College and Research Libraries By ERNEST J. REECE Library Building Programs: How- to Draft Them Mr. Reece is professor emeritus of li- brary service at Columbia University~ and has served at several periods on the faculty , of the University of Illinois Library Schoo In 1950 he was acting head of the Dayto Ohio~ Public Library and Museum while the librarian was abroad. T wo forward steps have marked the recent practice of librarians in their work on building projects. One is the formal conferring on mutual problems, ex- emplified by the activities of groups in the university and public library fields respec- tively. The other is the preparing of pro- grams, or statements of requirements, setting forth the features desired in contemplated structures. Both of these steps have seemed overdue. A person need only scan the prt:Jceedings of the Cooperative Committee on Library Building Plans to realize how much reason there was for joint attack on the issues facing its members. Essential knowledge could be passed along, experiments reported, and proposals sifted out, with prospect that fewer unfortunate decisions would be built into stone and steel and fewer libraries forced to endu.re unsuitable quarters. While the task of such groups never can be finished, the reports and the book they already have produced are useful fruit and suggest a pattern for future undertakings. In the drafting of programs the benefits have been less recognized and the develop- ments so far less conclusive. It is true that their use apparently is becoming established, perhaps because the heads of libraries are accepting a new degree of responsibility for buildings. However, librarians seem not olly agreed and clear about procedure. Uncertainty and debate have arisen as to how to render statements of requirements most fitting and effective. What should go into them, and how should it be organ- ized and presented? And just wh~t is the part of the librarian in the matter? The present paper deals with these queries, in the hope of clarifying the program-drafter's course. Its sources are the writings, pro- g.rams and architects listed at its close. In dealing with statements of require- ments it is to be remembered that those for library buildings are only one branch of a large family, that the purposes and the relations of parties in projects of various kinds run parallel, and that what holds for one type is good in principle for all. Little · seems to have been said about building programs in general, however, which has not come into the discussions concerning libraries. Librarians apparently have been justified, therefore, in centering attention on their particular sector, and the ensuing treat- ment follows them in this. At the same time all interested may gain by watching for examples · and suggestions in other fields and gleaning what is possible from them. Some Fundamentals Whatever the differences regarding li- brary building programs a few aspects seem generally accepted, beginning with the in- tention of furnishing the arch itect the data 198 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES useful as a guide in his work, and thus mak- ing more likely the results sought. Almo:.: t everyone recognizes too that progran1s should be prepared by or with persons knowing intimately the libraries concerned; that they should reflect careful preliminary/ study of needs and conditions; that they ought to embody more or less information about the institutions; and that if they are to be sufficiently definite they must indicate the facilities necessary, with some quantita- tive clues. Finally, all doubtless would see the advisability of insisting upon practicality, easy and economical operation, adaptability, and allowance for expansion. So far so good; but the composer of a program is likely to find soon that these points need to be particularized or amplified, and .perhaps supplemented by others simi- larly self-evident. Also, he may meet ques- "tions on which they shed no light. In trying to fill the gaps it is simplest to start with the points at agreement. Benefits to Be Reaped First as to the values of a program . Sup- plying the architect with information means several things, viz., setting forth at the out- set the requirements for service, with the conditions and reasons behind them; defin- ing the enterprise in such ways that over- si.ghts and misunderstandings can be pre- vented and the work expedited; exposing the ideas of the owner to the architect, for criticism and mutual understanding; and, if necessary and discreet, fixing the relative importance of the various specifications so that it will be clear what to give up in case there must be sacrifices. Incidental benefits may be ,that if it is careful and systematic the statement affords the architect a better chance to save time, to do a reasoned job, and to make a profit, and shows possible donors that the project is well thought through. As for effects upon the framers, JULY, 1952 its development hardly can fail to crystallize their ideas and add to their comprehension of the situation and of the problems entailed. Putting Needs First To realize these values fully librarians are warranted in assuming a free hand in the - early stages of their planning. Much may be iost if a program is not shaped originally according to needs and without such limita- tions as those of funds and site. It may be difficult to hypothecate an ideal situation; and as far as can be judged there are few existing programs which deliberately dis- regard the restraints mentioned, unless it be where sites are not fixed or restricting and where no figure for expenditures has been set. Obviously one way to forestall the difficulty - is to frame and publicize a program before hampering decisions have been made by higher authorities. Subse- quently it may be softened by a scale of precedences, as already suggested, so that the total requisitions can be set forth even though their parts must be diversely weighted. Whatever the situation it is only sensible to define the requirements on their merits, rather than according to extraneous factors . Thereafter, if they must compete against other claims they can do so with everything on the table and with a chance to justify themselves. If the aim is adequate planning, any other course seems like too easy yielding. Those Who Do the Work As for authorship, a word will be in order later as to possible joint production by owner and architect. Whether the archi- tect