This article is from the April 2002 Issue of Update.
Dublin City University's new library building opened in September 2000, but was planned during the mid-to-late 90s, a period of great development in library design. Two main areas of change informed the planning process. First, advances in information and communications technology were altering the ways in which information was recorded, transmitted and used. Second, profound changes were taking place in user behaviour and expectations, following the shift of emphasis from teaching to learning in undergraduate education.
The new library task group, led by the then Director of Library Services, Alan MacDougall, undertook a study tour of library buildings in Europe and the US, and canvassed expert opinion in formulating design principles. A set of core principles was clarified. The library's role as an information provider within the university would expand: the library would continue to accommodate print collections, but would also provide increased access to digitised information. The library would have to provide a greater variety of study spaces to accommodate the changing learning behaviour of students. A large proportion of study spaces would have desktops with full internet connectivity.
Students needed increasing assistance to cope with the rising tide of information, and to use it with discrimination, and this would have to be reflected in the design of services. The building was to be an intellectual and social hub of the university but also an interface with the wider community; it was to be an architecturally significant addition to the campus. However, it would also need to provide an appropriate physical environment for learning and research, so noise would have to be controlled and, while the glazed elements of the building were important in admitting natural light to the greater part of the floor area, temperature and air quality would have to be maintained within comfort levels.
Design features
The library task group wanted the building to have a wealth of practical features, within an open design, giving a strong sense of light and space. In structural terms, flexibility was ensured by loads being borne on columns; raised floors would allow wiring to supply power and data to any point.
Quiet reading space would be provided, but also facilities to accommodate the changing study behaviour of students. An Information Commons, with PCs clustered in configurations which would allow informal groups to work together, was located in a noise-absorbing zone on the ground floor. Group study would be accommodated in 17 collaborative study rooms. A mentoring suite would be provided for peer tutoring. Information skills training by library staff would be given in specially equipped suites. A research area would accommodate academic staff and research postgraduates.
Study space
One of the challenges of a library with an area of more than 10,000 sq m in an open design is how to configure study spaces so that readers have local boundaries which give a sense of intimacy, and which are not disturbed by circulation routes. The issue was resolved by the method of design: the building was designed from the inside out, evolving from a detailed analysis of its internal functions. So the design team moved from analysing the core functional relationships, to placing reader accommodation in six cells on each of the library floors, to locating these cells within circulation routes. This process culminated in the current floor plans, where each of the cells is bounded by a glazed projection (three on each side of the long axes of the building), by bookstacks, and by secondary circulation routes. The main circulation routes on each floor run alongside the stairwell, also on the long axis of the building.
Almost all space on each floor from ground level up is naturally lit, either by the glazed exteriors, or from the curvilinear skylight over the staircase.
Functionality
Functionality was expressed in the features already outlined, and in the relationships of service positions to accommodation. For example, the main reference desk is adjacent to the Information Commons, which was expected to generate a steady stream of queries. It was also evident in the large number of desktops planned — more than 300 out of 1,100 reader places, all giving internet access — and such facilities as photocopying stations on each floor, networked printing to local printers, etc.
The physical collections follow a subject arrangement by floor, which was the expressed preference of our users.
Much thought was given to noise control. The protected study cells are a consequence of this, as are other features, such as the widespread use of sound-absorbing materials. Also, following the design principle that the areas most remote from the main circulation areas should be the quietest, these areas, mostly in the west end of the building, are not equipped with desktops.
The first year
What have we learned in the first year in our new building and how have the specially designed features worked out?
The new library has been very popular indeed. At a time when Sconul was reporting a fall in occupancy rates in UK university libraries, we experienced a year of very heavy demand. We had full occupancy at several times during our first year, particularly during the predictable peaks associated with end of semester examinations. But it was also noteworthy that students preferred to use a desktop in the library rather than in one of the computer labs dotted about the campus. The trend is even stronger at the beginning of our second year. We put this down to the quality and variety of accommodation, and the support services which the library provides. All of the specifically designed spaces have been very successful. Desktops are heavily used, but so are quiet study spaces. Our 17 collaborative study rooms are almost constantly in use, the mentoring suite was booked for peer tutoring on our opening day, and we have given more than 300 hours of information skills training in the training suites during the year.
One particular lesson has been that, while an open design has great benefits in terms of light, spaciousness and flexibility, it requires activities to be carefully zoned, and possibly obtrusive behaviour to be managed. We must provide for group activity, but this cannot be allowed to impinge on those who need quiet spaces for solitary study. We discovered the importance of (people) circulation management and appropriate signage, for example to prevent groups assembling at points where their conversations would create disturbance. In short, we have realised that a dynamic environment like ours needs careful observation and analysis to appreciate the ways in which people behave in it, and active management to ensure it is used appropriately.
We had to act immediately on the more seriously disruptive behaviour. For example, we suffered initially from mobile phone tones and conversations piercing all the noise-controlling features of the building. We were able to work with the Students Union to publicise both the problem and our solution, which was to require all mobiles to be switched off on entering the library; the recording of all first breaches of this regulation on a student's library record; then the imposition of a £5 fine for second and subsequent breaches. We also advertised the fact that receipts from these fines would be given to a specified charity. The system has worked very well. I should also add that in this, as in so many other aspects of our first year, the willingness and flexibility of library staff in adapting to the new environment made a huge difference.
Close contact with students
We found it essential to keep in close contact with student opinion during our first year, in particular by regular sessions with class representatives. This allowed us to diagnose issues at an early stage. For example, we learned that taught postgraduates, who had not been provided with a designated study zone (research postgraduates are being given this facility), required one.
Like many other libraries we found that with a large number of desktops, ICT help has to be distinguished from information assistance. This is not a converged service, so we have an arrangement with our Computer Services department whereby one of their staff is available on the floors for technical queries.
Conclusion
The overall response of both users and staff to the building has been very favourable. We all like the sense of space and light. The areas designed for specific uses have been extremely popular. But our users have also enjoyed the visual graces of the building, accented by artwork on the walls, and the opportunity to break from work by relaxing in soft seating areas adjacent to new book and periodical displays.
The biggest lesson we have learned during the year was the degree of management which an open, multi-functional space requires. It is a difficult lesson in these times of reducing staff complements, but one which needs to be anticipated during the planning process.
But while we are still learning about our building, our students seem happy with the services we are offering in it. A student opinion survey, carried out by our Registry mid-year, found that 89 per cent of students rated library services either excellent (50 per cent) or very good. When we moved into the new building, in great haste, in September 2000, we could not have anticipated that our first year would go so quickly, or so well.
Paul Sheehan is Director of Library Services, Dublin City University (paul.sheehan@dcu.ie).