Tall Stories- Buildings Proposed To Shrink The Brooklyn Heights Library: Brooklyn Public Library Publishes Seven Luxury Building Proposals To Shrink Away Brooklyn Heights Library

Tall new towers in Brooklyn Heights to replace the Brooklyn Heights Library?  The image of the two towers above are of buildings whose potential height speculatively ranges, Photoshopped to show their tallest announced possible version for which an image isn't available.  Maybe not what they will look like, but for other reasons they may be even taller- read on.  

The Brooklyn Heights Association and the Brooklyn Public Library were once upon a time suggesting that Noticing New York was being `alarmist' when in February a Noticing New York article suggested that the building that might go up to replace the Brooklyn Heights Library could be very tall, as much as 40 stories.  The article informed readers that my information was that a possible 40-story building was what the BPL was discussing internally (“I have been informed that, off the record, he [BPL spokesperson Josh Nachowitz] has told others in internal discussion the building could be forty stories plus parking below”).  (See: Sunday, February 3, 2013, What Could We Expect Forest City Ratner Would Do With Two Library Sites On Sale For The Sake Of Creating Real Estate Deals?)

Alarmist?  Really?  On Thursday evening (December 12th) the BPL finally released proposals (in a summary briefing form) that were all submitted to it back in September on the 20th.  One of the seven proposals, Proposal F, says that proposal’s particular building could be as tall as a 55-story height (and at least a 45-story height).  The rendering the BPL has put out to the public of that building is apparently just the 45-story height version of what the developer might build.

Heights of the Buildings in the Proposals- Currently

In fact, most of the proposals think in terms of building fairly tall buildings.  Proposal B projects building up to a 47-story height (370 to 470 feet).  Proposal C up to a 40-story building height (400 feet).   Proposal E up to a 35-story building height (359 feet). Proposal C up to a 31-story building height (319 feet).  Proposal G up to a 29-story building height (290 feet). Proposal A up to a 28-story building height (285 feet).

I am being careful in my wording here.  I am not saying these buildings would actually be that many stories, only that they would be the height of buildings that are many stories tall.  The general convention in real estate is to estimate one floor for every ten feet of building height.  When I asked during the presentation whether the BPL could be viewed as trustworthy after having tried to discredit as `alarmist’ my previous projection of a tall building being built on the site, citing a likely forty stories or perhaps an even taller building, BPL spokesperson Josh Nachowitz pointed out that building height is not guaranteed to translate into an exact number of stories and that sometimes, as with buildings that have taller ceilings, there may be fewer floors in such taller buildings.  He said that in order not to deceive the public about the actual heights the BPL had furnished only the heights of the buildings.  (In other words, the BPL was not telling the public how many stories these buildings would be.)

Not Ratner- And Not as Tall as Possible

Mr. Nachowtize said the BPL is also choosing at this time not to tell the public who the developers of the seven proposals are, or how much they have offered to pay for the site, this despite the fact that public present for the presentation of the proposals was urging that this information be disclosed.  The Wall Street Journal, however, reported that Forest City Ratner did not submit a proposal and the same information was given by “a library insider” to Brooklyn Eagle and was given by “a source” to the Daily News, by Nachowtiz to DNAinfo.  Nachowitz told the Brooklyn Paper that “a controversial company with the initials `F.C.’ was not involved.”  None of this `not Ratner’ information means that Forest City Ratner won’t benefit if the property is sold and developed.  See: Friday, September 20, 2013, Forest City Ratner As The Development Gatekeeper (And Profit taker) Getting The Benefit As Brooklyn Heights Public Library Is Sold.

Notably, according to the information furnished by the BPL at the presentation, none of the seven proposals currently released and depicted in the rendering even use all of the development rights that are available.  That means all of them could grow in the course of subsequent negotiations!

How the Tall Buildings Proposed Could Grow Taller

When I asked about the zoning calculation and what development rights were coming in from other neighboring parcels I was told that none of the proposals involved development rights coming in from Forest City Ratner.  When I pressed about whether other development rights were being transferred in and specifically mentioned the possibility of development rights being transferred in form the Saint Ann's School through an expansion of the larger merged zoning lot involving Forest City Ratner, Mr. Nachowitz acknowledged that one of the seven proposals contemplated “a relationship” with Saint Ann's to utilize those Saint Ann's development rights.  Mr. Nachowitz said that Forest City Ratner would not be involved in what it would take to bring in those development rights, but that does not seem possible since any conventional approach would dictate that the rights would necessarily pass through a merging with the zoning lot of which Forest City Ratner is part to effect the transaction.

The entire block, Ratner Property highlighted, showing what, with Ratner cooperation, could be treated as a single merged zoning lot to transfer development rights from Saint Ann's School to the library site

Above, Saint Ann School building with development rights that are not yet utilized.  Ratner property is in the background, literally (and metaphorically?)

Based on what Mr. Nachowitz said, Saint Ann's School is demonstrably willing to convey its extra development rights to the library parcel.   But only one of the seven proposals currently reflects such utilization of those rights?  That means that if any of the other six proposals is selected we can expect that ultimately it will result in a larger building when in the course of subsequent negotiations those Saint Ann's development rights are transferred in to be utilized.  Why would that happen?  The developer would point out that the larger development was as-of-right (a zoning matter not requiring a special approval), perhaps offer some nominal sweetener, and others would probably be arguing that the school should be allowed to profit by transferring the rights out.

In addition to the Saint Ann's development rights, in 1986 the city gave Forest City Ratner development rights from the library site (more than half the development rights unless possible zoning bonuses are considered) which is one reason the public has less to gain by selling this library.  In previous public meetings the BPL has confirmed that Forest City Ratner still holds some of these development rights unused.  This means that these rights too could be transferred back to the library site (Forest City Ratner presumably being paid for them).  This is likely to happen since, in terms of what needs to happen to make it so, it would be part of virtually the very same merged zoning lot transaction necessary to transfer in the rights from Saint Ann's School.

And that means?  As Mr. Nachowtiz said that none of the seven proposals currently reflect a transfer in of the Forest City Ratner development rights, it means that all seven of the proposals could grow to involve still larger buildings.

Depicting Taller Possible Buildings (But Not The Tallest Possible Buildings)

Released by the BPL- 37 Stories?

As is, it appears that the Brooklyn Public Library (or the developers), not wanting to be alarmist about the size of the as yet still smaller buildings currently proposed, have submitted renderings of the smaller possible versions of the buildings proposed.  As noted, Proposal B projects a building that could range from perhaps 370 feet (a 37-story height) to perhaps 470 feet (a 47-story height).  The rendering supplied (above) appears to depict a 370 foot, approximately 37-story tall, building, not the taller height now cited as possible.  What might an extra hundred feet, ten extra stories look like?   See the rendering below that was achieved with some Photoshopped adjustments.

Photoshopped.  47 stories?

The real estate blog Curbed and other sites got access to a rendering that BPL is not releasing to the public as part of its website release of proposal information.  Below, using that rendering, is what the taller building would look like in the wider landscape view you can see at the Curbed site: Possible Library-Replacing Towers Revealed For BK Heights, Friday, December 13, 2013, by Jessica Dailey- Comments possible.  (The Curbed site has the most renderings if you care to go there.)

