The Public
The root of library opinion and support is public sentiment. Indirectly, it nourishes the spirit which inspires the private donor. Directly, it supplies the impulse which founds the library; the enthusiasm which supports it liberally; the civic wisdom and pride which erect buildings; the large and democratic taste which approves adequate facilities, sound construction, quiet and appropriate beauty in building.
The aim in the United States is to make the library an essential part of education, not only in acting with the school system, but in carrying on the graduate to a larger education at home, not only literary and social, but industrial as well, so as to develop law-abiding and useful citizens. There is a further aim, akin to that of parks and playgrounds, in providing a sober recreation to rival the attractions of saloons and street corners and dance halls.
When the public can be convinced that its library works to these ends and is economically and efficiently managed, the community will support it generously. When the time comes for building, sufficient funds can generally be got without trouble. The voters will not forget Washington’s injunction, “Promote, as objects of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge,” and they will rank the library first among such institutions.
“There is probably no mode of spending public money which gives a more extraordinary and immediate return in utility and innocent enjoyment.”—Stanley Jevons, quoted by Crunden.
In library building, realize that the public, which pays, should get every possible service in its best form, service for educated and uneducated readers; for workmen and workwomen, as well as for scholars, for the children of all, and for the teachers of the children. Especial thought should be given to those citizens who can have no large libraries of their own. Your library should be made so simple and homelike that it will invite them as a home or a club they own.
Wise Election of Trustees. The town can begin to provide for wise building by paying some attention to selecting suitable trustees. The position is an honorary one in most towns, and is usually given to clergymen, lawyers, men of literary taste, each of whom is, as it were, citizen emeritus, retired from active life, and remote from the wants of the public. The board is apt to become a cosy club, and to get into a rut. Especially is this so if it is in-breeding; allowed to select its own members, and to become a clique. If Harvard College cannot allow its overseers to serve more than two terms successively, towns should not allow any town board to become perpetual. Especially may this autocracy work harm in building. Men chosen for literary taste are not always the most practical. There ought to be on the board of trustees representatives of every section and every large element in the town. Among them there should be enough wise, level-headed men to make up a building committee, just the kind of men who would naturally be selected as building committee of a bank or church, men of judicial temperament who can weigh the argument of librarian and architect, and of sober judgment to curb extravagance in either. It is the part of the public to elect such men, and to defer to their judgment when selected. Literary taste is not needed on building committees. The librarian ought to know how to handle books; his judgment will suffice. Artistic taste is not needed; a good architect ought to have that in his training.
Judgment. In one final point the public can help good planning; in their expression of opinion, their criticism or approbation of the building after completion.
Even the stranger who flashes through the town in his automobile can carry away into his own community an intelligent lesson. If the building has been properly planned, he should say, “That is evidently a library, a good library; just suited to this town (or institution), and evidently doing good work here.”
The citizen of the town should criticize its exterior not so much for splendor as for appropriateness and good taste. Does it suggest to him, and invite him to, the study of books or the recreation of reading? Even then, better suspend judgment until he sees or hears how the new library works as a library. If he can educate himself to this degree, his lay comment will have some share in the progress of library science.
Place of the Library Among Buildings
A great deal of doubt prevails in communities as to just how much money they are justified in putting into a library building. In some towns, a disposition is shown by local economists, to give it a low relative position. They will grant liberal appropriations for a florid town hall, for a large high school, for a commodious grammar or primary school, for a handsome headquarters for the fire department, even for a granite police station, but they hesitate at a roomy building for the public library. This is a narrow way to look at it, for many more residents are served and largely served by a library of the modern active type, than by any one school or other institution. It has often been said forcibly, that the library should rank just ahead of the high school, and have a better building and better support.
Site. Though the choice of the site falls to the trustees, liberality in buying it and public spirit in offering sites at a low price, are incumbent on citizens, as well as discouragement of squabbles arising from desire to benefit real estate in different localities. A large charity should be extended to the trustees, under their perplexities, and a ready confirmation of their choice.
Ornament. There is often an opinion in the community, perhaps even among the trustees, in favor of more solid construction or more ornamental features than are necessary or appropriate in a public library building. This should be stoutly contested by the more sensible citizens, on the ground that a library is no more the object of unnecessary expense or elaboration, than a schoolhouse. It is a fairly well settled idea that schoolhouses should not be extravagant, on the ground both of economy and good taste. It should not be hard to persuade a community to the same conviction as to libraries. If, however, the opinion is obstinate, the suggestion might be made that a sum be appropriated sufficient to provide an ample but simple library building, and then offer a vote of an additional sum for architectural elaboration. This would bring the question squarely before the people.
The trustees ought to be left to work out their own problem first and ask for the necessary funds. If their request seems proper, and the trustees have the confidence of the public, the funds should be promptly voted. If not, a committee which has the confidence of the public can be appointed to report, but when they report the trustees should be left to plan the library. They will have to run it. If they still lack your confidence, change them at the next election.
