$210 Million Well-Spent: L.A. Library Completes 32 New Branches

The Los Angeles Public Library has just successfully completed investing a $210 million capital bond in which it built or upgraded 32 branch libraries and then added four more with funds left over. Elaborate on the need for more library capacity and the outcome of all this work that you oversaw.

That's correct. In November 1998 the city put a ballot issue on the general ballot to fund in general obligation bonds $178.3 million to build 32 libraries across the city, and 73 percent of the voters said yes to the bond issue. We have completed the program on-time and under-budget, and we feel very good that we have kept the public trust by building every library we said we were going to build.

And with savings, because of good management and also being aggressive and going after additional funds and with interest earnings, we were able to add four more projects. This has been a transformation of the LAPL system. We have four new libraries that didn't exist at all in communities that were under-served and had grown tremendously in the past 20 years, and we replaced 28 inadequate, little libraries that could not meet the library service demands in this multi-ethnic, dynamic city.

Elaborate on the template used for siting the new libraries and the model program you used to design and construct them.

We were fulfilling a master plan for branch library facilities that had been adopted in 1988 by the Board of Library Commissioners, which is the governing body for the library – five laypeople appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The master plan was based on a citywide needs assessment. When the plan was adopted, there were 62 branch libraries and the Central Library, and the analysis showed that 55 of them were too small for the populations, did not have access for the disabled, and did not have any capabilities for meeting the technological demands of the 21st century. The master plan formed the basis for our going out to the public and developing two major building programs. The first bond passed in 1989, and we renovated and expanded 13 historic libraries and we replaced 16 tiny branch libraries.

That master plan also established the size of the new libraries: 10,500 and 12,500 square foot libraries, and parking to meet the building code parking requirements. So we looked for properties that were anywhere from 30.000 square feet to 45,000 square feet.

The plan also established the criteria for locating new libraries. We found out over the years of working with our libraries and had confirmation from national public library experience that the most successful libraries are on major thoroughfares in retail areas. When people go out shopping and do their other business, the library needs to be in a visible and convenient location. That's very different from the model at the turn of the last century, when the Carnegie libraries were being built. At that time, the libraries were embedded in the neighborhoods, next to a park, near a school, and those criteria changed with this building program. So we knew the property size we had to get and we knew the size of the buildings we wanted to build.

A big component of this program has been community involvement. After the bond was passed in November 1998, we began hiring architects, and we also notified people in every community and invited them to participate in this process. We developed a huge mailing list, and we went community by community to look for property. We also took into account the location of schools and the students that the libraries would serve. We looked at the location of the LAUSD schools in each of our communities, and the parochial and private schools that we served. And we looked at the relative locations of the neighboring branch libraries.

As anyone who deals with development and planning and building knows, purchasing the property is critical. So we simultaneously worked on all of the projects and identified properties in a very transparent, public process, which is not great for negotiating, but is important for community input. And, many communities suggested properties that we then purchased. We conducted more than 180 community meetings throughout the city to get input on sites and on design of the new libraries.

Another distinctive feature of the building campaign is the quality and diversity of the libraries' designs, each one unique and styled to enhance the character of their neighborhoods. Why did you place a priority on design, and how did it affect the economics of the projects?

It was definitely an up-front goal. We have a wonderful tradition of library service in Los Angeles, and people love their libraries. From 1872 to until 1926, the Central Library rented facilities until the permanent library was built on 5th and Flower. That building is now a landmark, and the 1993 renovation and expansion is excellent too. So we had that model. And the Carnegie libraries-and L.A. had a number of them-were important public buildings.

But something happened in Los Angeles in the 1950s and 1960s. During that time, 28 libraries were built, many in the San Fernando Valley, and they were very small, but more than that, they were generally little boxes. You could drive right by them without noticing them. They just did not speak to the importance of the library or the community. So we were very conscious of our desire for excellent architecture.

At the very beginning of the program we went out with our partner, the Department of Public Works, in a request for qualification for architects. We interviewed about 45 firms, and we selected 16 for the 32 projects, and we matched the architects to the communities in the initial projects, and then gave some of them second and third projects. And we're very proud of the work the architects have done.

What lessons does the library and its experience with this building program have for other public infrastructure and building programs, such as LAUSD, police stations, and fire stations?

In a building program, you have to be bold and aggressive, and you have to multi-task. We never would have completed this program in six-and-a-half years if we had not done many things simultaneously that typically may have been done sequentially. And some of that requires taking some risks, but it served us well. Our budget had accounted for 3 percent inflation over the projected time of the building program. While that held up for the first four years, the last two years have, as everyone knows, seen dramatic increases in the cost of building materials.

Also, the community process needs to be a real process with real expectations that you give to the community about how they're going to participate and then fulfill those expectations. And of course, you have to manage the projects themselves with good decision-making along the way.

Your predecessor, Susan Kent, now with the New York Public Library system, was almost enticed early in the building program to collaborate with LAUSD's massive building program and ended up backing away, thinking that it would slow her process down, cost more, and produce less. How would you assess this decision to back away from collaboration?

Throughout the building program, we have been very open to joint use, mixed use, and partnerships, but so much of the problem with joint use is timing. Timing is everything. As we started to work with LAUSD and with developers, a moment came at which we had to decide whether to proceed on our project or to hold up and wait for something to happen at LAUSD in their process to be ready. We decided project by project to move forward alone rather than wait for another process over which we had no control.

It seems there wasn't a mechanism or a political ethic in the city to plan these massive public investments collaboratively or with a joint use ethic. Is there a chance things will change now with a new mayor and new general managers? Can the city embrace collaboration?

I certainly hope so. The mayor is very focused on this and on leveraging public dollars, which is a really good idea. But, again, the partners have to develop a schedule together, and the funds must be in place for all parts of the project, and then compromises have to be made to make it work. That's not terrible, but, again, our experience in this program was that if we had waited, we would not have been able to develop our projects.

We have one library, the Harbor Gateway library, with a joint component; it's one of the projects that we added, and in addition to our own funds, we got state library construction funds through a competitive grant process. On that library we are collaborating with Narbonne High School; we sited the library literally a half-block from the school to provide some joint use of library resources and services.

How many citizens will use the new and existing libraries?

The number of library visits this year was a little over 14 million. They checked out more than 15 million items. Our libraries are open six or seven days a week, and they have become integral parts and the centers of our neighborhoods throughout the city. The libraries help create such a strong sense of ownership and belonging among people in every community in Los Angeles.

Is LAPL done building libraries? Is there a need to update the master plan?

We are always looking to improve and expand library services. The need is great, and there can be more use of our resources. Two weeks ago we took a draft proposal revision of our master plan looking at library needs ten years from now, and we are going to be taking our proposal to the City Council members and the community.

This is a growing city-we've already identified six communities that have grown significantly and are under-served. We're also looking at nine of our existing libraries that are too small for their communities. The library is a dynamic, important public service that is essential in a democratic society for an informed electorate, and so necessary for children to succeed inin school. The children are our future and so we are looking to the future of the Los Angeles Public Library.