Q: Pardon me sir, but how do you get into the Carnegie Library?
A: Money, money, money.
Oh, that and the much touted “public access” to the building as well. The horserace basically came down to two plans, the first was allowing the Alameda Museum to move into the building and the second was a Community Arts/Planning and Building Center. Which will prevail? On Tuesday night, the City Council will make that determination.
According to the staff report when it all pencils out both will cost about the same to renovate, albeit the money going into different places for different uses. The most noteable difference is the need for an air conditioning and forced air heating system as well as the windows needing to be covered in order to protect the collection, if it is to be used as a Museum. But even after funding the renovations it will cost $150K - $200K for ongoing maintenance and operating costs. The funding seems a bit vague for both projects, although the Community Arts/Planning and Building Center (CAPBC) proposal seems a lot more firm than the:
…Alameda Museum has indicated that they are currently negotiating with an anonymous private donor to secure funding.
At the very least if it turns into CAPBC there should be an ongoing funding stream to continue operations, whereas the Alameda Museum, as we know, has struggled — like all other community organizations — to fundraise for funding to even cover the rent on their current digs. With limited hours of operation, it would definitely not service the purpose of making it open and available for the widest variety of people. Too bad there wasn’t more vision for this process, it seems like everyone was rather stuck on it being either the CAPBC or the Museum. The City Staff, of course, being more inclined toward the CAPBC and preservationists toward the Museum or some other arts related use. A nonprofit incubator could have brought in funding from rents or a small business incubator. Perhaps just allowing different established nonprofits to co-locate in the building.
Ah well, either one the gets chosen will make someone somewhere displeased, so at this point, the best solution is something that will be solvent in the long term.
I could be wrong about this, but to my understanding the old Carnegie building isn’t up to current earthquake retrofitting requirements, which if true would put the renovation costs at a far higher price than 150-200k.
That said, it is a beautiful building. I would be curious to see what will happen once the theater opens. This will probably bring more commerce and shoppers to the area, which might spur retail interest in the building. It is a shame to see it sitting empty.
Comment by edvard — November 19, 2007 @ 8:37 am
“the best solution is something that will be solvent in the long term.”
Yes, just like the movie theater will be solvent in the long run…. but wishful thinking goes a long way.
Comment by Jack B. — November 19, 2007 @ 8:54 am
“Solvent
1 : a usually liquid substance capable of dissolving or dispersing one or more other substances”
Everything disappears in the long term.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 19, 2007 @ 8:59 am
#3 - yes, it disappears…. except for the building that is only designed to be useful in one manner.
Comment by Jack B. — November 19, 2007 @ 9:23 am
The idea for a non profit incubator is inspired. Is it too late to put that on the table?
The funding for a CAPBC is only vague because city staff needs it to be vague in order to get approval. If the city puts a department in the library, it must be a revenue center. That means that whatever it costs, funding will come from the citizens via permit/plan reviews fees and whatever else the Planning and Building folks can come up with to balance their budget. “Better service” means streamlined fee collection in city administration speak. My crystal ball tells me we’ll all get to watch this department justify even more staff and even more fees. Good way to make up for the budget problems elsewhere. Oh, and the “community arts” label is lipstick on a pig.
http://www.alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1434&Itemid=10
Comment by Mike P. — November 19, 2007 @ 9:53 am
If they have to cover the great windows to protect the Art…I would prefer the other option over the Community Arts Center. I am all for a Community Arts space but maybe that isn’t the best space.
Comment by Joel — November 19, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
I sure hope they are required to replace those god-awful aluminum windows. Something that appears to fit the period and style of the Carnegie bldg would be appropriate. And if the windows are to be “modernized” it would be fitting to put Low-e coated insulated units in which would be energy efficient and provide UV protection.
Comment by David Kirwin — November 19, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
#1
You are wrong, Edvard. Seismic work started when the library moved out in 1998 and was completed in 2001. However, HVAC and electrical work have not been done absent a use for the building.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 20, 2007 @ 3:05 am
Re #5 and “lipstick on a pig”; I also worry that might end up being the case, i.e., the permanent art space will just be a wall with enough room to rotate in 10 paintings at a time. If it becomes a planning center, I hope that the permanent space is large enough to accommodate something like Alameda Museum’s Neptune Beach exhibit or the Origami exhibit that is currently showing at Rhythmix.
Comment by Susan — November 20, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Rather than speculating on what the space for either use would look like you can check it out on the City website at http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/ It appears the City has put forth two very strong proposals to reopen the old Carnegie Library. I encourage everyone to read the report so you can comment intelligently on the merits.
Comment by Darwin — November 20, 2007 @ 8:59 am
The more I think about it, the more I feel that using the space as a museum wouldn’t have very long legs. A convention/events center might be better. It’s central location would make it ideal for weekend events since park street is already used fairly heavily.
Kevis, thanks for the correction. I’d be curious to know how much of the seismic retrofit was completed. Also- I once worked in a contractor supply center and requirements for retrofitting changes every year.Being almost 10 years ago, there might be further required updates to the existing retrofits.
Comment by edvard — November 20, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Re #10: Would you mind posting the link to the report? -I couldn’t find it on the site.
Thanks
Comment by Susan — November 20, 2007 @ 9:38 am
Muller & Caufield Report
The renderings are a bit cheesy but as someone who has never been inside, the interior is pretty amazing, even though it’s in much need of repair.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 20, 2007 @ 9:44 am
After seeing the interior I wonder if Lauren and Mike P still think a non profit incubator is a good idea. And #6 it would actually be the Museum that would have to cover the windows not the Community Arts /City use.
Comment by Darwin — November 20, 2007 @ 10:06 am
Thanks for the link, Lauren. I enjoyed reading the report; The section about Daylighting was especially enlightening. (Groan; Sorry, couldn’t help it…) 1,700 square feet is ample room to mount some pretty fine exhibits.
Comment by Susan — November 20, 2007 @ 5:59 pm