The Donor
More striking even than the library movement itself, and than public liberality toward libraries, are the constant and generous gifts of private citizens, not only to their native towns, and as memorials to friends, but even to needy communities alien to the giver.
“The most wonderful phenomena in American social development.”—H. B. Adams.[110]
Of these donors Andrew Carnegie has been the chief and the exemplar. His generosity has been wise, helpful, discriminating. He has avoided pauperizing his beneficiaries and has stipulated that they also help themselves, sometimes in building, always in supporting. He has carefully apportioned his gifts to the size and needs of each institution or community. Most other donors have followed his example, and the library movement has been judiciously forwarded by these public-spirited friends. Of the buildings reported in the Massachusetts 1899 Report, 103 were gifts (10 old buildings, 93 new) from private donors, and 19 more part public, part private. It is not always possible to praise the libraries they have built; it is wise sometimes to ignore their motives; but the wisdom of their intentions deserves high praise and lavish gratitude. This generosity has not been confined to America. Edwards[111] notes that out of 180 special libraries he enumerates from all countries, 164 were gifts. Fletcher[112] listed 60 such gifts in America when he wrote, without counting Carnegie. The best gifts are those which give a sum for building and another for books and care. Thus John Jacob Astor[113] left to the Astor library, $175,000 for a building, $120,000 for books, and $205,000, the interest to go to maintenance.
This tide of benefactions may last even through the generation which will follow Carnegie and his fellows, and will doubtless parallel the progress of public building for many years to come.
All donors, however, have not been as wise. Some of them have overweighted quiet communities with grotesque piles. Some of them have impoverished poor communities by expensive piles without endowment.
“There is a small library building in a Connecticut town, designed on a lavish classical scale. Its centre is formed by a large, round and empty vestibule fit rather to receive a swimming tank than a delivery desk. A beautiful dome covers this vestibule, and makes the exterior look like a mortuary chapel. Such a mistake has cost $300,000, besides the expense of administration.”—O. Bluemner.[114]
But this bizarre feature was not all the architect’s fault, it was mainly the donor’s. A prominent architect told me that this commission was first given to him. He studied the needs of the town, and its characteristics, and following his instructions not to spare cost, he designed as fine a library as he thought would suit and serve such a place. On taking his sketch to the donor, he was met with the contemptuous speech. “If that is the finest library you can get up, I will find an architect who can do better.” And he did. “Thus,” said my friend, “I learned a lesson not to cut down my fee by being too conscientious.”
The worst mistake a donor can make is to give the building of the library to some protegé, or favorite architect, without engaging a library expert to advise him. There is one prominent university where all the buildings are useful and beautiful but one. This a donor gave, but got a young friend to design it in New York, without seeing the site, or consulting the professors in charge. The result is a blot and a shame.
A Library no Taj Mahal. If any millionaire sees this whose affection for a lost friend leads him to build a library as a memorial, let me earnestly beg him to make his building very modest and practical,—with a commensurate endowment, if he will. But if he wants to build a beautiful tomb, as he has a right to do, let him select some other more appropriate form. A library, of all institutions, is alive and always busy. The work it can do might be a lasting memorial to a lovely and useful character, but not if it is smothered and deadened by an architectural snuffer. I would suggest that a fine gift to a small town would be a group of buildings, say a town hall, a library and a high school, the three separate but connected by arcades, a noble but not oppressively grand and out-of-place trio; each simple and perfect for its use and place.
The library, properly criticised by Mr. Bluemner, cost $300,000. The town in which it is situated had at the time its library was given, about 4,000 population. In looking over the list of Carnegie gifts, I note that a town of 6,000 was allotted $15,000 as his idea of a suitable building for so small a place. Twenty libraries of this size could be built for the cost of the Connecticut misfit.
The Institution
Any library owned by an institution and not by the public, ought to have as good and as thorough advice as it can get from the wisest and most experienced librarians of similar institutions, which its own librarian or any expert will know how to elicit. It will be fortunate if it can secure as its own expert, some such librarian who has recently gone through the whole experience of building.
The officers of the institution should define beforehand, just what scope its library is to cover; just how it is to serve members, special students and visitors; how much money will be required for suitable building and thorough equipment; where enough money is to come from; what site (if site is not already chosen) is most central for probable readers and will lend itself most readily to the purposes of the association.
If its library is sufficiently large for a suite of rooms, but not large enough to demand a separate building, its trustees and architects should devote to the library, if possible, a separate floor or a separate wing or special ell, with provisions for differentiation, change, and growth, and should so locate other departments that are most closely affiliated with the library, in the closest juxtaposition.
Indeed, where the library has begun to be important, rooms need expert advice in location and details almost as much as the building. But when it has attained the dignity of separate housing, all that is said elsewhere about expert advice applies with double force to a highly specialized institution.
The Trustees
To the trustees falls full and final responsibility for all library building. They formulate the needs of the library, get the funds from the proper body, choose the site, elect the librarian, and select the architect. After hearing the librarian and architect, they decide on all its exterior and interior features. With them should really rest either praise or blame for the result. Unlike the librarian and architect, they serve without stipend. They deserve every consideration and full support.
