (and others who would have difficulty navigating the steps), but the best architects and planners can make their spaces accessible to everyone without sacrificing their artistic expression.
side note: having a library employee retrieve something for you is emphatically not the same as being able to browse the shelves for yourself. can the employee also facilitate your taking in the beauty of the views as well?
for shame. fix it!
14
Oh come on!
These are not subtle, nuanced issues under discussion here.
Anyone who at all "gets" the essence of the ADA should be able to grasp the essence of design for accessibility for all in mind, without having to be able to recite the ADA code from memory. For architects with professional training and sensitivity to how people utilize the built environment, this is just ludicrous.
Instead we are given yet another example of what I call "35-year-old healthy male architect syndrome."
The fact that fingers are being pointed at revisions to the ADA in 2010... unbelievable.
12
There is no more iconic a building in all of New York City than the Brooklyn Public Library's Eastern Parkway Branch poised as if opening its extended arms to the citizens of Brooklyn. As beautiful and inviting as the building is, upon entering, one has the immediate sense that it was built not as a mere decoration but as a tribute to the people and culture of a great city. One cannot look at those steps leading to empty shelves and the congestion in the corridors of the new edifice In Long Island City without thinking back to one's visits to the Brooklyn icon, especially perhaps to its escalator which first time visitors are pleasantly surprised to find as they navigate to the second floor resources of the building. It seems miraculous that the Grand Army Plaza library got built at all given the financial condition of the country during the Great Depression, and it is thus a double tribute to a people and a time--unlike the present moment--when people mattered more than appearances.
6
@Vincent Amato Very well said. I grew up in Crown Heights just blocks away from our beloved, beautiful Brooklyn Public Library Main Branch in the 1960s. As a small child I was awestruck with wonder! And later when we loved to Cypress Hills, the Arlington Ave Brooklyn branch provided us kids a wonderful, welcoming, warm, open space to dream and roam for books. If I close my eyes, I can still smell that "library smell" and capture that "library warmth." Doubtful the Hunters Point Queens branch new-age architects have a clue what I'm talking about.
@Anne
Our paths might well have crossed, Anne. I grew up in East New York and my family, too, moved to Cypress Hills. One of my earliest memories is of my mother taking me by the hand and walking me down Bradford Street to the Arlington Branch, another gem of our city's library system, unmatched for its warmth and beautiful architecture. My first library card was truly a passport to many wonders.
Am disappointed to read this as one of my favorite new buildings is the arts center which Steven Holl Architects designed at Princeton University. That said, I am more of an observer of that building (actually a complex of three buildings) rather than a user. I agree that the mistakes at the library are a big and concerning "miss" by the architects as well as those who should have been overseeing this project more carefully and thoughtfully.
3
Can the citizens of NYC collectively sue the architect for grossly failing to plan for accessibility in a public building?
9
This is similar to the current trouble with respect to the drive-up mail boxes at our local U.S. Postal facilities. In order to deter theft, these boxes, on which previously there was one deposit slot facing the driver, and a second opening with pull-down door facing the sidewalk, have been replaced with one deposit slot only facing the sidewalk, so a driver, whether disabled or able-bodied, must exit the car to deposit mail. How does this design address the Americans with Disabilites Act? (It doesn’t.) Since it is the Postal Service, no doubt this is being implemented nationwide, at a cost of many millions, and possibly violating the ADA.
2
The curse of Modern Architecture is that it places theory above actual function. Hailing the building as a masterpiece, as the Times critic did, reinforces the institutional disregard for the people actually using the structure. Contemporary architects seem to forget that their "art" is supposed to be functional. Seating for children that can actually harm them, sections of the library that are inaccessible to the people whose tax dollars are paying for it, and staircases that require one to be a mountain goat to achieve access. These are "wrinkles" in a fine building, the effete architect advises. No, they are not, they are examples of the arrogance and abject failure of the structure to meet the needs of the people who paid for it. Architects who wonder why the general public fails to be interested in their craft, as they are in other arts, such as music and sculpture, have only themselves to blame. On numerous occasions I find myself explaining to architects why I am at a seminar. "What school did you attend?" "None, I reply, I study architecture for fun." They stare at me in disbelief. Instead of working toward fundamentally useless advanced theoretical architecture, maybe they should start asking people what is useful and necessary. Any retrofitting should be paid for by the architecture firm's errors and omissions insurance.
10
The problems of the new Queens Library aren’t due to theory. Theory is thought. The design negligence is due to thoughtlessness.
5
Almost as astonishing as Steven Holl Architects' fundamental design flaws is their selection of Chris McVoy as a spokesperson. Lack of accessibility is a “small wrinkle in an incredibly successful project”? That's so jaw-droppingly tone-deaf that I don't merely question Mr. McVoy's familiarity with the Americans with Disabilities Act; I question if he's ever been outside, or talked to people before.
14
Complete and utter failure. The excuses about notions of accessibility in 2010 are laughable. What's so revolutionary about asking, "Can people in a wheelchair get there?"
Besides that, the exterior looks like an overwrought gaming PC case. Does it light up with bright blue fan LEDs at night?
5
No but at night all the floors are illuminated so people in Manhattan can see it or people on the tour boats going up the East River.
Chris McVoy says, "...too much emphasis was being placed on the inaccessibility of the terraces, which he called a “small wrinkle in an incredibly successful project.” Sounds like Chris McVoy lacks empathy and is probably in the wrong line of work.
8
I say the architects do all the revisions without charging us taxpayers a dime. The roof top sitting area to read should have been closed in and made for additional indoor space.The childrens library should be on the first floor so its easy access for all the young children. They can build an additional storeroom for all the zillions of baby carriages. The first week they were posing a fire hazard blocking access to people trying to maneuver around them There is a gorgeous state park in front of the library if people want to read outside. I say close it down and do the work. We waited over 10 years for this to be built so whats another 6 months. Lets see whose running for office next November and make our voices heard.
12
Library design is not just how beautiful but how useful and functional are most important factors. In early 1970s I was asked by a newly established university in Asia to design a central university building plus three college smaller library buildings. I took the assignment and I first visited more than 20 newly constructed modern libraries in the U.S. including the UC Berkeley and University of Chicago libraries. I also spent several weeks to discuss the design of new libraries with AIA experts. It is one of the most difficult tasks for an architect. Later I accomplished my assignments with pride and the library buildings are still functional with beauty. I also discussed my assignments with our architect of U.S. Capitol. He was very helpful. NYC has a lot libraries but still in need of a beautiful designed and functional library in this world most famous city.
6
Contrast this:
“Part of what universal design is about is allowing everyone to independently enjoy spaces. Having to ask someone else to help you is, at worst, demeaning, and at best, a limiting experience.”
with:
“...small wrinkle in an incredibly successful project.” Concepts of accessibility, he added, have changed in the years since the building was designed in 2010.
Having had a father who had polio and dealt with accessibility issues for six decades, I find the "Concepts of accessibility" comment by Mr. McVoy to be rooted in ignorance exhibited at the time when dad was recovering.
Accessibility is NOT a new issue. Letting a disabled person pursue things independently is NOT a new concept. And certainly not something that has suddenly appeared within the last decade. Anyone seriously interested in the topic would know, or at least try.
I'm glad the building is well-received, but sometimes I think architects sometimes need to get over themselves with their designs. Shall we call this concept "architect privilege"?
17
Right!
The concepts, principles, and techniques of Universal Design have been around for at 3.5 - 4 decades and should be required competencies for everyone designing and everyone approving public buildings or program and protocols.
The architects' choice of defense just further solidifies the impression that they were not qualified for the job and that bigotry underlies their error(s).
6
I agree with McVoy that too much emphasis is being placed on this issue. Everyone please put down your devices and curb your outrage- this wonderful library will be fine, and users will adapt and will come to love the space.
However I do think that the ADA is a blunt instrument that needs to be updated to allow for more flexibility and economy for taxpayers.
For example, the sidewalks in my Brooklyn neighborhood have been torn up over the past few years to install ramps. This sounds like a simple task, except that the storm drains are already at the corners, exactly where ADA demands the ramps are located. So, the storm drains have to be dug up and moved. Unfortunately the gas and electric lines happen to be where the storm drains need to go. Before long it's a big year-long expensive construction party with all the utility companies invited- just to meet the ADA's inflexible requirements.
Likewise making the subway system ADA compliant is an enormous task that will cost far more than the latest $5 billion estimate. Even the simpler subway stations have myriad steps & levels to be negotiated with ADA compliant ramps/elevators in order to make them fully accessible. In many cases there's not enough room for ramps, and utilities will need to be relocated and adjacent property purchased to install elevators and other equipment. This is hugely complicated, expensive, and time-consuming work- and has little to do with the need to make the trains run on time.
1
@Schultzie
You should move to the suburbs so you won't be so inconvenienced by the needs of others. Curbcuts are useful not just for wheelchairs an ADA compliance but also for strollers, delivery people with dollies etc. And the electric and drainage issues you speak of may also have been due for update in a large older section of a city.
Have you never used an elevator at an airport or other public building? Do you use the stairs when you are traveling with luggage?
10
@Schultzie
I think reasonable folks understand the issues when retrofitting. But we're talking about a NEW structure here.
I get it. My dad who had polio got it. He even visited the Parthenon, but never had a notion that it should be made "accessible" everywhere.
6
@Aaron
Funny enough, our neighborhood sidewalks *already* had curb cuts. But they were not in the correct locations to meet ADA requirements. Therefore they had to be reconstructed at enormous cost and effort.
Hence my statement that the ADA needs to be updated to allow more flexibility.
Accessibility is an important goal, but many unreasonable and inflexible requirements of the ADA are a huge burden on business owners and taxpayers.
3
The question of accessibility is one that seems to haunt libraries no matter their size and usage. In a town of 100,000 a stairway going to the next floor in the middle of the main area speaks the same message to elderly and disabled patrons. And the one elevator is so well hidden that it takes a map to find it. What is difficult to understand is the blindness of all the manager-types who approve such "innovations" based on cost rather than
the needs of their patrons.
1
I do not much care what "library officials" think about the building. I care what librarians think about it, librarians and patrons. What has happened here is characteristic of the way things are done in this country: administrators (who of course know everything) get to call the shots while the people who do the work and actually know what they are doing are ignored. And in a case like this one, the people who in effect use the work the workers create are of course likewise ignored. Ah me, what else is new?
1
I am partners in a commercial interior design and architecture firm. We would not get away with this type of limitation in the restaurants we design. The Renzo Piano addition to the Kimball in Fort Worth is another example that makes me scratch my head as to how they got approvals. My elderly Mother cannot go from the main museum to the addition without moving the car to a different parking space...steps without railings, walking over grass lawn, no overhead protection from rain. Meanwhile small business owners absorb costs to make their 125 seat restaurant 100% compliant.
9
I thought even the most outlandish of architects had been given information on the 1990 American's With Disabilities Act which was signed by then President Bush. This does not bode well for support for other struggling libraries as they face votes on funding this November. I cannot comprehend why good money is wasted on the architects and their outlandish ideas that weigh heavily over function.
2
@Lazlo Toth as noted in the article, the building is in compliance with the ADA. Soooo, what's your point?
@Gregg Actually, what the article says is "Queens Library officials responded that librarians could simply retrieve those books for disabled patrons, a solution in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act." That's akin to an inaccessible restaurant telling you that they can bring your food to your car as takeout.
5
@ Sue and @Gregg
It's also somewhat akin to telling Black folks to simply use the rear entrance or the bathroom across the street and down the road.
3
"Chris McVoy, a senior partner at Steven Holl Architects, the firm that designed the building, said that too much emphasis was being placed on the inaccessibility of the terraces, which he called a “small wrinkle in an incredibly successful project.” Concepts of accessibility, he added, have changed in the years since the building was designed in 2010."
Right. There weren't accessibility laws for buildings way back a hundred and nine years ago in 2010. It's 2119 this year, right? Wheelchair ramps started appearing somewhere in the 2050s, as a way for wheelchair users to escape sea level rise.
3
Spent most of my college life in what was an architectural masterpiece decades ago and is now a stale concrete maze that would fit better as a model for a first person shooter video game than an art building. People with mobility issues can't explore books in 2019??? That is stupid.
7
It is an abject shame when a library is designed to be more of a piece of art than a place where people of all kinds can enjoy free access to books. Where did the process go wrong? Perhaps the process worked as planned. Like everything in NY the average person really is an afterthought. The library was meant to be a pretty jewel for the rich to look at knowing full well they would never go inside. The inside design was secondary (and it shows). Welcome to the new NYC of have and have nots. What a shame.
9
Free and fully-accessible libraries are a cornerstone of democracy.
NYT should review the status of its own architecture critics: In September NYT writer Michael Kimmelman wrote, and NYT published, an article overflowing with accolades and completely ignoring these tremendous design flaws, all of which could have -- and should have -- been predicted, noticed, and remedied beforehand.
Message to the full 1/4 of American adults with disabilities, not to mention all young children whether or not disabled, and to parents of young children: you don't matter.
14
As a registered architect, I find the response from Steven Holl's office regarding accessibility rather shocking and uninformed. The civil rights legislation has been law since the late 1980's. So, even tracing the project origins back to 2001 is a moot point. As others have stated, this is an example of designers who lost sight of who the future users of the building would be. I believe that architecture schools should require curriculum that addresses the reality of being disabled, elderly or homeless. Spending a day with someone who requires an elevator to navigate elevation changes is an eye-opening experience and one that won't be easily forgotten.
16
Completely agree!
They should also try it with eyes closed all day, without the use, at all, of at least their dominant hand, with all signage in a language they don't know, and in inclement weather.
UD (Universal Design) should be a required course in both architecture school and continuing education for renewal of licensure or registration. And for $41M, the public should expect professionals well-versed in, and eager to employ, best-practices across the discipline, not just do the lazy bare-minimum required by law.
7
Chris McVoy, a senior partner at Steven Holl Architects, the firm that designed the building, said that too much emphasis was being placed on the inaccessibility of the terraces, which he called a “small wrinkle in an incredibly successful project.”
I guess when you don't have legs and survive in a wheelchair, that's just a small wrinkle. Arrogant beyond words.
17
A public (or any) building conveying to large swaths of the populace that they don't matter or, worse, aren't wanted, is not a minor design wrinkle.
At least 1 in 4 adults in the US live with a disability. Add in the children with disabilities and their families and caregivers, and you've got a rather large percentage of the population. And a design or practice or attitude that disregards or dismisses people with one common form of disability (let alone several) is an affront to most people with disabilities.
The Holl team's apparent arrogance and/or ignorance is unbecoming and should be unwelcome, particularly for those of us who take seriously our national motto: E Pluribus Unam -- From Many, One.
5
Just have to chalk up to poor planning on behalf of all involved.
1
I'm amazed that the designers thought the bench concept would appeal to children in the first place. They apparently don't remember being children, didn't go to the library as children, didn't bother with any usability analysis involving children, and/or aren't able to empathize with children.
13
A total fail. Who builds any public building of this size with just one elevator? Chris McVoy does.
11
Form over function.
4
Did the architects consult with ANYONE besides the beautiful design team? 2 years, $41 million and structural problems already! Someone messed up big time here. Beauty and function really do work together if you get them together. Queens should ask for a big rebate.
14
I'm not disabled, but I am up in years and my balance and stamina are not what they used to be. This building sounds like a horror of poor functionality.
Beauty is immaterial in a public building that doesn't effectively and appropriately serve it's ultimate purpose.
The only buildings that should be excused for inaccessibility are heritage structures that would be too difficult and expensive to retrofit. There's zero excuse for the flawed design of this library.
18
I agree, except for the "heritage building" comment.
If a building is still in use, and especially if it is owned or used by the public, it should be made at least adequately accessible to all.
If historic buildings such as those at West Point and our nation's first universities can be (and have been) made accessible in a tasteful manner, so can other historic or "heritage" buildings. They are in use, after all, not archeological relics.
