In the weeks following the much-anticipated opening of the Steven Holl Architects-designed Hunters Point Library in Queens, New York City, much of the public discourse regarding the structure has focused on a collection of accessibility and design oversights embodied by the library's design.
A recent article in The New York Times highlights several of these issues, which include the location of the library's adult fiction collections along a series of inaccessible terraced levels as well a relative lack of elevators in the facilities. According to the article, the complex, which was in the works for nearly two decades, is served by a singular lift, a condition that has made the building difficult to navigate, especially for patrons with disabilities and parents who have children. The arrangement has left many on social media with a sour taste, as suggested fixes, including having librarians access collections by hand for patrons, have been interpreted as inadequate, though this approach meets the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Regarding the terraced browsing levels, Chris McVoy, senior partner at Steven Holl Architects, told The New York Times, "To be honest, we hadn’t thought, ‘O.K. we have to provide an exactly equivalent browsing experience.'" McVoy added, "This will be a new standard for libraries, and that’s great. But that doesn’t mean it’s a flaw in the design. It’s an evolution."
In response, Christine Yearwood, founder of the disability rights group, Up-Stand, shared with The New York Times, "To me, that is the response of somebody who never had the experience of going somewhere and not being able to fully participate."
Yearwood added, "Part of what universal design is about is allowing everyone to independently enjoy spaces. Having to ask someone else to help you is, at worst, demeaning, and at best, a limiting experience."
The collections in the terraced areas have been recently relocated to a single reading level, making them accessible to all patrons leaving the terraces to be used as reading areas for use by patrons.
In a message to Archinect, McVoy writes, "Reading areas and study desks are continually full; people are inspired to come and spend time here. The Hunters Point Library is a testament to the value of public space of design excellence, and the desire of the community to have such a space to visit. We are thrilled that the library is offering this to the city."
The article also delves into some of the design issues related to the library's children's wing, including the frequent stroller traffic jams that occur within the library, as child-specific levels are located on the second floor.
In addition, concerns have sprung up over the safety of another terraced reading area located in children's library, where a series of wooden steps connect two levels. Potential liability issues embodied by the terrace design have caused library officials to close off the space so that only the lowest platforms are open to use, placing further strain on the elevator and resulting in an awkward circulation pattern for the spaces.
Library officials, according to The Times, are working through a series of programming fixes—like doubling up story time sessions—to alleviate the stroller issues while the designers take another stab at repurposing in upgrading the terraced levels.
Editor's Note: A previous version of this story said that the terraced reading areas were currently roped off and unused; This is incorrect, the spaces are in fact being used as reading spaces.
maybe it is better to wait until they get through their tweaking, whatever the hell that means, to make a proper comment.
In the meantime my totally unjustified opinion is that it looks nice, and also really looks like the 1980's, when architecture was beginning its plunge into its self-referential, self-contained, and "autonomous" phase. It led to some extraordinary works. On the other hand the approach leaves less room for the niceties of average human experience as a function of daily life, and the yay or nay process of deciding on a particular aspect of design ends up focusing on superficial things too easily. Life is shoe-horned into big concepts instead of the other way around. Lots of people can do this well, including Steven Holl. In this case important pieces were left on the floor. Lets see if they get picked up or not...
As an aside I find that Holl's buildings look just as nice without any people in them as the other way around. Beautiful. Personal. Maybe not intended for actual use. I still love his work, but its useful to be realistic about our heroes even as we admire them.
All 11 Comments
As subjective as aesthetics are, the public good must be served with a public building like this. I appreciated some of the interior views and vistas but it was a very loud building with seemingly more circulation than stacks. The facade treatment also looked pretty dingy up close. Is it really an architectural triumph even if one discounts the accessibility and detailing issues? It sure looks different from most libraries and has its moments. Does it push the profession forward?
Holl's Glassell art school building in Houston is also very weak functionally and anyone who visits it in person will find many questionable architectural details. Holl seems to mainly design for photography.
I don't think this library moves anything forward. The Queens library is obviously feeling burned by this experience with starchitecture. They have an over-budget and somewhat non-functional facility. The desire to avoid repeating this fiasco means the next libraries they build will be the safest and dullest designs they can find.
Whoa, this is a disappointing and unacceptable oversight :( How was this delt with in Seattle by Rem/Rex?