Landscape version released by BPL

If the building reaches taller proposed height

Similarly, the tallest building of Proposal F, which may be anywhere from 455 feet to 551 feet tall, looks like it has been rendered at the lower 455 foot height.  Counting what are evidently the stories in the rendering this probably 455 foot building appears to be 35 stories tall.  In other words that would make Josh Nachowitz correct in this instance: An average height of 13 feet a floor would reflect a marketing decision to aim at the super-luxury condo market.  Such high ceilings would also help boost the building's higher-floor apartments up for harbor views.  If this released rendering was of the 551 foot version of the building we would be talking about an average floor height of 15.7 feet.  That’s unlikely the case.

Version released by the BPL

What would a taller version of the building look like if it had 96 more feet and another seven floors?  See below.

Taller version?

What would it look like if it remained a 35-floor building but had those even more luxurious tall 15.7 foot floors?  See below.  It’s the same thing, just a little more stretched up.

Taller by virtue of super-high ceiling heights

Will this super-luxury building be one of the buildings that people actually live in?  If it isn’t, if it instead turns out to be one of the buildings where the wealthy invest in rarely used residences, it will not serve to achieve the that oft aspired-to goal of transit-oriented development that people cite to justify taller buildings.

Do the Photoshopped versions of these renderings show what these buildings will actually look like if they wind up being the taller versions of their predicted selves?  It isn’t actually that easy to guess how the massing and bulk of these buildings will be rearranged if and when the taller predicted heights are achieved, but what it is important to note is that neither of these Photoshopped renderings, nor any of the other renderings currently up on BPL site show any of the buildings as tall as they might be if all of the unused development rights, those from the Saint Anne's School and those from Forest City Ratner, are transferred in to build taller. 

Donnell Redux- Shrinking Libraries

Of course, not everybody reacts negatively to tall buildings, even those teetering up to throw shadows on historic Brooklyn Heights, as bad things.  For many the much greater concern is the way that the libraries are shrinking as buildings such as these buildings grow.  The greater concern is how the provision of a library seems to be offered as a nominal and perfunctory effort at public pacification without earnest thought about a library’s real functions.

Proposal C's Donnell mimicking descending stair-step "flexible" space

During the presentation on Thursday night the audience in attendance gasped in instant recognition of how one of the proposed designs for the new Brooklyn Heights Library (Proposal C*) featuring a descending stair-step space mimicking the infamous design for the much castigated shrinkage of the Donnell Library.

(* In Curbed the image is identified as being from Proposal E, which unless the BPL's summary brief is wrong will require correction and screw up the comments on Curb's site.)

Library?- The stair-step "flexible" space design to 'replace' Donnell

The Donnell Library was an important flagship destination library across from MoMA on 53rd Street in Manhattan, between Fifth and Sixth Avenues.  The old Donnell was 97,000 square feet.  The proposed new Donnell design was created to deal with the problem of how to disguise the fact that the library’s disappointing replacement is far too small and largely underground, hardly large enough to hold any books,* while also addressing a few of the significant community functions the old Donnell once provided with its recently renovated auditorium, state of the art media center, and Teen Center.

(* The design looks like it was copied from a Japanese design the architects stumbled across when Googling up the phrase “bookless library”:  Friday, November 1, 2013, Inspiration For The Non-Library: The Genesis Of The Design For The Space That Won’t Be Able To Replace The Donnell Library.)

Bookless Japanese library as inspiration for Donnell? From A AS Architecture

The new Donnell will be shrunk down to only 28,000 square feet, less than a third of the library’s former size.  The Brooklyn Heights Library, like Donnell, has long been a flagship destination library, supremely accessible to all of Brooklyn and most New Yorkers in its Downtown Central Business District transit hub location, sitting over most of the city’s most important subway lines and a slew of bus routes spoking out to all of Brooklyn.  The Request For Proposals that the Brooklyn Public Library sent out specified for the Heights Library to be shrunk to just 20,000 square feet, a size even smaller (hardly two-thirds) than the size of the now unsatisfactorily small Donnell.  As with Donnell, the reconstruction of this Brooklyn library will involve shifting library space underground: The BPL specified that up to 5,000 feet of the new library can be put underground.

BPL’s Lack of Desire For a Larger Library

Although I oppose the sale and shrinkage of the Brooklyn Heights Library, especially given the current real estate deal-oriented mindset of the BPL and Bloomberg administration officials, I offered kudos to the developers who proposed a larger library, 31,192 square feet (Proposal A) and 30,000 square feet (Proposal E), than the BPL specified. . .  particularly since the City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and BPL in issuing the RFP had not offered extra credit for more library space or for putting more of the library space above ground.  Josh Nachowtiz countered that rather than not giving credit for doing more for the public in this regard the BPL’s position was more `nuanced.’

What EDC and the BPL furnished developers informing them about what it desired in terms of the proposals it was seeking indicated several objectives: The goal of maximizing the price rose to the top, appearing foremost among them.  It is, of course, difficult to meet the objective of offering a maximized price if additional space gets devoted to the library.

The RFP itself did not mention the possibility of giving extra credit for a larger library or for more above-ground library space.  In fact, it did not even mention the possibility of a larger library.  The selection criteria stated “maximizing sale proceeds” as a first objective (see below).  While it said that “adequacy” of addressing library requirements was part of the selection criteria it referred to an “Appendix A” description of those requirements that set forth a flat-out specification that a new library be 20,000 square feet and that at least 15,000 square feet of that be on the ground floor.

RFP "Selection Criteria"

Appendix A- Library specifications

Thrown in was EDC's somewhat vague boilerplate about “economic impact to the city” being one of the selection criteria.  It could be argued that this language could justify a provision of a larger library given the economic benefits of libraries, but it is a bit far-fetched to conclude that this is what EDC and BPL officials were thinking when that language was included.

I didn’t take a picture of the PowerPoint slide used at the July 17, 2013 developer information session I attended that would document what I recall about how maximization of price was emphasized, but here is what the developers in attendance were told orally about the project’s goals:

So I am just going to recapitulate what Josh [Nachowitz] sort of already mentioned.  I want to just stress that this is going to be a very competitive process and we had an earlier information session that was also full.  We want to just stress that we are looking for a few things that we really need addressed.:

        •    One is to maximize the sales price.  Those sales price will be used to build a new library and to be used in much needed capital repairs all over the Brooklyn’s portfolio, Brooklyn Library’s portfolio- So we need to maximize the sales price.*

[* Despite this rhetoric, there is no way to assure any actual such dollar-for-dollar linkage between the selling of libraries, their sales prices, and the funding of capital repairs in the library system.  We will return to this subject later.] 

        •    In addition we need to make sure that we have the new library delivered back to the city efficiently, expediently, and with quality building.  So if any successful proposal demonstrates that it is able to maximize profits to the city and deliver a new library quickly and have excellent quality, excellent design.

        •    We will obviously be looking at the development team qualifications as we always do in RFPs.  We're going to be looking to financial feasibility very carefully.  So please make sure you have a robust pro forma that’s in Excel format that we can look at.

        •    And also please be cognizant of the relationships with the surrounding community.  Whilst this is not in an Historic District, it is surrounded by an Historic District and we want the design to be aware of that, and cognizant of that.  And that goes for the design plan as well.

So, based on the above, after maximizing price, a relatively high priority is a design that won’t be jarring and upsetting for those living in the Brooklyn Heights Historic District, but there is no priority for a larger library.

Below is the way that the BPL’s `nuanced’ position on extra space was stated in the Questions and Answers the BPL posted for developers on its web site.

