College and Research Libraries By J O H N E. B U R C H A R D Postwar Library Buildings1 THE Cooperative Committee on Library Building Plans is not a formal commit- tee but rather a small congress of some- what fluctuating membership which meets from time to time to discuss common prob- lems encountered in preparing plans for forthcoming college or university library buildings. T h i s committee was self-estab- lished and owes responsibility to no one save itself. I t was created as sequel to a letter from President Dobbs, of Princeton University, inviting a number of university presidents to send representatives to a meet- ing for the purpose of discussing mutual problems in the planning of postwar library buildings. T h e first meeting was held at Princeton in December 1944, the second at the University of Missouri in the spring of 1945, and the third at Orange, Va., in the fall of that year. A further meeting is projected for the State University of Iowa this spring, at which time it is hoped to study a mock-up of the very interesting, fully flexible building proposed for that in- stitution. At the first meeting nine of the eleven originally invited institutions were repre- sented, as follows: Princeton University, Rutgers University, University of Pennsyl- vania, State University of Iowa, Washing- ton State University, University of Maine, University of Missouri, University of N o r t h Carolina, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. None of the representatives has dropped his interest or failed to attend subsequent meetings, and Messrs. Boyd of 1 Based on a p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t the C o n f e r e n c e of E a s t e r n College L i b r a r i a n s , Nov. 24, 1945. Princeton, chairman, David of Pennsyl- vania, secretary, Ellsworth of Iowa, Powell of Missouri, and Rush of N o r t h Carolina have been steadfast and ardent attendants. By the time of the second meeting, the word had spread and a number of addi- tional institutions sent representatives. Since that time there has been some fluctua- tion among the newcomers, but Metcalf of H a r v a r d and Heaps of Rice Institute have made regular contributions while at various times the committee has also enjoyed the participation of the University of Wiscon- sin, Claremont Colleges, and others. T h e original purpose of the committee was to make a formal study of the general problem of the college library building, probably with the aid of a grant from a foundation, and to make a formal report of findings. Circumstances have altered this program and the objectives have become more personal to the membership. A characteristic meeting has extended over several days and the attendance has been broadened to include university admin- istrators (the president of the State Univer- sity of Iowa, for example, attended the Orange meeting), the architects of build- ings which are being planned, and experts in various techniques of supreme importance to a library building, such as prominent heating and ventilating engineers, illumina- tion engineers, and manufacturers of stack and other library equipment. A t every such meeting the small size of the gathering has permitted free and wide-ranging infor- mal discussion stretching from the broadest questions of library management as they 118 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES might affect a building plan, to a detailed and frank criticism of the plans of specific buildings as they were presented to the committee by their individual sponsors. From these meetings each individual representative has surely obtained a great deal which should help him with his indi- vidual problem. T h e question of whether the committee might not properly prepare a report for wider circulation which would make at least the generalizations available to more planners is still under consideration. Meanwhile, the committee authorized the writer to present informally some of the findings in a paper before the November 1945 meeting of the Conference of Eastern College Librarians. T h e statement which follows is a paraphrase of this paper modi- fied for a reading audience and, as in the case of the paper, must be regarded as the personal conclusions of a member of the committee, a relative newcomer to library business, and in no sense a formal report of the committee. Influencing Factors T w o sets of factors have clearly influ- enced the thinking of all the participants; one is a set of fears, the other a set of basic queries as to the activities which ought to be carried on in these new buildings. Persons about to build library buildings in universities or colleges appear to be haunted by three specters—the specter of the architect, the specter of growth, and the specter of change. These are, of course, the very same specters which frighten a sensible person about to build any sort of new building, but they seem to be more dramatically arrayed than usual in the sub- ject case. T o the architect is ascribed, and with con- siderable justification, the crushing load im- posed on most librarians who now