A LIBRARY

FOR ALL
When Seattle voters
approved the
‘Libraries for All’ bond
measure in 1998,
$290.7 million was
allocated towards
reinvigorating the Public
Library (SPL) system,
resulting in the replacement
and renovation of 22 existing
libraries and the construction
of a new downtown flagship –
Seattle Central Library.1 With
this came the opportunity for not
only the revitalisation of the
library system but also the
revitalisation of architecture in
Seattle as a whole.

FIG. 1
 Around the turn of the millennium, Seattle was almost reticent to receive grandiose architectural
projects2 – many remained slightly scarred by the extravagance of contemporary work deemed to
be ineffective uses of public space: Frank Gehry’s blob-like Museum of Pop Culture, plopped
beneath the iconic Space Needle; or even Robert Venturi’s Seattle Art Museum.3

FIG. [3]: MoPOP

For a city so intertwined with the innovative and
visionary such public sentiment is seemingly para-
doxical. Nevertheless, a relatively overwhelming
number voted for the “[redefinition] of the li-
brary”4 that this initiative would bring –
possibly convinced by the expectation of
playing a critical role in a taxpayer-funded
project. Thus, Central Library provided
the opportunity to dispel the doubt of
the past and become a symbol of
Seattle’s newfound architectural
confidence, a “civic icon”5 acting
as physical proof of the city’s capability for efficient, democratic public
space usage.

Rem Koolhaas’ firm OMA – with locally-based LMN Architects – were

met with the significant challenge of an institution at a crossroads.
The The library is a space whose value is inherently linked with that of
the paper-bound book, yet here was one being built at a
time when the rise of digital media threatened to disconnect
the tether between the two.

Moreover, this media evolution represented just one facet

of a greater concern; where the ever-changing nature
of the library’s purpose and usage meant that mod-
ern examples had to be designed to accommodate
this. Those built before the advent of digital
media would have to make rearrangements to
house, for example, computers. An effective
interpretation of public space was required,
essentially utilising spatial flexibility to
insure against potential complications
arising from an inevitable evolution in
the way libraries are used.

With Central Library, however, the

architects’ vision was not for an
immediate reinvention of the
institution; rather, it was the
FIG. [2] “[repackaging of the library]
in a new way,”6 retaining
FIG. [4]: Architects’
visualisation of media
evolution
its traditional essence while em-
bracing newer media so they may
be presented together with older
forms as “a regime of new equal-
ities.”7 This idea manifested it-
self in its purest form through the
organisation of the structure into
five ‘stable’ clusters arranged on
overlapping platforms separated
FIG. [5]: Architects’
visualisation of public
library evolution
by four interstitial ‘unstable’ ar-
eas.
‘Stable’ clusters are designated
as such for their defined, unique
purposes; each varying in size,
density and opacity, equipped
for “dedicated performance.”8
Composed of what might be
considered the natural compo-
FIG. [7]: Unstable
nents of a library, these platforms
FIG. [6]: Stable
are physically shifted, creating
the characteristic overhangs
Clusters
and protrusions of the building.
Areas
These conform to OMA/LMN’s
‘repackaging’ in an aesthetic
manner, modifying the tradition-
al vertical arrangement of floors
 FIG. [8]: Book Spiral
“WHAT WE SAW WERE BUILDINGS THAT WERE VERY GENERIC, AND WORSE…NOT
ONLY DOES THE READING ROOM LOOK LIKE THE COPY ROOM LOOK LIKE THE
MAGAZINE AREA – IT MEANT THAT WHATEVER ISSUE WAS TROUBLING THE LIBRARY AT
THAT MOMENT WAS STARTING TO ENGULF EVERY OTHER ACTIVITY THAT WAS
HAPPENING IN IT.”14
- JOSHUA PRINCE-RAMUS, OMA
FIG. [9]: Mixing Chamber
in American high-rises.9 Aided by a more conservative choice of cladding in glass
and steel, it exudes a restrained extravagance; more refined and harmonious than Gehry’s
screaming, shouting MoPOP. It’s almost a statement – architecture in Seattle does not have
to be so avant-garde it borders the egregious.
The Book Spiral is the highlight of this repackaging; an answer to the institutional issue
of overflowing literary collections, resulting in older or lesser used material being relegat-
ed to basements, off-site storage, or even unrelated departments.10 In its uninterrupted,
ramp-aided journey from the library’s 6th to 10th floors, this “continuous ribbon”11 allows
for the coexistence of book sections alongside each other without any ruptures in between.
It is a flexible, effective method of storage: at the library’s opening the Book Spiral’s 6,233
bookcases held 780,000 books; without having to add any additional bookcases, the Spi-
ral can hold up to 1,450,000.12
This notion of flexibility and future-proofing is abundant, forming the thesis behind the
‘unstable’ areas. OMA’s Joshua Prince-Ramus asserts that these indeterminate spaces,
“things like reading rooms, whose evolution in 20, 30, 40 years, we can’t predict,”13 must
have the capacity to operationally evolve. These are areas mostly dedicated to librari-
an-patron sociability, with the third-floor Mixing Chamber centrally placed to act as the
library’s hub, “a trading floor for information orchestrated to fulfill an essential…need for
expert interdisciplinary help.”15 It is not limited to purpose in the way the Book Spiral is –
with little to define it beyond computers, desks, tables and chairs, it is thus
multidisciplinary; suggestive of a more efficient and lasting spatial design.
A strong precedent was established to involve and consult the public during the
design process – over 4,000 people attended presentations and public events put
on by the architects between May 1999 and March 2001.16 Library staff were
organised into 37 work groups to provide design feedback, as did a range of
users from all age groups to express their hopes and dreams for the new
library.17 This involvement extended directly to the project’s fundamental fea-
tures like the Books Spiral, with library users testing two mock-ups.18 City
Librarian Deborah Jacobs expressed a desire “to do things differently”19
with regard to the architects’ norm of “[waiting] until there is a more com-
pleted design before presenting anything to the public.”20
Cynically, questions have been asked of whether this was just a
formality; positing that the design outcomes conceived by OMA/LMN
were part of an architectural vision achieved independently of this
consultation process.21 However, there is much to contradict this:
when library users raised concerns over the Spiral and Mixing
Chamber’s impact on special subject areas and librarians,
modified designs saw the incorporation of space for subject
staff. When doubts additionally formed over the Spiral’s
 monotonous ribbon of books,