    Q. Will there be additional credit toward the purchase price if additional library space is provided?

    A. The required square footage of the new library is specified in Appendix A of the RFP. Proposals that adhere to the requirements, as specified, are preferred, although proposals that contemplate additional library space are not precluded and a credit towards the purchase price in this instance may be considered. As stated in the RFP, one of BPL’s primary development goals is to maximize proceeds needed to generate capital funds for this and other BPL libraries. 

“Proposals that contemplate additional library space are not precluded” and “a credit towards the purchase price in this instance may be considered,” but the “primary development goals is to maximize proceeds” as already stated (emphasis supplied).  What would be your takeaway as a developer?  Does sales price still trump no matter what?

The above Question and Answer might never have been furnished to developers had I not asked a question to raise the issue at the developer information session.  The above ‘nuanced’ statement of position is apparently a refinement of the following exchange at that meeting that began with my question:

    MDDW:  You are getting credit both for the purchase price and for what you are doing for the benefit of the libraries. .  So up to 5,000 feet can be underground.   Do you get additional credit for having less than 5,000 feet, . .  more feet overground, and do you get additional credit for having more than 20,000 square feet for the library, or does that work against you?

    Josh Nachowitz: So as we’ve said before for the number one, number two and number three development goals for the project is to build the best library that we can for BPL. We’ve set out that no more than 5,000 square feet of the proposed library space can be below grade, so, yes, if there is a proposal that put all 20,000 square feet above grade, or a proposal that put in a library larger than that . . [pause]

    Interjection, by EDC representative: We would weigh that up against the . .

    Nachowitz: . . Sales price.

    EDC representative: . . . Sales price.

Developers Never Reached Out To Confer With Community

So how much of a priority were the needs and desires library users as the developers formulated the plans for these tall new luxury towers?  At the presentation of the designs I asked Mr. Nachowitz whether the developers were at liberty to approach the community and library users to discover their needs and desires as they formulated these designs.  Mr. Nachowitz said that the developers were previously permitted to approach the community for such purpose before submitting their designs, but that going forward from this point they would not be allowed to do so.

If it’s true that all the seven developers who submitted proposals (and any other developers who may have been exploring the possibility of submitting a response) were permitted to approach the community for feedback, none of them did.

The BPL is taking comments from the public now, but not in a way that everyone will immediately see those comments on their web page when they are submitted.

To Replace Large Amounts of Library Space, “Flexible” Library Space Good For Many Thing Except Quiet Reading of Books

The Proposal E design that mimics the Donnell design is one of the five proposals presenting a library of only 20,000 square feet.  BPL officials present trumpeted their ability to make do with such a small amount of library space, explaining that this was because it is “flexible” space.  (For more musings on the concept of flexibility see: Thursday, April 25, 2013, Building a “Murphy Library”.)

To NYPL President Tony Marx, an “agora” and a “piazza” where the bleacher/stairs can be used to show people David Niven movies in the daylight while chamber music is played.

This is the same concept the NYPL has been touting as a excuse to rationalize why it is selling off and shrinking library space elsewhere in the city.  NYPL president Anthony Marx referred to the bleacher/stairs of the Donnell design as flexibly serving both an “agora” and a “piazza.” And at the same time it works functionally as stairs and is supposed to serve as seating to show movies while daylight streams in the window.  See: Friday, May 24, 2013, Previews Of The Proposed New Donnell Library: The NYPL Unveils Its Version Of The “Silk Purse” Libraries It Envisions For Our Future.

How long is the list of  ways that library officials claim such smaller spaces work well?  One thing such newly conceived of flexible space does not seem to do well is provide a quiet space in which to read books . . .

. .  At almost the same time that the BPL was unveiling these designs the NYPL’s  PR generated an article in the New York Times that dubiously celebrated the opening of one of these new-concept, `flexible’ libraries in Staten Island’s Mariners Harbor.  Here is an extract from the Times describing how the flexible space works:

Except for a conference room and staff offices, the 10,000-square-foot space is entirely open, with no partitions higher than the 3-foot-6-inch bookshelves that help demarcate the children’s, teen and adult areas.

If that sounds noisy to you, so be it. “We encourage noise,” said Elizabete Pata, the library manager. “I’m not the typical librarian, shushing people.”

“We’re not going to be a traditional library,” she said. “This is going to be more like a community center.”

  Tranquility may be found just out the back door, however.

(See: Building Blocks: An Oyster, Filled With Books, Is Set to Open on Staten Island- Mariners Harbor Library to Open on Monday, by David W. Dunlap, December 11, 2013.)

Arguably, the NYPL has succeeded in creating a flexible space accommodating multiple functions, just not a quiet place to read a book.  So much for the flagship destination well-equipped reading and research library the Brooklyn Heights Library has traditionally been!

Books as Conceptual Afterthoughts

-

New style (Donnell-inspired?) bookshelves- Concept being preeminent- Do you use a trampoline or climbing gear to get to the top shelf?  Proposal F

The fact that books tend to be just a conceptual afterthought is emphasized by this slide from Proposal F which, echoing the designs unrealistically offered for Donnell, shows unusable `conceptual’ bookshelves many times the height regulations would permit or that people without climbing and safety gear could access.

Similar overly tall books shelves in the Donnell design renderings showing that having books in a library is a conceptual thing

Unreceptive Public

The crowd the night of the presentation for the Brooklyn Library replacement plans was not exactly receptive.  The Brooklyn Eagle noted:

It was rough sledding Thursday night for Brooklyn Public Library (BPL) officials as they presented seven proposals to re-develop the Brooklyn Heights Branch Library.

Even before Josh Nachowitz, BPL’s VP of Government and Community Relations and Richard Reyes-Gavilan, BPL’s Chief Librarian ran through a Powerpoint with project renderings and details, opponents peppered them with catcalls and angry comments.

“These plans are covering up the slumlord aspect of what the Library did to this building,” audience member Marsha Rimler called out.

“Why won’t you reveal the developers’ names?” others shouted.

Opponents say the city is selling off public assets like libraries for the benefit of private developers, and that “the fix is in.”

(See: BPL unveils seven proposals for redeveloped Brooklyn Heights Library- Unruly crowd challenges library officials at Thursday presentation, by Mary Frost, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 13, 2013.  Comments Possible)

DNAinfo New York reported similarly:

Many residents have spoken out against selling the library to private developers, and they continued to voice their concerns Thursday.

"You speak of this as if it were already a done deal. We don’t want that at all," said resident Marilyn Berkon. "Why is it that we cannot simply refurbish what we already have? What this really is, is a business deal to make rich people richer."

(See: Brooklyn Heights Library Designs Revealed, by Janet Upadhye on December 13, 2013- Comments Possible)

The crowd attending that evening might be excused from having anticipated in advance that they weren’t going to like the plans which had the BPL had withheld* for nearly three months before unveiling. The mindset of those now selling New York City libraries isn’t trusted.  Ostensibly, the BPL and city officials have the interest of the library using public in mind, but the actual enthusiasm for these plans is coming mostly from people like the readers of the real estate blog Curbed nakedly disdaining libraries with comments like: “Why not tear down all the libraries. Most Americans don't read anymore.” and “What is a `library’?”.  

(* “Kept them secret,” in the words of the Brooklyn Paper. See: Library bookmarks Brooklyn Heights branch plans, by Jaime Lutz, The Brooklyn Paper, December 13, 2013.  Comments Possible)

BPL Insists Its Process Has Integrity- But Greatly Exaggerates Public Participation?