5
The children sitting hunched over their books on bare wooden bleacher seats look monumentally uncomfortable. A large-ish open area with adjacent smaller alcoves, equipped with cozy rugs, bean bag chairs and maybe kid-sized arm chairs and/or rocking chairs would be much more appropriate and inviting.
14
@Peggy L. Trivilino That was my first thought, too. I've seen kids' sections of brick-&-mortar bookstores that looked much, much more inviting and comfortable than those benches.
4
@Peggy L. Trivilino Your idea is cheaper and more inviting.
1
The lack of forethought and consideration for the human purpose of the library reminds of the debacle of the San Francisco new Main Library. Thousands of books were destroyed because the architect failed to design enough space for stacks.
9
Another example of a "beautiful" library built with no, or little, input from the staff who actually have to use it.
As a retired librarian who lived through the process of a new library designed by the ego-driven library board, none of whom were librarians and who paid little to no attention to library staff input, I'm not surprised. Too much ego, no thought to usefulness. Librarians could get the books from the areas not accessible to the public! Yes, because we have just OODLES of spare time!
15
A librarian to fetch my books? If I can't browse, how do I know what books I want? To me, the whole purpose of the library is a place filled with books to discover; to have that, you have to have paths to explore where you never thought you'd go.
23
A good example of style over substance. They may have hewed to the rules of the ADA, technically, but no one looked at usability.
5
On every public building committee, especially a building heavily used by small children and the elderly/disabled, there should be at least two individuals who are caregivers. As a parent with a stroller, and as a helper of an elderly parent who has trouble navigating stairs, I say that this is a repellent abandonment of public responsibility. The architect should return his fee. It does not live up to the basic function of the building.
12
@Boggle Countersuggestion/added suggestion: A disabled person themselves should be on the committee. They'd have firsthand experience with the navigation issue.
2
I don't understand the pileup of SUV-sized strollers, could explain the back-up at the elevator. When did we start to need the eqivalent of a VW beetle to push around a 2 year old? And shouldn't a 5 year old be walking, and not need a stroller?
11
@Kim Morris, I agree that the stroller as Winnebago thing is a problem everywhere. Too many parents use (massive, overloaded with stuff) strollers as a way to control children they can’t be bothered to train. It’s like walking your dog in a wheeled crate. And then there are the double and triple strollers...
11
As a registered architect with over 20 years of experience, this is an inexcusable failure. Architecture is made great by responding constraints of all kinds -- site, climate, budget, program. Refusing to consider the nature of how the building will be used by the primary occupants for whom it was designed is bad architecture, no matter what a "gorgeous building it is".
The notion that "concepts of accessibility have changed since 2010" is laughably ridiculous -- I'm quite certain that wheelchairs and strollers were unable to navigate stairs in 2010. The architects (probably white men) failed to envision anyone not like themselves -- disabled users, the elderly, people with low vision, even young mothers -- they should be embarrassed.
The Times should also consider re-evaluate its praise of this project -- making pretty buildings that don't work does not elevate architecture -- it gives it a bad name.
595
@Derek Schmidt Great reply. A building that is inaccessible for all people, especially a public library, is inexcusable. I agree the NYTimes should not be lauding this as a gem.
71
@Derek Schmidt
Couldn't agree more. I blame everyone involved, but for an architect who designs public buildings not to understand accessibility in this day and age is almost incomprehensible.
45
@Derek Schmidt, you were doing well with your comment until you got the the “probably white men” aside. Why throw that in?
23
Did Steven Holl et al even go to architecture school? Pass licensing exams?
It's inexplicable that he/they have never heard of the principles of Universal Design, which have been around for decades.
If it's a matter of being aware of Universal Design principles but ignoring them or putting them aside, for whatever reasons, when designing a public or commercial building, malpractice and suspension of licenses are in order, at least until several semesters of UD coursework are completed.
For 45-plus million dollars, we should have had a building designed using best practices and practical use in mind, not architect ego and fancy city views for a few.
12
The horrible evil honest truth is that libraries are passé. It pains me to write that, but it is true. Just as buggies were made after the model T first began production libraries are still being made and used (and I have no doubt that a lot of the people who read this will want to rant in indignation) but the truth is there function has been overtaken by the computer. Libraries are merely monuments to a lost era.
Not at all an obsolete for intelligent appreciators of libraries and books experiences. A library is a books cathedral!
9
@IfIhadaplaneIdflyabanner
As a retired librarian, all I can say is, you're wrong. Very wrong. The library is not obsolete.
Where do you think people without computer or internet access go? The public library. We're also in the forefront of teaching the skills to use new technology to users who don't have access to it at home. Many libraries now loan out e-readers and allow patrons to check out e-books. Just a few weeks ago, I signed a petition that requests a publishing company give more copies of e-books to public libraries.
Parents still take children to story times, programs for adults (including various ones on computers, internet safety and privacy, etc.), and various groups still use the meeting spaces available at libraries. Practice tests for skilled workers are online at the library. We still proctor tests. We still get dozens, if not hundreds, of calls daily on a range of questions.
"...monuments to a lost era." Ha!
18
@IfIhadaplaneIdflyabanner Not true at all, at least not here in Portland OR. Our local libraries are well used. Very busy usually. Yes times have changed and perhaps some of the past uses of libraries are diminished....but they are still very popular for many citizens.
8
What happened to Form Follows Function?
8
Architectural DIGITAL design programs without flexible human imagination and no common sense: FAIL.
3
A good question. A digitally designed WowHouse lacking Bauhaus
1
This is the 2019 equivalent of separate drinking fountains and it always amazes me when people don't get what disabled people go through. Chris McVoy's comment about a "small wrinkle" is a pretty strong indication of how most people think about these things...which is that they don't, until they are told otherwise. Feeble.
10
Most 'Masterpiece' buildings are to look at, not use.
4
When new buildings are designed for public use they are seldom studied in terms of how they are actually used day to day. Stairs in a library are a big problem because the age range of the user is senior citizen to baby in a carriage. Elevators help but are not the answer. The general collection on the first floor with a lounge is the best solution. Nobody should spend 41.5 million to find that out. All the architect had to do was ask the librarian.
11
Another case of complying with the letter of the law rather than the intent. Having librarians retrieve books might be ok in an older existing building, but not in a new one. I'm an architect and an accessibility specialist and I say shame on you!
11
The ONLY thing the archtect cared about was to make it PRETTY. He/she or his/her childer will never use this library anyway. So, literally the only thing the architect care is to make it visually nice in his/her portfolio.
This happens all the time. It's the city official's job to say "you cannot do that!", "You have to make space more accessible." Looks like that did not happen here.
6
What a waste of money
5
G-d forbid we built a building to meet the utilitarian needs of its users, i.e., the books on one floor, rather than an "architectural triumph" for overpaid egos that generations of tired feet will be paying for and enduring years after the triumphant (and their "stunning views") are gone.
5
Unfortunately for libraries, this is kind of a common thing. As a working librarian for nearly two decades, I've witnessed the opening of multiple large and small libraries and all too often, these new facilities are visions created by/for the architect rather than the library patrons and staff. Or the library board wants something full of the old razzle dazzle and they agree to the architect's imagination, no matter the lack of practicality. That's why you get something like this--possibly an amazingly constructed facility with views out the wazoo...but how is it for actual library users & staff? Troubles abound.
198
@Joshua It happens in school libraries too. I was privileged and plagued when working in a beautiful school library that was not child-friendly at all.
21
@Joshua
As a now retired librarian who lived through a new library designed by the library board with no input from staff, I say:
PREACH!
20
@Joshua I agree. I am a long time library patron, a Friend of our local libraries, and the details not considered are astounding. In my hometown we had massive library construction for new branch buildings. However, the old library branches were easily accessed by public transport. The new ones are much further away & many ppl who use them USE public transportation! I was so angry I left my seat on the board. Libraries are for users!
16
It should be a requirement of architecture school curriculum that every student should have to spend a month, best in the winter time, navigating their campus in a wheelchair. That might put an end to unnecessary steps, inadequate elevators, and all the other stupidities one finds in public buildings. Anyone who has broken their ankle and spent six weeks with a knee scooter is totally cognizant of the lack of consideration many architects tend to have for the disabled.
6
What? There were no mobility impaired people in 2010, when this was designed? Are there also no wheelchair accessible bathrooms, no wheelchair accessible entrances to the building, no handicapped parking spaces?I doubt it. So they are so dumb that they put in some accessibility features without thinking that other features would make part of the place inaccessible? Were they really that stupid or did they just not care?
8
What would the great Michael Graves say?
2
Again, NYC wastes millions of dollars.....Well Done!
1
“It’s a gorgeous building, and people are reveling in both the aesthetic nature of it and the functional use of the building,” Mr. Walcott said."
And what did Derek Walcott get in return for his sycophantic acceptance of this monstrosity on his watch? A bonus? Invites to fancy parties? Entree to the 'in' crowd of NYC? A promotion? New Yorkers should act to see that he is removed asap. Other 'public' officials should see that unless they work for the public good, they will not keep their positions.
7
Were there no librarians involved in the programming of this building? The building is gorgeous, but it doesn't work. BTW, the Times needs an architecture critic with a background in design as well as art.
9
Decades ago I took an architectural tour of Columbus, Indiana. It’s a small town south of Indianapolis in which a number of public buildings were designed by famous architects. I recall touring a grade school, modeled after the architect’s acclaimed design of one of his California schools. The teachers were decidedly unhappy; in the Midwest climate they had to dress the children in winter coats and mittens to travel to the cafeteria, library, and other facilities. I’ve since that time had disdain for architects that ignore the needs of end users in favor of their personal artistic expression. Frankly, it’s arrogance, and also laziness; a true architect genius would cleverly incorporate practicality with their artistic flare.
8
@Louisa Glasson
In Alaska, shortly after oil money started pouring into state coffers in the mid-1970's, the famous 'Molly Hooch' decision mandated construction of secondary schools in practically every remote village with a student body of ten or more kids. Well, all that money attracted a lot of Big Name architects from -- California, and they designed Beautiful Schools.
Based on California design standards. Not subarctic design standards. Always very expensive to heat, now our close-to-broke state is faced with ridiculous maintenance costs for failing buildings (rural areas do not pay property taxes to help offset school costs) and the upshot will probably be a return to the regional boarding schools which triggered the Molly Hooch decision in the first place.
Sounds to me like Mr. McVoy is emblematic of a design world more interested in "success" as defined by aesthetics and attention - and the future high-dollar contracts that come as a result - and less about the everyday folks for whom these spaces are supposedly designed.
3
The heralding of public works projects as triumphs when the starchitects have utterly failed in the most basic aspects of building is the biggest problem with modern architecture. It allows architectural fraud to go on and on unpunished. It is fraudulent for any architect to design a building that cannot be built, or cannot function. The worst thing is that people have to live with the shortcomings of their creations for decades to come. Even the ensuing lawsuits against them seem to do no damage to their reputations. And because, so often, public money is involved, no censure is allowed, a media blackout of criticism is in place. No more!
4
After looking at the site in Google Street View (3D), it is evident that the site is too small.
What's more, the building's footprint could have been much larger on the available site. Green space could have been put on top of the building instead of around it.
And why are the outlying service buildings above ground?
4
Another example of our PowerPoint and Facebook culture. It’s all about the aesthetics and none about the content. At this rate we will devolve back to the Stone Age by the end of the century assuming we make it that far.
4
A private home can be built to the homeowner's and architect's taste-no one else really matters.
A building designed for public use MUST have accessibility as a MAJOR concern.
12
@Modamom
Nevertheless, reputable banks will not approve a loan for the construction or sale of a home that has such obvious unsafe attributes as the upper level of the 'bleachers'.
Regardless of the homeowner's and architect's taste.
2
“To be honest, we hadn’t thought, ‘O.K. we have to provide an exactly equivalent browsing experience,’” he said. “This will be a new standard for libraries, and that’s great. But that doesn’t mean it’s a flaw in the design. It’s an evolution.”
If the architects become physically disabled and cannot walk up stairs, they will understand the “flaw” in their design. In my opinion this library is an insult to NY disabled taxpayers and will hopefully never become a standard for amy public building.
18
To Chris McVoy a partner from the architect's office calling the inaccessibility of the upper floors "a small wrinkle"to people who are differently abled and need mobility devices, I hope that you never have to end up as my wife wheelchair bound due to an unwished for disease , I find your company at fault for designing floors that only well abled people can use..and in this new era at that!
24
Chris McVoy, a senior partner at Steven Hull said, "To be honest, we hadn’t thought, ‘O.K. we have to provide an exactly equivalent browsing experience.' This will be a new standard for libraries, and that’s great. But that doesn’t mean it’s a flaw in the design. It’s an evolution." Um, no, the inaccessibility is a design flaw. And perhaps it will turn out that this library is a design failure. The American public library is one of the few institutions where all people are not only welcomed but encouraged to use the space. If a library is inaccessible, it's a failed library. It's sad and frustrating that these supposedly sophisticated designers and architects failed to consider the basic needs of ALL library users.
37
I agree that accessibility is an important consideration, but it's not the only consideration. Putting gigantic ramps at every building entrance and so on is not only expensive, but often destroys a building's beauty - that's important too.
And the children's bleachers on the top - come on, kids are going to climb and crawl over everything. Falling is part of life!
2
This totally looks like a case of designing for the architect's ego, rather than the public's needs.
And when I read the senior partner Chris McVoy's dismissive comments, I'm sure of it.
I use a cane. Like many people with a disability, and many older people, I do not regard miles of corridors and steep stairs as a work of art - rather, as an artist making me do extra, often impossible even, work.
I've gone to libraries with kids, including in strollers. The picture of the crowded stroller gallery says it all. What happens when an emergency exit must be made? The bleachers and their steep open stairs - clearly unsafe!
How many entire, large, sectors of the population must be insulted, underserved, and written off before this and other expensive architectural firms learn that this country is for ALL, not just the 20-50 yr old men who may enjoy perfect health and fitness and assume their size, gender and age are the "norm"? ALL of us, together, are the norm. I'm sad to see NY get this so wrong.
42
This is illustrative of so much that is wrong with architecture today: architects (and patrons) who insist they have achieved "a new standard for [building type x]", as if suddenly in 2019, we have all the answers to questions humans have been confronting, and answering with perfectly serviceable architecture, for millennia.
8
MAJOR FAIL by architects, engineers, planners, inspectors, contractors, and library board and chief.
It is astounding, truly astounding, that none of them paid attention to basic civil rights laws and regulations, let alone
common sense or consideration of the dignity of persons somewhat different from them when planning, designing, reviewing, inspecting, approving, or building the library (a structure meant to be used and enjoyed by ALL.
It's a shameful, and costly, error.
36
I’m long past my childhood, but when my parents took me to the library, our goal was to get as many books as we could take home, where we could read in comfort. My mother and father, I realize now, must have always been near at hand, ready to carry the books I had chosen, yet somehow out of sight so that I (and they) could browse privately. The aisles were wide enough to sit down and read. There were chairs near the checkout where a family member could sit down and read while the others continued to browse.
All of this, I must point out, was done in low-cost buildings with cheap metal shelves and industrial-grade carpet. What mattered were the books. Which, as I also now realize, must have been rotated by the librarians through other libraries in the system, so that the selection remained fresh.
Other families probably did things differently. However, the idea of going to a set of wooden bleachers to sit up straight and read in the company of other children just seems bizarre to me. Even the dimmest of architects must surely once have been a child, even if they watched TV instead of reading.
Prince Charles observed correctly that British architects had done more damage to London than the Luftwaffe. New York seems to be passing through the same dark slough.
39
As someone who uses a wheelchair, I'm infuriated by the article, and heartened by the comments.
Too often, accessibility is only thought of with regard to the ADA and legal compliance. It's as if people who design these things don't believe people with disabilities actually exist, so they only think about it in the abstract. Which not only leads to "librarians can go get the books" type statements but the calling of accessibility issues "wrinkles."
They're not wrinkles. They are very real things that contribute to people with disabilities being unable to fully participate in society. And, if they are parents—as I am—it prevents their children from doing so as well
54
In this day and age, how can you get approval for a public building that could not meet ADA requirements? It also tells you that Long Island City planners do not know the target audience, or their community. Did they ever hold a town hall to get community feedback?
