Check this article out, written by Stephen Baylay. Apparently the proposed Czech National Library has been causing a sensation within Prague and its surrounding areas. Opposition to the architecturally innovative structure by Jan Kaplicky has brought attention to the thought of even building a national library. Jan Kaplicky won in a contest to design the National Library of Czech Republic. Some call it an “octopus” while others, including the author love it!
Does the architectural structure of a building really reflect what’s inside it? In the case of the proposed Czech library, would it increase or decrease patronage? What do you think of the proposed library? Good or bad? What does this article imply about libraries and the images they portray to the public?
Resources
Baylay, S. (2008). It's big, it's bold - but are the citizens of the Czech capital ready for this? [Electronic Version]. The Guardian. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/jan/06/architecture
15 comments:
What a very interesting article. It interesting to think that architecture does play a role in how people view things. I think it is great that the Czech’s want a nation library. It is an important facility to have in any nation. It can be symbol for any nation. However, it should be about the people. I think the powers that be need to listen to what the people want. If they don’t like the design, many people may choose not to support the idea of a national library. If the building truly reflects the culture and the history of the country it should be clearly pointed out to its citizens. What a difficult situation to have.
quite a creative-looking library! I agree with Nate that libraries should be about the people and what they want. I personally wouldn't want a purple octopus for a library though. when you think about libraries, that image isn't what comes to mind, and it really gives a new meaning to the word (which could be good or bad).
It certainly is a distinctive design. I can't say that I like it, but I admire Mr. Kaplicky's desire to move away from the staid, old structural designs and offer something unique. I looked at pictures of the NatWest Media Centre at Lord's cricket ground, and Selfridge's in Birmingham, and think that the judges who chose Kaplicky's design could not have been too surprised with his offering. All three structures share a futuristic pod-like design, that offer no clue as to what would be housed inside. I think that Mr. Baylay characterizes those who dislike the design as being set in their ways and too bound to tradition to accept more modern ideas. He also equates libraries with this rather dull, traditionalist portrait that suggests that they are nothing more than "book cupboards." I imagine that there would be some traditionalists who would never accept it as a national library,and refuse to support its services, but there are likely as many people who want to move into a new era of librarianship, and feel, like the author and the architect, that this design is a symbol for new, innovative ideas.
Well, it's original! :) What looks weird initially, though, often becomes an integral part of our architectural heritage and future studies. I could drag out that old don't judge a book saying here, but I won't. I think the building is interesting. It will definitely be a tourist draw for people traveling in the Czech Republic and, hopefully, that will mean some sort of significant influx of cash on the tourism side. Which would, in turn, bring in money to the surrounding community.
that's a good point Casey! how can someone not want their picture taken outside of a building like that? :)
I haven't even read the article yet, and I already want to comment, just based on your comments! Let's remember the Eiffel Tower, built in 1889 for the International Exhibition In Paris.
The design was unanimously chosen out of 700 contestants. Today we think of it as the symbol of romantic mysterious Paris, and not many people would say it's ugly. However, at the time it was built, the public was outraged by its monstrous metallic appearance. In protest, 300 people signed a petition, including Emile Zola and Maupassant.
(http://corrosion-doctors.org/Landmarks/eiffel-history.htm, retrieved Oct. 24, 2008)
I find it interesting that the author makes so many comments about the library as a thing of the past. It almost seems like a "why even build it" perspective. What about the changing library? What about the locus of digital resources? The place for access to all? The place that's devoted to research and service in the information field? In a sense, all of the changing aspects of the institution of the library can be symbolized by the radical design.
As the article cites, "The threat, Havel says, is that 'averageness and banality [will] triumph again'." This is an interesting way to look at it. Ordinary architecture happens every day. Nothing out of the ordinary happens without a certain amount of risk. So the Czech Republic will take the risk. Interesting to see that the debate of the architest and the Mayor helped. Of course.
Already, even the prospect of this building has made 27 or so of us consider the country. (and the thousands that have read the article)
I think it’s rather ironic that the phrase “don’t judge a book by its cover” can be so aptly applied to the library design naysayers. While the building may not be aesthetically pleasing to all, the outside does not change the contents of the library. As far as patronage is concerned, patrons are not going to stop using the library because they think it is ugly, contrarily, people will be curious about what it looks like, inside and out.
