Saturday, February 26, 2005
More random library-related thoughts
More factoids from today's lecture
A large corporation or organization loses a document every 12 seconds.
3% of documents are incorrectly filed and thereby "lost" at any given time.
7.5% of documents are permanently lost due to misfiling, misplacing, etc.
The avg executive spends 3.5 hrs a week searching for misplaced documents. No mention was made of how much time their secretaries spend searching for the same documents, nor of how many calories are expended in 1) executive yelling at secretary; 2) secretary madly searching for document; 3) secretary finding document on exective's desk, or in executive's recycling bin. :-)
- - - - -
As the small group I was in was discussing one of our assigned readings, we went off on a tangent about the new roles emerging for libraries, some quite unplanned. One of them, especially in cities in colder climes than San Diego, is as de facto daytime shelters for the homeless. This got my sleep deprived brain wondering about why libraries have ended up in this role, and my thoughts went on from there.
Libraries have evolved into daytime homeless shelters, in my mind, b/c
1) They're open during the daytime, when most homeless shelters close, and are free to enter, unlike most museums;
2) They are the only sort of open public building where it is acceptable to come in and simply browse/chill. Other public buildings which are open expect clients/the public to come in, accomplish a task or transaction, and then leave. Thus it's less possible to loiter in them, enjoying the heat and shelter. In contrast, while one can come into the library to simply execute a transaction and leave quickly, the norm and expectation is more that you will in fact loiter--browse the stacks, sit in a comfortable chair and read, sit at a table and take notes. Even churches, which used to be open for prayer and meditation, are increasingly locked up due to vandalism and violence. Libraries, OTOH, are staffed and have theft-prevention devices in place (for the items in the collection, at least, if not the personal items of other patrons). Thus libraries are the only indoor space where loitering is tolerated, and in some senses even encouraged, if one at least gives the impression one is reading something, or thinking hard about something.
3) In the past 40 years libraries have put more energy into being welcoming to folks of all economic classes and races, etc., which means they have to pay at least superficial attention to allowing the poor and grungy into their spaces, so long as they're not disruptive or dangerous.
- - - - -
This line of thought then got me thinking about what other spaces exist which have the same characteristics: free admission, allow/encourage loitering. My mind immediately turned to the way that bookstores have recently? turned into social hubs. The Borders near my office is absolutely buzzing w/ activity on any weeknight. Folks are sitting studying in the cafe' while sipping a latte, or browsing through the stacks. It and Barnes and Noble are apparently known as spots for romantic "scoping" and pickups among those young adults who prefer to browse books rather than sip martinis.
While I remember the libraries at the universities I've attended serving similar functions, I don't think I've ever noticed folks flocking to the public library for the same purposes. How does Borders differ culturally and functionally from a library? Why is Borders a hopping social spot, while the library isn't? You might think, since library resources are free, while to actually carry a book out of Borders costs money, that it would be the other way round....
Some obvious differences...you can eat and drink in Borders; Borders is open later in the evenings; Borders has more music and video resources to browse; the ratio of popular to academic/dry tomes is surely higher at Borders; Borders doesn't have to overcome the stereotype of a librarian saying, "Shush!" (Though libraries don't seem nearly so quiet these days...) Borders is located near shops and restaurants and other attractions, not in a residential neighborhood. Any other thoughts to add to these?
A large corporation or organization loses a document every 12 seconds.
3% of documents are incorrectly filed and thereby "lost" at any given time.
7.5% of documents are permanently lost due to misfiling, misplacing, etc.
The avg executive spends 3.5 hrs a week searching for misplaced documents. No mention was made of how much time their secretaries spend searching for the same documents, nor of how many calories are expended in 1) executive yelling at secretary; 2) secretary madly searching for document; 3) secretary finding document on exective's desk, or in executive's recycling bin. :-)
- - - - -
As the small group I was in was discussing one of our assigned readings, we went off on a tangent about the new roles emerging for libraries, some quite unplanned. One of them, especially in cities in colder climes than San Diego, is as de facto daytime shelters for the homeless. This got my sleep deprived brain wondering about why libraries have ended up in this role, and my thoughts went on from there.
Libraries have evolved into daytime homeless shelters, in my mind, b/c
1) They're open during the daytime, when most homeless shelters close, and are free to enter, unlike most museums;
2) They are the only sort of open public building where it is acceptable to come in and simply browse/chill. Other public buildings which are open expect clients/the public to come in, accomplish a task or transaction, and then leave. Thus it's less possible to loiter in them, enjoying the heat and shelter. In contrast, while one can come into the library to simply execute a transaction and leave quickly, the norm and expectation is more that you will in fact loiter--browse the stacks, sit in a comfortable chair and read, sit at a table and take notes. Even churches, which used to be open for prayer and meditation, are increasingly locked up due to vandalism and violence. Libraries, OTOH, are staffed and have theft-prevention devices in place (for the items in the collection, at least, if not the personal items of other patrons). Thus libraries are the only indoor space where loitering is tolerated, and in some senses even encouraged, if one at least gives the impression one is reading something, or thinking hard about something.
3) In the past 40 years libraries have put more energy into being welcoming to folks of all economic classes and races, etc., which means they have to pay at least superficial attention to allowing the poor and grungy into their spaces, so long as they're not disruptive or dangerous.
- - - - -
This line of thought then got me thinking about what other spaces exist which have the same characteristics: free admission, allow/encourage loitering. My mind immediately turned to the way that bookstores have recently? turned into social hubs. The Borders near my office is absolutely buzzing w/ activity on any weeknight. Folks are sitting studying in the cafe' while sipping a latte, or browsing through the stacks. It and Barnes and Noble are apparently known as spots for romantic "scoping" and pickups among those young adults who prefer to browse books rather than sip martinis.
While I remember the libraries at the universities I've attended serving similar functions, I don't think I've ever noticed folks flocking to the public library for the same purposes. How does Borders differ culturally and functionally from a library? Why is Borders a hopping social spot, while the library isn't? You might think, since library resources are free, while to actually carry a book out of Borders costs money, that it would be the other way round....
Some obvious differences...you can eat and drink in Borders; Borders is open later in the evenings; Borders has more music and video resources to browse; the ratio of popular to academic/dry tomes is surely higher at Borders; Borders doesn't have to overcome the stereotype of a librarian saying, "Shush!" (Though libraries don't seem nearly so quiet these days...) Borders is located near shops and restaurants and other attractions, not in a residential neighborhood. Any other thoughts to add to these?
Comments:
Post a Comment