But not every trustee is an archangel. Boards of trustees may harbor many faddists, many cranks, many busy-bodies. How to head these off from meddling with building is a problem in tact. There is often a member who “knows it all,” and cannot be moved by any expert advice. He is just the man who wants to take control. He is dangerous.
“More buildings are spoiled by clients than by architects.”—E. B. Green.[115] And this kind of trustee is the client who is most apt to spoil the library.
“The trustee will be careful not to consider himself an expert.”—Dr. Jas. H. Canfield.[116] But if there is a sane majority who realize the seriousness and extent of their task, they can at least select their sanest three to serve as a building committee, delegating to them details of investigation, reserving to the full board only important points reported by the committee.
In small communities the trustees will probably be men of greater experience in affairs than their librarian, and better able to make investigations than he. They will also be better able to deal with the architect, and to judge the soundness of his advice. As the library is larger, large enough to have a mature and trained librarian, the board need not take an active part but may be content to serve as a court of appeal.
Experience of the past has shown that there are two prevalent dangers: first, the idea that the board has a primary function to make their building an ornament to the town or institution; second, the delusion of some member that a little dabbling in architecture or building has made him competent to advise the architect.
If a library can be made both practical and beautiful within the appropriation by expert advice, free from amateur experience, it is enough for the trustees to take pride in, that they have furnished wise guidance to such a happy result. Interference with technical details on their part is very unwise. The board should realize that they are trustees of the library, not an Art Commission, and that the special trust committed to them, the trust to which they must be true, is the use of books, not the abuse of architecture.
The Building Committee
Pick out the building committee very carefully, for fitness, not out of courtesy, or because certain members want to serve on it.
A judicial disposition, common sense, an open mind, are necessary; for they have to consult and instruct the architect and the library expert, to ratify their recommendations and decide where they differ.
The constitution of this committee is really the crux of building. On their judgment rests the event of success or failure in planning. Their chief duty is to weigh the advice of experts.
“The Building Committee usually has very vague ideas [at first] about size, location or requirements.”—Bluemner.[117]
Once constituted, this committee should relieve the board of minutiæ of planning. If they are wise, they will throw the burden of all inquiry, inspection and initial steps on librarian and architect. If these agree, the committee may take steps to verify their conclusion, but need not be themselves active. Their function is like that of a “struck jury,” to report from time to time to the full board for ratification of their decisions. Perhaps their most difficult function will be to curb the architect in expense and unnecessary ornament.
They will have all they ought to try to do, in deciding various questions which will arise in planning, and in their services as umpires they can earn the thanks of their fellow-citizens.
Free Advice
If you hesitate to pay money for an expert to give special study to all your problems of planning, you can get good advice from many sources in driblets. In the first place, your librarian will naturally contribute all he knows without extra charge. In England, Duff-Brown suggests that at the outset candidates for librarianship should be asked, “Do you possess any practical knowledge of library planning?”[118] This qualification is not often considered in America; and the ordinary library education and experience do not develop it. But your librarian may happen to have served through building problems in some previous position. If such an expert has thus been fortunately secured in advance, his advice will be freely given. Even if not, any fairly good librarian ought to know where to look in books for information, and to gradually formulate his ideas, to be put into such brief and pointed queries as he is justified in propounding to other librarians.
If you have a state library commission, you are allowed to ask counsel from them. In some states the law provides that they shall give expert advice on building, when asked for it. In all states such a custom prevails. If there is no commission in your state, the commission of a neighboring state would doubtless be glad to advise.
To good librarians everywhere, even to those who have become paid experts, you can always look for such gratuitous consideration as does not make too much demand on their time. Their experience and judgment will be generously given free. “If there be any profession in which there is community of ideas,” says Miss Plummer, “it is that of librarianship.”[119] But always remember that librarians whose advice is worth asking, are very busy with the work of their own libraries.
“Information on specific points is freely given by librarians, but in the midst of pressing official duties it is often a severe tax on their time. It is also impossible, in the brief space of such a reply, and without learning the resources at command, to give much useful information.”—W. F. Poole.[120]
Boil down your queries, into pointed questions which can be briefly answered. Draw them off in a list, with spaces for answers, which can be filled in and returned without labor of copying, and enclose a stamped return envelope. So will you not “ride a free horse to death,” and will preserve your adviser fresh for further usefulness.
But be Sure to Get Good Advice
Either from your own librarian or his friends, or from a library commission, get thorough advice and special study for every point in every department as you plan, and before allowing any exterior features to be settled. Do not put too heavy a burden of responsibility on the architect.
“He should not be expected to furnish the idea of the building. Its planning is a separate problem to be solved. It is the business of the owner, not of the architect, to decide this.”—Patton.[121]
“Do not rely entirely on an architect, however great his artistic and technical qualifications.”[122]—Duff-Brown.
