According to the promotional video, Scott, there's still time to get a Central Library off the ground by, uh, right now! 2007! Thanks for doing your part to make something happen, (even if it does take a fortnight and even if you do like the dome.) This project is so old, there should be Library-basement mold on the drawings. Who can recall what's what? Remind us about the terms of people's contracts and the building specs -- will the windows open? Will there be open-air terraces? Or will it be an enclosed, not-very-green, air-conditioned shell under a blazing glary glass dome? What about the engineer's and architect's contracts? Still in force? As construction costs rise, do their fees rise too? Against the new projected price tag, what money is in hand and from what sources, including those vaunted private sector fundraisers.

Posted by Francine Foraday | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 5:00 am

Pretty and impressive though it may be, I'm not convinced we need THIS library at whatever skyrocketing cost it's going to require. I think libraries are wonderful and useful community spaces. But I don't presume that a "central" library is more necessary than a branch of the system located in the center of the city.

Posted by CP | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 5:16 am

Domes leak. Nearly every Quigley library has leaked at one time or another because of the compilicated if pointless roofing structure. And the library says the dome will be self-cleaning. How does a dome clean itself? You really need to see the model Quigley provided the library to see how truly awkward th design is. But you probably can't because the last time I saw it put on few, little pieces were breaking off. I imagine the only person who is making bucks off this project is Quigley who I bet continues to charge to the stalled project.

Posted by Leanne | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 6:09 am

CP: the proposed downtown monstrosity, I mean library, "pretty"? Well, you and I definitely don't share the same set of esthetics (I really don't care too much for the bombed-out-aftermath school of architecture. What's next, a re-do of bombed out Dresden at the foot of Broadway?). Remind me never to go shopping with you.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 6:12 am

Build it.I can't understand how San Diego could support putting a huge mediocre baseball stadium in the southwest corner of the East Village for the Padres and not support building this beautiful civic Icon in it's entirety.It shows where the city's priorities are.It also reveals what it values most.Sports, and it's preoccupation with "tax payers money".There's an element in this city that's always whining and complaining about how the city spends tax payers money.

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 7:19 am

Please read and comprehend. There is no reason to build a downtown book mousoleum. Read the prior commentary. Ray has a great idea. A warehouse for the country where book distribution can be directed to all branches. Residents downtown and order their book and pick it up at their local Starbucks and save the taxpayers a bundle. You know many people donated millions of dollars to build branch libraries to be slapped in the face to have the library hours chopped away and building maintenance in desperate need. Let's get real here and stop talking about our favorite architure of a downtown library and feed the homeless, get a recyling program initiated, expand the number of parks and make this a better city.

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 10:12 am

People have written, sometimes amusingly, about the Central Library. Leanne seems to be on to something. "Domes leak. Nearly every Quigley library has leaked...." You mean there are others? Are they all unbuilt? Is Quigley continuing to charge the stalled project for services? Scott, tell us more about such deals. Edgar eschews "the bombed-out-aftermath school of architecture." He is funny and, emphatically, I say ditto about the proposed Hiroshima-like dome. Robert doesn't think much of Petco Park, but he might like to see Padres' owner John Moores front the cost for building the Library over by Petco. Norman misses the point about how central libraries are qualitatively more important than suburban branches, but he's right to be mad about slashed library hours at branches. He says, "Feed the homeless, get a recycling program...expand the number of parks and make this a better city." Norman for Mayor!

Posted by Francine Redux | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 12:49 pm

The action is at the branches! The presentation by central library promoters makes it obvious that our current downtown library serves as a branch library as well as performing certain central functions. Many of the justifications for more room, audiovisual programs, children’s facilities, more computer space, e.g., are branch functions and could be done at a branch library for downtown. A puppet theater is nice, but that’s hardly a vital central library function. So, perhaps the first thing to ask is, “What would a central library facility look like if it didn’t serve as a branch library as well”? The current central library is in a good location, why not upgrade it and use it, rather than selling it off? We could locate book collections and research space there, as well as central administration. Build a much smaller downtown branch library and rent warehouse and office space to do the bookbinding, shipping and receiving. The city could resell the land it has acquired near Petco Park for a big profit and offset most of the cost of the things I’ve described above. It might even make it possible to stop cutting hours at the branches.

Posted by Bill Bradshaw | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 4:32 am

My guess is that all the postings against a central library were written by people who have ready access to nice branch libraries. As a downtown resident, I would love to have my tax dollars spent on a downtown library. The current facility is woefully inadequate and not a place where you would want to spend any time browsing for a good read. In fact, I drive to the suburbs when I need a good book. Please give us downtown residents a break! We pay our share of taxes and we deserve better.

Posted by Pat | reply to this comment
July 19, 2007 2:43 am

Pat: four stories covering an entire city block woefully inadequate?? I'd hate to see what you would consider adequate. The Taj Mahal or the palace of the Sultan of Brunei?

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 19, 2007 5:47 am

I have been opposed to this design for a library since the first time I saw it. The rehashed dome and fancy corners, trellises, etc. are what is making the building so expensive. (Some of the Library's highest staff agree.) Quigley puts that dome on almost all of this buildings. Does anyone think of the cost to heat it, or beter yet, cool it? Also, the design is mandating many more library workers since they can't oversee around all those corners. Whatever happened to simple, elegant design and materials? And while we're at it, even if all the citizens agreed that a new extravagant library were needed,get it out of downtown and the shadow of the ballpark and the multistory high-rises, with their congested parking!

Posted by faye rose | reply to this comment
July 21, 2007 6:52 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.