occupy the beautiful buildings of many a campus. It has been one of the misfortunes of the library that it has had to occupy a central position on the campus, and that it has naturally epitomized the dignity and schol- arly quality of the institution in greater degree than most educational buildings are called upon to do. T h e natural result has been that it has especially engaged the at- tention of those who seek "amenity" for the campus in external expressions; it has become one of the show places of the insti- tution and often the show place. Small imaginations have taken refuge in monu- mental staircases, a forced symmetry for nonsymmetrical activities, colonnades and porticos which may or may not look well according to one's taste but which always steal light. Especially, the creators have built finished things which, on the one hand, could not be readily altered to ac- commodate new or changed activity and, on the other, could brook no addition for growth without having their form spoiled; when additions have become mandatory this has resulted in the addition of other bal- anced and still less functional elements. Responsibility Shared Certainly the architect as the deus ex machina of this process must bear a heavy share of the blame, but he should not stand in the dock alone. Donors, trustees, per- haps even college presidents, and, surely, alumni must bear their share of the respon- sibility. Even the librarian himself can scarcely escape censure: even where he was not an active participant in the planning, as has too often been the case, he has been a sensible and important influence on the cam- pus; he has surely known that his library was to be built; he has probably not been sufficiently combative. T h e librarian who is not sufficiently consulted has, presum- ably, not been vocal enough. I t is doubtful that this can be considered APRIL, 1946 10 7 entirely a dead issue. T h e librarians of the committee are, generally speaking, influen- tial at their respective institutions. T h e y seem to be able to have plenty to say about their new buildings. But even some of the plans which have been presented to this group seem to be laboring under the dead hand of an old-fashioned approach to the architectural problem. I t is certainly too much to expect that all the institutions about to build libraries might be willing to say to their architects: "Build us what we need for a library and forget Williamsburg, Bourges, Oxford, and Rome." But there surely could be more who would speak thus and mean it. It is hard, indeed, to understand the philosophy of university trustees and donors and ad- ministrators who are so bold in their ap- proaches to pedagogy and to scientific research and so timid in their approach to architecture. I t is hard to see how this body of educated men can find standards of building taste only in forms which have re- ceived the cachet of nobility through time, how they can assert a philosophy which al- ways insists that every new building must not only be compatible with but essentially identical with what is already on campus. T h e very Europe which these people admire and which they still copy long after Europe itself has ceased such copying save in dog- matic states—this Europe was the living demonstration of the ability of well-designed buildings of every period to live together without clash. Architect of Today M a n y architects, it is true, are by educa- tion and habit unfitted to do anything more; but there are also many who can build a building of today for today, and these men will be found not only among the ranks of the radical or so-called modern architects. Today it is unnecessary to accept the crip- pling hand of the architect who will not first think of how the building works, how- ever much this limitation may have been inevitable in the past. Indeed, in the very change in the archi- tectural air there lies a greater challenge than in the fear of what has happened be- fore. T h i s challenge can be met easily if the librarian is on his toes; if he is so alert that it will not only be a challenge but a help. T h e architect of today is a coordinator. H e is necessarily adroit at surveying opinion, at synthesizing conclusions, at writ- ing a program based on these conclusions, and at expressing them in building form. Once these conclusions have been expressed in presentation drawings, once someone of influence has looked upon these drawings and found them good, it will be very hard to change them. T h e risk, then, is that the architect will not only design the building but will design the program for the activi- ties subsequently to be pursued. If the li- brarian has not crystallized his own program before this process has taken place he will find himself trying to administer the pro- gram of another person—a person with no further responsibility, a program with which the librarian may be completely out of sym- pathy. I t is hard to escape the conclusion that this failure of librarians to crystallize their own thinking is as much responsible for the failures of the past as has been the undi- rected thirst for "beauty." I t is possible in the meetings of the committee to detect some uncertainties in librarians' minds on very big issues. If these remain unclarified in the mind of the librarian at the time he comes to face the architect, the librarian is likely to lose. T h e architect will know more about the problem than the librarian, or at least he will appear to know more in any conference. 