Living with our library

In a post last week, I detailed how the Wicomico Public Library put its plans for a new main branch on hold. While there’s a segment of the population who would dearly like to see a new library – to many of them, preferably located in downtown Salisbury – the reality finally struck that economic conditions aren’t conducive to Wicomico County putting themselves another $30 million or so in debt.

Via communication with WPL Director Tom Hehman, I received a copy of the evaluation done on the main library building downtown a couple years back. Bethesda-based Grimm+Parker Architects (couldn’t a local firm be found?) did the study and looked at three options: renovating and adding to the existing library, replacing the library with a new building on the same site, and building a new facility on a remote site.

The first bone of contention is that: 

Library space needs should be based upon a nationally recognized standard of providing between a minimum of .8 sf to 1 sf of library space per capita.

It doesn’t say whose standard that is – it could be the standard made up by someone who wants every library to be the Cadillac of libraries. Even so, the number arrived at by Grimm+Parker came out to 72,361 square feet if the existing building is renovated, where the existing library building is 55,175 square feet. So a simple renovation wouldn’t be enough.

One piece of the puzzle I wasn’t aware of (not being native to Salisbury) is that the main WPL building itself is comprised of two pieces – the original armory building which dates from 1917 (renovated to become the library in 1969) and an addition built in 1979. Newcomers like me wouldn’t realize that the old armory was included because the 1979 addition encompassed almost all of the original armory, which comprises just under half the space.

The major deficiencies found by the Grimm+Parker study were:

  • a structural system insufficient to meet modern code demands for library stack space
  • outmoded HVAC systems (for the most part installed with the 1979 renovation)
  • lack of compliance to ADA and accessibility codes

Obviously the architects of the 1979 renovation would have built the library per the codes in place at the time, a time which preceded the advent of combined, international building codes stressing energy efficiency and handicapped accessibility. This is the deceiving part of the study – while the building certainly shows its age (just by looking at it I could tell it was a building from the 1970’s without knowing its history) there’s little chance of a catastrophic structural disaster occurring in the next 5 to 10 years since building codes have always factored a margin of safety in with the calculations done to write them. If the structure currently shows no outward signs of failure the building should remain serviceable (if not the utmost in efficient) for the next decade.

In fact, the impetus which almost compels the county to eventually build a new library isn’t the condition of the old building but the fact that the county is boxed in by those very building codes which keep pushing the envelope farther in terms of energy efficiency, accessibility, and structural requirements. The Grimm+Parker study comes to this conclusion:

Any renovation that attempts to resolve serious building code or programmatic deficiencies will require full compliance with the 2006 IBC. The existing structures were designed to the building codes in place at that time and as such they were fine at that time. However, building codes have evolved significantly. IBC 2006 requires that the library structure be brought up to contemporary structural codes which require the building structure to withstand lateral and seismic forces that it was not originally designed to withstand.

Remedial structural reinforcement will be extensive throughout the structure and disruptive within the spaces because it will be adding on to an existing structure that will need to be reinforced to carry the new loads.

(Note: since the study was done in 2008 the 2009 IBC was released; the library will have to comply with whatever edition has been adopted by the state of Maryland when the building permit is applied for.)

In the meantime, the library will have to make do with what it has, with the extent of renovations which are possible being dictated by the building codes in place. They establish a line the library cannot step beyond without creating the requirement for full compliance.

Since we will eventually be forced into building a new library facility, it leads to two questions.

One, what will a new library really cost?

One recent example of new library construction I found was in the city of Novi, Michigan which is just wrapping up construction on a $10.1 million, 55,000 square foot facility on land they already owned. Perhaps I’m comparing apples and oranges to an extent, but $185 or so per square foot for a 73,000 square foot building is a LOT less than $30 million. (Extrapolated out, that comes up to a shade over $13.5 million.)

Wicomico County doesn’t need a Taj Mahal for a library, just a serviceable, attractive, and energy efficient building to house the library and associated administrative functions. We’re pretty unassuming folks here who like to be wise with our tax dollars.

Unfortunately, unless a suitably large single-story retail space becomes available for the library’s temporary relocation (something perhaps along the lines of the former Giant/Super Fresh adjacent to the North Pointe Walmart) it’s likely the library will be forced to move from its current location.

The second question then: what happens to the old building?

Some have speculated the City of Salisbury has its eye on it for office space, allowing them to vacate the Government Office Building it shares with Wicomico County. Obviously this usage would not be as taxing structurally as the old functions were, but the building would still need to be brought up to code in a number of other areas and may not be the inexpensive alternative the city may think it has by making such a move. (I like the idea of streamlining government operations to fit the building they have myself.) In essence, they trade one set of problems for another since the buildings are of similar age and presumably upkeep.

If the library building was torn down, though, what could be placed at the site? Obviously it’s a pretty lucrative piece of property with a partial river view. Those who prefer open space would likely envision it as a small park but the smarter play could be residential (assuming there’s a market for it) or an entertainment venue along the lines of Brew River if a suitable amount of parking can be found. In either case, it could help transform that part of downtown away from a 9 to 5 usage to more of a 24-hour development and has the added benefit of returning a piece of property to taxable status.

All these plans will probably have to wait until the latter part of this decade for fruition, though. For better or worse, the Wicomico Public Library will have to coast in neutral until economic conditions dictate construction of their new facility. While they can complain about that which they have, the truth is that most basic functions a library serves can be carried out in their existing facility and it’s only external forces which compel new construction.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

2 thoughts on “Living with our library”

Comments are closed.