Whereas I think any delay in starting the work to renovate our libraries is wrong even though I don't agree with it, it is also wrong to increase the amount of duplicated materials at one branch.

As someone who uses the library very differently to the way I used the library a decade ago and realise that the younger generation are not going to use the library the way I used it when I was there age, having shelves of books ready for perusal is not the way to go. Young children love to look around the shelves to choose a book that appeals to them, but nowadays most of us do our perusing on line or look for books on recommendations, particularly for fiction. There may be a case for being able to look for a similar reference/non-fiction book when similar categories are shelved together, but the same cannot be said for fiction. Whenever I want a book, it is rarely available for me at the branch of my choice.

I no longer expect to be able to go to the library and pickup the book I want from the shelf, it is unlikely to be there. Instead there is the excellent hold system. I can use the catalog at home, put the books I select on hold and get email when they are available for pick-up. This is definitely not how I used to use the library but I have slowly come to see its advantages. I can still go the library to pick up books, but it is a much quicker process and I can still sit and read, ask a librarian for help, pick up a book on impulse, use the restroom, and get on with my life in the way we want it. The younger generation are doing this even more and the way technology is heading, this will become the way of the future.

In the same way that shelves of movies at video rental stores are now old fashioned for the movierenters, shelves of books at libraries is similarly not necessary. The Netflix way of choosing movies at home and then waiting for them to arrive in the mail is not going to happen with books, but the similarity of choosing online and then picking our choices up at the library where they are sitting waiting for us, is what we are getting used to and expecting. Kindles are another technology which will change the way we want to read our books.

For this reason, we need a great collection and we need access to as much material in our own system and that of neighboring systems, but we do not need to have all of this accessed at every branch. I visited Mitchell Park this week and there were many people at the hold shelves but none at the regular shelves. In fact, the hold shelves are too small and additional space is being found on carts standing nearby.

What is really necessary at a branch is plenty of space for community center uses, space for materials on hold, and a checkout/pick up service. Storage space for unreserved books is no longer a high priority.

I hope that this hiccup on getting the library renovation gets solved as quickly as possible, but that the library service is improved without forgetting the way libraries are evolving.

To library user: well said. I agree 100% (which is, BTW, the maximum amount one can agree, despite the many people who do not recognize this)

Agreed. Libraries should have more useable room, and available room for a hold system. If I want a bood, I will check for its availability from home then place it on hold and have it delivered to whichever branch suits me. I will occasionally browse bookshelves, but I wouldnt go Downtown for that. The downtown branch doesnt need to hold out for more useless shelf space, but should stick to a small satellite collection and some multi use space. Considering that this is bond money and taxpayer money, nothing should be costing an extra $500,000 or more dollars based on a small advisory group's opinion. original increase in capacity was 40%ish? Thats fine by me.

It looks like the LAC is missing the main complaint - that administrative offices are taking up much of the floor space at the downtown library, reducing space for computers, needed for any technologically oriented library, and books.. It is too bad that it will cost $500-$800K but better to spend it now than to have a bad design. I agree with Sid Espinosa reasoning that the administration belongs at Mitchell Park.

If the LAC would have listened to FOPAL who have a much better grasp of what the majority of the community want, they would not be having problems now. It is all too convenient to try to win a philosophical argument with - oh it's too late to change now because it will cost more after refusing to alter their plans when it was still cheap to do so.

The books at downtown do not all have to duplicate other collections. Perhaps this collection could have the more business and technology oriented books, since that seems to be the need here. I still like to browse shelves and want a library, not a bookmobile or tech center.

With all due respect to Marie, where do you get your information?

"If the LAC would have listened to FOPAL who have a much better grasp of what the majority of the community want, they would not be having problems now."

Why does the FOPAL group have a better understanding of what the community wants? Jennings and co. held numerous open meetings to discuss what Downtown library should look like.

Also, after looking at the proposed floor plans, the staff offices have been greatly reduced by moving the book processing staff to Mitchell Park library, leaving one corner taken by Administrative staff. Don't you want some authority at the Downtown branch? Should it only have line staff to deal with the numerous documented problems they have there?

I beleve by looking at the proposed configuration you will see more room for books and people, with an addition of a kids' section. PLEASE check it out here:

Web Link

Two comments -

The voters of Palo Alto approved a specific set of plans for Measure N. The City Council should not be changing anything at this point.

Do the people that want to increase the collections at DT know how to use a computer to reserve books (no I am not kidding, my parents would not know how). Perhaps that is part of the problem!

Marie-

It is absolutely laughable for you to say that FOPAL has a grasp of what the majority of the community wants. If the community was made up of octogenarians who liked to feast on sour grapes and cling to outdated library ideology, then yes, I'd listen to FOPAL.

This may be an old fashioned idea, but a library can be a place of discovery, not just a depot for orders placed. If you have such a definite idea of what you want, just buy it on Amazon. Then you never even need to leave the house.

If you are getting books for your children, let them explore at the library. You can't possibly know the names of the books your children will find by themselves for doing reports. Reports are open ended. Kids write on what they find out, what they didn't know. And their teachers will kiss you if you let your kids do it themselves.