I have experienced this effect from “bad” architecture while I was visiting Edinburgh, Scotland this time last year. While I was walking around the city, I wandered upon the Palace of Holyroodhouse, the castle where the Queen of England stays when she is “in town”. Directly across the street (less than 50 feet) from this classical building lies, for lack of better technical description, looks like a bamboo hut on steroids got into a fight with a huge cement block. This I learned moments latter was the relatively new Scottish Parliament, and I was just as curious what could the inside possible look like. In fact, many people thought it was/is an eye-sore, but that gave it notoriety, and many people had come to see what the fuss was about. If the Czech National Library does proceed with the proposed design, it will probably experience something similar. It just proves that, excuse the excessive sayings, “any press is good press”.
Ooooooooo, I am so on the fence on this! I like the design, I think it is very whimsical. And that very thought is where I can see the opposition comes into focus. Seems this would be a great design for a shopping center with coffee shops, bookstores, galleries, and specialty shops- you know the type. Myself, I would prefer a national library that is, I don't know, more regal- geez, that doesn't sound quite right. Serious? This is not heading in the direction I meant, maybe just more beautiful than whimsical? When I found an overhead picture and could see the library and the surrounding architecture it just stuck out like a sore thumb. And aesthetically, seems like they could come up with a creative, modern design that reflected their excitement for the project that also reflected the enormity and value of the project, both in the building and meaning. Libraries are for the people and should be a proud reminder of the people and their culture and preservation.
I don't think the structure really has much relationship to what's inside, and I don't think that such a progressive (!?) design would have much effect on patronage. Given the history of Prague and its citizenry, the question about the proposed design goes way beyond the intended use of the structure, and gets involved with the psychology of Prague's population and how they want see themselves (traditional or radical) in the post-Communist era. I really think it's more of a political/philosophical discussion rather than an architectural one.
I do not think the choice of design is a good idea because while it may attract some patrons it would possibly be because of the controversy. Once the negative comments decline there will probably be a similar happening with patrons. They should consider other modern or futuristic designs that may appeal to more people.
Having been to Prague, I can say that I think this library will fit right in with the other whimsically designed buildings. The city is very beautiful for many reasons but one thing that I liked the most was how there were many different kinds of architecture and yet they all seemed to belong there. I think that the Czech people will be receptive to it as they are one of the best read countries in Europe.
Like Kinga, I read the responses to the post before I read the article. I thought, a building cannot be that bad. I was shocked when I saw it. Although it does not look like an octopus to me, it certainly was not what I was expecting it to look like. So after my initial reaction, I read the article. Very interesting, and after reading it, I looked at the design again and felt an appreciation for it.
What stands out to me regarding this article was that the design was to represent a post-Soviet regime. The building, thus, to me is to represent so much more than a house for books--but it is also to represent the national freedom the Czech people now enjoy. And I am sure that the building will continue to have opponents, but I hope the building goes up and that people look at it as something they do not want to live without.
Also in reading the article, I was reminded that there must be so many building designs that people just do not like. The "Hotel of Doom" in North Korea had come to mind--a building designed to be the largest hotel in the world (in a country that does not really permit tourism as a commercial business) and what is called the ugliest building ever made. Although the building was not completed following the fall of the Soviet Union (when the country's support was severely diminished), it still remains standing. And although it looks like there is a possibility the hotel will be completed, I believe the building will be with the North Koreans for some time. The difference with the Czech National Library is that the new building will be representative of so much more than an eyesore left without a purpose for almost two decades.
Herskovitz, Jon, North Korea's Hotel of Doom Wakes From its Coma (2008), http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKSEO9654020080717?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
A national library in an architecturally creative space. It definately supports what people think libraries should stand for - an outlet and expression of freedom and creativity.
Will the people support it? Yes, because a national library shouldn't be just about the building but the materials it houses. I think after the controversial aspect dies down, it will be popular partly because of its odd structure. It will make people want to visit it because it is different and an alternative to the idea of what a library should look like.
While the building's design is definitely interesting it has no bearing on the types of resources will be provided inside. It seems as the author states that about 12,000 people signed a petition supporting the design, so I don't believe this would have an negative effect on the patronage to the library. Kinga brings up a great point about people's initial impressions of the Eiffel Tower and how now it is one of Paris' most famous landmarks.
Post a Comment