FIG. [12]: Living

workspaces were introduced
throughout the shelves to punctuate its
continuous nature. Floor layouts were

Room
rearranged, corridors were rerouted,
and accessibility was increased; all in
response to public feedback.22

Yet many remain unconvinced of the

design altogether, lamenting the third-
floor Living Room as “[having] the feel
of a vast indoor park…not conducive
to intimacy with a book.”23 The
tenth-floor reading room – a space
ostensibly designed and designated
for reading – was met with similarly
negative feedback, being described
as “badly designed and cheesily [sic]
detailed.”24
As a library, such feedback is
FIG. [10]: Section 1 indicative of ineffective institutional
design; as a public space, a similar
notion arises: optimisation towards
enhancing the experience of users is
essential – implying that, for instance,
“if you’re spending the day studying
or reading on the 10th level, [then]
the nearest restroom [should not
be] on the seventh.”25 This lack of
functionality remains a constant
complaint, with the building’s layout
labeled “not user friendly for a first-
time visitor,”26 “confusing,”27 and
“random.”28
Perhaps in conceiving this ‘stable’ and
‘unstable’ rearrangement OMA/LMN
became so engrossed in the overall
vision that functionality was overruled
– for example, while the Book Spiral
presents an innovative solution to
inadequate media storage it lacks
user-friendliness, being “cluttered,
uneven, unpredictable”29 and “no
FIG. [11]: Section 2
easier to negotiate than discrete
floors.”30 The ‘central hub’ Mixing
Chamber could not provide the
solution to users missing a “central
location for all floors to get from
one floor to the next,”31 instead
designated a “profoundly dreary
and depressing environment,”32
contradicting OMA/LMN’s concept.
Considering that much of the building
went through a series of design
revisions33 in response to public
feedback this does beg the question:
to what extent was this feedback
implemented? Certainly, evidence
exists to suggest the public played a
more pivotal role in the design than
what is the norm; overall, however,
there is enough to allege that the
architectural vision superseded the
democratic process. With this, Central
Library met the grander requirements
of its brief – reinterpreting institutional
space while successfully launching the
SPL into a new era, granting Seattle
its architectural icon.
“IT HARVESTS AND ENERGIZES ROUTINE NOISE; CONVERSATIONS FROM
HUNDREDS OF FEET AWAY COALESCE AS AMBIENT BABBLE. THE VAST
OVERHEAD SPACE, A THRILL TO LIBRARY VISITORS, WORKS AGAINST
READERS – MOST OF US INSTINCTIVELY CRAVE SMALL, PRIVATE
SPACES WHEN CURLING UP WITH A BOOK34

– LAWRENCE CHEEK, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

Yet there remains an overbearing sense of

impersonality; from the vast interior spaces to the
extensive use of exposed concrete. One critic
remarked that Central Library is “insulated from
downtown Seattle … sealed away from the
sidewalks and streets around it,”35 and in
many ways, this is accurate. The value of
a public space lies in its usability
and relation to the individual – and
while Central Library initially
appears cool and cutting-edge,
the issues emerge when
individuals begin to use the
building as it is intended:
as a library.

