On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Svantevit wrote:

> The first time I became familiar with the name of Ann Arbor, it was almost
> 15 years ago when I was a restoration architect and project manager for the
> Polish company PKZ delegated to Riga, capital of Latvia (they called it the
> Soviet Latvia then) on the design and management duty in the large
> restoration project for the Old City. My colleagues ,of Latvian origin, were
> very proud of Gunnar Birkerts FAIA, the Latvian architect who designed the
> Law Library addition for Michigan  University in Ann Arbor. They used to
> show me the publications about the Ann Arbor project from the western press
> with precautions like with the samizdat (underground publication).
> Personally, I found it an ingenious idea as a contemporary project in the
> historical environment. For BP members who are not familiar with the
> project, it was the underground structure with an opening below the ground
> (lawn) level to catch the light completely unobstructive to the existing
> university structures. The philosophical question is, if the only right way
> for contemporary architecture in historical environment is to go
> underground? My very personal opinion in Ann Arbor case is yes, but as
> conservation goes still more than an art and less than a science there is no
> one thing we can call the only truth. First, I would like to know the
> opinion of the library users, how it really works, then if anyone else would
> like to pursue the thread  - contemporary versus historical. For some
> reason, I get attached to Larry Kestenbaum introductions, but it is really
> not my fault that he is from Ann Arbor.
>
> Witold Karwowski

I don't know if this specific law library addition implies any notion that
the only right way to do new buildings in historic environments is
underground, but in this case the undergound addition does seem to work
reasonably well.

I should mention that the law quadrangle complex, an amazing re-creation
of an English Gothic college environment, is probably Ann Arbor's most
beloved and widely recognized historic landmark.  The old library reading
room, with its cork flooring, elaborate oak paneling, 40' ceiling, and
spectacular stained glass windows at each end, is the closest local
equivalent to a European cathedral.

The addition, located in back as well as underground, succeeds in being
nonintrusive from the exterior, while dramatic as seen from within.  The
deep, sloping light well brings sunlight to the three undergound stories.

Unfortunately its impact on the old library interior has been deleterious.
Most obviously, a huge entry stairwell was carved into the old reading
room, destroying two bays and damaging the integrity of perhaps the finest
large interior space in Michigan.  More subtly, the addition has really
*become* the library, and the public spaces of the old library have been
essentially abandoned, the old shelves and bays empty and neglected.

The "stacks" are still in the old building, and until a couple years ago
were a wonderful, quirky warren, little changed in many decades, still the
heart of one of the largest law libraries in the country.  Though
theoretically closed to the public, they were open to law students and
lawyers for browsing and study during the library's long open hours.

But apparently somebody decided that the stacks were unsafe, and they
spent a couple of years tearing them up.  All of the small metal stairways
were torn out, and a huge new concrete-block stairwell was constructed.
An entire floor of the stacks was eliminated.  Shelving space in the
stacks, already crowded, was reduced by about 20%, and last I heard there
was no decision on what to do with the displaced books, which are still in
storage someplace.

With the stacks now made theoretically safe according to the fire code for
new construction, at great cost both in dollars and to the historic
fabric, they were then closed to everyone but staff.  After some protests,
they grudgingly allowed those who demonstrated some special research need
to apply for permits to enter the stacks, ONLY for a limited session, ONLY
during business hours, ONLY to retrieve books (looking at them is not
allowed inside the stacks, I guess).  Staff retrieval of books from the
stacks is similarly limited to business hours, with 24 hour turnaround.

Speaking as a lawyer and historian who can rarely get to this library
during business hours, the effect of these changes is to make the library
collection a whole lot smaller and less interesting.  Modern stuff is
readily available in the bright, cheery underground library some 16 hours
a day including weekends; historic research is possible only by elaborate
special arrangements, and never outside 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday.

I wouldn't have minded as much if they hadn't destroyed so much in the
process.

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
http://www.potifos.com/