STETSON / SAWYER

The Library Piece of the Stetson/Sawyer Puzzle

The Stetson/Sawyer Planning Committee began its work in May 2000
after receiving its charge from President Vogt to examine spatial needs
and delineate options for Stetson Hall and Sawyer Library. The
Committee had in hand a preliminary report of the space and facilities
needs of library operations in Sawyer Library and Stetson Hall that had
been prepared for the first Sawyer Planning Committee in spring 1999.
Sawyer Library, the College Archives and Special Collections, and the
Chapin Library were included in that earlier report. Those two special
collections occupy one-third of Stetson Hall as a whole, or some
two-thirds of the 1923 building.

The Stetson/Sawyer Committee was in unanimous agreement that a
library consultant should be hired to assist us in creating a program
document that would verify and articulate library space and facilities
needs. We were fortunate that Jay Lucker, an internationally known
library consultant and former University Librarian at MIT, agreed to work
with us.

Mr. Lucker set an ambitious timetable for producing the program
document. He spent four days on campus this fall and met with the
staff of each library department to develop an understanding of what
works in the libraries, what does not work, and what significant
changes should be considered. We were encouraged to think beyond
the obvious and were challenged to be creative in thinking about the
location and spatial relationships of various departments and services.
Mr. Lucker also met with the relevant governance committees and used
them as sounding boards to review major issues and the draft program
document. In addition, Sylvia Kennick Brown and David Pilachowski,
members of the Stetson/Sawyer Committee, met with groups of
students and with individual faculty to hear from them how our present
facilities meet their library needs. Feedback from these sessions both
find their way into the consultant's report and appear as appendices to
that document.

Consultant's Report . | . Feedback and Comments Appendices

The library portion of this project raises several major issues which are
to varying degrees addressed in the program document:

1. Are library collections likely to continue to grow in the future? Yes.
While electronic reference works and journals are now viable,
hardcopy book collections will continue to grow. In addition,
archiving of electronic information is still very problematic, and
current wisdom is to retain paper copies.

2. How soon will Sawyer Library be out of space to house growing
library collections? Our best estimate is six years, or 2006. In
addition, the narrow stack aisles will have to be increased for
convenience, usability, and code compliance. These changes will
require approximately 10,000 sq. ft. New collections over the next
twenty-five years will require an additional 24,000 sq. ft.

3. Does Sawyer Library have other space needs besides housing for
collections? Yes. Sawyer stacks and seating are overcrowded. Much
of the seating is immediately adjacent to main aisles, making it
less than ideal study space. Tables have been removed in order to
accommodate more stacks. In addition, group rooms and a better
integration and mix of seating are needed. Improved study space
will require 9,800 additional sq. ft.

4. Do all library collection space needs have to be addressed by
space on the central campus or do other options exist? Some
library materials, such as old journal runs and early government
documents, could be housed off campus in a well-designed storage
facility. Some archival materials and materials associated with a
proposed records management program could also appropriately be
stored off-site. Cooperative storage of older journals, in
collaboration with other libraries, would reduce the need for a
college-owned off-site facility. The cost of building or retrofitting,
maintaining, and servicing secure, environmentally appropriate
off-site storage would have to be factored in.

5. Besides space issues, are there elements of Sawyer Library, such
as the entrance and the location of basic services, that need to be
fundamentally altered? The entrance to Sawyer compromises the
building's internal arrangement and the layout of service points,
besides being non-compliant with the ADA. People should enter
the building with major service points immediately visible and
logically organized. Several departments need to be relocated to
improve service for our users and to improve internal working
efficiencies.

6. How do people find Sawyer Library to use for study, research,
reading, and contemplation? The layout is confusing and
inconvenient. The current journals area is too small, and the new
books area, while popular, is too crowded. Students remark that
seating is uncomfortable, crowded, and near noisy aisles. There
are few places to study in groups without bothering other people.
Faculty also find the building uninviting; many retrieve materials
and use them elsewhere.

7. How should the increased importance and interest in media and
technology be reflected in planning for Sawyer Library and Stetson
Hall? We need to plan for collaborative and individual high-end
facilities that students, faculty, and librarians can share. Some of
these spaces should be available in Sawyer, others in Stetson
located near library operations and in new faculty office spaces.

8. Should library operations remain in Stetson Hall? If so, which
ones? There are compelling reasons for the Chapin Library and the
College Archives to remain in Stetson Hall but with increased and
better-designed facilities. The original Stetson Hall is a beautiful,
architecturally significant building designed to be a library and,
with some modifications, can continue to serve well as a home for
the Chapin Library and the College Archives. In addition, the deed
of gift for Chapin Library strongly suggests that it remain in
Stetson Hall.

9. Should library use of Stetson Hall be limited to the original 1923
building that was designed to be a library? Should the libraries
utilize other sections of Stetson? The original building is most
suitable for continued library use. One exception is the original
stack tower which is not suitable for storing the kinds of library
materials now located there, lacks climate control, and can not be
retrofitted to accommodate growing collections. The later additions
to Stetson do not provide good space for library use.

10. Are there ways that Chapin Library and the Archives can share
facilities and expertise even more than at present? The two units
have agreed that they could share additional quarters and
responsibilities. This would be best accomplished if the 1923 stack
tower were replaced with new compact storage adjacent to a
reading and public services area, offices, seminar rooms, and
related facilities, which in addition would provide required
handicapped access to the contiguous existing Chapin Library
rooms. Both units are already overcrowded in terms of collection,
staff, and reader space.

11. Does the proximity of Stetson and Sawyer present opportunities to
link the buildings in ways that would be beneficial for their
occupants and operations and for the campus? This is certainly
worth investigating. The security needs of the library collections
complicate building flow but may be solvable. CBT will be
examining the options.

The library program document was completed in early December.
Outstanding issues not resolved in the report will have to be answered
prior to and during the planning work to be undertaken by the
architectural firm Childs, Bertman, and Tseckares. CBT's role is to take
the library program document, and the updated version of the program
for faculty offices on which they worked in 1997/98, and develop mass
and siting options for the placement of buildings. CBT is not designing
buildings but will provide options for how large buildings should be,
where they should be located, and approximately how much they will
cost. CBT plans to finish this planning work by June 2001. Any
subsequent development of design work and detailed layouts will of
course depend upon decisions made by the Senior Staff and the Board
of Trustees.

Dave Pilachowski
December 21, 2000