Most of the articles reporting on the proposal presentations included various protestations on the BPL’s behalf about the integrity and suitability of the process by which the proposals had been developed.  The Brooklyn Eagle included this:

“Any accusation that the process is rigged is completely and totally inaccurate,” Nachowitz said. He noted more than 40 hours of public meetings to date, and the process is still in the early stage. “If the fix was in we wouldn’t be here tonight.”

The “public meetings” to which Mr. Nachowtiz referred were probably the “Community Advisory Committee” meetings of which the meeting the evening of the presentations was technically the 7th.    The first of those meetings had been in February and from the very start, the committee meetings were suspiciously structured around the core support or condoning for the sale and shrinkage of the library from the Friends of the Brooklyn Heights Branch Library and the Brooklyn Heights Association.  (See: Saturday, April 13, 2013, Condoning The Sale and Shrinkage Of The Brooklyn Heights Library, Does The Brooklyn Heights Associations Think Of Friends Group As A Fig Leaf? It Should Think Again.)

Altogether, the previous six of those meetings to which Mr. Nachowitz might have been referring totaled less than seven and one half hours.  How Mr. Nachowitz may have gotten from under seven and a half hours to his tally of “40 hours of public meetings to date” is uncertain.  He probably included the January meeting of the Friends group where the plan to sell the library was first unveiled and also included his presentation before Brooklyn Community Board 2.  There was a presentation to a local political club about the Brooklyn Heights Library and the Pacific Branch after which the club passed a resolution strongly opposing the sales.  Was Mr. Nachowitz also including the few public meetings that were held with respect to the proposed sale of the Pacific Branch?  Including BPL trustee meetings?  Even so, it seems impossible that he could get to a 40 hour tally even if he included the full day of state hearings on all the library sales held by Assemblyman Micah Kellner or included the shorter hearings on all the library sales held by the City Council committee overseeing libraries.

Trust For BPL Narrative?  Betting On An MOU?

One attendee at the meeting, neighborhood resident Quinn Raymond, credulously bought into and reiterated key aspects of the BPL’s script.  According to the Brooklyn Eagle:

Some members of the audience offered constructive criticism. Resident Quinn Raymond, who said his wife was a frequent user of the library, offered “general support with a lot of caveats.”

“We need a new library,” he said. “A tremendous amount of capital infrastructure needs repairs, but there’s no budget. This would fund library projects in other neighborhoods.”

According to DNAinfo

"What I like about this plan is that it gives us a better library — we do need a new library in fact," resident Quinn Raymond said. "And people in Bushwick and Canarsie and Fort Greene, they also need new libraries and the truth is there's no other revenue for that."

Even if such a very significantly smaller library could be considered a “better library” the narrative into which Mr. Quinn has bought has several flaws.  I told Mr. Quinn after the meeting that a generation of children were likely to grow up without benefit of a proper library as a result of this plan- even now they were deprived as the library was emptied of books as a precursor to the intended sales.  (One woman at the meeting described visiting the library to discover it had virtually no art books on its denuded shelves.)  More important, the numbers should not be believed when city and BPL officials say there is no budget for repairs and when they offer the estimates for those repairs.  Furthermore, there is absolutely no way to assure that proceeds of any library sales would be spent on such repairs as the library system shrank.

Empty shelves- Children's Library

As the Daily News reported:

. .  the project has riled neighborhood activists.

They contend that library officials are lying about how much it would cost to repair the dilapidated branch.

    * * *

“Brooklyn Public Library is using the pretext of a broken air-conditioning system and significantly inflating the estimated cost of its repair as a reason to sell a publicly owned library building for private development and private benefit,” said a press release issued by Citizens Defending Libraries,* a group opposed to the sale.

Library officials maintain they have been open and honest about the needed repairs and project, noting that they have held 45 hours of community meetings.

[* I am a cofounder of Citizens Defending Libraries and a proponent of its petition opposing the sale of New York City libraries]

(See: Brooklyn Public Library unveils seven proposals for Brooklyn Heights branch
In February, library officials announced plans to sell the city-owned branch at 280 Cadman Plaza West in Brooklyn Heights to a private developer who will erect an apartment tower with a new, 20,000 square foot branch on the bottom floor.  By Reuven Blau / New York Daily News
Thursday, December 12, 2013.)

Now (above) the BPL has escalated, citing “45 hours of community meetings” to prove that they have been “open and honest”?  But if the BPL can’t get the math right about the number of hours of public meetings there have been (or even whether it is 40 or 45 hours) why should we trust their math on the repairs?

The Brooklyn Eagle quoted me to address the other issue of whether sale proceeds would go to library repairs:

Michael White, author of the Noticing New York blog asserted that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed with the city specifying that money raised by the sale would go to BPL (as opposed to the city’s general fund) “is not enforceable.”

Originally, when the public was first informed about the idea of using an MOU to specify that the City would return the proceeds it received from the sale of the library for library expenditures the idea was that it would be enforceable.  But at the May 23rd Community Advisory Committee meeting when the MOU was unveiled representatives of elected officials expressed dismay and consternation that the agreement made little pretense of being truly enforceable or otherwise being effective in ensuring that the BPL would actually garner proceeds from a library sale.  In response, BPL spokesman Josh Nachowitz dismissed the importance of the ineffectiveness of the MOU, saying that some MOUs get honored and some don't (they just ‘get thrown out’) and suggested that with an upcoming change of many elected officials throughout the city it didn’t make sense to want it to be enforceable.

Previously, Mr. Nachowitz had spoken of a plan to execute a contract with a developer before December 31, 2013, the last day of Mayor Bloomberg’s term.  It is under the Bloomberg administration that all the library sales for shrinkage, starting with Donnell in 2007 (with Bloomberg blessing), have been pursued.  As quoted in the Brooklyn Eagle Mr. Nachowitz offered that the  idea was now to wait for the new de Blasio administration to come in and get from it the equivalent of a moral promise to send the sales proceeds in the direction of the library:

“We’ll be having conversations with the new budget director,” Nachowitz said. “We’ll make sure the MOU is honored. If the MOU is not honored by the new administration, the board of the Library will not enter into the transaction.”

Nachowitz also said that a “reversion clause” would allow the city to “recapture” the real estate if the developer failed to build out according to the time line.

But the problem is not just whether the new administration exercises its legal right to ignore the MOU.  As I pointed out at the meeting, just because some funds are sent over identified as being from the proceeds of a sale that doesn’t mean that libraries will in the end get more overall funding because the city can still simply budget fewer funds.  It is, I said, just the same way that saying that funds from legalized gambling will go to schools (as often promised) doesn’t mean that education ultimately actually receives more money.  The agreements are more typically breached than honored.

Mr. Nachowitz’s idea of “reversion clause” as safeguarding protection if things aren’t working out?: What if that concept were extended to say that the library site property would revert to public ownership if the Brooklyn libraries were not actually receiving the influx of cash that supposedly justifies the sale?  No developer would sign such a deal because no developer would assume the risk that the library-using public is now being asked to assume.

The Delay (Until the de Blasio Administration?) In Signing A Developer

The BPL now says that it envisions executing a contract with a developer in “the first quarter of 2014”  (Brooklyn Eagle) “first three months of 2014" (Brooklyn Paper).  Does waiting to execute a contract facilitate pushing through the sale: Will there now be seven developers (plus Forest City Ratner) each ready to lobby the new Mayor de Blasio in expectation that they might benefit if the deal goes through?  Another question is this: Will the RFP be consummated with a signing under the de Blasio administration or go into the limbo of an interrupted process?  Because there are those who would want to argue that a signing after the January first date of the de Blasio administration commences would morally commit Mr. de Blasio to go forward in some way notwithstanding that on July 12, 2014 Mr. de Blasio stood with Citizens Defending Libraries and others on the steps of the 42nd Street Central Reference Library to oppose the city’s library sales, this one included.  That argument of incipient obligation would also have to be despite that fact that required public reviews of this sale, including ULURP (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure) have not actually commenced.