29
Sometimes architects get too enamored with their designs with the exclusion of listening to mundane things like accessibility for the disabled, child safety features and traffic loads. Either someone was not heard in expressing these concerns/comments or the firm/architect failed to think outside the box. While the overall design of the building looks fantastic, if it becomes partly or wholly unusable, then its a failure in design. Non-admission by the architect/firm of that deficiency is merely arrogance and probably incompetence.
28
Here is another building I won’t be able to visit as I am physically disabled and walking is a disability. Doesn’t someone have to approve this before it gets built and taxpayers money gets wasted? It’s sad because if this library is a trend then the library’s will only be for the physically fit and the over five years generation.
18
@Katz Jaybird Hi-- There are five floors to the building. There are three terraces between the first and second floors that are inaccessible. You can visit the rest of the floors. Thanks!
5
@Sharon Otterman so when you go out to see a movie, are you OK with seeing the opening half hour and the closing half hour and be 'satisfied' with you experience? New public buildings should be 100% accessible ,not have 3/5ths off limits.
16
@Katz Jaybird The sad thing is that many people who have less accessibility issues won't even WANT to use the library or others.
2
Eat less, walk more, take the stairs. There is no way that there are that many legitimately handicapped people using the elevator to cause "bottleknecking"...this is the result of pure laziness by those not handicapped.
4
@Simon ...there are many, many "legitimately" handicapped people out there. There are also the elderly, who still like to visit the library and check out books. There are parents with infants and toddlers. Try managing the stairs carrying an infant and books.
We all deserve the opportunity to visit the library.
40
@Simon You obviously have not been in a library at the end of a story hour. Mothers and caregivers are juggling toddlers and infants in strollers. You have not been in a library when senior citizens come for movies, book clubs, or a speaker's presentations. All of these people are not lazy, but they do have need of an elevator - preferably more than one.
17
@Simon. Have you ever carried a stroller up several f lights of stairs? Or been an 87 year old man who uses a cane to walk? These people are not lazy. Walk in their shoes before you criticize.
4
The accessibility and child safety issues were apparent from the photos in the first NYTimes review. The Times could have and should have been considering access for its readership. Instead this makes it sound like the problems faced are coming as a total surprise.
11
I haven't seen the building, but it is amazing that there was no evolution of the design over 9 years. Seriously, since when does it take 9 years to design/build a library? Life has changed drastically in the last decade. Human-centered design should be the underlying process when creating a public, utilitarian space. Understanding the unmet needs of users (the disabled, adults, moms, dads, children, the elderly) should be the first aspect of any design project. When those needs change, the design needs to change. You can make something beautiful and functional. It is truly inexcusable that every space is not accessible. My son would have loved those bleachers in the kid's reading area. He would be launching from the highest spot!
14
Holl was a horrible choice for an architect for a public building with accessible and other requirements. A complete pie-in-the-sky firm.
The library users should sue.
14
Wow, what a textbook argument for the notion that form should FOLLOW function, not the other way around. This building’s primary function is as a LIBRARY, not a sightseeing venue. Have these architects ever used a library? Have they ever cared for kids? Apparently not. You don’t always go to a library knowing what book you want. And even if you do, sometimes that book is out. So you browse. You can’t do that if you can’t access the shelf, and a librarian can’t browse for you. The argument that this basic notion of accessibility as it relates to basic library function wasn’t understood 9 years ago in 2010 is laughably ridiculous. And designing features in the children’s section that are hazardous to kids? Locating inadequate stroller parking away from the children’s section and accessible only by the one elevator that serves the building? (My little community public library has 2 elevators, is fully accessible and has beautiful views.) This is a DUMB design job. It’s appalling that it got designed this way, and appalling that it got through the review process like this. A lot of people really failed to pay attention.
40
Posting here to agree....my thoughts exactly. Concern for accessibility is a great deal older than 2010. And to design any building as a sculpture instead of a useful space for its purpose is just blind arrogance.
5
Maybe -- given the ossification of NYC's bureaucracy, a big "maybe" -- the city will realize that the solution is to add a disabilities advocate to boards that approve such structures in the future; or at least make consultation with such an advocacy group a formal part of the approval process.
13
The "children's bleachers" look like they were reconfigured from a church organ vestibule and choir loft (for agile young choristers). Unbelievable that the 'glass safety panels' were
an add-on, no responsible homeowner would have such an unsafe loft area, and no bank would approve a loan for such
a home either. Since when are home inspections more rigorous than those for a public building? (Especially a library, which often serves as a 'home away from home'.)
Oh, and the bleacher handrails are at adult height. Not the least bit helpful for the children who are supposed to use them ! There should be parallel sets of handrails at different heights.
23
I guess no one in that fancy architect firm has any type of disability or children. This shows how architects seem to be more concerned about aesthetics than functionality instead of achieving both. Did the librarians ever have any say in the design?
17
@Sadie If they did, they were not listened to, and that is a great shame for all involved. Librarians know their community and its needs, as well as their own needs to perform their jobs effectively.
7
As an NYC librarian this is awful & laughable at the same time. Who designs a new public library without proper AdA accessibility, child safety or plenty of space for strollers? Expecting disabled patrons to just ask librarians to get a book for them etc...just means the people designed this have out dated ideas of what a library is or who uses or how they use it. Perhaps they should have asked the staff who were going to work there.
47
There are (Oh!) so many things that are designed without a thought for the end user ranging from toys to tools to computer systems and application programs. I've worked with computer professionals who designed tools that exhibited a creative use of the technology but failed the end user in a big way.
It won't change soon, either.
7
@And When I visit a library my main purpose is to browse the stacks and see what might interest me. I rarely go to the library with a set idea of what I'd like to read. Therefore the suggestion that I ask the librarian to fetch a particular book is totally outside my reason to be there in the first place.
12
Steven Holl Architects is solely responsible for the design flaws and should be held solely responsible for fixing the flaws.
30
Give me a break. Article after article attacking a LIBRARY. Hello, people! Stop playing into this obvious attack on one of our few public institutions left.
1
@JR
If it was built with private money that might change attitudes but this library was paid for with public money from taxes and obviously it does not serve all the people who would like to use it.
15
@JR The library is not being attacked! The design of the building is. This is not an "obvious attack" on a public institution.
10
As an NYC librarian it astounds me that no one said anything about accessibility issues, child safety concerns or room for stroller parking. All three are extremely important in modern public libraries. Balls were dropped.
18
According to a senior architect on the project:
"Concepts of accessibility, he added, have changed in the years since the building was designed in 2010."
Um, no.
44
No excuse for any public building that is not accessible to all. Shame on the architects and the people who hired them.
22
Art over function, an old concern strikes again.
5
How incredible that a such a large and public building was approved with just one elevator! Architects and City planners are both to blame for this "beautiful" but functionally useless building. It belongs to architecture history as an example of how NOT to design a library. Pity for the city and the readers!
15
@A.L. and what about fire safety...how do you get everyone out?
4
in a fire you don't take the elevators anyway. you take the stairs
The 2020's has to be the decade of accessibility. It doesn't matter if it's mobility or money that relegates the public to the margins. Subways, museums, and public works have been remiss by complying to the bare minimum accommodations. Even retro - fit solutions address specific need without consideration for surrounding systemic obstacles. The Anti Stairs Club Lounge brought much attention to the anti - social "Vessel" at Hudson Yards in the same way De-Colonize-This-Place! has underscored the need for a free to the public subway and that scrutiny is needed here but some foresight regarding civic responsibility is going to be necessary when planning development lest we become the city of the mythical norm, that is to say: the city for an imaginary public.
10
"because those levels were only accessible by stairs" That is completely unacceptable in a public library building. Appalling that those designs made it to completion with such an obvious problem. That picture of the problem shows how obvious the issue should have been to anyone making the designs of the building.
14
Aren't the architects all men? FL Wright wanna-bes are often bored with the realistic aspects of design. They want to impress their fellow designers! Didn't any library officials review the plans before construction began? They need more women on their review committees.
15
@Margie Moore There must have been a money issue too. Like who got all this money to design this" not for the real public building"? Yes...not any women.
1
The person interviewed for the article who represents the firm is a woman. Architecture firms have high percentages of female employees and partners compared to other professions. Many reasons to criticize the profession, but this is not of them.
1
The 53rd street library has beautiful stair/bleacher access to the main floor...and stairs to the lower level children’s library....and two elevators. I’m guessing the difference is the number of strollers it needs to accommodate
The Americans with Disabilities Act is almost 30 years old. It seems incredible that no one involved with this project noticed its accessibility challenges.
18
When the new LaGuardia High School was opened in 1984 - at a cost of tens of millions of dollars - the architects had forgotten to put in a second escalator, so there was only one, going in one direction. One of the biggest boondoggles of the time.
6
Red flag, first sentance: "It has been heralded as an architectural triumph..." Code for form over function.
Red herring statement by architect: "Concepts of accessibility, he added, have changed in the years since the building was designed in 2010."
"Concepts of accessibility" were exhaustivley codified in great detail in the Americans with Disabilities Act that was signed into law by The First Bush in 1990.
New York readers got fleeced.
56
This would have been a big winner among first or second year students back when I was in Landscape Architecture school because of the "visual appeal." But most of those students were too seduced by form that they forgot about the unction part. And then there s always the maintenance aspect that is too often overlooked. I remember the huge praise for the new library in downtown Seattle which has an exterior surface that provides great resting places for pigeons and airborne dirt particles. And then there is the newer of the two U of Washington architecture/landscape architecture/ building construction buildings with its north side courtyard garden which is never used because it is always dark and cold, even in the summer! Lots of examples out there, and these are the designers that get the big bucks!
25
@Susan in NH Sure - it is called "fame." But schools of architecture (one of which I graduated long ago) are basically to blame for what we now see in design without worry about function. Often students are shown only the "great buildings" of a few famous designers, and are encouraged to think of their future in those terms. Truth be told, many of the buildings used to exemplify greatness are doomed to the trash bins of time, because of extraordinary costs to maintain, changed functions, etc. Schools that train architects need to be very explicit about failures when putting such "masterpieces"" in front of eager students.
11
I’ve visited the library. It looks grand on the outside, but once you go in it turns out to be not as impressive. The space on each floor is relatively small. After visiting Princeton Public Library in Princeton, NJ and Silver Spring Public Library in Silver Spring, MD, the Queens library was rather disappointing.
15
@VA
Agreed about Princeton Public Library, which is hugely popular and has become an even greater focal point for the town. Extremely welcoming and user-friendly.
5
@PS1 the old Princeton Public Library building from 1966 was great too!
That the city's planning & review process never noticed the inaccessible areas is astounding.
This debacle really demonstrates why the failure to include disabled people on architectural review and planning boards results in buildings that exclude disabled people.
24
One of the failures of the Queens Public Library is that the public has always been looked on as a problem.
The "new" central library was conceived at a time when all on one open floor was dogma. It turned out to be less useful than the deficient librarians and architects supposed.
And these same great (grate?) managers burned down the Far Rockaway library (3 floors) so they could build another one floor masterpiece -- with no space for books.
Now, the latest generation is building a huge "A" frame building, again without books, where the best design would be the Carnegie building with 3 floors AND BOOKS.
But what is a library for?
15
As usual, architects only care about their great artistry, and forget about whether their "gorgeous building" actually works.
12
@Frank O And "gorgeous" is only in the eye of the beholder (in this case - the sycophants who proclaim what "gorgeous" is.) And I challenge those critics to tell me what their definition of "gorgeous" is, relative to this building.
2
Incredible. What modern architect would design such a building? Libraries are public buildings and therefore must be accessible to everyone.
32
@Van Owen Exactly right.
2
@Van Owen You got to hire an overweight and somewhat disabled architect to design all buildings in the U.S. now. We don't have a public health problem. We are just leading the way to revolutionize building access codes to accommodate all possible living creatures. If only one person in the world cannot get into a building, our lawyers will file lawsuits to fight for the equal access.
2
It's certainly a visually interesting exterior. Some might find it beautiful form. But like people--it's always what's on the inside that counts.
8
I've long admired Holl's work so I'm stunned that this library suffers from a glaring functional and community failure.
Surely Holl is familiar with the work of Rem Koohaas who has found extremely appealing solutions to accessibility and inclusion. Please see his Campus Center at Illinois Institute of Technology. He deftly incorporates a wheelchair ramp into an amphitheatre space that in my view succeeds beautifully. The solution has been used elsewhere in Chicago and perhaps the world. My sister, who uses a manual wheelchair, was completely able to navigate the ramp up and down.
All Holl's team had to do was observe and think.
25
@Nancy Rem Koolhaas designed the Seattle central library, which has been open for years and years. It has ramps and is a gorgeous building.
9
I have never in my life used the expression "mealy-mouthed," until today. The following words by the architect are mealy-mouthed:
“To be honest, we hadn’t thought, ‘O.K. we have to provide an exactly equivalent browsing experience,’” he said. “This will be a new standard for libraries, and that’s great. But that doesn’t mean it’s a flaw in the design. It’s an evolution.”
43
@Stephen Perhaps Holl Architects should have their commission "evolve" back to the taxpayers.
7
Architects need to understand that buildings that are not accessible may be beautiful but are useless. Buildings should enrich the human experience, not limit it to those who can climb stairs, which is becoming a smaller group as the population ages.
10
@Alanna
I quite agree. Otherwise leave the beautiful design in the portfolio.
3
Serendipitous stack finds are a big part of the public library experience for me. How could they think that "asking for a book to be retrieved by staff" is in any way equivalent to the pleasure of browsing shelves of novels for oneself?
How could anyone put only one elevator in any public building? Or plan for children to read on several levels of wooden -stepped terracing? There is something dense in the design firm's justifications. I hope they fix everything but first they have to "get it !"
35
The only way to see if a design works for its intended purpose is to see how people actually inhabit and use the space; how they move from space to space, how traffic flows, how floors are accessed, etc.
Typical that architects came up with a beautiful design that proved essentially unworkable.
9
@Cecil Buddy It's not at all difficult to notice that areas accessible only by stairs are not accessible to users of wheelchairs, scooters, and walkers, and to people who don't need assistive devices but still have mobility impairments.
5
@Cecil Buddy
Sorry, that is not the only way to see if a design works. Examples of stairs, ramps, elevators, escalators are everywhere. The faux-architects of this building apparently failed to consult real-life examples of book access, possibly because they are products of the computer age? They do not understand much about books. Some library!
17
I've been involved in 2 theatre designs. Both times the designers brought in 'the everyday people,' the ones who actually use the space. Their input was invaluable and resulted in significant, useful changes. That should have happened here. Architects can make it pretty, but ultimately, a building has to work for its intended purpose. Bring in 'the ground troops' if you want to really know what makes a building works. Get input from the custodian on up!
23
Architects are form givers. The interiors are of no consequence Not the first. Certainly not the last. Gorgeous but doesn’t work.
2
@Eileen Ryan Not even "gorgeous" if you actually think about it...beyond the fact that it is "different" from others in its vicinity.
3
One elevator?! Which regulatory agency approved this?
And, where was common sense?
29
What ever became of form following function?
15
It sounds like these architects went with form over functionality. Buckminster Fuller is probably rolling over in his grave.
8
What an amazing example of people who live in bubble!Nice design, huge budget, ballooning egos and TADA...a library for the few.
20
The problem with the architect profession, in the three words of one of my professors in architecture school, is that it is engaged too much in "irrelevant esoteric nonsense." This is a perfect example.
Those words were burned in my mind from the day we heard them in class, and made it possible for me to navigate the profession until my retirement. That simple statement that day reminded me of "The Emperor's New Clothes." The architects here are like the weavers in that tale who convinced the emperor that the cloth they would weave would be invisible to the unsophisticated. Nothing to see here but the arrogance of the profession at work.
15
Just looking at the building says, the architects were more concerned about 'design' than function. To read about the design flaws from the article, one wonders, how did this ever go through?
