For the next couple of months we’ll host an open meeting each week about the Library Space Feasibility Study, or LSFS2016 as I like to call it. Attendance is optional, but anyone who is interested is welcome! At the first of these sessions last Friday we covered the goals, overall schedule, recent updates, and rumors and myths, and wrapped up with Q&A. I expect the next couple of sessions will be similar, with some time for a focused conversation on a particular related topic. We’ll post the PowerPoint, probably on CyPoint. In the meantime, here are questions raised during Q&A at Friday’s session, with some answers:
1.More study space means less space for collections, right? Maybe, but not necessarily. It could mean other locations for our collections outside of Parks, or more efficient use of our current study space and collection space.
2.Are Design RR and VetMed library included and what about other spaces on campus? We are having conversations with Dean Nolan and Dean Rico-Guttierez about Design and VM library spaces, and those efforts are related to but separate from this project. As for other places on campus – we continue to seek additional space for shelving/storing library collections.
3.If we have such a space concern why are we inviting other campus units and staff into Parks? All of campus is feeling the space crunch. Sharing space in Parks with ITS and with the Provost office (for the 3 advisors) provides our campus community with two important services in the Library. Partnering and collaborating with others to meet campus needs positions us well for the future.
4.What is our current use of space vs ideal use vs what P+W firm knows of other university libraries? Good question! We’ll ask P+W this question. Currently, FP&M’s space survey allocates Parks’ spaces like this: 38.2% Collections; 29.0% Public Spaces; 16.1% Staff Spaces; 15.4% Utilities, hallways, bathrooms, stairwells, etc., and 1.4% Partners
5.Will P+W do the actual plans as well as the space feasibility study? Possibly, but not necessarily. This is a feasibility project. Developing actual plans would be a new project and a new/separate RFP, etc. We have asked P+W to provide a report or proposal that we can implement in phases, as we have funding. It is possible that P+W could be a firm that we work with again on one or more of the phases but that is unknown at this time.
6.What will be the location of the Student Innovation Center? The Student Innovation Center will be located North-West of the water tower and south of Sweeney, where the Nuclear Engineering lab is located.
7.Is expanding Parks a possibility? What about expanding up? Expanding beyond our current footprint is unlikely. The possibility of expanding up is being investigated.
8.Do we really have a bathroom shortage? Not exactly a shortage, but we do have a bathroom problem. Our restrooms need to be updated to meet current standards and code. According to building occupancy calculations we actually have enough of them, they just aren’t in the most ideal locations and they need to be updated.
Parks Library is a beautiful building and a popular location for ISU students. Our staff provide consistently excellent assistance to students, faculty, and the visitors who walk through our doors and visit our website each day. And this puts us in a good position to consider what’s next – what else we may want to do meet the library information and research needs of our campus. This feasibility study affords us the opportunity to ask questions, study spaces, and gain an external, professional opinion – through the report – on what Parks Library could be.
The LSFS Steering Committee wants this to be as transparent a process and project as possible, which is partially the reason for the information/input sessions. So, I hope you will let me know if you have any questions about anything I said or didn’t say last Friday. E-mail or ask me this week – Thursday, July 21, at 11am, when we’ll do this again.
Looking out my window 