NATIONAL LIBRARYYesterday I posted a piece by Chris Szekely, Chief Librarian at the Turnbull Library, which had been published in the NZ Herald.
It has drawn forth this reaction from a clearly worried and upset Library user. The Bookman would welcome a response from Chris Szekely or the National Librarian.There are serious issues raised here which demand a response.
Jim Traue is right. Highly-paid National Library/Turnbull apparatchik Chris Szekely is wrong. Very. For weeks he has been belatedly wandering around Wellington’s main institutional users desperately trying to paper over crevasses created by his boss’s lust for a ‘trophy building’ and an institutional contempt for its users.
The problem is his boss. Her recent press release claiming that the revamped National Library would attempt to match Te Papa’s visitation levels has earned her the North Korean sobriquet ‘Dear Leader’. For a national library, bums on seats are irrelevant. The genealogists, iwi and claims historians, academics, students and writers who mine its sources will reach a far wider audience through their theses, books, websites, films and TV programmes than the bureaucrats and franchise owners envisaged to run this Ceauşescu-like architectural abortion.
On architectural grounds, regular users (I have been one for over 25 years) can only cringe. A few years ago we saw a huge sum of money (give us the figure Chris: I’ve heard $1 million and $1.5 million) spent on a new entrance and foyer. It’s the most incompetently executed architecture I’ve ever seen. A simple door was replaced by a 3-component glass monstrosity. The wide central piece, contrary to any user’s expectation, was non-functional. Signboards (often blown down in the wind) directed users to one of the smaller doors, but it so confused sane people that last year the library staff stopped regular users’ sport of watching newbies stumble into the wrong glass silo by buying massive pots and plants and planting them in the central section to deter people from responding naturally to the incompetent architect’s vision. The expensively revamped interior, all hard surfaces, is an acoustic nightmare, as any book launch invitee will tell you. And it’s all about to be bulldozed to make way for an over-budget $70 blowout.
For months mid-level curators and librarians have been approaching me, asking for users’ groups to blow the whistle. Here’s just one story: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0902/S00195.htm Staff have not been told how services will be delivered over the 2-4 year reconstruction period and have now been told not to talk to anyone. Every communication with users (who as taxpayers fund the thing) must go through the Dear Leader’s office.
The situation remains highly confused even as staff start packing up OUR collections. A building schedule has been set in place and only belatedly has ‘service delivery’ been considered. Everyone seems to have a different story. Anyway, here are some questions for the ATL apparatchik:
Archives: Will only 80% be made available to researchers during the unnecessary reconstruction? What are the 20% to be excluded?
Photographs: Only the Timeframes digitised collection to be available (a tiny fraction of the collection)? What about the Evening Post collection?
Ephemera: All to be inaccessible?
Paintings: Inaccessible?
ATL printed works: Inaccessible?
The new government could help NZ culture (the students academics and writers who use the collections and are about to pay for this disaster, not to mention the publishers whose books are enriched by ATL photos and ephemera) and save the country $70 million by canning Dear Leader’s trophy building.
Signed
Turnbull User
14 comments:
Bookman Beattie says " There are serious issues raised here which demand a response"
The only issue at play here is the unsubstantiated vitriolic nature of the post.
It's all rumour and spite, and the personal nature of the attack on the people involved is simply offensive
Perhaps the person who wrote it could manage to retain some credibility by identifying themselves?
paul reynolds
www.peoplepoints.co.nz
I must say it looks one of the most inchoate & silliest buildings I have ever seen...
I totally agree with the concerns raised in the original post.
While there is little doubt that the National Library has a pressing need for some form of redevelopment to store its ever growing collection, this does not appear to be the primary driver behind the current plans. Aesthetics, and the stated desire of the Chief Librarian to turn the National Library into a second Te Papa, appear to be the more fundamental factors.
Surely Wellington only has room for one post-modernist theme park? I am all for encouraging people to use the library, but that's what it is, a library - not a tourist attraction!
Still for all that Paul, there is good reason to have some concerns about any cultural institution in Wellington or anywhere else for that matter heading off down the Te Papa track. I have great respect for Jim Traue and if he is concerned I think we should take that seriously - as for the anonymous blogger you know how I feel about that. As a side bar to this there is a rolling debate going on in the UK as to whether or not schools should have libraries since children are cybered up - some libraries are gone and many more threatened for what - a whim - a neat idea about knowing what the future will be - we have all been there and we have all got it wrong
Further to my first comment on this story. I would like to make a second response - and take the time to make my own opinions a bit clearer.
On reflection, I can see that the writer has very strong feelings, and, for that matter, loyalties to the NZ National Library and its traditional way of doing things.
I can respect that.
However, I still have serious issues with the post.
The tone and manner, especially the attack on the National Librarian, is completely unacceptable.
I also don't think it serves the character or personality of this blog.
If there are issues around communicating the arrangements for the transition, then fair enough, let's vigorously debate them.
