This is another architectural monstrosity that looks great, but is counterproductive to the functioning of a library. Lots of people are using the library? Well, gee, it’s the central library, where else would they go? How many people were using the library before the new monstrosity was built? How many people would use the library if a plainer building were built in its place?

The library has a section with hollow metal stairs that echo loudly and make it hard for people to read. The massive computer room with its exposed insulation and dark high ceilings feels distinctly industrial, and unwelcoming. The book spiral (a neat idea, actually) doesn’t actually work because it’s straight, not curved. The main stacks have low ceilings and limited floor space (because the stacks are totally bisected by the escalator).

You want a library that actually works well as alibrary? Go across Lake Washington from Seattle, to the Bellevue Public Library. Very restrained design, and it’s not going to have tourists coming in to gawk. But it’s a super-inviting library that you actually want to go to when you need a book, or a place to work, or to people-watch, or whatever. P.S. the King County Library System is far more successful than the Seattle Public Library — to the extent that they had to cut down on the cross-honoring scheme with the SPL, because SPL patrons were borrowing way more from KCLS than the reverse.

(This is not the result of the buildings — to a certain extent, KCLS is richer, being located in the suburbs and with a dedicated tax base. But if you look at any of KCLS’s buildings, you can see that they’ve totally prioritized function over form. It’s a mindset of serving customers quietly but successfully, versus a bunch of donors giving some capital funds so they can show their friends: Hey, lookie at the “innovative architecture” that I helped bring to my city. Indeed, this backfired when Seattle had to cut down on library hours to balance the budget, and people instantly said: So why did you waste all that money building that monstrosity in downtown?

Read the book: The Design of Everyday Things. He compares two buildings. One was a building that won the architect awards, but the users hated. The other one was a plain-as-can-be office building — you know, rectangular, steel, glass — but the occupants loved it, because it was actually arranged to make their jobs easier. Sound familiar?

What was your experience like on the sloping floor areas? How does the staff like them? How do visitors like them? Do you know what angle of slope these areas are? I’ve heard 1:20 but can’t find any confirming info.

Thanks for any information you can provide.

Nick Paffett
Krent/Paffett/Carney, Inc.