enters thus early or not, a large part of the labor and matter I}aturally must be supplied by representatives of the institu- tion. The record shows that the work is done variously by the librarian; by a com- . mittee or members from corporation or staff, 199 / or from faculty in case of a college or uni- versity; or by the librarian and such a com- mittee in team. Leadership and the bulk of the responsibility commonly lodge with the librarian whatever the machinery, and may be formalized where there is a committee by his membership ex-officio and/ or as chair- man. Apparently neither librarians nor architects ar~ greatly concerned about the method so long as it accomplishes the job and does so without friction. Doubtless librarians are glad to have it remembered that normally they know the conditions and needs more intimately than do others, and that their insight deserves full credence and utilization. Preliminary Steps otherwise. Again, advising with librarians in similar institutions and inspection of other library buildings are known to have been · prominent in some cases where such pro- grams fail to mention them. Light on the Project One of the likely products of the study alluded to above is a store of background information. This consists of whatever facts about the library would affect its operations and accordingly call for specific. features-notably its aims and policy; its plan of service and functioning, present and future; and, assuming prerequisite de- cisions have been made, an outline of the organization intended, perhaps in the shape Whoever has the task of compiling a of charts. A resume of its history als<> building program, the preparatory study sometimes is thought relevant. Presu!Jlably necessary is the same. It embraces 'review{ the more complete such matter can be in a of relevant data; scrutiny of the prospective program, without extending to undu"e operations and uses; consultation with staff length, the better. Architects again and and clientele, and with the librarians and again say it is useful and can not be too full; building committees of kindred libraries; and librarians as a rule give it space, even and examination of comparable buildings, though this is not always large. Aside from as the best means of strengthening or cor- the orientation and explanations it provides, recting ideas already held, and of securing it makes possible an understanding of a sit- candid reports as to what has succeeded and uation not gainable from a sheer recital of what has not. Actual programs cite less needed particulars, since similar facilities use of such procedures than might be antici- may serve in different ways in different pated, their emphasis being mainly on libraries, and therefore may not in them- conferences with committee members, staff selves indicate too definitely what is sought and patrons. However, it may be suspected by them. There of course is no claim that that in gathering material for decisions presentation of underlying facts can obviate available resources were drawn upon gen- that · independent enquiry and thought erally, and that sometimes fairly systematic through which some architects like to round investigations were made. This would out their knowledge. and thus raise the seem especially likely in colleges and uni- chances of achieving over-all harmony and versities, where conditions and demands can usefulness in their buildings. Still less can be gauged with some precision and where it it take the place of such discussions as may is hardly thinkable that a head librarian or best transmit the "librarian's enthusiasm building committee would omit to canvass for his institution and its background and them thoroughly and to consider' the views its ... methods.";L of the faculty regarding them, whether as 1 L~tter of September 26, 1 951 from Mr. H. Abbott t of the functioning of a committee or Lawrence, of Lawrence, Tucker and Wallman, Port-par land, Ore. 200 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES ,.:functions and Parts v ~ .-- /! .From the general background material just referred to may come definitions of particular responsibilities and activities, and then of the units of organization and work they indicate. Incidentally, the processes preceding formulation of the program should follow this order, otherwise conven- tional departments and rooms may be as- sumed without considering whether they accord with the library's objectives and du- ties and should have a place in the new quarters. The definitions afford the break- down desirable for initial thinking about the plan, and explain such estimates of capacities as usually accompany them: In- stances occur in which departmental ca- pacity specifications are offered without allusion to the business to be performed, but such requests are apt to lack conviction. Serviceability The urgency of making buildings simple, practical and economical often permeates building programs, especially in application to spaces, the relation and placing of parts, and lines of communication and transporta- tion where these are considered. More pointed insistence on such necessities, how- ever, might help to drive home their im- portance. They merit the same emphasis commonly given to the kindred principles of flexibility and expandability. In most cases the authors of programs wish the way left open and easy for rearrangements some- times through unit construction but not necessarily so, and make that desire clear in their statements. The possibility of add- ing capacities likewise is paramount, al=- though if it is not so generally pressed this may be because so often locations already provide for the space which is its major requisite. Cost and Site Besides the more or less axiomatic points JULY~ 1952 thus far treated there are several less com- monly mentioned which doubtless would command equally wide agreement. If feasi- ble without prejudice to the thinking about requirements it should be useful to tell what funds are in prospect. Often there is no reference to these. whether because the facts are unknown or indefinite, or through anxiety not to be fettered by them. Such figures seem to be desired by architects, however:, who naturally wish to know the proposed limits of expenditure, and likewise whether construction alone or other items as well are to be covered within them. Then too they might make a program look more complete and intelligent, providing any discrepancies between demands and costs were explained. Similarly, if