Description

The library is a centuries old institution. With the advent of digital technology in the 1990s, trend forecasters prophesied the end of the book and the close of an era. This has not, like so many extreme pronouncements, proven true. Rather, this technology has greatly enhanced and improved the global dissemination of information, expanding the reach of the library as an institution.

The 1990s were a defining moment for the layout of libraries. The ability to store large quantities of data on microchips and to access information in digital format led to far-reaching implications for the planning and growth of the library. The single salient fact that information no longer necessarily resided in a physical location within the library but in infinite and virtual locations had major impact on the library program itself. Long-standing program elements were made obsolete as new ones were introduced. At the level of books and equipment, card catalogues, microfiche readers, newspaper collections, archived periodicals, referenced indices and even many reference collections were downgraded in importance and some eventually eliminated. While the overall relationships between core library functions remained relatively stable, these changes rendered some specific adjacencies undesirable and, in some cases, unnecessary. For example, the required adjacency of the card catalogue to circulation and reference areas became moot with the replacement of the card catalogue by the many computer search stations placed throughout the library.

The layout of the modern library is defined by the core programmatic functions of entry, circulation, reference, staff, collections and seating. These functions continue to define the operations of all libraries without differentiation of size or mission. In public libraries these functions have additional components such as auxiliary collections and reading rooms that reflect its mission to serve many diverse users. The incorporation of digital capabilities has required changes but despite modifications in library services these functions have remained relatively constant. They reflect universal values for the working of the library; efficient movement of materials, clarity of travel for the different users, separations between different user groups and security for all users and equipment.

The layout of the library requires planning at two levels; the positioning of each core function element and the physical plan adjacencies of one core function element to another. Entirely interrelated, the elements of entry, circulation, reference and staff areas define a set of primary relationships within the library that are augmented by each element’s secondary relationships to other less essential functions. Dependent on the type of library, these additional functions comprise reading rooms, children and young adult services, rare books, maps, newspapers, current periodicals and public spaces that can include classrooms, study rooms, meeting rooms, auditorium as well as auxiliary function spaces such as a theater or a café. The layout of stacks and seating, in contrast, is less strictly governed by group relationships than by parameters specific to themselves.

Each core function element has both an overall relationship within the library as an autonomous whole and a specific relationship to its immediate neighbors. The placement of these elements amongst the many other program elements of the library varies somewhat from library to library with resultant adjacencies that affect and often dictate the flow between the different parts. The flow of movement between the core elements, however, is well-established since there are only minor variations between the daily operations of most libraries.

The entry area serves as the primary connection to the different components of the library, in particular, the circulation area and the public spaces. It also acts as a bridge between the library functions and the public and more social ones. In some libraries, for instance the OBA – Openbare Bibliotheek Amsterdam (Jo Coenen, 2007) with its many public spaces, the flow from the entrance is further complicated by issues of opening hours, safety, size and prominence. The entry often has relationships to other elements, both primary and secondary, that are satisfied through a visual connection. Examples of these elements are the reference area and the many different types of public spaces.

The circulation area is the central point of control; physically, in terms of check-out and book processing, and, visually, between the entrance and the other parts of the library. The circulation desk is the focal point although its importance as an ultimate “check point” has been somewhat diminished by the advent of self-check stations. At the Arabian Public Library in Scottsdale, Arizona (Richärd + Bauer, 2007), the circulation desk has been completely eliminated and replaced by self-check facilities. Circulation typically also holds a primary relationship with staff work areas and many secondary relationships including those with the new books and media areas.

The reference area is critical to information research requiring both physical and digital access. It may include a central point at a reference desk or, in some cases, multi-points with roving librarians called “information specialists” who are not place-specific. It has primary relationships with circulation, reference collections and computer areas dedicated to information searches. It may have secondary relationships with the young adult area, the general collections and public spaces. Due to its function, clear sight lines with computer terminals are important. The staff area houses the office space for the staff and the common space required for all technical work related to book processing as well as information technology and computer support. It has a direct relationship to circulation, a staff entrance and a delivery entrance. The staff area also contains the offices and the common spaces of the librarians, spaces typically accessed from the staff entrance.

