The New York Public Library , Research Branch, for staters, stags have now been emptied; demotion about to occur

SAVE THE 42ND STREET LIBRARY
The Committee to Save the New York Public Library
SAVE THE 42ND STREET LIBRARY
The Committee to Save the New York Public Library
PLEASE SEE FOLLOWING URL

http://www.savenypl.org

 see above URL for a readable and well designed version of the same material as below. In either case, we-ALL- are about to lose a huge factor in NYC, its principal research Branch. But that is only the beginning. The little branch libraries will be mice for the rats to cat and excrete in the form of slender glass receptacles for the half of one percenters. Why should they care? Did the barbarians, so-call care, when libraries were torched. Remember Bimyan Buddhas? a comparable mindset is at work here.

SearchMain menu
Skip to primary content
Skip to secondary content
Home
The Truth About the Central Library Plan
Donate
Join Us!
News and Events
Resources
DON’T GUT THE 42nd STREET LIBRARY!
Rally at the 42nd Street Library Wednesday May 8th!
3:30-5:30PM Rain or Shine More info

STOP THE CENTRAL LIBRARY PLAN

SAVE THE 42ND STREET LIBRARY
The Committee to Save the New York Public Library

 SearchMain menu
Skip to primary content
Skip to secondary content
Home
The Truth About the Central Library Plan
Donate
Join Us!
News and Events
Resources
DON’T GUT THE 42nd STREET LIBRARY!
Rally at the 42nd Street Library Wednesday May 8th!
3:30-5:30PM Rain or Shine More info

STOP THE CENTRAL LIBRARY PLAN



 SearchMain menu
Skip to primary content
Skip to secondary content
Home
The Truth About the Central Library Plan
Donate
Join Us!
News and Events
Resources
DON’T GUT THE 42nd STREET LIBRARY!
Rally at the 42nd Street Library Wednesday May 8th!
3:30-5:30PM Rain or Shine More info

STOP THE CENTRAL LIBRARY PLAN

The Central Library Plan (CLP), at enormous cost to New York City and its taxpayers, would irreparably damage the 42nd Street Research Library – one of the world’s great reference libraries and a historic landmark. The CLP would demolish the library’s historic seven-story book stacks, install a circulating library in their stead, and displace 1.5 million books to central New Jersey. The new circulating library would replace the Mid-Manhattan Library (at 40th and 5th Avenue) and SIBL (Science, Industry and Business Library, at 34th and Madison), which would both be sold off.

• It will be hugely expensive, costing a minimum of $300 million (probably much more), of which $150 million will come from New York City taxpayers. There is great concern that the Library’s focus on a highly-complex construction project will absorb desperately-needed funds which might otherwise pay for renovations of branch libraries, and replenish slashed curatorial and acquisitions budgets.

• It will radically reduce the space available for the Mid-Manhattan and SIBL.

• It will threaten the 42nd Street Library’s status as one of the world’s great research libraries.

• It will threaten the architectural integrity of the landmarked 42nd Street building.

• It does not take into consideration more efficient and less destructive alternatives, such as combining SIBL and the Mid-Manhattan into a rehabilitated and expanded building on the Mid-Manhattan site.

Underlying the widespread concern is the closed process through which the Library administration has made its decisions. Despite the fact that the 42nd Street building is owned by the city and is one of our most iconic structures, the plan was formulated with minimal public notification and no public input. The $150 million that the city has earmarked for the project was awarded without oversight by the City Council and with no public hearings. If alternatives have been considered they have never been disclosed, and no cost-benefit analysis or detailed budget has ever been presented.

Famed architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable, writing in the Wall Street Journal, attacked the Central LIbrary Plan as

a plan devised out of a profound ignorance of or willful disregard for not only the library’s original concept and design, but also the folly of altering its meaning and mission and compromising its historical and architectural integrity. You don’t ‘update’ a masterpiece.

New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman derided the design for the new circulating library which would replace the book stacks in the 42nd Street building as having “all the elegance and distinction of a suburban mall,” and called it an

awkward, cramped, banal pastiche of tiers facing claustrophobia-inducing windows, built around a space-wasting atrium with a curved staircase more suited to a Las Vegas hotel.