Cataloging systems can be very inadequate if they are your only reference source. There are books you don't know about that can substitute for the very specific only book you have your heart set on. Then you don't need to register a rude demand that the library purchase the thing they have inconvenienced you by not having on the shelf.

jb - I totally agree that libraries are a great place for discovery, especially for kids, but we already have an amazing children's library full of books to discover.

JB-

"Then you don't need to register a rude demand that the library purchase the thing they have inconvenienced you by not having on the shelf."

Should we then have enough copies for everyone who wants that same book? The fact of the matter is, there are MANY times a book isn't on the shelf for the person who wants it. You know why? Because it's already checked out! What you're proposing is that we have enough copies of every book that anyone could ever want regardless of it's demand. I know that's not what you said, but that's how it spells out. I don't want to come off as rude or harsh, but it is an impossible task to have everything on the shelf that everyone wants. The system that PA has right now is the same that everyone else has. You know why? Because it works.

I don't understand why Palo Altans presist in talking about library branches as though each building was a separate library. There is one library and 5 buildings housing the collections. The more one has to spread the collection (there's only so much money, after all) the less depth and breadth remains.
The article states: "Levinsky had compiled a list of new libraries at other cities and showed that each of those has a far larger collections than is projected for Downtown Library." He's comparing a small branch to a new library meant to serve the whole city, not just a small part of the community. Why does he not compare the TRUE Palo Alto City Library, all of its branches and collections to these new libraries.
Why does a small group of people get to override the wishes of the majority who clearly voiced their views? How does this make any sense. Where is the extra money for this expanded collection going to come from? Or will collections elsewhere have to be reduced? What sense does this make?

To What,

Thanks for your response including the web link. which I did inspect. I was a little flip in my assertions and so will try to explain my reasoning. My recollection is that there have been the two library bond proposals in recent years, the first of which failed and the second succeeded. If I recall, the first proposal was focussed on one major renovation which would have continued the path of that library administration which had been de-emphasizing the branches and gradually reducing hours and service at the branches except for Main and Mitchell. My perception was that the initial failure was due, at least in part, to a preference for the 5 branch system on the part of the majority of the voters. I voted for both plans but was much happier with the second although I did not support the administrative offices in the downtown library. Something is better than nothing. I personally prefer five easily accessible branches rather than a mammoth building like in Mountain View. I am particularly fond of College Terrace and the Children's Library where I have spent many pleasant hours with children and grandchildren. And yes, I was also very happy when the library went online so that I can search the catalog online and even more importantly, renew books online.

My personal impression is that a major reason the second library bond issue passed was the strong support for the 5 branch system and the strong support from FOPAL who I think worked very hard to get it passed. I assume some members of LAC were involved as well. I'm not sure their role in the first bond issue. I'm pretty sure FOPAL members were very involved in raising funds to renovate the Children's Library and probably College Terrace. I know the library director resigned after the first bond issue did not pass. My impression was (and I could be wrong) that she did not support the branch system and wanted a more centralized system which was not what most (as evident by the votes and by FOPAL's public assessments) Palo Alto citizens want.

In my opinion, many people have perceived the reduction in floor space and hours open at the downtown library in past years as reducing its effectiveness as a branch library. I think it is only the protests of concerned citizens including FOPAL, that caused the portion of downtown library allocated to administration to be reduced.

What did library staff first propose? In the final plan, 30% of the floor space (not exactly a corner) is allocated to administration. If that was "greatly reduced," then originally, it must have been much more. Even now, I estimate the community room plus the administrative area plus the small meeting room in total use up more than half the floor space of what is a small library (only 8,774 sq. ft.) to begin with. SInce the plan doesn't give those details, I don't know for sure. To understand the potential of this library, I would also be interested in knowing how many books it had years ago when it was used primarily as a library. Although the renovations to date have been temporary, don't they in some way reflect what the library staff would prefer?

The plans on the website show multiple computers - at least 3 but it's hard to tell from a drawing. The PA weekly described a plan with only one computer and wireless access for people to bring their own. If indeed that library serves many homeless, I would think 3+ would better meet their needs. Remember that most homeless people are unemployed only temporarily and need access to the internet to search for jobs and housing.

I think your point about "numerous documented problems" probably refers to people using the library inappropriately. Please correct me if there are other major issues as well. I believe that Palo Alto and our society have people, some of whom are homeless, who have mental and addiction problems that are very hard to address and solve. And urban libraries often are at the front lines of dealing with this population. But I don't think the solution is to discourage people from using the libraries (by, for example, restricting the number of computers) - rather we need to make sure they are used appropriately. So your point about additional staff onsite being helpful is probably true. Other issues, like making sure bathrooms are used appropriately and discouraging people from watching online porn in open view in a library, particularly with kids wandering around, need to be addressed. Such are the challenges of urban libraries. I do believe there are solutions and they need to be implemented - but not by closing the libraries and putting them where they are less accessible to that population (as is the case for Main and Mitchell).

