What Do You Think of the Library's Design?

The kind of light that comes through a glass dome in San Diego is either glare or blinding and, unless the windows open, it will be hotter than Hades underneath it. The architecture is a lot less worrisome than the funding and alleged funders of this project and I wish the voice would reveal who the donors are and how much money is actually on hand. Today City Councilman Ben Hueso is reported to be in favor of this underfinanced project. What does he care: he's heading to Sacramento and hoping to palm the bill off on the strapped public school district. I like the idea of a new Central Library, but not on these scandalous terms.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 3:19 pm

We've been trying to find out the donors for a long time. I'm told that the information needs to be turned into the state on July 1, at which point we should know.

Posted by Andrew Donohue | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 4:11 pm

I appreciate that you have asked to no avail and are waiting for names until July 1, Andy, but I still wish the voice would put Library "Friends" on the record about their fund-raising activities, strategies, whatever. "Friends" have been given public money to raise Library-building money and we don't know what they did with it or how effective it's been. These folks aren't in Sacramento: they are right here in our midst and ought to be held accountable.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
June 24, 2009 10:49 am

Two corrections to my posts. The proposed Central Library dome is not glass; rather it is a kind of latticed architectural ornament and echo of other local domes. Also, it seems the proposed Central Library's alleged "fundraisers" are not shadowy "Friends" of the Library, as I've been calling them, but shadowy members of a Library "Foundation."

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
June 24, 2009 9:06 pm

I have been to the NEA Annual meeting in San Diego this year. With the glass domes, it has been very hot upstairs. I think the library will have the same problem. It won't be energy efficient, that is for sure! I don't think it will be very green.

Posted by Robin | reply to this comment
July 2, 2009 8:44 pm

New Library Design - Enron by the Bay meets the Taj Mahal. The glass dome might get very dirty with no City workers to clean it. Not a very practical concept when you consider energy wasted by that open space.

Posted by grasca | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 3:31 pm

Didn't you hear...the architect assured everyone that the dome was self-cleaning. Pardon me while I laugh.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 5:33 pm

The dome is supposed to be self-cleaning? Must be from all the rainfall we get.

Posted by David Crossley | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 9:46 pm

Unfortunately, your comments, as well as many others offer opinions based on lack of knowledge. There is no glass on the Dome and the architecture is iconic to San Diego. Yes it's a Quigley, and though it doesn't fit the norm (what is that), it can be said he is uniquely San Diego. San Diego still fails to have a "Great" building representing the City. Sadly the closest to a great building is the County Administration Center built decades ago. I have no fear that funding from the private side will come once ground is broken and donors are assured there is a real project. The City has spent $17M to date so why waste that effort. The unfortunate depressed market does offer the opportunity to build this at probably the most economical time in current history.

Posted by stillasupporter | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 9:15 am

The biggest problem from the very beginning of this project, has been the cost and lack of funding. Ironically enough, contractors in this city are hurting so badly right now, that most public bids on projects are coming in at 30-40% under projected cost! It would be reasonable to assume therefore, that this building could not only be built for no more than the approximately $182m originally budgeted for the project, but for a significantly lesser amount. Claims that the costs of construction have gone up since 2002 do not apply in our current economy.

Posted by Roy Evans | reply to this comment
June 24, 2009 12:48 pm

This may be a comparison of apples to oranges, but I must ask anyway. To use the example of another large proposed project in the San Diego area, the new Chargers stadium, the costs for that stadium have more than doubled since the original plans were announced. Yet, you claim the library can be built for "considerably" less than the original $182 mil? Is this recession selective? It affects libraries, but not proposed football stadiums?

Posted by David Crossley | reply to this comment
July 18, 2009 12:53 pm

I am a strong supporter of the new library but the design was done so long ago and the project has been on hold for so long that it doesn't really hold up. It already looks dated. Alot of the elements are silly and pointless because they are seen in almost every other new building here in San Diego from strip malls to condos... domes, uplifted, angular roofs, slatted walls, etc. It needs to be redesigned if it is to be something unique to San Diego AND and be architecturally world-class.... Look at what is being built almost everywhere else.... Finland, Spain, Seattle, China... to get an idea.