Reminds me of the opposite. The Central Library in Berkeley, California affords a majestic view of the Bay from its top floors, allowing for plenty of light for study and reading and has all five floors accessible by elevators. There is one whole floor dedicated to children. Another floor for internet use and magazines, and another floor for reference books. The art and music library houses a magnificent collection on the top floor. All done in a design that grows out of an older library where the most pleasing parts of that building remains- A majestic light filled reading room. All this compliments it's location in a fully functional library.
20
This is appalling! My grandson is 8 and he has been in a wheelchair all of his life. Any money spent on a public building should require accessibility for the ENTIRE building. Someone should sue and require solutions.
Every day my grandson faces unwelcoming obstacles to participate with other kids, whether in the classroom, playground, or fieldtrips. I can't image in 2019 we don't have architects smart enough to make a building accessible. This building isn't just not accessible - its a huge unwelcome sign for people like my grandson.
41
As a librarian myself, I'm willing to bet that the architects and designers did not take staff viewpoints into account. They prefer the latest and fashionable concepts, and not what actually works for staff and patrons.
I know of one library designer who insisted on "open concept." That may work fine in a home, but in a public building the noise resonates throughout, and people complain. Sections of the collection were divided so that people were wandering around, looking for the latter half of the novels, which had been separated by another collection. If the designer had implemented the staff suggestions, the collection would not have had to be shifted afterwards.
Architects and designers may have an "artistic vision," but it's the people who daily work in, and the people who come in to use the library, whose ideas should matter most.
51
I am not an architect nor an accessibility expert but I have worked as a compliance officer for large companies helping them integrate (that is, retrofit) accessibility features into non-ADA compliant work spaces. As you can imagine, retrofitting is an expensive undertaking. All that said, the one thing that I have learned from these type of projects is that if you don't have a universal design expert, whether that be the architect herself or someone else, at the table during the planning of new construction, accessibility is guaranteed to be an afterthought. Where was the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities on this project? My guess is that they were not consulted, at all.
38
These fancy New York architects should have come to St. Louis for guidance. Our county library system has built several new libraries recently, each uniquely beautiful but also thoughtfully designed and totally usable by ALL.
18
“To be honest, we hadn’t thought, ‘O.K. we have to provide an exactly equivalent browsing experience,’” he said. “This will be a new standard for libraries, and that’s great. But that doesn’t mean it’s a flaw in the design. It’s an evolution.”
This quote from Steven Holl, the lead architect, says a lot about what is wrong with not only the building, but the world.
Self-centeredness and greed—pretty much wraps it up.
53
@bonhomie He's already regretting his words, I'm sure. What a way to spin an already bad situation into something worse.
9
@bonhomie
This ostrich has had his head in the sand for decades: the ADA was passed in 1990, not last month. How did he ever pass his licensing exams? Maybe the National Architecurtral Accrediting Board as well as the appropriate NYS authorities should revoke the license of the architects of this firm.
13
@bonhomie Thanks, bonhomie (and so many others). I'd add pride, arrogance, and the total inability to understand, accept, and respond respectfully to legitimate concerns of everyday library patrons (and staff).
And the inability to take responsibility for your mistakes rather than pan them off on outdated code requirements.
The power of architectural egos--and their creations--can suprise you, no?! Just take a walk through Hudson Yards.
11
compare this library to a very successful library in Helsinki - Oodi - which also uses stairs throughout the building as a feature to great success. Libraries have evolved so much in the past 30 years, becoming a third place more than just a place to research and study. Oodi is a bustling public space, with cafes, easy accessibility, and a beautiful modernist design. It is clearly a hub for a diverse urban community. It's frustrating to read the comments from the architect at Steven Holl. It sounds like whining to cover-up big shortcomings in his design.
15
Looks like the architect and everyone else involved in this design should have taken a class -- or multiple classes -- in Common Sense 101. Once the new-design glow has faded, I imagine many people will think twice before visiting this nearly useless -- and potentially dangerous -- building again. Is there no way to greatly fine the architects for misuse of taxpayer money, and use that money to build a reasonable, useful and safe library?
18
As seen here, common sense is not as common as we’d like to think.
6
I congratulate the architects Steven Holl and Chris McVoy for admitting their incompetence and not reading and keeping up with the literature and standards in their profession and industry. McVoy dismisses the failure to provide for the needs of the disabled as a "small wrinkle." They do not think safety first in spaces involving children. Nor, as the architects in charge of building, do they supervise the project and inspect and keep on top of the contractor to use the proper building materials for such things as "control joints." The building already has leaks. What other projects are McVoy and Holder involved with on the public's dime? Do they have licenses?
Congratulations are also in order for Dennis Walcott, C.E.O. for the Queens Library. Walcott admits his incompetence in not holding public hearings on the expenditure of $41 million dollars of the public money and not thinking of the details for the project. Just spend, spend, spend...
15
@Robert Plautz Congratulations?? I don't buy it. They should have known better and the communities that are supposed to be serving - not to mention ADA and Universal Design compliances that should have been on the table in the first place. This is a complete lack of public trust and a congratulatory afterthought just gives them a slap on the wrist.
This is a complete disregard for 'real' people and "libraries for all" - hubris at its highest. How did they get away with this mess in the first place?
4
@Julie Rockwell I believe Mr. Plantz’s comment is meant to be ironic.
4
Having worked with a library architect in 1998 that built us a gorgeous, flexible, building of 82,000 square feet with THREE elevators and with all spaces fully accessible, I am deeply offended by the architect's bluster in this article. The price doesn't bother me - public buildings are expensive - but the obvious failure to consider who library patrons actually are is dumbfounding.
79
As an architect, I have noted that some of the most lauded figures in the profession make terrible mistakes often praised at the time as 'brilliant'. FLLW's "Falling Waters" is an exemplar a 'brilliant' design, impossible to get a good nights sleep in, having required extensive renovation to avert catastrophic collapse. It may be well if architectural critics reserved their judgment for a few years to see how the thing works!
14
@Bernard
Yes, and the September raves and cries of joy over the "one of the finest public buildings..." are exemplars of wrong-headedness. It IS a beautiful building--from the outside. But a library it ain't.
2
Reminds me of the French National Library that was built to become yet another monument, but became a dud as they belatedly realized how hot the glass towers would be for the books. The 4 towers are not easily accessible between them, and the concrete outdoor plaza is windy and barren.
8
Where the heck are the human factors engineers? No public space should be designed without their input.
18
Oooooooh!! Buffs and architectural critics loved it!! Perhaps they should have paid for it. Pathetic!! If it was designed as a work of art, they should have put up a statue, and built an attractive utilitarian building next to it to be used as a library. Ummmm, didn’t some group of “artistes” once come up with the principal that “form follows function”??
13
I wonder if the architects ever avail themselves of the magic of a public library. I use my library probably twice a week when I attend community meetings, checkout books, browse newly arrived books, and rub shoulders with neighbors of every age, race, sex, and ability. The library is always full of kids and moms and older people with time to enjoy and appreciate the richness it provides. Any structural or design impediment built into such an environment indicates an unfortunate ignorance.
18
This is beyond absurd. This shouldn't pass even the most leisurely inspection by a fire marshal; all those strollers blocking egress from the lone elevator and all those stairs!!! Where do you go if a shooter shows up? Was anybody thinking?
30
This small library cost 41 million? A waste.
15
The excuse about evolving expectations for accessibility is disingenuous on the part of this building's architect, first of all because the law governing it is 30 years old. But mostly, it's disingenuous because these are not obscure accessibility issues that couldn't have been foreseen - it's stairs. Lots of people have problems using stairs, not just people I'm wheelchairs (whose needs should of course be met) - such as people with strollers or people who walking using canes or walkers, people with injuries, with breathing problems, with vision problems, the elderly... The stroller thing is maddening because children's story time has long been a major facet of public libraries. The architect seems to have little experience with, need for, or love of public libraries. The suggestion of pre-selecting a book and having someone get it for you, is the suggestion of someone with no particular love of books, no particular history browsing the shelves, no particular interest in public libraries, really.
94
@reader
Their love is for money and notoriety, these architects.
7
Classic case of form over function.
7
@Catherine
Yes. This beautiful and expensive mistake will go into the books as did the long-ago Tacoma bridge "Galloping Gertie".
2
"A staircase and bleacher seating in the children’s section, judged too risky for small children, has been closed off."
This hurts so much I can't think of any adequate words...
The city should sue the insane architects.
27
@mirucha The City was the client. They hired Holl to perform services at their behest, and the city has plenty of architects on staff guiding the process. They are equally at fault in enforcing and interpreting buildings code, some of which is their own.
17
@Kerry
These city-employed public servants should all be fired.
2
Two other design comments after attending a presentation there on Saturday (Leslie Adotta on New York rooftop spaces). The audtiorium is plagued by the sound of people tromping on the stairs. And, the left corner has a lovely corner window, but when there is a presentation or anything projected on the screen, that window glares and washes out anything on the screen. And no curtains or blinds. Kind of amazing the thing they didn't think through, though overall a lovely space.
15
Chris McVoy, Steven Holl’s lead architect protests too loudly to no effect. Accessibility is not an “evolution” since 2010. New York City has had accessibility requirements on the books since the early 1990s; see Local Law 58. And the Americans with Disabilities Act (aka ADA) has been a fact of life for all of us practicing architects for a couple of decades. And then there is ANSI A-117 and variants, the standard when I became registered in 1983.
Sounds more like a formalist starchitect complaining that the regulations restrict creativity in such inconvenient ways. Oh, please.
34
The architect’s claim that accessibility is “a new standard for libraries” is ludicrous. That standard has been around for decades if an architect cared to look. Architects consistently refuse to be guided by the principles of universal design and inclusion. They treat accessibility as a code issue rather than as a guiding principle informing design. The library administration should have hired a firm to review accessibility issues early in the design development phase. They and the architects failed in their larger responsibility to build a library that responded to the needs of all the patrons. It’s not a question of “evolution” or “flawed” design. It’s an example of bad and careless design that prioritized aesthetics over function.
44
@True iowanative
Too bad that they didn't even succeed in the aesthetics.
3
@farhorizons Totally agree, Farhorizons in Philly. I was schooled there in the 70's as architect, and saw then that only showing students the famous buildings of Starchitects was dooming students to think that "form" should overshadow function. In the case of this library, I would not even say the form is exemplary.
3
These are not simple oversights caused by enthusiasm. They are plain and simple malpractice. The ADA was in effect for approximately eight years before they began planning this project. As someone who participated in planning several library building projects, I can clearly state that nobody plans to use staff to retrieve materials, except for special collections of rare and valuable items. We live in a time where self service is the norm because people want to control their searches for materials, the want freedom to browse and no library can afford a staff of fetchers. That option would cost QPL millions of dollars in salaries and related expenses over the life of the building.
One elevator means no redundancy when the inevitable breakdown happens. Where were the city's planning officials in this process? Was this building not reviewed for legal compliance? This looks like a case of architect gone wild.
53
When I walk into my city's library, I notice it tends to attract two key demographics: the young and the old. Anyone else in the middle visits the library sporadically, but it's those two groups that are serious, visit-every-week patrons. To not have those groups at the forefront of your mind in designing the space is absolutely dumbfounding.
60
LIC is home to many upper middle class working parents, who employ nannies and buy enormous, non folding strollers for them to push. It is rare in my experience to see a nanny who goes out of her way to take stairs when an elevator is available. This was obviously not taken into account, but at this point, the library could require that only folding strollers be brought to the library, otherwise parking is outside. Just saying.
2
@LICmom it’s a good point about the ego-driven, “my stroller is bigger than yours” phenomenon. Time to downsize!
I was so looking forward to going to the new Queens library this Saturday for the 2:30 lecture. But after reading this article I realize that the lecture might be held in a space inaccessible to me. I use a walker. I will stay home.
9
@613 Lectures are held in the first floor room. You should be fine!
@LICmom --And there is the sad part "You should be fine!" What if they move it to another room?
It's a beautiful building ... but not necessarily a well-designed library ... that is going around these days, and not just in NY.
7
I'm the parent of a chid with Rett syndrome - and am constantly amazed at the lack of accessibility in this city. Whether it be the dearth of accessible bathrooms at the Bronx Zoo, the lack of elevators at most subway stations, the sidewalks around Times Square (and many other areas) that are blocked by vendors, this city is not friendly towards those with disabilities. That this library was not built with accessibility in mind, comes as no surprise to those of us who have had to navigate this city with someone who has a disability. We have lived that experience everywhere we go. Really though, there's no excuse. Hire a disability consultant. Perhaps one who has children with disabilities. After one look at your plans, or walk through of your facility, they'll give you a far better idea of what needs to be fixed or implemented to increase access, than any architect without any disability experience ever will.
14
I am not disabled but like many people over 65 I do have issues with stairs because of arthritis in my knees. I do fine generally, and my 19th century town library has stairs at the entrance, but to climb up and down stairs while juggling some books like this library requires seems foolhardy. And why this public community building did not involve a cross section of library patrons -- young, old, parents, grandparents, teenagers, disabled etc -- makes me question the process. Shouldn't we all have a say in the functionality of places we pay for?
23
No multi-story building should EVER have a single elevator. Whoever made that decision was misguided - if it was based on cost, for shame! Plus, given nthe ADA and NY State and NYC accessiblity codes, how was this design permitted?
I personally don't like how it looks, but that's subjective. THe forgoing isssues are not.
33
"Chris McVoy, a senior partner at Steven Holl Architects, the firm that designed the building, said that too much emphasis was being placed on the inaccessibility of the terraces, which he called a “small wrinkle in an incredibly successful project."
This guy is the epitome of the clueless design architect.
ADA codes have not changed since the project was designed, and anyone who understands that a significant number of patrons are parents with children, who have strollers and need elevators would have given one elevator a bit more thought.
57
@Marie ..."This guy is the epitome of the clueless design architect."
I agree, but based on several of his comments in this article, would add he is also arrogant.
4
To add one to the list:
What struck me were the acoustics of the space. I went there to attempt to read and work. I found a spot on the now demonized stair/reading room and found that the cascade of atria trapped and transmitted the sound from the entry below spreading cacophony through the stacks.
I'll try again after the negative press clears out the building a bit.
27
I visited the library once and that was enough for me. In addition to all the issues described in the article, the space is way too noisy because of all the hard surfaces and the foot traffic. When kids come through and are running around and shouting, their voices echo, making it even louder. This doesn't have the inviting or quiet feeling of a library; it feels more like a museum where form clearly took precedence over function.
28
Pogo Sticks! That is the obvious way for the children and handicapped adults to go up and down the stairs.
10
Don't these things get vetted? Even Frank Lloyd Wright was criticized for some stupid ideas. The difference is this is a public venue that doesn't even comply with ADA or at least the city council never questioned how these terraced levels would make books inaccessible.
14
"Consideration" for accessibility? It's the law (ADA). What happened here??
24
Only one elevator for a 4-story building where the public goes in and out all the time? Thoughtless!
18
What a disaster - on many levels!
11
Whatever happened to "Form follows function"?
7
@TRA The story is that Form pushed Function over the cliff. Form wears some tricky disguises...
1
Holl is all idea - without a grounding in reality, which makes his work look dated almost immediately, and soulless. (plus the ideas are pretty dated, facile and puerile)
11
Reminds me of buildings in the Netherlands where the architect has free reign, but the users hate the new building.
4
Perhaps they could use the vacated space for the architect's ego.
Or is it too big to fit?
43
@Laurie Fannin Even if Holl's ego would fit within the space, there are toooo many steps for him. HA
3
Chris McVoy totally forgot who his client was; the citizens of Long Island City (the very young as well as the old) and not his overly arrogant ego. For that - the misappropriation of millions of public dollars - he should, at the very least, be stripped of his architectural license.
12
@BT designers, design for their egos, for their portfolios, for accolades from their peers. This is totally the fault of NYC officials who signed and approved a public space that is not ADA compliant. They need to be held accountable and loose their jobs.
