Stand Up and Be Counted!
July 2, 2008 – 4:15 am by tanyaThere has been a spate of op-ed pieces about the Main Branch Library lately. Kathy Allavie started the run with her editorial, “A boxy monstrosity”. I believe the piece attempted to co-opt the preservation movement by suggesting that when preservationists mean modern is significant, they are talking about post-and-beam case study houses by Neutra et al, and that a modern building should “look good” and “fit in” to be significant. What? I guess it’s nice to be able to use totally subjective standards as proof that your opinion is a fact. And if it isn’t a certain kind of modernism (though Neutra made some fine houses), it isn’t worth saving? Oh come on!
Steve Lech, president of the Riverside Historical Society responded by giving Ms. Allavie the criteria she requested. I thought he did a good job of explaining what was special about the library and why her opinion underscored a real challenge modernism faces - aesthetic chauvinism and widespread apathy towards the next generation of historic architecture.
Dan Bernstein kicked matters up a notch Tuesday by adding outright hostility toward the library building, suggesting we could get the Bush administration to blow it up by pretending it was a North Korean nuclear reactor. I don’t usually read his column, but I happened on it in the cafeteria at work and saw that he was talking about the Main Library. I realize he’s trying to be funny, but I’ve been too discouraged by all the negativity about the library and downtown modern buildings in general to find it even smirkworthy.
I don’t think I’ve yet found a decision-making body in Riverside who has any real sympathy for Mid-Century modernism, and it’s sad because I hear from a lot of people my age who appreciate this stuff and think the library is neat. Allavie thinks the rising interest in modernism is nostalgia from boomers who are misty-eyed over their childhood, but I think she’s completely off the mark - it’s the generations hence who have grown up with these buildings as fixtures in the landscape and absorbed the lessons they have to teach about ideas, optimism, and community. As with schools, libraries are among the first architect-designed buildings children get to experience as their own, and this library with its monumental, classical form is a temple of literacy, given to them by a generation that believed they could put a man on the moon and do much more.
So far I’ve found that UCR has the only other monumental New Formalist buildings in Riverside that could rival the Main Library. I love walking through that campus, it feels like a place where a person could invent something important or challenge stale ideas. But none of those buildings are downtown. The County Law Library comes close to rivaling the Main Library, but it is a later example with perhaps a different context. So there it is. You may have found examples of New Formalism that you find more compelling - if so then share.
If you agree that the existing Main Branch Library is valuable to Riverside’s architectural heritage, you should say something now, before any expansion plan that would demolish or obscure it gains steam. Write a letter to the editor of the Press Enterprise, call your councilperson, speak up around town. Hopefully it doesn’t devolve into a silly popularity contest, but if enough people can convey coherently why they like the Main Library just the way it is, maybe the Kathy Allavies of this City will actually begin to “get” it and become more circumspect about the project at hand.
6 Responses to “Stand Up and Be Counted!”
Do you have any sense of the timeframe for decision-making?
By Derick
on Jul 2, 2008
Hey Tanya,
Man, I wish I was already in Riverside, but I’m doing what I can from here. As a 31 year old Riverside native, living in DC, and an AVID architecture buff, I can say that Kathy A’s remarks were way off the mark. I am not a boomer (quite far from it thank you) and I can say that MANY in my generation fall precisely into the category you describe - this is the architecture of our youth and our hometown. Mid-Century Modern IS Riverside.
I don’t understand the southern California psychosis that everything over 50 years old is “BAD” and needs to be put down like an old dog. The library can be modernized AND renovated without losing its unique face.
I’ve propositioned a friend of mine who publishes and distributes a local ‘zine, called Digress, about a “Save The Clock Tower” parody edition: “Save the Mid-Century Modern Downtown Library”. Still really rough, but would you be interested in getting the world out through the underground? Don’t underestimate the power of the punk kids.
How much time do we have? Last I heard, the committee recommended to the Council that the Chinese pavillion be saved, but no real word on the facade.