FIG. [13]: Reading Room

 ENDNOTES
The Seattle Public Library. (n.d.). Central Library: Building Facts. Retrieved March 2018,
1
(The Seattle Public Library n.d.)
18
(Mattern 2003) from http://www.spl.org/locations/central-library/cen-building-facts
2
(Mattern 2003)
19
(Mattern 2003)
3
(Mattern 2003)
20
(Mattern 2003) The Seattle Public Library. (n.d.). Central Library: Construction Facts & Timeline. Re-
4
(OMA/LMN 1999)
21
(Mattern 2003) trieved March 2018, from http://www.spl.org/locations/central-library/cen-building-
5
(The Seattle Public Library n.d.)
22
(Mattern 2003) facts/cen-construction-facts-and-timeline
6
(OMA/LMN 1999)
23
(Cheek 2007)
7
(OMA/LMN 1999)
24
(Cheek 2007) The Seattle Public Library. (n.d.). Libraries for All: Libraries for All Building Program.
8
(OMA/LMN 1999)
25
(Cheek 2007) Retrieved March 2018, from http://www.spl.org/about-the-library/libraries-for-all/librar-
9
(OMA/LMN 1999)
26
(Dalton and Hölscher 2016) ies-for-all-building-program
10
(ArchDaily 2009)
27
(Dalton and Hölscher 2016)
11
(ArchDaily 2009)
28
(Dalton and Hölscher 2016) IMAGES
12
(Office for Metropolitan Architecture n.d.)
29
(Dalton and Hölscher 2016)
13
(Prince-Ramus 2006)
30
(Cheek 2007) FIG. [1]: Ruault, Philippe. Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 3, 2018. https://
14
(Prince-Ramus 2006)
31
(Dalton and Hölscher 2016) www.archdaily.com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/572196fce58ece-
15
(Office for Metropolitan Architecture n.d.)
32
(Cheek 2007) a06b000007-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-photo.
16
(The Seattle Public Library n.d.)
33
(Mattern 2003)
17
(The Seattle Public Library n.d.)
34
(Cheek 2007) FIG. [2]: Ruault, Philippe. Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 3, 2018. https://
35
(Fried 2004) www.archdaily.com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/57219724e58ece-
a06b000009-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-photo.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
FIG. [3]: EMP|SFM. Digital image. Wikimedia Commons. October 19, 2008. Accessed
ArchDaily. (2009, February 10). Seattle Central Library/OMA + LMN. Retrieved March
April 3, 2018. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial_view_of_EMPSFM.jpg.
2018, from https://www.archdaily.com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn
FIG. [4]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily.
Cheek, L. (2007, March 26). On Architecture: How the new Central Library R. Retrieved
com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/572187c5e58ece53e100000d-seattle-cen-
March 2018, from Seattle Post-Intelligencer: https://www.seattlepi.com/ae/article/On-
tral-library-oma-lmn-books.
Architecture-How-the-new-Central-Library-1232303.php?source=mypi#photo-674846
FIG. [5]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily.
Dalton, R. C., & Hölscher, C. (2016). Take One Building: Interdisciplinary Research Per-
com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/5721950ce58ecea06b000001-seattle-cen-
spectives of the Seattle Central Library. Taylor & Francis.
tral-library-oma-lmn-public-library.
Fried, B. (2004, June 30). Mixing with the Kool Crowd. Retrieved March 2018, from Pro-
FIG. [6]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily.
ject for Public Spaces: https://www.pps.org/article/mixing-with-the-kool-crowd
com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/5721910fe58ece9438000003-seattle-cen-
tral-library-oma-lmn-diagram-platforms-2.
Mattern, S. (2003, September). Just How Public is the Seattle Public Library? Publicity,
Posturing and Politics in Public Design. Journal of Architectural Education, 5-18.
FIG. [7]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily.
com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/57218876e58ece2292000015-seattle-cen-
Office for Metropolitan Architecture. (n.d.). Seattle Central Library. Retrieved March
tral-library-oma-lmn-diagram-inbetweens.
2018, from http://oma.eu/projects/seattle-central-library
FIG. [8]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily.
OMA/LMN. (1999). Seattle Public Library Proposal.
com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/5721879ae58ece229200000e-seattle-cen-
tral-library-oma-lmn-diagram-book-spiral.
Prince-Ramus, Joshua. “Behind the Design of Seattle’s Library.” Filmed 2006. TED video,
19:55.
FIG. [9]: Photograph I took, July 19, 2016. Seattle, United States of America

FIG. [10]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily.

com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/57219561e58ece408a000003-seattle-cen-
tral-library-oma-lmn-section-1.
PRINCIPLES
OF
FIG. [11]: Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.archdaily.
com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lmn/57219551e58ecea06b000002-seattle-cen-
tral-library-oma-lmn-section-2.

