Public Libraries, Public Input: How Citizens’ Comments Can Inform Public Library Architecture
Public libraries are one of the most common building types in American cities. They are public spaces with the potential to strengthen democracy in ways that go beyond the provision of literature and information. Public libraries serve their patrons in many ways: offering career guidance and personalized resume help; loaning accessories for job interviews; and lending seeds to plant a vegetable garden. Since municipalities fund libraries through issuing bonds and calling on tax revenue, the erection, renovation, and expansion of public libraries evokes public interest. City officials are, by the same token, expected to take seriously citizens’ input during the library planning process.
One such example of citizen engagement in the design of a new public library took place in Chicago in the late 1980s. Mayor Harold Washington ordered a competition to select the design for a new central library in July 1987. Before a citizen jury eventually selected the winner, however, the library director, John Duff, encouraged all Chicagoans to submit their feedback on the competing designs to the jury (Figure 1). Five teams comprising architects, librarians and engineers made elaborate presentations in which they discussed their concepts and models for the new central library in front of the jury and the public. Each team spoke for 90 minutes, followed by another 90-minute question and answer session. Duff encouraged the audience to participate in the selection of the winning team. “We want your input!” he said to the library patrons, and assured them that the jury would consider their opinions, which could be submitted through public comment cards.[1] The architectural models were exhibited in the Cultural Center, and every library branch provided public comment cards that could be dropped off at any neighborhood library (Figures 2, 3). Additionally, eight branches showed a 20-minute movie with excerpts from the presentations of each team. The public response to all of this was tremendous. 30,000 people viewed the models in the main library branch, while the library received approximately 8,000 public comment cards.[2] Most of them offered detailed considerations and observations on the designs.
Figure 1. Harold Washington Library Center, Chicago, Hammond, Beeby & Babka Inc., 1988–91. Photograph by Maxi Schreiber, 2019.
While looking through the comment cards in the Special Collections of the Chicago Public Library, I was overwhelmed by the diversity of voices and the level of engagement of Chicagoans with the designs. I looked at three boxes with nearly 6,000 of the submitted comments cards. People clearly took this task seriously and left comments that filled the entire back side of the card. These users saw themselves as an integral part of the library planning process and, yet, I realized that my own understanding of library buildings as a genre scarcely accounted for their role in library design. I became intrigued by how one could write the history of these public buildings in a way that assigned as much importance to public engagement as it did to the architects’ own agenda.
“I became intrigued by how one could write the history of these public buildings in a way that assigned as much importance to public engagement as it did to the architects’ own agenda.”
Figure 2. Public Comment Card for the Design Build Competition for the new Central Library in Chicago, recto. Chicago Public Library Archives, Harold Washington Library Center, Design Build Competition Records, [Box 17], Special Collections, Chicago Public Library.
Figure 3. Public Comment Card for the Design Build Competition for the new Central Library in Chicago, verso. Chicago Public Library Archives, Harold Washington Library Center, Design Build Competition Records, [Box 17], Special Collections, Chicago Public Library.
I made two major observations. Firstly, while citizens often referred to issues like the context of the Loop or Chicago’s identity as a city of architecture, what they meant by these common categories was often radically different from the jury’s understanding. Secondly, the comment cards revealed a sharp divide between academic and lay approaches to interpreting public libraries. Professional or educated citizens often highlighted their credentials to justify their points, even though the logic of citizen engagement exists outside of the context of professional architectural criticism. Other citizens relied on a more informal and associative language to ground their choice. The process proceeded anonymously, but some commentators revealed their names, professions, and sometimes even their addresses. On this basis, we can see that respondents came from all over Chicago including the South Loop and South Side, as well as from the suburbs. Most people who revealed their professions were either architects or librarians. Others referred to themselves as tourists, grandfathers, patrons, doctors, ministers, and so forth.
“Professional or educated citizens often highlighted their credentials to justify their points, even though the logic of citizen engagement exists outside of the context of professional architectural criticism.”