However, the wider issue that the new building is some kind of vainglorious monument to someone's ego needs serious and immediate rebuttal.
Apart from the unacceptability of the personal remarks, they are neither accurate nor useful to the author's presumed intention - i.e. bring into the public areana a debate on the future of the NL?
If that is the intention, then let's start by stepping away from the emotion and look at some cold hard realitites.
It is clear that the current building is no longer fit for purpose.
It needs long term and significant attention and the new building plan would appear,in essence,to be about addressing the current shortcomings.
Others are better placed than me to speak on this. So let them do so if they wish.
However, I do want to make my own contribution to this debate.
First, the notion that serious scholars are being pushed aside in a
rush to populism is nonsense on stilts.
The entire strategy ,like other international peers, is about making
the collections more accessible.
And by definition available for
research, writing, documentary/film making, story telling, or just plain old fashioned curiosity.
Moreover, the digital component to the new building as well as online,
will only serve to get the Library to where it should be already.
This includes, if it is going to have any credibility as a 21st century cultural institution, the facilities to put learning, research and guardianship at the heart of its core purposes, especially in regard to online access tools and services.
And by the by, the NLNZ is already recognised as a world leader in
digital preservation, as are the people involved in making this
happen
It would be nice to see some local acknowledgment of this.
Lastly, if you want to see a vibrant living breathing library with all of this on view have a look at the State Library of either Victoria or Queensland, on any day or time of the week you care to.
If you do, you will see that both places are hives of activity.
Not just visitors but scholars - students, children and parents.
Compare that with the National Library right now.
A place of silence and muted memory with inadequate facilities to make the transition that is so manifestly needed.
In short, if Bookman Beattie wants a debate on this, then let's make sure its about the right things and in the right language.
And can we please take a step back from the personal attack. It's just not helpful. And it isn't right.
For the record the NL have used, and continue to use, my services as a consultant on their digital strategy.
paul reynolds
www.peoplepoints.co.nz
Can someone please point me to any statement from the National Librarian that she wants to turn the NL into another Te Papa?
This is a total distraction to the main issue - making the NL fit for purpose in the 21st century.
Thank goodness for Hamish's point re the rolling debate in the UK as to whether or not schools should have libraries - at least this gets us back onto the issues instead of the populism/scholarship rhetoric.
On libraries - digital literacy, the UK , et al, the best research on this that I know off, is still the 2008, 'Google Generation' is a myth, study by CIBER for the British Library.
http://www.bl.uk/news/pdf/googlegen.pdf
This report established beyond any reasonable doubt that UK children had no natural digital literacy whatsoever [contrary to the populist notion of the digital native] - and that there was a pressing need to promote digital literacy as part of our core curriculum.
It is beyond irony that one of the key drivers of the new NZ National Library service model which the new building[s] [Auckland /Wellington] are tasked to deliver on,is the promotion of 21st century literacy.
In short the very skills - aptitudes - and pedagogical frameworks that our children need
####
A quote from British Library on the publication date Jan , 2008, might interest:
"A new study overturns the common assumption that the 'Google Generation' - youngsters born or brought up in the Internet age - is the most web-literate.
The first ever virtual longitudinal study carried out by the CIBER research team at University College London claims that, although young people demonstrate an apparent ease and familiarity with computers, they rely heavily on search engines, view rather than read and do not possess the critical and analytical skills to assess the information that they find on the web.
The report Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future also shows that research-behaviour traits that are commonly associated with younger users - impatience in search and navigation, and zero tolerance for any delay in satisfying their information needs - are now becoming the norm for all age-groups, from younger pupils and undergraduates through to professors.
Commissioned by the British Library and JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), the study calls for libraries to respond urgently to the changing needs of researchers and other users.
Going virtual is critical and learning what researchers want and need crucial if libraries are not to become obsolete, it warns.
"Libraries in general are not keeping up with the demands of students and researchers for services that are integrated and consistent with their wider internet experience", says Dr Ian Rowlands, the lead author of the report.
The findings also send a strong message to the government. Educational research into the information behaviour of young people and training programmes on information literacy skills in schools are desperately needed if the UK is to remain as a leading knowledge economy with a strongly-skilled next generation of researchers.
end quote
Note : a new BL research phase is under way. "Spotlight on 'Generation Y', a three-year study into the research behaviour of 'Generation Y' scholars
From the stuff.co.nz website:
Ms Carnaby told the committee the construction would have "profound economic benefits" for Wellington creating 393 fulltime jobs.
The result was expected to bring in visitors and tourists that could rival Te Papa's.
"In the last 10 years there are phenomenal connections of New Zealanders with their national museum [Te Papa], and I expect exactly the same lift for the National Library of New Zealand."
Here is a link to the full story:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/1401655
Is this the same Paul Reynolds who was appointed as Adjunct Director, National Digital Library, at the Nation Library in September 2007? Jim Traue
Yes it is.
