Preservation Question Obscures the Numbers
A lot of attention is being given to the question as to whether or not the old Martin Luther King library building should be recognized as a “historic building.” Almost no attention is being given to the fact that the building currently houses staff members from several city departments.
The city and its redevelopment agency have announced plans for a $250 million renovation and expansion of the convention center. The old library building stands in the way of those plans. So too do the many city employees who still have their offices in the structure. Where will the city move these people, and at what costs?
This new problem of finding space for all of these city workers is one that the city should never have had to face. The truth is that when the citizens of San Jose approved the ballot measure that provided for the building of the new City Hall, they were promised a “consolidation” of civic offices. Instead, they received a rotunda.
Will the City of San Jose have to lease office space to house the many employees that currently work out of the old library building? What effects will such a future move have on the city’s difficult budget situation? Aren’t these questions worthy of the media’s attention?
Due to a technical glitch, the first three comments here were accidently deleted. We apologize and ask that, if possible, they be resubmitted. I believe they were from RIP Pavilion, Hugh Jardonn and Nam Turk.
Sorry about that.
The old library is not worthy of preservation on architectural merits. However, it is useful as an overflow office since the Taj Gonzales is not big enough to hold the entire city workforce. One could argue, however, that perhaps the City workforce is too big and should be shrunk to fit into the Taj.
Back to the library, it still has some useful life so why tear it down? Aren’t there some parking lots to the south that could be used for convention center expansion? And where will the displaced workers go? What about the old city hall, why isn’t that being fixed up to handle the overflow?
The “old” library has been an eyesore since day one. It has zero architectural significance and smacks of the plywood formed concrete exteriors that plagued the 70’s.
I can’t believe a single preservationist thinks this building is worth saving. Blow it up—YESTERDAY!
5 – Whether or not you “like” a building does not determine its historical significance. Many mid-century buildings do not necessarily pass the “beauty” test for some people, but that does not mean they aren’t significant for their architecture and/or other historic aspects of who worked or lived there, and what type of work was done there.
Great buildings of the past would not have survived if popular opinion was used as the measure of their significance.
The “old” library scores considerably above the city’s threshold for landmark status. The historic review was done by an independent historic consultant based on established criteria.
The city continues to start with demolition rather than looking at other alternatives for reuse of buildings. Demolition is also the least “green” alternative that can be chosen. The “greenest” decision would be to reuse an existing building.
You might not like the looks of the building but that alone is no reason to reduce it to a pile of debris.
#6- Brian,
I agree with everything you’ve said. As they say,” Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I’m not too thrilled with the new architecture I’ve been seeing everywhere. When possible, I want the beauty and the memories of the past preserved.
Pete,
You can have your whole 2 minutes at a soon to be scheduled council meeting. Other than that; how dare you to think the council and their staff should care about your views!!!
Staffer
Tear the old MLK Library down! It serves no purpose other than possibly being a roadblock to progress (CC expansion) and being a downtown eyesore. As for those city employee’s who now call it home, there numbers probably aren’t that great (“many employees”? Mr. Campbell once again trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill). Why not move those employees over to the former Nvidia/BEA/Sobrato tower.
In case you missed this in today’s Merc, another comment about based on fact not emotion:
Historic church has much potential
As a founding member of the Preservation Action Council of San Jose (PACSJ), I was astonished to read a recent letter to the Mercury News proposing that the historic Willis Polk-designed First Church of Christ, Scientist, building be torn down. One of PACSJ’s first actions was to commission a 1990 study by architect Jerome King. The study determined that this structure could be restored and had many potential, excellent uses for downtown.
This church, a contributing historic structure to the nationally designated historic St. James Park Historic District, designed by one of the Bay Area’s finest architects from the turn of the 20th century, lends character and distinction and a sense of place to our city. With its neighboring historic structures, the county courthouse, the U.S. Postal Service office, Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Unitarian Church and the San Jose Athletic Club, it helps assure that St. James Park will become our finest historic destination.
Karita Hummer
San Jose
I completely agree that the First Church of Christ, Scientist at St James park should be kept and re-used. About 2 years ago, I remember seeing a rendering of this building with a new condo building wrapped around it, replacing the current ugly parking lot. What happened to this proposal.
Brian writes: “Many mid-century buildings do not necessarily pass the “beauty” test for some people, but that does not mean they aren’t significant for their architecture and/or other historic aspects of who worked or lived there, and what type of work was done there.”
I don’t think that a city is the same as one of those pretentious artsy-fartsy modern art museums. Ugly concrete buildings should not be saved because some architecure snob thinks it’s a rare example of a long-discredited movement normal people couldn’t care less about. No the main reason to keep the old library is that it’s still useful, and that the city’s growing workforce needs a cube farm to call their own.
Anyone catch Gary Singh’s column in Metro today? he pretty much nails “Brutalism” to the wall.
Hugh,
“Ugly concrete buildings should not be saved because some architecture snob thinks it’s a rare example of a long-discredited movement normal people couldn’t care less about.”
Could you please explain what you mean by this statement? Are you referring to the Civil Rights Movement that Martin Luther King Jr. died for?
11 – I believe he was referring to the Brutalist architectural movement. Either way, it’s not an example of Hugh’s best work.
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. This old library building smacks of the desperation and design ignorance of the council that commissioned it, just like the Holiday Inn across the street from it, and the long gone (thankfully) train wreck of a fountain at the old San Antonio Mall.
There are some good examples of 70’s architecture out there, but the old library is not one of them. How anyone can say it has a particle of architectural significance is beyond me. It’s a shining example of the misguided decisions the Council was making in a pathetic attempt to put SJ on the map in the early 70’s. It didn’t work then and it still doesn’t.
In the spirit of the city’s MLK libraries, we need to keep the old MLK and stock it full of computers with internet access to better support our community of child molestors and sex offenders.
And adorn the old MLK with a rainbow flag while we’re at it and a Chairman Mao sized portrait of Jane Light.
MLK would be proud.
Justa Thought’s correct, that was not the best sentence I ever wrote. But what illegal substance is Kathleen smokin’ when she tries to drag MLK into it? His name, after all, transferred to the new library at 4th and San Fernando and is not part of this discussion.