^Collection

The collection, a core function program element, consists of many types of objects: books, periodicals, paperbacks, CDs, DVDs, and most recently, electronic books. With digitization, some collections are now virtual, existing as electronic or scanned documents. The requirements for housing the physical items have remained ­relatively constant with the changes of the digital age. Some evidence of the larger role of technology is discernible, for instance in the incorporation of electronic search monitors into shelving end panels.

The space required to accommodate a collection is media-dependent. The capacity of a shelving unit, defined by its width, depth and height and whether it is single-faced or double-faced, is characterized by the dimensions of the type of media it is designed to hold. Each shelf within a unit accommodates different quantities of books/media items depending on the type of material (fiction, reference, art, history, etc.). The table lists shelving capacity factors indicating media-specific multipliers for determining the capacity per linear centimeter or foot of shelf. (Capacity here assumes a shelf filled by approximately 80 % so that a growth factor is built in.)

Space requirements for accommodating a given collection can be calculated using ”rule of thumb” formulas to determine the shelving capacity for a particular type of book or media item. The capacity of one shelf of materials can be calculated using the following formula:

Shelf capacity = length of shelf × media-specific shelving capacity factor (vol/cm).

For example, by using the value for fiction of .26 volumes per centimeter, one can determine the length required to accommodate a desired number of volumes. With a known height or number of shelves per unit, the shelving capacity of a whole unit can be calculated using the following formula:

Shelving unit capacity = shelf capacity × number of shelves

For double-faced shelving units, this number is multiplied by two.

Shelving Layout Principles

General shelving layout is based on the shelving capacity of entire ranges of shelves. Once the single shelving unit is established, it is relatively straightforward to calculate capacities for ranges within a bay as a measure of book capacity in a design. Calculations combining the different space requirements for the varying types of media yield a rough estimate of total space requirements for an entire collection. Variations will occur in different libraries because of different shelving policies and combination of materials.

Shelving layout is premised on a typical shelving system of a standard shelf width of 30 cm (while in the U.S. the standard shelf width is 3 ft.). Shelving units are based on 30 cm increments resulting in standard units of 60, 90 and 120 cm width. Shelving height depends on the numbers of shelves per unit with seven shelves high at typical stacks and two to three shelves high in reference areas. A stack is a specified number of shelving units in a line. Stacks, that is repetitive groups of shelving, are organized in ranges. Double-faced ranges are ones in which two lines of shelves are placed back to back, providing book access aisles on each side. Single-faced ranges are typically attached to a wall and accessed from one side.

In general, the planning of shelving layout continues to be based on several key factors such as the shelving system, the building’s structural system and the building code. Universal layout principles typically refer to cantilever style and case style shelving. High-density and automated retrieval types have individual requirements specific to their system.

^Seating

Seating, another core function discussed here, has evolved with the use of computers and electronic books. Reading within a library has an ancient history; already in the Celsus library at Ephesus from the second century AD it is thought that scrolls were dispensed for use in an east-facing reading space. This precursor of the modern-day reading room exemplifies the relationship of the reader to the text as one that is defined by a spatial ceremony.

Today, the accessibility of books and information in digital format has made a furth­er impact on the act of reading itself, forging new developments on the seating in modern libraries. Today’s public libraries emphasize their hospitality rather than their formality. The formal reading room has given way as libraries re-envisage their identities as community “living rooms”. While most public libraries retain their reading areas, they are small and informal. Table seating, previously located chiefly in the reading room, is found throughout the library, mirroring the ubiquitous quality of electronic information. Seating is located also in study carrels, computer banks, individual study rooms and cafés. However, in contrast to reading rooms of public libraries, the formal notion of reading and studying is still very much present in university libraries. The main reading room at Jacob-und-Wilhelm-Grimm-Zentrum at the Humboldt Universität in Berlin (Max Dudler, 2009) with its modern monumentality recalls the earlier formal concept of seating.

Seats

With the incorporation of digital technology into the library, the monitor and the personal computer have become an integral part of library seating. Many tables are fitted with OPAC (online public access computers) stations and/or designed as electronic workstations. These seats have specific requirements of lighting and ergonomics, especially for intense use. Important issues of adjustability and flexibility affect the seating, the surface and the placement of the monitor itself. With the availability of Wi-Fi in most libraries, the function of the general table seating, too, is expanded for laptop use. In some libraries such as Will Bruder’s 1995 Burton Barr Central Library in Phoenix, Arizona, this type of table seating has become the new reading room.