an architect is to under- stand a project he may have to know some- thing about its location. Recommendations on site accordingly are important where it is not settled, and a description may be help- ful if a choice has been made. Such matter frequently is missing from programs, how- ever. While this may be because so often locations are predetermined and familiar it can be a loss, especially as concerns ex- posures. The placing of an edifice in rela- tion to external traffic lines and to points of the compass is likely to affect vitally the access to it, its interior arrangement, and its supply of daylight. Proposals covering this hence may be important, whether in select- ing a location or deciding how to use it. So far as they reflect urgent requirements, librarians hardly can afford to neglect them in their statements. Lines of movement, communication and / transportation, or what architects call circu- lation, also seem worthy of more express treatment than generally they have received. It likely is true that ideas respecting them are interwoven widely with prescriptions as to the relations and situations of parts. They influence compactness and efficiency so 201 closely, however, and account for so large a fraction of the tare, that a librarian may slight part of his problem unless he recog- nizes and stresses their needs. Furnishings for the Structure The directions in a program regarding equipment and furniture apparently do not have to be extensive. There doubtless should be indication of .the pieces suited to carry out the purposes of the build~ng and of the departments and rooms planned, to guide the architect in any decisions he has to make on dimensions. Detailed inven- tories and layouts seem not essential, how- ever, assuming that the assignments of space desired can be secured without them. Such compilations are requisite later, of course, for reference in drawing up specifications for equipment by whoever bears that re- sponsibility. On these matters a librarian is entitled to remember that he is more nearly an authority than he can be on some aspects and components of a building, es- pecially since much of the furniture is pe- culiar to libraries in its qualities and application. Beauty vs. Use I Esthetic quality receives mention in a few library programs. although usually in a somewhat negative way. The treatments suggest that the authors feared to be thought unduly utilitarian, yet realized that artistic effects belong in the domain of the architect. · At any rate they mainly urge such beauty as inheres in simplicity, harmony and dig- nity, and contributes to effective functioning and an inviting atmosphere, and stop there. Perhaps such guarded advocacy veils a fear of reverting to monumentality, but while such an attitude is comprehensible, librarians might gain by giving it a more positive turn. As addendum to what without much question should be in a hv ilding program, a note is in order as to what definitely ought to be out, viz., features and proposals not adequately authorized. Covering these an architect very pertinently has stressed the need for clearing programs in detail with governing bodies, to make sure that implied requirements involving "costs, site and other controlling considerations" are wholly ap- proved, in order to forestall later "disap- pointment and waste of time." 2 Approach to Controversy So much for matters which raise no sharp Issues. There are others on which librari- ans' opinions or practices vary and about which there appear enough uncertainties otherwise to suggest going into their pros and cons. A few of the~e bear closely upon the designer's province and task, hence prompted the effort in preparation for the present article to secure viewpoints from a group of architects. Most of the profes- sional men approached had had to do with library buildings, and so were presumed able to furnish significant responses. Naturally they do not agree completely; , but most of their advice is pertinent, especially since rules suited to all situations are neither to be expected nor desirable. Areas and Dimensions The first of the mooted questions stems from the specifying of capacities for depart- ments and rooms, which has been alluded to above as a normal feature of a program and which proves in most cases to be wel- comed by architects. Shall there be added calculations of the square and/ or cubic footage necessary, with stipulations as to dimensions? In some cases librarians seem satisfied with statements of capacities, per- haps supplemented by such quantitative norms as the number of square feet required per reader, to help in translating .the esti- mates into usable space figures. Commonly, 2 Letter of October II, 1951 from Mr. John C. B. Moore, of Moore and Hutchins, New York, N.Y. 202 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES however, they favor showing areas and volume and act accordingly, although some- times only where the reckonings relate definitely to operation, and for functional divisions rather than for particular rooms and comparable parts. Some would go further and propose dimensions, at least where effective performance is at stake. · Architects differ on the point; and it could be inferred that some do not attribute much importance to it, perhaps anticipating that the information they need will soon de- velop or be amended in conference, what- ever clues as to sizes get into the program. In a few instances they seem to consider mere capacities sufficient, and in contrast one holds that areas and dimensions both are needful; but the majority wish requisite capacities and appropriate areas-a "space budget," as one put it-or these plus sug- gested measurements and shapes. Their preference is made subject often to the con- , clition that specific figures, when offered, should seek to convey approximate ideas and be open to adaptation, "in the spirit of willing compromise-of 'give and take.' " 3 They would avoid such rigid prescription· as might interfere with the process of com- position. Considerable latitude thus is open to the program-drafter, so long as he pro- vides data that will suffice and yet will neither confuse nor bind the designer. Placing of Parts Again, in treating the sections of a build- ing should the framer of a program go beyond indicating the desired relations of parts-a process which generally seems taken for granted-and detail their position- ing? Librarians lean to more or less desig- nating of locations, although