This report is designed to be a supplement to the “Strategic Planning Report” issued by The Walter Fedy Partnership. To that end it does not discuss background information, nor does it go into detail on the design. Instead it: 1) provides an update to Library Executive on the direction of the Team, and 2) seeks guidance from the Library Executive in two specific areas, and refers other recommendations to the Library Executive for confirmation. Those areas are noted in the body of the report.
The work of the Team is still ongoing, with the understanding that renovations will likely take place in the spring of 2008.
In our discussions the Team has regularly come back to the context of the project, as specified in our Terms of Reference:
…With funds that become available through Campaign Waterloo, and taking advantage of other funding as opportunity allows, the Library plans to revitalize the main floor by upgrading the physical and information technology environment. Key goals are to enhance the student learning experience by using accessibility and universal design principles to create a welcoming, vital space that incorporates a research centre, service points, social space, and study space for both individuals and groups.
Additional context is provided by the Library Satisfaction Survey Report of 2006. To the extent that key issues identified by the Report, such as the library environment and study space, apply to Porter main floor, a measurable indicator of our success will be a significant decrease in these issues when the survey is repeated after the renovations are complete. Further enhancement of the student experience is being explored as part of Principle 4 below.
The Team has agreed upon the following guiding principles:
Principle 1 – Create a Welcoming, Vital Space
While we are very sensitive to the need for more resources for students, we interpret our mandate to mean that the foremost design principle should be to create a space that all members of the campus community find to be inspiring and enriching.
Principle 2 – Open Up the Exterior Views to the Public
Following from the first principle, a key goal put forward by the architects has been to open up more of the perimeter to public use, to put to best advantage the wonderful feature of the arched windows around the exterior. Adhering to this principle has necessarily meant moving some staff away from windows.
Principle 3 – Increase the Amount of Public Space
Another goal has been to increase the amount of space available to the public to meet the needs of the growing student population. This has resulted in looking for more efficient ways to use staff space, decreasing the overall amount of space for staff purposes.
This goal was also the impetus for a review of the reference and abstract collection to determine the extent to which collections space might be reduced in order to increase public workspace. Through appropriate withdrawal and relocation of some materials and anticipating a declining growth rate because of increased use of electronic resources, some reduction in space needed for the collection is achievable; however the review has confirmed that most of the collection is still necessary to support the university’s goal of being a top research-oriented institution in many of its programs. The space needed for the collection will be reduced by about 8% for the renovation.
Principle 4 – Encourage Information Discovery
The Team is of the opinion that a successful renovation will strike a balance between fulfilling the stated desires of students and faculty, and motivating them to explore the many services and resources we have to offer. The Team is still analyzing the design implications of this principle.
Principle 5 – Maximize Flexibility in Physical Design
The Team believes it is important to build with a view to maximum flexibility, since the space needs of patrons and staff are regularly changing and will almost certainly change before long-range plans can be realized. For example, the Team continues to evaluate the possible benefits of using a demountable wall system instead of stud and drywall.
1. Develop a program describing the functions, and their space requirements, that should be on the main floor.
The detailed program is still being developed and will be part of a final report.
One aspect of the program that the Team continues to discuss is the definition of the term “Information Commons.” There is no clear definition of this term in the literature, and the Team believes the term is unnecessary jargon. Also, that an area designated as an Information Commons would be arbitrary – to a great extent the entire library is moving in the direction of an Information Commons concept. In the event that a large donor will want their name to be highlighted in some way, we suggest:
Recommendation 1 – That an alternative to using an umbrella term like “Information Commons” be found as a naming opportunity. An alternative could be either linked to a specific service (such as “The XYZ Computing Area”), or not linked to any service and instead acknowledge donor support through something like a donor wall.
2. Develop a conceptual design for the space.
By following the first three guiding principles, the area designated for staff in the latest plan has been reduced to a space that is considered minimally acceptable but not ideal. For example, it renders almost all offices throughout Information Services & Resources and Circulation significantly smaller than at present, and smaller than Council of Ontario University and other industry standards (see Library Space Planning Guidelines, pages 7-8). (The proposed space for a librarian’s office is 100 square feet, and for an associate’s office is 80 square feet. Industry standards recommend 120 square feet for librarians and current offices are about this size). A rationale put forward by architects for smaller office sizes is that new, “systems” furniture allows the space to be used more efficiently, and so it is assumed that this new furniture is an essential part of the renovation.