Posted by Wendell | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 3:45 pm

Boring, uninspired, definitely will looked dated in about 20 years. Looks like a hospital with a virtual dome pasted on top. Let Jim Hubbell have a crack at it. Then we might get a chance of something unique and memorable.

Posted by goodhabits | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 3:54 pm

It's an airy kind of building that at least isn't your typical San Diego big box, with a latticework dome and some kind of a ramp structure in front to break things up. We're running out of water, how will they keep all the windows clean? I'd like to see a bigger public plaza incorporated into the design, but you can't have everything in this town.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 4:52 pm

Actually, you can't have anything in this town, if you're talking about civic-mindedness over cronyism, open progressive government over the secretive links of special interests to petty politicians and truth-telling over outrageous spinning -- as in "funding from the private side will come once the ground is broken" from "stillasupporter." We deserve a well-designed central-city library with books and room for research, study and public gathering -- paid for by a combination of taxpayer money and publicly-disclosed private gifts. What we don't need is what we're apparently getting -- a rigged deal set up by the shadowy Library "Friends" who are importuning some ambitious members of the public school Board of Education and the Superintendent to foot the Library-construction bill with recently-passed school bond monies. And to Sandy Lippe, I disagree about blogs' value: they are barometers of (some) people's feelings and besides, they are often blessedly funny.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerma | reply to this comment
June 24, 2009 10:04 am

Well said. Thanks. There is never enough space in this restricted environment at VOSD where I can ever fully describe my point of view on this subject of the library, or the subject of the current SDUnified Board of Trustees and their Bond slush fund. If you were to throw in the Navy Broadway Complex (which some moron on this thread suggests we "take back"), that makes the "hat trick" of subjects likely to push me over the flipping edge into an apoplectic fit. So thank you Mrs. Zimmerman for conveying with brevity and wit what I could not.

Posted by Linda Tegarden | reply to this comment
June 25, 2009 9:34 pm

The city must take back the Navy Broadway Complex (NBC) site from the Navy, since it isn't being used for military purposes, instead of allowing the Navy to get into the real estate redevelopment business with Popa Doc Manchester. Sell off the existing civic center and library sites to highrise developers, and use the money from those sales to build the new library and a new city hall on the NBC site. Return city hall to our downtown waterfront where it was until the 1960s, when downtown developers and real estate speculators got it moved to its current site on C St.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 4:52 pm

Known as the Homeless Hilton, the dome will be a downtown Bird Sanctuary. I heard the architect speak for an hour a couple of years ago on the subject. He never used that four letter word: B-O-O-K.

Posted by nostalgic | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 5:34 pm

Birds are good -- just not at the airport or pooping-up the plaza under the dome. They can be deterred by those wiry spiky perpendiculars that are on streetlights. B-o-o-k-s are also good -- even if the architect forgot to mention them -- illuminated, sewn, glued, paperback and on-line. There's room for all forms at a new Central Library. And as for Hiltons -- if you want to see a really scary architectural site, visit the desolate new Hilton across from the undistinguished baseball stadium just south of the Great Wall Convention Center. The new Central Library, slated for the same neighborhood, will fit right in.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
June 24, 2009 12:12 pm

I think Quigley's work is great and his contributions to both architecture and San Diego are significant. I am not sure about this one. It has always looked like a "post modern" idea of what San Diego is about. This city has aWhy not figure out the budget and then design something that we can afford? If it were designed today would it look like this? What about a budget and a competition? Why are we so stuck on this building?