120 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES Prepare a Program At least one way in which the librarian can prepare himself for what will be, at worst, a conflict in which he should prevail and, at best, a pleasant and successful col- laboration, is to crystallize his thinking by preparing a written program in black and white. T h i s was the technique which was employed at the writer's institution. T h e advantage of the written program, prepared before any sketches have been made, is that it can set out all the desiderata without regard to whether or not all can be achieved; it can establish the priorities of the desiderata so that if anything needs to be sacrificed it is clear what it shall be; and it affords a checklist which will make it abundantly clear exactly what has been sac- rificed. T h e technique at M . I . T . was about as follows: T h e library staff first prepared an extensive and detailed statement dealing primarily with library processes, and the director of libraries then wrote a first draft of a program which included all policy considerations. T h i s program was written in very positive form. Even where ques- tions had not been answered in the mind of the writer he made a categorical affirma- tion on every point. T h i s was because experience had shown that clean-cut and definitive debate occurs only when one fa- vors or opposes a specific proposal and seldom when one is asked to debate alternatives. T h i s specific doctrine was then discussed and modified in a full meeting of the library staff; the modified d r a f t was similarly treated in a full meeting of the faculty com- mittee on the library which, at M . I . T . , includes a representative for each depart- ment; the second modification was again adjusted at a meeting of the corporation visiting committee on the library; and the final d r a f t was adopted by the administra- tive council of M . I . T . T h i s doctrine was not expected to go un- challenged from the architect, who was en- couraged to make his own independent study, but in all subsequent discussion it has afforded a foundation which has always made it clear to the library administration what it was doing when it agreed to a change. T h e r e have not been many changes. Best Procedure? T h e r e can be difference of opinion as to whether this has been the very best pro- cedure. T h e architects of M . I . T . are in- clined to think that a better original program might have been produced had the collabo- ration of the library administration and the architect begun before the writing of the program, and been carried through this writing. T h e writer demurs because he needed the clarity of purpose which the writing has brought and because the very nature of the program had an important role to play in the selection of an architect who, by temperament and skill, was demonstrably able to work in accordance with the spirit of the program. O n the whole, it appears that most li- brarians would profit if they would under- take such a task before the architect has been selected. From this experience and from the meet- ings of the committee it is possible to make some categorical statements: 1. It is essential that the librarian be a full- fledged member of the building committee for the library and be kept fully apprised of all the thinking and planning of the architect—even the most preliminary. 2. It is essential that, before meeting with the architect, the librarian shall have formed for himself a clear idea of what he is trying to accomplish in his new building. 3. Bewildered as librarians may be, it is essential that they do not tolerate the accusa- tion from the architect or anyone else that they do not know what they are doing. All APRIL, 1946 10 7 professions indulge in self-criticism, even architects, and this must not be construed as a sign of weakness but rather as a sign of strength. 4. In all matters which deal with policy of library management, the desires of the li- brarian must be carried out in the building even when these are in conflict with the opinion of the architect as to how the library ought to function. These opinions should be care- fully considered because nonprofessional and outside views are often the right views. But after this consideration it must be remembered that the librarian will have to administer the building while the architect will be elsewhere. It is better to try to make your own mistakes work than to be pestered by those of someone else. 5. On the other hand, the architect will inevitably be more expert on matters of floor finish, ventilation, illumination, and circula- tion. After helping to set standards of per- formance, the librarian should trust the architect in such matters. 