The Committee to Save the NYPL calls for a halt to the CLP until an independent agency can conduct a detailed cost analysis. This analysis should also evaluate the costs of an alternative proposal suggested by both Huxtable and Kimmelman that the 42nd Street building be left intact and attention directed instead to a renovation of the Mid-Manhattan building. As Kimmelman writes, “A new Mid-Manhattan branch should cost a fraction of gutting the stacks and could produce much better architecture.”

For an in-depth analysis of the Central Library Plan, please see The Truth About the Central Library Plan.

We are investigating all avenues of opposition to the Central Library Plan and we need your help! All donations are fully tax-deductable.




It has become increasingly apparent that the CLP is part of a larger effort by New York City’s public library systems to shrink their capacity and sell off valuable real estate, which started with the controversial sale in 2008 of the beloved Donnell Library to real estate developers.  For more information, visit the site of our allies at Citizens Defending Libraries: http://citizensdefendinglibraries.blogspot.com/

Share:
Facebook1K+
Twitter50
Google +1
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Email
Print
More
Proudly powered by WordPress

April 1st, 2013: The Feast of Fools

"The Ship of Fools," 

Sebastian Brant
in the year 2013, the fools rushed to the ship heading to Narragonia; one fool called out the other: "The Ship is leaving, the ship is leaving." Some managed to swim and some took taxis, but all the fools in the world could not fit into the glorious ship which had already taken off to its destination.
Poor fools.
Does anyone recognize a fool anymore?
Doubtful.  

Richard Brignoli: in memoriam, 1-29-1939--2-14-2006

entering into the unknown

the endless order

 the spirit lives but  the finest is transmuted into gold

the sun sets

light is weightless

Richard and the book of life

Green Acres, Tenafly, N.J.: a letter to the editor of the Suburbanite, Tenafly

 To the borough of Tenafly and its residents concerning the construction of a science center, to be located in what has come to be known as Green Acres. 

When the land was set aside, the state of New Jersey and residents of Tenafly pooled resources and established a "park" that was to remain pristine in perpetuity. No construction, parking lots and other additions were to destroy the wildness of nature. That was in the 1970s, when a "green movement" was becoming a force in this country. Today environmentalism is recognized and is regarded as essential to the well-being of the United States of America. As Climate Change occurs with increasingly destructive events, such as the behemoth storm "Sandy," the environment is recognized as in need of protection. A tract of pristine forest, a habitat for fauna indigenous to this region as well as its flora, is seriously being considered for destruction through construction that is masked under the rubric "education." What has been overlooked in this discussion, among many other matters, is the importance of forest land to cleanse air. The mayor of Tenafly and its Council members may argue that there are a considerable number of trees in the borough and in the county of Bergen, but the landscape of trees and lawns and bushes have been sprayed with so many chemicals that it is not safe to inhale the air. "Pretty as a picture" to some, but to health educators the air is polluted. More people than ever before in this region have developed rashes and asthma due most likely to the increasing use of herbicides and chemicals. Green Acres obviously cannot stop this health problem, but it does ameliorate it. Do not flagrantly tear up an agreement that is inviolate. The costs of such an action will be felt immediately. Tenafly does not need this expensive shell which does not have a constituency. It does not have ccurricula for all its residents, old, young and in the middle. It does not have degreed environmentalists or even a rigorous process to hire them, and the costs of constructing and maintaining the structure, anticipated programs-(no curricula have been presented)-and salaries for the persons who are in this new bureaucracy are not announced. 

Enough said. Pictures to follow.  

To the Editor of the Suburbanite, "Tenafly Edition" 

I am opposed to building a new Nature Center for several reasons. First: the new plan erases the intent of the founding document-- Green Acres, as it is referred to-- is intended to be pristine, undisturbed nature. Trees are to be left in place; habitats for fauna and flora are to remain untouched. Only marked trails guide the visitor through the landscape. The original agreement did not allow for the construction of a new structure and expanded  parking lots.  Nature itself was to be the instructor, as is the norm in national and state parks, for instance,  Tallman State Park, 20 minutes north of Tenafly and directly off 9W. Second: For those who have argued that a large Nature Center is imperative at the Green Acres site have not given an outline  or curriculum of the subjects that will be taught or how the forest, as it is currently--nature pure-- , will contribute to instruction. And additionally, no mention has been made of what plants and animals would be impacted by this structure. Whenever roads and structures are built, states and the federal government require impact studies. This issue has not yet been addressed. Bona fide scientists are called in to advise in this matter. To my knowledge none have been hired to write reports. 