in practice they are likely to do it department by depart- ment, and with a view to getting these put on appropriate floors, rather than through 3 Letter of September 25, 1951 from Mr. H. Sage Goodwin, of Schultz and Goodwm, Hartford, Conn. JULY, 1952 a complete building layout. Architects on the other hand appear pretty much agreed that clear exposition of functional relations, perhaps~ith chart showing the connections and the flow of work and traffic among the elements, is the greatest aid toward devising a suitable physical arrangement. Anything more implies attempting what the designer is best fitted to do; besides which it may discourage discussion · and the attendant clarifying and evolving of a solution, and perhaps cause a plan to jell prematurely. One respondent goes so far as to say that "if ' you find an architect who is willing to take the librarian's direction as to the location of the various parts and not their relation, then you have a draftsman, and you are not getting the best out of the architect." 4 Direction, it may be noted, is too much- not relevant facts and opinions. Some point out that beneficial processes and results need not be endangered and that definite ideas on the positioning of components may be helpful, if they are shown to rest on opera- tional plans and if they are made in general terms and as suggestions to be considered for and against in later conference. Sketches, or Text Only ? When positions are to be shown one way to do it is to introduce sketches, and regard- ing these there is marked difference of view both among librarians and architects. Of the two groups architects have been the more assertive, which is not strange con- sidering that drawings are for them a chief means of expression and the making of plans one of the techniques included in their training. At the same time librarians have been prone to put their ideas into sketch form as well as into words, perhaps even before the day when John Shaw Bil- lings outlined on the back of a discarded envelope a floor arrangement for the central 4 Letter of October 31, 1951 from Mr. Louis E. Jallade, New York, N.Y. 203 building of the New York Public Library. the only means of showing a relationship." 6 In favor of sketches in programs librarians Psychological factors may play a part claim that they inay carry what words could here, including the possible reluctance of an not transmit, especially to an architect who architect to pick flaws in a scheme which is unacquainted with library practice; fur- has become fixed in its proposer's mind, ther, that they may be more stimulating to even though he feels that it oversteps bounds a designer's imagination than verbal pres- and has been built up to undue importance. entation, and that they may save him time Again, one of that calling puts much in few and money. Some aver that they need not words by urging that the architect have op- ·involve such detail as to be beyond the portunity to reach his solution "without the powers of a librarian to produce, suggesting prejudicial influence of a sketch." 7 that if incongruities show up these can be Librarians who are on this side of the corrected by the architect. According to fence recognize the imprudence of invading that belief, too, work on drawings helps to the architect's field. Further, they insist give a librarian an appreciation of the de- not only that laymen are unfitted to draft signer's problems. · Architects strengthen plans, but that such efforts tend to reflect the argument by saying not only that traditional rather than original ideas. sketches conform to their manner of think- Whether or not because of such reasoning, ing and are effective in conveying general sketches seldom appear m available pro- concepts and as incentive, but that they grams. sometimes tell more about the librarian's Since both of the above viewpoints are view than many words, aiding for one thing pos1t1ve and credible, the program-drafter his understanding of "the way in which the supposedly will be wise to choose between librarian would like to operate." One them in the light of his own conditions. adds: "Sketches as suggestions ... are ex- Much could depend on his own skill, with tremely valuable not only in passing on the the pencil and with the written and spoken experience of the librarian, but even in word; and on his willingness to have an stimulating the architect to see if he can architect treat any drawing he might pre- make a better one. Interchange of ideas of- pare merely as a tentative semblance of the ten results in something better than previ- way spaces might be arranged, and "push ously was thought of by either." 5 it around." 8 He might feel freer too if he There are plenty who do not concur. was disposed to offer variants, as one de- The disclaimers from architects are that signer suggested, all to be taken as experi- sketches may stifle their freedom of thought mental and subject to comparison and re- and criticism and deaden their inventive jection in the interest of the best solution. faculties, whereas a verbal statement chal- If an architect already has been designated ' lenges their mental resources; and that if still more might hinge on his particular feel- they are impeded in the tasks for which they ing about sketches, if that could be ascer- are especially equipped, the client fails to tained without adverse consequences. In get the grade of service he should enjoy. -) any event what the librarian needs to re- Hence it is doubtful, states a member of member is to keep to his part of the job their group, that "sketches are a proper part of a formal program except where they are 5 Letter of September 26, 1951 from Mr. W. H. Kil- ham, Jr. of R. B. O'Connor and W . R. Kilham, Jr., New York, N.Y. 6 Letter of September 2 7, 1951 from Professor Talbot F. Hamlin, School of Architecture, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. 1 Smith, H . D. "What the Architect Expects of the Client." American S chool and University, 1949 - 50, p. 39·4 2 (41). 8 Letter of September 2 6, 1951 from Mr. Lawrence. 