Lawrence Cheek writes in the Seattle P-I a scathing follow-up review of the Seattle Public Library’s central branch, our very own Rem Koolhaas special. What he originally praised, he now harshly scolds based on the assertion that the building looks pretty but has turned out to be entirely unusable. He thinks the whole design is a mistake - breathtaking, sure; epic, maybe, but a mistake nonetheless.

Cheek writes:
I’m beginning to suspect that the building’s celebrated splotches of weirdness — the red sea-monster-bowel corridors on the fourth level, the bile-yellow elevators and escalators, the vertiginous canyon overlooks on the upper levels — exist to draw attention away from the fact that most of its work and pleasure spaces are actually cheaply finished or dysfunctional. And that the building’s working viscera are failing at fulfilling the promise of its stunning skin.

Is this an instance of blatant disrespect to the very tenants housed within its walls? Are the books being treated the way they deserve? Have the patrons been stripped of a sense of comfort, traded it in for a feeling of civic superiority?

Let’s think about the branch locations for a moment. They are for the most part stunning, having undergone renovation in recent years. Ballard, Greenlake, Greenwood, Capitol Hill, Chinatown…the list goes on and on. The Libraries For All program is responsible for all of this fancy work, and it’s fair to say that the Central Library was the cornerstone for the project, but perhaps in reality it is the branch locations that have really benefited.

Where Cheek thinks the Central Library has failed to deliver, the branch locations seem to shine. They are cozy and conducive to browsing, with an atmosphere of study, light, and above all, warmth. Perhaps it has to do with the older building structures, usually a heavy old-style brick or concrete. Glass-and-steel additions have modernized the spaces and yet somehow protected a sense of community.

It makes you stop and wonder, though, if the Central Library is really all that bad, even if it is practically useless. The branch locations are likely more convenient to most Seattle residents, being in the actual residential neighborhoods where there are schools and community centers and parks. Branches are all capable of getting ahold of books from the central location too, saving a trip downtown. The branches are located where Seattleites live. The Central location is a tourist attraction, conveniently located by the market and the ferry terminal and the shops, where all the tourists hang out. Is it really such a bad arrangement? If it is in practical use that the Central Library fails, then isn’t it practical to realize that the branch locations are obviously the ones that the patrons would really be using for work?