In general, my conclusion is that the goals I've seen publicized by FOPAL, are much closer to what people have voted for than what has been proposed by the professionals running the libraries. I think LAC has worked hard to find compromises between the two groups (and I'm sure there are more than two groups and many more opinions - after all this is Palo Alto). And I think in the case of downtown library, that the final proposal was flawed and agree with the city council members and FOPAL who think that such a small (8,774 sq. ft.) branch should be used fully as a library and not have 30% devoted to administrative purposes. I also think ultimately, it is the elected city council's job to make that decision, not staff and appointed commissions.

And now that I think about it, how could it possibly cost $500K to reallocate less than 3000 sq. ft. of shelving or meeting rooms to offices at Main or Mitchell?

Marie-

You wrote "In the final plan, 30% of the floor space (not exactly a corner) is allocated to administration."

30% is not administration. A very large portion is for front line library staff responsible for the day to day operations that are required for ANY library. The library administration portion of the building I would guess only takes up about 12-15% of the entire floor space of the building, perhaps even less.

Marie writes: "And now that I think about it, how could it possibly cost $500K to reallocate less than 3000 sq. ft. of shelving or meeting rooms to offices at Main or Mitchell?"

It costs that much because all of the mechanical HVAC engineering, electrical engineering and structural calculations will have to be redone. This project was nearly to the point of finished plans and specifications. A building designed for book loading is structurally different than an administrative office. You can't just move things around at this 11th hour and not incur major cost. This was a terribly fiscally irresponsible decision by Council.

Thanks bikes2work, for stating why people cant just say "ya know, Id like to move this over there, and that over there......" after engineers have drafted a plan based on original demands. It is irresponsible to the taxpayers who are paying for this, had I known, I probably would have voted no on Measure N. I am not fond of wasting money because someone who is out of touch with current usage patterns and trends wants to make irrational changes to the plans for the homeless branch. With the economy the way it is, the city of Palo Alto really needs a lesson money management and thrift.

Library User: I strongly urge to you join the LAC! You clearly have a grasp of where libraries are going in the future.

Marie wrote, “I know the library director resigned after the first bond issue did not pass.”

The library director did not resign after the first bond issue failed.

Measure D, a $49 million bond proposal that would have rebuilt Mitchell Park and renovated Children's Library, failed in November 2002.

Paula Simpson became library director in 2006 and resigned in 2008. She proposed reducing services at Downtown and College Terrace. “The dilemma is that Palo Altans seem to want it all — the best possible, most resource-laden Main Library while also retaining extensive services at all the branches.” Web Link

Marie also wrote: “…my conclusion is that the goals I've seen publicized by FOPAL, are much closer to what people have voted for than what has been proposed by the professionals running the libraries.”

People voted for the plan that is shown on the websites with the administrative offices downtown.

While it’s been very interesting to read through everyone’s opinions about library service in our city and about the plans for Downtown Library, I need to correct some misinformation contained in some of the posts.

Thanks, pat, for correcting Marie’s statement that the failure of Measure D did not lead to the resignation of the Library Director. Paula Simpson became director in 2004, resigned in 2006 and moved out of the state. Mary Jo Levy, who was appointed director in 1980, retired in September 2002, after 31 years of service to our Library. I served as interim director after Mary Jo retired until Paula was hired in March 2004.

Marie – you raise questions about the size of various areas at Downtown Library. As Darwin correctly stated, 30% of the floor space will not be Administration. The Library Administration office will be 750 square feet, or 8.3% of the 9,046 sf (according to the architects) of the branch. Currently, the Administration office is 900 square feet. In the late 1970’s, Library Administration occupied 1,500 sf at Downtown Library. The new community room, which is now designed to serve multiple purposes with moveable book shelves, tables, and seats for use when the room is not being used for programs, will be 1,229 sf. The joint public/staff conference room will be 219 sf. When built in 1971, Downtown Library was designed for a collection of 18,000 volumes and contained two community rooms totaling 2,400 sf. By the way, Downtown Library is not the smallest of our five branches. Both Children’s (6,043 sf) and College Terrace (2,392 sf) are smaller.

The PA Weekly did not “describe a plan with only one computer.” Currently, Downtown Library has 11 desktop public computers and 4 loaner laptops that can be checked out for use in the building. The current plan, after some revisions made by the LAC on Thursday, will provide 14 desktop computers. The plan includes a laptop cabinet that can easily hold 18 laptops - it only takes funding to increase from 4 laptops.

Measure N passed due to the efforts of an extremely dedicated and talented campaign committee that arose from the Palo Alto Library Foundation. The committee included a wide spectrum of community leaders, including past and current City Council members, Library Foundation board members, Friends of the Library board members, Library Advisory and Parks & Recreation commissioners, the Chamber of Commerce, and school advocates.

The Friends of the Library have always provided essential support to our library system through supplemental funding for the Library’s collections, children’s and adult programs, and specialized furniture for the libraries. While they have committed $8,000+ to purchase some new furniture for renovated College Terrace Library, the construction is entirely funded by the City’s budget for infrastructure improvements. The renovation and expansion of Children’s Library was funded with a combination of City, Federal, and private funds. The Friends contributed generously to that project, as did the Library Foundation, which handled the fundraising campaign for Children’s.