204 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES and to discharge that in the Ill:OSt effectual and considerate manner he can. Technical Aspects of Buildings The debatable matters touched so far lie close to the librarian's field of expertness and intimate knowledge. What of those in which he is -not a specialist, but on which he nevertheless may hold legitimate preferences and even supply apposite advice? That is, how far should his program refer to archi- tectural style, design, building materials, decoration, general equipment, furnishings, floor coverings, air treatment, lighting and noise control? ) · This question is one largely for architects to answer; and among them are men who feel strongly that to treat the subjects con- cerned even tentatively in an owner's pro- gram may set the minds of the parties too early and thus hinder the reconciliations called for by the problem as a whole. One says in this relation, . "It is very hard to make . . . development [of the project] a success if specific recommendations are made before the client has had the opportunity of seeing his plan grow with the architect." 9 There is alleged to be danger too that sec- ondary considerations will be exalted above utility. All of this perhaps is especially true in reference to style. In contrast, some endorse expressions on the matters listed, particularly where they bear upon administrative requirements or "have a definite relation to library opera- tion and use." 10 "It is essential," the argu- ment runs, "if for no other reason than that an issue is presented, a discussion follows, and a conclusion is reached through under- standing of costs, maintenance, criteria of comfort, and the other factors." 11 And in- sofar as the subjects concerned are dispu- 9 Letter of September 26, 1951 from Mr. Kilham. 10 Letter of October 25, 1951 from Mr. Henry R. Shep- ley, of Coolidge, Shepley, Bullfinch and Abbott, Boston, Ma ss . 11 Letter of September 26, 1951 from Mr. Lawrence. JULYJ 1952 table, it aids by bringing them to attention and prompting their consideration in good time, and before decisions have been made which it would be costly to alter. Specifically, the voicing of opinions on technical topics may enable the archi teet to show why certain proposals are meritorious and others are not, and clear the way for the owner's wishes where they are appropri- ate, in pursuance of his "duty ... to plan a building incorporating as many ideas of the clie~t as are practical and possible." 12 It also may help the architect to "visualize the sort of building desired," restrain him from going to extremes, and facilitate considera- tion of preferences throughout the planning process and in the interest of harmony in the "over-all picture." One respondent furnishes a reminder too that occasionally a stipulation on the matters concerned needs to be presented clearly and in mandatory form because an endowment or some com- parable arrangement depends upon it. 13 Those architects who welcome preferences on technical matters of course feel never- theless that their own opinions should "have considerable weight." Further, they join others in stressing that the librarian's de- sires may well be presented later and in a different way. In this connection one sug- gests that what goes into a statement of requirements be of a general nature, with more specific advices to come subsequently. Others urge full conference, where a plan may be worked out and the style and related topics developed in collaboration between themselves and the library authorities; and where "the sympathetic architect will be able either to adopt the suggestions where they fit in or to explain to the client why some of the preferences perhaps contradict other parts of the program or violate vital 12 Letter of September 17, 1951 from Mr. Karl B. Hoke, of Toledo, Ohio. 13 Letter of October 8, 1951 from Mr. H. D. Smith, University Architect, The Ohio State University, Co- lumbus, Ohio. 205 economy or lead to illogical results .. " 14 In general librarians seem restrained in treating style, materials and the cognate top- ics, being content usually to tell what the requirements are and what qualities and effects are desired. Indeed, in view of what architects have said they might be more explicit, at the suitable time and with realization that the main thing is the result, and that this can be achieved best by leaving the means to the specialist. Multiple Proposald In his specifying the composer of a pro- gram may ask himself how catagorical it is wise to be. Shall he stick to single-barreled directives, or shall he advance alternatives? While anxious to get at what is in the minds of clients, architects in general naturally are eager for whatever options may enhance their leeway · and give rein to their own thinking, and doubtless would wish to intro- duce them whether or not any came from the owner. One says, "a single recommenda- tion does not lend much to the imagina- tion," and advocates getting numerous suggestions and then using the opportunity "to evaluate them and pick out the ones that you think answer your problem.' '15 Another comments that in an atmosphere of discus- sion "it is possible to make all kinds of suggestions and eliminate those which seem to be developing illogically." 1 6 - The case for variant proposals is that "the architect lives in a world of alternatives," 17 and that if th~y are offered-perhaps ranked for relative desirability-they may add to his comprehension of conditions, broaden the discussion of the issues posed, render it easier to avoid premature decisions, and lead to a solution which would not have found favor at first but may turn out to be pre- . £erred. Also, where quantities are involved 14 Letter of September 2'7, 1951 from Professor Hamlin. 15 Letter ot October 31, rgsr from :Mr. Jallade. 16 Letter of October 30, 1951 from Mr. Ralph Walker, of Voorhees, Walker, Foley and Smith, New York, N.Y. 17 Letter of September 26, rgsr from Mr. Lawrence. optional figures may help to reveal the minimum which will suffice-information possibly obscure otherwise. Such benefits do not prove that any alternatives forth- coming need have place in a program. If · they can be offered that early, however, readjustments may less likely be necessary later and when changes have · become ex- pensive. Everything is put into the picture, for consideration at the suitable time, and decisions still can be postponed so far as that is advantageous. Whenever broached, the choices of course should not be inconsistent with each other in purpose, lest they be confusing rather than helpful to one who is not a librarian. Despite the above, the programs ex- amined concentrate as a rule on single and unqualified specifications. One librarian advoca.tes this on the ground that a flat- footed directive spurs healthy debate. How- ever general that aim, the process of thinking