As part of our recent (too short) west coast vacation, Adriana and I set out with my mom and my sister to the
Seattle Public Library.
I took pictures, of course. There have been lots of glowing reviews of the library (
Paul Goldberger,
Julie Leung,
Herbert Muschamp) and the
Seattle Times Library homepage is a great resource, but the
Project for Public Space's critique hit a nerve with me.
PPS would like nothing more than to announce that this library is part of a new wave of iconic buildings that succeed as public spaces. But while some of the library's spaces are comfortable, active, and visually stunning, the building as a whole turns inward from the city around it, limiting its effect on downtown. Of course, there are contemporary buildings out there that contribute to lively streets and public spaces. These buildings may not have earth shattering ambitions, but they are indeed important additions to our cities and towns (see sidebar). You just wouldn't know it from reading most architecture reviews.
...
Considered in a vacuum, these spaces do function quite well: They are often full of people reading, browsing the web, and mingling. But, situated above street-level without any relation to the sidewalk below, they relate to the city outside in a purely visual fashion. If the library were a true "community hub," its most active areas would connect directly to the street, spinning off activity in every direction.
...
A more sober analysis would point out the obvious: The building's relationship with downtown is only skin-deep. When it comes to actual human activity--the kind that brings real benefits to a city by encouraging people to stay and explore downtown--the spaces around the library are dead zones.
When you're done with the full article, waste the rest of your Friday night at PPS's Great Public Spaces page.
(Hello.Typepad's 5 loyal readers wonder - "To what to do we owe the pleasure of 3 posts in one night?" and I answer: "We set aside an evening to watch the Olympics. Big mistake!")
Recent Comments