The advent of various electronic devices within the library has also led to new seating types associated with such use. While specific ergonomic and lighting requirements are integral to computer stations, seats incorporating the casual and multiple uses of digital devices, from research to shopping, from gaming to music, are less limited. Traditionally found only in the leather wingback lounge chairs of newspaper or periodicals reading rooms, informal library seating has proliferated as a new library seating type. The lounge chair at the Seattle Central Library speaks to a multiplicity of use in its design. The four-person chair with its non-directional cruciform divider is highly versatile. The OBA – Openbare Bibliotheek Amsterdam, designed in 2007 by Jo Coenen, with its extensive range of available media is exemplary of this endeavor. The library contains a wide array of new seating types. Designed for the hybrid activity of relaxing and studying, the lounge chairs all have bold forms, varying color and moldable material that conform to more than one task and one sitting position. At the Rolex Learning Center in Lausanne by (SANAA, 2010) the concept for informal seating is simply resolved by the use of bean bags that may be configured, individually or in groups, to each user’s needs.

^Carrels

The concept of studying and the seating requirements for it have also evolved in response to the changes of the digital age. Adapted from the monastic scriptorium, the traditional study carrel accommodates the needs of an individual for private study. Optimal attributes of natural lighting, ample work surface and privacy characterize the study carrels at Louis Kahn’s 1971 Phillips Exeter Library in New Hampshire. Kahn’s design integrates the exterior and the interior in a seamless weaving of facade to furniture. Today, the common use of the personal laptop computer has altered the design criteria of light and lighting as well as the requirements for the work surface. Present-day issues of security have raised also questions regarding privacy and the walls of the classic study carrel.

Traditionally, lines of study carrels were placed at the end of stack aisles and against a wall – an arrangement occasionally still found today, chiefly in academic environments. The current trend, however, is for placing of carrels, in groups, and in less remote settings. At the OBA – Openbare Bibliotheek Amsterdam, the security issues are resolved by the object-like nature of the carrel/pod, placed in an open environment, simultaneously providing privacy and security. At the Mixing Chamber of the Seattle Central Library, the study carrels, equipped with low dividers for semi-privacy, are a hybrid between group tables and the study carrel. Counter-style seating is another alternative. Built into walls and half walls at many libraries, the counter seat provides unidirectional focus for studying while remaining part of a larger group setting. At the Philological Library at the Freie Universität in Berlin (Foster + Partners, 2005) the counter seating is designed in undulating waves along the diffused light of the curved membrane roof while at OBA counter seating lines the edges of the multi-floor atrium.

^{Planning for Size and Growth}

Assignable spaces are those serving a particular library function. These are divided into four categories: user space (reading, including computer use), accounting for approximately 20 % of all assignable space, meeting space 10 %, public service/staff areas 20 % and collection space 50 %. The core function elements of each library are assignable spaces. Non-assignable space is in addition to that and includes building service, circulation areas and mechanical spaces, supporting the building’s general operation[1] and comprising 25–40 % of the total floor area. The percentage of non-assignable space is determined by spatial efficiency with a lower number indicating a higher efficiency. Extraneous circulation is a crucial factor impacting the percentage of non-assignable space as are architectural features without specific function. The ratio of assignable to non-assignable space is an assessment of overall spatial efficiency. One should, however, be cautious in using this ratio as a absolute indicator of efficiency as larger buildings can yield a higher ratio due to their size and ability to distribute the non-assignable space over a greater area.

User space

In a public library, user space is typically proportional to the population of the community served by the library. The number of seats provided in any public library in the United States is based on its user population, demonstrating the democratic principle of equal access. For communities with a minimum population of 10,000, user seats for reading and computers are calculated using the formula of 1 seat per 200 users. For smaller populations, the formula of 1 seat per 100 users is used. These general assumptions make it possible to determine rough overall sizes for user space that can be further subdivided by seating types. Recommendations for spatial requirements by seat type, derived from American Library Association publications, are: table seats require 2.7 m² per seat, carrel seats 3 m², lounge chairs or electronic work stations 3.5 m².