Mayoral candidate de Blasio with Citizens Defending Libraries at 42nd Street library in July

On the Cusp of a New Administration Bloomberg Fails to Lock in Library Deals

Up until recently, the Bloomberg administration had the sale of New York City libraries on a faster tack.  As noted the developer contract for the Brooklyn Heights Library was supposed to be executed before the end of Bloomberg’s term.  It may be viewed as part and parcel of all the sell-offs and real estate deals pushed by the Bloomberg administration at the end of its term.  See the front page story of today’s New York Times:  Going Out With Building Boom, Mayor Pushes Billions in Projects, by Charles V. Bagli, December 15, 2013- Comments possible.   See also, The Brian Lehrer Show (Charles Bagli guest), Rushed Development Deals, Wednesday, November 27, 2013 (audio below),
and Atlantic Yards Report, Thursday, November 28, 2013, Wrongheaded on Brian Lehrer: guest suggests de Blasio might be courageous in supporting Atlantic Yards, host suggests mayor will "pressure" developer.



According to that Times article:

The Bloomberg administration has been pushing through more than $12 billion worth of real estate projects in its waning days. .  before Bill de Blasio takes over Jan. 1.

    * * *

The projects, which will begin construction well after Mayor-elect de Blasio takes office in January, also bind the new mayor to the old mayor’s agenda, at least for a while. By Dec. 31, some projects . .  will have reached the point that they cannot be stopped or modified.

The Times article described Bloomberg’s great success in this regard. . . and, in doing so, inaccurately, overstated it:

Only one so-called legacy project — the rezoning of 73 blocks surrounding Grand Central Terminal for taller towers — failed, when the Bloomberg administration could not win the Council’s support last month.

The above is in accurate because the Bloomberg administration also failed to lock in, the way it wanted to, the sales of New York City libraries.  Not only did the Bloomberg administration not succeed in signing the development agreement for the the Brooklyn Heights Library as planned, the NYPL’s Central Library Plan is halted and will not proceed unless Mayor de Blasio and other newly elected officials like Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer and the new City Council decide to back funding for it.  Right now, there is no public or approved design for the Central Library Plan.  When there finally is an approved public plan, public officials will have to decide whether to approve and put into next year’s city budget the spending of $150 million in taxpayer money and the diversion of massive amount of other public money, (perhaps almost a half billion total when all is said and done) from other library purposes in order to sell off and drastically shrink libraries and exile a huge amount of books from Manhattan’s flagship destination libraries.

Below is a slide with information from Bloomberg’s website that noted that achieving the consolidating shrinkage of the Central Library Plan, was one of the very highest priorities of his administration.

Coverage of the Tall Towers of the Brooklyn Heights Library Sale Proposal and The Libraries Really Wanted By The Public

Curbed may have the best collection of visuals for the Brooklyn Heights Library sale proposals, but Brownstoner is the best site to see the charts of proposal features set up side-by-side, like how much retail space each project would have and perhaps to note that Proposal B, with an envisioned 15,500 square feet of retail, would have almost as much retail space as there would be library space.  See: Library Releases Proposals for New Brooklyn Heights Branch With Condos, Retail, by Rebecca, 12/13/13- Comments Possible.

At the end of this article are visuals for the rest of the proposals.  Just remember that if they acquire the still available development rights, none of the buildings that are shown here as big as they actually will be.

Looking in from outside the evening of the December 12, 2013 Community Advisory Committee meeting: The Business and Career portion of the Brooklyn Heights Library which would be eliminated as part fo accomplishing the proposed shrinkage

Why are our libraries shrinking if these buildings are all growing?  The readers of Curbed may have little idea of what a library is or know their value, suggesting that they all be `torn down’ because they think that  “Americans don't read anymore,” but that’s really far from the case.  Citizens Defending Libraries has plenty of links up on its site (last accessed December 16, 2013) about how usage of New York City’s libraries is way up (nearly 60% in terms of circulation and 40% programmatically), how “more people visited public libraries in New York than every major sports team and every major cultural institution combined,” how people love libraries, and about the importance and desirability of physical books (including for young people) that allow us to better learn and absorb information than from digital books.

See:

•    Citizens Defending Libraries Resource And Main Page 
  
•    Extra Useful Links About Libraries In General

Additionally, Citizens Defending Libraries has a page with links focusing specifically on the sell-off of Brooklyn libraries:

•    Extra Useful Links About Libraries In Brooklyn (Including The Brooklyn Height Branch And Business and Career Library, The Pacific Branch And Strategic Plan)

That said, since we are dealing with images of towers in this post, perhaps this brand new image fro the Atlantic, a chart that shows the public’s approval of libraries towering over all else, reflecting the results of a new Pew Study about libraries:  Public Libraries Are Better Than Congress, Baseball, and Apple Pie, Say Americans- Public approval polls reveal the amazing truth! By Robinson Meyer December 13, 2013

Towering approval of libraries, not towers.

Here is a link directly to the new Pew Study: Released December 11, 2013, How Americans Value Public Libraries in Their Communities, By Kathryn Zickuhr, Lee Rainie, Kristen Purcell and Maeve Duggan:

    Summary of Findings

    Americans strongly value the role of public libraries in their communities, both for providing access to materials and resources and for promoting literacy and improving the overall quality of life. Most Americans say they have only had positive experiences at public libraries, and value a range of library resources and services.

Proposal A:

285 feet tall

Rooftop park

Preservation in current location of library bas relief

Proposal B:

370 to 470 feet tall

Landscape version

Glass atrium?

Proposal C:

319 feet tall

319 feet tall

Proposal C's Donnell mimicking descending stair-step "flexible" space

Proposal D:

400 feet tall

Proposal E:

359 feet tall

Proposal F:

455 to 551 feet tall

-

New style (Donnell-inspired?) bookshelves- Concept being preeminent

Proposal G:

290 feet tall

    

Are NYPL Trustees Flying Blind on The Basics? Numbers To Inform Them About The Drastic Dwindling of Books In Manhattan’s Principal Libraries Are Missing From Their Minutes

Demonstrators outside 42nd Street Central Reference Library during the November 20th NYPL Trustees meeting- On right, Simon Verity-drawn banner: "Trustees- On Your Watch" 

What do the New York Public Library Trustees know about what is going on their watch?  Here’s a most basic question: Do they have any idea of the number of books they are making available to the public, and that the number of books in Manhattan’s most important libraries is significantly shrinking?  The indications are they’re in the dark.

From 1987 to an envisioned 2015 (with an implemented Central Library Plan), how total number of books in Manhattan's principal libraries is declining drastically.  Over 12 million books in 1996 and 2003 to perhaps 4.2 million books (or even far fewer?) when CLP is implemented.  Starting figures in the graph for 1987 and 1992 are graphed lower than than they actually should be because they don't include unknown numbers for Mid-Manhattan and Donnell

I am reliably informed that the minutes for the last ten years of NYPL trustee meetings contain nothing about the number of books in the principal and most important libraries in Manhattan even as deals are being finagled to sell and precipitously shrink those libraries.