CONDUCT
FIG. [12]: Baan, Iwan. Digital image. Office for Metropolitan Architecture. Ac-
cessed April 4, 2018. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/apps.o5.no/oma/ww-
w/20180330134822-654-r22t/700.jpg.

FIG. [13]: Ruault, Philippe. Digital image. ArchDaily. Accessed April 4,

2018. https://www.archdaily.com/11651/seattle-central-library-oma-lm-
n/57218922e58ece9d38000002-seattle-central-library-oma-lmn-photo. Architects must be competent in provid-
ing and communicating the appropriate
knowledge, ability and skills to complete a
project in an impartial, honest manner
Architects are expected to be competent
in the conduction of professional work.
This is centred on communication be-
tween members of a project so a vision
is ultimately expressed that is not just the
client’s or just the architect’s; but rather, a
culmination of all involved stakeholders.
This competency thus maintains the repu-
tability of architects. As such, work should
be undertaken that is within the means of
the architect to complete, whilst the client
should clearly convey their requirements.
Communication and honesty is essential;
when either of these is missing, serious
issues arise. In 2011 Oxfordshire architect
Frances Morrow was fined for “unaccept-
able professional conduct and serious
professional incompetence”1 after failing
to ensure vital elements such as sewage
treatment units and water drainage were
the models she had specified. Whilst Mor-
row was rightly faulted for this, it might
be inferred that the contractor installed
inadequate systems without informing
the architect or the client – in any case, a
failure to communicate effectively between
the involved parties resulted in serious
repercussions.
Architects must consider the requirements
of each stakeholder accordingly
Each stakeholder in a project must be es-
tablished as early as possible to ascertain
their respective requirements and there-
fore, a design can begin to materialise
around these requirements.
Ultimately, the architect’s first priority is
to adhere to those of the client; however,
there may be instances whereby a cli-
ent’s demand is made at a stakeholder’s
expense. For instance, the helipads on
Mukesh Ambani’s $1 billion2 residence,
Antilia, have been the subject of contro-
versy for violating noise pollution laws:
helicopters reportedly emit double the
acceptable noise level in the area.3 At the
expense of neighbours and the local com-
munity, the client’s requirement was met.
Thus, the architect has a responsibility
towards finding a design solution that
appeases all concerned parties – or at
the very least, aim to avoid anything that
severely impacts a stakeholder negative-
ly. Consequently, the architect should be
within rights to decline, with clear justifica-
tion, a client’s demand.
Architects must encourage the preserva-
tion and/or enhancement of the natural
and built environments through their work
Through their work, architects hold a
heavy, direct influence over both natu-
ral and built environments. In turn, these
environments directly influence the indi-
vidual; where a reduction in the quality of
either reduces personal wellbeing.4 With
this position it should therefore be a pri-
ority for architects/clients not to heavily
detract from either of these environments;
instead, this position of influence should
be used towards encouraging sustainable,
healthy practices.
Architects should ensure the longevity and
sustainability of their work
The case study of Seattle Central Library
highlights the salient notion of ensuring
buildings maintain their relevancy and
use for the future. While it is impossible
to predict with certainty how usage will
change (thus dictating the way buildings
are designed) architects should design
with this evolution in mind in an effort to
create sustainable spaces.
If this is not possible then longevity can
be insured in other ways; for example,
through the reuse of building material. In
Europe it is estimated that 25-30% of all
generated waste derives from the build-
ing materials of demolished structures;5
materials which can be recycled for new
buildings and structures.
Hindustan Times. 2010. No Private Helipads: Jairam. July 6. Accessed April 2, 2018.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140313021205/http://www.hindustantimes.com/In-
dia-news/NewDelhi/No-private-helipads-Jairam/Article1-568355.aspx.
van den Bosch, Matilda. 2017. “Natural Environments, Health, and Well-being.”
Oxford Research Encyclopedias. March. Accessed April 5, 2018. http://environmen-
talscience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acre-
fore-9780199389414-e-333.
IMAGES
FIG. [1]: Savin, A. Digital image. Wikimedia Commons. March 13, 2016. Accessed
April 5, 2018. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mumbai_03-2016_19_Antil-
ia_Tower.jpg.
FIG. [1]: Antilia
ENDNOTES
1
(Fulcher 2011)
2
(Cilento 2010)
3
(Hindustan Times 2010)
4
(van den Bosch 2017)
5
(European Comission n.d.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cilento, Karen. 2010. Antilia / World’s
Most Expensive House. October 15.
Accessed April 2, 2018. https://
www.archdaily.com/82053/antil-
ia-worlds-most-expensive-house.
European Comission. n.d. Accessed April
5, 2018. http://ec.europa.eu/environ-
ment/waste/construction_demolition.
htm.
Fulcher, Merlin. 2011. Architect fined
£3,000 for ‘incompetence’. April
12. Accessed April 5, 2018. https://
www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/
architect-fined-3000-for-incompe-
tence/8613765.article.