FNL HomePage
Editorial Board
E-mail FNL
FNL Archives
Faculty Bulletin Board
MIT HomePage

From The Libraries

Master Space Plan Envisioned
Libraries Work with Architectural Firm and Engage Campus Input

Ruth K. Seidman

 

Background

Over the last several decades, services and collections of the MIT Libraries have expanded dramatically. As MIT's educational and research agenda has grown, the Libraries' print and digital resources have grown to keep pace. The Libraries' footprint and capacity on campus, on the other hand, have remained largely unchanged during this time.

For faculty, one important consequence of this capacity constraint has been the rising percentage of books and journals shelved in off-campus facilities. As on-campus shelving capacity was exceeded, one by one the MIT Libraries resorted to remote shelving facilities to house their collections. By the mid-1990s, a strikingly high percentage of the Libraries' collections (nearly 25 percent) were housed in off-campus facilities. In the fall of 1997, the Libraries leadership began a discussion of space planning with the Faculty Committee on the Library System. The committee was, and continues to be, deeply interested in the Libraries' space planning problems, and supportive of the need to investigate options for the future.

The challenges confronting the Libraries were outlined for faculty in an April 1999 article in the MIT Faculty Newsletter entitled "Toward a Master Plan for Libraries' Space" https://tute.mit.edu//afs/net.mit.edu/project/afs32/athena/org/f/fnl/www/fnl115.pdf , (p. 18). In this article Carol Fleishauer, MIT Libraries associate director for Collection Services, discussed the many reasons why a thorough and thoughtful review of library space had become necessary. Print collections continue to be important, electronic information resources require new types of space and facilities, and group study space has become a part of today's educational needs. The continued importance of print resources to MIT faculty was affirmed in a survey of MIT faculty, conducted by the MIT Libraries during 1999/2000.

 

Architectural studies and campus input

To begin the space review, the Libraries engaged the architectural firm of Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and Abbott (SBRA) to assist in the development of a Libraries' master plan. This firm has considerable experience in planning and designing for academic libraries, including recent work at Yale University, Emory University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, and the University of California, Riverside. Two architects from SBRA, Geoffrey Freeman and Carole Wedge, worked with the MIT Libraries to design an approach, identify concurrent planning efforts at the Institute, examine the issues facing the Libraries, and gather and review data. This work took place during the summer and early fall of 1999. During this time, the architects and library administrators held a series of meetings with interested parties on campus, including faculty, Institute administrators, and students.

In September 1999 the architects generated a series of scenarios for library space and facilities on the MIT campus. These scenarios ranged from the conservative and traditional to the provocative and creative. One question examined at length through the scenarios was the degree of decentralization appropriate for MIT's Libraries, particularly in light of the emerging digital environment. At issue was whether to maintain the concept of decentralized library facilities, to consider a centralized library for all academic disciplines, or to propose something in between. Various alternatives were envisioned. In October, these scenarios were presented to the Faculty Committee on the Library System for their reactions and additional ideas.

One of the compelling concepts to emerge from the SBRA recommendations and subsequent discussions, is that the Institute consider the option of two large, focused libraries in strategic locations on the MIT campus; one for science and engineering and one for humanities and social sciences (bearing in mind the need to define the scope of these latter collections). This concept would reduce the number of divisional libraries from five to four, and beneficially reduce fragmentation among the collections – a frequent complaint of faculty. Key to the concept was the location of each of these libraries on or near high-volume pedestrian pathways on the campus.

To complement these two large libraries, the concept plan also called for specialized libraries to provide service anchors at each end of the campus. Toward the west side of the campus, Rotch Library for art, architecture and urban planning, renovated in 1990, would remain. Dewey Library, for management, political science, and economics, would anchor the east end of the campus; with significant renovations or perhaps space in a new building as plans for the east campus are further developed.

 

How plans stand at present

Although new facilities would be ideal, SBRA advised the Libraries that it would be reasonable (and is, indeed, customary) for a library at this stage of planning to first explore options for accomplishing needed change and expansion within its existing facilities.

Engineering studies would be the next step in determining whether the Libraries existing facilities, specifically those portions of Buildings 14 and 10 now occupied by the Libraries, have any prospect of accommodating the proposed concept at a rational cost. Discussions with faculty, especially those in the Schools and Departments affected by such a plan, will be essential to discovering the advantages and limitations of this option from a faculty perspective.

Building 14, now housing the Science and the Humanities Libraries, has the highest likelihood of accommodating any significantly expanded capacity. With added capacity for undergraduate study needs, possibly a tower for stack shelving next to the existing building, and increased shelving capacity in the basement, sufficient space for an expanded facility may be possible. The outdoor courtyard, now underutilized, could be enclosed for year-round service as a café and attractive gathering place.

The library facility in Building 10, currently occupied by the Barker Engineering Library, has its greatest potential as a magnificently restored historical space. The Great Dome could be restored into a fine study and exhibition space, capturing the grandeur of the original Bosworth design. Depending on the results of the engineering assessment, if the building can accommodate structural expansion another floor or balconies might be added. Compact shelving would make better use of the existing floor space in Building 10, as in Building 14, if the floor loading can be accommodated.

 

Space changes for current year

A much more limited facilities project is scheduled for Building 14 this year. The Libraries received CRSP approval for two changes. The first is to expand basement shelving capacity through the installation of one bank of compact shelving. The second is to improve the circulation flow and resolve a number of safety issues around the entry to the Hayden Library in 14S. The Libraries are currently working on these improvements in consultation with the Faculty Committee on the Library System. Construction is anticipated during the summer of 2001.

 

Future directions

One goal of the planning process is to identify fundable components that might attract the interest of donors. The renovation of the Music Library in 1996 was made possible through the generosity of Cherry ('41) and Mary Emerson, whose major contribution launched that award-winning improvement. The Music Library was subsequently renamed the Rosalind Denny Lewis Music Library, in honor of Mrs. Emerson's mother, wife of the late MIT professor Warren D. "Doc" Lewis, who had been Cherry Emerson's advisor. Several of MIT's other Libraries have not yet been named, which offers a potential opportunity for donors.

The Libraries are still in the early stages of planning for the next generation of MIT's Libraries. Much more remains to be done in terms of discussions with faculty and the MIT community, engineering and costing studies, synchronization with MIT's larger campus planning efforts, and development of the necessary funding. Continued input from faculty and students will be sought as the planning moves forward.

FNL HomePage
Editorial Board
E-mail FNL
FNL Archives
Faculty Bulletin Board
MIT HomePage