“Most of the unsuitable buildings are due to unstated problems. Too much of the lay trustee, too much of the librarian himself sometimes, who thought he knew, but didn’t, have been the causes.”—B. R. Green.[123]
Indeed, rather than trust to incompetent library advice or an inexperienced architect, I would suggest going to the Library Bureau and giving them charge of building. They would at least know where to go for competent advice, and would not charge any more profit on what they expended than experts deserve. So thinks B. R. Green.[124]
“Many librarians are burdened with repeated calls for information which more properly ought to be obtained from an independent expert.”—H. J. Carr.[125]
But, remember, in getting such advice from busy librarians, you are getting only their opinions, founded on experience and impressions, but not on careful and minute study of conditions involved in your problem, to which they cannot afford to give due consideration.
The fable of the lawyer is here germane, who, when reproached by a friend, “That advice you gave me was worth nothing, absolutely nothing,” replied, “Well, isn’t that just what you paid me for it?”
The off-hand answer of a librarian, even an expert, may or may not fit the case. He is certainly not to be blamed if it does not fit, unless he has been duly retained, and has taken time for mature study of all the facts.
The Local Librarian as Expert
“No plan should be drawn up or accepted without the skilled guidance of a thoroughly trained expert.”—Duff-Brown.[126]
Is your own librarian such an expert? It is assumed that you have one, for some sort of a librarian is a prerequisite of even a rudimentary library.
“First appoint your librarian: the rapid growth of library interests has necessitated expert service in a multitude of essential details.”—Professor Todd.[127]
“Should be a scholar and a person of executive ability, versed in all departments.”—Fletcher.[128]
The local librarian is undoubtedly expert in most processes of librarianship, but is he or she such an expert—not theorist, but expert—in building, that other librarians look up to him for expert advice on that subject? If not, does not your problem deserve the advice of some librarian in whom others have confidence? Do you not need the best advice you can get?
Has your librarian the natural aptitude for planning, which would have made him a good architect?
Has he the presence and force which would lend weight to his opinions against a positive architect?
“Has he a mind broad enough to argue on equal terms with an experienced architect?”—Mauran.[129]
Should you consider him “a capable man of business,” as Mr. Hallam suggested thirty-two years ago?
Is he too young to teach, or too old to learn?
“A very good librarian may yet have no great fitness for the task of planning a building.”—Miss West (now Mrs. Elmendorff).[130]
And a junior librarian need not feel hurt if he is not trusted as an expert. As the best English authority[131] says: “Do not expect too much from a low-priced librarian.” To this I should add, “Do not expect too much of any librarian, even a leader in the profession, and do not expect omniscience of leaders.”
And it is, of course, superfluous advice not to take your local librarian at his own valuation. He is most likely to assume the function of an expert in building when he is least fitted. The really experienced librarian is apt to be modest and to ask assistance, in the belief that “two heads are better than one.” It will not be difficult, through a little quiet inquiry, to find where you can get the best advice, at home or elsewhere.
The Library Adviser
“No library board should attempt building without taking counsel of someone who has made the subject a special study, and has had experience in library management.”—Poole.[132]
If you want to get a really good library, which can be worked easily, economically and effectively for years to come, and if you are not quite satisfied to leave the entire responsibility to the librarian you happen to have, or the architect you happen to get, there is a chance for you to employ, for a far less sum than a competition would cost, such a library expert as will be able to give you aid just where and when everyone may need it most; an adviser who can limit expense of construction, augment capacity, provide for the best and cheapest service, explain your needs to the architect, avoid friction, and bring to the best issue the countless puzzling queries which will arise after the plans are settled, the contracts let, and you plunge into the pitfalls of building and furnishing. Contract with this adviser for the whole problem, from start to finish,—you will want him to appeal to, up to the very end, and it is poor economy to try to scrimp on trifles.
“Committees who work without a trained adviser are certain to spend many times more ... in futile and expensive experiments.... No plan should be drawn up or accepted without the skilled guidance of a thoroughly trained librarian.”—Duff-Brown.[133]
“In this era of the establishment of so many new libraries, and the gift of so many hundreds of buildings, there is decided need for the effective service of a consulting librarian. Many serious mistakes are made, especially in building, for want of a competent professional adviser.”—H. J. Carr.[134]
As two or more counsel are often called in to the trial of a case at law, the importance of library planning demands strong reinforcements for the local librarian. An architect, usually a mature man of affairs, experienced not only in building, but also with men, should be met with equally experienced library advice, lest the library side be overborne. Experience will respect experience, but hesitate to yield to half-knowledge.
It will be possible to get such aid in any part of the country. I should say that there are at least fifty able librarians in the United States who have had such experience in building as would qualify them as experts. Their names could be learned from any library commission, or from any good librarian. “Authoritative recognition of experience and learning stamps a man as trustworthy.”—(Libr. Asso. Record.) Few, perhaps, have worked through all the problems of a very large library. Many have built libraries or branches in the other grades. In the branches, large librarians have faced the requirements of small libraries and would be competent advisers for any grade. The experts in any particular class (except public libraries) are fewer, but could be easily found. With demand, experts will multiply. No new library need lack a suitable adviser, if the local librarian will ask for one, and trustees can see their way to employ him.