6. The collaboration between architect and librarian can be one of the most pleasurable experiences in the life of either and should not be spoiled by fear, disrespect, or distrust. If such principles are followed it is pos- sible to look with some confidence to the kind of library buildings which will be pro- duced. Eternal vigilance will be required, and the librarian cannot stop when he has given his written program to the architect but must stay with the job until the keys are placed in his hand. Specter of Growth T h e specter of growth is epitomized by Fremont Rider's charts. T h i s is not the place to debate the validity of extrapolating into the f u t u r e a curve, the abscissa of which is time; nor will it help to discuss the vari- ous proposals which have been made to solve the problem of storage. Indeed, it is doubt- ful whether storage is nearly so critical a problem as means of reference to large amounts of material, even if these can all be put on tiny cards. It seems abundantly clear that libraries which are not now full-scale research libraries in all fields must limit their aspirations to quality in a few fields rather than to quantity in many; and that even the few great university research li- braries of the world will have ultimately to come to similar conclusions, though on a broader scale, if only through the limita- tion which ultimately overtakes any univer- sity budget. T h e solution, as everyone well knows, lies in a full-scale cooperation about which everyone agrees in principle. T h e trouble here, as yet, lies in the natural am- bitions of all of us. In a recent discussion of a departmental versus a central library system at M . I . T . , it was suggested that each department wanted a departmental li- brary for itself but a central system for everyone else. T h e parallel is obvious. T h i s cooperation in accession policy will in- evitably come about, and at that time the problem of growth will seem much less formidable. A Regional Cooperative Plan For the average university or college library, at any rate, the problem of growth can be met more readily and for a longer f u t u r e by a regional cooperative plan than by anything which can be done in the plan- ning of the building. None of the solutions for compact storage, interesting as each may be, has reached a point of development where the librarians now planning buildings could be prepared to abandon the stack or even limit it materially, on the ground that storage would be more compact. O n the other hand, many libraries now seem ready to set an upper limit to the material which can ever be effectively used on the campus and to be prepared to take care of the rest of the needs through cooperative accession and interlibrary loan, plus the off-campus storage warehouse for little-used posses- sions. Capacity of stacks which are being 122 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES calculated on this premise r u n s r o u g h l y to t h r e e times the present h o l d i n g s of the li- b r a r y in most cases. L i b r a r i e s in rapidly g r o w i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d in communities w h i c h a r e r e m o t e f r o m g r e a t l i b r a r y centers and w h e r e t h e r e is n o t a l r e a d y a rich l i b r a r y resource, m a y have to use a d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r , b u t t h e principle can r e m a i n the same. T h e solution can a d m i t t e d l y be accepted w i t h g r e a t e r e q u a n i m i t y by institutions w i t h sta- bilized e n r o l m e n t a n d no aspirations f o r gigantic g r o w t h , t h a n by y o u n g e r or less settled institutions whose desires both f o r s t u d e n t population a n d diversity of c u r - r i c u l u m a r e as yet u n a t t a i n e d . H a v i n g established a f i r m capacity f o r the on-campus stacks, t w o a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e presented. O n the one h a n d , the stack can be built n o w f o r the total f u t u r e require- m e n t . Since closed-in space is at a p r e m i u m in any institution, unused stack space w i l l be looked u p o n w i t h avidity by n o n l i b r a r y p a r t s of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . I t is no solu- tion to d e f e a t this avarice by m a k i n g the stack heights so l o w t h a t the rooms c a n n o t be used w e l l f o r a n y t h i n g b u t stacks, f o r this d e f e a t s the very purpose of the l i b r a r i a n in being able l a t e r t o a b a n d o n stacks f o r o t h e r l i b r a r y uses should t h e proposals of R i d e r or others come to f r u i t i o n . A n e f f o r t w i l l then usually be m a d e to find some tem- p o r a r y l i b r a r y use f o r the unoccupied stack or some n o n l i b r a r y use w h i c h can clearly be a b a n d o n e d as the h o l d i n g s increase. A n y n o n l i b r a r y use m u s t be studied c a r e f u l l y because all experience is t h a t t e m p o r a r y uses have a g r e a t w a y of becoming p