From and earlier NNY Article- 1987 to an envisioned 2015 (with an implemented Central Library Plan), total actual midtown Manhattan Library destination space actual and planned, first going up and then going lower than ever before

Maybe I give the trustees too little credit.  Oughtn’t they be able to infer that the number of books available in the libraries would significantly decline when library real estate is sold off and book shelves are kept half full?  See:  Thursday, November 21, 2013, Drastically Reducing Manhattan’s Main Library Space (At City Expense), The NYPL Was Only Just Recently Increasing Its Space (At City Expense), and  Saturday, September 14, 2013, Empty Bookshelves As Library Officials Formulate A New Vision of Libraries: A Vision Where The Real Estate Will Be Sold Off.

Or are they even paying attention to those things?
   
Still, shouldn’t it really work in reverse?  Shouldn’t those overseeing the administration of libraries start with a reckoning of how many books they have and want to make available to the public, with the real estate deals being worked out only afterward?

Exactly how many books have gone missing from Manhattan’s principal libraries without the library trustees paying the matter any note?  A lot. . . . Well over half. . . .  Perhaps two-thirds or more: What may have been thirteen million books or more in total, reduced to perhaps 4.2 million or less.

In April 1996 there were at least twelve million books in Manhattan’s principal libraries: the 42nd Street Central Reference Library, the Mid-Manhattan Library, the Science Industry and Business Library (SIBL) and that doesn’t count the collections and materials that were then in 53rd Street’s Donnell Library, a five-story, 97,000 square foot library across from MoMA.  It is a relatively safe supposition that by 2003 those libraries, including Donnell, contained at least thirteen million books and related items their collection.*

(* FOOTNOTE- added April 13, 2014: On March 26, 2014, the NYPL contacted Noticing New York and Citizens Defending Libraries with respect to this November 27, 2013 Noticing New York article, calling into question whether the book count figure published in the New York Times in 1996 from which these numbers derive was exactly accurate.  The NYPL suggested substituting another number that appeared to be misleading and less accurate for that purpose.  Since that time the NYPL has not been forthcoming with requested numbers to inform the public about the number of books that were in it's libraries, the 42nd Street Central Reference Library, including the Bryant Park Service Extension, the 42nd Street Annex, Mid-Manhattan, the Science, Industry and Business Library, the Donnell Library and the Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts, and how those numbers are changing.  Notwithstanding, the NYPL provided a book count figure for some of the materials in the Central Reference Library, that was startlingly more than what it is estimated might be kept, whether or not the NYPL low-balled that provided number.  An additional update- On March 11th, NYPL president Tony Marx testified at the City Council budget hearing that his goal was to have "capacity" for 4.2 million books under the consolidating shrinkage of the Central Library Plan, but that the NYPL didn't yet know if they would achieve even that.  He was also very careful to be clear that he was only stating the "capacity" they were hoping for, not the actual number of books that would be kept. Is it fair to guess that the actual number of books ultimately kept could be as low as only 3.5 to 4 million?  This footnote will be updated with a link providing more information.) 

But Donnell has now been sold to be replaced by something that will be relatively bookless and largely underground buried in the bottom of a fifty-story luxury hotel and residential building.  Its collections were sent away (to be included now in these reckonings).  Further, with the Central Library Plan (aka “the 42nd Street Library Renovation”), Mid-Manhattan and SIBL will be sold off entirely, and the research stacks of the 42nd Street Central Reference Library that famously holds most of its books will be largely demolished and decommissioned, no longer fulfilling the stacks original purpose.  The NYPL’s 42nd Street Annex that held additional books nearby has also been sold off by the NYPL.  How many books will the NYPL house when the Central Library plan is effectuated?  The figure of 4.2 million could be a generous estimation, and that number can only be estimated as that high provided that all the book storage that was created to store books under Bryant Park is brought on line.

Bryant Park excavated to add library shelves for more books

Yes, that’s right, for those who did not know, there is book shelf space serving the 42nd Street Central Reference Library under Bryant Park.  We closed Bryant Park for more than four years to create the under-park space.  The park was reopened and some books were moved into it starting in 1992.  The new shelf space was created to hold more than 3.2 million additional books (about 84 miles of books) where they could be more readily accessed by researchers using the Central Reference Library.   Despite original plans, only the top floor of the new facility is presently in use, reportedly holding about 1.8 million books while the bottom floor could hold another 1.4 million.  (See: Saturday, February 9, 2013, Libraries That Are Now Supposedly “Dilapidated” Were Just Renovated: And Are Developers’ Real Estate Deals More Important Than Bryant Park? and Library Starts Road to 84-Mile Shelves Under Park, by Susan Heller Anderson, October 27, 1987.

From an earlier Noticing New York article concerning the building of the under-park shelving 

The research stacks of the Central Reference Library around which that celebrated library was built (both conceptually and structurally) hold 3 million books, although the stacks were recently emptied as the NYPL readied them for the demolition to proceed with the Central Library Plan.  In 1987, before the addition of the shelves under Bryant Park, the Central Reference Library held those three million books in the principal stacks plus, in other of its rooms, another 352,000 or more additional books, 88 miles of books in total.  Most of those other books aren’t there now either.

I recently spoke with a film location scout who had visited the Central Reference Library looking for a site to shoot a scene that would have a library room with books in the background.  The NYPL couldn’t oblige him.  He said that administrators explained that, aside from the Rose Reading Room (to which books from the stacks are brought to researchers), they recently had only two other rooms with books in them.  So I guess if you want to remake Ghostbusters or a lot of other good movies from the past in that setting you will have to bring in either the CGI guys or an expensive load of props.  It’s not just the ghosts you will have to be faking.

When the additional space was built for stacks under Bryant Park it was intended that the Central Reference Library would hold 6.2 million research books.  In a pinch it would have been able to hold 6,552,000 books.  But remember these figures are just for books in the Central Reference Library and don’t add in the books for the other nearby central Manhattan libraries.

In 1996 when SIBL was opened there were reportedly 12 million books at the 42nd Street library locations (that’s exclusive of the Donnell books that were just a quick eleven-block walk uptown).  1.2 million books were moved from the Central Reference Library’s reference collection (about 32 miles of books) to SIBL and another 40,000 circulating books were moved there from Mid-Manhattan.  Now the NYPL is selling SIBL (for which we paid $100 million) and has therefore been getting rid of most of those books.

The Central Library Plan proposes that the 42nd Street Central Reference Library books would be reduced to what fits under Bryant Park, just 3.2 million books, fewer than were in the Central Reference Library when in the 1980s we made the sacrifice of closing Bryant Park to expand the library’s capacity.  Further away, these books under Bryant Park would not be as quickly accessible for readers as research books in the originally designed stacks.

How many more books and related items would there be in the library in addition to those reference books?  Some at least because a circulating library to replace both Mid-Manhattan and SIBL would have to have books and materials.  As I noted, 40,000 circulating books were moved from Mid-Manhattan to open SIBL in 1996.  But as the shelves of both these libraries are now startlingly barren and the library seems intent on getting rid of books.  I don’t know that it is fair to assume that the collection of circulating books in the space intended to replace those libraries would even be 80,000 books altogether.  Nevertheless, I have generously estimated that the replacement circulating library might have as many as 100,000 books and have used that figure for the graph.  If you prefer you can imagine a more precipitously falling line.

Whatever number of books kept for circulation purposes they would all have to fit, together with reading and ambulation space for the patrons, into a much smaller amount of space than they came from that would be crammed into and replace what is currently the space of the research stacks.  In the last released Central Library Plan design that meant fitting into 80,000 square feet created by demolishing the stacks.*  The space, 80,000 or whatever, would have to accommodate what had been in the approximately 300,000 square feet of Mid-Manhattan and SIBL combined.