Posted by rocklawn | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 6:47 pm

I have heard comments from dignitaries and numerous others that the design is hideous, and may be the very reason contributions have not been forthcoming. The lath and glass dome is something Quigley tries to get into every building. And today's energy consciousness should preclude its ever being built. The rest of the bulding is mostly gingerbread and gewgaws, which have added tremendously to the cost and nothing to its beauty, let alone its function. For what we have spent on it so far, we could have hired a world-class architect and had something great for a lot less money. Has anybody ever heard the "less is more" concept? Someone should also be questioning the wisdom of accommodating several hundred teenagers stampeding in and out of the quiet of a library, or how the whole project fits into.the.business.of educating. young.people.

Posted by faye | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 10:02 pm

To the editor: When I got your email titled Comments on Architecture of the new library, addressed to me, I thought my missive might be one of those posted. So I read through the many places Library letters were used, with no results. Why do I keep writing when you have never acknowledged or posted any of my emails? I have a much better record with the U-T,. which prints almost all of the ones I send. They evidently think I have something interesting or valuable to say. I'm sorry you don't. (You don't have to print this. . . . I just had to let someone know.)

Posted by faye | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 10:44 pm

Faye, Unfortunately, I got too many e-mails and couldn't post every one I got. You've got a much better chance if you use the comment section here like you just did.

Posted by Andrew Donohue | reply to this comment
June 25, 2009 2:32 pm

I like the design very much and think it would be an extraordinary contribution to the downtown skyline. The worst thing that San Diego could do would be to design this building by committee or by public plebiscite. I find it amazing that there was no such discussion for the rather hideous architecture of the convention center, nor for the proposals of Doug Manchester to block off the waterfront with his enormous, ugly buildings, nor for the ballpark. Maybe the fact that this library design has stirred so much controversy means that it is in fact going to stand the test of time! Look at what has happened with Disney Hall in LA - that Frank Gehry design was roundly criticized, yet now that it is built it has become a beloved and distinctive addition to the downtown area.

Posted by Charlotte Rawling | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 5:41 am

I kind of like the dome, but the rest of the building looks like a parking garage. I think we're overdue for a new design. Has anyone considered combining the library and a new city hall into a single complex, since we need them both, and we need them downtown? Look at the Vancouver Public Library for inspiration. They built their library and a federal office tower on one city block, as a single project, with architectural excellence including wonderful public spaces indoors and out - even a rooftop garden. I've visited there, and it works. (Too bad this city doesn't have the vision for anything that intelligent.)

Posted by Submerging Artist | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 5:47 am

Wow! I like your idea, and it would stop the need for the teenage save the library plan. It would be so nice to have a more central library. I wonder if the port people are the friends to library people.

Posted by Robin | reply to this comment
July 2, 2009 8:53 pm

Perhaps the powers that be could arrange for a trolley station in the basement, then we could have three levels of irrelevancy at one go. jim dodd

Posted by Jim Dodd | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 7:00 am

I have two thoughts about the Library and School plans: First, why are we considering risking our children safety by not living up to the school building codes of California. Why isn't this an issue? Aren't out children important enough to have this discussion? Second, San Diego, with a few exceptions is a boring architectural city. If we want to become world class, then we need to build signature buildings. I suggest hiring Santiago Calatrava and let him design a world class building. Check out some of his beautiful designs and imagine one in San Diego. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Calatrava) Paris has the Eiffel Tower. London has Big Ben. New York City has the Empire State Building and St. Louis has the arch. Where is the one key building that says San Diego?

Posted by Jim S | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 7:12 am

My experience using various city libraries, including the central facility downtown, is that most people spending time reading in the libraries are at the computers. Consequently, the last thing that is important to them is a 3-story dome. The addition of a high school facility seems problematical. Where is the recreational space for the students? Will their needs require extensive use of what is supposed to be public space, e.g., the auditorium? That is, what space in the design for library use will now be used by the school? Finally, this design may become locally world famous if it is ever constructed; however, it seems odd to claim that it will actually become famous throughout the world, e.g., a rival for the Leaning Tower of Pisa or the Forbidden City. This design fails to address the true needs of the system as of today or in the foreseeable future.