There is also a specific staff space concern for which the Team seeks the feedback of Library Executive. The current plan does not leave any room for a new Head of Circulation, should that position be filled. At the time the plan was developed the future of this position was uncertain, and removing this office seemed like a reasonable way to move discussions forward, given the amount of time spent on various plans to that point. Should the position be filled and space for the position be desired on the second floor, however, then this will have a significant impact on the plan. Alternatively, consideration can be given to relocating one of the existing circulation staff members, though this will have a negative service impact as all the circulation staff members located on the main floor have high adjacency needs for the floor. There would also be the question of where we would find space for the relocated staff member.
Early on, the Team considered moving staff off the floor but concluded that a renovation that takes staff away from where they are most needed does not make sense. However, towards the end of staff space discussions the Team revisited the idea of moving the ISR department to the 3rd floor, on the thinking that if less-than-ideal space for the department was available on the 2nd floor then a move to a larger area on the 3rd floor would be preferable. The Team set this idea aside as impractical, but it is noted here as a possibility, should Library Executive see a way to creating a large enough space on the 3rd floor.
In general, the Team believes that the existing conceptual plan has enough staff support to move forward, if the staffing concern noted above can be resolved. When might Library Executive be able to confirm whether the Circulation Head position will be filled?
In addition to space issues, it has again become clear that the Porter library suffers from inadequate signage, which leads to:
Recommendation 2 – That signage expertise be retained as part of the project, for developing an effective program of signage for the entire Porter library. Also, that renaming of the floors in Porter be considered as part of the signage for the renovation, to see if the confusion between “Main Floor” and “1st Floor” can be eliminated.
3. Provide cost estimates.
See the Walter Fedy report.
4. Consider means of introducing the renovation in stages and prepare recommendations in this regard.
The Team believes that the ideal scenario would be for the entire renovation to take place over the course of next summer. Doing everything as part of one stage, the renovation can be more easily planned to minimize the impact of:
However, should this not be possible due to the funding situation, then the Team will develop recommendations for a multi-stage renovation.
Can Library Executive provide direction on the amount of funds that will be available for Porter main floor renovations in spring term 2008, to facilitate planning?
5. Consider collaborative opportunities with other campus constituencies
As part of this term of reference, and because the terms “information commons” and “learning commons” were being suggested as donor naming opportunities, the Team spent a significant amount of time learning about these concepts and considering how they might be applied.
Recommendation 3 – That the Library, either directly through the Executive members, or through the formation of a specifically charged committee, continue to seek leadership opportunities to support learning, as laid out in the 6th Decade Plan (see especially sections 6 and 7 “Student Engagement” and “Student Support Services”). This could mean identifying ways in which learning support can be enhanced through effective partnering of services. Purely as an example and without implying that this is desired, partnering reference with writing services may produce a more effective service at the Porter side of campus than the sum of the two individual services. As well, the Team supports the ongoing discussions about how student academic services could be better integrated.
6. Maintain a list of ideas generated that may apply to other parts of the Library
The following recommendations and ideas evolved out of our discussions. These recommendations are referred to the Library Executive for confirmation, and, if confirmed, for identification of groups or individuals to charge with their successful completion:
Recommendation 4 – The Team recommends that the Library develop an on-line system for booking study rooms, independently of whether or not any new study rooms are created. (This is currently in the planning stage).
Recommendation 5 – The Team recommends that Adaptive Technology software that can be loaded onto all public workstations should have this done.
7. Consult with students and faculty and additional groups as appropriate, including persons with disabilities
Significant consultation has taken place in a number of ways:
8. Inform Library Managers regularly as appropriate
Ongoing.
Eric Boyd
Christy Branston
Marian Davies
Alex McCulloch (chair)
Carl Nagel
Jamie Reilly
Janet Wason