The Adjunct Director role is a consultant role. It does not accord me staff status in the NLNZ. It is a courtesy title to reflect my ongoing relationship with the NL
Which is why I said at the end of my earlier post: "for the record the NLNZ have used, and continue to use, my services as a consultant on their digital strategy."
The Adjunct role is also acknowledged on my blog
www.peoplepoints.co.nz
It is to be hoped, though not clear from the illustration, that they will build out over that useless windswept plaza and provide auto-door access at street level. Otherwise the renovated building will only offer the same shite access to disabled users that the present library does. But I have no faith in architects, especially those who design public buildings. They seem to be overtaken by a Speerian need to provide grandiose arenas for military parades.
I have to be anoymous here as I am a staff member at the National Library. I work with Turnbull collections and the researchers who use them. Paul Reynolds does certainly NOT represent the views of myself or my colleagues. We have never had any engagement with him in his role as "adjunct director". That role seems to be entirely about Carnaby's vision for a digital experience on the ground floor of the new building
Some of his misconceptions need to be corrected
1. Our concerns are with the new building and the rushed relocation, not the need to make the collections more available by digital means. We all strongly support that, But we don't need an ugly new building to do it
2. It is uncertain how much new collection space will be provided but it is at the most an extra 10 years. Are we going to spend $70m on another building when that space gets used up? You don't need a $70m building for extra collection space. All research libraries eventually find offsite storage for lower use collections.
3. The plant equipment in the current building is getting old - but it can be replaced. Restoring optimum storage conditions does not need a a new building
4. The proposed space for the Turnbull research library is much smaller than the existing areas for researchers. This is mainly because the whole ground floor (apart from the Gallery - which we have already) will now be taken up by Carnaby's digital playland
5. There seems serious doubt if researchers will be able to get the same service as before. The specialist pictorial, manuscripts and oral history areas, for example, are being done away with - everything will be provided from one generic research desk
6. Evidently the plans do not allow for any soundproofing walls between the digtial experiences (such as the kidzone) on the ground floor, and the Turnbull research area now consigned to the first floor mezzanine.
This is all appalling enough. The hectic, last-minute, poorly-planned process of shifting everything out of the building for two and a half years, without any adequate warning to researchers is just as awful. Staff are demoralised by all this. Consultation has been a farce - but we are committed to trying to work through it - to do what we can to maintain the values and services of a great research library
Interesting - so the anonoymous correspondent who bagan this thread is a "Turnbull User" because he/she actually works there.
This seems an important distinction, and should have perhaps been made clearer at the outset.
But let's move on.
As I said in my last post, most of his concerns are for others to pick up.
As for his comments about me - again, the tone is more interesting than the substance.
For the record my role is to contribute to the broad reach of projects and ideas that are needed to ensure the NL becomes a first class example of how to use digital and online services as core dimension to all of the NL's activities.
And that includes thinking about how best to digital services with the needs of researchers, et al.
And if you think that's all rhetoric, then, truly, you don't know me at all!
Anonymous says I don't represent his views or his colleagues.
It is hard to know what to say about that.
After all, he seems to know who I am. I don't have the same privlidge about him.
Speaking of irony - curiously, he has more digital privileges than I do. I have no internal access rights, can't see the intranet, nor do I have a National Library e-mail account, or any system or library privileges.
I can't even take a book home!
Curiously, I'm around the Wellington Library today if he works there, as opposed to the other three NL buildings in Auckland, Christchurch and Palmerston North, and wants a conversation, why doesn't he tap me on the shoulder and we can have a coffee?
Might be a little more civilised than throwing rocks out onto the public square?
paulreynolds
www.peoplepoints.co.nz
Another Ananymous - Anonymous 3 or 4 perhaps, as I am not sure that the first poster and subsequent posters are, indeed, the same individual. Paul, I'm all for increased digitisation and access. I'm all for upgrading the digital capabilities in the building. But not to the detriment of those researchers needing to access the non-digital material. It seems unclear that the new building really will have the additional collection-space that it was apparently given the funds to achieve. Something to do with less firm foundations and not having the ability to put compact shelving in as planned, I understand. Nor does it sound like there will be much space in the current plan for those researching rather than wanting a casual "experience" . I am sure the library could provide enhanced visitor experiences without reducing the access and services required by the long-established researcher community (who frequently create new material to be added to the collections in either digital or traditional formats). I have overheard numerous discussions about the building. The consensus seems to be that another option may please more people: build a cafe out on the podium and use the vacated space for staff/collections; upgrade the wiring/digital capabilities; upgrade physical access; provide greater display space for both digital/digitised items and traditional formats; build a preservation-quality storehouse for lesser-used collection items and the originals of digitsed items. The storehouse could be on cheaper land but still close enough to Wellington that requested materials could be brought in once or twice a day. This is the solution most of the great libraries have employed. Doing something like this is likely to be cheaper than the current plan, retain a distinctive building, enhance the visitor experience and maintain access to almost all the collections while it is completed. And it could, at cheaper cost, provide for more years of collection growth before, inevtably, the space is outgrown again.
Post a Comment