When I was a kid and the other kids  were home watching "Leave it to Beaver," my father and step-mother were  marching me off to the library. -- Oprah Winfrey
 
What’s at stake here is more than access to a room full of books. -- Josh Wallaert
 
Our community is being asked this weekend to "vote" on 100 ideas in the evanston150.org  process. Regrettably, we've had scant opportunity to discuss or debate  them. Even the ideas' proponents have had little chance to explain them.  If time permitted I'd venture thought on many. Since time doesn't, I'll  use this bandwidth to urge a vote for one imperfectly phrased but  critical idea, No. 27 on the original list, "Establish branch libraries  throughout Evanston."
 
The phrasing is imperfect because unless you  read the explanation, it might suggest, as one critic put it, "building a  branch library on every street corner." No one proposes that. The  better explanation, available in the "long" version of the evanston150 list, is as follows: "Evanston  currently has only one branch library, and that is available only part  time. This proposal seeks to increase the number of branch libraries,  locate them throughout the City, and keep them open longer hours in  order to make library services and programs more accessible to all  Evanstonians. Among other things, the branches can then serve as  community resource centers, and reach out to engage everyone in literacy  activities, for instance, hosting One Book, One Community programs."
 
I urge a vote for this Idea and write this  post specifically to counter one of the most inaccurate arguments I've  heard about Evanston libraries, namely, that "bricks and mortar" are "so  20th Century" and the idea of buildings should be discarded  as we think about a library system of the future. Nothing could be  further from the truth. The concept of place is fundamental to the importance of libraries anywhere, and is a compelling argument for libraries in neighborhoods, that reach all neighborhoods.
 
Preliminarily, let's dispense with the "so 20th  Century" snipe. Leave aside for now whether the last decade of war,  double bubble-bursts, gross inequality, and assault on liberties  represents an actual improvement over the 20th century. Ignore for the  moment the folly of measuring policy by its fashionability. Let's just  address the statement.
 
The idea that electronic information has somehow rendered libraries passé is simply not true. In a thoughtful collection of essays  on the role of the modern library, professionals correctly assert that  computerization and digitalization are changing, "but will not destroy"  libraries, and shouldn't, for several reasons.
 
First, the library is the "sole owner" of services that can't be replicated off-site.  One is personnel, the reference librarians. Another is the hard-copy  access itself, as most books are still not (and may never be) digitized,  and periodicals are more and more inaccessible for free online. Yet a  third, critical reason is the public place itself.
 
Part of that place is interior: in a world where  it's increasingly difficult to escape the din of messaging, a library  offers, traditionally, quiet. A library is an escape where youths,  especially, can both relax and focus. As one student writes, the "ambience and the peaceful and scholarly atmosphere then helps one to concentrate more on one's work and study."
 
That internal place of refuge and respite figures large in adult reasons for libraries, too. Libraries are also a connecting place for adults, "a public space for individuals to meet formally and informally." This is "particularly beneficial for single parents who may struggle to meet new people."
 
Another key adult demographic is those reinventing themselves. Christina Peterson  particularly identified the lifelong-learning function in her study of a  joint-use library, shared by a community and a university. She found it  used by patrons "in ways that imbue the space with cultural meaning,  shared purpose, and pragmatic functionality," fulfilling the hopes of  planners who envisioned the library having "five types of user activity  for which space would need to be designed: information seeking,  recreation, teaching and learning, connection, contemplation."
 
Community symbolism and identity flow from such places. A city planner  this spring touted the degree to which libraries contribute to "a sense  of place" and comes to the same economic conclusion as many others,  that a library in a neighborhood "will continue to pay dividends back  into the village."
 
That sense of identity is more than symbolic. Josh Wallaert, an editor at the design publication Places, reviewing a delightful photoessay of libraries by photographer Robert Dawson, says that the "modern American public library  is reading room, book lender, video rental outlet, internet café, town  hall, concert venue, youth activity center, research archive, history  museum, art gallery, homeless day shelter, office suite, coffeeshop,  seniors’ clubhouse and romantic hideaway rolled into one. In small towns  of the American West, it is also the post office and the backdrop of  the local gun range."
 
Part of the sense of place is transformative. One architect refers to a library (in the campus context) as a "vital and critical intellectual center of life." As regards a neighborhood, "center of intellectual life" might be more accurate. Multiple studies note the intellectual capital  that a library both represents and actually adds. It also represents  social capital, stemming in part from the fact that a library, as  embodiment of the commons, represents the ultimate in collaborative consumption, or shared resources. Additionally, the very presence of a library standing in a neighborhood indicates "the presence of a well-read and educated society."
 
A library can only fulfill all these functions of place if that place exists in real space. Author Joan Wickersham speaks of a library's importance "as a real place." Spatial presence must be part of library strategy. As one academic review of a book on libraries' futures  put it, "the stature of libraries will depend on the very fact that  they are physical places that are centrally located in almost every  neighborhood."
 
In 2005, two University of Chicago researchers  analyzed 200 public libraries in New York City and found strong  interactions, both ways, between the sociodemographics of a  neighborhood, where libraries were located, and how libraries were used.  They found multiple important reasons for "neighborhood public libraries,"  not least of which was that distance negatively impacted use. While  disadvantaged communities used libraries less, they found that improving  that use would augment the human, economic, and cultural capital of  disadvantaged neighborhood, and that "when a library branch is  integrated to be part of the neighborhood and provides a public place  for social interaction within the neighborhood, the neighborhood will  likely support the work of the branch."
 
These are not antiquated notions; every one of the above links is to a writing authored in the 21st  Century. But moving forward into the future has never meant, and cannot  mean, throwing away the best of the past. Wallaert notes that digital  libraries cannot duplicate the many functions he identifies. Obviously,  neither can a substitute such as a bookmobile or roving literacy  booster.
 
The importance of library as place is real. The  "idea" submitted by numerous Evanstonians to evanston150 was to  establish a comprehensive library system that serves all  neighborhoods. That does not mean a branch on every street corner, but  it has to mean, in addition to a main branch located more northeast than  centrally, a branch in the northwest and southeast quadrants along the  train and bus lines where the North and South Branches existed for 50  and 100 years, respectively, and one or more library facilities serving  the west/southwest portion of Evanston. The library square footage  embodied in the proposal for a new Robert Crown center, and the former  Washington Mutual space used as a summer reading spot at Dempster-Dodge,  stand out as two obvious possibilities. Whether one or the other, both,  or neither is the best solution is premature to say without more  communty input. One advantage of using existing space is that drywall is  generally cheaper than new bricks and mortar. Regardless, the  commitment should be made.
 
The "idea" as listed does not perfectly embody in  its short phrasing the nuance and critical essence of place that such a  network would embody, but it is the closest thing available on the list.  The other 99 ideas range from brilliant to impossible, but don't forget  to vote for this one. A real community is more than in the mind; it has  to exist in real space as well.