e r m a n e n t u s e s — s q u a t t e r s a r e influential even in uni- versities—and w h e n people compete w i t h books, people usually ( a n d probably r i g h t l y ) w i n . T h e best solution is, of course, t o house some activity f o r w h i c h t h e r e is a definite b u i l d i n g plan t o be c o n s u m m a t e d in f r o m five to ten y e a r s ; the n e x t best is to leave the stack space e m p t y a n d be s t r o n g - willed in t h e e n s u i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e discus- sions. T h e second solution is to build only p a r t of t h e capacity n o w a n d t o plan t h e b u i l d i n g so t h a t additions can be m a d e as the collec- tions g r o w . H e r e , of course, everything m u s t g r o w in h a r m o n y — n o t merely the storage s p a c e — a l t h o u g h it w i l l be easier to save presently unoccupied space f o r catalogs a n d catalogers t h a n it w i l l be to save u n - occupied stack space. B u t if this solution is adopted, the m i n i m u m r e q u i r e m e n t should be t h a t the architect provide a f u l l y devel- oped scheme f o r the u l t i m a t e b u i l d i n g as well as f o r t h e p a r t w h i c h is to be c u r r e n t l y built. V a g u e dotted lines i n d i c a t i n g t h a t various elements might be expanded this w a y or t h a t , simply w i l l n o t do. T h e expanded b u i l d i n g m u s t be k n o w n t o be w o r k a b l e ; it is this expanded b u i l d i n g a n d n o t w h a t is presently to be created w h i c h m u s t be estab- lished in the m i n d s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and of buildings and g r o u n d s committees as the a c t u a l building. O t h e r w i s e , w h e n the ex- pansion is needed, it m a y be f o u n d t h a t it is a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y not so possible as the d o t t e d lines h a d suggested, or w i l l cost too m u c h , or is physically impossible because o t h e r buildings, built in the interim, have d e f e a t e d the original purpose. W h e n such considerations are held in m i n d the specter of p r o b a b l e g r o w t h does n o t seem f o r m i d a b l e to the c o m m i t t e e . Specter of Change T h e specter of change expresses itself most palpably in the potentials of various technological developments such as micro- film, m i c r o p r i n t , m i c r o c a r d , recordings on w i r e s and disks, t r u l y educatioflal motion pictures, u p t o D r . B u s h ' s M e m e x . T h e s e challenge t h e imagination a n d n o d o u b t some of us w i l l live to see some of them realized. I t w o u l d be w e l l t o be m o r e posi- tive t h a n t h a t and to reserve l a b o r a t o r y APRIL, 1946 10 7 space in libraries so t h a t l i b r a r i a n s can m a k e m o r e concrete c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o w a r d this r e a l i z a t i o n . T h e s e developments, as they n o w stand, have certainly n o t impressed any m e m b e r of t h e c o m m i t t e e as a d e q u a t e reason f o r p o s t p o n i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , say f o r five years, w i t h the expectation t h a t rapid devel- o p m e n t w o u l d either make the p a t h w a y clearer or t u r n it in a d i f f e r e n t direction. A b o u t the most anyone has been p r e p a r e d to do, and n o t all have done t h a t , is to p r o v i d e some f r e e space w h i c h m i g h t l a t e r be used f o r such purposes and to design some spaces f o r use of the techniques in their present f o r m , w h e t h e r this be f o r listening to re- corded sound or f o r the use of microfilm readers. B u t this is only t h e most superficial aspect of c h a n g e ; t h e g r e a t one lies in the fluidity of m o d e r n education a n d the u n c e r t a i n t y as to w h a t sort of things m a y need to be done in a l i b r a r y a decade f r o m n o w . W i t h u n - certainties as g r e a t as they m u s t be, the only solution lies in flexibility. M u c h has been spoken a b o u t this s u b j e c t . Most Flexible Building T h e most flexible of all buildings is a g r e a t assembly p l a n t w i t h l a r g e areas f r e e f r o m columns and a g r e a t canopy roof over- h e a d . P e r h a p s t h e most flexible l i b r a r y b u i l d i n g in the U n i t e d S t a t e s is t h e old A r m y M e d i c a l L i b r a r y in W a s h i n g t o n . B o t h at the S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of I o w a and at M a s s a c h u s e t t s I n s t i t u t e of T e c h n o l o g y t h e r e is an e f f o r t t o c a p t u r e a g r e a t deal of this flexibility by designing floors of sufficient h e i g h t ( r e g a r d l e s s of conventional stack h e i g h t ) so t h a t they can serve f o r various purposes other t h a n stacks or r e a d i n g rooms a n d by designing bays on some sort of uni- versal m o d u l e so t h a t w a l l s can be placed f r e e l y and changed f r o m time to time. T h e I o w a plan is most complete in this respect. I t has to be recognized