The new Central library was to be located in the South Loop, well connected to public transportation (Figure 4). The winning library design covered a full block of the designated site between Ida B. Wells Drive (formerly Congress Parkway) and State Street. The elevated train line demarcated the block at the northern end. One function of the library from an urban design point of view was to invite the denizens of the South Loop to cross Ida B. Wells Drive, a high-traffic corridor that had long impeded the residents’ ability to access the Loop. At the time of the competition, the site was used as a parking lot. The competition regulations allowed the use of half a block north of Van Buren Street. Beyond the unpleasant traffic on Ida B. Wells Drive, the institutions that defined the neighborhood, namely a prison, several colleges for commuter students, and a high school, did little to attract after hours entertainment and cultural offerings.
Figure 4. OpenStreetMap of South Loop: (1) Harold Washington Library Center; (2) Metropolitan Detention Center; (3) DePaul University; (4) Columbia College; (5) John Marshall Law School. Map adapted by author from OpenStreetMap map tiles, © OpenStreetMap contributors.
By far, the majority of Chicagoans preferred the design by The John Buck Company, a Chicago firm, in collaboration with Arthur Erickson Architects of Canada (Figure 5). The “modern” and “fun” design, some argued,[3] would best represent the architectural legacy of Chicago. People associated a modern public library with a design that they perceived as “dynamic and exciting.”[4] One person wrote: “very fun—mind opening—inviting. Chicago needs a building like this,”[5] another: “breathtaking—Chicago’s future,”[6] but also: “soothing and relaxing.”[7] Rather than stressing continuity with Chicago’s architectural heritage, these voices saw the Loop as a space that had pioneered innovative design—a trend that the Buck/Erickson design embodied. These patrons did not read the building in terms of art history. In contrast, the more academic-sounding comments often favored the Thomas Beeby proposal submitted under the aegis of the SEBUS group, associating this design with traits befitting a classical library. Some argued that it looks “academic, like a library should.”[8] Even if the commentators rarely specified what they exactly meant by this, it is apparent from the context and Thomas Beeby’s presentation that they had in mind the Sainte-Geneviève Library in Paris and all libraries that referenced it.
Figure 5. Competition Model for the Harold Washington Library Center, John Buck Company with Arthur Erickson Architects Ltd., 1988. Photo taken in the Harold Washington Library Center where the models are still exhibited on the eighth floor. Photograph by Maxi Schreiber, 2016.
The Buck/Erickson design was one of the two that bridged the elevated train tracks and envisioned a park with an amphitheater and a water pool. This park led to the main entrance on State Street in the first block. In the eyes of the jury the design was ill-suited to Chicago’s climate, and they felt that the park would be unsafe.[9] (However, the unused site north of Van Buren Street was eventually turned into a park. The park is plain and not as exciting as the design by the Buck/Erickson team.) It bears noting in this context that at the time of the competition, downtown Chicago was in a state of neglect and unsafe after working hours. As the Commissioner of Planning for the City of Chicago, Elizabeth Hollander, explained, the new library was seen as an important factor to “stimulate growth for the area.”[10] Moreover, the Site Selection Committee saw the location of the library in light of the need to connect the city’s central business district with the redevelopment of the South Loop.[11] Indeed, within only a few years, the Harold Washington Library was seen to have become an anchor for the revitalization of Chicago’s South Loop.[12] From this standpoint it makes sense that many people wanted a “fresh” and “exciting” design.
“Rather than stressing continuity with Chicago’s architectural heritage, these voices saw the Loop as a space that had pioneered innovative design — a trend that the John Buck Company’s design embodied.”
