UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES
November 18, 1998

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 a.m. at the Morris Inn by Chairman John Halloran. Also in attendance were John Adams, Harvey Bender, Robert Coleman, Kelly Gritten, Christopher Hamlin, Roger Jacobs, Philip Johnson, Alan Krieger, Larry Rapagnani, Laurence Taylor, and Jennifer Younger; guest Bill Barry of Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and Abbott; library guests Joanne Bessler, Richard Jones, Lou Ellen Parent, and Marsha Stevenson; and secretary Melodie Eiteljorge.

The minutes of the meeting of September 16, 1998 were approved as written.

Younger distributed copies of an article on the Regenstein Library renovation, given to her by Robert Coleman. She also distributed copies of Professor Detlefson's request for information on the library renovation on behalf of the Faculty Senate and her reply.

Younger introduced library members of the Program Planning Committee (PPC) and welcomed Bill Barry, an architect from Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and Abbott.

Barry gave an update on the renovation project at Notre Dame. During the week of October 19 architects and committee members met with University administrators, graduate students and library staff in focus group sessions. Then, the week of November 16, they met with University faculty, undergraduate students, and additional library staff in more focus group sessions. The faculty sessions were organized by college.

Barry reported that there appear to be different patterns of use among groups. Some people take material outside and do not use the library building. In fact, some graduate students take material to Borders, where they enjoy the coffee, the atmosphere, the buzz of activity, etc. Some would like to stay in the building but are not comfortable with the present atmosphere. Some students are in the library for long periods of time and would like the opportunity to take breaks for coffee and catching up on CNN news. Beyond that, there is a very charged atmosphere about the renovation. Participants of the focus groups expressed appreciation for the opportunity to provide input.

Bessler asked if there was any discussion regarding service points. Barry responded that the concept of an information desk was brought up repeatedly. Staff also expressed an interest in that. There was consistent feedback about the need for general information.

Hamlin asked about the implications of faculty and students having different use patterns. He noted the Boyer Report, which discussed making student work interact more with faculty research in terms of needs and aspirations.

Barry replied that he wonders if different patterns of use needs do bring on physical separation, which might not be good. He noted that some students talked about having a course to teach them how to use material in better ways. Perhaps we need spaces for collaborative work. Most important, we are not assuming a separation.

Bender asked if there are architectural challenges for security and staffing ability in a library that is open longer hours. He feels that 24-hour access is ideal, but are there implications? Barry replied that it is a matter of zoning the building. There is a desire for off-hour access, but not necessarily 24 hours a day.

Bender asked if there will be zones in the renovated building. Barry replied that this is something to consider, although it's not necessarily a given. Sometimes it's possible to make only certain areas of a building accessible for extended hours. In one of the graduate student focus groups, it was mentioned that a campus in California has underground space which provides opportunity for interaction during off-hours.

Rapagnani noted that Student Affairs recently completed a study of social space on campus. He asked if there are things that make Notre Dame different than other library projects with which the firm has been involved.

Noting that he would like to include Wendell Wickerham in such a discussion, Barry replied that for him the Hesburgh Library is an interesting building. It is a very strong diagram of a book tower above two floors.

Adams asked if only the main library will be renovated. Barry and Younger responded that physically only the Hesburgh Library will be included. However, as we look at the use of the Hesburgh building, we will also take into account the system as a whole. Adams noted that presently in the branches, if faculty want students to read something, they must photocopy it and put it in the main library. There is no study space in some of the branches.

Bender asked if there were any structural surprises in the Hesburgh Library. Barry replied that there have been no real surprises thus far. He believes the building has survived well for its age and that it has been well maintained as a structure.

Coleman asked if there is a sufficient number of elevator banks for transportation of people and materials. He is surprised that there is no freight elevator to the tower. Barry replied that we will assess the need to maximize elevator capacity. In the original design of the building, the first two floors were for study space and interaction, while the tower was solely for books. That is one of the reasons there are few windows in the tower. When use of space changes, everything else is affected, including elevators and windows.

Coleman asked if, with space considerations, we might be able to reclaim the 14th floor. Younger replied that the question has been raised by several people. We will see what the demands are on the building and then determine whether or not it is worth raising the issue. Jacobs added that the 14th floor is well used for its present purpose in holding fly-ins. Barry noted that students also brought up the question of providing an observation deck which could be used in recruiting students.

Adams noted that the firm has had considerable experience with libraries. He asked if there are any common themes or methodology for a renovation.

Barry replied that the firm feels that an interactive, collaborative work method yields the best suggestions. The architects are using two tracks: assessing the existing structure and, parallel to that, listening to what program needs there are for a library at Notre Dame. At some point they will bring those parallel tracks together. This is a challenge. He expects that they will consider remote storage. Other trends they see include increased consideration of the social aspect of being at a library. He sees the "coming together" of social interaction and libraries.

Jacobs observed that the term "food and drink in the library" has always in the past been preceded by "not." Experience has been that food and drink cause destruction and potential for damage. Yet he sees that it works at Borders or Barnes and Noble. Barry responded that it is a matter of control and zoning. Public libraries are taking this approach, with one area for food and one for books, but perhaps also something in between. We certainly do not want to bring food into the stacks, but that is a matter of control.

Bender asked if there ever has been a university library in conjunction with a Borders or a Barnes and Noble. Barry replied that he is not certain about any actual commercial merging, but it could happen. Younger noted that the new bookstore on campus will have a café and soft chairs for reading.

Halloran observed that this brings up the question of a collaboration between the Libraries and the new bookstore. Rapagnani noted that they are at opposite ends of the campus. Younger stated that there are some possibilities for collaboration. For example, we could allow students to drop off returned library books at the bookstore.

Rapagnani noted that he is interested in the concept of integration of access to information in a total sense -- in library volumes, on the Internet and in other styles. Resnet was designed differently than main computer component areas. The OIT installed Resnet jacks in some other buildings across campus, including the Hesburgh Library. However, they simply guessed about where to put them. This might be a golden opportunity to harvest information about where it would be advantageous to plug in and to print. If that information is being gathered, he would appreciate receiving a copy.

Barry replied that the graduate students are particularly pleased about having space on the tenth floor with printers. Jacobs asked if, in new renovation projects, networking is ubiquitous. Barry agreed that it is, and he doesn't believe there will be great obstacles in the Hesburgh building. The intention is to thoroughly network space, and he believes users would like to have access from just about everywhere. One question we perhaps should ask is if there should be a "click free" zone. Students sometimes like a space away from the constant clatter of computers.

Hamlin noted that the planning process mentions focus groups. He is not sure a focus group is the right way to determine the Libraries' purposes. Barry responded that the Program Planning Committee is listening to focus groups and to people in the Libraries. Younger added that we have a library mission statement. We expect to come up with more from the focus groups than can be met, and then we must put everything into priority order. The PPC will then bring back the priorities to UCL for discussion and validation.

Jacobs asked if there is a real challenge in meeting the needs of graduate students in a primarily undergraduate institution. Barry responded that a division does exist and that this will be a challenge. Rapagnani noted that, in the design of current clusters for both graduate and undergraduate students, it is now clear that their needs are different. Younger added that the needs of upperclass students may differ from those of underclass students as well.

Younger noted that, at the December 9 meeting, we must elect someone to serve as chair, since John Halloran will be on leave next semester.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Melodie Eiteljorge
Secretary

Return to Director of Libraries Page