7
@PB I agree that the NYC officials should also be held accountable but the best architects do actually design to meet their client's needs. As a Masters of Architecture recipient and graduate of the Tulane School of Architecture I am appalled by the bulk of what I experience while seeing, touching and going by and through today's recent built environment.
FYI, one of the best most successful all new public libraries in my opinion from the recent past: the "Big Red Enchilada" San Antonio Texas Central Public Library (1995) designed by Mexican architect Ricardo Legorreta in partnership with Sprinkle Robey Architects and Johnson-Dempsey & Associates of San Antonio. Here, the client's needs were totally met, if not 100 times exceeded, while staying true to the architect's signature style. It is a spectacular space worth experiencing and greatly enhances and enriches the San Antonio downtown built environment. And, sadly, I had nothing to do with it; just a fan.
1
@PB are we sure that the building is not ADA-compliant. By the letter of the law it may be...
Library staff move books on carts. Were they expected to carry books up those steps?
42
Referring to the lack of accessibility:
"But that doesn’t mean it’s a flaw in the design. It’s an evolution.”
Actually, it's called an elevator
16
I knew from the moment I saw the ugly, square, unwelcoming, modern, concrete structure go up that this library would fail the people it was meant to serve. Many other folks felt the same way in the comments of the previous article praising this monstrosity.
At $40M, this schadenfreude comes at a great cost.
11
Does this mean, also, that the librarians are running up and down stairs all day to reshelve books and aid patrons? Yikes.
18
$41.5 what do you want for that kind of money, should have gone the deluxe model, it even has books!
1
I’m so annoyed by the architect’s responses to these credible issues. He defends the firm’s design over and over in one dismissive comment after another. Not all clients know how to imagine users within the 2-dimensional drawings of the design phase — it is the architect’s job to do so.
Take responsibility for your flawed design and fix it!
64
A public building is not a “masterpiece” if it can’t be used. It is a failure.
43
How did this short-sighted inaccessible design ever pass muster? And it's not only inaccessible to those officially 'disabled,' resources are also likely unavailable to older people or those with health issues that make climbing stairs uncomfortable.
Shame on the architects, shame on the city planners, shame on those who approved funding for this. Another ego-project for architects.
23
@farhorizons I agree. Too many times, the so-called architects fail to fully consider the human, adult, children, or handicapped, etc., when coming up with beautiful designs. It would have been nice to have had critical review before accepting the design.
6
I am an architect, and also a person with some common sense. I am so offended by the condescending and ignorant attitude of the building architect, McVoy, quoted throughout this article.
"What Lawyers believe ... is a changing thing...." is not the issue here, although lawyers might be finally be clarifying in rules what simple common sense has always provided as a guide of accessibility or functionality. Saying he didn't think people with handicaps needed "exactly equivalent"" experience is like saying people of , say, different races or genders dont need "exactly" the same things. It is profoundly offensive.
Steve Holl is a great architect. But his tone deafness (his people are his own) is reprehensible.
46
@Louis I was expecting McVoy to try the "separate but equal" rational.
Before I had even read a few sentences of the Time's architectural review of the new building when it opened, my common sense asked myself, "How is this building going to be anything like what a library should be, other than a place to store books; on shelves that are not even remotely accessible to the public at large?"
(To that point, the Times' architectural critic deserves a pay cut for his over the top review.)
Did McVoy ever visit a working library to see how patrons interact with libraries? Did he ever take more than an arrogant glance at how library staff work to make the keeping books on shelves? How do stairs and book carts go together?
It is clear from McVoy's comments that he has learned nothing from his ignorant, thoughtless design mistakes...whether or not they pass legal muster. He reveals himself to be an arrogant fool. He should never again win a contract ever to build a public space.
McVoy has created a work of art, not a building. The shame should rightly stick to his career indefinitely.
21
@Louis
Not only tone deaf--maybe completely deaf as the noise level reported in the "library" sounds unbearable.
9
Looking at those reading stairs, I cannot believe someone thought to put them in a children's space. Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that's a hazard.
18
Absolutely unacceptable. This needs to be remedied ASAP.
7
First lesson in any school of architecture: Form follows Function.
8
The article says a partner at the architectural firm responsible for the design said "Concepts of accessibility, he added, have changed in the years since the building was designed in 2010." 2010 is twenty years after the Americans With Disabilities Act was signed into law. Surely that was enough time for them to get comfortable with the idea of designing accessibility into public buildings?
376
@Dewey Finn There was a significant update to the ADA released in 2010 - it's possible their design was conceived based on the original 1992 version, though it's no excuse for the lack of accessibility. I am an architect and the hubris of these elite architects is constantly frustrating and paints the rest of us in a bad light. It is possible to design excellent spaces without huge cost overruns and technical failures. I enjoyed how they are blaming the contractor for not installing enough terrazzo control joints, when in fact they should have laid them out on their drawings or questioned why they hadn't received shop drawings during construction... bottom line is it seems they were more interested in a work of art than a building that actually works for the users and community.
63
@Spike
And they knew instinctively that no one in NYC government was going to get involved enough in oversight to...oversee. Or care.
14
@Spike
The contractor is typically responsible for laying out control joints. Different materials and installation methodology yield different shrinkage rates. It is a huge liability for an architect to layout these joints in his drawings as they should be catered to what the contractor is providing.
5
Why didn’t they use ramps for the terraced levels? It’s irresponsible of architects to design a public building that is inaccessible.
6
@XX Because ramps use more space than stairs and have ADA requirements themselves.
I am going to start a campaign against architecture unwelcome to acrophobes (like me).
4
First target: Hyatt hotels and their ubiquitous atrium elevators.
4
When I worked as a media specialist in a school district, I was once asked to review plans for a library to be included in a new primary school building ( ages 4 - 7). I immediately spotted an accommodation problem within the room itself - no bathroom. A child who needed one would have had to be escorted out of the room and walk about 50 feet along a hallway to find one. The architect agreed to change the plans as soon as I pointed out the problem. Sometimes you do need "boots on the ground" common sense advice when planning a building. Perhaps that didn't happen here.
27
I have an idea. Insist that this architectural firm build a new library that is fully functional to all, in a location equally appealing and convenient to all, with no further payment received. Let the firm sell this monstrosity to one of those hedge-fund managers who will buy anything expensive so long as it has a fancy celebrity architect's name attached to it.
14
@farhorizons GREAT IDEA!
Do nothing de Blasio will do nothing.
I recommend the classic design book "The Design of Everyday Things" by Don Norman. It is required reading for everyone in the "usability" community -- engineers who want to design systems that are easy and natural for people to use (rather than just "look nice" or "win awards").
13
I hope that this is a lesson to future projects here in NYC and elsewhere that collaboration between architects, librarians and patrons is imperative before plans are executed. I spotted all these problems when I did a walk through of this building.
I was astounded by the amount of stairs to climb to the top floor of this " masterpiece". Its an embarrassment and the money could have been used to keep the court square library open and to build two other libraries through out this very spread out community.
11
These architects are incredibly naive and dismissive regarding the ADA. In California architects are required to pass continuing education courses in accessibility in order to maintain our licenses. I used to think this was a bit silly, but when I see buildings like this celebrated and then exposed as poorly functioning and tangibly discriminatory, I understand the wisdom of the California law. Imagine spending an extraordinary sum to build a public facility and closing significant portions because they are unusable and even dangerous to many users! And of course there will be litigation. This is not a new law. Many beautiful public libraries have been successfully designed and built since the ADA and state accessibility regulations were passed. What’s the matter with the architects, owner representatives and permitting officials? And the critics, for that matter. Hold feet to the fire!
39
Great design meets the needs of the user while also bringing artistic vision to a space. Great design finds new ways to make a space usable. Great design engages the people in the space and encourages them to stay and enjoy it. This is not great design. It's just a 3-D rendering of a pretty drawing. So sad that they couldn't have done better.
10
Ok, so it may be a landmark and pretentious fail as a library, but let’s look to the future. What function will best fit this structure in a few years (years, because the City isn’t going to make snap decisions at this level)? Same question for hundreds of extinct movie theaters, or great malls eviscerated by Amazon. Not totally a snarky question, as libraries face the digital future in many creative ways.
In very tony Westport, Connecticut, to take a local example, hollowing out the main hall of a well-used and well-funded library resulted in a great space for new functions, one of which is as a lecture hall; others include a media lab, maker-space and so forth. Books on paper, while not gone, now represent their current share of library purpose.
On the other hand, the place never was a sop to creative (read, loony) architecture, and remains, even just updated, a large rectilinear box with easily navigated and understood internals.
6
@Marat1784
The Queens Library system is very busy and serves millions of patrons every year. It's in no danger of being hollowed out. And libraries have long embraced digital services and served as community spaces - providing eBooks, free WiFi, computers for public use, lecture halls and auditoriums, etc. The argument that "the Internet has made libraries obsolete" is very old and tired and absolutely inaccurate. It's often made by those who haven't stepped into a library recently.
11
@Marat1784
I reckon it's going to be a public library in a few years. Did the City say something different?
2
Those children's bleacher seats having a glass partition shown in the photo - without the presence of those partitions they ARE a risk.
I believe these concerns would have been present 10 years ago. And 30 years ago, too. Anyone with knowledge of child behavior would have recognized it.
I'm curious who approved the designs - did they think they were just looking at pretty pictures?
11
I live in a Cesar Pelli designed apt complex that was designed and built in th 1980s before George HW Bush signed into law the Americans with Disability Act. While the design was ahead of its time environmentally (basement parking garage covered with a water retaining garden), it only had stairs and not ramps to exit the podium to get to the pool and street, making it necessary for those who cannot use stairs to summon someone to operate a small exterior elevator. By 2010, ideas of universal accessibility were not secret and should have been a requirement for any public facility. I'm not sure if this is the case today, but it is essential to allow full participation by those with disabilities in public life. Even if not required in the proposal process, the architects' excuses set forth in this article are lame.
Good design and universal accessibility should be synonymous.
14
The photo of the multilevel library and stairs kicked in my fear of heights which would cause difficulty managing the stairs.
Those issues together would make me hug the rail all the way up to each level, focusing on every single step.
I'm not disabled in a physical sense but I do have limitations and this library would be a problem for me. Anyone with similar issues would consider this library a daunting challenge.
And to let kids loose on those stairs...no way.
16
Now imagine doing that with an armload of books.
2
The emphasis was never about books--but looks, to flatter the conceits of the privileged set who spend their days preening at billion dollar auction sales. It's a wanna-be Guggenheim palmed off as a library. May I suggest turning the beast into a "free-climbing wall," until the statute of limitations allow its repurposing as (wink, wink) an art gallery. The few niches reserved for books will make excellent toeholds.
15
There are consultants specializing in the field of accessibility, that are usually engaged whenever a significant public building is being planned and built. Accessibility of parking, entrances, hallways, meeting rooms, bathrooms, collections and meeting areas is level one of planning because it affects not only the permently or temporarily disabled , but also safe access by children and the elderly. It also indirectly impacts crowd management when there are large numbers of people using the building at the same time. So this is a learning experience and hopefully many others who are involved in planning and development of publicly funded buildings will benefit by learning the changes that have become necessary for this building (and are more expensive when done as a remediation)
3
@GY "So this is a learning experience"? Based on his comments in the article, architect McVoy hasn't learned anything from this public building fiasco.
2
I built one library and renovated another one. I know that if you let the architect have the final say, you will have a building with problems. I am absolutely certain of that. Every conversation I've had with other library directors comes to the same conclusion. Most architects will NOT listen to the people who actually will be using building. You have to fight them through the whole process. By being aggressive during the renovation, I got almost everything we needed. In the case of the few battles I lost, we are having problems. We are going to have to replace the furniture with the light colored seats in only about 2 years or have them reupholstered. They just want something that looks good in the photos.
109
@sjs I can imagine what it looks like. Probably like my tractor, excellent for growing food, but as the neighbors sniff, "definitely not a Ferrari."
4
@sjs - you're correct! I work in a very busy office building with lots of visitors. The redesign for the Main Lobby is gorgeous, but the carpet is a very light silver grey...... Yikes.... Not so good.
9
41million dollars to build a public library? And you wonder what’s wrong with local government and why the NYC public school system is bankrupt?
Here a perfect example of ego and politicians building monuments to themselves.
Well folks - form follows function- and this building fails the basic test - Nice views, but you can’t get to the books? so what’s so “gorgeous” about that.
18
@Steven In a city where $40m condos are sold every month , the price for this facility is bupkis!
3
"Queens Library officials responded that librarians could simply retrieve those books for disabled patrons, a solution in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and noted that the first of the four terraces did have elevator access."
One of the pleasures of going to a library is to BROWSE. Wouldl the librarians be able to do this for someone who was unable to use stairs?? What were the architects thinking ? Or were they thinking??
66
My thoughts exactly! I guess instead,they expected people to bring a list of books for the librarian to retrieve and that we would be fine with that. Browsing,as you say, is one of the absolute pleasures of choosing a book. Sad!
11
@RichardM
And if you believe they city will hire sufficient staff to retrieve all those books--one by one since they won't get onto crowded elevators--then I have a library to sell you cheap.
6
@RichardM Couldn't agree more about the joy of browsing library (or bookstore) shelves. Some of my happiest times were spent perusing the shelves of the Univ. of Maryland and SUNY-Binghamton libraries. Sure, the floors were essentially windowless and cramped, but oh so quiet and full of discovery.
6
It was obsolete before finished. Physical libraries are going the way of the dinosaur. Smaller buildings with quiet rooms, WiFi, and computers for those who do not have one will serve the future.
2
@Jim
And you are basing your claim that physical libraries are going the way of the dinosaur on what evidence? I don't know about where you live but where I live libraries are more popular than ever and it's not because they're smaller buildings with quiet rooms.
25
@Jim That is not the case. Libraries in NY City particularly in Queens have high number of attendees and circulation. This is one area of the country where books are friends to many, and libraries are a prized and valued local resource.
18
I dont know about your experiences, but my local library is well attended and isn't devolving into clusters of rooms with WiFi.
9
The library should put up a sign making it mandatory to FOLD UP your stroller while leaving it parked. I'm surprised that the caregivers who left the strollers in the picture didn't bother to do this.
Otherwise - leave all strollers outside in decent weather and in the lobby area - folded in bad weather. PS78 which is nearby has this policy and the many day-cares in the area make you fold up your stroller. I have kids and think us parents and other caregivers need to be mindful of our use of space in public areas.
11
@Vgg
Another problem is that strollers today are HUGE compared to what they used to be. It must be a challenge to designate space for strollers without knowing how much bulkier they could get in the future.
2
When I first read about the opening of the library in the NYT I saw a lot of stairs and surmised that it could be a problem.
The design of the building is unusual but not a masterpiece. From the picture shown in this article it doesn't look very inviting. Is that the front or back of the building? Why such a tiny doorway? There doesn't seem much to entice you into the building at the pedestrian level. (The picture doesn't show the other sides of the building, so I could be wrong.)
It's nice to have views but the function of a library is very interior oriented. Plus, designing for safety, functionality, and the handicapped is a serious
flaw in this day and age. I would think those things would be a given to consider even ten years ago.
From what I can see, the building is charm free and lacks any sense of humor or whimsy. But, at the very least, there is still a library. However flawed it may be.
11
@DR Part of the beauty of a building is how it is experienced from the inside... the flaw seems to be that the views and position where a great consideration, but the actual practical user experience was not well anticipated...
4
@DR
"The design of the building is unusual..." Too often this is what architects go for: the unusual. This is in furtherance of their greed for elitist prizes rather than their dedication to the good of the client.
1
Must all things in life be modified so that all may use?
Is that why I can't use the stairs, most places, any longer?
Should places like Angel's Landing be closed?
If public accommodations are meant to serve the public, shouldn't some places be set up to serve those that seek difficult to access and quirky space? Must all places be set up to be available for all- all the time, or can there be places that are for all- just some here and some there?
3
@Robert
The short answer is Yes, public buildings should be equally accessible to all. End of.
37
@Robert No. You cannot tax someone to construct a public building they cannot use because some people thought it would be "fun" and "quirky" to limit accessibility.