Among the comments, we can find loud voices and quieter statements. The loud voices used a direct, strong language and explained frankly what they disliked about the proposed library building. One person stated about the model of the Team 4 / The Chicago Library Team (with Murphy/Jahn Architects): “ugly and stupit [sic]. People would steal the books to free them.”[13] Another person wrote, “great library for East Germany”;[14] or, “looks like a prison.”[15] In contrast, the quiet commentators gave detailed and deliberate feedback. Further, these voices appreciated the democratic participation and expressed their gratitude. “Thanks for allowing me to do this. It’s nice to feel like I’m part of a decision-making process for something as important as our wonderful city’s library.”[16] Other commentators judged the buildings according to how they felt the designs represented the legacy of Harold Washington. Washington had died unexpectedly on November 25, 1987 and the new central library was to be named after him in order to honor him as the first African American mayor of Chicago. One commentator wrote:
The John Buck Company proposal is a more modern facility. Harold Washington was in favor of change. That’s what this Library provides for the public. The other four Libraries are a bit too old-fashioned. Harold Washington was a man with a vision for the future. The John Buck Company proposal is the best symbol of that vision.[17]
These comments offer a chance to learn about public library architecture not from the point of view of an architectural critic, but from those who used more intuitive measurements for their judgements.
In the end, the jury opted for the design by Hammond, Beeby & Babka, submitted by the SEBUS Group, while most patrons favored the design by the John Buck Company. Yet even if the jury did not choose the building favored by most users, citizen engagement remains important to debates about library planning. Public libraries have planning phases that take several years. Granted, this process has often been criticized as not realized as promised in terms of decision making.[18] Rather than presuming their own knowledge to be a superior form of expertise, professional jury members ought to defer more to citizens’ comments as a form of knowledge in its own right. Otherwise, citizen engagement and public input will be perceived as exhausting or pointless. Public library architecture ought not be seen as a building type similar to a concert hall or theatre. Recent examples of new public libraries make obvious the “rejection of a universal form”[19] for public libraries. Libraries are no longer temples for books, but rather essential to the social infrastructure in our society. Rather than seeking to conform to an ideal type, then, public libraries might embrace the planning process and public input as hallmarks of what distinguishes the public library from other buildings.
A note from the author: The research for this essay was made possible through the generous funding of the Volkswagen Foundation. I’d also like to thank Morag Walsh and her colleagues from the Special Collections and Preservation Division of the Chicago Public Library for their extraordinary assistance and cooperation.
Notes
[1] Chicago Public Library Archives, Harold Washington Library Center, Design Build Competition Records, Box 16, The Harold Washington Library Center International Design/Build Competition: Presentations of Design/Build Proposals May 1988 [video recording].
[2] Chicago Public Library Archives, Chicago Public Library – 125th Birthday Celebration Collection Series, Box 1, Folder 3, J. Ingrid Lesley: „The Path to Chicago’s New Central Library”, [Brochure] March 1998.
[3] Chicago Public Library Archives, Harold Washington Library Center, Design Build Competition Records, Box 3, Folder 5, Public commentary, compilation, #1-1137, 1988 (Hereafter: CPLA-DBC, PC, 1988), #158, #76.
[4] CPLA-DBC, PC, 1988, #88.
[5] CPLA-DBC, PC, 1988, #76.
[6] CPLA-DBC, PC, 1988, #255.
[7] CPLA-DBC, PC, 1988, #264.
[8] CPLA-DBC, PC, 1988, #431.
[9] Marian Marzynski, Design Wars!, videocassette, MARZ Associates in association with WGBH for Nova, Boston: WGBH Educational Foundation, 1993.
[10] Chicago Public Library Archives, Chicago Public Library – Board of Directors Series, Subseries 2 (Hereafter: CPLA-BoD, S2), Box 15, Folder 2, Proceedings, October, November 1986, Site Selection (for new Central Library) Meeting, p. 8.
[11] CPLA-BoD, S2, Box 15, Folder 3, Proceedings, November, December 1986, Regular Meeting, Official Record, December 9, 1986, p. 239-240.
[12] Shannon Mattern, The New Downtown Library: Designing with Communities (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007), 40-41.
[13] CPLA-DBC, PC, 1988, #181.
[14] CPLA-DBC, PC, 1988, #30.
[15] CPLA-DBC, PC, 1988, #397.
[16] CPLA-DBC, PC, 1988, #568.
[17] CPLA-DBC, PC, 1988, #83.
[18] Mattern, The New Downtown Library, 29.
[19] Mattern, The New Downtown Library, 58.