through their enterprises must often have led composers to firm opinions, and to focus- ing on such conclusions as a means of im- pressing readers and fortifying their case. They even may have thought of the require- ments they arrived at as scarcely subject to discussion; or if they felt uncertainty, feared nothing would be gained by betraying it. Probably with all their earnestness, how- ever, the compilers of programs have not meant to be exigent, realizing that they are not infallible, that an architect can be a helpful partner, and that adaptation is in- evitable. They may have hoped to invok~ in their negotiations the qualities once at- tributed to a New York state governor, of being "firm, moderate, ... conciliatory in non-essentials, unwavering in matters of principle." With that attitude, and assum- ing they included some proposals of which they would not make an issue, they normally might count on respecting the architects' interest and at the same time attaining their chief objectives. 206 COLLEG'E AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES Coop erativ e Programs ment of requirements should be shaped up L Some readers of this paper may be won- . before an architect is designated, since situ~­ dering whether building programs need be tions may arise in which it ought to influence framed by owners alone, and whether in the that selection. There· furthermore is a case of libraries some of the questions so far warning against too early association in the discussed would not vanish if they were pre- • comment that ' ~the architect is by training pared jointly with architects. Such col- persuasive and as a collaborator is likely to laboration should be possible, and might talk the librarian out of ideas which are save time and eliminate or reduce points of important and which should be preserved disagreement. That it would find consider-· for discussion at a more concrete stage." 19 able favor with architects can be gathered These lines of reasoning may beg the from the emphasis some of them place on question in part, yet can carry a good deal :lose and continued consultation supplement- of force. In some instances librarians might mg a program. One endorses it in the fol- ' have ground to fear premature and unneces- ~owing words: " the making of a program (/ sary. comprom~se. In <>thers there might Is a definite creative act and should be a part be simple anxiety that full weight be ac- of the process of design. Ideally, the pro- corded their views, as those of the parties gram should be the joint and cooperative who know the needs and what is requisite to effort of the architect and .the client work- meet them, and who are responsible for ulti- ing together in the fullest mutual con- mate success or failure. Frustration cer- fidence. For this reason it is mo.st advan- tainly is in the offing where an ill-adapted tageous to all parties concerned to have the scheme for a building, and with it perhaps architect chosen work along with the au- an unsuitable plan of work for the library thorities who prepare the final formal pro- it~elf, is forced upon institutional officers, as gram of a building in advance of its actual might happen if the joint effort was dam- issuance. This does not mean that the good inated by persons having no concern in architect wishes in any way to impose upon e.vent~al operation. Representatives of the client's ideas in opposition to the client's hbranes seem to realize this, for they show interests or desires; it is only by having the by expression and action that they prefer advice of an architect during the process of to keep the drafting of programs in their program-making that the individual or com- own hands. mittee concerned will be able to save itself _ With all their desire to work alone at from many points of confusion and from a the start, librarians stili may be ready and program which may unconsciously contain glad to have an architect shape up a program mutually exclusive elements." lS based on his own study of conditions, hop- This is a strong plea, and librarians v. ing that he thus can contribute to a better hardly can deny it credence. However a consummation than cooperative work librarian or committee certainly needs' to throughout could produce. Neither they ~ave threshed out its problem before going nor architects suggest, however, that the mto conference, and this effort naturally latter should prepare programs except by would produce some kind of a program way of defining the approach as they see it. even if not a final and written one. Also: One architect has stated that a member of one librarian has suggested that the state- his calling, unless in unusual circumstances, H;~Yi~:er of S eptember 27 , · I 9SI from Professor .1 9 Bu rc hard, .J. E. et a l. Planning t'ze U niversit y L 1brary B m ldtng. Princeton , P r inceton U nivers ity P ress , I 949, p. I 22. JULY, 1952 207 j v "could not possibly write a program for a library ... the librarian is the only one that knows what is required, " 20 and another that an architect does not' have his problem until the program has been "completely developed by an expert," 21 meaning the librarian. Is a Program a "Must"? Again with thought of the issues they raise, how indispensable are programs? Confirming the values cited earlier, archi- tects generally say or imply that such state- ments have an unquestionable place, at. least as a basis for dealings between themselves and owners. For example, one declares that if "clear and intelligent" they can be most helpful guides, and another says they are essential if the archi teet is not to go wrong at the start. Then too their use is spread- ing, which must mean something, even though it seems confined largely to college and university libraries. On the other hand the programs that can be gathered so far are few as compared with the buildings constructed, hence they ~ardly can be the sole means of accomplish- ing their task. Presumably adequate con- ferring can remove much or all of the oc- casion for written statements, especially in case of small and simple structures. Archi- tects again and again stress the importance of close and constant consultation with clients, from early stages on. This they re- gard as imperative even with the best of formal memoranda-something in fact which no amount of "programming" can replace, and which probably they would give first rank if there had to be a choice. The summation may be that while it is desirable f'0r librarians to count on compil- ing statements of requirements as a normal step, they should recognize that the business 20 Githens, A. M. "The Architect and the Library Building," in Fussier, H. H. Library Bt£ildings for Library Service. