they will be called server farms.




I joke. much of the world is still not connected to a computer...we have a ways to go before we really can consider a paperless world.

I personally believe that a library, just like any other structure, while focused and specific from a programmatic perspective, needs to be flexible enough to accomodate change. design with that flexibility in mind, because context and purpose are ephemeral.

that said, libraries currently are in a transitional phase, as they have been for some time. there is a tremendous amount of paper existing, and a need for other forms of media. the advent of the computer signals a period of consolidation, but there were other periods when other media forms emerged (e.g., microfilm). unfortunately, I don't think that libraries were that proactive or adept in adjusting to those prior changes. they're much more flexible now in accomodating the advent of computers. the essence of a library lies in our need for communication and accessibility to information. libraries serve other purposes, sure, but those two things are the most basic.

so we will always need repositories of information that serve as the vanguard of history. I think that the SIBL in Manhattan serves this purpose well, maintaining flexibility (countless paper documents coupled with both electronic resources, personal internet kiosks, and meeting rooms).

jasoncross is right - there is a large portion of the world that remains unconnected. paper lives, as does the need for the search and review of these materials. this will be the case for quite some time.

still, as with all public buildings, I've always wanted to see a flexibility beyond the operating hours for the primary purpose. libraries are closed all night, and some on weekends, too. what could you envision happening in the (public) space during other times?

smoke crack in the book stack

"paper" libraries will always exist because homeless people will always need a place to masturbate

I think libraries will bifurcate into two separate programmes:

- a collaborative data repository that will be increasingly digital.

- a physical archive that will be closer to a museum than anything else.

At this stage books still provide higher-quality material, but this edge is evaporating. Take art and architecture books for example. Their value is largely in their high-resolution printed images and plans. That's why they cost so much. But some databases and archives are already providing high-quality scans of printed material. This is an example of the evaporating edge of print.

funny, agfa8x, i was on the verge of posting almost the exact same thing this morning, but didn't hit submit for some reason. i absolutely agree with the two different types of libraries: the archive and the information repository. i love the architectural implications of both possibilities: one a massive container of physical space, the other possibly just a computer and a desk. i feel confident some thesis student somewhere is whipping this up into a hell of a project.

...the future, Conan?

Libraries will need to develop [even more so] into social spaces. A kind of information/media shop.

My local library has been recently built as a 'prototype' of future libraries. In the weekend, it is basically a hangout for children/teens - imagine someone suggesting the library as a hangout space in your youth [unless you were a nerd].

There is a mezzanine loft space for teens that has dim lighting and a large projector screen with PC's, plus areas for magazines, sitting areas, study areas, a cafe etc.

Although I havent been, I think the Seattle library tends to veer towards this idea of the library as social space, rather than as a civic space.

I find the whole 'library-as-social-space' really interesting, particularly because, as you say db, it is very current in nz library schemes. Historically, libraries weren't social spaces (correct me if you can think of any counter-examples), so much as collaborative archives.

I see this as a shift from valuing libraries as sources of information to valuing libraries as a source of entertainment.

As Hamish Lyon would say, its all about shopping.

I think there is a shift from the idea of civic space to social space [or even consumer space]. Traditionally, civic space revolves around ideas of 'public good', control of information, etc. I looked a little at these ideas for my thesis. A quote by mark Rakatansky was useful:

diabase - I would agree with the "social space" angle for Seattle Public. when I went there, people were haning out everywhere. stark contrast to libraries I grew up with - they sold starbucks inside. so, is social space one in which interaction is accomodated (like the greek agora), able to evolve into whatever but not forced like a civic space (which is born of the idealistic notion that social interaction should necessarily BE something specific)? would a social space embody the flexibility to change over time that a civic space cannot?

and agfa8x, the library contents of today may transform into two separate programs in the future, but if they do, are they libraries any more? outside of social space, it seems the library only needs a data warehouse and a physical warehouse. I tend ot think something is missing here...as I stated above, there is need for information and communication. I don't think communication of information stops with either the book stacks or a computer terminal, and I think the architecture can effect the communication of information (at least how it is initially presented).

You're right. There's a definite shift in that direction. Of course, there's an ideology of the fragmentary and subjective, too.

My experience of libraries is primarily in the academic area. In that context, because of the overriding values of the concept 'university', libraries are not social spaces, but knowledge spaces.

My question is: why are public libraries not treated as knowledge spaces? If we make our libraries into hangout spaces and entertainment locales for teenagers, aren't we in fact suggesting that entertainment, not knowledge, is what young people should want?

Well, I think the other thing to consider is 'competition' from the principle information source - the net.

I think the introduction of the social aspect into libraries is to mitigate the drift from traditional means of acquiring knowledge - a kind of education by stealth, or infotainment. I suspect that generally the library is going through a rebranding phase, and hence alot of different ploys and plots are being hatched and discussed.

I think libraries could reinforce the idea of the 'authenticity' of the information they hold in terms of its value, in opposition to the reams of low quality information you can get on any subject in the web. In this way, the idea of a knowledge space could be pursued. The key comes back to the control over the truth.

Education by stealth - perhaps the new social libraries are employing a kind of camoflague?

It is true that the net is clotted with low-grade information (my students essays are filled with wikipedia and random googlings). What you don't realise until you get hold of a precious, precious university login, is the staggeringly vast amount of high-grade information, too (full-text journal databases running back to the nineteenth-century, electronic texts of books, image databases, catalogues). I think I have reached the point where I spend more time in this virtual library than any physical libraries. I think what I'm experiencing is one branch of what libraries are becoming.

right...the social aspect of the web with relative low barriers to obtaining information (at least in this current nascent stage of the web) is starting to creep into other spheres of life. is it infotainment (probably) or social networking? and there are obvious pitfalls to that open nature - how do you maintain high grade quality information?

I don't know about small cities, suburbs, or rural areas, but there is a relatively low barrier to information in NYC. Get on the subway, go to a library, get information. That access has been adaptive - the libraries of universities and the NYPL share information to a degree. but that existed prior to the internet. does it ecist elsehwere?

so, can the internet break down MORE of those barriers to information? Sure...you won't have to drive as far, or maybe look as hard, or possibly pay tuition to get into a library or research center that has said information. this could be the roadmap to the library of the future - enhanced access, making access even easier. the libraries, in becomeing more adaptive, may be mimicking this shift into more socialized information like the internet (read: wikipedia), and thus, creating a more social atmosphere. there's your schism.

No one said that going to the library has to be this absolutely directed, blinders-on march towards what you need. the inclusion of a social slant to the library experience may be a way to broaden the pursuit of knowledge, much akin to merely browsing the stacks at the library, or checking out the other books right next to the one you were actually looking for. I wouldn't go so far as to say libraries are employing a camoflauge as I would say they are simply changing. but they are seemingly following other precedents - one of which is this social networking on the internet, and the other that is indeed cultural: this need for comfort and ease.

the internet actually provides a great place to START research, because it gives you a datum to work against and/or towards, depending on how you can verify your findings.

libraries will serve as they do today...a place to discover and archive vast information. Consider it true information versus what's on wikipeidia

ok, ok, so wikipedia is not exactly a paragon of academic accuracy, but have you ever seen the glory of JSTOR? the marvels of Expanded Academic? the terrible beauty of Eighteenth Century Books Online? the jewel-like glint of Oxford Reference Online? the musty mass of the complete Oxford English Dictionary?

Sure, they're paid-access databases, but they're internet resources too.