Missed opportunities and unintended consequences with new library
Editor,
I watched the development of the new library/Armory complex with great anticipation as an architect and, as a Brighton resident. I was excited by the concept of creating a new center of activity to bring people to the historic city center. Creating a cultural center at the core of the community was conceptually exciting and carried with it the potential of generating opportunities for businesses to capitalize on the increased exposure to people visiting library and armory activities. This project had the potential to spark a renaissance.
I am encouraged that library visits have increased significantly, and I have attended an Armory event, took advantage of a nearby restaurant and made an enjoyable evening of dining and entertainment.
But the complex could have contributed so much more. In order for public spaces to attract people, their vitality must be observable to passers-by. Unfortunately, this public space, is the antithesis of this concept and the opportunity to create a truly attractive center of activity has been lost. The site design, which plastered the library building along Bridge Street, has ignored the fact that the Armory is an integral part of the public space as well. The library, instead, creates a barrier to the site. In addition, there is absolutely nothing on the building to identify it as anything more than just another empty storefront.
The second missed opportunity is the Armory. It is a well-executed adaptive restoration and clearly the most inviting building in the complex but it is invisible behind the library. No one can see when the Armory is active so fewer people are attracted to participate in the many excellent community cultural events that occur in this attractive venue. The building’s wonderful entry lobby lighted at night could have become a beacon, but the building’s impact is lost.
It is commendable that the library design sought to achieve a high level of sustainable design. But the unintended consequences have severely compromised opportunities to make this complex an inviting and exciting public space. First, the orientation of the library along Bridge Street takes full advantage of solar exposure. But as a consequence, it obscures the rest of the site, including how to get there. Second, energy efficient glass, with its reflective qualities has made it impossible to see inside the building and be enticed to visit. This is reinforced by the lack of any identification on the building. Combined with the rather uninspiring façade, this results in an empty storefront look that Brighton needs desperately to avoid. The sustainable design objectives achieved by the building are laudable, but they have compromised the creation of a community-friendly urban space
One need only look two blocks east to see how a carefully conceived site plan can contribute to the fabric of the community. North Elementary School and Malcolm Park skillfully combine community public functions in a way that contributes to the enhanced visual quality of Bridge Street and to the functionality of a public school site. Brighton needs more of this kind of thoughtful design.
Tim Morgan, Brighton
Cope family offers thanks
Editor,
To the patients of Dr. George Cope, thank you so much for the cards and letters not to mention the support, loyalty, and confidence you have shown George and I over the years. We have met so many wonderful patients during our careers. I can’t tell you how much I miss coming into the office to see you all. The relationships were so important to George and kept him going during the tough times. I will cherish those relationships forever. Thank you for being our patients.
Debbie Cope, Longmont
Mixed messages: Partisanship or debate?
Editor,
The misuse of the term “partisanship” has become rampant in politics and the press. It has been used repeatedly in the negative to mean that the person is acting unfairly or unreasonably in some way.
In Steve Smith’s recent Standard Blade article (“Partisanship reigns supreme at Capital – Jan. 6), he quotes State. Sen. Mary Hodge as saying that the minority party proposing a reduction in the state workforce and the use of a filibuster are examples of partisanship. I found her choice of examples interesting. Webster’s College Dictionary defines partisan as “an adherent or supporter of a person, party, or cause, especially one who shows a biased, unthinking allegiance.” Let’s take a closer look at Hodge’s thinking. Is proposing a reduction in the state workforce an unthinking allegiance? I argue it clearly is not. Most private sector employees have significantly reduced their workforces and issued pay cuts to those that were lucky enough to keep their jobs. The thought of cutting the government workforce in a similar manner, and reducing the tax burden on those private sector workers struggling to get by, sounds like thinking to me. Unless, of course, you unwittingly believe that the government is a sacred cow that should never have its budget reduced and it should always grow increasingly larger on the backs of the working people.
And why is the use of a filibuster unthinking? Our system of government is designed to balance power among those who think differently. If we don’t like that system, then the party who got the most votes should hold all the seats in the legislature. A filibuster is a process that is designed in our system of enacting laws to allow the minority party to delay and even prevent legislation that they believe is not in the best interest of the people or is an abuse of power by the majority party. Why is preventing bad legislation from being enacted or preventing an abuse power unthinking?
When you hear a politician or a member of the media use the term “partisan” or “partisanship” understand that, nine times out of 10, they mean that those they are describing don’t agree with their views, not that they are acting out of unthinking allegiance to some cause.
Remember, if you don’t agree with your partisan, if I don’t agree with you, I’m engaging in thoughtful debates. If our political representatives are being partisan as much as they described as being, we need to vote them out.
Thankfully, however, politicians are rarely partisan and are usually engaging in the heated debate of ideas and issues we sent them to the legislature to address. So, the next time you hear the term “partisan” or “partisanship,” remember that the person most likely used the term out of ignorance of its meaning or they used it to make you think poorly of those they are describing.
Either way, their use of the term often simply makes them look foolish.
Michael A. Dolan, Brighton