t h a t complete flexibility c a n n o t be a t t a i n e d in a m o d e r n l i b r a r y building. If air c o n d i t i o n i n g is needed, and it usually is, ducts w i l l offer l i m i t a t i o n s t o c h a n g e ; so w i l l stairs a n d o t h e r elements of v e r t i c a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n . S t r u c t u r e imposes some b a r r i e r s unless one is to go t o u n d u l y costly floor systems. F i n a l l y as a l i b r a r y serves m o r e specialized needs, flexibility m a y serve it less w e l l . A satisfactory a u d i t o r i u m c a n n o t be m a d e either f r o m a visual or an a u d i t o r y point of v i e w simply by a p p r o p r i a t i n g ten bays of space. O n l y t h e most a m o r p h o u s activities can proceed w i t h equal efficiency in u n i v e r - sal space. I n seeking universal flexibility w e r u n the risk of c r e a t i n g universal medi- ocrity. D i f f e r e n t libraries w i l l decide dif- f e r e n t l y h o w f a r they can go. G r e a t rooms f o r specialized purposes w h i c h a r e n o w de- finable w i l l probably be created outside of the flexible z o n e and may actually define the c h a r a c t e r of the b u i l d i n g f o r t h e casual and nonprofessional passer-by. B u t it is cer- tainly unnecessary, n o w , to limit f u t u r e change by ceilings too low, floors too weak, f o u n d a t i o n - t o - r o o f stacks w h i c h are too im- m u t a b l e ; a l i b r a r y plan of today w h i c h does not provide space w h i c h can be used i n t e r - changeably f o r storage, w o r k space, seminar, classroom, r e a d i n g room, and office is not in keeping w i t h t h e times. E v e n t h o u g h all of the libraries w i l l n o t provide this m u c h flexibility, none w i l l hope to impose on the f u t u r e use of the b u i l d i n g the limitations forced by t h e m o n u m e n t a l i n t e r i o r stair, the m o n u m e n t a l l i b r a r y r e a d i n g room, and the o t h e r solid and f o r b i d d i n g a p p u r t e n a n c e s of T h e L i b r a r y B e a u t i f u l . Such are the specters a n d such are the w a y s they have been laid by t h e committee. T h e o t h e r set of f a c t o r s are g r e a t e r in implication and m o r e i m p o r t a n t , n o doubt, in the l o n g r u n . B u t , being m o r e general, they are also m o r e difficult to define. T h e solutions w h i c h accord w i t h t h e m w i l l be 124 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES different in different libraries in the measure in which the specific institution has one or another present trend of thought. If the building can be kept flexible within, it is probable that w r o n g guesses now will not be entirely crippling later. These guesses will be made by a group in the institution of whom the librarian is only one, and in which in these days he all too often has too little influence. Since the problems we are now discussing are so general they have been the subject of extensive discussion in papers by librar- ians and others; a paper of this length could scarcely add anything to the present state of thought and it will be adequate to enum- erate them as questions which must be answered one way or another before a proper building plan can be made. Some of them run like this: 1. Should teaching be done in the library? Is the library, in fact, the laboratory of the humanities? Does this imply that faculty offices, seminars, and classrooms should be provided within the library walls? 2. Will serious general education ever be carried on, as it is to some degree now, in the languages, with the major assistance of re- corded sound? If so, should the library be the center for this activity ? 3. Should the branch or departmental li- brary system be abandoned because of the probability that it will break down? Liberal arts faculties generally prefer a centralized system, scientific faculties a departmental one. Who is right or are both right? This is one of the oldest questions in library management. 4. With the general trend well established to provide specialized work areas adjacent to stacks storing the pertinent material, should the periodical room be abandoned and the periodicals spread among the specialized col- lections? 5. Is the general objection to the browsing room one of semantics or something deeper? 6. Is the reserve book collection the bad teaching tool many librarians think? If so, should reserve book rooms be eliminated? 