As to the fee, the need is so new, that no professional scale has been prescribed. But for service from start to finish, as I have recommended, one per cent on the total cost would not seem too large for the time demanded, the services rendered, and the ends gained.
(To compare library advisers’ fees with architects: The American Institute of Architects have set as a minimum fee, six per cent on the total cost of the building. For preliminary studies alone, one fifth of this fee is to be charged. This would be over one per cent. The library adviser has very little to do with structural planning or construction. His work corresponds fairly well with “preparing preliminary plans,” so that one per cent would seem to be a fair fee to offer. If he is competent he can save ten times this by pointing out better methods and practical economies.)
It will be always an open question whether the expert, when chosen, can spare and be granted time from his duties in his own library. His board, however, would usually feel moved by courtesy to grant such time as he needed, beyond his free evenings and holidays.
Briefer consultations would merit special fees, to be agreed upon. In view of the expert character of the service they should be as liberal as can be afforded.
Selecting an Architect
In some states or cities, laws or public conditions may compel competition, and even where there is no such necessity, solicitation, especially from relatives and friends, makes a direct choice embarrassing. But trustees who have the courage, as they have the clear right, to make a choice, will certainly save money, gain time, be sure of a good working library and of an appropriate and pleasing exterior, and stand a better chance of pleasing everyone, by letting librarian, architect and building committee get to work at the plans as soon as the site has been chosen.
So when you have got a good librarian as a champion, the next step is to get an architect. You need one—
- To advise on site;
- To help plan the interior;
- To consider material and construction;
- To design the exterior;
- To draw working plans;
- To invite bids;
- To prepare and let the contract;
- To superintend construction.
For this you must have on such an important and technical building as a library, thorough professional education, experience in designing and building, knowledge of men; and of course, intelligence, tact, tractability, ingenuity, sagacity, and honesty.
Consider all these qualities in your choice. If your library is beyond the small stage, and especially if you have secured an expert library adviser, you do not so much need an architect who has built libraries. You do not need him for library advice as much as for the duties scheduled above. He needs advice about the special requirements of this problem. Possibly previous ill-advised experience might leave him stubborn in bad ways.
“If it be practicable to engage an architect at the outset, it is the better course,” and remember, “The most competent architect is not likely to seek employment most aggressively.”—Bernard R. Green.[135]
“It is best to select the architect before the site is selected. His advice will be useful. Commissions or librarians who have built can suggest one.”—Miss Marvin.[136]
But the most important question in regard to an architect is, does he belong to the school which exaggerates Venustas in all building, or the better school which accepts Utilitas as the key to library problems?
I heard President Faunce of Brown at a building committee meeting ask of the architect whom they were “sizing up,” this question: “Do you believe in planning the exterior or the interior first?” The answer came, prompt and decided, “I want the interior fully planned first; in no other way can I evolve appropriate architecture.” A year later, at another meeting, President Faunce asked the architect, “How are you satisfied with your library, now that you see it built?” “Very well,” was the answer. “I ought to be, because I have never had a problem so thoroughly presented.”
A similar question ought to be asked every architect before finally engaging him. If he wants to plan the exterior first, he belongs to the class of architects who ought to plan tombs, not libraries. Reject him, however famous or influential or persistent he or his friends may be.
Base of choice. It is wise, in the first place, to disregard pressure. The best architects will rarely try to use it, or allow it to be used for them. A dignified letter, with reference to work they have done, will be all they would allow. Distrust activity in application.
“Announcement brings letters of solicitation from architects or their friends, and all sorts of intrigues. In private work, it is usual to appoint the architect outright.”[137]
If you have a satisfactory expert as a librarian or adviser, any architect who has done good work will do, even if he has had no direct experience with libraries.
“The number of libraries an architect has built makes little difference.”—Marvin.[138]
Prominence, though, is not necessary. A good authority already quoted, says: “The best of architects, standing at the head of their profession, have failed in practical library designing, some of them to a ridiculous degree.”[139] We all could point out such men.
Get an energetic, young architect for a small library; the large firm must turn over details to a subordinate.
“A local architect, if competent, may be better than one at a distance.”—Bostwick.[140]
If you think it best to try to save on a library adviser and yet do not fully trust the experience or the persuasiveness of your own librarian, it will probably be best, especially in small buildings, to find an architect who has already built satisfactory libraries, and who ought to know at least how to avoid bad blunders. But here again do not take his unsupported testimony to his experience. Make private and careful inquiry of the librarians he has worked with, and those librarians who have had to operate his buildings.
“Look around, inquire about different men; make inquiries from those who have worked with each. Select him before he has been allowed to make a single stroke of the pen on the plans. You will work with him much better from the beginning.”—W. A. Otis.[141]
Choose the man, with a good reputation on his own profession, who has shown willingness, reasonableness and ingenuity in getting all requirements satisfactorily packed inside a dignified exterior.