That library was all ramped wasn't it? The circulation didn't mess with the stacks too much. The problem with Holl's library is that the usable spaces all seem like leftover bits and pieces tacked onto circulation. The one space that didn't feel like a corridor was the children's library - it felt like a destination but even that space had a bottleneck entrance. The rest of the library had a hierarchy problem, visually and spatially. The stairs and ramps and their views took precedence.
monosierra I think you are correct about Seattle altho' I have not been there nor at Hunters Point. I suppose this is a case of ".... civil engineers can bury their mistakes." I was fortunate to study Architecture at the University of Illinois (Champaign/Urbana) that was an 100% accessible campus back in the 1960's if I am correct, so accessibility was just part of the culture. Who was reviewing these plans? How was it even permitted? So disappointed :(
Seattle is ramped, it's very pleasant and in no way distracting to the purpose of the building. Holl's team dumped some garbage here.
Many superficially exciting recent buildings make a spectacle of the circulation... think DS+R, TWBTA, or this project.
I wonder if it is a lack of creativity/ ability to engage with the "boring" programs that make up a building? Is it fetishization of vertical circulation? Is it just following trends?
I always wondered about accessiblity on a project like DS+R's Vagelos Center.
Last thought - its pretty strange to have Louis Kahn's Four Freedoms Park not far from this very building and have such divergent responses to accessibility in each project.
maybe it is better to wait until they get through their tweaking, whatever the hell that means, to make a proper comment.
In the meantime my totally unjustified opinion is that it looks nice, and also really looks like the 1980's, when architecture was beginning its plunge into its self-referential, self-contained, and "autonomous" phase. It led to some extraordinary works. On the other hand the approach leaves less room for the niceties of average human experience as a function of daily life, and the yay or nay process of deciding on a particular aspect of design ends up focusing on superficial things too easily. Life is shoe-horned into big concepts instead of the other way around. Lots of people can do this well, including Steven Holl. In this case important pieces were left on the floor. Lets see if they get picked up or not...
As an aside I find that Holl's buildings look just as nice without any people in them as the other way around. Beautiful. Personal. Maybe not intended for actual use. I still love his work, but its useful to be realistic about our heroes even as we admire them.
The grain direction switch from wall to door and the lack of consistency with the door jambs in the one photo really bugs me.
Doors and wall paneling were perhaps separate submittals that didn't get coordinated. Holl's building in Houston has a lot of similar little glitches. This stuff happens when you endeavor to do super-complicated buildings. You will encounter myriad problems unless you really have your drawing and CA act together or the client is very understanding and willing to pay to have stuff redone.
Most of the reason it bugs me is because my own projects have suffered the same issues, and it makes me feel those emotions all over again. :)
Another example of the echo chamber that is the architectural establishment. Michael Kimmelman called it “among the finest and most uplifting public buildings New York has produced so far this century.”
on the other hand, if you ask the people who your supposed to be designing for, you might get a different all be it, 'uninformed' response...
"If you build a library, and when your library opens, the patrons immediately begin pointing out that there are too few elevators, the books are inaccessible, and one of your proudest design features might injure children, you could say the patrons are being ungrateful. But you might alternatively conclude that you are bad at building libraries."
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/11/democracy-and-buildings
Another example of you casting about trying to find any reason to start up the old tune on your rusty saw. We fucking get it; you hate anything without a cornice. Now please stop conflating things that are mutually exclusive unless you'd like us all to start pointing out how all of the classical buildings you lust after only have stairs.
Maybe if you'd reply on the substance, we might have a civil discussion, but it's clear that's not how you roll. That being said, do you think everyone should go to their ideological corner and stop trying to understand each other's point of view?
No, in fact I have repeatedly asked you to come out of your ideological corner and try and understand other people's point of view. I've come to realize that you're not here for the learnin' (oh, and before you start claiming I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I I spent years in school learning classical architecture and use it in my daily life, but who cares, right?), you're here for the RANTING.
Well, let's try to talk. How do we assess a building like this one which has had so many problems? In other words, even though the architect is well known, does it matter that the building seems to have so many functional flaws? I think it's important to take the public's view into consideration. Why do you think not?
By the way, I'm not a classicist, I simply like what I like and see no ideological reason to circumscribe my taste as long as it isn't obnoxious to others. But if you did learn classical architecture and use it in your daily life, why is a little cornice love so wrong?