Don't get me wrong, I love "difficult" and "quirky" spaces. But that fun I get from them? Cannot outweigh someone's physical need to use the space. Not in a public library, that's for certain.
24
@23FenwayFan That eliminates all places to climb and play, doesn't it? If all must have access to participate, at all times, then everything is reduced to the lowest (most boring) equation. Why must all be a question of subtraction and not addition?
2
“Our goal now is to make sure it is responding to the needs of the public.”
That is what is supposed to be the primary focus of architects who work on public buildings.
I cannot believe this article. Someone should require that Mr. McVoy, Mr. Holl, Mr. Walcott and other major decision-makers in this project spend six months having to cope with sitting in a wheelchair when they leave their residences and go to work or do shopping or go to the theater or a concert.
46
I am sure they have provided large elevators to accommodate the disabled. I cannot imagine anyone in the wheelchair wanting to climb up or down this many stairs. Imagine the liability!
3
Per the article there is one elevator. One.
4
@Margo And judging by the photo showing the elevator doors beyond the stroller parking area, the elevator is small and someone in a wheelchair might not be able to reach it anyway. Not if they have to navigate past the strollers.
I work in a MA library which opened in 1900. We recently received an emergency manual which discussed how to help patrons with mobility issues in case of a fire or lockdown. No one is to use the 1 elevator, and there are narrow staircases. I can't believe this would be an issue in a building built over 100 years later. This new building sounds like a real challenge for the people actually using it both its patrons and staff. The designers and architects failed at their most important task.
30
Libraries, at their best, are places that provide access to all for a wide range of opportunities: from internet browsing, free cultural events and classes, and of course, books, periodicals, and movies. The Queens Library is the largest public library system serving the most diverse county in the nation, and has often been a leader in ensuring this critical access. Which makes the accessibility issues of this building, and the (at best) cavalier attitude of its architect, all the more disappointing. In our increasingly stratified society, libraries are almost magical - free and equal access to a world of information, with wonderfully helpful librarians to shepherd you along. By limiting this access to a huge segment of the community, by not being guided by the magic that libraries can bring to everyday life, and by not making librarians and patrons an integral part of the planning process, Queens Library has misstepped to the detriment of us all.
34
This story reminds me of the building of the new National Library in Paris: the model selected to build looks like four glass towers, like open books, surrounding a rectangle of trees.
After the glass towers which were to house the books were built, the Library determined that to house books in the glass towers would cause the sunlight to act on the ink in the books and destroy the books. Sometimes a leap too far.
13
Two notes:
1. The NYT editors might consider a standard requiring architecture reviews to evaluate (or at least mention) accessibility in public projects. DItto for architectural association standards/guidelines for public buildings.
2. The USA led the world in providing for access for disabled people. Many countries have since followed our example. In the age of Trump, it provides a safe topic for polite discussion abroad. Let's take care to ensure that this building's design is an aberration in an otherwise outstanding record.
8
As I read the article I assumed this library had been built on a cliff and the architects were challenged with a nearly impossible site. Turns out they just over complicated the thing. Why would you build such a jumble on a perfectly flat, accessible lot?
14
Libraries should be convenient for the patrons to use not an overpriced bourgeois architectural statement.
29
Libraries are not built so people can have great views. They are supposed to be built for reading books, browsing to find books you might not have thought of reading. It is a silent adventure. The building is great from the outside and strangely chaotic on the inside. I love libraries and they should not be turned into tourist attractions.
20
That being said. It should be possible to build a beautiful public space that doesn’t have these accessibility issues.
5
@LH
Should be but in this case wasn't.
1
I agree with those asking where were the front line children's librarians in the planning process. I will add one more question. Why were the parents of toddlers and young children not invited to offer input after viewing the renderings? If the architects try to say they were included, then they clearly didn't listen.
23
@OutNProud Don't be naive. Once an architect has achieved international fame, librarians' opinions have no weight, and even those with authority to require certain regulations to be followed- step back and let the famous have their way. I say, "shame on Holl and his arrogant design for this library.
9
No one who isn't disabled should use the elevators. That by itself might solve the bottleneck, and can only be good for the health of library patrons.
5
@Kim
And how do you propose enforcing or testing for this? Not a solution.
5
As it too often happens in cases like this, architects and administrators don’t listen to the staff on the front lines. Form wins over function, and the library users are the ones who suffer. It would have been cheaper in the long run to listen to the librarians from the beginning.
18
This is why you need to involve user experience designers as early as possible in the process, as well as solicit constant input from the public and from community advocates. It's nice and commendable to make a grand architectural statement, but a library's first and utmost priority is to serve its public -- ALL of its public. Anything that gets in the way of that mission must be rethought.
17
Did architects have any or enough conversations with the patrons, did they listen and if not why not? Had they ever toured or used libraries themselves?Anyone who has ever navigated a story hour traffic jam of strollers, small children, diaper bags or occasional disasters or patrons trying to use a coat check in an art gallery or museum realizes space has to be planned. Watching seniors or disabled queue for elevators in a public building or even bunch up around escalators in subways not to mention line up for women's bathrooms in any venue knows a question must be answered. "How will the public use this space?" That any building no matter how breathtaking could be considered a triumph with only one elevator suggests a yardstick that needs recalibrating. Arrogance is when someone's personal worth is considered more important than the needs of others. They were designing a multi-use building. It seems the architects have in-house examination [How did we let this happen?] and clean-up work to do. One elevator boggles the mind. At the least this beautiful cart was before the horse.
15
Why did the city approve the plans of a building that was inaccessible to the disabled? Don't building codes mandate that new construction include accessible features? A building this large with only one elevator and multiple terraces and steps? Whoever it is in the NY building department that approved these plans should be asked to explain why. I hope there wasn't any undue pressure from outside influences to get these plans pushed through.
23
When I want to browse books and enjoy the delights of finding something you never knew existed, I go to the Strand on Broadway and 12th. Several million books all totally accessible. (I've never worked there; just saying).
11
I lived in a cottage design ed by a famous architect. It was a famous site for adoring students to visit. It was a nightmare to try to live in.
11
During the planning stages, did the architects ever present their ideas to the library staff who actually serve patrons in that branch?
As a retired librarian, I’d guess not.
The wildly smart, outspoken librarians I know would have given those architects an earful and then shredded the plans for use in the hamster cage in the children’s area.
49
This is what happens when architects want to create sculpture instead of functional buildings. Practical considerations, such as accessibility and safety, are the first features to be sacrificed, when they should be the primary concerns. For years I worked in a building designed by a very famous American architect (or his associates) that was and is a monument to his ego, but replete with oddly shaped interior spaces dictated by the weird shape of the exterior, with an impractical and wasteful layout and inadequate storage, sound isolation, room acoustics, work areas, HVAC system, etc., etc. Most architects don't have to work in the buildings they design, so they have no experience or incentive or, I daresay, interest in producing a workable, efficient, and useable structure suitable for the activities it was intended to house.
23
I am a librarian and over the years have found that function frequently follows form in grand library design. Libraries are wonderful, dynamic facilities that serve all members of a community - the young, the old, the able, the disabled, the wealthy, the poor, and everyone in between. But the key here is that the *libraries serve the population*. When I read about beautiful edifices that ignore significant portions of their patron populations, I wonder how the inherent function of the building was forgotten, or worse, ignored.
58
It looks like an IKEA for books. Hideous.
12
@Nan I like the looks of it, from the outside. The inside seems, well unusable; hideous
1
All IKEAs are fully accessible.
4
I wonder how unusable the architects designed the restrooms. I assume there actually are restrooms in the building....by assuming that, am I being too generous toward the architects and politicians who wasted the public's money?
10
A $41m vanity project using public funds. Shameful.
19
Mr. McVoy sounds incredibly arrogant.
“What the lawyers believe is safe or not is a constantly evolving thing in this society,” he said. “Five years ago, they wouldn’t have even thought to block off that area, or even two years ago.”
Did he really say that? He's claiming he needs lawyers to address a basic common-sense safety issue in the design, or that this is somehow the fault of lawyers?
Repeat- incredible arrogance.
157
@Jack Lemay
Could not agree more!
6
Another Steven Holl project that is so conceptually out there that it forgot there might be human beings involved some day. It amazes me that Holl continues to receive both high praise and cream commissions. I’ll never forget the narrative of his disastrous MIT dorm project. It was all about “porosity”, an intellectual dodge aimed at justifying a truly hideous gridded behemoth. My profession is littered with phony builder-poets who get away with these scams due to their deep ties to academia, and the circular back-slapping of the published elite.
438
@Mags Couldn't agree more. Once architects become "internationally famous", they should be restricted to sculpting in clay/wood or marble. Holl will live to regret this sort of arrogant practice.
29
@Mags. Well, Simmons Hall at MIT is pretty distinctive, but the often air-headed architectural community tend to praise novelty over function. Heck there’s even a Gehry nightmare at the other end of the campus, and adventurousness in architecture has long been a feature of this campus. That said, and speaking as an alum, most Tech students would be perfectly at ease in subterranean metal cages along the lines of sub-par prison cells, as long as the telecom was solid and nobody cared if you defaced things. The Metal Sponge, as it is affectionally known, has a ball pit, and for hundreds perched at different places on The Spectrum, a ball pit is a really good thing.
24
@Mags --Mr. Holl should be tasked with spending a week in a wheelchair and maneuvering around the city. It might bring him down to earth a little.
68
New York has long been a catastrophe for accessibility. For decades it has flouted the ADA mostly so it could keep its little patronage operation going in the schools. The Essex Market subway stop is inaccessible and this after spending millions in taxpayer money. Somehow, after all the frosting on the pretty little cake, the MTA ran out of money to simply make it work for everyone.
It is truly, deeply shameful.
16
It's pretty obvious to me that no acting librarians were included as part of the design process for this building. HOW could this happen? A stunning and shameful oversight, resulting in having to rehab the spaces, now.
18
So they didn't have children, strollers or disabled people ten years ago? oh sorry - disabled people only needed token attention back then? What town was this? I'm so confused...
59
For Pete's sake!! The public library is one of the few refuges for the old and infirm to enjoy for entertainment and social connection. This is an epic fail.
68
The best I can say for this library is that it is an illustration of “each to his own taste”. In my view it’s a pretentious eyesore heralded by architects and their admirers in the chattering class who don’t live in the real world. And they don’t seem to know or care that the real world is populated by, among others, the elderly, disabled, adults with toddlers in strollers, and people who actually come to a library to peruse and read books. You don’t need a monstrously pricey library for a “view” or a tourist attraction. You can go to the top of the Empire State Building, or just stand on the Queens waterfront and look at the Manhattan skyscrapers.
12
@ForThebe
But if all I do is go to the waterfront at look across at Manhattan, who will be able to profit? Oh wait, this is NYC, someone will find /create a way.
3
Chris McVoy, a senior partner at Steven Holl Architects, the firm that designed the building, said that too much emphasis was being placed on the inaccessibility of the terraces, which he called a “small wrinkle in an incredibly successful project.”
Really, Chris? Too much emphasis? This is absolutely infuriating.
83
Looks good, doesn't work; its architecture. I'm an architect and have seen many high concepts take priority over usability.
The key phrase that you might write about more is "Universal Design". There are alot of people who would welcome an accessible design. I'm sure including librarians who have to reshelve books.
39
Architecture (and Design) is not the Fine Arts. Keep it functional!
13
Let me guess, the architect doesn't use a library nor knows anyone who has difficulty with stairs. Seriously, how did such a project even get approved without appropriate accessibility in place, including making the areas safe for all--the steep bleachers for the children's space, place for strollers ... Where were the City, the Board? Were the librarians or the targeted (and/or current) users consulted? Or, did the "powers that be" already know what would work best? While it's wonderful having an inviting building especially a public library, if it's functionally inaccessible/unusable it's useless and a waste of money.
41
Exactly. How many people had to sign off on the design before this building was constructed. And in the 21st Century, no one thought that many stairs with only one elevator might be a problem.
9
I’m all for creating beautiful buildings, but our public buildings must also serve the public. High bleachers for small children? One elevator for the entire building? Shelving accessible ONLY by stairs? This building was designed and built in the 21st century. These issues should not be afterthoughts.
83
access for people in wheelchairs, the disabled, and child safety was well- known to all architects by 2010.
Disney stores were built with ramps, Barnes and Nobles had low rise bleachers in their children's book areas.
most major department stores had multiple elevators and escalators.
58
About the acoustics: It is said you can hear childiren's excitied voices throughout the building.
This can be fixed. Sound-absorbent carpeting. Acoustic ceiling tiles. Either acoustic wall treatments, or draperies. Drapes on the windows (all that glass is harmful to the books, anyway). And maybe do something about the rotunda.
Will it happen? Eventually, over the years. Meanwhile people will avoid the place.
5
well no. fixing sound bleed is not as easy as acoustic tile and sound absorbent material. you’re forget: sound reverberates not only off walla, but it also travels through hvac ducts, elevator shafts, the space above ceiling tiles, etc. and as a music professor at a university, nothing is worse that trying to read in a space where there is unwanted sound
17
Yet another victim of star-architecture. I still cannot get over what happened to the beloved original Hayden Planetarium at the New Museum of Natural History. The original building, a beauty on its own, housed a dark and magical space that ignited the imagination. Then it was replaced by a star-architecture box that took that dark magic out. To go there is almost like going to a well lit mall with some interesting "way finding" signage and installations along the way. The new building, however, does look pretty good at night. That's our celebrity culture, right?
32
@Ozma Not only did they remove the beautiful Hayden building, they also removed most of the science from the presentations.
11
The Hayden’s dark mystery created scientists, astronomers, and wonder. When I was five or so, I knew it was a temple. The new glass box might do a little of the same, but I somehow doubt it.
5
This is where we are in so much of New York City architecture: Form triumphs over function.
12
@Kevin
I'd say that it's fame (architectural fame) that triumphs. Once again our celebrity culture rules, even though the emperor has no clothes.
8
Architect here.
The bare minimum ADA compliance in such a public building in regards to accessibility is a shame. It was not a feature, more of an afterthought.
54
@MM Ditto, architect. Unfortunately the output(s) of "famous" architects are a mess, not to mention they usually ignore reality of purpose. Such buildings are icons to the designer, and rarely work for the purposes originally set forth in the program requirements. Schools of architecture fall prey to the direction these buildings represent. Fame for the architect, and increased arrogance for the profession.
9
That everyone seems to need to feel like a major work of architecture is built for them, personally, seems out of touch. Like a book or a song, maybe it just doesn’t work for you.
I’m glad that people today have far more access than those in previous generations enjoyed, but how much is it going to cost to install those extra elevators? What kind of space requirements are we looking at if every stack needs to be a maximum of 54 inches high to comply with wheelchair reach? Designing for access is important but maybe we have reached too far at this point. Like every pendulum the swing should stop and swing back a bit now and then.
I’d like to see us, as a society, able to evaluate provision of accessibility countered by other worthy considerations such as design, beauty, the environment, and even cost.
2
@Bob Santos This is a publicly funded building, and its purpose is to serve the public. If someone wants to spend $41.5 million of their personal wealth to build an architecturally groundbreaking private library, they are free to do the bare legal minimum in terms of accessibility. Your money, your priorities!
But if you are taxing people to create a public service, those people need to be able to access the space they paid for. Beauty and design cannot counter accessibility in a public library, period.
31
@Bob Santos It's a public library. It needs to work for as many members of the public as possible.
It is also a building where its primary purpose is in its function, so if it doesn't actually function properly, it has failed in its purpose.
It's not there to look cute; it's there to be a library.
3
“It’s a gorgeous building, and people are reveling in both the aesthetic nature of it and the functional use of the building,” Mr. Walcott said. “Our goal now is to make sure it is responding to the needs of the public.”
Shouldn't the needs of the public have been considered first?
124
When the architect in your story was quoted, "I never thought..." it rang a bell with me.