“Take a man willing to listen to the librarian’s point of view.”—W. R. Eastman.
It is not impossible to do this.
The American Institute of Architects, in their Circular of Advice, says that “the profession calls for men of the highest integrity, business capacity and artistic ability. Motives, conduct and ability must command respect and confidence.” This is the type of man who will represent architecture in your contest. See that the library champion is in the same class.
A Word to the Architect
Here seems to be a good place to slip in an aside to any architect who chances on this book.
You will see that the keynote of the volume is belief that the library is more akin to a workshop than to Grant’s Tomb; perhaps akin to a literary workshop, like a school, would be a more correct definition, and you know how your profession grapples the schoolhouse problem, I have seen many new schoolhouses through the country, and have noticed how many of them are simple but effectively beautiful. All librarians believe that a perfect library inside, can be made charming outside, through taste such as has been shown in these schoolhouses. They ask architects to accept their workshop theory rather than a monumental conception.
The building committee are your real clients, not the librarian. To their decision you must bow, even if you have to assume blame for a poor inside. But if they give you a free hand and a library adviser, defer to him. If he is not up to his job, if he is callow or antiquated or faddy, be patient with him. With the tact your profession knows how to exercise, interpret what advice he tries to give, supplement his failings with your own study of the subject, and plan the best library possible under these circumstances. So shall you win a crown of glory among librarians.
But if they give you a mature and wise adviser, welcome him as a friend and lend ear to his experienced advice. You will become a better architect in one branch of your profession, he will broaden much in his, and together you will advance both library science and architecture.
If you are altruistic, there can be no better opportunity to serve the public than by curbing your artistic ambition and devoting all your training and ability to making this building a better library than has yet been devised.
If you thus plan truly from inside outward, I will predict that you will satisfy the public and yourself far more than if you had thrust an unwilling library into an inadequate shell, or had prostituted your genius by forcing a false type of architecture on your helpless clients.
As you must have gathered from glancing through this book, I am a firm believer in the practical genius and taste of the best American architects. I believe that they can create consummate beauty out of the most unpromising conditions, and I hope you will thus grapple library problems.
Which Should Prevail?
The Building Committee chooses site, appoints adviser, selects architect, defines scope of the library, is final arbiter of everything, with appeal to the full board. Every point which remains in dispute after conference among all the advisers, should be formulated in definite questions, with clear reasons pro and con, and submitted to the committee. Except in a very small library, where one of the trustees is virtual director in default of a skilled librarian, the building committee can serve best by keeping their minds free for such decision, if called for, on such presentation. The advocates, if unanimous, should receive unanimous approval; if divided, the committee must decide on the weight of the arguments presented.
The local librarian will have to run the library after it is built, and if he has sufficient sense and experience to know what he wants, he ought to have his choice in any possible alternatives.
The library adviser, as he has the wider range of experience, should carry great weight with the local librarian, the architect, and the committee. He can often point out more than one satisfactory way to reach a desired end. When he and the librarian agree after discussion, as they generally will, the architect should have very strong convictions before opposing them.
The architect, on points of construction, is supreme. Neither librarian or adviser will want to oppose him here, although both may be able to advise. When the plan is fixed, they must confide to him its clothing in architectural form, and its execution. During planning it is wise to consult him at every step, for his training, his experience, his genius, will improve on many ideas, and will show ways of overcoming many obstacles. Before he gets through, indeed, he will get to be very much interested, and become something of an expert himself in library science.
But the architect and librarian should not disagree. When a point of difference arises, as it may, talk it over amicably, patiently, thoroughly. The aim of all should be, to build a good working library. When all the reasons are presented (here is where the librarian or library adviser should be a clear and persuasive advocate), the architect may come to see the matter in the same light. If not, he has got to present more powerful arguments. Perhaps he can show the librarian how he can gain his end in a more correct architectural way. If they still disagree, each side will be ready to present its reasons to the building committee, with odds in favor of the librarian. Champneys (an architect)[142] acknowledges that “architects should not be considered competent arbiters on questions of library administration.” But, if it is a structural question, or a question of taste, the architect’s advice ought to be preferred.
Architectural Competitions
As to libraries, the American authorities seem unanimously opposed to competitions.
The American Institute of Architects at their 1911 convention, said: “The Institute is of the opinion that competitions are in the main of no advantage to the owner. It therefore recommends, except in cases in which competition is unavoidable, an architect be employed upon the sole basis of his fitness for the work.[143]”
“Sketches give no evidence that their author has the matured artistic ability to fulfill their promise, or that he has the technical knowledge necessary to control the design of the highly complex structure and equipment of a modern building, or that he has executive ability for large affairs or the force to compel the proper execution of contracts.