"How do we assess a building like this one which has had so many problems? "
Without resorting to supercilious statements such as "Another example of the echo chamber that is the architectural establishment. "
"even though the architect is well known, does it matter that the building seems to have so many functional flaws?"
Yes, absolutely.
"I think it's important to take the public's view into consideration. Why do you think not? "
This is a pervasive problem I have with you, where you make assumptions and bake them into the premise of your question.
" But if you did learn classical architecture and use it in your daily life, why is a little cornice love so wrong?"
Again, you assume what I mean instead of dealing with what I actually accused you of, which is using every opportunity to bash non-classical architecture while continually ignoring obvious flaws within your preferred style. You are all over news items which are critical of non-classical architecture yet notably absent in any other realm.
Sorry, I meant to respond here.
The reason you seem hostile to public opinion is what you said in another thread..."Design by public opinion. What could possibly go right?"
Plus I don't bash non classical architecture at every turn. In fact I just told you I'm not a classicist. But there are no inherent flaws in any one style, just ones that leave one feeling cold and lonely, which, for better or worse, happens more often with abstract minimalism than other styles.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/design-and-the-mind/201002/unhappy-hipsters-does-modern-architecture-make-us-gloomy
I am of the opinion that the palette presents an easy target that misses the point entirely. Hostile spaces (as in the empty stuff between finishes in which humans move around) exist in large amounts throughout architectural history. When we remove the trappings and decorations that adorn these spaces it's easier to see the failings. The emperor has always been shit, it's just easier to point that out when everyone's staring at a naked old man.
I completely agree with you concerning emperors, it's just that they aren't the only ones who like to dress up or to admire others. I can enjoy someone's clothing choices without liking their character, something that happens all the time. Also, there's a reason we don't walk around naked, or for that matter have our vital organs outside our skin. As for decorations, the early modernists employed an industrial aesthetic as a symbol of honesty, when in truth even they had arbitrary and subjective choices to make, like what proportion should the grid be. And glass walls aren't transparent when the sun hits them or when residents inevitably put up their own curtain walls. For those on the Corbusian end of the spectrum, mediterranean stucco with a flat roof is hardly sympatico to northern Europe's climate. But you could make similar arguments against traditional styles as well. In the end, we all like what we like. In the case of this building, I wasn't talking about its exterior, but how poorly it performed, both for the weather and for its users. Others here slammed the aesthetic, yet I assume they don't like rain shedding cornices as much as me. See one of my favorite modernist buildings above...
Polshek, in my experience, does a good job of dealing with the experiential and human side of architecture. That being said I am not exhaustively aware of their buildings.
The first problem is an uneducated client. Libraries are typically public institutions managed by elected citizens who have no experience in development. As such they are dependent on “professionals” who more often than not are far more concerned with a fat contract than providing quality services.
The second problem is the illusion that starchitects (or even most so-called (professionals”) are competent. A look beyond their glossy portfolios at the actual results of their work from a budget and performance standpoint that would reveal fatal flaws is usually lacking.
Case in point: my hometown library spent $6m on a 4,000 sf addition and reno into a “green” building with 3 stories of north facing glass (all of which is being replaced after just 5 years), an open-loop geothermal system that failed to function within parameters and required a complete overhaul within 3 years, ridiculous spaces like conference rooms that are 7’ wide (if people are seated at both sides of the table nobody can enter of leave the room), and a raft of other problems including an actual decrease in the lineal feet of shelving despite the addition of 4,000 sf. of new construction. When the library moved back into the building they had to throw away a large portion of their collection.
Lee Pomery Harris (LPH Architects) was handed the library project through Hamptons social connections. He took this project despite being in the middle of designing a 10m sf city in India. When I pointed out obvious problems with his design scheme and recommend to the library board that they request alternative designs for comparison and review I was vilified by board members and very nearly prevented from speaking at a public hearing on the project. When I asked Harris - at the public hearing while a board member was loudly announcing the seconds remaining in my allotted two minutes (“minute fifteen .... one minute ... forty-five seconds”) - to explain how 3 stories of north-facing glass was green he said, “I don’t have time to get into that here. Come talk to me after the meeting.”
In a perfect ending LPHA won a design award for the building.
Library in St. Gallen, Switzerland. Remember: "Ornament is a Criime"
I'd be interested to see a disabled human navigate that gorgeous balcony.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.