More On Seattle's Big, Bold Central Library

Architecture is a funny thing. In today's New York Times, critic Nicolai Ouroussoff makes a compelling argument for embracing and encouraging today's bold, flamboyant buildings and the architects designing them (Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhass, Jean Nouvel, Santiago Calatrava, etc.) I was pretty engaged by this because my bus route happens to run past the two big, loud buildings Seattle and its visitors love to hate, the Gehry-designed EMP and the Koolhass-designed Central Library. Whatever your opinion, they are two of our most striking buildings.

There will never be an end to the knee-jerk reactions the EMP stirs. When the new library first opened, I overheard endless remarks (local-to-local, local-to-tourist, tourist-to-tourist) about the "ugliness" of the building, how it "doesn't fit" with the rest of downtown. Those who had actually been inside the library, mentioned that they "couldn't find anything", "kept getting lost", and felt it was "too cold". They also said it "didn't feel like a library should feel", that it made them feel like robots.

That was, like, three years ago. Obviously, the new Central Library is old news. We all know that, for the most part, informed opinions of the building have been very positive (regarded by some as one of the great buildings of the world). And we all know it's no secret Seattleites have a habit of immediately dismissing "weird" things like arty libraries.

But it's been three years and I still overhear endless commentary from locals and tourists each time the bus pulls up alongside the Koolhass-designed building. I used to work for an architecture firm and came to appreciate architecture as an art form. I also grew sensitive to the fashion vs. function argument (an argument the Central library building embraces and challenges). The architects I worked with told me how to appreciate the new library's design, so I used to think those who "didn't get the fuss" over the $170 million building were just stubborn and refused to see what Koolhass was trying to say.

But after reading Ouroussoff's piece, I think the larger problem is it's hard for the general public to view architecture as an art form. And it's not just because they can't speak the language. It's easy to go to a city like Paris and regard their historic structures as art (which they are). But as Ourousoff (and countless others before him), points out, since the 1950s Americans had no other choice but to believe modern architecture was anything but "bland, soul-sapping buildings churned out by anonymous corporate offices." Rarely was anything else built. Thus, our urban cores resemble a batch of Kleenex boxes (thanks, Mr. Mailer). With that in mind, you can't blame most people for raising a suspicious eyebrow when a building like the Central Library is unveiled. Simply put, it's different and we're not used to it.

Until I worked with architects, I also thought buildings were just buildings; made to be used and eventually torn down. When every new building I saw being built looked just like the one standing next to it (a Kleenex box), how would I have known that steel, glass, and angles could also be a work of art?

When I hear those mixed reactions to the Central library, however, I take it as a good sign. These days, if we decide we don't like something (books, movies, t.v. shows, songs), there is always another option for distraction. Bold, ambitious architecture, on the other hand, cannot be ignored. It's been three years and we are still reacting to the library Koolhass designed for us. Must means its a success. As Tim Egan said, Seattle has trouble deciding "what to wear", and Koolhass' building forces us to consider our city's transitional phase head on. Development is at the forefront here. So, is there a clear vision for what the hell our city will look like? What are we like, as a people, and how can our structures reflect it? Currently, our buildings are a hodge-podge of aesthetics borrowed from other cities. I've heard this argued to be a reflection of Seattle being a "city of transplants." But a lot of cities are like that, and more importantly this place deserves better. Just look at the water and mountains that hem our city. With the Central Library, however, Koolhass designed something that finally speaks volumes about who we are, where we're going, our environment, and how our environment affects us.

If encouraged, unique and adventurous architecture provides an opportunity for provocation and engagement like no other art form these days. Whereas paintings are tucked inside museums, great architecture plants itself in the street and makes a powerful (albeit quiet) statement. What we Seattleites need to do is quit expecting our buildings to spoon feed us. As the library proves, they can be functional AND challenging. Go to the Central Library and ask yourself questions. Why are you provoked by a building that's so gray? Why do you get pissed off when you can't find periodicals right away? Why is it that a place meant to house books and ideas feels so futuristic? Can this building grow and evolve with our city? You may never find the answer, but at least you're thinking (hey wait...isn't that what you should do in a library?)

We all need to regard the Central Library as a work of art. You might love it, you might hate it. But don't dismiss it. It's a catalyst for a greater discussion about what we want our city to look like. There is an obvious drive toward development happening right now. So far, most of the new buildings I've seen are same old, same old (if they have quirks, like that unfortunate condo building on Fremont & 34th, they're as forced as Paul Allen establishing street cred). Our buildings should represent the uniqueness of this city while simultaneously stirring further civic pride. We need to be less afraid of building things that have character.

Permalink | Comments (4)