Meeting space

Space requirements for public programs, individual tutorials and group study vary widely between public and university libraries. In public libraries, additional variations exist depending on service priorities. There is, however, a trend towards an increase in these areas to serve the different needs of the community. These spaces, at a minimum, include one large program space seating 50–300 people, depending on the community, as well as group study rooms of varying sizes.

Collection

The space for the collection has traditionally been calculated based on the size required to accommodate the existing materials plus that for a 20-year growth.[2] However, with the integration of scanned texts and e-books into the library, the issue of designing for future collection growth has changed, since it does not equate to additional space. These include new ways of storage, virtual storage, elimination of archives through digitization, availability of another library’s digital materials. While this process of digitization is a positive development in terms of space, many scholars are still better served by printed matter.[3] New methods of storage acknowledge this need, such as the automated storage and retrieval system at the Mansueto Library (Helmut Jahn, 2011) at the University of Chicago or the robotic stack system at the Chicago State University library. With the use of technology such as radio frequency ID chips (RFID), they can accommodate larger numbers of volumes in a fraction of the space required in conventional storage.[4]

^{Influence of Recent Changes on Layout Principles}

The traditional library and its core functions have remained relatively intact in the modern library. In academic and research libraries changes have not been dramatic and the advancement of digital technology supports and enhances rather than detracts from their mission. One result of this shift is the introduction of a new program element; the “Learning Commons” is an environment dedicated to assist students in research and information needs through collaborative learning. With student learning as its major objective, the “Learning Commons” combines individual and group user spaces, information technology, reference services and instruction on both technology and the responsible use of information. It is distinguished from the “Information Commons”, which primarily provides technology and digital services.

Changes in public libraries comprise a wider range of responses. Efforts towards maintaining relevance in the digital world differ from library to library and are dependent on the specific issues of the community served. The addition of new program elements – from cafés, stores, exhibition spaces, theaters, etc. to health clinics, secondary schools and daycare facilities – affects the existing relationships and adjacencies of core library elements, altering the layout and flow of the library.

These new program elements often bring about an increase in the size of the overall library. In library planning, traditional formulas used to calculate space requirements do not account for these new elements; rather, such additions impact the library’s efficiency and the ratio of assignable space to non-assignable space. The incorporation of these areas into the already complex program is often resolved by establishing new vertical relationships within the library. The traditional organization of repetitive floor plans of stacks and reading spaces was vertically arranged from “noisy” interactions on lower floors to “quiet” study above. The introduction of the new program elements in public libraries – many involving social interaction – has resulted in pluralistic approaches.

At the OBA in Amsterdam, the café, the skyline bar and the theater are interspersed between the entry levels and the top levels of the 13-story library. Access to the theater or bar at the OBA requires the user to traverse the levels of book collections and reading spaces. Such placement recalls retail design strategies that locate desirable items in remote locations so as to require travel through the entire establishment. The design for the Danish Royal Library in Copenhagen (Schmidt Hammer Lassen, 1999) with similar program elements takes the opposite approach by placing all public and social program functions on the ground and below ground. These public amenities are purposefully separated from the library functions and are accessible without entry into the library itself. At the Biblioteca España in Medellín (Giancarlo Mazzanti, 2007), the library functions are deployed horizontally as three separate buildings united by a plaza. The new functions of childcare center, community center and auditorium reside in buildings separate but adjacent to the library.

This pluralism confirms Rem Koolhaas’ comments from OMA’s 1999 proposal for the Seattle Central Library: “New libraries don’t reinvent or even modernize the traditional institution; they merely package it in a new way.”

5

OMA/LMN Architects, “Concept Book”, Seattle Public Library proposal, December 1999, http://www.spl.org/prebuilt/cen_conceptbook, p. 4.

“Unless the Library transforms itself wholeheartedly … its unquestioned loyalty to the book will undermine the library’s plausibility at the moment of its apotheosis.”

6

Ibid. p. 6.

---

Originally published in: Nolan Lushington, Wolfgang Rudorf, Liliane Wong, Libraries: A Design Manual, Birkhäuser, 2016.