(* Because the research stacks are so efficiently designed with only 7.5 foot ceilings, they effectively constitute, before demolition, about 160,000 square feet in terms of book stack storage space.)

The NYPL has issued public statements to the effect that a new design for the Central Library Plan will keep some of the research stacks, repurposing them for circulation use.  Perhaps the new design will also slightly increase the overall square footage as well but it will no doubt be exceedingly challenging and, in the end, insufficient.

I contacted the spokesperson for the NYPL to ask about the absence in the minutes of information for the trustees about the declining number of books.  My inquiry was as follows:

In recent years, there has been a terrific downsizing of the number of books and materials available at the major library sites in Manhattan, the 42 Street Central Reference Library, Donnell, Mid-Manhattan, SIBL, the Annex.  It is my understanding that the minutes for the NYPL trustee meetings contain essentially no information about the level of book storage and the numbers of materials and books in these various places.  (Please correct me if you think I am wrong, citing the information you think the minutes do contain that give information over the years about how many books and materials are being kept at these libraries.)

Would you please address for me why the trustees are being asked to oversee major changes in the availability of library assets, together with significant accompanying physical changes to these libraries, without such information being a matter of review at these meetings?  Or, if it is your understanding that these facts were subjects of the trustees’ review as the facts were changing over the years, can you please explain why such facts central to the status and administration of the libraries would not have been included in the minutes afterward?

The response I got was that because Citizens Defending Libraries (a group of which I am a co-founder) is a plaintiff in lawsuit against the NYPL he could not, as the NYPL spokesperson, provide a response.  The good news is that there is this lawsuit to which he referred and another that have thus far impeded the Central Library Plan’s planned demolition, thereby also its consolidating shrinkage banishing books.

No matter that the lawsuit was given as a reason for the NYPL not to respond to my question, it is my understanding that the NYPL is not responding to other news media putting such questions to them irrespective of any lawsuits or the absence thereof.  Not only should the NYPL trustees have been informed with specificity about the number of books that are being kept and the number of books that are being banished, the fact of the matter is that the public should be similarly informed.  The public pays for the libraries and is being asked to foot the bill for the consolidating shrinkage of the Central Library Plan which, it turns out, can only be accomplished at huge cost.

The idea that our New York City libraries needn’t have books is not isolated to Manhattan or the NYPL.  It is being exported to Brooklyn, affecting libraries run by the Brooklyn Public Library.  The other day a neighbor of ours stopped by the Brooklyn Heights Library with her daughter.  The Brooklyn Heights Library is the biggest, most important library in Brooklyn, second only to the what is officially the main library at Grand Army Plaza.  It is a main library comparable to Manhattan’s Donnell, Mid-Manhattan or SIBL and, because of its accessible location, the Brooklyn Heights library is perhaps even more important than the main library at Grand Army Plaza.

Crowd assembling for entry to Brooklyn Heights Libary on a wintery morning earlier this year

Our neighbor and her daughter wanted to look at books about art history.  They were stunned to find out the library had only one book available.  The librarian there offered that if they knew what they wanted he could likely order up books that they specified and have them there in perhaps a day or so.  That’s not what they wanted.  They wanted to see books immediately.  They had come to the library because what they wanted to do they needed to do that night.  And they also wanted to browse.  They didn’t know ahead of time exactly what they might want see.  That’s why they wanted to look and to discover what interested them by looking at a lot of books and surveying the options.
                       
The NYPL is similarly inclined to think that having books elsewhere than at the libraries is satisfactory.   The NYPL is participating on a coordinated basis with the Brooklyn Public Library (BPL) in the very same central processing and storage “Book-Ops” approach (handled out of Long Island City, Queens) that means that books won’t be readily found at the system branches and will have to be ordered.  That’s the approach that resulted in there being no art history books to be found at the Brooklyn Heights Library.  And the NYPL believes it is quite sufficient if Central Reference Library books (any that they haven’t, in fact, gotten rid of entirely) can, upon identification, be ordered and arrive in a number of days from Princeton in southern New Jersey.

Trustee Luis A. Ubiñas left praised Trustee and Vice Chair Annette de la Renta right, for . . .?

Respecting the trustees being in the dark about the rapid disappearance of books from the library, it may be worse than you think.  Rather than the trustees receiving no information, no numerical figures about how many books are no longer in the library; they may actually be receiving and dealing in misinformation.

At the last NYPL trustees meeting, held November 20th, two trustees were being singled out for special recognition.  One of them was Vice-Chairman Annette de la Renta (wife of Oscar de la Renta).  Trustee Luis A. Ubiñas was one of those who took the lead in praising Ms. de la Renta.  He did so in terms of praising what was happening in the NYPL system generally.

What did he say?  He said that:

 . . . those libraries have more books in them, in this era when books are evidently vanishing, than they have ever had before.

Really?  What universe is he talking about?  Did he express this in terms of any figures he supplied?  No.  Did he, in fact, have any idea of what he was talking about?  Did Ms. de la Renta as she was being so praised know whether there was any truth in what she was being praised for?  Did she know relevant numbers?  Did she know, for instance, if the number of books in the big central libraries in Manhattan was around 13 million in 2003?  That it is now dramatically down from that number?  That it was headed to maybe 4.2 million or perhaps less with the implementation of the Central Library Plan over which she was presiding?

What do you think?  It's rather awful if she didn't know.  Still what is worse: Presiding over such a profound diminishment in the number of these libraries books not knowing these numbers. . . . or knowing the numbers?

Drastically Reducing Manhattan’s Main Library Space (At City Expense), The NYPL Was Only Just Recently Increasing Its Space (At City Expense)

The South Court addition which in 2002 added another 42,222 square feet of needed space to the 42nd Street Central Reference Library

The New York Public Library (NYPL) is in the middle of drastically reducing the space in Manhattan’s most important central, destination libraries.

When do you suppose the NYPL was last expanding the space it is now reducing, asserting at the time that the space they then had was insufficient? . .

. .  A not so unimportant, `by the way’ on this (before we revel the answer) is that the huge upcoming reduction of space the NYPL’s proposes in its Central Library Plan (aka “42nd Street Library Renovation), the elimination of 300,000 square feet of space will come at significant New York City taxpayer expense, at least $150 million dollars. . .  Just as the not so long ago expansion of space came at New York City taxpayer expense.

The NYPL’s significant reduction of important midtown Manhattan library space began in 2007 with the sell-off of the Donnell Library on 53rd Street across from MoMA between 5th and 6th Avenues.  The 97,000 square foot, five-story library was sold off at far less than its value to the public.

When then do you think the last expansion of library space before that was?

Was it in 1992 when the city-paid-for Bryant Park expansion was completed?  This expansion, begun in 1987, involved closing Bryant Park for more than four years in order to put 84 miles of bookshelves underneath it and was designed to take the 42nd Street Reference Library’s immediately accessible book collection up to a capacity of 6.2 million books, may be as many as  6.7 million books in a pinch.-  No, the last expansion wasn’t in 1992.

Was it in 1996 when the expansion effected by the city-paid-for Science, Industry and Business Library expansion was completed with the opening of that library?-  No, the last expansion wasn’t in 1996. 