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 7:23 am

San Diego is not known for its architectural gradeur, and I don't think the city should be the one to try and start a trend, unless they codify a regulation that all new buildimgs, public and private, be pat of a grand design. As a practical tax payer, I think function over form is the solution for the library design. I also think the city should spend the $150 million and create a library of the future, which would be the greatest digital library in the world, and not a brick and mortar edifice down town. So my vote is for function over form, and content over concrete.

Posted by Steve Gerken | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 7:54 am

I almost don't care about the exterior design. I favor the unusual and the unexpected-- Seattle's public library, for example. What matters most, however, are the interiors. Whatever the outside looks like the inside must be an inviting place for readers and other library users. There should be comfortable, open places, that invite quiet reflection. There should be places that invite group work and conversation and the sharing of ideas and visions. Of course, there should be places for books and for computers and videos and CDs and coffee-- but mostly there should be places for people. Our present, sad downtown facility is not a mark of civic pride. Our stellar branch libraries and independent bookstores to the contrary notwithstanding, San Diego will never be a community of readers until it has a headquarters library that proves the point.

Posted by librarian | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 8:03 am

Kindle: Amazon's 6" Wireless Reading Device looks better, and more functional.

Posted by Fred Jacbosen | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 9:16 am

Shhh! If somebody hears you and realizes that 1500 books fit onto a kindle, then the whole argument for a new book warehouse goes up in smoke. There are currently 285,000 books available on the Kindle. The new central library is projected to hold 1,250,598 volumes, so the Kindle can already eliminate the need for 23% of that floorspace. For those like Wendell who feel the Central Library design is already dated, just wait 10 years when several million volumes will be available on readers like the Kindle, and the only purpose for large libraries will be to house originals of rare and special collections which could easily be housed in the existing Central Library with much room to spare.

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 9:39 pm

I think the design is very nice. And that fact that it was designed several years ago and still looks fresh is a positive. I don't think it looks dated at all. And if you do think it looks dated, how will a new design be any better -- won't that design look just as dated to you a few years down the road? As far as the dome, from what I've seen it's really more of a lattice work, not a solid dome like on Santa Fe depot or California Tower. It's really a shame when you go to other large cities -- L.A., San Francisco, Phoenix, Denver, Seattle (you name it) -- and see their great new libraries. Typically, San Diego has will to make itself a great city, just a OK one with great weather.

Posted by ScottR | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 10:14 am

Blogs are both great and ruinous to public projects. For those of us who panicked at drawing a straight line in art, we can attack Quigley's architectural design because a blog lets us do that. I guess the masses will continue to find reasons not to build Central: the architect's design, the recession, the digital age. Books are so old fashioned, according to some. First, you go after the architectural design; next you cry poverty unless it is a convention center expansion, and then you talk about the digital deal with reading. According to a few, a library is just a warehouse really, but only to those who don't visit libraries often. "I cannot live without books," Thomas Jefferson said. If only he were here to help us promote our new Central, a public project of great value. A library lover

Posted by Sandy Lippe | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 10:49 am

Have you been in the triangle building on Miramar Road - it's a big hothouse due to all the glass. This is going to be a maintenance nightmare and reguire alot of money to cool and heat. I do plead ignorance since I don't know if there are any green or solar aspects to this building. If there aren't, I can't believe we would allow a public building to be built without them. As for the design, it does nothing for me. I'm not a fan of sterile, white, concrete, sharp edged boxes which we have way too many of cropping up downtown. We complained when "the projects" were built that way with tax dollars but it's okay for the library? Add the top - I see the power plant at San Onofre.

Posted by knowpracticality | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 11:12 am

Pyramid. Not triangle. This is why we need libraries. And more filters for online blowhards.

