In 1998, Seattle voters approved a plan to build 22 new branch libraries, siting them with care. Now we should apply those lessons to our community centers, whose current locations don't help create lively urban centers.
Login / Register
go to mobile version »

Our Sponsors:

Neighborhoods and Communities »

 

Nic Lehoux/Courtesy of The Miller Hull Partnership

The modern Northgate Library sits next to a community center.

 

We need more gathering places in our urban neighborhoods

In 1998, Seattle voters approved a plan to build 22 new branch libraries, siting them with care. Now we should apply those lessons to our community centers, whose current locations don't help create lively urban centers.

In 1998, Seattle set itself on a path to develop 22 new branch libraries. In the wake of the unprecedented program, library use is way up — reinvigorating our desire to actually go to a library and bringing communities together. Can lessons from this success be applied to new programs, such as for neighborhood community centers or other facilities?

With the arrival of light rail and the associated transit-oriented neighborhoods, the city is actively altering neighborhood zoning strategies to draw more people into these "urban centers," "residential urban villages,” and “hubs.” As neighborhoods densify, we will need common spaces for people to gather and come together; we need community centers.

As we consider how to apply these lessons to other services that are needed in our neighborhoods, it's helpful to understand the context of the library projects and how they became so successful.

Twelve years ago, a small group of impassioned individuals recognized the need to do something about Seattle's crumbling stock of branch libraries and developed an ambitious plan of change. Fortunately, they were successful in passing a levy that changed the landscape of our library system and has had an enormous impact on our neighborhoods.

Sadly underused and heavily worn back then, most of our city's libraries desperately needed help. The needs could have been addressed piecemeal but instead a well-organized campaign, which drew an overwhelming 69 percent approval for the $196.4 million levy, ushered in a vision unmatched in modern American cities. This high approval confirmed what many people already suspected: Seattle’s strong attachment to books and reading had deep roots throughout our community.

Then-City Librarian Deborah Jacobs, who was placed in charge of the program's implementation, had a strong appreciation for modernist architecture and more importantly believed that good design could make these new branches not only functional but also memorable places to gather and read. The completion of the Northgate Branch in 2006 marked the end of the ambitious program, which resulted in 14 new neighborhood structures and seven that were substantially renovated, plus bringing the ambitious Central Library designed by visionary architect Rem Koolhaas of the Netherlands. The Central Library, while controversial because of its unusual sculptural forms, soon earned its position as one of America’s iconic modern structures. The Central Library has provided reading and research facilities for thousands of new users each year, and has become a major draw for visitors, adding millions of dollars of added revenue to the local economy.

Instead of having Koolhaas whip out a few quick designs for the various branch libraries, the library selected a brace of talented local architects all well known in their own right. They included Miller Hull, Olson Kundig Sundberg Allen (now Olson Kundig), Cutler Anderson, Weinstein A|U, and Bohlin Cywinski Jackson. As a group, the Seattle architects did not disappoint and the overall quality of design was enviable.

Thus, the library project became an important opportunity for Seattle's emerging mid-sized firms to display their design skills. While this process of selecting a different architect for each structure was definitely the right way to do it, it was also the most challenging. Adding to the mix was a public review process where each neighborhood was invited to participate and provide input allowing the architects to layer in particular needs. Additionally, even though there was a commonality of programmatic requirements, each architecture firm hoped to distinguish itself with their own particular vision.

It was up to Jacobs and her staff to ensure that order was maintained and the buildings got built in a timely manner. One of the lessons learned by using so many architects was the need for more buy-in for the whole process. Here Jacobs demonstrated a savvy use of local resources and sensibilities to bring architects and neighborhoods together and create a stunningly successful building program.

The building program was not a total design free-for-all, however. Each project shared common traits that acted as conceptual anchors for the resulting design. For example, each new building was organized around a dramatic, light-filled central interior space. In an effort to respond to a lack of public meeting rooms, each library was provided with one. While only available during regular library hours, the rooms were to be used by any local non-profit group. This was an important and insightful decision, because it turned out that the rooms have been intensely used and fully booked months in advance.

Stylistically, all of the new buildings were designed in a distinctly modernist style with steel, glass, and one additional material, usually brick, wood, painted panels, or, in one case, an impervious resin panel with the appearance of wood. While is difficult if not impossible for a modern building to avoid appearing out of place when located next to pre-World War II traditional buildings, at least in the case of the Montlake Branch a brick exterior helped to successfully weave it in with its neighbors from the earlier decades of the 20th century.

1 | 2 next page

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!


Comments:

Posted Wed, Apr 14, 10:42 a.m. inappropriate

I've been saying exactly this for a long - non-commercial gathering spaces are crucial for community.

I'd like to see banks decide to be part of the solution (instead of part of the disease). Perhaps we could convert some of the foreclosures into "public houses," distributed throughout our communities.

Posted Wed, Apr 14, 5:33 p.m. inappropriate

a symptom of this city's failure to comply with concurrency requirements found in the growth management act?

Posted Thu, Apr 15, 6:29 p.m. inappropriate

I'm looking at the computer graphic aerial view looking down on the Needle according to the proposed century plan, and it looks far better than the Chiluly concept. Get out your copy and look at it. It'd be a shame to switch from an almost entire tree canopy to a dressed-up Fun Warehouse building with additions and the Chiluly name. Maybe Chiluly should either admit being embarrassed at the loss or seek an entirely different building plan?

I'm serious. Get a clue, Wright bros. Leave the amphitheater site mostly as is and get rid of the Fun Warehouse building altogether. Build up with a smaller foundation footprint that can make the new facility more pedestrian-friendly. Design in window views and a Bubbleator. You could know a good idea when you hear one if you cared. :^( Bubble Ator.

Posted Fri, Apr 16, 12:25 a.m. inappropriate

How about instead of building a bunch more community centers we offload scaps of public land to people like Wright-Runstad and Dale Chihuly to build glittering new commercial galleries where starry-eyed tourists can pay $15 a head to look a big crazy globs of garishly-colored squiggly glass? Wouldn't that be a lot more "vibrant" and "world class?"

Posted Thu, Apr 22, 12:41 a.m. inappropriate

I'd love to get behind this idea, but can't help but wonder what exactly these community centers would be used for? Personally, I can't imagine why I'd spend any time in a "community center" unless there was some kind of draw.

If they are meant to be a social gathering place, we already have plenty of awesome neighborhood bars and restaurants that deserve our support. Well, at least we do in Capitol Hill.

Posted Thu, Apr 22, 12:43 a.m. inappropriate

@Mud Baby - Good idea - that might actually pay for the community centers.

Posted Thu, Apr 22, 2:48 p.m. inappropriate

A theoretical proposal for the Light Rail Station on Capitol Hill:

http://romanp.com/NetworkingHubs.htm

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to Newsletter

Follow Us »