What about 2000 when the NYPL put out its plans to expand (nearly double the size of) the Mid-Manhattan Library by 117,000 square feet?  Or 2001, the year that the Giuliani administration awarded the city funds to effect that expansion?   2003, when those Mid-Manhattan expansion plans were still in effect, the NYPL still intending to go forward with them?  (The Mid-Manhattan expansion plans were set aside later after Chief Operating Officer David Offensend joined the NYPL in 2004.)   No, it was not 2000, 2001 or 2003.

The last expansion of the NYPL’s Manhattan space was in 2002 with the completion of a city-paid-for expansion of the Central Reference Library that boosted the size of the Main Building by about 8%, 42,222 square feet, because, as the then President of the NYPL said, additional space was needed.  The expansion was the addition of the Central Reference Library’s new South Court.

Building up library space at taxpayer expense until 2002 and then selling it starting with Donnell in 2007?: There's a startling lesson in how fast ambitions can pivot.

Schematic of the South Court addition published in Metropolis Magazine

The South Court expansion is an addition to the library that is likely off most people’s radar even though it was quietly spectacular about the way it squeezed in extra hidden space.  That’s because it involved filling in what had been a central courtyard within the building and much of it was built underground.  See:  Inside Stories / Six new floors rise within the main branch, Lifestyle Newsday, May 21, 2002, by Mary Voboril.

Schematic of the South Court addition published in Metropolis Magazine

South Court looking up from main entry

The South Court expansion was built when Dr. Paul LeClerc was president of the NYPL.  The project took  two and half years starting in 1999 and finished in 2002 at a total cost of $29 million.  Most of that cost, $17.5 million, was paid for by the city.  The six-floor project with 40 feet below street level, going below the original foundations, added 42,222 square feet to the main building's 527,000 square feet.  (Others supply what may be rounded off figures of 40,000 square feet added to 500,000 square feet.)  The above-ground portion of the expansion brings it to about the same height as the rest of the building.  Originally, when approvals were being sought for a smaller version, the public was inaccurately told that building deeper underground was not possible.

Indeed, South Court has a lot of space that was squeezed in by adding it underground

Contemplation of such a project went back to the 1980s before the SIBL expansion and was undertaken shortly after completion of the SIBL expansion and the renovation of the Rose Reading Room.  In 1998 it was originally envisioned as a smaller expansion of 28,400 square feet of space that would have cost considerably less, only $10 million, to build and another $5 million to equip.   In September of 2000 when construction was underway it was estimated that the cost of the project would be significantly less than it turned out to be: $22.5 million vs. the final $29 million.

On the south side of the 42nd Street Central Reference Library, the arch leading into the South Court where horse-drawn carriages once entered

The courtyard was open and viewable from the street through an arch that used to admit horse-drawn carriages and was used for loading and unloading.  The space had been used to an extent in other ways: “A trellis-covered bungalow” was added in 1919 as a “rest and luncheon room” for employees.”  And there was a “shed” in it used by exhibition staff.  (See: For Public Library, New Building Within the Old One,
By Edwin McDowell, September 17, 2000 and Metropolis Magazine December 1969 / Taming the NYPL’s LionsTaming the NYPL’s Lions, by Karen Steen.)

In 1998 the Slavic and Baltic Division overlooked the 80 x 80 foot court yard where the 73 by 73 foot expansion was built, leaving 3 1/2 foot clearance all around.

The Slavic and Baltic Division?  Now closed!

From the NYPL, South Court years ago

South Court before constriction of the expansion published in Metropolis Magazine

Said President Le Clerq at the time:

As we renovated public spaces in the building, including moving the copying center from the main reading room, we knew we needed some place for people we were displacing.

Another change since 2002, Metropolis Magazine reporting on the addition and interviewing Le Clerq explained how the Central Reference library stacks could be seen then from the new South Court and referred to those stacks as "sacrosanct": 

South Court even gives patrons a glimpse of the books themselves—through narrow windows that look in on the sacrosanct stacks.

As part of the Central Library Plan the current library administration has envisioned demolishing the "sacrosanct" stacks and decommissioning them from their intended use around which the entire 42nd Street Central Reference Library was designed.

South Court no longer gives patrons a glimpse of the books themselves.  Now you see the empty bookshelves

Glimpse into the now empty research stacks from South Court

Needed more space in 2002?

From 1987 to 1992, the years during which the Bryant Park expansion of the stacks and books was being constructed, the total NYPL central destination Manhattan library space was 763,000 square feet.  That figure includes the main buildings, not the book storage space in the 42nd Street Annex building the NYPL also owned and now no longer owns, additional real estate it has divested itself of.  In 2002 when South Court was completed, the square footage of such NYPL space (again, not counting the purely book storage space like the additional stacks under Bryant Park) was 965,222 square feet with the NYPL planning to go up to 1,082,222 square feet with the planned Mid-Manhattan expansion.

From 1987 to an envisioned 2015 (with an implemented Central Library Plan), total actual midtown Manhattan Library destination space actual and planned, first going up and then going lower than ever before

But now Donnell is gone, the $100 million SIBL which increased space substantially, is being sold off.  The consolidating shrinkage of the Central Library Plan would shrink current space down to just 569,222 square feet, significantly less than the 763,000 figure for the late 80s and early 90s and certainly less than the recently envisioned 1,082,222 square feet.  If the largely underground and bookless replacement for Donnell is completed by 2015 as the NYPL says it currently hopes, that figure would be just a bit larger, 597,222, still below the figures for the space the library had in the 1980 when the city had a population about a million fewer than the slightly over 8 million population in New York City now.

Does any of this make sense except in terms of handing off real library real estate to developers in deals that benefit them, but not the public?  Including what was spent to put stacks under Bryant Park, over $150 million was spent since the end of the 1980s to expand library space.

Yesterday, at the NYPL’s trustees meeting, the trustees were told that the NYPL still envisions going forward with the Central Library Plan, that it is "moving along."  In that regard it was reported to the trustees that the NYPL was having 'conversations’ and "working with" with Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio and, in addition, the members of the City Council and the members of the entire new, incoming administration. .  .  "to make sure we are all, as it were, headed in the same direction."  “Working on” these people might have been a better phrase.

It was in the news that Mayor-elect de Blasio was visiting the “talking transition tent” yesterday (the transition tent was set up independent of de Blasio.)  Though it was not reported elsewhere in the news, NYPL president Tony Marx told the trustees that he had been at the talking transition tent when de Blasio was there.  (It was reported that the NYPL was doing what it could to influence public feedback input to the transition tent operation, including linking to the online transition tent survey with its questions about libraries.- Or ideas can be submitted too.)  At about the same time Mayor-elect de Blasio was at the talking transition tent troops from  Citizens Defending Libraries (I'm a cofounder of CDL) were also there handing out flyers urging that city libraries not be sold, shrunk and underfunded as under the Bloomberg administration.  More Citizens Defending Libraries and Committee to Save the New York Public Library troops were outside (and at) the trustees meeting delivering the same message.

Troops gathered at the beginning of a more than two hour protest outside Wednesday's NYPL trustee meeting

Mr. Marx and the rest of those running the NYPL are aware that unless the NYPL can convince Mayor de Blasio and new administration cohorts to spend $150 million taxpayer dollars and allow what might be close to a half billion in public funds in total to be spent on selling and shrinking libraries, the Central Library Plan won’t proceed as planned.  Spend all that public money on shrinking and selling libraries?  Does the NYPL have any reason to be optimistic that they can swing de Blasio on this?  The trustees were told that so far the "conversations" were going "very well" and in the perverse view of the NYPL, "going in a positive direction." - The direction of shrinking way down the recently increased space?

Photo and drawings by Simon Verity