To date, in the more 40 years that I have resided in Tenafly, no consistent coherent program was in effect. All members of the community, from the oldest to the youngest, would have to be included in instructional matters. In all the arguments for new construction, there has not been an explication of what will be taught in the hollow shell of a new structure and who would teach curricula, to whom, and for what purposes and goals. Furthermore, it is obvious that no thought has been given to who would hired, and what degrees would be required, and what application and selection process would be used to hire instructors. And salaries? Who would pay for the personnel? Third: costs of maintenance have not been cited; so far unnamed contributors have paid for aerial surveys and other actions, such as clearing trails. Here is where government transparency is required. Who is paying for what now, and who will pick up costs in the future, such as annual salaries, maintenance, and whatever else is needed? For the sake of open good governance, transparency is required. Unnamed donors should be named; if such persons exist, their identity should be declared to the voters of Tenafly to determine if  a conflict  of interest exists, and this information should be given to the public to make informed decisions. Green Acres rightfully does not exclude persons from outside the borough of Tenafly, nor should it. All persons, be they borough, state or out of state visitors are welcome to visit Green Acres. After all, state funds were contributed to the acquisition of the lands when these lands came into being. Therefore, it follows that Green Acres is open to the curious who want to experience and learn about "pure"nature. 

A fable for the moment

 "Trust me said the fox in the hen house. I am only interested in benefitting you. And then the hens went to sleep certain that their interests would be protected. In the morning the fox was gone and so were the hens."

I am opposed to building a new Nature Center for several reasons. First: the new plan erases the intent of the founding document that Green Acres, as it is referred to, is intended to be pristine, undisturbed nature. Trees are to be left in place; habitats for fauna and flora are to remain untouched. Only marked trails guide the visitor through the landscape. The original agreement did not allow for the construction of a new structure and expanded  parking lots.  Nature itself was to be the instructor, as is the norm in national and state parks, for instance,  Tallman State Park, 20 minutes north of Tenafly and directly off 9W. Second: For those who have argued that a large Nature Center is imperative at the Green Acres site have not given a coherent outline of the subjects that will be taught or how the forest, as it is currently--nature pure-- , will contribute to instruction. And additionally, no mention has been made of what plants and animals would be impacted by this structure. Whenever roads and structures are built, states and the federal government required impact studies. This issue has not yet been addressed. Bona fide scientists are called in to advise. 

To date, in the more 40 years that I have resided in Tenafly, no consistent coherent program was in effect. All members of the community, from the oldest to the youngest, would have to be included in instructional matters. In all the arguments for new construction, there has not been an explication of what will be taught in the hollow shell of a new structure and who would teach curricula in there and to whom, and for what purpose and which goals. Furthermore, it is obvious that no thought has been given to who would hired, and what degrees would be required, and what application and selection process would be used to hire instructors. And salaries? Who would pay for the personnel? Third: costs of maintenance have not been cited; so far unnamed contributors have paid for aerial surveys and other actions, such as clearing trails. Here is where government transparency is required. Who is paying for what now, and who will pick up costs in the future, such as annual salaries, maintenance, and whatever else is needed? For the sake of open good governance, transparency is required. Unnamed donors should be named; if such persons exist, their identity should be declared to the voters of Tenafly to determine if  a conflict  of interest exists, and this information should be given to the public to make informed decisions. Green Acres rightfully does not exclude persons from outside the borough of Tenafly, nor should it. All persons, be they borough, state or out of state visitors are welcome to visit Green Acres. After all, state funds were contributed to the acquisition of the lands when these lands came into being. Therefore, it follows that Green Acres is open to the curious who want to experience and learn about "pure"nature. 

A fable for the moment

 "Trust me said the fox in the hen house. I am only interested in benefitting you. And then the hens went to sleep certain that their interests would be protected. In the morning the fox was gone and so were the hens."

a storm that stirred ocean and sky

The Cosmos Roared and Blazed when it burst

 cosmos

into being at the beginning, at the beginning of our time

when 

earth and water

air and fire

separated

Leo Steinberg: abstraction without gravity

ceaseless motion

a lesson learned from a friend and mentor