The Future of the Hamline Midway Library
The future of the Hamline Midway library has rightfully been a hot topic for discussion these last few weeks, as we all learned with just weeks to go that the St. Paul Public Library (SPPL) would be deciding between two options that will determine the future of our beloved library for decades to come: Renovate the existing building for $3.6 million or tear down the beautiful historic building and re-build on the site for approximately $8 million. Neither proposal for the City’s Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) is guaranteed to receive funding, but I’d like to weigh in on the situation, and I speak here only for myself.
There seems to be little question that our library is in need of serious repair and improvement. While there surely have been discussions and reports related to this fact for a decade or more, prior to a few weeks ago just a single public meeting was held in January 2020 about the future of the library, a poorly publicized meeting — I could find no mention of it in The Monitor, for example, but maybe I missed it — that few people I know either were aware of or attended. In the write-up for the event last year on the Hamline Midway Coalition website, the event notes that SPPL “is developing a new facilities master plan that will guide the renovation and use of our buildings to meet the evolving needs of the community and advance our mission of welcoming all people to connect, learn, discover and grow” with no mention that they are considering a tear-down and re-build of the library. (I presume the response to this is that they didn’t know at the time that SPPL’s consulting firm might propose a tear-down option after this meeting, but the point stands that any person not diving deep into SPPL’s website would have no idea this tear-down proposal was coming even after it was officially put on the table.) There was an accompanying online survey at the time that I believe was also poorly publicized. But even if I and others missed out on those notifications, it doesn’t change the fact that not a single bit of engagement was done by SPPL from January 2020 until just a few weeks ago to ensure a robust, meaningful discussion about such an enormous decision affecting our neighborhood library for decades to come.
The one online meeting earlier in March devoted solely to the future of our library was well-attended, but was emblematic of the pattern I’ve seen for years regarding City engagement on important, complex decisions that deserve serious public engagement: Ask for community feedback and create the appearance of this input influencing decision makers, with little to no information to explain how such feedback will be incorporated into a formal decision-making process. In this case, as with others I’ve been a part of — such as the Community Advisory Committee for the Midway Superblock that still sits vacant and fenced-off 5+ years later — it certainly feels like it is all for show. There is no way in which neighbors can feel good about a community engagement process that involves a single meeting just weeks before a CIB proposal is made. To imply otherwise I find incredibly regrettable and, frankly, appalling. I’ve heard people express that the pandemic has caused City leaders to scramble to keep up with engagement and other important functions over the past year; that may be true, but if there was one big decision that SPPL should have long been aware of in the past 12 months, it is this CIB proposal, and yet zero outreach was done to us as neighbors during that time prior to early March. Additionally, at the time of this writing the Library Director, Catherine Penkert, has not responded to my request from a week ago for meeting minutes from that sole 2020 meeting; data from the online survey in 2020; or answers as to how this CIB proposal decision is being made and who is making it — all key information to help us understand how we got here and where we’re going.
Given this background, I find it troubling that we are being asked to choose between two proposals with little clarity about what they entail. While I have serious reservations about tearing down a historically important and beautiful building in any scenario, I am firmly against the idea of doing so when this has been sprung upon us with little exploration of the possibility of preserving the building and building a new library at a different site. I agree with those who are insisting on improved accessibility for those with disabilities who have difficulty entering the current library and getting to the auditorium and second floors; improved environmental efficiency and modern technology; better meeting and study spaces; and more space in general. But the current proposed tear-down and re-build calls for only 20% more space, and it provides no details on layout, architecture or aesthetics that could begin to allay fears that we’d be left with an unsightly building that’s not much bigger or more dynamic than what we have now.
The Hamline Midway Library Association has come out publicly in favor of this proposed tear-down and re-build to address some of the issues I laid out above. What is lost in their thoughtful letter is that no meaningful public discussion or research has been had in recent years to explore a third (or fourth or fifth) way. Had such exploration taken place, and it was determined the current re-build proposal was the only way, I and I believe many others would feel better about this path forward. But it has not happened, and we should demand more. There has been no serious attempt to look at whether the City can sell the current building to be repurposed for other means, so that a new library could be built elsewhere; Director Penkert has said just that there is “little history of market-driven alternative uses for libraries…in St. Paul.” That is not very convincing to me. There has been no serious attempt to look at whether we could secure additional funds to re-build on the current site by building up to increase density — density being an important core component of city visioning at every turn — with apartments above, or co-locating social services alongside other organizations/agencies on additional floors, or truly expanded access to safe gathering spaces for people who need them. And there has been no serious attempt to explore the option of co-locating the library with Hancock Recreation Center and Hamline Elementary, an idea that was dismissed in the HMLA letter by evoking fear-mongering tactics and one research article that in fact details the ways in which such a proposal could be successful. Personally I support this last option, because I think it holds the most potential to attract a broad cross-section of the neighborhood and serve the community in dynamic ways that bring many needed services together in one space; imagine a much bigger library alongside a space that offers sports leagues, after-school care, ECFE, community education, arts and crafts, a food pantry, an elementary school, and more. Yes, there are logistical and financial obstacles to be overcome with the co-location idea, but they are most certainly obstacles that we smart, passionate, determined neighbors can tackle just fine. But regardless of what I want, our neighborhood deserves meaningful, transparent consideration of all of the above, which it has not received.
We are being presented with an unfair choice, with the not-so-subtle message being that we better get something now or we may get nothing later. Just because there has been long-term disinvestment of the library to allow it to get to this point does not mean we should be grateful for the wrong kind of investment now. I sincerely hope that moving forward, whatever decision is made by SPPL and the CIB Board, that we as neighbors can partner with SPPL to dream up something much more substantial and thoughtful than what’s on offer right now.