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1947. p. 94·106 (p. 100). 21 Jallade, L. E. "Are You Prepared to Plan a New Building?" Library Journal 69: 1077-79 (p. I 078), Dec. I 5, 1944• of getting their ideas across does not depend wholly on that, nor end with it. Open Secrets There remain for notice a few tricks of the program-drafter's trade, of a sort which are elementary but might be overlooked. For instance,~citing of examples from other buildings may gain readier considera- tion for a librarian'~ suggestions, whether because the featur~s concerned have proved successful or because of respect for prece- dent. It is not known why so few avail- able statements of requirements · employ such illustrations; but if they were pertinent and their authors possessed the information for them, it seems a loss that they were not used to strengthen the programs. Composers of s·tatements also may need to think often of the way readers are going to be impressed. A co~piler labors over his draft in the mood of playing for keeps. What can he do to invest it with such character and tone and form that it will con- vince the architect? How build it so that the library's interests will be advanced if it is used to win the approval of the com- mittees, officers and others who hold purse strings or have power to .make controlling decisions, as sometimes happens? · The answers to these questions look didac- tic, yet they are pertinent enough to bear recltlng. To a large extent they center in correct, forthright, logical writing. This of course necessitates selectivity and concise- ness, so far as they do not hamper adequate presentation; with recognition that the readers who count may expect to get their information in brief time and with little study, and that a statement which has been boiled down is likely to be more compre- hensible than a discursive or over-detailed one. It also implies phrasing which, while definite in purport, is free from jargon, understandable to laymen, and suggestive of sophistication and perspective. Finally, 208 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES it means a tone which is clear and assured , yet tactful and forbearing. On the whole existing programs measure up · fairly well on these points, the composition and organi- z ation being generally creditable and evi- dences of myopia and provincialism not pronounced. · D ivision of Labor Finally, some of a program-drafter's success in carrying his points may lie in realizing just what his job is and where it ends. Summarizing much that already has been said, he is or he represents one party, and but one, in an undertaking; and his responsibility, while real and inescapable, is only a segment of the whole. On the one hand it is to provide a platform for the ~ work of all the participants in the project,V with thought of the architect's views if oc- casion arises as early as the period for shap- ing the program, but without being over- borne by them. On the other hand it is to avoid imposing even his desiderata upon his associates as unarguable law, to leave the way open for the architect's suggestions, and to keep from trenching upon the prov- ince or prerogative of that partner. To adopt phrasing which is becoming encourag-~ ingly conventional, the librarian's role is to give the architect the problem and leave to him the solution; to ~ll him ~hatto build-not how to build it, which is his business. Common sense and modesty and consciousness of their own limitations of course should be enough to keep librarians on their own side of the line in all of this, ' and happily it seems as a rule to work so.J If anything, the framers of library programs appear overly solicitous not to poach upon the preserves of architects. Even though programs reveal a punctili- ous attitude toward designers' rights, how- ever, architects apparently have had experi- ence with librarians or other patrons which lead them to emphasize the conclitions an"d JULY} 1952 - demands they face, as explaining the need for accommodation. They wish it clear that often they must be definite in the posi- tions they take. They show concern lest the librarian's zeal to do the best he can for his institution make him forget that the archi- tect is expected to reconcile a variety of requirements, of which the librarian's are only one section, and to produce an inte- grated building satisfactory to all. As one put it, "The best results will be obtained if the architect is given a free hand to develop a scheme which will be functionally suitable to the needs ... and to the conditions of the site." 2 2 Moreover, architects repeatedly point out that the terms and necessities of the prob- lem as a whole take precedence over specific items. Hence the owner's readiness to yield where possible on his stipulations, already shown to be consonant with positiveness at other points, now appears essential to an acceptable over-all solution. Without it an architect may be handicapped in exercising his peculiar skills, i.e., those in "the arrange- ment of rooms, the study of daylighting and orientation, the economic use of space, the use of materials, the proper application of color, the routine of service," and the like, and thus be hindered in his "duty to weld all these functional factors into a pleasing and attractive building." 23 All of which is doubly relevant because every undertaking is individual, and has to be approached with- out preconceptions traceable to prevwus cases or experience. Thjs earnestness of architects does not lessen their appreciation of the part librari- ans can play. Adequate presentation by the latter of administrative needs is desired and "invaluable," not only in a program and otherwise at the outset, but in criticism and suggestions on sketches as the project de- velops, so th~t the results will be "workable:' 22 Letter of O ctober 5 , 19 51 from Mr. Arthur H. Eadie, Toronto, Can. 23 I bid . 209 and in accordance with the way the members of a staff plan their activities. By way of standing invitation to such expression one respondent in the enquiry for this paper said, "a state of flux and willingness to change or harbor new ideas is extremely valuable . . this applies to the architect even more than librarian or board members." 