Posted by archikvetch | reply to this comment
June 24, 2009 11:09 am

Okay, so you excelled in solid geometry. Don't be a show-off. And don't be mean to fellow-travellers either.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
June 24, 2009 2:33 pm

You are correct. Misdirected anger that I didn't temper. I was the blowhard. Apologies extended.

Posted by archikvetch | reply to this comment
June 25, 2009 10:59 am

Is it just me or does this remind anyone else of the San Onofre power plant? Why is it okay to spend tax dollars on this concrete box when "the projects" were unacceptable concrete boxes?

Posted by FirstImpression | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 11:26 am

I think Quigley is a genius. He married elements of our past to our present and created an iconic building that will stand the test of time. As a Downtowner, I can't wait to visit "our" library without feeling the need to take a shower once returning home. I look forward to doing research at a table with wireless capacity under a three-story dome that filters in natural light. I've waited for over a decade, it's now time.

Posted by Downtowner | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 11:36 am

The level of architectural discourse in this burg is almost a bigger embarrasment than the pension scandal. Where were all you haters about ten years ago when the design team had neighborhood and public design sessions? When the dome was presented as an echo of the lathe house in Balboa Park? When the reading room was presented an an outdoor space so the climate could be enjoyed? Yes, the discussion about local libraries and centralized resources can and should continue. Yes, changes in technology will impact operations and use of the facility. But let's drop all the nimrod and yahoo inspired drivel about Taj Mahals and edifice-complexes, and cease belittling Rob Quigley's talent and reputation. Kudos to Voice for asking opinions! Now that the UT doesn't cover architecture, there is no forum for design discourse.

Posted by archikvetch | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 12:04 pm

Why build a substandard school and call it a charter? All kids need to be protected the same way. If we must have a central library building and we can't find the funding for it, put it in the City Hall complex. Don't saddle the schools with costs they don't need for a school that downtown parents don't want. Build an elementary school if that is what is needed and forget the library.

Posted by Maria Penny | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 12:45 pm

I think Quigly does pretty decent stuff but, and I think he would admit as well, he doesn't have the international reputation of a Koolhass (Seattle's Central Library); Graves (Denver's), Pelli (Minneapolis), Freed (SF), or Safdie (Vancouver's). Does anyone know how worldwide we cast the net back when this design was selected? Wouldn't people like to see what Koolhass or Ghery could come up with for us?

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 2:56 pm

You are kidding, right Erik? So you throw down some names you found in a Google search of library architects...and you think Quigley (correct spelling) does some "decent stuff" and we are supposed to think you know anything worth sharing about architecture in general and this library in particular. What do you know about an international reputation or what Quigley thinks about his? FYI, Caesar Pelli AND Moshe Safdi competed against Rob Quigley and lost. I know because I was there. And I was there through 13 years and dozens of public meetings, charrettes and the City Council vote that approved this project. As a matter of fact, I worked for the structural engineer who is the engineer of record for both the New Main Library AND Frank Gehry's Disney Concert Hall. You know nothing and you should shut up.

Posted by Linda Tegarden | reply to this comment
June 25, 2009 9:14 pm

My goodness. Invective rather than argument. Simply put, the other architects have built far greater internationally known portfolios. Now I understand defending the local guy but really - you want to make the argument that Rob is better known and has a better worldwide reputation than Gehry, Graves or Koolhaus? It is almost laughable. When Rob gets a significant building of international fame actually BUILT I will "shut" up.

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
July 1, 2009 7:26 am

Finally found it after hours of looking and reading. Never mind!

Posted by faye | reply to this comment
June 23, 2009 5:39 pm

I have walked past that empty lot with the sign, "Future home of Central Library" and wondered what was causing the delays. One of the comments indicated the City had already spent $17 M. How, why, when? I do not like the domed area at all. Who decided this library needed to be a masterpiece to define San Diego? I do not see it in this Article or in the Comments, but I have heard that there is a large amount of funding that will be gone if the Library construction doesn't start soon. Is that a fact?? Sorry, I have not done much research. Has the design actually been approved? Why is school money being talked about? Isn't this a City project? Get this done NOW. I am amazed at the S-L-O-W decision making.