Last year, our town was planning to build a new elementary school. The architects who were hired claimed they were experts on building schools, but their design was riddled with problems for kids with disabilities. For example, the therapy rooms were down three flights of stairs and across the building from some of the classrooms, so if a kid using a walker tried to get to the therapy room, by the time they arrived they would have run out of time for therapy! Similarly, the architects thought putting sound effects students could play while walking through a hallway was a fun idea, until I pointed out it would be a nightmare for the kids on the autism spectrum.
The thing that I found so shocking was that the architects admitted they hadn't even thought of these issues. It's not difficult for true professionals to think about the needs of all people when designing a building but it doesn't seem to happen, which is why public hearings on designs for public buildings are essential. By the way, the community voted down the money to build the school. When they try again, I'll be at the hearings to make sure these professionals have thought through Universal Design!
60
@Chocomummy
The same thing happens in long-term care homes for the elderly. Designers, owners and administrators of these 'homes' just don't consider the true needs of the population they're supposed to be serving.
15
This isn't the only public building - or even new library building - that looks lovely yet doesn't serve its users. The newish Brooklyn Heights library also suffers from similar problems.
2
Unfortunately it's so typical that library administrators want to build a building that will attract attention. But they often don't think about how the building will work or function. The problem is that they are administrators and not librarians.
Whatever Queens Library administration ok'ed this project should be relieved of their jobs. The architects, too, should be blacklisted.
18
@Bob -we don't know what the architects actually provided as part of this process.
@Bob And the (architects) should be made to return every penny paid to them by the city.
2
The most important problem with the building is revealed by this statement from the article:
"New Yorkers — as well as tourists — are visiting the library, the most expensive Queens Public Library branch ever built, to admire the views. So are architecture buffs"
The most important problem is that the government officials wasted an enormous amount of taxpayers money building a monument to make themselves feel important when they were supposed to be building a library for the public.
Even the tables inside were chosen without regard to the people who are to use them....very sharp pointed corners on tables in a building that is to be used much by children.
The architectural "wonder" is a testament to the arrogance and conceit of its architects and the politicians who squandered the public's money on it.
71
When I was in architecture school, a man came to talk to us about accessibility and the ADA. He was a Vietnam veteran in a wheelchair and talked about how for many years as a wheelchair user in NYC, he'd been forced to wheel his chair in traffic because few sidewalks had curb cuts.
I think every architect, as part of his or her training, should be given a wheelchair and a destination on the other side of town.
224
@Amv hard to aspire to greatness in design if you spend a disproportionate amount of time on the needs of 2% of the building’s end users...
4
@AJ
Those 2% also matter. And we will all be elderly someday (hopefully).
20
@AJ if you think that way, of course, but if you think everyone is equal in their inquality, nothing is "disproportionate".
11
"“To be honest, we hadn’t thought, ‘O.K. we have to provide an exactly equivalent browsing experience ...’"
That's bad coming from a senior partner at an architect firm, but what's worse and more concering is that no one else along the way thought about it. What part of 'public' library do they not understand? This isn't a structure that can be designed like Mt. Everest where only the fittest get to enjoy the view from the top of the world.
125
Another apparent example of an architect who is not a user of the resulting space who failed to actually talk to users. Luckily one of our friends is an architect of 35 years who actually uses mock ups and now VR to work with the actual potential users of the space and has a growing practice. The other thing she does is constantly visit buildings all over the world where users are happy with the design and incorporates those elements into her work. This library was designed by a tone deaf architect.
59
Please, who is the progressive architect (human-centered, using VR, etc)?
They built a work of art, the library was just the secondary function of the building. Common sense was totally lacking in the project. Reading this I recall childhood memories of my disabled Mother sitting on countless benches, while the rest of the family went around the parts of the building she could not navigate. The fact in 2019 disabled access was so overlooked is sad.
93
Local government should ensure public buildings are built with public safety and accessibility in mind, and quickly/ efficiently too! It doesn’t seem like the long wait for this building was due to the architectural firm being held accountable. I actually recall reading that one obstacle of many in building this was waiting for a shipment from Spain for special glass?
Now remember, there wasn’t much to this area ten years ago- just a handful of very tall buildings filled with single people looking for a city view. There were hardly any grocery stores. The vision for families and people of all abilities moving there was second to attracting money and development (read: Amazon). This isn’t the only politically driven project in the area, and clearly money and power get in the way of success.
Queens Library has other new and fully accessible buildings without such problems, and are now left to the task of fixing the ones from this one. Where was city oversight to protect this from happening? I hope they provide more funds in the budget to community libraries so they can staff them safely!
8
I'm an architect and this building is beautiful when viewed from across the river, or from the park, or from almost any vantage point.
But when I went to visit after it opened, I had to tell my young son to stop looking at books on the shelves because he was in the way of a stream of people coming through--this building is almost all circulation and just doesn't work unless it's almost empty.
As for the accessibility issues, they are an embarrassment. It's a new building, not a retrofit of a 100-year-old library.
These are rookie mistakes, guys. Come on.
418
Somebody filled their pockets! Who cares how pretty. Useless if unused!
24
@S Mitchell
Is it even pretty?
1
All that money and it leaks, only one elevator, some areas not accessible, sounds like the poster child for government incompetence.
23
“ Chris McVoy, a senior partner at Steven Holl Architects, the firm that designed the building, said... “doesn’t mean it’s a flaw in the design. It’s an evolution.”
.
Just. Wow. There’s a saying: “give someone a Mercedes; he thinks he owns the road.” Let me be the first architect to say “Give an architect a Black Cape; he thinks the codes don’t apply to him.” Changing standards is NOT an excuse to ignore standards. I have a project underway right now that had to be shifted 7’ on its site due to a change in a planned development ordinance while the job was on hold.
.
I’ll also point out: this never would have flown in Texas. We actually are very serious about accessibility: perhaps because our Governor is in a wheelchair. I hope Steven Holl Architects Glassell School of Art in Houston got and passed its accessibility inspection.
42
@ZAW The Glassell School has lots of stairs and a large tall bleacher section also but it's mainly in a waiting area for parents to pick up their kids which are mostly older than toddler age. It has lots of hard surfaces too but it is functional, dramatic and pretty, more so on the outside.
1
@Christine In Texas, owners are required to hire a Registered Accessibility Specialist to do an inspection on their building that then gets filed with the State. They’re looking for level-ness at accessable routes, mounting heights on toilet fixtures, and the like. I hope the museum’s facility people took care of that.
2
Browsing the stacks is essential to readers. Yes, someone will get you a book if you request it. But that's NOT THE SAME as being able to peruse the holdings to which every other patron has access. Like going to a restaurant and being unable to have a menu presented, Yes, thank you, peanut butter and jelly, and by the way are there more Simenons. What a terrible oversight and shame for older readers especially who have read for decades and know what they want to browse among.
113
@Pavel Gromnic
Yes, exactly! Being able to browse is the main thing that makes a library or bookstore different from buying online.
74
@Pavel Gromnic - at the nyc 42nd st library, my 12-y-o daughters were told the same advice from the librarian:
books not on display can be requested.
admittedly they don't have the space while renovations are being done, but the ignorant and negative attitude of the librarian was obvious.
i was amazed to read it repeated here. apparently the lack of thought is endemic to the local libraries.
8
@Pavel Gromnic
Shelves that can be browsed is actually an American innovation (early 1800's). In Europe, all stacks were closed. Now most libraries in the world follow the American model. This looks like another case of America going backwards.
Libraries for the People.
16
There is absolutely no excuse for failing to design to the ADA. None.
102
They did design within ADA compliance, which is not as generous as one expects. I do agree that accessibility is lacking here. I'm disabled myself.
6
An architectural triumph that has everything wrong with it...as well as being an eyesore. Once again the peoples' money put to good use.
11
I’ve been an architect for 30 years and spent most of my time working on public transit where accessibility issues are of paramount importance. For almost all of that time, the mantra has been that if it’s open to the public then its accessible to all the public. Full stop - no exceptions. This is not an “evolving “ concept. Secondly, uncarpeted bleachers that are accessible to toddlers is a situation begging for an ER visit. It’s not about lawyers. Last of all, for a building so obviously dependent on vertical circulation, one elevator seems like a false economy. How useable is the building when the elevator requires maintenance, as elevators do.
I don’t entirely blame the architects. These are such fundamental issues that they should have been flagged by the library’s management. New York has some experience building public libraries.
632
@W Williams
Blame the architects. I've fought battles royal with them. They kept changing the plans and I had to keep changing them back. Architects do not listen to the people who use the building.
49
@W Williams - ALL they had to do was consult with any book store owner, someone who NEEDS customers to survive
27
Oh don’t worry, I’m more than happy to mostly blame the architect - they’re the professional who should be guiding the process. I’m just saying the client has an obligation to be both critical and demanding so they get the building they need, not just the building they want. If there wasn’t a formal review process, involving librarians and public users, shame on the public agency running the project.
48
There needs to be the equivalent of a 'Darwin Award' for architecture that looks beautiful but is a functional failure. This would certainly qualify... In software design a thing called a use case describes how a specific function should be performed -- it would seem the failure here was a mismatch between the needs of the library users and the design. A sad waste of public money. But not unique... There are far too many examples of visual masterpieces that are disasters to use. When will 'form follows function' come back into fashion.
55
Put the fitness titles in the upper floors.
12
“ A small wrinkle in a successful project” . Yeah. Like the city building I work in, renovated 4 years ago. The week we moved in we were invaded by engineers, architects and photographers as the renovation won a prestigious award for sustainability. I imagine no one mentioned that our corner of the building cannot be cooled properly due to some problem with the duct work, or the fact that one of the two elevators is almost always out of service due to inadequate power, or having three stalls in the women’s bathroom for the 40 or more female staff who work there or even the fact that in our office with windows facing east, west and north ALL the electronic shades move as one. Just small wrinkles...
63
“Our goal now is to make sure it is responding to the needs of the public.” -- Shouldn't that have been the goal THEN?
88
Check out the Hunt Library and North Carolina State University if you want to see a technological state of the art library. No stacks. All automated behind a glass wall for viewing. No Dewey Decimal system. And they have their own ice cream.
2
@Leona
NC State is the home of Universal Design with a program run by the architect of universal design and his staff.
Sadly he is deceased and the program went with him .
There are many buildings and homes in the area using his design but he was also quite famous for his work.
1
Tear out the stairs and put in a slow moving escalator with big deep treads and a low rise.
2
@Bruce Rozenblit That won't help people in wheelchairs and those pushing baby carriages!
2
@Bruce Rozenblit good idea. But not in NY, where public escalators (subways, Grand Central Station, etc) seem to break every other day and then take 6 or 8 months to be fixed.
3
It sounds as if appearance was more important than function. Did they talk to any users - librarians, parents, those with special needs? It is a lovely building, but so what?
22
The architects say “To be honest, we hadn’t thought, ‘O.K. we have to provide an exactly equivalent browsing experience,’” ......This will be a new standard for libraries".
Will be a new standard?!? Is this person - an architect - familiar with the ADA?
This is a classic case of where both the architects and the library officials who hired them aren't in touch with the public library user experience. Unfortunately, this happens often, where architects and officials want to create splashy overdone buildings that reinvent the wheel.....enormous, noisy, space-wasting atriums, stairwells with no banisters, lack of seating, inaccessible shelving, poor sight-lines and signage, etc.
In an age where public library funding is precious, and every dollar spent is scrutinized, we need simple, well-built, brightly lit, easy to use library buildings, whose interiors can be reconfigured easily as needs change with the times.
86
With all sensitivity, don’t wheel chair bound people have to ask for help with books from upper shelves anyway? It’s one very small part of what looks to be a great library. I don’t understand the outrage.
9
No, that is not the case. ADA accessible book shelves would be limited to accessible range (side approach) from a wheelchair. And that is not the main issue here. Seems the limited or the lack of (in some areas) accessible circulation inside the library seems to be the problem. The pompous (liable?) attitude of the architect towards this need is definitely misplaced.
18
@Jeff Jeff. I hope I'm not patronizing when I ask how old you might be, or for how long you have been reading or whether you frequent libraries regularly. Older people, and people with physical limitations need access to the full stacks, the complete holding and all there is in a library. Just because I can't move as fast as a younger person or without as much pain, I shouldn't have to stay in my chair and stop complaining. My taxes paid for this as much as yours and I WANT IT ALL!
52
@Jeff So if people cannot access the top shelves on their own, they should not expect to access the lower shelves, either? Really?
8
Despite the good intentions, the architect should have foreseen the basic functions of the space in more realistic terms. Issues of accessibility and function have been around for decades, this is not an "evolution" in the near term. The interior of the library will now undoubtedly become a train wreck of added accessibility features, railings, glass panels, stroller parking, lifts, etc. Too bad, it all could have been foreseen by spending a few weeks visiting small town and larger urban libraries across the country.
22
@James L. I think the architect's intention was to garner as much praise from his elitist peers and as much public money as possible.
6
I was there the first week, hoping to find a new space to occasionally ferry over to from Manhattan to write. While the views are great and the building architecturally interesting, the open multilevel interior is one huge echo chamber. You can hear children squealing, crying and playing from almost anywhere in the library, making it difficult to do any sort of serious work or quiet reading. It sounds more like a Gymboree than a library, and everyone (even librarians) does not talk in a soft voice anymore. What ever happened to library etiquette?
Yes, there's a small cramped "Quiet Room" tucked away in a corner, but inside you can still hear muffled echos of the throngs outside.
I was planning to stay the full day but left after a couple of hours. Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to work there.
177
Wonder if the architectural firm consulted with boots on the ground library staff in an on-going and significant manner throughout the planning and design phases or did they contain their discussions to meetings with board and administration? That said, no children have come to harm in the amphitheater seating installed for them in my city's 10 year old children's library. The children in Queens will be fine and kudos to the library for re-configuring the space for new fiction which needs to be on one, easily accessible level (and as close to the check out as possible). Anyway, these things get will get worked out.
5
I wonder if people would say the same thing of the marvelous and grand staircases at Grand Central. Sure, times have changed and accessibility is an important value, but beautiful designs and accessible features can go hand-in-hand. A staircase and an elevator can coexist peacefully.
4
@CP "A staircase and an elevator can coexist peacefully." Only if the elevator stops at all the levels.
14
@CP Grand Central Station was finished in 1913, when accessibility issues were almost unspoken of. Beauty and functionality for all MUST go hand in hand.
4
The children’s stairs are overblown. They built an even larger set in our new middle school as an area where 80+ kids could have a presentation. Yes, if you do a Superman at the top you will be badly hurt. Same with any multi-story staircase. The large step depth makes it unlikely you’d fall more than two steps unless intentionally rolling. If your kid can’t handle, appropriate supervision is required. They should have tried it for a year instead of immediately giving up.
Elevator plan is outrageous. With book carts, outside events with catering/logistics, construction, strollers, disabled families, you need a lot more even if every single fully mobile person uses the stairs.
38
Two decades it took to get this boondoggle with accessibility problems? All for only $41.5 million. Meanwhile, not that far away, chunks of concrete and bolts fall down from the 7 train trestle onto people.
34
@Smotri
Thank you.
1
File this under Chronicles of the Nanny State...
Architects have been including these amphitheater style seats in public buildings for maybe fifteen years... (I’ve seen them at Cooper Union, Cornell University, Tate Modern, and Berkeley’s BAM/PFA.) When did we decide they were too unsafe to be hospitable for children?
In any other country, parents would be held accountable for their children in a public space, the public space wouldn’t be held accountable for a negligent parent’s children. It’s emblematic of the low standard we hold ourselves to in America.
I’m a lawyer. I’ve read about it. If you bring your kids to a public pool when you know they can’t swim, you can sue the pool. But as far as I’m concerned, if you let your kid out of your sight and they then face-plant off an eighteen inch wooden parapet, the only person who should be sued is you...
Regarding the fiction section being inaccessible to differently-abled individuals... yeah, that’s appalling. Steven Holl is one of the great living architects but when I think of his works (his intervention at the Nelson-Atkins is perhaps *the* great building of the 21st Century...) accessibility doesn’t come to mind. The city knew what they were getting. The library was in development for two decades. That we’re now placing the blame on the architects speaks to the city’s inability to take accountability for a building it commissioned, over which it saw construction, and which it will be paying for for decades.
