Physical Architecture of Digital Libraries

[David Sklar]

Lisa's post reminded me of something I've been wondering about for a while, and this may be a good place to ask: how to communicate the majesty of a library through architecture when the collection doesn't take up much/any space.

When the building that houses your stacks looks like this it sends a ka-pow signal to everyone who sees it that your collection sure is big, a lot of time, effort, and money have gone into creating it, and it is worthy of respect and admiration as an Important Storehouse of Knowledge.

But if you can fit the contents of the 4M volumes in Sterling Memorial Library into a suitcase (or a back pocket), how do you communicate the same level of awe / respect / gravitas?

Maybe tiny-ness becomes a new standard for impressiveness, maybe it becomes less important to have all of the information artifacts in one place, maybe part of the new standard becomes the way the human parts of the library (i.e. the librarians!) are presented, not the way the books are presented, maybe it's something else.

What do folks think?

[Bob Kosovsky]

There was a time when majestic architecture was the way to communicate respect for a library. But in these days where many librarians feel that their institutions are threatened by apathy, disinterest, and even the question of relevancy, I think library architecture is still relevant if not an urgent idea to revisit.

I think Library 2.0 issues could have a great effect on libraries. What are the 2.0 issues? Social networking is one, suggesting that the library is not just a space for books and studying, but is a space to meet with people for purposes of an open exchange of ideas. The library space must be able to continually adapt and change based on user needs and desires. That suggests a modular approach - creating rooms when needed, or being able to move them around.

A library that has many glass walls - promoting a sense of openness - would also seem to be in line with ideas of transparency and breaking down barries.

Just a few ideas to being with. It's a nice topic.

[Mark Costa]

I guess that depends on how you want to communicate. For example, you may still have a traditional library building. You can leverage your physical space to promote your digital presence. In that case, you could project a large 3D visualization of your library, similar to what's found at http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/.

I've never come across a good example of a site creating an aura of gravitas. It's been done in video games, but not in a standard web presence, at least to my knowledge. I guess we still need the replication of physical presence to communicate that feeling.

[Judy O'Connell]

Mark, you are branching into very different thinking here, which I like. The 2.0 issues do revolve around digital environments and social networking, as well as delivery of services using 2.0 tools. Lots of libraries are looking at these options, and usinging them too. But the idea of 'gravitas'? No, that is new and frankly well worth thinking about. Awe and splendour of knowledge services deserve this don't they? Whether visualcomplexity's site is the answer I don't know. However, I will be on the lookout now for web design that embraces the idea of awe and inspiration - as well as provision of good web 2.0 inspired services.

[fernando_vilarinho]

I think the most relevant issue David Sklar raises is if nowadays we should spent 175 million dollars on a building like Seattle Public Library (SPL), knowing it won’t last many decades (or at least more than a century). The design of these sort of buildings concerns factors like: functionality, sociability, usability, … and these issues change faster and faster. Bob Kosovsky stated these new buildings are quite flexible and adaptable. Yes, they are, but 175 millions are probably to expensive just for a building, more or less flexible!

Even the consensus of SPL as model for modern and contemporary public libraries is changing fast.
e.g
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/visualart/309029_architecture27.html

Probably Sterling library , Firestone library or Bodleian libraries were cheaper libraries and they will persist for centuries and centuries. These libraries and others not so grandiose were designed thinking primarily the architecture issue, not the functionality issue (and as we know these are the earliest big libraries in their lands, except Firestone)

1.Also as we know Libraries are not just books, DVD, CD,.. and we still need large spaces for social activities and events inside them, providing courses, meetings,… But building big libraries doesn't mean to build expensive libraries, because we know they will last less and less time.

2.
2a It’s obvious the overall status, prestige of the libraries (e.g. to draw patrons or funding) is coming more and more from the inside of the libraries than the outside. If there is still an inside/outside space and borders.

2b. Although the “classical” prestige factor is still relevant in some type of libraries. The reputation of Firestone or Bodleian Library is guaranteed for the next centuries, primarily because of their collections and also their buildings. They are special and they don’t need to make big changes to remain on the premium, like most other libraries have to do. Even so, these 2 libraries are partners in the google book search project which is something to praise.

[fernando_vilarinho]

Just to clear up when I say libraries will last less and less time, I'm referring to each building, not the institution itself.

[Rachel T.]

I work on two digital libraries at UCSF that house millions of documents and I have thought much about how to convey the size and importance of our holdings to researchers when they cannot stand in a building and physically look at the stacks. We do post the number of documents we have (7 million+) and give updates when we add new holdings to the collections but pure numbers never work as well as a visual would. One way we have thought about communicating the importance or value of our collections is to use 2.0 tools such as blogs and folksonomies - allowing researchers to annotate, tag and comment on specific important documents in our library might add another layer of knowledge to the collections that would convey importance and use. If people are talking about the documents and obviously using the library then maybe that could convey the gravitas without the physical space???

[Judy O'Connell]

Rachel, I'd very much like to hear more about what it is that you are doing. The importance of digital collections is a 'huge' issue - and just as much so for people like myself working in school libraries. This is a whole area that needs developing, so the work that people like yourself are doing sets the ideas and frameworks in place for 'smaller operators' to try out. Perhaps you could do a blog post on the range of your initiatives?

[Mark Costa]

The first time I went rappelling the instructors informed us that the human mind could not accurately distinguish heights above 32'. For some reason I remember him using the term vertigo to describe the phenomenon. Anyways, it seems that after a certain point in any situation, is it no longer possible for the human mind to distinguish quantities, size, or distance. I imagine we face the same problem with understanding the size of a non-corporeal entity. Really, how many of us actually comprehend the size of the universe, or the number of atoms in the air? All we now is that it is large. I guess we may face the same problem with conveying the size of a digital library.

[disedlibrarian]

"Majestic architecture" is beautiful and inspiring, but not always welcoming. There has to be a way to make the library (or it's collections) both impressive and "user-friendly". I want a friendly building, with comfortable seats, that doesn't intimidate you into silence, but uses architecture to minimize sound transmissions--so that quiet areas stay quiet, but talking is still possible and even encouraged.

For the digital collection, perhaps some sort of graphic display that at first gives the idea of how many subjects and documents are available, but allows for easy searching/drilling down. Imagine a 3D/Virtual reality display where you "enter" into a representation of the collection by subject, while having a keyword/title/author search available. Searches could change the display to just the results, or results and related topics for further searching.

[Jennifer Parsons]

Thank you for pointing this out. If the idea behind Library 2.0 functions is to get patrons to come in the first place, a cold-looking, majestic structure may intimidate some, particularly if its inside is close, dark, and hard to navigate.

An SL/MPORG collection display, or at least a version of that, may not only be an excellent way to organize a large collection, it can get patrons (particularly young patrons) acclimated to the inside of even the most forbidding library.