By La Chingona
on Jul 2, 2008
To answer you both (sort of), I don’t think there is a set time-frame yet on the expansion for either the library or the museum. The separate expansion project is WAY more expensive than the joint-use project, so even though the expansion has been approved in concept by the library, it’s not clear where the additional funds will come from to make the expansion happen. Besides that, they will have to go through an environmental review process, which (among other environmental issues) SHOULD include a Historic Resources Assessment of the Library building. The project will likely require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and once they get to that conclusion there should be a scoping session where the public can attend and comment on the proposed scope of the study. After the consultant prepares the draft EIR there is a 45 day public comment period where you can read their conclusions and make comments, which they must incorporate and address in the final EIR. The final EIR is presented to the CHB, Planning Commission, and finally the City Council with the City staff’s recommendation on adopting it. Once the final EIR is certified by the City Council it’s pretty close to a done deal, unless someone sues the City.
In short, environmental review is complicated and generally takes about a year to complete. If there are delays for any other reason (such as funding or continuances by the commissions overseeing the process) it could take longer. I will follow the process and post on this website when new steps in the process take place, explain (the best I can) what is going on, and what you can do to make yourself heard.
Right now, I think it’s important to get the people who are crafting this project used to the concept that the main library is a historic landmark and make the reasoning clear and compelling. I’ve noticed that it is a lot easier to convince a person/group/City to re-imagine their project in the beginning, before any one vision has a chance to solidify. Solutions that involve drastic changes to the plan are less likely to become “obstructions,” and you can stay away from the “this project or no project” false dilemma that often gets thrown at people who wait for the public comment period to raise concerns.
I love the idea of featuring a parody for the library in your friend’s ‘zine. Now is a great time for people to be up on what’s at stake downtown. Don’t forget that this project also endangers the Downtown Fire Station also - they want to knock that gem down for McMissioninn-style retail space and parking. You can also sound off with the Press Enterprise, the City Council, the Mayor, and the Library Board. My suggestions for contacting them is to be courteous and clear - they will generally dismiss angry, disorganized comments, even if it brings up a good point.
Thanks for reading! I’ll do my best to keep you posted.
By tanya
on Jul 2, 2008
Ironically, the very sentiment expressed today with regards to demolishing and/or significantly altering the current building’s striking, modern architecture appears to be quite similar to that expressed nearly 50 years ago when the original Carnegie was torn down. The question is, will we repeat the same mistake? We hope not.
Thus, we agree with Tanya, now is the time to speak up and show support for keeping the architectural style of the existing library — before it’s too late. With that said, probably the most effective and wide-reaching method in helping sway public opinion is the good old fashioned letter to the editor.
By gedward
on Jul 4, 2008
Hi Tanya….Just stopped by to say hello and let You know that I read Your article in todays Press-Enterprise. I also saw the video on the PE web site. I know it’s an uphill battle trying to explain and define, to the average person, what Mid-Century Architecture and Design is all about. Most folks just look at Ya’ with a blank look on their face. Like Louie Armstrong once said; “There’s bad music and then there’s good music…I prefer the good music”. I still believe that Buildings and products constructed and produced in the 1950-1960 were either good design or bad design or just somewhere in between. Just because something is associated with a particular era doesn’t mean it’s always worth preserving or deemed as signifcant. Being an Architect I have a little advantage over most non-Architects. I can judge or critique a building from an Architects point of view and experience. If I write a some article about a building, I will explain the reason why it is noteworthy of mentioning. I try to associate Buildings with era’s, events, people, or other links. Anyway…who am I to judge?…it’s only my opinion. If You got 10 Architects in a room to judge a project, You would most likely get 15 opinions…LOL….In conclusion; Wishing You and Your husband success in Your writings and other ventures….John
By John Campbell
on Aug 13, 2008
I was lucky to visit the Seattle downtown library in 1999 and 2000, before they tore it down and replaced it. I believe it was an example of Modernism, and reminisent of the current Riverside library downtown. If we don’t save these buildings, in a few decades people will wonder what happened to all the buildings from the 1960s.
By Bruce Thomas
on Feb 3, 2009