“I will add, that an architect’s established reputation and the excellence of what he has already built, are far better proofs of his ability to undertake a library, than any guess he can make in a competition. Competition descends into a guessing match as to what will please the committee.[144]”
“The whole matter of employing professional men in this way is absurd. The architect should be called in at the very commencement of the work. His opinion is as much needed in the choice of a site, and the first formation of the owner’s ideas, as in the preparation of working drawings.”—Sturgis.[145]
The practically unanimous opinions of architects and librarians who have written or spoken on building, are strongly against competition. In an excellent paper read at the Waukesha Conference by an architect, Mauran,[146] he said: “Appoint your architect. It is a popular notion among laymen that a competition will bring out ideas, but I know of only one building erected from competitive plans, without modification. Aside from the needless expense and loss of time entailed, a greater evil lies in the well-proven fact that most architects endeavor to find the board’s predilections.” (Instead of trying to work out a perfect plan.)
“Avoid the competitive method.”—E. N. Lamm.[147]
“A plan that has nothing in its favor, and everything against it.”[148]
“Of three methods, open competition, limited competition, and direct choice by the board, the last is far the simplest, and much less expensive.”—Mrs. Elmendorf.[149]
“Trustees are not likely to get what they want by competition.”—W. R. Eastman.[150]
“After the requirements have been sent out to competitors, there can be no more consultations between them and the librarian until the award is made.”[151] (This cuts out the librarian just at the critical part of planning.)
“It is not usual or advisable for buildings costing less than $75,000.”—Marvin.[152]
Out of twenty-two libraries included by Miss Marvin only two had competitions. One library[153] reports: “It was the intention of the board to choose by competition, but none of many plans submitted was satisfactory. Committee finally decided on architect and worked with him.”
“What little good there is in competitions is not to the advantage of the client, but rather to the advantage of the architect. The young men have a better chance to win, before their time. An architect directly selected grows up with the committee, educates them, and learns from them.”—Edward B. Green.[154]
“The committee had thought of having an architectural competition, but in deference to the advice of the librarian and his adviser, they selected an architect without competition, so that every step in planning, from the outset, could be discussed from the standard of the architect, as well as from that of the librarian. To this is to be attributed the success of the building.”—John Hay Library Report.[155]
If any doubt remains, after reading these quotations, I will add that all my study and experience for over thirty years, in many hundred concrete cases, have led me to the profound conviction that the surest way to spoil and stifle a library is to invite an architectural competition. I have so great confidence in the talent and genius of American architects, that I believe any one of them, true to the traditions of his profession, would take the conditions presented by librarians, and out of them, work up a library much more practical and far more beautiful than could be ensured by any method of competition.
If law, or public demand, or fear of assuming responsibility, prevent a board of trustees from choosing an architect at the outset, they should first choose an architectural adviser (see next chapter), whom they will have to pay handsomely, as well as to pay premiums and prizes for the competition (I see that the University of California laid aside $50,000 for this purpose); and have him formulate the requirements, superintend the competition, and assist in judging (“assessing” it is called in England) the results.
But I wish that he might be able to shut out from any award those competitors whose plans would exceed the prescribed cost. I remember in my callow days having gone to a friend who was a prominent architect, and proposing to prepare joint plans in a great library competition then impending. He laughed and said, “Yes, I would like to do it as a matter of study, but we will not win a prize. Ours will doubtless be a fine library inside, but there will be no librarian among the judges of award. We will have a fine exterior, but we shall try to keep within the desired cost. Some other architect will plan a larger and more florid and more expensive building, which will fascinate the public eye so much it will win the prize, and the donor will be asked for more money, which he will meekly contribute.” My friend was right. Just this result followed.
In the recent Springfield (Mass.) competition, each architect was required to submit with his plans an estimate of their cubic contents, as a basis for calculating how much they would cost. This was an excellent precaution against just this danger.
In England a competition is apparently accepted as a necessary evil.[156] I cannot find anything on the subject in Burgoyne, but the architect Champneys[157] says that the architect is in most cases selected by open competition. He adds that this “gives openings to those whose abilities would otherwise escape recognition,” and rather faintly concedes some advantage in selection.
“It is almost impossible to make instructions (in a competition) so comprehensive that an architect can be taught this very special branch of his art.”—Champneys.[158]
It should be also recognized that competitions are very costly and delay work on a library several months. What is saved by not having a competition would pay ten times the expense of getting the very best library expert.
Judges of Competition
The advising architect, necessary in case of a competition, and often called in when another architect has been selected for a very large problem, is generally taken from among the heads of architectural departments of universities or technical schools, though one authority suggests that sometimes a prominent architect in actual practice might be a more up-to-date judge. As has been already said, he formulates and guides the competition and acts as chairman of the jury to award prizes. Sometimes more than one architect is asked to serve on this jury, with unprofessional citizens of artistic taste.
But very rarely is any prominent librarian, almost never a considerable number of expert librarians, named for the jury. Here, however, they ought to have especial influence. They can at least prevent bad blunders. As a librarian who had recently served on such a jury confided to me, “All we could do, of course, was to pick out the plans which had the fewest faults from the library point of view.” The least a board of trustees could do, it would seem, after handicapping their library by a competition, would be to let expert librarians have a large share in picking out the plan. But perhaps they would want utility too much, and the real object of a competition is only outside show, of which the librarian is not a better judge than the average man.
