Library Board Speaks to Site Selection

by Trustee Dick Clark, Chair, Space Planning Committee

As most of you know the Glenview Public Library Board has recommended to the Village Board that a new library be built on the site north of the Dominick's at Patriot Boulevard and Lake Avenue. The Village Board has also insisted that the library stay exactly where it is. While I cannot speculate on the Village Board's reasoning, I would like to set out the Library Board's position.

The problems with the current facility have been discussed repeatedly in this space by other board members and two library directors. We ran out of space years ago for print and non-print collections, even as we were trying to expand services with new collections in multimedia and other areas. We have eliminated staff space to create (temporarily) more public space. We lack study rooms. We lack a sufficient number of computer workstations and the proper wiring and cabling that they require. And, as patrons have told us for years, parking is terrible.

Frankly, any choice by this Board is bound to alienate some part of the community. Some have insisted that we stay downtown in order to protect downtown's economic viability. Others wonder why we have not already moved to the Glen where there would be space to grow and where there would be adequate parking. We have also conducted two surveys on this issue. There was initial support for keeping the library downtown. However, when factors of cost and timing were considered, there was a preference for a Glen site. While there are many reasonable factors to consider in site selection, the preeminent one for us, as a Board, is this: where can we best serve the entire community in providing library service?

I should also note that our recommendation to the Village Board comes after years of meetings and discussions with the Village Board. Last fall we again specifically recommended two sites to the Village Board and urged them to move forward on one of them. Two months later they advised us that they were not ready to make a decision. Consequently, we decided that we should make our proposal public and spell out the reasons. Here they are --.

COST: Very simply it is much less expensive to build a new library at the proposed site than at any of the other sites suggested. First, there are no land acquisition costs. The Village owns the land. Like many other entities, including the Park District, School District #34, Glenview Youth Services and others, the Library applied for land during the development of the Glen property, in order to keep our options open. Those other entities all received free land from the Village; we would expect the Library, particularly as a Department of the Village, to be treated the same. We do not have to acquire or condemn any property, move businesses or help build a new post office.

Secondly, it is cheaper because we can begin now. Construction costs will continue to rise from year to year and add on to the total cost of the project. We do not have to wait for the resolution of condemnation suits or for a post office to be built, for the post office to move or for the post office to be demolished, processes that will take years, assuming they are ever resolved.

Third, we do not have to provide multilevel structured parking. All new libraries and expansions experience a sharp increase in usage and circulation. Considering the parking difficulties of the past fifteen years, it would be foolish to build a new facility with the same parking problem. However, underground or structured parking costs six to seven times as much per space in comparison with surface parking. Further, maintenance costs down the road would be higher.

Fourth, we do not have to find a temporary home and move twice. During the year to eighteen months of construction the library has to provide services somewhere. This means additional rental of space for this time period and moving the collection, staff and computers back and forth..

One response to the costs argument is that we should pour money into renovating the current fifty year old building. At this point I could discuss our problems with the HVAC system, settling, leakage, and other issues but it is simpler to quote one of my other trustees, David Johnson. Mr. Johnson is alone on the board in urging the current site and has vociferously opposed the Board's recommendation of other sites. Further, he served as a professional engineer for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District for a number of years, specifically evaluating the condition of structures for that entity. While I disagree with Mr. Johnson on many issues, I believe he is correct on this point. Here is what Mr. Johnson had to say to a local publication:

While I strongly agree with keeping the library where it is, I have concerns that it may not be practical to just make another addition to the existing library. As a professional engineer in Illinois, I spent 27 years assessing existing buildings and designing both additions and new facilities for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. The existing library is aging gracefully in some areas but not so gracefully in others. The architects inform us that the structure would not support a third story, so any new addition would require building horizontally, thus impacting already insufficient parking. The facade is deteriorating; recent tuckpointing might be good for another 5-10 years but not likely beyond. The mechanical and electrical systems have reached (or perhaps even already exceeded) their economic life. Over the years, Internet capability has been added to the library, but it has not been integrated into the existing plant as efficiently as would be possible in new construction. I am concerned that if we just make an addition to the existing library, we will have to tear down and replace the existing part within another 10 years. Over a projected 40-year life, that combination would be more expensive than simply replacing the existing library with a completely new library on the existing site today. A new library on the existing site would cost more right now but would save money in the long run.

The cost differential between building on the current site and the Glen is significant, especially if we undertake to move and build a new Post Office, a financial burden which should not be dumped on the citizens of Glenview. Including that factor, the time delays, land acquisition costs, costs for additional structured parking, these additional costs could be eight to eleven million dollars.

AVAILABILITY: The site is available. All the other sites are subject to a number of contingencies. Most involve condemnation proceedings of private property, a process which could delay the project even further. Many have suggested moving the Post Office to the Glen. However, the Post Office abandoned this proposal three years ago for lack of funds. Nothing has changed in this regard. Nor does this board feel the citizens of Glenview should subsidize the Post Office in the construction of a new building.

ACCESS: Surveys have repeatedly indicated that over 90% of library users drive to the library, which may explain the continued parking complaints. The proposed site is located close to Lake Avenue and would have access off both Patriot and Shermer. Geographically, it is close to the center of Glenview. As noted above it would have plenty of parking.

FLEXIBILITY: The proposed site allows for greater flexibility in the design of the building which leads to a building that functions better in terms of layout. Also, no one can predict how library needs will change over the next twenty years. Twenty years ago we did not have computer workstations, DVD's, CD's and a variety of other media. The proposed site at least gives us some flexibility to deal with those changes. The lack of flexibility on the current site will also affect the design and cost of a proposed building. Many years ago, the library had the opportunity to move across the street to a larger space in what is now the Olympia Shopping Center. Instead, we stayed at our current site and have been constricted ever since. Let's learn from the past.

The argument expressed by the Village Board for keeping the library in its current site basically comes down to a hope that the Library can or should serve as the economic anchor for downtown. This argument assumes two things. First, that this role is one of the primary or proper functions of the library and second, that the Library can actually fulfill this role. With respect to the first issue I still believe that the site of the Library should be where we can best provide library service to all the residents of Glenview. I also question the assumption the library does act as an economic magnet for the rest of downtown. I have not seen any specific data either supporting or refuting this hypothesis although the Village Board apparently takes it as a given. But the library's location at the edge of downtown, on the opposite side of the railroad tracks hardly seems like the ideal location to draw people to the rest of downtown. Frankly, it seems more likely that the library is a specific destination for patrons and not a stepping off point for other businesses.

I should point out the Library Board has made attempts over the years to work with the Village Board to select a downtown site; these efforts have been unsuccessful. A majority of the Library Board members live within walking distance of the current site. But the Village's suggestion or directive that we simply stay at our current site with the vague hope that something will be resolved with the Post Office someday does not begin to address the problem.

Part of this Board's frustration is that we have visited many new libraries in the metropolitan area and can see how a new, well functioning building can serve a community and how those libraries are enthusiastically supported and used by the community. If you have the time, visit Elmhurst, Fremont Library in Mundelein or Northbrook and compare them to what we have. Or come to our library and look at the drawings in the library of what we are proposing.

We are a Village Library. What that means simply is that any proposed library has to be approved by the Village Board. If we can build new swimming pools, new fire stations, a new police station we should be able to build a new library that serves the entire community.