Touring the  Cool House

Seattle’s central library is a sign of where Vancouver should be going

Vancouver’s library symbolizes a sense of tradition with its pseudo neo-classical design while Seattle’s library plunks a futuristic but functional building to transform the heart of a dull business core.


 
by matt goody
 
On a recent Friday afternoon, a colleague and I took a tour of the Seattle Central Library, a jaw-dropping building designed by superstar architect Rem Koolhass that opened to the public in May 2004. While the initial reason for the tour was to learn about the operations and organizations of the library, I also wanted to consider how the building has affected the downtown core of Seattle. In addition, I wanted to consider why Vancouver’s sister city to the south has been so much more willing to invite daring and innovative architects to transform their urban space, while our city has generally done the complete opposite.
Located in the heart of downtown Seattle, on 4th and Spring St, Koolhaas’s library is shrouded in glass, suggesting complete openness and transparency as soon as your eyes set upon it. The same can be said once you enter the building. Unlike most community or academic libraries, this building is showered with natural light and is permeated with inviting bright colours that evoke a sense of excitement in a house of knowledge. To say that the building is state-of-the-art is an understatement: it has spaces for plugging in electric cars, an automated book-sorter, automatic check-outs, wi-fi Internet, advanced services for the hearing- and visually-impaired, and over 400 computers with special screens for privacy. Designed with the environment in mind, there is a system in place to collect rainwater to circulate through the building, and a majority of the construction material is environmentally friendly.
The design and concept implemented in Seattle is of particular import to Vancouverites as we undertake a major urban transformation leading up to the 2010 Olympics. Unlike Seattle, Vancouver is extremely reluctant to embrace any futuristic impulses. One need only compare the cities’ libraries to see the differences in thought when it comes to civic buildings. Vancouver’s library evokes tradition with its pseudo neo-classical design, while Seattle’s library is a futuristic but functional building that transforms the heart of a dull business core. This transformation caused Herbert Muschamp of The New York Times to declare, “If an American city can erect a civic project as bracing as this one, the sun hasn’t set in the West.”  Moreover, the library project is not the only building to ignite the downtown Seattle makeover: Frank Gehry’s Experience Music Project and the intimate open-air Seahawk Stadium suggest a broader and concerted effort to transform the city.
Seattle’s policy for its civic buildings must be examined as Vancouver enters a period where opportunities abound for large-scale urban development on huge patches of public land. If we truly want to be considered an Olympic city, we need to embrace radical urban re-creation. As Frank Gehry suggested in a recent interview with the Toronto Star, “there are certain communities who have a sense of who they are and who they want to be.” Aside from the continued failure to address the unbelievable traffic congestion, Seattle is clearly a city that knows what it wants to be and is taking dramatic steps to make these aspirations a reality. The same cannot be said for our fair city. It is hard not to project four years ahead and shudder at the thought of TV cameras from around the world filming the opening ceremonies for the 2010 Olympics and showcasing our city by focusing on our one standout building: the bulbous, concrete white whale called BC Place.