Posted by Auntsandiegospeaks | reply to this comment
June 24, 2009 10:19 am

1) This Library idea has been limping along years and I can't remember how much money has been paid to the architect for his work, but it was a lot. 2) An often-extended $20-million state library grant finally expires on July 1 unless the "fundraisers" can prove they've actually raised some money. Unknown donors' names then will be revealed. 3) "Fundraisers" received $1 million from the City to go about their Library promotion, and no one has accounted for that money to date. 4) On Tuesday Library "fundraisers" got three School Board trustees to vote for a $20-million giveaway of school bond money to the flagging Library project and to accept their jury-rigged quid pro quo to put a "charter school" of some kind inside the Library's walls -- an unanticipated use of the design which lacks any provision for earthquake safety required by state law for public schools.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerma | reply to this comment
June 24, 2009 9:20 pm

The Library is reminiscent of the Hiroshima Memorial, but it looks a lot better than all the Moores and Manchester Monstrosities that litter San Diego's downtown. I think it looks OK, but Seattle, Chicago, other cities have better. And how long until those marvelous views (as shown in the video) are blocked by moore anonymous highrises? San Diego has a waterfront that it has squandered, with blocked views and blocked access. Non-existent promenades between attractions in the city (except for the short one on Harbor Drive, between Quigley's Childrens Museum and Quigley's Library). Call me a hater, but it's directed at the CCDC and other moneygrubbers who sell our city short. I like this building, and hope it starts a trend towards more interesting architecture downtown. San Diego's motto: a major league city, still in the minor leagues.

Posted by Sam Rye | reply to this comment
June 25, 2009 10:02 am

Just what we need , more money spent on "pretty" rather than enhanced functionality. Has anyone asked what happens to print, photos, etc when hit by direct sunlight or radiated heat, not to mention people sitting under the dome. The costs would drop significantly if this were a "non iconic" design, built on the principals of ease of use, functionality, and energy conservation. One other thing, what about the earthquake faults in the area. I'm sure San Diego would love to have all their historical archives lost when this occurs.

Posted by Michael Richards | reply to this comment
July 1, 2009 9:39 am

When our library was proposed, I visited the new ones elsewhere to see what they were doing in Vancouver, BC; San Francisco, CA; Phoenix, AZ. Our project is noteworthy. At the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art there was a section in the Bookstore on RWQ. The Quigly section was featured along with Gehry, Koolhaus, etc. The project is worthwhile. I am thrilled that this may be finally built. The components that will be included are wonderful. If people find it contreversial, so much the better. It gets people's attention. But what's being suggested for mixed-use with a school is even better. Let's get on with it. Let's have some vision.

Posted by Jay Turner | reply to this comment
July 15, 2009 11:16 am

It looks ridiculous! I don't want my tax money wasted building that monstrosity. I haven't liked it from the beginning and the more time that passes the less I like it.

Posted by Doug | reply to this comment
July 20, 2009 10:01 am

San Diego's new age architecture is awful. In 10 years it will look like a ghetto in East Village and Little Italy. Bright colors, poor choice of materials....can you say Padres taco uniforms? If this dome is an attempt to mimic the domes of USD, and the three iconic domes in La Jolla of the Bishop's School, St. James Church and the La Valencia, nice try, but a huge miss. Please, please, do not build this building. Beside the fact that a library is an antedeluvian concept in the internet age (Seattle's $400MM library was most crowded at the computer stations, and by the way, that is an architectural gem), we deserve an iconic building, and who is to say Sydney is any more of a major city than San Diego? The convention center is a well intentioned attempt, but I'm talking of a Frank Gehry world class design.

Posted by Tom Gotfredson | reply to this comment
July 26, 2009 5:56 pm

• 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.