If the trustees wish above all to have a good working library, they ought to ask to serve on the competition jury, one prominent librarian who has built, and one prominent librarian of some library of the grade and class which is to be built, and give especial weight to their opinions.
Order of Work
The building committee having been chosen, the librarian being in charge, the adviser selected, the architect appointed, the cost provided for, and the site chosen, it is time for planning to begin.
The first step should be to inspect the site together, and let the architect (without letting his mind anticipate details) say what form of building would best suit site and neighborhood,—tall or low, broad or narrow, four equal-sided, or front and rear, occupying whole lot, or leaving skirts for air, light, and quiet.
If the committee should approve his first impressions, the next thing to do is for librarians to find the cubic contents that funds will allow (see chapter on Cost[159]), get from the architect his idea of how many stories there would better be, with the height of each (including basement), and possible pitch of roof. Then, getting tentatively the height of the building, divide the cube by the height, to approximate the floor area.
The next important question is, which shall be the main floor? The second floor is sometimes considered; if the ground falls off rapidly, what is basement on one front, and ground floor on the other, may be eligible. (In comparing English with American plans and descriptions, remember that their first floor is our second.) Almost invariably, the first or ground floor will assert itself as the main floor, into which, in all buildings but the largest, it will be desirable to dovetail as many departments of active service as possible.
Having already calculated the available area of the floor, you are prepared to make a list of the rooms you want to get on it, and to define the size of each. You will already have arrived at some prepossessions about this, but before you finish planning you will probably have to modify them considerably. To be thorough, it will be wise to make your own list of the rooms needed for the kind and extent of work you want to do, then look over a lot of plans, and perhaps read the printed architectural requirements issued for libraries of your grade and class, in order to be sure you have not overlooked any of your own needs.
As you get to know the size of your delivery-room and main reading-rooms, it is time to confer again with the architect about his general ideas as to suitable proportions for building, whether it will have a distinct front and rear or will require outside effect all around; and as an element in that case, where you shall put the stack, if you have got to have one.
Then comes the most interesting part of planning, the putting together of your picture puzzle. Mr. Foster of Providence actually cut out of paper and grouped together his proposed rooms. I have found it better to get the architect, with paper, pencil and foot-rule, and draw to scale many successive sketches of each floor, assembling and transferring rooms, working out the passages, and calculating stairs. As you proceed, the architect will be evolving his exterior, and now, before he gets his mind fixed, is the time for mutual concessions.
When the rooms are fairly co-ordinated, their required furnishing has to be plotted in, especially the shelving. How many books and readers, how related, do you want in each room? Are wall-shelves better, or full floor cases, shallow or deep alcoves, low floor cases, partitions, railings, what not? Have you provided for full supervision and quick service everywhere?
The stack requires separate study. Is it necessary to have one? Where shall it best be put,—along one side? at the top? at the bottom? or as a projection from the building? As to details, see chapter on Stack.
When the rooms have been settled and their requirements defined, the architect’s special duties begin. He has to settle the necessary height of rooms, the provision of sufficient light for each by day and by night, the arranging provisions for heat and ventilation, not to interfere with books or shelving, or tables or desks. All this before the exterior is considered,—all spent in planning that interior which the exterior must conform to.
“Work on your plan, finish your plan. When that is perfect, the rest will come.”—Mauran.[160]
Then you may take a month or two for the preliminary conferences between the librarian and his adviser; a month or two for conferences between them and the architect; a month or less for inspection of other libraries. At some time during this process two trips may be taken to other libraries, the first rather early, as soon as your ideas have taken form enough for you to know what you want to look at; the other toward the end, when your need of further information is fully defined. Where to go, whom to take on your tour of inspection, will depend on what funds you can spare. Details of furniture, location of lights, and so on, may be deferred, to be taken up during building. A month or less is needed to submit results to the committee. After their approval has been obtained, the architect must prepare working drawings and specifications, invite bids for work, wait two or three weeks for them, and even then you are ready to break ground on your building in half the time and with half the expense, for fees, traveling, and all, that a competition would have required.
Extras. One good result of this thorough study of every detail in advance should be, that no new wants or serious omissions occur to you when you come to build.
But if you do not plan so thoroughly as to cover all contingencies, expect to find something to be changed or added as you go on, confronting you with those “extra charges” which often appall builders of dwelling houses. Still if your oversights follow to plague you, your architect can here help you with the contractor, and can generally find savings enough in “perfectly good” alternatives in labor or material to balance the cost of the extras. If they finally get ahead of you, and materially increase the cost, either architect or librarian is at fault—someone did not plan well ahead.
Model. The last step of planning may well be the preparation by the architect of a sketch-model in clay for the building committee. This shows the proportions and visualizes all features far more clearly then floor plans, elevations and sections on paper can do. If the sketch-model can show both elevation and sections, it will bring to the librarian his allocation of rooms in final review, and bring out to all concerned, librarian, architect, committee and public, just how the building will “work” and how it will look.