24 The Guiding Rule The keys to effective relations therefore are consultation and team-work, with re- spect by each party for the competence of the other, beginning at whatever stage may be agreed upon-"the librarian advising and informing the architect as to his particu- lar needs, and the architect evaluating these data and placing them on paper for study and review" 2 5 ; the librarian allowing the 21 Letter of September 25, 1951 from Mr. Goodwin. architect the necessary leeway in his task, and the architect not attempting "to dictate function and specify allotments." 26 With such understanding a kind of comradeship can develop, based on united effort in meet- ing difficulties, seeking lessons in the fail- ures and successes of others, and exploring possible solutions. Narrowed down in ap- plication to a building program this view- point suggests that it be "the simplest pos- sible statement of the problem, as definite as it can be in all matters dealing with the purpose, function and conditioning of the building, and as free as possible in all matters dealing with plan arrangements and design." 27 2 G Letter of September 18, 1951 from Mr. James Gamble Rogers II, Winter Park, Fla. and New York, N.Y. 26 Letter of October 2 , 1951 from Mr. Truman E. Phillips of Wolff and Phillips, Portland, Ore. 27 Letter of September 27, 1951 from Professor Hamlin. SOURCES I .-Chief books and articles American Institute of Architects. Library Buildings, I947, p. I-20. (Building Type Reference Guide No. 3· A I A File No. D-5) Partially also in Bulletin of the American Institute of Architects I :3:25-43, July I947· Bean, D. E. and Ellsworth, R. E. Modular P~anni'!f for College and Small University Lzbrarie}s . I948, p. I-4. Burchard, ]. E. "Post-war Library Build- ings." College and Research Libraries 7: I I8-26, April I946. Burchard, J. E. et al., eds. Planning the University Library Builaing. Princeton, Princeton University Press, I940, p. I2I-26. Fussier, H. H., ed. Library Buildings for Library Service. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, I947, p. 22-24, 97-IOO, I 88-89, I 94-96. Gerould, ]. T. The College Library Build- ing. New York, Scribner, ci932, p. I8, 26-27. Green, B. R. "Planning and Construction of Library Buildings." Library 1 ournal 25 :677-83, Nov. I9oo. Lyle, G. R. The Administration of the Co/. lege Library. New York, Wilson, I949, p. 540, 544-54· Randall, W. M. "Some Principles for Li- brary Planning." College and Research Libraries 7:3 I9-25, Oct. 1946. __ Randall, W. M. and Goodrich, F. L. D. Principles of College Library Administra- tion. Chicago, ALA and University of Chi- cago Press, ci94I, p. 172-74. Schunk, R. J. Pointers for Public Library Building Planners. Chicago, ALA, I945, p. 9-I3. Smith, H. D. "What the Architect Expects of the Client." American School and Uni- versity, 1949-50, p. 39-42. Wheeler, J. L. and Githens, A. M. The American Public Library, Building. New York, Scribner, I94I, p. I5-23, 75-81. Wilson, L. R. and Tauber, M. F. The University Library. Chicago, UniVersity of Chicago Press, ci945, p. 460-61. 2.-Available programs Blanchard,. J. R. "Preliminary Statement Prepared for the Architect of the College 210 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES of Agriculture Library Building, U niver- sity of Nebraska." 1950. "Building Program for Greenville College Library." 1948? Burchard, J. E. "Program for aNew Library Building at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." 1945· Brown, C. M. "Requirements for a Library for the University of Southern California." 1930. California University. Santa Barbara Col- lege. "Program for the First Units of a New Library Building." 1950. Cornell University. New York State College of Agriculture and Home Economics. "Considerations in Planning the Library Building." [ 1945 ?] Goucher College, "Requirements for the Pro- posed Library at Goucher College, Pre- pared for Use in a Competition to Select an Architect." ALA IJullet3n 34:145-51, Aug. 1940. ----. "A Library for Goucher College." [1946] North Carolina. University. Women's Col- lege. "Statement of the Requirements for a New Library Building .... " 1947. Pennsylvania. University. Library. "Pro- gram for the Architects, University of Pennsylvania Library Building." 1949. Queens College. Library Building Com- mittee. "Proposed Library Building for Queens College, Flushing, N.Y." 1944· [Sanderson, C. R.J "New Northern Branch ... " [of -the Toronto, Canada, Public Libraries] Virginia. State Library. "Proposed Re- quirements for a New State Library Building." 1938. 3.-Contributing architects Mr. C. C. Briggs, of Emerson, Gregg and Briggs, Peoria, Illinois Mr. Arthur H. Eadie, Toronto, Canada Mr. H. Sage Goodwin , of Schutz and Good- win, Hartford, Connecticut Prof. Talbot F. Hamlin, School of Architec- ture, Columbia University, New York, New York Mr. Karl B. Hoke, Toledo, Ohio Mr. George L. Horner, Superintendent, Physical Plant Department, State U niver- sity of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa Mr. Louis E. Jallade, New York, New York Mr. Walter H. Kilham, Jr., of R. B. O'Con- nor and W. H. Kilham, Jr., New York, New York Mr. Carl Koch, of Carl Koch Associates, Cambridge, Massachusetts Mr. H. Abbott Lawrence, of Lawrence , Tucker and Wallman, Portland, Oregon Mr. John C. B. Moore, of Moore and Hutch- ins, New York, New York Mr. Truman E. Phillips, of Wolff and Phil- lips, Portland, Oregon Mr. James Gamble Rogers II, Winter Park, Florida and New York, New York Mr. Henry R. Shepley, of Coolidge, Shepley, Bullfinch and Abbott, Boston, Massachu- setts Mr. H. D. Smith, University Architect, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Mr. Ernest L. Stouffer, Architect Physical Plant Department, University of Illinois , Urbana, Illinois Mr. Ralph Walker, of Voorhees, Walker, Foley and Smith, New York, New York Prof. William Ward Watkin, Dept. of Archi- tecture, The Rice Institute, Houston, Texas Catalog of the McAlpin Collection Union Theological Seminary Library, New York (Rob~rt F. Beach, Librarian) announces the availability, at one-half of the published price, of the 5-volume Catalogue ?f the M cA !pin Collection of British Histo•ry and Theology. This notable bibliographical work gives full details in line titles, for 15,000 books and tracts on religious and politico-religious controversy printed in England during the r6th and 17th centuries. Indexed. Cost is now $25.00, with no postage charge on pre-paid orders. JULY, 1952 211 • / .