21
If, when looking at his work, accessibility doesn’t come to mind, then, Ipso facto, he is not one of the greatest living architects.
62
@W Williams Then you also might want eliminate Frank Lloyd Wright, Palladio, Louis Kahn, Renzo Piano, Tadao Ando, Gae Aulenti, Jean Nouvel, Louis Sullivan, Robert Venturi, Thomas Jefferson...
They all use stairs...
1
I don’t understand your comment. All architects use stairs but in public buildings you must provide alternatives and all the architects who are still practicing do this. My point is that architects don’t deserve to be called great unless they fulfill the social obligations of architecture. By the way, I’ve always thought FLW’s use of a grand staircase at the Guggenheim to be particularly artistic.
6
Another example of a building built just to "wow" other architects rather than to be useful. I also think that it is ugly.
52
Seems everyone involved in the design threw practicality and universal access under the bus of appearance and flash. This building doesn't function yet is being lauded for its looks. Shame on the architects, NYC Library, and NY Times design reviewer.
82
What a horrible waste of money. A public library is supposed to be a building for ALL to enjoy. Accessibility should have been priority. These architects failed. Better architects would have been able to make a both beautiful AND accessible library.
487
@Christina -- Perhaps holding them accountable this time might allow their vision to expand to the real, lived-in world.
9
@Christina I agree, but this is typical: the famous and pricey modern architect is focused on his artistic design concept, but often ignores the practical uses for which the building is supposedly designed. For example, the Guggenheim MOMA may be a great idea, but because of the off-plane spiral requires that special bases for sculpture be rebuilt for every piece in every show, and the largest pieces have to be brought in through the huge front window, and the visitors have to retrace the whole spiral if they want to look again at any special work of art displayed at the top and bottom of the spiral; or the Yale College built to great acclaim at the end o the 1950s, where the world-famous architect omitted closets in the student bedrooms; or, here in Baltimore, where a local branch of the Pratt Library was rebuilt about ten years ago, with a broad stair which took up huge amounts of the very limited space, so the book shelving rows had to be set so close together that only one person could fit at a time to browse. For a usable library, easy access to all the books, and places where the user can pause to riffle through pages while selecting, is PRIMARY, especially for the children's section. I can just see a bunch of 6th graders raising hob on those tiered bench seats. Why is "The Architectural Concept" so important to the architect that s/he ignores or brushes aside the practical uses of the spaces? Were no LIBRARIANS consulted?
24
@Anne Laidlaw
A copy of this article and your comments should be required, signed - off reading for all architects a d city officials throughout the da++ world. I kinda understand art and architecture but jeez.
4
I have a daughter with cerebral palsy, and asking for help is NOT demeaning
Get over it
8
@Ben M
I agree that asking for help shouldn't be considered demeaning. But when you ask for help it's because you need it and should get it. Do you really think this monstrosity will have the staff to get the books your daughter would like to browse or borrow? How long will she need to wait?
6
@farhorizons Yes, how long indeed? I still haven't read the part about hiring more staff and paying them a decent salary for years to come. Did I miss it? Got my library degree in the Carter era and I have never seen any benefactor help pay for staffing unless it is part of a short term grant project. And libraries are always on the chopping block although we do more than ever for more people than ever before.
4
@farhorizons
If she isn't first on line, then she should be. Why wouldn't we allow disabled children (if not people) to go to the head of the line? Most decent places do and I suspect most children's librarians would.
It’s somewhat mean spirited but I am having a good chuckle reading this article and comparing it to the NYT article asking ‘Why can’t we build more beautiful libraries like this one?’. The Sunnyside library is a one story building with wide aisles, a ramp, and a plethora of open spaces with low tables. Is it beautiful? No. Does it actually function as a library, meeting the needs of the community - old people reading newspaper and young kids coming from storytime? Absolutely. For a public building that will, theoretically in this case, be used by generations to come over time, this new library is a hubristic embarrassment.
To the architects responsible for this stillbirth: you tried to be all fancy so you could win some fame and a blue ribbon and you not only violated a nearly 30-year old law (ONE elevator, what is this the MTA’s 7 line??), but you wasted everyone’s time, money, and resources for an ugly and unusable building. But hey, great view!!!
260
@C The last thing any library needs is a bunch of tourists wandering through to take in 'the views.' chattering and taking selfies, especially if book-lovers can't get to the books!
72
@C - you are so right, libraries also serve as community centers. For a lot of people, libraries are a thread in their social life. And unfortunately for some serve as a refuge. Many go there to keep cool / warm because they can not afford to do so at home.
12
I'm an architect.
This building, plus the horde of new hastily built and quickly deterioraing condo and rental buildings in NYC is shaming an entire generation of architects.
Non-architects often ask me why a new building has "white stuff" leeching out of its facade, or why a new balcony is already rusted and crumbling, or why any number of bad design decisions that make life more difficult for occupants or neighbors is made (massive void spaces, lack of elevators, etc.)
Sometimes I have a technical answer. More often I shrug and list synonyms for incompetence, laziness, and greed on the part of architects and builders.
I didn't expect my profession to be such an embarrassment.
158
But, yes while more elevators needs for the truly impaired and elderly, for the rest, ever tried picking up your kids?! From the womb to the stroller to the car to obesity. Really? Do buildings need to have an internal parking lot now to pass muster? That photo of highly abled bodied parents at the elevator is beyond absurd.
14
Try it with two kids. One s toddler walking next to you, one an infant who fell asleep in the stroller on your walk to the library.
10
@MC Tell us your secrets for maneuvering with a toddler, infant, and diaper bag in your arms through streets, parking lots, and flights of stairs.
And, no, you don't get to bounce them up and down the stairs in a stroller. Just carry them, as you insist.
And, after you've managed to catch up with the wayward toddler, despite the infant crying from being jostled and juggled, where to do you lay the children when they, hopefully, fall asleep? On the floor? On chairs?
And how do you manage them when you have to use the restroom, yourself?
Try to ignore the "Tsk, tsk, you shouldn't have had any kids if you can't handle them" whispers.
12
I have never understood why architects don't receive the kind of ridicule directed at, say, lawyers. Bad architectural decisions affect our lives every single day. This seems to be a particularly egregious example. It is just mind-blowing that no one raised a question about the number of stairs v. elevator access or putting high bleachers in the children's section.
Then again, how much time do women waste standing in line at inadequate restroom facilities in public buildings.
I can appreciate a beautiful building as much as the next person, but a beautiful building that can't fulfill its function is bad design.
166
@NCSense
Thank you for bringing up the inadequate number of restrooms for women in too many (new as well as old) public buildings. Of course for many years the House and Senate were the worst offenders; I hope that has been corrected.
11
@Lynda I worked on a building retrofit for a 1970's firehouse. It was originally designed with only one bathroom, for men, with the toilet area open to the shower area and lockers.
3
Please don’t blame all Architects for the buffoonery and arrogance of this projects designers. Most of us work hard to create designs that respect all members of our community.
Perhaps the real blame should be assigned to the Committee that selected a design firm that showed such callous disregard for the community in the design of a COMMUNITY building.
54
Bad design, worse excuses.
You wouldn't want to hire McVoy and his colleagues to build a dog house.
37
In my life I have had several incidents of temporary disabilities due to broken bones or other issues. In each case, that short-term experience led me to be passionate about how difficult it is for people with permanent disabilities to get around and just live their life. This includes everything from physical space in buildings, parking lots, subways, to just outright rudeness from people. A main concern is in the development of products and spaces, the designers have no idea about how their product or space works for a person with a disability. How about, if every architectural program or design program of any sort, required a class where students are required to get around in a wheel-chair or on crutches, or with a blindfold, etc.
70
I lived in Vancouver, WA a few years ago when their new downtown library opened. An attractive building to be sure, but it's like the patron experience was an afterthought. You had to climb 100 stairs or ride a painfully slow, packed elevator to the fourth floor to even see adult fiction or nonfiction.
Between this article and that memory, I am not heartened by modern library design. Boise is currently trying to replace our downtown library--I wonder what inconvenient beauty they will come up with
29
@Tim Ernst
Please send the powers-that-be in Boise this article and the accompanying comments.
4
I never used the Queens libraries but have been a MASSIVE USER of many branches of the N.Y. and Brooklyn libraries for seventy years but my first thought on seeing this article was 'but AT LEAST that staircase has banisters on BOTH SIDES,' thinking of the staircase in the 53 st. N.Y. library.
And the photo of the kids sitting and reading on benches WITHOUT BACKS. Are architects out of their minds? Is a library mainly a VISUAL object?
When i think of the old Donnell filled with material all across the 4 floors of the building and the present branch -- which is mostly empty space -- i wonder at the library officials who actually PASS on these ludicrous designs.
83
@Leonard Borenstein I think these library administrators may be looking for invites to the fancy parties that these architectural firms throw.
6
So how many architects and designers with how many years of education couldn't figure this out over the years it took from inception to completion?
61
An inaccessible library seems like a joke. Of all the buildings in society, a Library should be equally and easily accessible to all. Full stop.
182
Even people who experience a temporary change in their ability to use stairs from an injury or illness will have difficulty with a public building which has been designed to be used only by those who can climb stairs. Of course those who are experiencing a permanent disability or parents with children in strollers will always have more difficulty.
Despite the attempt of those responsible for the design of the library to present the lack of accessibility as a "feature" rather than a "failure" they would all be better at their future commissions if they simply admitted they got the design of this library wrong because a significant stakeholder was not part of the design process.
I am a user of public (and many private) buildings who has been a temporary wheelchair user for extended times. It is no longer a surprise to me that buildings are not designed to accommodate the accessibility needs of an aging population or an active population which supports many for profit providers of temporary accessibility needs due to injuries.
Most buildings do not accommodate people in wheelchairs, even the standing type used with just one leg. Elevators are hidden; staff is invisible. Thresholds are just an inch or so off which does make a difference. This is true and noticed in many professional buildings built for doctors.
There must be an actual "Accessible" evaluation during the design process to prevent costly retro-fitting after a building is complete.
61
About two years ago, after several serious health issues, I began to have to use a cane to get around. This has really opened my eyes to accessibility issues and the lack of appropriate planning in public spaces and places. The architects should be ashamed of themselves! This is not a matter that only became evident in the last couple of years, or if it only became evident to these architects recently, they are really out-of-touch!
117
I am a librarian who has been through a few building projects. In my experience, it was always necessary for working librarians to step in and correct the architect's "vision" in order to ensure proper access and functionality. Obvious that front line staff had no voice here. Buildings can be beautiful and useful. Fail, with a facepalm cluster.
237
@leslie In addition to inaccessibility for patrons, it's ludicrous for staff to only have stair access to the most popular section. No book trucks means every book hast to be hand carried up those stairs, increasing time spent completing the task and increasing risk of injury. I'm not sure anyone has bothered to point that out. No one in the library was benefited from that design. No one.
This building was not designed to be a functional library for either staff or patrons, it's basically not a library at all and is a disgrace.
11
Take the architects’ defensive, self-serving position that it was perfectly fine of them to build this inaccessible mess because inaccessibility was ok 9 years ago. Huh? Why was that ok 9 years ago when it’s not ok now, as the architects concede?? What has happened in the last 9 years? The ADA was enacted into law decades ago.
And where is the City?? Why aren’t they reigning in these architects, their officially hired agents? Where is the accountability? Is the City like Donald Trump? The City’s inactions indicates agreement that this was somehow fine to build, unless it changes its time quickly.
The irony is that had the building been accessible, it would not have had the problems it does with the strollers, elevator congestion etc. When we all help each other we all win.
72
It wasn’t ok 9 years ago. This sort of thing hasn’t been ok since the ADA took effect.
27
Times architecture critic Kimmelman’s review of the building, linked in this article, completely missed the issue of accessibility in the building. He was dazzled by the building and ignored the practicality. Obviously not the first person, but isn’t that the critic’s role to consider such things?
160
@Richard Replin
The comments on that article, just based on the pictures, were full of accessibility concerns. It's amazing that a team of architects and planners, and then all the critics, could miss something that dozens of untrained Times readers spotted immediately from a handful of photos.
103
This has been going on forever. I have had the misfortune to work in an "award-winning" building. One side of the building was always too cold, the other side always too warm. Many of the offices had no windows. People got lost looking for the office they had to visit.
Architects concern themselves with the publicity needed to get the next commission. Neither they nor the developers care for usability.
35
@Solo.Owl
How right you are. With designers too often it's all about ego, trying to win prizes for the most outlandish product on the block.
12
As a professional illustrator, I am always, always mindful of the “givens” of every project- the client’s preferences, job specifications, dimensions, tools required, time limits, so forth. Some are more frequent than others, and a few are so achingly obvious that there is no way to overlook them. To think that an entire team lacked the base level of humanity to incorporate ADA accessibility in the design of this library is mind boggling at best, horrifying at worst.
137
I'm sorry but the ADA was in place for a decade before the planning process even started. My wheelchair using child loves to browse. We rarely have a set book in mind when we arrive and she often selects a book neither I nor the librarian thought of. It's not being picky as the architect suggests that wheelchair users what this. That's the point of the library. And a single elevator? They thought of this access and did not care
339
Mr. McVoy's comments are embarrassing and not representative of the profession. A lot of firms and architectural professionals have a commitment to universal design and value participatory design processes where stakeholders and end-users shape the final product. His comments are at best an admission of negligence and at worst the product of immense ego where the architecture is not about the people who inhabit space but rather about the space itself. Shame on you for rendering our profession in such negative dispassionate and detached regard for the public health, safety, and welfare.
264
Hmmmm... Twenty years in the planning and making. Sad commentary on a nation where consideration of and accomodation for people facing physical mobility challenges has become a reality only in the last couple of decades. Wow...
33
@Glenn Thomas Nope. The ADA was signed in 1990, and there was agitation for it for years before that. The people in the article saying that nobody was thinking about unassisted accessibility a few years ago are *lying*.
Also, there just seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of the architects as to how the building was actually going to be used.
A five story building with one elevator? What happens when it breaks down and someone with mobility issues is on an upper floor? Are you going to call the fire department to get them out?
That terraced book section: not only could patrons have trouble getting up there, you have the problem of staff needing to get up there and do reshelving, but it's not as though they could take a book cart up there. The cleaning staff, too, has equipment they need to haul around.
Those terraces in the children's section? How could the architects not know that kids would play around on and jump off the blasted things? That's what they do! Well, that's what I did, when I was a kid, back in the eighties.
7
Stunning!
My reaction to the lack of accessibility. Stunning lack of forethought, care, mindfulness, attention to detail, etc. Just Stunning!
150
Nine years of design and construction. No one on the Library staff remain who worked on the design. Pompous architects. What could go wrong.
Most of the library works but it's always the flaws, no matter if they're large or small, that people remember.
It looks like the best $20M library that $41M could buy.
124
@Zeke27
You're being overly kind if you value that building at $20M.
10
As a retired school and public librarian, I have to wonder whether any actual librarians were consulted in the design and planning process. I don't mean "library officials" or even library directors. I mean the people, like the children's librarians mentioned in the article, who work directly with patrons and who have insight into how space will work with real people in it.
As for accessibility standards, ADA was passed in 1990. No excuse for inadequate access.
556
@barbara.stuart -- "Shame on the architectural firm that fails to consider accessibility!"
And shame on a bureaucracy/architects that fail to gain design input from the least-abled of us.
41
@Diana Maher I wonder if any disabled people were consulted and included in the planning process. and how about kindergarden teachers? I'm sure you could get their opinions for free.
27
Stairs are no “small wrinkle” to those of us who are disabled. Most of the time, I can navigate public spaces in this country with little effort, but the idea of all many different levels, some inaccessible to me, is daunting and disappointing. As for a librarian retrieving books for me - librarians know that part of the pleasure of a library is in the browsing. Young and old need spaces to be completely accessible. Shame on the architectural firm that fails to consider accessibility!
472