7. Is the library the inhuman place archi- tects seem to think? This view is supported by many librarians returning from the serv- ices. Are we, in fact, too enamored of our tools, and is it true that most of our customers ought not to meet them at the first entrance to the library? Need a More "Human" Library T h i s last question can perhaps stand a little f u r t h e r development. T h e " h u m a n " view says that the library should immedi- ately make the visitor feel that he is at home and happy in a world of books— expressed by having books, many books, corporeally present and readily accessible. T h i s view holds that the man who needs to do more research will do so anyhow and that the tools can therefore be relegated to a more remote position as they serve only the advanced user of the library. M a n y librarians feel, on the other hand, that one of the greatest failures of librarian- ship has been that it has not succeeded in teaching generations of university students how to use any library as opposed to the geogi^phically familiar one; such a group holds that the tools of bibliography, refer- ence, and catalog, properly used, are a boon to the lazy man and quite as important, though in a different way, to the dilettante as to the scholar. T h e y would, therefore, place these tools in the most prominent and accessible position and, especially, they would not permit the bibliographical ma- terials to be secluded in the catalogers' room. As between these views, the writer favors that 'of the librarians. A great school of engineering does not hide its machines in order to make science or engineering more palatable. I t makes a virtue of the slide rule. A similar virtue can and should be made of library necessities, for they are part of the equipment of the educated' man. T h e y can be made prettier and more ef- ficient; their attendants can be made more competent, more amiable, even more photo- APRIL, 1946 10 7 genie; much more help can and must be elicited from the faculty in setting problems which cannot be solved without independent use of the library. All of this can be ac- complished with a real gain in humanity rather than in the superficial one proposed by an array of fine bindings with or without intervening glass. One could paraphrase the classic remark about the Sterling Li- brary and apply it to books as well. Generalizations In closing, certain generalizations as to physical disposition may be helpful. It seems to be well agreed that all stacks in new buildings should be provided with air- conditioning and fumigating facilities. Most members of the committee would ex- tend the air conditioning to the entire build- ing. Lighting remains a confused issue, as it must when the requirements of light for the individual are so much a function of his years and the quality of his eye mus- cles and when we have to serve so many age groups. It can be expected that.some norms may be required for large spaces but that individual spaces should have light sub- ject to modulation to the needs of the indi- vidual rather than to the specifications of makers of electric lighting equipment which increase the lumens year by year on remark- ably scanty physiological evidence. Everyone is anxious to get rid of the great reading rooms. Everyone wants to provide more types of work space in the library, from comfortable lounges to work cubicles, to provide more privacy for more persons, to permit more different habits of work, including the use of the typewriter and the privilege of smoking. T h e r e are all sorts of opinions as to whether smoking benefits or harms a library, is dangerous or dirty, and these are almost entirely unsup- ported opinions. Smokers are more liberal in their opinions about this than nonsmokers, and there are many nonsmokers on library staffs. W e do not know enough about toler- able noise levels but it is suspected that the "hush hush" atmosphere of the sanctuary library is a bad thing and that libraries are kept more quiet than they need to be. In any event it is known that more work spaces should be provided where teams of people can converse as they work. Everyone on the committee seems to concur that practically everything should be on the first floor— more than most builders will be able to get on the first floor. W h e r e choice must be made the following should remain on the first floor: ( I ) all public services of bibliog- raphy, reference, catalog, delivery desk, stack access; ( 2 ) library service of proces- sing from order department to stack; and ( 3 ) major reading rooms. Special reading rooms, music rooms, and the like can be allowed to go higher, special studies and work spaces still higher. If all the stipula- tions for the first floor can still not be met, reading rooms would be given up before the other services. Questions of theft and mutilation remain unsolved. Some librarians insist on the turnstile as undesirable but essential. Others think it unnecessary and undesirable and will not have it. A recent survey of this question made by M . I . T . ' s architect seems to be quite indecisive as to what losses through theft have amounted to anyway. Generally it seems less important than it used to that a library staff employee be able to see every seat in every reading room. Clever mutilators do not need this kind of privacy to achieve their ends. T h e plans of the buildings submitted to the committee offer much encouragement. T h e buildings will surely differ from those of the past and show more differentiation among themselves. Surely they will serve better than the grandiose monuments which have preceded them. 126 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES