Primary Research Group Staff - Academic Library Building Renovation Benchmarks-Primary Research Group Inc (2008)

Academic Library Building Renovation Benchmarks
Academic Library Building Renovation

Benchmarks
ISBN 1-57440-110-6 ©2008 Primary Research Group
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Characteristics of the Sample............................................................................................ 20

Summary Of Main Findings ............................................................................................. 22
Capital Budget Trends .................................................................................................. 22
Spending on Library Re-Design ................................................................................... 22
Info Technology Centers in the Library........................................................................ 22
New Construction ......................................................................................................... 23
Information Commons and Computer Labs ................................................................. 23
Reasons for Renovating the Library Building .............................................................. 24
Goals of the Next Library Re-Design ........................................................................... 25
Spending on Furniture for the Library.......................................................................... 26
Spending on Flooring for the Library ........................................................................... 26
Impact of the Library Renovation Efforts on Patron Satisfaction & Use of the Library
....................................................................................................................................... 27
Shutting Down the Library For Renovations................................................................ 27
Encourage of Discourage Use of the Library as a “Mobile Office” ............................. 28
The Role of Landscaping in Library Renovation ......................................................... 28
Artwork in the Library.................................................................................................. 28
Design Measures for Energy Savings ........................................................................... 29
Chapter One: Capital Budget ............................................................................................ 30
Chapter Two: Managing Library Renovation................................................................... 37
Chapter Three: Technology Education Center ................................................................. 40
Chapter Four: Building Plans............................................................................................ 47
Chapter Five: Reasons for Library Redesign.................................................................... 56
Chapter Six: Furniture....................................................................................................... 91
Chapter Seven: Carpeting ................................................................................................. 99
Chapter Eight: Model Redesign...................................................................................... 105
Chapter Nine: Assessing the Results of Redesign .......................................................... 110
Chapter Ten: Shutting Down the Library ....................................................................... 114
Chapter Eleven: The Library as Mobile Office .............................................................. 116
Chapter Twelve: The Great Outdoors............................................................................. 119
Chapter Thirteen: Artwork and Preservation.................................................................. 126
Chapter Fourteen: Energy Use by the Library................................................................ 133
Chapter Fifteen: Information Resources & Advice for Peers......................................... 142
Other Reports From Primary Research Group Inc. ........................................................ 144
OTHER REPORTS FROM PRIMARY RESEARCH GROUP INC............................. 144
2
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.1: PHRASE WHICH BEST DESCRIBES WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE LIBRARY'S
CAPITAL BUDGET IN THE PAST THREE YEARS 30
CAPITAL BUDGET IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION
STATUS 30
CAPITAL BUDGET IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
STATUS 30
CAPITAL BUDGET IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 30
CAPITAL BUDGET IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 31
TABLE 1.6: YOUR EXPECTATION IS THAT OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS, ON
AVERAGE, THE LIBRARY'S CAPITAL BUDGET WILL 31
AVERAGE, THE LIBRARY'S CAPITAL BUDGET WILL, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION
STATUS 31
AVERAGE, THE LIBRARY'S CAPITAL BUDGET WILL, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE STATUS 32
AVERAGE, THE LIBRARY'S CAPITAL BUDGET WILL, BROKEN OUT BY FTE
ENROLLMENT 32
AVERAGE, THE LIBRARY'S CAPITAL BUDGET WILL, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF
COLLEGE 32
TABLE 1.11: MEAN, MEDIAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM AMOUNT LIBRARY HAS SPENT
ON MAJOR LIBRARY REDESIGN WITHIN THE PAST THREE YEARS, OR IF IT IS
CURRENTLY PLANNING A MAJOR REDESIGN OR IS IN THE MIDST OF ONE, TOTAL
CUMULATIVE BUDGET FOR THE REDESIGN PROJECT ($ USA) 33
CUMULATIVE BUDGET FOR THE REDESIGN PROJECT, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION
STATUS 33
CUMULATIVE BUDGET FOR THE REDESIGN PROJECT, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE STATUS 33
CUMULATIVE BUDGET FOR THE REDESIGN PROJECT, BROKEN OUT BY FTE
ENROLLMENT 33
CUMULATIVE BUDGET FOR THE REDESIGN PROJECT, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF
COLLEGE 34
3
TABLE 3.1: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT OFFER A SPECIFIC CENTER OR DEFINED

SET OF WORKSTATIONS DESIGNED TO EQUIP AND TEACH STUDENTS OR FACULTY IN
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES OR INFORMATION LITERACY 40
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES OR INFORMATION LITERACY, BROKEN OUT BY
RENOVATION STATUS 40
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES OR INFORMATION LITERACY, BROKEN OUT BY
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 40
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES OR INFORMATION LITERACY, BROKEN OUT BY FTE
ENROLLMENT 40
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES OR INFORMATION LITERACY, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE
OF COLLEGE 41
TABLE 3.6: MEAN, MEDIAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WORKSTATIONS
AT THIS CENTER (OR ALL SUCH CENTERS IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE) 41
AT THIS CENTER (OR ALL SUCH CENTERS IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE), BROKEN
OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 41
OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 41
OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 42
OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 42
OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS TO DEVELOP NEW LIBRARY INSTRUCTIONAL
CENTERS, OR RE-EQUIP OR UPGRADE EXISTING ONES WITH NEW COMPUTERS,
WORKSTATIONS OR OTHER TECHNOLOGY 42
WORKSTATIONS OR OTHER TECHNOLOGY, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 42
WORKSTATIONS OR OTHER TECHNOLOGY, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
STATUS 43
WORKSTATIONS OR OTHER TECHNOLOGY, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 43
WORKSTATIONS OR OTHER TECHNOLOGY, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 43
4
TABLE 4.1: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE USED THE SERVICES OF AN

ARCHITECT OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS 47
ARCHITECT OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 47
ARCHITECT OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
STATUS 47
ARCHITECT OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 47
ARCHITECT OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 47
TABLE 4.6: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS PLAN TO
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OR CONTINUE TO CONSTRUCT ONE OR MORE NEW
BUILDINGS USED PRIMARILY BY THE LIBRARY 48
BUILDINGS USED PRIMARILY BY THE LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION
STATUS 48
BUILDINGS USED PRIMARILY BY THE LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE STATUS 48
BUILDINGS USED PRIMARILY BY THE LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT
48
BUILDINGS USED PRIMARILY BY THE LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE
48
SIGNIFICANTLY EXPAND AN EXISTING LIBRARY STRUCTURE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO
INCREASE AVAILABLE SPACE OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS 49
INCREASE AVAILABLE SPACE OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY
INCREASE AVAILABLE SPACE OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC
OR PRIVATE STATUS 49
INCREASE AVAILABLE SPACE OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY FTE
ENROLLMENT 49
INCREASE AVAILABLE SPACE OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE
OF COLLEGE 49
SIGNIFICANTLY REMODEL THE INTERIOR OR USABLE SPACE OF ONE OR MORE
EXISTING BUILDINGS 50
EXISTING BUILDINGS, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 50
5
EXISTING BUILDINGS, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 50
EXISTING BUILDINGS, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 50
EXISTING BUILDINGS, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 50
DEVELOP, EXPAND OR REMODEL AN "INFORMATION COMMONS" 51
DEVELOP, EXPAND OR REMODEL AN "INFORMATION COMMONS," BROKEN OUT BY
FTE ENROLLMENT 51
TYPE OF COLLEGE 51
TABLE 4.26: MEAN, MEDIAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF COMPUTERS OR
WORKSTATIONS IN ALL OF THE COMPUTER LABS THAT THE LIBRARY USES IN ANY
WAY FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES 52
WAY FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 52
WAY FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS
52
WAY FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 52
WAY FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 53
TABLE 4.31: MEAN, MEDIAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF COMPUTERS IN
YOUR COMPUTER LABS THAT ARE MACS 53
YOUR COMPUTER LABS THAT ARE MACS, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 53
YOUR COMPUTER LABS THAT ARE MACS, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
STATUS 53
YOUR COMPUTER LABS THAT ARE MACS, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 54
YOUR COMPUTER LABS THAT ARE MACS, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 54
YOUR COMPUTER LABS THAT ARE PC’S 54
YOUR COMPUTER LABS THAT ARE PC’S, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 54
6

YOUR COMPUTER LABS THAT ARE PC’S, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
STATUS 55
YOUR COMPUTER LABS THAT ARE PC’S, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 55
YOUR COMPUTER LABS THAT ARE PC’S, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 55
TABLE 5.1: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT IN THE PAST THREE YEARS HAVE MADE
AN INVESTMENT IN INSTALLING, EXPANDING OR BETTER SITUATING A LIBRARY
CAFÉ OR RESTAURANT 56
CAFÉ OR RESTAURANT, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 56
CAFÉ OR RESTAURANT, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 56
CAFÉ OR RESTAURANT, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 56
CAFÉ OR RESTAURANT, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 57
AN INVESTMENT IN INCREASING THE NUMBER OF OR EXPANDING ACCESSIBILITY
TO VENDING MACHINES 57
TO VENDING MACHINES, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 57
TO VENDING MACHINES, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 57
TO VENDING MACHINES, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 57
TO VENDING MACHINES, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 58
AN INVESTMENT TO IMPROVE THE USE OF NATURAL LIGHT IN THE LIBRARY 58
AN INVESTMENT TO IMPROVE THE USE OF NATURAL LIGHT IN THE LIBRARY,
BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 58
BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 58
BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 58
BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 59
AN INVESTMENT TO REDUCE THE LIBRARY’S ELECTRICITY AND/OR HEATING
CONSUMPTION 59
7
CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 59
CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 59
CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 59
CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 60
AN INVESTMENT TO REDESIGN TO ALLOW FOR MORE COUCHES, EASY CHAIRS AND
OTHER COMFORTABLE FURNITURE 60
OTHER COMFORTABLE FURNITURE, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 60
OTHER COMFORTABLE FURNITURE, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 60
OTHER COMFORTABLE FURNITURE, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 60
OTHER COMFORTABLE FURNITURE, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 61
AN INVESTMENT TO REDESIGN TO ADD OR IMPROVE SOUNDPROOFING 61
AN INVESTMENT TO REDESIGN TO ADD OR IMPROVE SOUNDPROOFING, BROKEN
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD ENTRANCES/EXITS OR ENLARGE OR BETTER SITUATE
THEM 62
THEM, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 62
THEM, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 62
THEM, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 63
THEM, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 63
8
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD COMPUTER WORKSTATIONS 63
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD COMPUTER WORKSTATIONS, BROKEN OUT BY
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD COMPUTER WORKSTATIONS, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE STATUS 63
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD COMPUTER WORKSTATIONS, BROKEN OUT BY FTE
ENROLLMENT 64
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD COMPUTER WORKSTATIONS, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF
COLLEGE 64
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD ELECTRICAL OUTLETS 64
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD ELECTRICAL OUTLETS, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION
STATUS 64
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD ELECTRICAL OUTLETS, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE STATUS 64
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD ELECTRICAL OUTLETS, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT
65
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD ELECTRICAL OUTLETS, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE
65
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD OR IMPROVE GROUP STUDY SPACES 65
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD OR IMPROVE GROUP STUDY SPACES, BROKEN OUT BY
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD OR IMPROVE GROUP STUDY SPACES, BROKEN OUT BY FTE
ENROLLMENT 66
TYPE OF COLLEGE 66
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD OR IMPROVE CLASSROOM SPACE IN THE LIBRARY 66
AN INVESTMENT TO ADD OR IMPROVE CLASSROOM SPACE IN THE LIBRARY,
9
TABLE 5.56: DESIRABILITY OF INSTALLING, EXPANDING OR BETTER SITUATING A

LIBRARY CAFÉ OR RESTAURANT AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN 67
LIBRARY CAFÉ OR RESTAURANT AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN,
TABLE 5.61: DESIRABILITY OF INCREASING THE NUMBER OF OR EXPANDING
ACCESSIBILITY TO VENDING MACHINES AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY
REDESIGN 68
REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 69
REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 69
REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 69
REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 70
TABLE 5.66: DESIRABILITY OF IMPROVING THE USE OF NATURAL LIGHT IN THE
LIBRARY AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN 70
LIBRARY AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY
LIBRARY AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC
LIBRARY AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY FTE
ENROLLMENT 71
LIBRARY AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF
COLLEGE 71
TABLE 5.71: DESIRABILITY OF REDUCING THE LIBRARY’S ELECTRICITY AND/OR
HEATING CONSUMPTION AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN 71
HEATING CONSUMPTION AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN
10

TABLE 5.76: DESIRABILITY OF REDESIGNING TO ALLOW FOR MORE COUCHES, EASY
CHAIRS AND OTHER COMFORTABLE FURNITURE AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT
LIBRARY REDESIGN 72
LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 73
LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 73
LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 73
LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 74
TABLE 5.81: DESIRABILITY OF ADDING OR IMPROVING SOUNDPROOFING AS A GOAL OF
YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN 74
YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 74
YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 74
YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 75
YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 75
TABLE 5.86: DESIRABILITY OF ADDING ENTRANCES/EXITS OR ENLARGING OR BETTER
SITUATING THEM AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN 75
SITUATING THEM AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY
FTE ENROLLMENT 76
TYPE OF COLLEGE 77
TABLE 5.91: DESIRABILITY OF ADDING COMPUTER WORKSTATIONS AS A GOAL OF
YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN 77
YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 77
YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 78
YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 78
YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 78
TABLE 5.96: DESIRABILITY OF ADDING ELECTRICAL OUTLETS AS A GOAL OF YOUR
NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN 78
NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 79
11

NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 79
NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 79
NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 79
TABLE 5.101: DESIRABILITY OF ADDING OR IMPROVING GROUP STUDY SPACES AS A
GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN 80
GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 80
GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
STATUS 80
GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 80
GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 81
TABLE 5.106: DESIRABILITY OF ADDING OR IMPROVING CLASSROOM SPACE IN THE
LIBRARY AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN 81
LIBRARY AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY
LIBRARY AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC
LIBRARY AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY FTE
ENROLLMENT 82
LIBRARY AS A GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF
COLLEGE 82
TABLE 5.111: DESIRABILITY OF INCREASING OR BETTER SITUATING RESTROOMS AS A
GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN 82
GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 82
GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
STATUS 83
GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 83
GOAL OF YOUR NEXT LIBRARY REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 83
TABLE 6.1: MEAN, MEDIAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM AMOUNT SPENT FOR NEW
FURNITURE IN LAST LIBRARY REDESIGN OR FOR DESIGN LIBRARY IS CURRENTLY
PLANNING ($ USA) 91
PLANNING, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 91
PLANNING, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 91
PLANNING, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 91
12
PLANNING, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 92
TABLE 7.1: MEAN, MEDIAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM AMOUNT LIBRARY HAS
CUMULATIVELY SPENT FOR ALL CLEANING, MAINTENANCE AND SCOTCHGUARDING
OF CARPETING IN THE PAST THREE YEARS ($ USA) 99
OF CARPETING IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS99
OF CARPETING IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
STATUS 99
OF CARPETING IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 99
OF CARPETING IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 100
CUMULATIVELY SPENT FOR ALL NEW CARPETING, TILING OR OTHER FLOORING OR
FLOOR REPAIRS IN THE PAST THREE YEARS ($ USA) 100
FLOOR REPAIRS IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS
100
FLOOR REPAIRS IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
STATUS 100
FLOOR REPAIRS IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 101
FLOOR REPAIRS IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 101
TABLE 9.1: IMPACT OF REDESIGN ON PATRON USE AND SATISFACTION FOR LIBRARIES
THAT HAVE REDESIGNED WITHIN PAST FIVE YEARS 110
THAT HAVE REDESIGNED WITHIN PAST FIVE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION
STATUS 110
THAT HAVE REDESIGNED WITHIN PAST FIVE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE STATUS 111
THAT HAVE REDESIGNED WITHIN PAST FIVE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY FTE
ENROLLMENT 111
THAT HAVE REDESIGNED WITHIN PAST FIVE YEARS, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF
COLLEGE 112
TABLE 9.6: MEAN, MEDIAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF
RATE OF GROWTH OR DECLINE IN STUDENT USE OF LIBRARY AFTER ONE YEAR IF
LIBRARY HAS EXPERIENCED A MAJOR RENOVATION WITHIN THE PAST 10 YEARS 113
13

LIBRARY HAS EXPERIENCED A MAJOR RENOVATION WITHIN THE PAST 10 YEARS,
TABLE 10.1: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS THAT HAVE
SHUT DOWN ENTIRELY OR SHUT DOWN SIGNIFICANT INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS,
FLOORS OR OTHER MAJOR LIBRARY UNITS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE SOME FORM OF
MAJOR REDESIGN 114
MAJOR REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 114
MAJOR REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 114
MAJOR REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 114
MAJOR REDESIGN, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 115
TABLE 11.1: INCREASINGLY, PATRONS ARE USING PUBLIC AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
AS "MOBILE OFFICES" BY CAMPING OUT IN THEM WITH THEIR LAPTOPS AND
CELLPHONES. IN YOUR LIBRARY DO YOU: 116
CELLPHONES. IN YOUR LIBRARY DO YOU, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS
116
CELLPHONES. IN YOUR LIBRARY DO YOU, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
STATUS 117
CELLPHONES. IN YOUR LIBRARY DO YOU, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 117
CELLPHONES. IN YOUR LIBRARY DO YOU, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 118
TABLE 12.1: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES WHOSE CURRENT OR PLANNED LIBRARY

REDESIGN WILL INCLUDE NEW LANDSCAPING FOR THE EXTERIOR OF THE LIBRARY
119
14

REDESIGN WILL INCLUDE NEW LANDSCAPING FOR THE EXTERIOR OF THE LIBRARY,
REDESIGN WILL INCLUDE INSTALLATION OR IMPROVEMENT OF A GARDEN 120
REDESIGN WILL INCLUDE INSTALLATION OR IMPROVEMENT OF A GARDEN, BROKEN
REDESIGN WILL INCLUDE INSTALLATION, DEVELOPMENT OR REDESIGN OF AN
ATRIUM 121
ATRIUM, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 121
ATRIUM, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 121
ATRIUM, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 121
ATRIUM, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 122
REDESIGN WILL INCLUDE INSTALLATION OR RE-POSITIONING OF OUTDOOR
SCULPTURE 122
SCULPTURE, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 122
SCULPTURE, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 122
SCULPTURE, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 122
SCULPTURE, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 123
15
TABLE 13.1: MEAN, MEDIAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM AMOUNT SPENT

CUMULATIVELY BY LIBRARY OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS ON ARTWORK FOR THE
LIBRARY ($ USA) 126
LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 126
LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STATUS 126
LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 126
LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 127
TABLE 13.6: PHRASE WHICH BEST DESCRIBES THE LIBRARY'S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE
DISPLAY OF ARTWORK IN THE LIBRARY 131
DISPLAY OF ARTWORK IN THE LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION STATUS 131
DISPLAY OF ARTWORK IN THE LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
STATUS 131
DISPLAY OF ARTWORK IN THE LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT 132
TABLE 13.10: PHRASE WHICH BEST DESCRIBES THE LIBRARY'S ATTITUDE TOWARD
THE DISPLAY OF ARTWORK IN THE LIBRARY, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE 132
TABLE 14.1: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE USED HIGH-PERFORMANCE

FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION 133
FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY
FTE ENROLLMENT 133
TYPE OF COLLEGE 134
TABLE 14.6: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE MADE ARCHITECTURAL
CHANGES TO INCREASE USE OF NATURAL LIGHTING TO REDUCE ENERGY
CONSUMPTION 134
16

TABLE 14.11: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE ADDED DOUBLE-PANE
WINDOWS TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION 135
WINDOWS TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION
STATUS 135
WINDOWS TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE STATUS 135
WINDOWS TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY FTE ENROLLMENT
135
WINDOWS TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF COLLEGE
136
TABLE 14.16: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE INSTALLED OCCUPANCY
SENSORS FOR BATHROOM AND ROOM LIGHTS TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION
136
SENSORS FOR BATHROOM AND ROOM LIGHTS TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION,
TABLE 14.21: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE INSTALLED OVERHEAD OR
OTHER TYPES OF FANS TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION 137
TABLE 14.22: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE IMPROVED OR ADDED
INSULATION TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION 137
INSULATION TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY RENOVATION
STATUS 137
INSULATION TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE STATUS 137
INSULATION TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY FTE
ENROLLMENT 138
INSULATION TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BROKEN OUT BY TYPE OF
COLLEGE 138
TABLE 14.27: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE REDUCED THE TARGET IN-
BUILDING TEMPERATURE IN WINTER AND/OR INCREASED THE TARGET OF IN-
BUILDING TEMPERATURE IN SUMMER TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION 138
BUILDING TEMPERATURE IN SUMMER TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BROKEN
17
TABLE 14.32: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE INSTALLED SOLAR PANELS ON
THE GROUNDS, ROOF OR WALLS OF THE LIBRARY TO REDUCE ENERGY
CONSUMPTION 139
TABLE 14.37: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE REDUCED LIBRARY HOURS OF
OPERATION FOR SOME FACILITIES TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION 140
OPERATION FOR SOME FACILITIES TO REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, BROKEN
18
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
University of St. Thomas Johnson County Community college
York College of PA Asbury Theological Seminary
Indian River State College Loughborough University
Olivet Nazarene University / Benner Library Cape Cod Community College
Eckerd College Clark College
Pennsylvania College of Technology University of Arizona
Community College of Philadelphia Ithaca College
Providence College Pima Community College - Downtown
Grand Valley State University Campus
Cisco Junior College Renton Technical College
Delaware County Community College Clinton Community College
Lehigh Carbon Community College Monmouth College
Assiniboine Community College Library Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College
Elms College Central Methodist University
Felician College State University of NY at Oswego
Coastal Carolina University Binghamton University (State University of
Albion College New York)
Mercer University Atlanta York College - Levitt Library
Itasca Community College
McLennan Community College
Daniel A. Reed Library - SUNY Fredonia
Kansas City Kansas Community College
Lebanese American University
Concordia University Texas
University of Colorado at Boulder
Malone College
Siena College
The University of North Carolina at
Greensboro
Louisiana State University
Elon University
Simpson College
Young Harris College
Southwestern Illinois College - Sam Wolf
Granite City Campus
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Wayne State College
Fitchburg State College
York Technical College
Wesley College
SUNY Institute of Technology
University of Indianapolis
Case Western Reserve University - School
of Law Library
Lassen Community College Library
Pfeiffer University
National Hispanic University
Luise V. Hanson Library - Waldorf College
Dublin Institute of Technology
East Carolina University
19
Characteristics of the Sample
Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum number of students enrolled (Full Time
Equivalent)
Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Entire Sample 6,655.54 3,500.00 30.00 37,000.00
Equivalent), Broken Out by Renovation Status
Renovation Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Status
Libraries that have 5,771.12 4,050.00 200.00 29,000.00
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 7,398.61 3,500.00 30.00 37,000.00
within past 10
years
Equivalent), Broken Out by Public or Private Status
Public or Private Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Status
Public College 9,501.85 6,850.00 30.00 37,000.00
Private College 3,318.48 2,000.00 400.00 8,900.00
Equivalent), Broken Out by FTE Enrollment
FTE Enrollment Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Under 1,750 919.13 982.50 30.00 1,900.00
1,750-4,500 2,758.22 2,950.00 1,700.00 4,200.00
4,501-8,000 6,692.86 6,850.00 4,600.00 8,000.00
Above 8,000 18,343.93 16,000.00 8,095.00 37,000.00
20
Equivalent), Broken Out by Type of College
Carnegie Class Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Community 4,618.74 3,000.00 30.00 12,076.00
College
4-Year College 1,819.33 1,328.00 400.00 6,300.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 5,565.52 4,200.00 965.00 24,000.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 20,700.00 18,000.00 8,000.00 37,000.00
Research
University
21
Summary Of Main Findings
Capital Budget Trends
For more than a third of the libraries in the sample, their capital budget increased over the
past three years, while for less than 19% it decreased. Libraries from colleges with
enrollment exceeding 4,500 were far more likely than smaller colleges to have
experienced increasing capital budgets over the past three years.
About a third of the libraries in the sample expected their capital budgets to increase over
the next three years, while only 17.46% expected them to fall. Private colleges are more
optimistic about their capital budgets than public colleges, as nearly 42% believe that
their capital budgets will increase over the next three years, while only a little more than
a quarter of public college libraries in the sample believe this. No research/Ph.D.-level
university in the sample believed that it would have a higher capital budget over the next
three years.
Spending on Library Re-Design
The libraries in the sample spent (or will spend) a mean of $10.76 million on library re-
design over the past three years, or on current or approved projects for the near future,
and a median of $4.5 million. Public colleges in the sample substantially outspent the
private ones, reflecting the formers’ much higher levels of overall enrollment. Public
college outspent the private ones by a factor of nearly 3:1; median spending was closer
but still nearly 3:2 in favor of the public colleges. However, on a per student basis,
spending on library renovation was nearly equal, itself an interesting fact since in general
per student spending is somewhat higher at the private colleges. It may be that public
colleges have stressed library development or that their superior economies of scale make
it easier for them to spend heavily on libraries, which are used by a broad range of
students. As might be expected, spending rose with college size, increasing from a mean
of $1.263 million for colleges with less than 1,750 students to more than $27 million for
colleges with more than 8,000 and an average of 18,000 students FTE.
Info Technology Centers in the Library
More than 60% of the libraries in the sample offer a specific center or a defined set of
workstations designed to equip and teach student or faculty information technologies or
information literacy. The larger the college, the more likely they were to have such a
center; public colleges had the centers more often than did private colleges. Libraries that
had completed a major renovation were almost twice as likely as others to have an
information literacy/info technology education center of some kind.
22
The mean number of computers to stock such centers was 37.42, with a median of 30;
these figures comprise computers in multiple centers when colleges have more than one.
The range was great, from 4 to 200.
The libraries in the sample spent a mean of $293,000 to develop or equip or upgrade their
centers, but the median was just $22,000. One college spent $10 million. Libraries that
have conducted a recent renovation spent more than 10 times as much as colleges that
have not had a recent renovation and public colleges far outspent private colleges in this
area.
New Construction
36.51% of the libraries in the sample have used the services of an architect in the last
three years.
11.11% of those sampled plan to begin construction or continue to construct one or more
new buildings to be used primarily or exclusively by the library. Nearly 15% of the
public colleges in the sample were involved in the above defined form of library
construction, as were more than 28% of the libraries of colleges with more than 8,000
students FTE.
Similarly, 11.11% of the libraries in the sample plan to expand an existing library
structure in such a way as to increase available space over the next two years. Almost all
of these were the libraries of larger institutions, those with more than 4,500 students;
most were public colleges.
46% of the libraries in the sample plan to significantly remodel the interior space of one
or more existing library buildings over the next two years. Once again, public colleges
were far more likely than private colleges, by a factor of nearly 2:1, to have such plans.
Also, more than 71% of colleges with more than 8,000 students FTE had these plans.
Information Commons and Computer Labs
36.51% of the libraries in the sample plan over the next two years to develop, expand or
remodel an “information commons.” Close to half of the community colleges in the
sample had these plans.
The mean number of workstations used for instructional purposes in the library’s
computer labs was 44.17, with a median of 34.5. Public and private colleges had similar
numbers of workstations even though public colleges in the sample have nearly three
times as many students as the private colleges.
23
The mean number of Macs in the computer labs was 6.02, while the mean number of
PC’s was 43.45; the universe of respondents that broke out their stock by type of
computer was slightly different from the stock that gave overall computer data.
Reasons for Renovating the Library Building
We asked the libraries in the sample if they had made an investment over the past three
years in various additions or refinements to their library buildings. 17.46% said that they
had made an investment over the past three years in installing, expanding or better
situating a library café or restaurant. The larger colleges were more likely to have made
such an investment. Only a shade more than 5% of the community colleges in the sample
have made this kind of investment within the past three years.
19% of the libraries in the sample have made an investment in the past three years in
increasing the number of or expanding access to vending machines. More than 27% of
private colleges had made this type of investment, as had nearly a third of the libraries
that had done a major renovation within the past 10 years.
19% of the libraries in the sample have made an investment in the past three years to
improve the use of natural light in the library. Private colleges were much more likely
than public colleges to have done this.
More than 28% of the libraries in the sample have made an investment to reduce the
library’s heat or electricity consumption. Private colleges with fewer than 1,750 students
were the most likely to have done this.
Close to half of the libraries in the sample have made an investment to allow for more
couches, easy chairs and other comfortable furniture in the library. Nearly 86% of the
research/Ph.D.-level institutions in the sample have done this.
Only about 8% of the libraries in the sample have made an investment in improved
soundproofing over the past three years. Private colleges accounted for most of this
investment.
More than 14% of the libraries in the sample have made an investment to add entrances
or exits or to enlarge or better situate them. Larger public colleges were the most likely to
make this kind of investment over the past three years.
More than half of the college libraries in the sample have added computer workstations
over the past three years and 36.51% have added electrical outlets. More than 56% have
made investments over the past three years to add or improve group study spaces and a
third have made investments to add or improve classroom space in the library.
24
Goals of the Next Library Re-Design
We asked the libraries in the sample to rank the desirability of certain design features as a
goal of the library’s next redesign. We listed a design characteristic and then asked
libraries to rank it in one of the following categories: very important, important,
somewhat important, not too important or unimportant.
The first characteristic we asked about was: the desirability of installing, expanding, or
better situating a library café or restaurant. Close to a third considered this very
important or important and nearly 47% considered it not too important or unimportant.
The second characteristic we asked about was: the desirability of increasing the number
of or expanding accessibility to vending machines in the library. Only a bit more than
13% considered this very important or important and 70% considered it not too important
or unimportant.
The third characteristic was: the desirability of improving the use of natural light in the
library. 40% considered this an important or very important goal, while a third
considered it not too important or unimportant. Large public colleges were especially
keen on this characteristic, as were large colleges in general, more than 70% of which
considered it important or very important. Large community colleges were eager to better
exploit the use of natural light in future redesigns.
The fourth characteristic was: the desirability of reducing the library’s electricity and/or
heating consumption.
More than 53% of the libraries in the sample felt that this was an important or very
important goal, while 20% considered it not too important or unimportant. Interestingly,
there was no significant difference in views between libraries that have had a major
renovation within the past 10 years and those that have not. Those that have had a
renovation presumably have taken some energy-saving steps (as the data in this report
suggest) but most apparently still feel further energy-saving steps are an important part of
future redesigns.
77% of libraries in the sample thought that it was very important or important as a goal
for the library’s next redesign to allow for more couches, easy chairs and other
comfortable furniture in the library. Libraries that had not done a major renovation
within the past 10 years were particularly anxious to address this issue.
More than 43% of the libraries in the sample felt that it was very important or important
to add or improve soundproofing as a goal of their library’s next redesign. 4-year colleges
were particularly anxious to address this issue. About a third of the libraries in the
sample felt that adding or enlarging entrances/exits was an important or very important
goal for the library’s next redesign.
25
More than 62% of libraries in the sample believe that an important or very important goal
of their next library redesign is to add computer workstations. Community colleges and
colleges that have not had a major renovation within the past 10 years are most anxious to
do this.
More than 77% of the libraries in the sample believe that it is an important goal of their
next library redesign to add electric outlets. Public colleges, large colleges and colleges
that have not had a renovation within 10 years are most anxious to do so.
More than 83% of the libraries in the sample believe that it is a very important goal of the
next library redesign to improve group study spaces in the library. Community colleges
and research universities were the most anxious to do this, though almost all categories
and types of libraries in the sample had this high on their wish lists.
More than 76% of the libraries in the sample felt that adding or improving classroom
space was an important or very important goal of their next library redesign. Public
colleges were particularly anxious to improve in-library classroom space, as were the
largest colleges in terms of enrollment.
Close to 28% thought it would be a very important or important goal of the next library
redesign to increase the number of or better situate restrooms in the library. Nearly 54%
of libraries in colleges with more than 8,000 students thought of this as an important or
very important objective for the next library redesign.
Spending on Furniture for the Library
The libraries in the sample spent a mean of $366,775 for furniture in their last, current or
planned library redesign; median spending was $100,000 and the range was 0 to $2.5
million. Spending on furniture was heavy, mostly for items that would accommodate new
technology, foster group-oriented work and help create a lounge-like, “sink into the
furniture”-type comfortable environment.
Spending on Flooring for the Library
The libraries in the sample have spent a cumulative three-year total mean of $13,511 (but
a median of 0) on cleaning, maintaining and scotchguarding carpeting in the library over
the past three years. Libraries that have done a major renovation within the past 10 years
spent nearly 9 times more on this than did libraries that had not experienced a major
renovation in this time period. Private colleges spent more than 13 times as much as
public colleges and the highest amounts spent were by small private colleges with fewer
than 4,500 students.
Mean cumulative ending over the past three years on new carpeting, tiling and other
flooring or floor repairs was $46,099, with a median of 0. Once again, libraries that have
26
experienced a renovation within the past 10 years spent far more than libraries that had
not experienced a renovation, by a factor of more than 4.5 to 1. Private colleges outspent
public colleges by a factor of almost 7 to 1.
Impact of the Library Renovation Efforts on Patron Satisfaction

& Use of the Library
We asked the librarians in the sample that had experienced a major renovation within the
past five years to evaluate the impact of the renovation on patron use of and satisfaction
with the library. We gave them five potential answers and asked them to choose the one
that best approximated the impact of the renovations on their patrons. The first choice
was: To be honest, students were better off before the redesign. The second choice was:
Didn’t really have an appreciable impact. Choice 3: Had a modest impact and led to a
small increase in student use of satisfaction; choice 4: Had a significant impact and led to
a large increase in use or student satisfaction. The fifth and final choice was:
Transformed the library, resulting in huge gains in use and satisfaction.
Overall, the libraries in the sample have been incredibly enthusiastic about the results of
their renovations. None chose either of the first two choices, that students were better off
before the renovations or that the renovations had no appreciable impact. Only 21.74%
selected choice 3, that the renovations had a modest impact and led to a small increase in
use or student satisfaction. 34.78% picked choice 4, that the renovation had a significant
impact and led to a large increase in use or student satisfaction, and 43.48% said that
(choice 5) the renovation had transformed the library, resulting in huge gains in student
use and satisfaction. Libraries of all classes and types seemed pleased with their
renovations; community colleges seemed particularly pleased with the results.
Incredibly, survey participants said that the mean increase of student use of the library in
the first year after a major renovation was an astounding 66.59%; even the median was a
spectacular 50% and the median minimizes the impact of extreme cases. Community
colleges experienced the highest rate of increase, 93.33%, while research/Ph.D.-level
universities experienced the lowest, a nonetheless impressive 25%.
Shutting Down the Library For Renovations
23.64% of the libraries in the sample have within the past five years shut down the library
entirely, or shut down significant individual buildings, floors or other major library units
in order to facilitate some form of redesign. 37.5% of the private college libraries in the
sample have done so, as have 40% of Ph.D.-level/research universities in the sample.
27
Encourage of Discourage Use of the Library as a “Mobile Office”
We asked the libraries in the sample whether they cater to the concept of the library as a
“mobile office” by helping patrons to “camp out” in the library with their laptops and
cellphones. We gave them three possible answers: 1) Try to cater to these individuals by
providing spaces where they can have Internet access and take cellphone calls; 2) Cater to
them somewhat by providing Internet access but we hold the line on cellphones and
discourage their use; 3) We really don’t encourage this kind of use of the library at all.
Close to 27% said that they try to cater to the mobile office concept by providing spaces
where individuals can have Internet access and take cellphone calls; two-thirds said that
they provide Internet access but hold the line on cellphone calls, while 7.14% said that
they don’t encourage the “mobile office” concept at all.
The Role of Landscaping in Library Renovation
A third of the libraries in the sample said that their current or planned library renovations
included new landscaping for the exterior of the library. Close to 45% of private colleges
had such plans. 17.46% of the libraries sampled said that their current or planned
redesigns included plans for the installation or improvement of a garden. Once again,
private colleges were much more likely than public colleges to have such plans.
25.4% said that their current or planned redesigns included plans to install, develop or re-
design an atrium. Public colleges were actually a little more interested in this concept
than were the private colleges. 14.3% said that their plans include the installation or re-
positioning of outdoor sculpture. Larger private colleges were the most interested in this
idea.
Artwork in the Library
The libraries in the sample spent a mean of $6,154 over the past five years on artwork for
the library, though median spending was 0 and one library spent $200,000. Median
spending for libraries at colleges with more than 8,000 students was $1,000.
We asked the libraries in the sample for their attitude toward art in the library. We gave
them three possible answers and asked them to choose the one that best approximated
their attitude. The first answer was: We have a gallery and/or display area specifically
designed for artwork and we have select pieces in other areas of the library as well; the
second was: We don't have a gallery or display area specifically in the library but we
display works in other areas; the third was: We really don't have much in the way of
artwork in the library.
Nearly 27.3% of the libraries in the sample had a gallery or other area specifically
designed for artwork and also had select pieces in other areas of the library, while
28
43.64% did not have a gallery but did display artwork in other areas. 29.1% said that they
did not have much in the way of artwork in the library. 41.67% of private colleges in the
sample had a gallery in the library.
Design Measures for Energy Savings
Close to 40% of the libraries in the sample use fluorescent light bulbs in the library to
reduce energy consumption. Colleges with fewer than 1,750 students are the most likely
to have done this.
12.7% of the libraries in the sample have made architectural changes to increase use of
natural light in the library and therefore reduce energy consumption. Almost all of the
libraries that had done this had done a major renovation within the past 10 years and most
were private colleges.
Only 6.33% of the libraries sampled have added double-pane windows to reduce energy
consumption; all were private colleges that had done major renovations within the past 10
years. 19% had installed occupancy sensors (that turn lights on when patrons enter and
turn them off when all patrons leave an area or room). None have installed overhead fans
as a way to reduce energy consumption. Only 4.76% have improved or added insulation
as a way to save energy; all were libraries that had done a major renovation within the
past 10 years and most were research/Ph.D.-level universities.
20.63% of the libraries in the sample have reduced targeted in-building temperatures in
winter and increased such temperatures in summer in order to reduce energy
consumption. Private colleges were much more likely than public colleges to have done
this.
Only 3.17% of the libraries in the sample have installed solar panels on the grounds, roof
or walls. All were private colleges. Only 4.76% have reduced the library’s hours of
operation as a way to save on energy costs; most were public community colleges.
29
Chapter One: Capital Budget
Table 1.1: Phrase which best describes what has happened to the
library's capital budget in the past three years
It has decreased It has remained It has increased It has increased

about the same somewhat significantly
Entire Sample 19.05% 47.62% 28.57% 4.76%
library's capital budget in the past three years, Broken Out by Renovation Status
Renovation It has decreased It has remained It has increased It has increased

Status about the same somewhat significantly
Libraries that have 19.23% 46.15% 30.77% 3.85%
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 16.67% 50.00% 27.78% 5.56%
within past 10
years
library's capital budget in the past three years, Broken Out by Public or Private
Status
Public or Private It has decreased It has remained It has increased It has increased
Status about the same somewhat significantly
Public College 14.71% 55.88% 26.47% 2.94%
Private College 24.14% 37.93% 31.03% 6.90%
library's capital budget in the past three years, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment
FTE Enrollment It has decreased It has remained It has increased It has increased
Under 1,750 25.00% 56.25% 18.75% 0.00%
1,750-4,500 27.78% 61.11% 5.56% 5.56%
4,501-8,000 0.00% 35.71% 57.14% 7.14%
Above 8,000 21.43% 35.71% 35.71% 7.14%
30
library's capital budget in the past three years, Broken Out by Type of College
Carnegie Class It has decreased It has remained It has increased It has increased
Community 10.53% 68.42% 21.05% 0.00%
College
4-Year College 44.44% 22.22% 22.22% 11.11%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 14.81% 40.74% 40.74% 3.70%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 14.29% 57.14% 14.29% 14.29%
Research
University
Table 1.6: Your expectation is that over the next three years, on
average, the library's capital budget will
Be less than it Be about the Increase Increase

has been in the same as it has somewhat in significantly
past three been in the real terms over what it
years past three over what it has been over
years has been over the past three
the past three years
years
Entire Sample 17.46% 49.21% 23.81% 9.52%
average, the library's capital budget will, Broken Out by Renovation Status
Renovation Be less than it Be about the Increase Increase

Status has been in the same as it has somewhat in significantly
years
Libraries that have 19.23% 53.85% 26.92% 0.00%
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 16.67% 44.44% 22.22% 16.67%
within past 10
years
31
average, the library's capital budget will, Broken Out by Public or Private Status
Public or Private Be less than it Be about the Increase Increase

Status has been in the same as it has somewhat in significantly
years
Public College 23.53% 50.00% 14.71% 11.76%
Private College 10.34% 48.28% 34.48% 6.90%
average, the library's capital budget will, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment
FTE Enrollment Be less than it Be about the Increase Increase

years
Under 1,750 25.00% 31.25% 25.00% 18.75%
1,750-4,500 5.56% 66.67% 27.78% 0.00%
4,501-8,000 14.29% 35.71% 35.71% 14.29%
Above 8,000 28.57% 64.29% 7.14% 0.00%
average, the library's capital budget will, Broken Out by Type of College
Carnegie Class Be less than it Be about the Increase Increase

years
Community 26.32% 42.11% 26.32% 5.26%
College
4-Year College 33.33% 44.44% 11.11% 11.11%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 0.00% 51.85% 33.33% 14.81%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 28.57% 71.43% 0.00% 0.00%
Research
University
32
Table 1.11: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum amount library has
spent on major library redesign within the past three years, or if it is currently
planning a major redesign or is in the midst of one, total cumulative budget for the
redesign project ($ USA)

Entire Sample 10,763,235.36 4,500,000.00 0.00 70,000,000.00
redesign project, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Status
Libraries that have 10,253,500.00 4,750,000.00 50,000.00 70,000,000.00
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 11,896,134.57 4,500,000.00 100,000.00 70,000,000.00
within past 10
years
redesign project, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Status
Public College 15,045,063.14 5,050,000.00 85,000.00 70,000,000.00
Private College 5,845,000.00 3,500,000.00 50,000.00 21,000,000.00
redesign project, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 1,262,500.00 250,000.00 50,000.00 45,00,000.00
1,750-4,500 2,430,833.33 2,500,000.00 85,000.00 6,000,000.00
4,501-8,000 9,366,666.67 6,500,000.00 3,200,000.00 21,000,000.00
Above 8,000 27,035,126.29 6,800,000.00 150,000.00 70,000,000.00
33
redesign project, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 1,6780,000.00 6,000,000.00 100,000.00 70,000,000.00
College
4-Year College 9,250,000.00 9,250,000.00 4,500,000.00 14,000,000.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 9,183,461.54 2,500,000.00 50,000.00 70,000,000.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 5,033,333.33 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 5,100,000.00
Research
University
Please briefly describe this redesign project.
1. New joint use library.
2. Extensive remodel of all four floors, including carpet and paint. New furniture and shelving on
first floor. Compact shelving on lower level. New HVAC.
3. New library designed and constructed from 2003-2006, Opened August 2006; Library
expanded from 26,000 to 104,000 square feet.
4. New building is being built at the Northeast Regional Center which will triple the size of library.
5. The library will become part of a learning commons model which will include the learning lab
and the computer center.
6. Renovation of second of three floors.
7. Building a new structure on one campus; adding square feet on another campus.
8. Upgrading and renovation of existing library space that has existed since 1971 without any
improvements other than new carpet.
9. We are planning one but do not have a budget as yet.
10. We converted a former two-story building used by sponsoring school districts to become the
new college library and alumni center.
11. We are designing a whole new library/learning commons on a new campus.
12. Redesign of interior; reconfiguration of ground-floor level to include new services.
13. New addition to the existing facility.
34
14. Very early stage of development. Concept drawings and discussions by task force as part of
Strategic Planning for campus.
15. N/A
16. We hope to utilize contiguous space to enlarge the facility with an information commons
focus.
17. Moved to a totally new building.
18. An existing building was remodeled to house the library. Existing walls and ceilings were
removed. New ceilings, carpet, paint, new mobile shelving installed.
19. Learning Commons Renovation Project.
20. Repurpose space housing materials for more user-focused space such as seating, group study
and instructional classrooms.
21. We will be building a new structure in the next 3 years.
22. In conjunction with the redesign of the building, the library's offices will be refurbished and
the roof, ceiling, lighting and flooring will be replaced.
23. New "library" structure and renovation of existing structure, adjacent.
24. It was a feasibility study and the purpose was to record and review existing library functions
and services, assess present and future needs for both programming and infrastructure, and
propose a renovation program that could be implemented in phases.
25. Replace the handrail and guardrails on the main staircase.
26. Extensive interior reworking.
27. We totally gutted the existing library in phases and upgraded wiring, wireless access, visual
concepts from a 1970s building to a 200+ facility.
28. N/A
29. N/A
30. Built a new library in 2005.
31. http://www.dit.ie/about/grangegorman/
32. Redesign existing footprint to increase collaborative learning spaces, provide room for
exhibits and large gatherings, combine service points, relocate circulating materials to ASRS
21st Century Library Project. New Construction. Approximately 90 sq ft. Renovation of old
library building for related partnerships. Library currently occupies 40K sq ft of an 80K sq ft 3-
story building.
33. Carpeting 3rd floor, painting accent walls, new study/exegesis carrels.
35
34. Complete change to one of 3 floors, extension of café, creation of group study areas, removal
of print current serials, changing furniture/desks thru introduction of RFID technology.
35. It is to expand and modernize the Special Collections and Archives area. There is a capital
campaign. Whether or not we will reach our goal and actually have a renovation based on
architect plans is an open question.
36. Remodel the main floor of the library to accommodate a state-of-the-art learning commons.
This remodel would include clearing out all the existing shelving units except for a small
reference collection and moving a large open lab into the open spaces (merging the upstairs and
downstairs labs). A combined lab would provide students the benefit of having technical help and
research help all in one common area, plus provide a more open, inviting and healthier
environment for working. The remodel would also include expanding the existing library
instruction lab to accommodate more comfortable seating and adjustable PC workstations and
adding learning pods for collaborative group work. Students would also use a dedicated area for
groups and individuals to practice classroom presentations using various types of media and
equipment (white board, PC, overheads, etc.).
37. N/A
38. The main floor of the library was converted from an old stack/reference area into an
"information commons" containing new IT equipment, updated HVAC, etc.
39. New computer classroom; Learning Commons; small group studies; move and expand Faculty
Teaching Center in Library; improved HVAC.
40. New Library in a new university building housing a new program; new and expanded
Information Commons in main and Science Libraries.
36
Chapter Two: Managing Library Renovation
If your library currently or in the recent past has formed a committee

to guide the library renovation process, how did you form this
committee? Who sat on it? How were they chosen and to whom are
they responsible? Which departments or agencies of the college sat on
the committee?
1. In our 2004 renovation, many constituencies were consulted over several years, but there was
no committee.
2. Committee formed by VP Finance; library admin and one lib faculty, finance, campus provost,
and facilities.
3. Chosen by the Administration. Included Architect, Interior Designer, VP for Finance, FP of

Academic Affairs, 2-3 library staff, Head of Physical Plant. Others invited depending on
discussion (Campus IT).
4. Committee chosen by Senior Administration Members: President, Vice President, Provost,

Associate VP Academic Affairs, Chief Technology Officer, Library Director, General Services
Director, Architect with other staff and vendors as needed for different aspects of the project
(Gallery, Café, Landscape crew, Brodart furniture division rep, etc.). We were responsible to the
College and Board.
5. Committee was formed based on the parties involved - administration, department heads,
board members. The library, learning lab and computer center department heads were invited to
participate.
6. Out of Academic Affairs, including administrators, library staff, IT staff and teaching faculty.
7. The committee will be formed soon. The process will be an invitation from the facilities group
to sit on the committee. There will be representation from students, faculty and staff with a
higher percentage of representation from the library faculty and staff.
8. Plan to use faculty, staff and student focus groups for input on renovation plans.
9. We are in the process of building a "learning commons" which will combine library services,
tutoring, reading/language labs, writing center and technology. The committee is made up of
library staff (prof. and paraprofessional), several academic deans, directors of particular centers
(e.g., tutoring), faculty from reading, ESL, nursing, foreign languages and English. Departments
include humanities, nursing, learning support services, student services, technology.
10. Librarians, IT reps, physical plant dir., VP for Business Affairs, distance learning folks sat on
the committee. Everything was reviewed by the President and his Executive Team.
11. Hasn't started yet!
12. The committee has not been formed yet, although there is a Library Committee, an advisory
body on library services.
37
13. The library currently has a planning committee which includes the major stakeholders who
will be occupying this addition as well as student representatives. Departments include food
service for café, technology and instructional technology, student academic support services, etc.
The chair of the committee is the Executive Director of the Library and Instructional Technology.
14. Established by Provost and members from a range of constituencies representative of

interests in being part of the Learning Commons.
15. Provost, VP for finance, Dean of University Libraries, Director of Library involved, Physical
Plant.
16. Director, Library secretary, company chief we were to work with, architect, IT head and
others as needed.
17. Just beginning. Library staff, maintenance staff, Provost, Development Director with faculty
support.
18. N/A
19. We formed the committee from library faculty, facilities planners and other facilities staff.
20. Yes, a committee was formed. It included the library director, engineers, AVP for finance, VP
for Academic Affairs, IT director.
21. The library personnel met with members of the architectural firm. However, final decisions
were made by the overall project manager for the university and many of our ideas were "value
engineered" out.
22. Design committee included library administrators, reference department leadership and staff,
systems department leadership, and campus IT leadership.
23. In the spring of this year, a space consultant was hired to consider repurposing with specific
goals. Student assessment was conducted on the use of space and currently a committee of
library staff is developing strategy to implement recommendations.
24. No committee. Everything is done without consulting the library at all.
25. President and administration. Mainly 'facilities' and comptroller; academic dean/provost and
university librarian.
26. No committee has been established.
27. None.
28. Library is under CIO who selected committee with representatives from administration,
faculty, on-campus students, commuter students, library staff.
29. The Dean and the donor had most power, although all constituencies were involved.
30. N/A
31. N/A
38
32. Library Staff, 3 faculty representative, 2 staff, 2 students and 1 administrator.
33. Ad hoc, personal contact, reps of each Faculty plus central admin depts - reported to
Grangegorman Project Team.
34. Dean appointed it. Associate & Assistant Directors, Building Manager. Campus Building
Facilities.
35. (1) Library Advisory Committee - Made up of Faculty Across the Curriculum and student
representation. (2) Library Round Table - made up of Library Faculty and staff. (3) Student
Senate. (4) Faculty Association Representation. (5) Academic Support Division working group. (6)
Campus Facilities Committee, College Board of Trustees. We are preparing to enter Phase III
Planning which will include Design Phase with broader input from various groups.
36. Three Faculty representatives from different schools with the Dean of Information Services as
the chair.
37. Not restricted by death by committee. Split into various small project teams all made up with
staff from different grades and with different roles.
38. Library Director, Special Collections Librarians, Facilities Maintenance Head, our College's
Foundation Representative, but chaired by the guy who schedules rooms in the college.
39. N/A
40. Committee: Facilities Director, Library Director, Business VP, Instruction VP, President
worked on design with architects and library architectural consultant. Monitoring Building Group:
Library Director, Facilities Director, Construction Coordinator, Project Manager and, occasionally,
library consultant.
41. No committee.
42. The academic dean appointed the senior staff (CFO, CIO, Dean, IT Director, Operations
Director, Advancement VP) and the library director to the committee.
43. Provost formed and co-chaired the committee with Library Director; representation from
across the College; reps. chosen by Deans and Library Director; responsible to the Provost;
Depts. represented included 1 fac. member from School of Educ., one from Bus. School, one
from Arts & Sciences; Provost; Library Director; two librarians; College CTO; rep. from Student
Services; 2 student reps.
44. University Committee for new building housing new program and new library; joint IT and
Library committee for Info Commons.
39
Chapter Three: Technology Education Center
Table 3.1: Percentage of libraries that offer a specific center or defined

set of workstations designed to equip and teach students or faculty in information
technologies or information literacy
Yes No
Entire Sample 60.32% 39.68%

technologies or information literacy, Broken Out by Renovation Status
Renovation Status Yes No

Libraries that have had a major 69.23% 30.77%
renovation within past 10 years
No renovation within past 10 52.78% 47.22%
years

technologies or information literacy, Broken Out by Public or Private Status
Public or Private Status Yes No

Public College 67.65% 32.35%
Private College 51.72% 48.28%

technologies or information literacy, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment
FTE Enrollment Yes No

Under 1,750 50.00% 50.00%
1,750-4,500 55.56% 44.44%
4,501-8,000 64.29% 35.71%
Above 8,000 71.43% 28.57%
40

technologies or information literacy, Broken Out by Type of College
Carnegie Class Yes No

Community College 52.63% 47.37%
4-Year College Only 44.44% 55.56%
4-Year & M.A. Degree 70.37% 29.63%
Ph.D. Level & Research 57.14% 42.86%
University
Table 3.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum number of

workstations at this center (or all such centers if there are more than one)

Entire Sample 37.42 30.00 4.00 200.00

workstations at this center (or all such centers if there are more than one), Broken
Out by Renovation Status

Status
Libraries that have 32.42 30.00 4.00 65.00
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 41.30 27.00 6.00 200.00
within past 10
years

Out by Public or Private Status

Status
Public College 42.65 27.00 14.00 200.00
Private College 29.07 30.00 4.00 65.00
41

Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 26.88 22.00 4.00 65.00
1,750-4,500 27.20 24.50 14.00 50.00
4,501-8,000 35.22 30.00 16.00 62.00
Above 8,000 56.86 45.00 15.00 200.00

Out by Type of College

Community 34.95 24.00 14.00 70.00
College
4-Year College 24.00 27.50 4.00 37.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 31.26 28.00 6.00 65.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 78.75 50.00 15.00 200.00
Research
University
spent over the past three years to develop new library instructional centers, or re-
equip or upgrade existing ones with new computers, workstations or other
technology ($ USA)

Entire Sample 292,924.86 22,500.00 0.00 10,000,000.00
technology, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Status
Libraries that have 591,123.16 35,000.00 0.00 10,000,000.00
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 48,022.91 0.00 0.00 200,000.00
within past 10
years
42
technology, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Status
Public College 460,326.83 18,170.00 0.00 10,000,000.00
Private College 69,722.22 25,000.00 0.00 500,000.00
technology, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 83,333.33 20,000.00 0.00 500,000.00
1,750-4,500 31,785.71 7,500.00 0.00 125,000.00
4,501-8,000 56,888.89 40,000.00 0.00 187,000.00
Above 8,000 1,059,584.40 72,252.00 0.00 10,000,000.00
technology, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 795,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000,000.00
College
4-Year College 85,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 500,000.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 58,431.76 40,000.00 0.00 187,000.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 78,750.00 90,000.00 0.00 135,000.00
Research
University
43
What changes has the library recently made, or plans to make, in its
technology centers? Have you added or plan to add new workstations?
Changed the way the spaces are arranged? Added centers? Explain
your thinking.
1. We just added 24 workstations and 8 additional laptops for loan. Also added GPS and e-
reading systems.
2. Created new instructional lab. Changed configuration of main floor computer workstations
(pods around posts rather than all 18 in one central area). Added three "booths" with large
monitors.
3. Encouraging collaboration and group work.
4. None.
5. 12 additional workstations were added a few weeks ago.
6. Replaced all desktops, replaced 10 check-out laptops per year, added 9 Intel Macintoshes,
added 10 8.5X11 and 2 12X17 scanners, added double-camera book-cradle scanning, added
presentation rehearsal room technology.
7. We are currently exploring a new configuration of the "computer lab" that will include multiple
projectors and a teaching zone in the center of the room.
8. A computer lab of 15 workstations was moved into the library for instruction use and as an
open PC lab. We only had room for 15 stations, and plan to add a data projector.
9. We have replaced our laptops that are loaned to students. We plan to make an open
computer lab with tech assistance in the Learning Commons as well as an area for multimedia
production to support our e-portfolio initiative. We also received an LSTA grant and purchased
numerous technologies, both desktop and hand-held for students with disabilities, both physical
and learning. The space will be re-arranged in the Learning Commons to be more flexible. It will
allow for group work as well as individual learning and also for assistance from staff.
10. We now have the main multi-purpose open computer lab located in the library and identified
as the Information Commons.
11. In our new facility, we are planning a learning commons with large common technology area,
information literacy classroom area, will add many different study/group work/tutoring/student
services support areas + breakout rooms.
12. New lab in library.
13. Construction of two computer laboratories, each to accommodate 20 students.
14. Added a significant number of computers, seating, workstations to existing facility.
15. Early design stage only.
44
16. Replaced laptops and PC’s and added a new coffee lounge with study space and wireless
access.
17. Add "deep quiet" study space with technology, additional computer stations and possibly a
small classroom with computers.
18. Added 110 computers to an open lab in the library. Also have two IT classrooms with 32 and
12 computers, respectively.
19. We have 40 workstations in the library and 2 new mini labs for group work. We are adding 6
workstations for listening to music for music students.
20. None.
21. We are planning to add an extensive number of workstations, as well as replace the majority
of reference material from book to online to expand the area of infocommons and maybe add a
Internet café too.
22. Our computers were finally upgraded by IT after 5 or so years. They are arranged in a
straight line along one wall and all have Internet access and can print. These are just
workstations and not a technology center.
23. We are moving to an environment which relies more heavily on laptops as opposed to fixed
computer stations.
24. None.
25. Upgraded PC's; added LCD panels.
26. Two years ago several collaboratories were built providing a big screen monitor and cpu for
hook-up and use by groups. This type of center will be expanded in the future as space becomes
available.
27. (Campus IT does this with student technology fee.)
28. We plan to expand one of our two 20-station centers to hold 25-30 computers to accomodate
larger classes.
29. Plan to add and increase.
30. IT is separate.
31. The library staff worked with IT staff to redesign floor space, install cabling, purchase
equipment such as overhead projector, smart board, teacher's station, purchase replacement
workstations, etc.
32. We would like to add new computers but have not been approved to do so; we would like to
rearrange the space for maximum usage.
33. None.
34. Library becomes a "distributed computer lab" with clusters of stations dispersed throughout,
both for small groups and for individuals.
45
35. Our tech centers are becoming more and more training areas and centers for students to
gather for specific projects. They all have their own computers so printing is the only individual
usage that the areas usually provide.
36. N/A
37. We are adding new workstations on another floor soon.
38. We hope to create more spots for laptop use (electrical outlets + chair) & to re-equip an
adjacent classroom with technology upgrades.
39. None at the moment.
40. Add centres - to increase capacity to address increased demand.
41. New instructor stations; new student computers, w/increase in number. Reoriented space.
42. Added student-created artwork. New, more comfortable seating.
43. We will expand out workstations and layout of staff/student service areas to increase
interaction.
44. New Microform Scanner, 12 new Dell Vostros, 4 new iMacs; Rearranged Adaptive Technology
Center. Upgraded computers first in high-use areas. Went with Final Cut Express and iMovie 8
instead of full version of Final Cut for they are more user-friendly.
45. Teaching suite works well, only change in short term could be to introduce loanable laptops.
10 new workstations will be leased, but this is not in the library's budget. There is a college-wide
leasing budget. We will use existing tables and chairs scrounged from here and there to
accommodate the workstations.
46. N/A
47. Last year we added 6 workstations, changing a BI classroom from 30 computers to 36.
48. Added wireless capability for greater flexibility.
49. Added workstations to increase number available - no ability to rearrange space or expand
any further.
50. We are adding more laptop-friendly spaces and upgrading desktop machines to
accommodate more sophisticated software. The workstations have been rearranged into pods of
6, so students can work collaboratively.
51. We trade out computers every three years in the classroom; we are planning to build at least
three additional classrooms in our building in the next several years.
52. Created Information Commons in collaboration with University IT.
53. Bought new chairs.
46
Chapter Four: Building Plans

Table 4.1: Percentage of libraries that have used the services of an
architect over the past two years
Yes No

architect over the past two years, Broken Out by Renovation Status

years

architect over the past two years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status


architect over the past two years, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 12.50% 87.50%
1,750-4,500 38.89% 61.11%
4,501-8,000 28.57% 71.43%
Above 8,000 64.29% 35.71%

architect over the past two years, Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 33.33% 66.67%
University
47
Table 4.6: Percentage of libraries that over the next two years plan to
begin construction or continue to construct one or more new buildings used
primarily by the library
Yes No
primarily by the library, Broken Out by Renovation Status

years
primarily by the library, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

primarily by the library, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 12.50% 87.50%
1,750-4,500 0.00% 100.00%
4,501-8,000 7.14% 92.86%
Above 8,000 28.57% 71.43%
primarily by the library, Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 7.41% 92.59%
University
48
significantly expand an existing library structure in such a way as to increase
available space over the next two years
Yes No
available space over the next two years, Broken Out by Renovation Status

years
available space over the next two years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

available space over the next two years, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 6.25% 93.75%
1,750-4,500 0.00% 100.00%
4,501-8,000 21.43% 78.57%
Above 8,000 21.43% 78.57%
available space over the next two years, Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 11.11% 88.89%
University
49
significantly remodel the interior or usable space of one or more existing
buildings
Yes No
buildings, Broken Out by Renovation Status

years
buildings, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

buildings, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 25.00% 75.00%
1,750-4,500 44.44% 55.56%
4,501-8,000 42.86% 57.14%
Above 8,000 71.43% 28.57%
buildings, Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 55.56% 44.44%
University
50
develop, expand or remodel an "information commons"
Yes No
develop, expand or remodel an "information commons," Broken Out by
Renovation Status

years
develop, expand or remodel an "information commons," Broken Out by Public or
Private Status

develop, expand or remodel an "information commons," Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 37.50% 62.50%
1,750-4,500 22.22% 77.78%
4,501-8,000 42.86% 57.14%
Above 8,000 50.00% 50.00%
develop, expand or remodel an "information commons," Broken Out by Type of
College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 33.33% 66.67%
University
51
Table 4.26: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum number of computers

or workstations in all of the computer labs that the library uses in any way for
instructional purposes

Entire Sample 44.17 34.50 0.00 250.00

instructional purposes, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Status
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 48.91 33.50 0.00 250.00
within past 10
years

instructional purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Status
Public College 47.10 37.00 0.00 200.00
Private College 41.03 33.00 0.00 250.00

instructional purposes, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 28.63 20.00 0.00 70.00
1,750-4,500 24.41 25.00 0.00 61.00
4,501-8,000 65.57 49.00 16.00 250.00
Above 8,000 66.25 42.50 20.00 200.00
52

instructional purposes, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 35.82 25.00 0.00 110.00
College
4-Year College 51.44 33.00 8.00 250.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 35.81 36.00 0.00 92.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 87.29 70.00 35.00 200.00
Research
University

in your computer labs that are Macs

Entire Sample 6.02 0.00 0.00 70.00

in your computer labs that are Macs, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Status
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 9.13 0.00 0.00 70.00
within past 10
years

in your computer labs that are Macs, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Status
Public College 6.09 0.00 0.00 70.00
Private College 6.50 0.00 0.00 64.00
53

in your computer labs that are Macs, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 2.23 0.00 0.00 25.00
1,750-4,500 9.33 1.00 0.00 64.00
4,501-8,000 0.44 0.00 0.00 2.00
Above 8,000 10.67 0.00 0.00 70.00

in your computer labs that are Macs, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 1.82 0.00 0.00 20.00
College
4-Year College 9.14 2.00 0.00 25.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 5.57 0.00 0.00 64.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 19.00 3.00 0.00 70.00
Research
University

in your computer labs that are PC’s

Entire Sample 43.45 33.00 0.00 248.00

in your computer labs that are PC’s, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Status
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 42.38 25.00 0.00 248.00
within past 10
years
54

in your computer labs that are PC’s, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Status
Public College 41.25 35.00 0.00 142.00
Private College 45.92 30.00 0.00 248.00

in your computer labs that are PC’s, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 30.93 20.00 8.00 70.00
1,750-4,500 29.33 22.00 0.00 131.00
4,501-8,000 73.46 64.00 24.00 248.00
Above 8,000 44.70 38.00 0.00 142.00

in your computer labs that are PC’s, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 36.81 25.00 0.00 110.00
College
4-Year College 48.75 22.50 2.00 248.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 41.78 40.00 0.00 131.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 58.60 40.00 0.00 142.00
Research
University
55
Chapter Five: Reasons for Library Redesign
Table 5.1: Percentage of libraries that in the past three years have made
an investment in installing, expanding or better situating a library café or
restaurant
Yes No
restaurant, Broken Out by Renovation Status

years
restaurant, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

restaurant, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 6.25% 93.75%
1,750-4,500 11.11% 88.89%
4,501-8,000 35.71% 64.29%
Above 8,000 21.43% 78.57%
56
restaurant, Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 22.22% 77.78%
University
an investment in increasing the number of or expanding accessibility to vending
machines
Yes No
machines, Broken Out by Renovation Status

years
machines, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

machines, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 0.00% 100.00%
1,750-4,500 33.33% 66.67%
4,501-8,000 21.43% 78.57%
Above 8,000 21.43% 78.57%
57
machines, Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 22.22% 77.78%
University
an investment to improve the use of natural light in the library
Yes No
an investment to improve the use of natural light in the library, Broken Out by
Renovation Status

years
Public or Private Status

an investment to improve the use of natural light in the library, Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 18.75% 81.25%
1,750-4,500 5.56% 94.44%
4,501-8,000 35.71% 64.29%
Above 8,000 21.43% 78.57%
58
Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 22.22% 77.78%
University
an investment to reduce the library’s electricity and/or heating consumption
Yes No
an investment to reduce the library’s electricity and/or heating consumption,
Broken Out by Renovation Status

years
Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 37.50% 62.50%
1,750-4,500 27.78% 72.22%
4,501-8,000 28.57% 71.43%
Above 8,000 21.43% 78.57%
59
Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 29.63% 70.37%
University
an investment to redesign to allow for more couches, easy chairs and other
comfortable furniture
Yes No
comfortable furniture, Broken Out by Renovation Status

years
comfortable furniture, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

comfortable furniture, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 43.75% 56.25%
1,750-4,500 27.78% 72.22%
4,501-8,000 57.14% 42.86%
Above 8,000 71.43% 28.57%
60
comfortable furniture, Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 51.85% 48.15%
University
an investment to redesign to add or improve soundproofing
Yes No
an investment to redesign to add or improve soundproofing, Broken Out by
Renovation Status

years
an investment to redesign to add or improve soundproofing, Broken Out by Public
or Private Status

61
an investment to redesign to add or improve soundproofing, Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 6.25% 93.75%
1,750-4,500 5.56% 94.44%
4,501-8,000 21.43% 78.57%
Above 8,000 0.00% 100.00%
an investment to redesign to add or improve soundproofing, Broken Out by Type
of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 7.41% 92.59%
University
an investment to add entrances/exits or enlarge or better situate them
Yes No
an investment to add entrances/exits or enlarge or better situate them, Broken Out
by Renovation Status

years
by Public or Private Status

62
by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 6.25% 93.75%
1,750-4,500 5.56% 94.44%
4,501-8,000 28.57% 71.43%
Above 8,000 21.43% 78.57%
by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 7.41% 92.59%
University
an investment to add computer workstations
Yes No
an investment to add computer workstations, Broken Out by Renovation Status

years
an investment to add computer workstations, Broken Out by Public or Private
Status

63
an investment to add computer workstations, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 50.00% 50.00%
1,750-4,500 38.89% 61.11%
4,501-8,000 71.43% 28.57%
Above 8,000 50.00% 50.00%
an investment to add computer workstations, Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 55.56% 44.44%
University
an investment to add electrical outlets
Yes No
an investment to add electrical outlets, Broken Out by Renovation Status

years
an investment to add electrical outlets, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

64
an investment to add electrical outlets, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 25.00% 75.00%
1,750-4,500 22.22% 77.78%
4,501-8,000 64.29% 35.71%
Above 8,000 42.86% 57.14%
an investment to add electrical outlets, Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 48.15% 51.85%
University
an investment to add or improve group study spaces
Yes No
an investment to add or improve group study spaces, Broken Out by Renovation
Status

years
an investment to add or improve group study spaces, Broken Out by Public or
Private Status

65
an investment to add or improve group study spaces, Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 37.50% 62.50%
1,750-4,500 44.44% 55.56%
4,501-8,000 78.57% 21.43%
Above 8,000 64.29% 35.71%
an investment to add or improve group study spaces, Broken Out by Type of
College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 66.67% 33.33%
University
an investment to add or improve classroom space in the library
Yes No
an investment to add or improve classroom space in the library, Broken Out by
Renovation Status

years

66
FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 25.00% 75.00%
1,750-4,500 22.22% 77.78%
4,501-8,000 57.14% 42.86%
Above 8,000 35.71% 64.29%
Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 37.04% 62.96%
University
Table 5.56: Desirability of installing, expanding or better situating a

library café or restaurant as a goal of your next library redesign
Very Important Somewhat Not too Unimportant

Important Important Important
Entire Sample 20.00% 11.67% 21.67% 18.33% 28.33%

library café or restaurant as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by
Renovation Status
Renovation Very Important Somewhat Not too Unimportant

Status Important Important Important
Libraries that 12.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 28.00%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 26.47% 5.88% 23.53% 14.71% 29.41%
within past 10
years
67

Public or Very Important Somewhat Not too Unimportant

Private Status Important Important Important
Public College 24.24% 9.09% 21.21% 18.18% 27.27%
Private College 14.81% 14.81% 22.22% 18.52% 29.63%

FTE Enrollment
FTE Very Important Somewhat Not too Unimportant

Enrollment Important Important Important
Under 1,750 25.00% 6.25% 31.25% 18.75% 18.75%
1,750-4,500 17.65% 11.76% 11.76% 17.65% 41.18%
4,501-8,000 0.00% 23.08% 23.08% 23.08% 30.77%
Above 8,000 38.46% 7.69% 23.08% 15.38% 15.38%

Type of College
Carnegie Very Important Somewhat Not too Unimportant

Class Important Important Important
Community 22.22% 5.56% 27.78% 27.78% 16.67%
College
4-Year College 22.22% 0.00% 22.22% 22.22% 33.33%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 15.38% 19.23% 19.23% 7.69% 38.46%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 33.33% 16.67%
Research
University
Table 5.61: Desirability of increasing the number of or expanding

accessibility to vending machines as a goal of your next library redesign

Entire Sample 5.00% 8.33% 16.67% 33.33% 36.67%
68

accessibility to vending machines as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken

Libraries that 0.00% 16.00% 8.00% 44.00% 32.00%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 8.82% 2.94% 23.53% 26.47% 38.24%
within past 10
years


Public College 6.06% 6.06% 15.15% 39.39% 33.33%
Private College 3.70% 11.11% 18.52% 25.93% 40.74%


Under 1,750 6.25% 6.25% 25.00% 31.25% 31.25%
1,750-4,500 0.00% 5.88% 11.76% 41.18% 41.18%
4,501-8,000 0.00% 15.38% 15.38% 38.46% 30.77%
Above 8,000 15.38% 7.69% 15.38% 23.08% 38.46%
69


Community 5.56% 5.56% 16.67% 50.00% 22.22%
College
4-Year College 0.00% 0.00% 22.22% 33.33% 44.44%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 3.85% 15.38% 15.38% 19.23% 46.15%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 16.67% 0.00% 16.67% 33.33% 33.33%
Research
University
Table 5.66: Desirability of improving the use of natural light in the library
as a goal of your next library redesign

Entire Sample 25.00% 15.00% 26.67% 18.33% 15.00%
as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Libraries that 16.00% 16.00% 20.00% 32.00% 16.00%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 32.35% 14.71% 32.35% 5.88% 14.71%
within past 10
years
as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Public College 36.36% 15.15% 21.21% 15.15% 12.12%
Private College 11.11% 14.81% 33.33% 22.22% 18.52%
70
as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 31.25% 6.25% 37.50% 18.75% 6.25%
1,750-4,500 17.65% 17.65% 17.65% 23.53% 23.53%
4,501-8,000 7.69% 15.38% 23.08% 23.08% 30.77%
Above 8,000 46.15% 23.08% 23.08% 7.69% 0.00%
as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 38.89% 11.11% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67%
College
4-Year College 22.22% 11.11% 11.11% 33.33% 22.22%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 15.38% 15.38% 38.46% 15.38% 15.38%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 16.67% 33.33% 33.33% 16.67% 0.00%
Research
University
Table 5.71: Desirability of reducing the library’s electricity and/or heating

consumption as a goal of your next library redesign

Entire Sample 25.00% 28.33% 26.67% 13.33% 6.67%

consumption as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Renovation
Status

Libraries that 28.00% 28.00% 24.00% 12.00% 8.00%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 23.53% 29.41% 29.41% 11.76% 5.88%
within past 10
years
71

consumption as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Public or
Private Status

Public College 27.27% 27.27% 27.27% 15.15% 3.03%
Private College 22.22% 29.63% 25.93% 11.11% 11.11%

consumption as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 18.75% 37.50% 18.75% 12.50% 12.50%
1,750-4,500 35.29% 23.53% 11.76% 17.65% 11.76%
4,501-8,000 7.69% 30.77% 53.85% 7.69% 0.00%
Above 8,000 38.46% 23.08% 30.77% 7.69% 0.00%

consumption as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Type of
College

Community 27.78% 27.78% 22.22% 16.67% 5.56%
College
4-Year College 22.22% 44.44% 22.22% 0.00% 11.11%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 23.08% 23.08% 26.92% 19.23% 7.69%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 16.67% 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Research
University
Table 5.76: Desirability of redesigning to allow for more couches, easy

chairs and other comfortable furniture as a goal of your next library redesign

Entire Sample 45.90% 31.15% 6.56% 9.84% 6.56%
72

chairs and other comfortable furniture as a goal of your next library redesign,
Broken Out by Renovation Status

Libraries that 28.00% 40.00% 8.00% 16.00% 8.00%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 57.14% 25.71% 5.71% 5.71% 5.71%
within past 10
years

Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Public College 54.55% 30.30% 6.06% 6.06% 3.03%
Private College 35.71% 32.14% 7.14% 14.29% 10.71%

Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 50.00% 43.75% 0.00% 0.00% 6.25%
1,750-4,500 33.33% 27.78% 11.11% 22.22% 5.56%
4,501-8,000 30.77% 38.46% 7.69% 15.38% 7.69%
Above 8,000 69.23% 15.38% 7.69% 0.00% 7.69%
73

Broken Out by Type of College

Community 44.44% 44.44% 5.56% 5.56% 0.00%
College
4-Year College 22.22% 44.44% 0.00% 22.22% 11.11%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 48.15% 22.22% 11.11% 11.11% 7.41%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 66.67% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67%
Research
University
Table 5.81: Desirability of adding or improving soundproofing as a goal

of your next library redesign

Entire Sample 28.33% 15.00% 23.33% 23.33% 10.00%

of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Libraries that 28.00% 16.00% 24.00% 24.00% 8.00%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 29.41% 14.71% 20.59% 23.53% 11.76%
within past 10
years

of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Public College 27.27% 18.18% 27.27% 15.15% 12.12%
Private College 29.63% 11.11% 18.52% 33.33% 7.41%
74

of your next library redesign, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 37.50% 0.00% 31.25% 18.75% 12.50%
1,750-4,500 23.53% 17.65% 23.53% 23.53% 11.76%
4,501-8,000 23.08% 23.08% 23.08% 30.77% 0.00%
Above 8,000 30.77% 23.08% 7.69% 23.08% 15.38%

of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 33.33% 16.67% 33.33% 11.11% 5.56%
College
4-Year College 55.56% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 11.11%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 15.38% 15.38% 30.77% 26.92% 11.54%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 16.67% 33.33% 0.00% 33.33% 16.67%
Research
University
Table 5.86: Desirability of adding entrances/exits or enlarging or better

situating them as a goal of your next library redesign

Entire Sample 15.52% 17.24% 24.14% 17.24% 25.86%
75

situating them as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Renovation
Status

Libraries that 0.00% 16.67% 29.17% 25.00% 29.17%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 27.27% 15.15% 21.21% 12.12% 24.24%
within past 10
years

situating them as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Public or
Private Status

Public College 18.18% 21.21% 21.21% 12.12% 27.27%
Private College 12.00% 12.00% 28.00% 24.00% 24.00%

situating them as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 12.50% 18.75% 25.00% 12.50% 31.25%
1,750-4,500 12.50% 6.25% 31.25% 25.00% 25.00%
4,501-8,000 8.33% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 16.67%
Above 8,000 23.08% 23.08% 15.38% 7.69% 30.77%
76

situating them as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Type of
College

Community 11.11% 27.78% 27.78% 11.11% 22.22%
College
4-Year College 28.57% 14.29% 14.29% 14.29% 28.57%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 15.38% 11.54% 23.08% 23.08% 26.92%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 0.00% 16.67% 33.33% 16.67% 33.33%
Research
University
Table 5.91: Desirability of adding computer workstations as a goal of

your next library redesign

Entire Sample 37.29% 25.42% 20.34% 11.86% 5.08%

your next library redesign, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Libraries that 20.00% 20.00% 40.00% 16.00% 4.00%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 51.52% 30.30% 6.06% 6.06% 6.06%
within past 10
years
77

your next library redesign, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Public College 39.39% 27.27% 24.24% 6.06% 3.03%
Private College 34.62% 23.08% 15.38% 19.23% 7.69%

your next library redesign, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 40.00% 26.67% 26.67% 0.00% 6.67%
1,750-4,500 38.89% 27.78% 5.56% 22.22% 5.56%
4,501-8,000 33.33% 8.33% 33.33% 25.00% 0.00%
Above 8,000 38.46% 30.77% 23.08% 0.00% 7.69%

your next library redesign, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 55.56% 27.78% 11.11% 5.56% 0.00%
College
4-Year College 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 12.50% 12.50%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 34.62% 19.23% 23.08% 19.23% 3.85%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 0.00% 50.00% 33.33% 0.00% 16.67%
Research
University
Table 5.96: Desirability of adding electrical outlets as a goal of your next

library redesign

Entire Sample 56.90% 20.69% 10.34% 5.17% 6.90%
78

library redesign, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Libraries that 33.33% 33.33% 12.50% 8.33% 12.50%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 72.73% 12.12% 9.09% 3.03% 3.03%
within past 10
years

library redesign, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Public College 68.75% 18.75% 9.38% 3.13% 0.00%
Private College 42.31% 23.08% 11.54% 7.69% 15.38%

library redesign, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 60.00% 13.33% 13.33% 6.67% 6.67%
1,750-4,500 41.18% 29.41% 11.76% 11.76% 5.88%
4,501-8,000 50.00% 16.67% 16.67% 0.00% 16.67%
Above 8,000 76.92% 23.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

library redesign, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 64.71% 23.53% 11.76% 0.00% 0.00%
College
4-Year College 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 12.50% 12.50%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 46.15% 23.08% 15.38% 7.69% 7.69%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 83.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67%
Research
University
79
Table 5.101: Desirability of adding or improving group study spaces as a

goal of your next library redesign

Entire Sample 66.10% 16.95% 11.86% 3.39% 1.69%

goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Libraries that 50.00% 29.17% 12.50% 4.17% 4.17%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 76.47% 8.82% 11.76% 2.94% 0.00%
within past 10
years

goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Public College 78.79% 6.06% 15.15% 0.00% 0.00%
Private College 50.00% 30.77% 7.69% 7.69% 3.85%

goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 62.50% 25.00% 6.25% 0.00% 6.25%
1,750-4,500 58.82% 11.76% 23.53% 5.88% 0.00%
4,501-8,000 50.00% 33.33% 8.33% 8.33% 0.00%
Above 8,000 92.31% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00%
80

goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 77.78% 5.56% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00%
College
4-Year College 44.44% 33.33% 0.00% 11.11% 11.11%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 56.00% 24.00% 16.00% 4.00% 0.00%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Research
University
Table 5.106: Desirability of adding or improving classroom space in the

library as a goal of your next library redesign

Entire Sample 46.67% 30.00% 10.00% 6.67% 6.67%

library as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Libraries that 36.00% 32.00% 16.00% 4.00% 12.00%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 55.88% 26.47% 5.88% 8.82% 2.94%
within past 10
years

library as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Public or Private
Status

Public College 63.64% 24.24% 6.06% 3.03% 3.03%
Private College 25.93% 37.04% 14.81% 11.11% 11.11%
81

library as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 43.75% 25.00% 18.75% 6.25% 6.25%
1,750-4,500 35.29% 29.41% 11.76% 11.76% 11.76%
4,501-8,000 46.15% 46.15% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00%
Above 8,000 69.23% 23.08% 0.00% 0.00% 7.69%

library as a goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 66.67% 27.78% 5.56% 0.00% 0.00%
College
4-Year College 33.33% 22.22% 11.11% 22.22% 11.11%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 30.77% 34.62% 15.38% 7.69% 11.54%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Research
University
Table 5.111: Desirability of increasing or better situating restrooms as a

goal of your next library redesign

Entire Sample 16.39% 11.48% 19.67% 24.59% 27.87%

goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Libraries that 12.00% 8.00% 32.00% 20.00% 28.00%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 20.00% 14.29% 11.43% 28.57% 25.71%
within past 10
years
82

goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Public College 18.18% 18.18% 15.15% 27.27% 21.21%
Private College 14.29% 3.57% 25.00% 21.43% 35.71%

goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 6.25% 6.25% 18.75% 43.75% 25.00%
1,750-4,500 16.67% 5.56% 16.67% 27.78% 33.33%
4,501-8,000 7.69% 23.08% 30.77% 7.69% 30.77%
Above 8,000 38.46% 15.38% 15.38% 15.38% 15.38%

goal of your next library redesign, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 5.56% 11.11% 22.22% 27.78% 33.33%
College
4-Year College 22.22% 0.00% 33.33% 11.11% 33.33%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 14.81% 14.81% 14.81% 25.93% 29.63%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% 33.33% 0.00%
Research
University
83
What are your library's most pressing design alteration needs?
1. We renovated extensively in 2004 so are in good shape.
2. Group study versus quiet study.
3. Restrooms need to be modified to better align with ADA. More group study space. Better
soundproofing and lighting. Attention to library staff areas.
4. Soundproofing.
5. Expansion of Archives. Add oversize shelving units.
6. Adding electrical outlets so students have access for their laptops.
7. New HVAC; extending renovation to third of three floors.
8. Increase space for student study (this space should be light-filled and support reflective, quiet
study as well as noisy, active group study).
9. Group study space, updating furniture, more access to electrical outlets.
10. The division between quiet study space and group study space.
11. Complete redesign creating library/learning commons with "one-stop shop" for students -
library, IT, Student Services help in one spot.
12. Painting, carpeting, new soft furniture.
13. Library instruction classrooms, group study spaces, café.
14. More group study and quiet study areas.
15. HVAC, shelving and study space.
16. More comfortable seating and more workstations.
17. Information commons and quiet study with technology.
18. Study rooms and instructional class space.
19. A new instruction classroom. More study space.
20. Group study spaces.
21. Adding network points and electrical outlets to be able to add more workstations.
22. Noise control.
84
23. Creating visible pathways through a 1940s building with multiple additions; restrooms;
adding sufficient power.
24. Elimination of temporary faculty offices to allow for installation of new bookstack shelving.
25. More space. More study space. More multimedia.
26. Reducing the collection in order to expand seating, group study and computer lab spaces.
27. More space for materials.
28. More storage for library materials, especially books and AV materials.
29. Teaching technology.
30. Comfortable seating in flexible use space.
31. Handicap access, more workstations, a library classroom, group study areas, a "back room"
space and study rooms in one library; information commons in other library.
32. Remodeling of basement space.
33. 1st Floor redesign for a new entrance, adding study rooms and redesigning the Technical
Services.
34. Work area to allow for these changes.
35. Comfortable seating, café, additional computers.
36. We have neither space nor money.
37. None at the moment since the building is only 5 years old.
38. Open and configurable spaces; a "one stop shop" for technical, research and media help.
39. The ability to design group space areas with the least intrusion on individual students.
40. Increased space and accessibility.
41. Need group study space, more attractive interior design (we're an old, worn-out building).
42. Soundproofing or zoning.
43. More electrical outlets.
44. Single new library on new campus.
45. ASRS; design an information commons and combine service points.
46. (1) Shortage of space. Lack of classrooms, conference/meeting rooms, office space, group
study space, comfortable reading rooms, community rooms.
47. Electrical outlets, maintaining public space (not assigning offices/staff areas).
85
48. Need for more physical space, can't do much more with current space envelope.
49. Better lighting, more workstations, significant mold remediation.
50. Creating more user-centered space, providing opportunities for group study, improving
spaces for individual study and laptop use.
51. More flexible study spaces, access to group & individual study areas/rooms; more electrical
outlets.
52. Creating areas for collaborative work. 99.9% of our space is designed for individual study.
53. Better power and wiring in library classroom.
54. More space for students to work and more electrical outlets for laptops.
55. Addition of outlets in lower level of library. Need for additional display space. Sound-
proofing of group study rooms. UV Film on windows.
56. Study rooms.
57. Creating opening and inviting spaces instead of dark stack areas.
58. Need for classroom and group study space; need for new furniture, rugs, drapes.
59. Group study rooms.
60. Group meeting rooms, study rooms for individuals, AV rooms.
Where did you acquire the furniture, or do you plan to acquire the
furniture, needed for your past, present or near future library redesign?
Would you recommend this source for others and, if so, why?
1. We had many sources, but most of it came from Brodart. It is very solid. We used St.
Timothy lounge furniture and love it.
2. Local furniture company for one project and FL Library furniture company for one project;
recommend the local company...attentive to needs, took opportunity to learn, cost-minded,
brought samples, etc.
3. Shelving through Bradford Systems - yes, we would recommend them because they are very
committed to quality product and service. Furniture ordered by our Interior Designer - not sure
of name of vendor.
4. Brodart Furniture Division. Brodart customizes as requested by the client. They clean and
touch up prior to large events and have been responsive when asked to repair or correct
problems related to all aspects of their installation.
86
5. Not sure.
6. Creative Pavillion - no, not recommended.
7. N/A yet...
8. Have not done so in many years.
9. We worked with a vendor, JPJ Associates, to perform space planning and act as the go-
between with assorted furniture vendors.
10. N/A
11. Operations and Campus Planning Director does ordering at various places.
12. Vendors not yet identified.
13. Haven't made the decision on new furniture.
14. None, refurbished old furniture through state prison industries.
15. I bought half the furniture from a rental furniture company that was selling it, the rest was
purchased at IKEA. We found it served our purposes very well.
16. N/A yet.
17. Unknown.
18. Blockhouse Furniture (PA).
19. Locally and from the United States. Of course, especially the local ones.
20. Furniture from former building was moved to new one. No idea where purchased.
21. Furniture was acquired through the contractor; Herman Miller is the supplier.
22. Library Design Associates, Columbus, OH.
23. RDS and Piedmont, local vendors primarily.
24. No decision yet.
25. Various.
26. We used W.B. Mason for some tables and chairs, and they were good; we used Tucker
Interiors to design and install a reference desk and numerous 44" and 66' high shelving ranging.
They were very good. We also purchased tables and chairs from RV Leonard. They were
adequate for this. RV Leonard also designed table/counter space for the computer workstations.
They were good for this. They were adequate.
27. Must work through president's office for furniture needs.
87
28. Since it dates from the 1960s, who knows?
29. Artistry in Wood, custom furniture and excellent craftsmanship and service.
30. Haven't selected source yet but will be buying new furniture for entire library.
31. The architects and Dean chose the furniture. They are Agati knock-offs and are falling apart.
Original tables chosen by the architects were of soft wood and were slashed - no one thought to
ask the librarians about good, sturdy library furniture and we will be paying the price for years.
32. Buckstaff shelving. I would recommend them because they have good products at a good
price and provide good customer service.
33. Don't know yet.
34. Donated from local business (Hewlett-Packard). It was a personal connection with someone
on our Board so cannot be recommended to another.
35. Furniture firm based out of Mason City, Iowa.
36. N/K
37. State contract sources.
38. Worden Library Furniture - Yes. High-quality product at a fair price. Good customer service
and manufacturers order and production process.
39. N/A
40. Mixture of buying new furniture (10%) and judicious use of furniture in storage (90%).
41. Scrounged from here and there or low (state) bidder.
42. N/A
43. Williams & Associates (university contract).
44. Recycle from other college facilities.
45. District makes these decisions.
46. Kruger International (KI).
47. Thru Henrickson's Interior Design, Peoria, IL, for most furniture for our campus. Overall,
they did a nice job...but not particularly geared toward library needs.
48. CBAGreenville out of Greenville, SC - excellent to work with, would recommend, has assisted
with library design, redesign projects up and down the Eastern Seaboard.
49. HLF Furniture, Inside the Lines Interior Design, and Affinity Office Solutions. I would
recommend all 3, especially HLF, as they custom-made beautiful furniture for our space.
50. Various vendors, most of whom I would recommend.
88
51. Herman Miller (from Sedgwick in Syracuse, NY); yes, the design team was a wonderful
collaborator.
52. Catalog.
Were library consortium or other collaborative buying arrangements

useful to you in your library redesign, or do you expect them to be
useful in current or future redesigns? If so, how were they useful?
1. No.
2. We did not take advantage of consortial deals.
3. Not used in past.
4. PALINET consortial purchase of 3M security gates (two doors) and relocation/upgrade of older
gates to branch library after we move to new building.
5. Not used.
6. No.
7. No.
8. May use discounted prices obtainable through regional cooperative, but that is all.
9. Not particularly because of state contract requirements.
10. No.
11. N/A
12. No.
13. Don't expect to employ collaborative purchasing.
14. Not at all.
15. No, but they might in the future.
16. N/A yet.
17. Not at all. They were not involved.
18. No.
19. N/A
89
20. No.
21. Yes, funding for computer workstations was useful.
22. Not to that point.
23. N/A
24. Did not use.
25. Not at this time, other then ideas gained from visiting.
26. No.
27. New York State Contracts through OGS.
28. No.
29. No.
30. N/A
31. They will be useful in the future. My predecessor did not make use of them.
32. None.
33. Informal, word of mouth, exchange of experience.
34. No.
35. No. I can't think of how it factors in for us at this time.
36. No - it was all done independently.
37. No.
38. No.
39. N/A
40. N/A
41. No.
42. Haven't been to date...but could see them as useful options.
43. No, not sure.
44. No.
45. Not really very helpful, though I did attend a conf. on renovating old buildings that was okay.
90
Chapter Six: Furniture
Table 6.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum amount spent for new
furniture in last library redesign or for design library is currently planning ($ USA)

Entire Sample 366,775.00 100,000.00 0.00 2,500,000.00
furniture in last library redesign or for design library is currently planning, Broken

Status
Libraries that have 514,258.33 155,000.00 5,000.00 2 ,500,000.00
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 239,227.27 100,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00
within past 10
years

Status
Public College 463,310.00 105,000.00 0.00 2,500,000.00
Private College 320,730.77 100,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00

Under 1,750 109,937.50 65,000.00 1,500.00 513,000.00
1,750-4,500 103,750.00 107,500.00 0.00 200,000.00
4,501-8,000 875,000.00 750,000.00 500,000.00 1,500,000.00
Above 8,000 572,585.71 100,000.00 0.00 2,500,000.00
91

Community 368,750.00 380,000.00 15,000.00 700,000.00
College
4-Year College 269,916.67 52,500.00 0.00 1,000,000.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 178,677.78 100,000.00 8,100.00 500,000.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 1,025,000.00 800,000.00 0.00 2,500,000.00
Research
University
What kind of furniture did or does the library plan to purchase for its
redesign?
1. Mixture...tables, lounge chairs, computer.
2. New study tables and chairs, new lab chairs and tables, new upholstered chairs (with tablet
arms), new booths.
3. Comfortable wooden chairs, couches and soft chairs, chairs with swing arms for computers,
small group table and chairs.
4. Brodart custom design.
5. Custom and various vendors - a lot of cherry wood.
6. Small, flexible pieces that encourage students to move them around to fit their needs. Minimal
stacks.
7. Easy chairs, new circulation/reference desk.
8. Comfortable, utilitarian, modular tables, chairs and partitions to accommodate technology.
9. Probably not very many carrels and no couches because the students just sleep on them.
10. Additional pieces to augment what we already have in place.
11. Unknown as yet.
12. Soft, lounge furniture.
13. Not yet determined.
92
14. Flexible.
15. All kinds, details unknown.
16. The same type as before. Large and comfy, as we have older, graduate students who like to
sink into the furniture. With lots of movable tables and chairs too.
17. Primarily computer tables for information commons and comfortable lounge furniture.
18. N/A
19. Lounge furniture.
20. Workstations table, study tables, opac workstations, ergonomic chairs, classroom tables,
couches, etc.
21. We may reupholster existing lounge furniture. No purchases are planned.
22. Herman Miller - variety of movable and flexible furniture plus some fixed Resolve stations
tables and chairs for group study, multi-purpose chairs for seating and writing, café booth type
arrangements, very popular.
23. We are looking at high-density robotic storage.
24. New furniture in the main for new facility.
25. Task chairs, task chairs with wheels, lounge chairs, study table, study carrels.
26. Unsure at this point.
27. None.
28. Study tables, chairs, workstations, leisure seating, case goods, desks.
29. Comfortable, movable.
30. N/A
31. N/A
32. Study tables, chairs, computer tables, casual, comfy chairs/couches.
33. More comfortable chairs & movable tables.
34. Various types.
35. Flexible, inviting, comfortable, durable.
36. Booths, sofas, tables, chairs.
37. Custom designed solid cherry wood tables, chairs and service desks. Comfortable Myspot
lounge seating.
93
38. Overstuffed leather chairs, chairs with ottomans, no love seats or couches, larger study
carrels.
39. More sofas, easy chairs, etc.
40. Beats me.
41. Flexible setting and tables with wheels, computer pods, café style seating.
42. More comfortable couches & chairs, easy-to-move tables, possibly coffee tables.
43. "Clamshell" desks that allow laptops to be "hidden" inside the desk work surface.
44. Tables, chairs, collaborative tables, laptop armchairs, bistro tables and chairs, lounge type
chairs.
45. A wide variety...this was a major renovation in 2001-2002. All office & library furnishings in
the building were replaced. Comfortable Leather couches and sofa chairs...oversized, etc.
46. Shelving, reading tables & chairs, computer tables & chairs, casual setting and end tables.
47. Soft seating, including couched and chairs, movable tables and roller chairs; Computer pods,
movable laptop desks.
48. Lounge chairs, couches and other types of imaginative seating (video rockers, puff scroll
chairs, etc.) for college age students; wired tables; table chairs that are firm but have some
cushioning; plants; artwork.
From which vendors did the library purchase its library furniture?
Which vendors do you plan to use in the future? Why did you buy from
whom you did and can you recommend manufacturers or distributors
of library furniture for other libraries?
1. Brodart. They are a PA company with whom we have done business for years.
2. Assorted, as the furniture company did not use just one library vendor.
3. Don't know furniture vendor's name.
4. Brodart for library-specific furniture. We would buy from them again. ITS had its own
vendors for computer labs and classrooms.
5. Creative Pavillion. College has a long-term relationship with company.
6. N/A yet...
7. Don't know.
94
8. Will be determined by state bidding process.
9. Worden, Palmieri, Jasper.
10. Unknown as yet.
11. Director of Operations controls this aspect of any redesign.
12. All furniture was designed and produced by Danish architect Jens Risom.
13. N/A
14. Not decided.
15. N/A
16. N/A yet.
17. Highsmith.
18. Blockhouse.
19. Local vendor and from the United States. Yes, I will recommend those vendors, particularly
the local ones.
20. N/A
21. Herman Miller.
22. Library Design Associates, Columbus, OH.
23. RDS and Piedmont, local vendors.
24. Primary vendor for such retrieval systems is HK systems.
25. Not yet.
26. Artistry in Wood; Hamilton Work Environments.
27. Don't know yet.
28. I would use Library Design from the Midwest - great, solid and attractive furniture. I would
also use the real Agati folks; I was shocked when I found that the Dean had opted for a knock-
off, but we are paying the price because they are falling apart!
29. N/A
30. Don't know yet.
31. N/A
32. Vendor from Twin Cities and prison furniture builders.
95
33. N/K
34. Vendors on state contract.
35. Worden Library Furniture. They had a better price than Agati. Although we liked the Agati
furniture.
36. Local carpenters built study carrels, sometimes took too long for them to deliver.
37. University recommended.
38. State contractor. Most furniture has been around the college for a long time. As other areas
are renovated, the library can sometimes get the older furniture.
39. N/A
40. N/A
41. Looking at Bretford for their unique desks "SmartDeck Work Center."
42. No vendor established. Probably will have to go out for bid so will be limited.
43. Furniture purchased thru Henricksen & Company, Inc., Peoria, IL. College has contract with
this company for all campus building projects.
44. CBAGreenville - will use same vendor if needed in the future; used Gene because his product
has a lifetime guarantee, he assists with floor plan design and provides a better product for the
money.
45. HLF Furniture supplied most and I would recommend them highly.
46. OM Workspace , Right Woman, Syracuse Office Equipment, Brodart.
47. Herman Miller (Sedgwick in Syracuse, NY).
Were any consortium or other collaborative buying organizations

useful to the library in its last library redesign, or might possibly be
useful in current or future redesigns? If so, how were they useful?
1. No.
2. We did not use any consortial arrangements.
3. No.
4. N/A
5. No.
96
6. No.
7. See #25.
8. Did not use.
9. Unknown as yet.
10. No.
11. N/A
12. Not yet.
13. No.
14. N/A yet.
15. N/A
16. No.
17. No.
18. No.
19. N/A
20. No.
21. No.
22. No.
23. No.
24. No.
25. As a private institution the renovation was completely controlled by the administration.
26. N/A
27. Price savings in the future.
28. None.
29. See above.
30. No.
31. None that I am aware of in Kansas or Missouri.
97
32. No - it was all independent.
33. No.
34. No.
35. N/A
36. N/A
37. No.
38. No.
39. No.
40. No.
41. No.
98
Chapter Seven: Carpeting
cumulatively spent for all cleaning, maintenance and scotchguarding of carpeting
in the past three years ($ USA)

Entire Sample 13,511.29 0.00 0.00 200,000.00
in the past three years, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Status
Libraries that have 36,641.57 6,491.00 0.00 200,000.00
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 4,231.25 0.00 0.00 54,200.00
within past 10
years
in the past three years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Status
Public College 2,043.92 0.00 0.00 10,000.00
Private College 27,063.64 0.00 0.00 200,000.00
in the past three years, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 9,770.00 0.00 0.00 54,200.00
1,750-4,500 28,582.86 0.00 0.00 200,000.00
4,501-8,000 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00
Above 8,000 5,497.00 6,491.00 0.00 10,000.00
99
in the past three years, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 11.43 0.00 0.00 80.00
College
4-Year College 13,333.33 0.00 0.00 40,000.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 22,849.25 250.00 0.00 200,000.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00
Research
University
cumulatively spent for all new carpeting, tiling or other flooring or floor repairs in
the past three years ($ USA)

Entire Sample 46,098.65 0.00 0.00 750,000.00
the past three years, Broken Out by Renovation Status

Status
Libraries that have 94,405.69 0.00 0.00 750,000.00
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 150,000.00
within past 10
years
the past three years, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

Status
Public College 12,311.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00
Private College 82,058.82 0.00 0.00 750,000.00
100
the past three years, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 10,500.00 0.00 0.00 60,000.00
1,750-4,500 37,506.67 0.00 0.00 300,000.00
4,501-8,000 124,285.71 0.00 0.00 750,000.00
Above 8,000 71,137.00 71,137.00 42,274.00 100,000.00
the past three years, Broken Out by Type of College

Community 11,120.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00
College
4-Year College 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 44,517.13 0.00 0.00 300,000.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 750,000.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 750,000.00
Research
University
What kind of carpeting or flooring did you last purchase for the library?
Why did you purchase it? Were you happy with the outcome? Are there
manufacturers or distributors that you would recommend to other
libraries?
1. Tiles. We wanted to be able to make quick replacements. We like the outcome.
2. Unknown.
3. Carpet tiles. Purchased for flexibility. Mostly happy with outcome. Not sure of manufacturers.
4. Last purchase was when library was constructed in 2004. Architects recommended. We are
happy.
5. Carpet tiles installed by general contractor--easy to maintain and replace.
6. 24" carpet tiles for ease of maintenance and replacement; yes, we are installing it now.
7. Tile in the front entrance for its durability. This winter will "tell the tale" if it holds up well and
is well-received by patrons.
101
8. None.
9. Carpeting as a temporary replacement to hold us until we remodel. Not high quality.
10. Some carpet squares and some broadloom carpeting.
11. Unknown - 20 years ago!
12. Carpet tiles; very happy; Mercier Carpet, West Springfield, MA.
13. Don't know. It's been decades.
14. N/A
15. None.
16. I didn't choose the quality of the carpet, only the pattern. I am not terribly happy with it, as
it was not the quality of the original carpet.
17. N/A yet.
18. Tile - unknown - I was not here for the building of this facility.
19. Tiles.
20. Library had no say in the carpet selected (and this was 15 years ago).
21. Regular carpeting, and marble floors. The outcome was fine. And yes, I would recommend
them to other libraries.
22. Carpeting choices and purchasing was not done by library personnel but by the project
director for the Institution (the entire university moved to a site with existing buildings which
were remodeled for the university's use).
23. N/A
24. Commercial level carpeting, 10 years ago. The original 20-year-old carpeting was badly
frayed and patched with duct tape.
25. N/A
26. We used rolls of broadloom in the carpeting of our current library, which opened in 2000.
We will replace the 1st floor carpeting only (no stacks in this area) within the next year and plan
to use large carpet tiles.
27. N/A
28. Carpet squares.
29. N/A
30. Carpeting for the stack and seating areas, porcelain tiles for the entrance and heavy use
areas.
102
31. Don't know -- done by Physical Plant Dept.
32. The architects laid black tile on the front of the library - when I first saw them laying it I said,
"What?" (polite words). It is terribly slippery when wet (Oct-May) and we have to cover it with
ugly runners. In areas where we don't cover with runners (like the front of the circulation desk),
we often get salt piles from the snow people have brought in.
33. Wall-to-wall carpeting throughout was bought by the college. The outcome is unsatisfactory.
34. The color shows dirt very badly. The carpet was laid with no pad on concrete slab floors,
making it hard to stand on.
35. It's been over 15 years - don't know.
36. I highly recommend Interface Carpet--they worked creatively with me on another library
redesign 12 years ago & were wonderful & very cost-conscious. Unfortunately, the carpet that
was installed in this library 5 years ago is not suitable & is already quite worn and dirty. It was
not acquired from Interface.
37. Carpet squares from Remmington Commercial.
38. N/A
39. Carpet squares.
40. Duracolor by Lees. Heartland T / Workplace Collection (modular tiles). Replaced

approximately 25% of existing carpet as a temporary pre-renovation solution.
41. 3' x 3' squares so they could be replaced. We would recommend going with this model
because we can easily replace in high-use areas.
42. Previous carpet had been in place since building opened (in 1982). Very little wear and tear
but needed changing to make more like 2008.
43. About 10 years ago, berber high traffic carpet was installed in the library lobby. The original
carpet was very moldy. The color is a strange mauve which is not too compatible with our
original orange stripe which abuts it in the reference area, but we were happy to replace the
moldy carpet. I can't remember the manufacturers; however, the tight berber has held up very
well.
44. Carpet tiles. Institutional decision. We have not been pleased with the product. No
recommendations.
45. Unsure.
46. 18" carpet squares - easy to replace small areas. It appears to wear well.
47. 5 years ago as part of building costs.
48. Indoor/outdoor in 1977 and 1984. Cover the tile. Yes and no--the same carpet is still on the
floor and we are sick of it.
103
49. Sorry, don't know this.
50. Last purchase was part of the redesign 4 years ago, architecture made vendor selection as
part of contract.
51. Carpet. It was provided by the construction contractor.
52. Carpet tile - promoted by our facilities design staff.
104
Chapter Eight: Model Redesign
If you have redesigned or remodeled your library within the past five
years, or if you currently have intentions to do so, which institutions do
you view as potential guides or inspirations for your own institution?
What do you like about what these institutions have done?
1. I visited many. Elon was very helpful to me, as was PSU/Harrisburg. I think our library is
good role model. We have had a lot of visitors who are planning renovations/new buildings!
2. Although I found this model too late for my own redesign, I liked Georgia Tech.
3. Various Information or Learning Commons libraries, which I have studied around North
America, Europe and Asia - they are listed in my publications.
4. Not seen one yet that embodies all we would like to achieve.
5. No particular institution.
6. Temple University information commons, Villanova University Library. University of Delaware

multimedia center; furnishings, lighting, division of quiet vs. group study space. Technology
selections.
7. Seattle Public Library, Lehigh University, Lafayette College and Penn State Capital Campus.
8. Not sure.
9. Hofstra University had a major renovation of its public spaces. The architectural program will
serve as a template.
10. North Carolina State Univ.
11. Kalamazoo College and Central Michigan University.
12. I love Ga. Tech's Learning Commons and Emory's Cox Center. The generous mix of
technology, comfort, lighting, and available help to students, plus at Cox, wonderful, beautiful
movable furniture and privacy screens.
13. Information commons areas, café.
14. No.
15. N/A
16. N/A
17. Library at Trinity University, San Antonio, TX. Lounge areas, mobile shelving, lighting were
all influential in our design process.
105
18. We visited North Carolina State University, Duke University, Georgia Tech and Emory
University as part of our design process.
19. Mount Union College has had a major renovation in the past 10 years, has done some nice
paint color, furniture, and carpeting design.
20. NCSU - information commons; Ohio State - open spaces.
21. Places which have retrieval systems are Colgate, Valparaiso and Georgia Southern. Duke and
UNC have non-robotic systems we will visit.
22. Elon, Presbyterian.
23. Architects and interior design people.
24. Bryant University.
25. N/A
26. No particular models being followed; basing our ideas on literature of trends and, especially,
surveys of student and faculty desires.
27. Cleveland State School of Law.
28. N/A
29. Elon University, Catawba College - we have gotten good ideas from them.
30. Santa Clara Univ. has a new library that we can learn from--they are close.
31. Several libraries in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota.
32. Please contact me if you wish to pursue this.
33. Georgia State: information commons look and features.
34. UNLV Library - Information Commons Approach. Mesa County Community College.
35. Redesign. Peru State college - Living room approach.
36. University of Southern California, Indiana University. A combination of technology and library
resources in open areas. I think both offer good ideas as a starting point so the concepts can be
contextualized for our location. Some facility restrictions that they have may or may not be
applicable to us, but learning from how they adapted was helpful.
37. Sheffield University, Leicester University, Warwick University: great use of space, modern
design state-of-the-art equipment and furniture (but cost - £5 million +).
38. We haven't.
39. Sinclair College - great use of color, well-designed spaces, user-centered in its focus.
106
40. UC Merced Library has a variety of flexible study spaces, lots of outlets and natural lighting.
41. New buildings constructed on other technical college campuses in the state.
42. Abilene Christian U, learning commons.
Have you ever solicited opinions from the library's patrons about
library redesign goals? If so, who did you do this and what did you
learn? Be specific, if you administered a survey, how did you do it?
Specify how what you learned altered or might alter library policy or
plans.
1. We assess these questions every year. We have used paper surveys, targeted online surveys
and most recently mass survey online to every campus member.
2. Yes, students and employees...impromptu questions asked of users, observations of users.
3. We administer surveys to faculty & students every 2 years - lately using Survey Monkey. Main
things students wanted were study rooms, which were included in new construction.
4. We've done LibQUAL+, run focus groups of student patrons - I read many surveys on
evolving patron needs and services preferences and perceptions; I have published a book of case
studies: Transforming Library Service Through Information Commons, with Barbara Tierney.
5. We plan on having focus groups to guide the design process that will include students, faculty
and staff.
6. Focus groups.
7. Not yet but we plan to survey students and follow with focus groups.
8. Faculty input, some suggestions from students but mostly professional literature about library
projects.
9. No, but we plan to.
10. No.
11. Yes, students want more spaces for group study, better lighting, more quiet. Results from
student survey.
12. Not yet, but planned.
13. Our public services staff conducted actual trials with some things and asked students to
record their feelings. They also used Survey Monkey to question students about other specific
design issues. For one - we learned that students really needed a place to eat and drink in the
library. Hence our new coffee lounge. They also want more laptops to check out, so we are
107
doing that, and replacing the classroom laptops. They need another "pod" of four workstations
and that will be our next large purchase.
14. Not yet.
15. No.
16. Unfortunately no.
17. A survey of students was conducted about 2 years before the actual move. The results
(open ended) were recorded and duplicate responses were indicated. As many of their
suggestions as possible were incorporated into our Building Program and given to the architects.
Some were implemented and some were "value engineered" out.
18. Yes - focus groups.
19. Our college's student senate prepared a report recommending to the college administration
that the entire library be renovated with new paint, all new furniture, café, etc. What they didn't
realize is that the institution has no money or plans for renovation, but at least they raised the
administration's awareness of the need.
20. Yes, students on chairs. They tested them and recorded opinion
survey, observation studies and focus groups on elements related to building use; such as:
entrance used, study alone or in groups, use library materials or not, use laptop or not.
21. We survey students all the time, primarily as part of campus-wide initiatives. We also collect
a lot of data on student usage of our building. Most recently, we learned our study rooms,
designed for 4-6 people, are most often used by 1-2 people, so we split five large study rooms
into 10 smaller ones -- students love them.
22. Yes -- focus groups and currently LibQUAL+ comments.
23. Not yet, but plan to.
24. Yes, charette; good input, influenced plan.
25. Student surveys administered at the Circulation Desk.
26. The Library Advisory Committee was consulted as the plans were drawn and the chairman
met with the architects twice.
27. Yes, just through causal discussion.
28. Yes, prior to the design of the building, students were asked what they would like to see in
the library. The number one request was group study rooms. As a result, additional rooms were
included.
29. Yes; students and faculty; done in open group discussions by hired outside firm; learned of
desires for up-to-date "look," ease of use, comfortable spaces, group spaces, lots of technology.
30. We had a panel of students and an online survey asking for input. We learned that the
students wanted interactive areas and the ability to have windows.
108
31. N/A
32. No.
33. Yes, I administered a student survey to students using the library--this was 12 years ago. I
wanted to know the proportion of individual to group seating to plan for. We reduced the number
of large tables as a result.
34. No.
36. Yes - focus groups. Showed need for group and individual study spaces, ability to work
collaboratively at computers, space to practice presentations, better café, better signage.
37. Student surveys were conducted as part of a renovation feasibility study which indicated
what patrons felt was lacking and what accommodations and services were desired. These are
being incorporated in future renovation/new construction plans.
38. No.
39. Survey on space use, what people want. Resulted in Library creating 4/5 different learning
environments ranging from absolute silence to controlled mayhem.
40. Yes, we conducted a LibQual survey (ACRL) last April, which included questions about the
environment. Also, in 2007, we completed a NEASC (accrediting agency) self study in which we
used LibQual data. Patrons complained about the lighting, lack of group study space, lack of
quiet study space, the hot/cold fluctuations and the mold. Recommendations are of course
remediation; however, our budget is once more level and there is no funding for remediation.
41. No, we are still in a very early stage in the process.
42. No, but intend to (focus groups, online surveys) if a redesign becomes a priority.
43. Yes, we included a potential library remodel/addition in a student satisfaction survey handed
out in a diverse selection of classes. They indicated a need for more light, no yellow walls
(current color) and a need for study rooms on the main floor. Our proposed addition includes an
atrium and 2 main floor study rooms.
44. No - had limited input in redesign plans; upper level management controlled the process.
45. Yes, conducted many, many focus groups among students and faculty across the College.
Learned that we need to provide both quiet and group study areas; that students love our Café
and would like to see more of that kind of seating across the library; learned that our 24-hour
room is very popular and students would like greater access to the whole of the library during
late night hours.
46. Yes, solicited feedback on furniture to be used, currently surveying on noise, etc. Survey
developed and administered internally.
109
Chapter Nine: Assessing the Results of Redesign
Table 9.1: Impact of redesign on patron use and satisfaction for libraries
that have redesigned within past five years
To be honest Didn't really Had a Had a Transformed

students have an modest significant the library,
were better appreciable impact; led impact; led resulting in
off before the impact to small to large huge gains in
redesign increase in increase in use and
use or use or satisfaction
student student
satisfaction satisfaction
Entire Sample 0.00% 0.00% 21.74% 34.78% 43.48%
that have redesigned within past five years, Broken Out by Renovation Status
Renovation To be honest Didn't really Had a Had a Transformed

Status students have an modest significant the library,
student student
Libraries that 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 35.00% 45.00%
have had a
major
renovation
within past 10
years
No renovation 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%
within past 10
years
110
that have redesigned within past five years, Broken Out by Public or Private
Status
Public or To be honest Didn't really Had a Had a Transformed

Private Status students have an modest significant the library,
student student
Public College 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 44.44% 44.44%
Private College 0.00% 0.00% 28.57% 28.57% 42.86%
that have redesigned within past five years, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment
FTE To be honest Didn't really Had a Had a Transformed

Enrollment students have an modest significant the library,
student student
Under 1,750 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 50.00% 33.33%
1,750-4,500 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 16.67% 50.00%
4,501-8,000 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 33.33% 50.00%
Above 8,000 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 40.00%
111
that have redesigned within past five years, Broken Out by Type of College
Carnegie To be honest Didn't really Had a Had a Transformed

Class students have an modest significant the library,
student student
Community 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 60.00%
College
4-Year College 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 75.00%
Only
4-Year & M.A. 0.00% 0.00% 36.36% 36.36% 27.27%
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33%
Research
University
112
Table 9.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum percentage increase

of rate of growth or decline in student use of library after one year if library has
experienced a major renovation within the past 10 years

Entire Sample 66.59 50.00 0.00 300.00

experienced a major renovation within the past 10 years, Broken Out by Public or
Private Status

Status
Public College 76.50 45.00 10.00 300.00
Private College 63.64 60.00 15.00 125.00

experienced a major renovation within the past 10 years, Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 66.67 67.50 20.00 125.00
1,750-4,500 99.00 50.00 20.00 300.00
4,501-8,000 71.43 60.00 15.00 150.00
Above 8,000 23.33 20.00 10.00 40.00

experienced a major renovation within the past 10 years, Broken Out by Type of
College

Community 93.33 50.00 20.00 300.00
College
4-Year College 86.00 100.00 20.00 125.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 50.00 25.00 10.00 150.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Research
University
113
Chapter Ten: Shutting Down the Library
Table 10.1: Percentage of libraries within the past five years that have
shut down entirely or shut down significant individual buildings, floors or other
major library units in order to facilitate some form of major redesign
Yes No
major library units in order to facilitate some form of major redesign, Broken Out

years

by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 33.33% 66.67%
1,750-4,500 17.65% 82.35%
4,501-8,000 27.27% 72.73%
Above 8,000 18.18% 81.82%
114
by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 25.00% 75.00%
University
115
Chapter Eleven: The Library as Mobile Office
Table 11.1: Increasingly, patrons are using public and academic libraries
as "mobile offices" by camping out in them with their laptops and cellphones. In
your library do you:
Try to cater to Cater to them We really don't

these individuals somewhat by encourage this
by providing providing Internet kind of use of the
spaces where they access but we hold library at all
can have Internet the line on
access and take cellphones and
cellphone calls discourage their
use
Entire Sample 26.79% 66.07% 7.14%
your library do you, Broken Out by Renovation Status
Renovation Status Try to cater to Cater to them We really don't

use
Libraries that have had a 38.46% 57.69% 3.85%
major renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation within 17.24% 72.41% 10.34%
past 10 years
116
your library do you, Broken Out by Public or Private Status
Public or Private Try to cater to Cater to them We really don't

Status these individuals somewhat by encourage this
use
Public College 25.00% 65.63% 9.38%
Private College 29.17% 66.67% 4.17%
your library do you, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment
FTE Enrollment Try to cater to Cater to them We really don't

use
Under 1,750 20.00% 73.33% 6.67%
1,750-4,500 17.65% 76.47% 5.88%
4,501-8,000 41.67% 58.33% 0.00%
Above 8,000 36.36% 54.55% 9.09%
117
your library do you, Broken Out by Type of College
Carnegie Class Try to cater to Cater to them We really don't

use
Community College 11.11% 83.33% 5.56%
4-Year College Only 12.50% 87.50% 0.00%
4-Year & M.A. Degree 37.50% 54.17% 8.33%
Ph.D. Level & Research 60.00% 20.00% 20.00%
University
118
Chapter Twelve: The Great Outdoors
Table 12.1: Percentage of libraries whose current or planned library

redesign will include new landscaping for the exterior of the library
Yes No

redesign will include new landscaping for the exterior of the library, Broken Out

years



by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 37.50% 62.50%
1,750-4,500 33.33% 66.67%
4,501-8,000 35.71% 64.29%
Above 8,000 28.57% 71.43%
119

by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 37.04% 62.96%
University

redesign will include installation or improvement of a garden
Yes No

redesign will include installation or improvement of a garden, Broken Out by
Renovation Status

years

redesign will include installation or improvement of a garden, Broken Out by


redesign will include installation or improvement of a garden, Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 18.75% 81.25%
1,750-4,500 5.56% 94.44%
4,501-8,000 28.57% 71.43%
Above 8,000 21.43% 78.57%
120

redesign will include installation or improvement of a garden, Broken Out by Type
of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 25.93% 74.07%
University

redesign will include installation, development or redesign of an atrium
Yes No

redesign will include installation, development or redesign of an atrium, Broken

years




Under 1,750 25.00% 75.00%
1,750-4,500 22.22% 77.78%
4,501-8,000 28.57% 71.43%
Above 8,000 21.43% 78.57%
121


4-Year & M.A. Degree 25.93% 74.07%
University

redesign will include installation or re-positioning of outdoor sculpture
Yes No

redesign will include installation or re-positioning of outdoor sculpture, Broken

years




Under 1,750 12.50% 87.50%
1,750-4,500 11.11% 88.89%
4,501-8,000 14.29% 85.71%
Above 8,000 21.43% 78.57%
122


4-Year & M.A. Degree 14.81% 85.19%
University
What are or have been your greatest information resources for library
redesign? Mention listservs, blogs, Websites, RSS feeds, magazines,
books, databases, conferences, associations and other information
vehicle or source that you consider helpful in assisting with library re-
design.
1. Visiting other libraries, talking to librarians involved in projects.
2. All.
3. ACRL/LAMA publications, listservs and conferences; INFOCOMMONS-L listserv; Books: The

Information Commons Handbook; Transforming Library Service Through Information Commons;
Learning Spaces.
4. ALA conferences.
5. Architects and other libraries.
6. I read a lot of literature which is freely available online. We used a space planner to guide us
with moving our existing collection and stacks and some furniture into the new layout. If
interested, I could gather up a list of resources.
7. InfoCommons listserv; other libraries' Websites; books such as "The Information Commons
Handbook," "Building Libraries for the 21st Century"; conferences such as the Academic Library
Planning & Revitalization Conference, very helpful; visiting other institutions' Commons.
8. I'm not sure and would be grateful to know what others recommend.
9. Libadmin listserv, ili-listserv, conference presentations at ALA, vendors at ALA.
10. NITLE, site visits, Websites.
11. Tours of other buildings, LAMA sources and publications, books on redesigning library
buildings.
12. Books, workshops, visits to other libraries.
123
13. N/A
14. Magazines, books.
15. I don't know. The committee was in charge.
16. Library Journal; site visits.
17. Other academic librarians, design firms, American Libraries design issue.
18. Listservs, consultants.
19. Outside space consultant , ALA LLama wiki; library Journal design issue.
20. Colleagues. BES section of ALA.
21. Books, travel, associations, listservs.
22. All over the map; hard to generalize.
23. All.
24. Visiting other libraries that are new or recently renovated.
25. Library journal articles, ACRL conference sessions.
26. ABA Bricks and Mortar conferences, general professional materials, and the opportunity to
visit, study and learn from experts over many years.
27. InfoPeople workshops. ALA library design books. Vendor literature.
28. Visiting other libraries to get ideas. Our planned renovations are too minor for much else.
29. I attended an art library space planning workshop in the 1980s that was fabulous & taught
me principles I still use. I have not followed the trends much lately but would probably go online
for information now.
30. Websites.
32. INFOCOMMONS listserv, The Information Commons Handbook, Canadian Learning Commons
Conference, ALA Annual Conference, The Learning Commons Model: Determining Best Practices
for Design, Implementation & Service; Joan Lippincott's webinars for ACRL.
33. LAMA - Buildings and Construction section and Web; ALA/LAMA Annual Conf Design Awards
Program Amer Libraries special design award issue LibAdmin - Listserv State and regional
library conferences.
34. INFOCOMMONS-L listserv, campus visits, Information Commons presentations: ALA, NY3C
and EDUCAUSE.
124
35. 1st, Visits to other libraries; 2nd, Professional literature; 3rd, Conference presentations.
36. The architect and facilities maintenance head have provided information for the hopefully
forthcoming renovation of the Special collections & archives.
37. All of the above.
38. Listservs, magazines (American Libraries), books (on "library as place").
39. Colleagues at similar institutions. Library-type listservs (cjc-l).
40. An architect who has designed other libraries and visiting other libraries, pulling together
ideas gleaned from those visits.
41. Collib-l; ALA, ACRL, Illinois Library Assn, Library Journal...
42. Websites, magazines, site visits, colleagues who have built or redesigned their libraries.
43. Books, Websites, focus groups, conferences, previous experience.
44. Conferences, site visits, listservs, RSS feeds, vendor design scenarios.
125
Chapter Thirteen: Artwork and Preservation
Table 13.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum amount spent

cumulatively by library over the past five years on artwork for the library ($ USA)

Entire Sample 6,154.09 0.00 0.00 200,000.00

cumulatively by library over the past five years on artwork for the library, Broken

Status
Libraries that have 2,899.44 750.00 0.00 25,000.00
had a major
renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation 8,743.60 0.00 0.00 200,000.00
within past 10
years


Status
Public College 9,011.20 0.00 0.00 200,000.00
Private College 2,394.74 0.00 0.00 25,000.00


Under 1,750 792.86 0.00 0.00 5,000.00
1,750-4,500 2,373.33 0.00 0.00 25,000.00
4,501-8,000 1,500.00 500.00 0.00 6,000.00
Above 8,000 35,015.00 1,000.00 0.00 200,000.00
126


Community 350.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00
College
4-Year College 4,571.43 0.00 0.00 25,000.00
Only
4-Year & M.A. 1,621.11 250.00 0.00 8,090.00
Degree
Ph.D. Level & 102,000.00 102,000.00 4,000.00 200,000.00
Research
University
Explain the library's policies toward artwork in the library. How

extensive is the library's collection of paintings, prints, frescoes,
sculpture, ceramics and other artwork? How much was donated?
Bequeathed? How much purchased? Has the library ever sold artwork
to raise money for other purposes?
1. Most of our art is not museum quality. We tend to focus on student art.
2. We have some permanent art (mostly portraits). We have an active art program that brings in
rotating art displays from local museums.
3. No methodical program.
4. Artwork is "loaned" to the library from the art collection owned by the university.
5. We use the library for displaying student artwork each semester and do not spend money on it
but do accept donations.
6. Very little and it was all here before I came. The library has never sold any artwork.
7. Not at this level.
8. The only significant piece was student-created, run as a competition, and paid for by the
library. Great results!
9. All artwork is donated; we have a modest collection; we use student and faculty artwork in our
exhibit areas on a rotating basis.
10. Ad hoc. There's not a collection policy. Objects are contributed.
11. Selective collection of artwork on loan from Art Department collections.
127
12. The library's collection is minimal. We have an art gallery, however, with revolving displays
of excellent local art.
13. Not a lot. Popular posters related to our curriculum and a WPA art collection from the area.
14. N/A
15. Much of the artwork in the library is on permanent loan from faculty members. This is both
good and bad, as some of the art is now very, very stale.
16. All purchased.
17. No policy so far. The artwork number is small. All was donated. No, the library has never sold
artwork to raise money.
18. We have a collection of paintings of people influential in the past to the institution. There are
a couple of sculpture pieces that have been on display. There are some very old pictures in the
collection which were donated but most of the artwork has been on loan from the institution's
collection. In the new building, we are not allowed to hang pictures so there is no artwork. We
have never sold artwork to raise funds.
19. We have a variety or paintings and prints. Minimal other artwork. Some was purchased and
some was donated.
20. We have an art exhibit space just inside the front door that has new exhibits mounted every
month.
21. Extensive. Most donated. Some purchases.
22. Most art purchased is from exhibitors who are typically university-related or community folks.
23. Our library is full of artwork which belongs to, and is curated by, the university's art
department.
24. Minimal, student art for the most part.
25. We have used artwork loaned from our art center.
26. Fairly extensive; mostly donated; little or none purchased; no 'sale' yet but could happen.
27. The library has approximately 260 pieces of art and it is technically owned by the College's
Foundation. These were all donations. The Library owns an additional 11 wall hangings used for
decoration. These are historical photos of the campus. The Foundation's artwork circulates to the
faculty and staff offices.
28. Gifts - no purchases.
29. We have none.
30. The library is in the process of hanging artwork.
128
31. We encourage use of the library spaces for art but with newly built art building this hasn't
happened much in recent years; all artwork belongs to the university, not the library.
32. Our artwork is basically oils and other paintings that we have attempted to maintain and
present. We try to maintain the best but are limited in adding to it because of finances.
33. All artwork was donated. We have little wall space; so our real artwork (including a framed
poster) amounts to about 3 items. We display them out of reach behind the desk. We have
shown some (mostly borrowed) 3-dimensional objects in a locked case as part of a temporary
display. We have never sold artwork for any purpose.
34. Most was donated, some purchased by the Friends of the Library. We don't have a policy.
35. We have a collection of contemporary art that is quite impressive. It was all donated. It
ranges from paintings by local artists to major works by nationally known artists.
36. No money.
36. N/A
37. Portraits and some paintings have been donated. We purchased a piece of sculpture in
conjunction with an exhibit. We had a contest for art students to create murals, with cash prizes.
We will purchase a work at a juried art show. We sell prints to raise money for Friends group.
38. The Library Houses the Faculty Art Gallery. The Library is filled with permanent collections of
student and faculty artwork. The Library plans include a partnership with the college Art
Department and curriculum which will bring both programs into close proximity and partnership
with the Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art on the campus of JCCC.
39. The paintings are donated and we pay for framing. They are themed to traditions of the
school.
40. Library displays wide range of student produced artwork and purchased.
41. We have had occasional displays which have been provided to us by artists and faculty. We
do have some artwork and quite a few portraits of former presidents and deans. All donated. We
have never sold artwork. We do have a perpetual booksale at which we sell books donated to
the library.
42. Limited amount of artwork. All items have been donated. The money spent was to enhance
an exhibit with a poem depicted in the artwork.
43. I think all was donated. Don't believe we have ever sold artwork to raise money.
44. We encourage instructors to showcase their students' work. If nothing is showcased, then the
gallery is empty.
45. Have 4 on permanent loan from state arts office and will soon have 3 more as gifts from local
city arts event.
46. We have 5 donated pieces by an art instructor. We have not purchased any nor have we
sold artwork as a fundraiser.
129
47. Glad to place artwork throughout building. We have two gallery spaces, one with more
permanent ancient art and antiquities. Other gallery is rotating artwork scheduled by Art
Department. Artwork in library: Most donated, some "prints" purchased in renovation. Some
displays from permanent collections.
48. No collection, just a few prints bought by the foundation at the time of the redesign; never
sold artwork.
49. We are attempting to build a collection of both purchased and home developed artwork. We
have slowly been installing the Walker art hanging system in various areas of the Library.
50. Conferences, site visits, listservs, RSS feeds, vendor design scenarios.
130
Table 13.6: Phrase which best describes the library's attitude toward the
display of artwork in the library
We have a gallery We don't have a We really don't

and/or display gallery or display have much in the
areas specifically area specifically in way of artwork in
designed for the library but we the library
artwork and we display works in
have select pieces other areas
in other areas of
the library as well
Entire Sample 27.27% 43.64% 29.09%
display of artwork in the library, Broken Out by Renovation Status
Renovation Status We have a gallery We don't have a We really don't

in other areas of
the library as well
Libraries that have had a 26.92% 42.31% 30.77%
major renovation within
past 10 years
No renovation within 25.00% 46.43% 28.57%
past 10 years
display of artwork in the library, Broken Out by Public or Private Status
Public or Private We have a gallery We don't have a We really don't

Status and/or display gallery or display have much in the
in other areas of
the library as well
Public College 16.13% 45.16% 38.71%
Private College 41.67% 41.67% 16.67%
131
display of artwork in the library, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment
FTE Enrollment We have a gallery We don't have a We really don't

in other areas of
the library as well
Under 1,750 26.67% 40.00% 33.33%
1,750-4,500 25.00% 56.25% 18.75%
4,501-8,000 33.33% 41.67% 25.00%
Above 8,000 27.27% 36.36% 36.36%
display of artwork in the library, Broken Out by Type of College
Carnegie Class We have a gallery We don't have a We really don't

in other areas of
the library as well
Community College 11.11% 44.44% 44.44%
4-Year College Only 50.00% 37.50% 12.50%
4-Year & M.A. Degree 34.78% 43.48% 21.74%
Ph.D. Level & Research 20.00% 60.00% 20.00%
University
132
Chapter Fourteen: Energy Use by the Library
Table 14.1: Percentage of libraries that have used high-performance

fluorescent light bulbs to reduce energy consumption
Yes No

fluorescent light bulbs to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Renovation
Status

years

fluorescent light bulbs to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Public or
Private Status


fluorescent light bulbs to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 62.50% 37.50%
1,750-4,500 22.22% 77.78%
4,501-8,000 42.86% 57.14%
Above 8,000 28.57% 71.43%
133

fluorescent light bulbs to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Type of
College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 40.74% 59.26%
University
Table 14.6: Percentage of libraries that have made architectural changes

to increase use of natural lighting to reduce energy consumption
Yes No

to increase use of natural lighting to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by
Renovation Status

years



FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 18.75% 81.25%
1,750-4,500 5.56% 94.44%
4,501-8,000 21.43% 78.57%
Above 8,000 7.14% 92.86%
134

Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 11.11% 88.89%
University
Table 14.11: Percentage of libraries that have added double-pane windows

to reduce energy consumption
Yes No

to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Renovation Status

years

to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Public or Private Status


to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 12.50% 87.50%
1,750-4,500 0.00% 100.00%
4,501-8,000 14.29% 85.71%
Above 8,000 0.00% 100.00%
135

to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 7.41% 92.59%
University
Table 14.16: Percentage of libraries that have installed occupancy sensors

for bathroom and room lights to reduce energy consumption
Yes No

for bathroom and room lights to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by
Renovation Status

years

for bathroom and room lights to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by


for bathroom and room lights to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 18.75% 81.25%
1,750-4,500 16.67% 83.33%
4,501-8,000 21.43% 78.57%
Above 8,000 21.43% 78.57%
136

for bathroom and room lights to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Type
of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 22.22% 77.78%
University
Table 14.21: Percentage of libraries that have installed overhead or other

types of fans to reduce energy consumption
Yes No
Table 14.22: Percentage of libraries that have improved or added

insulation to reduce energy consumption
Yes No

insulation to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Renovation Status

years

insulation to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Public or Private Status

137

insulation to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 6.25% 93.75%
1,750-4,500 0.00% 100.00%
4,501-8,000 7.14% 92.86%
Above 8,000 7.14% 92.86%

insulation to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 0.00% 100.00%
University
Table 14.27: Percentage of libraries that have reduced the target in-
building temperature in winter and/or increased the target of in-building
temperature in summer to reduce energy consumption
Yes No
temperature in summer to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Renovation
Status

years
temperature in summer to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Public or
Private Status

138
temperature in summer to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 25.00% 75.00%
1,750-4,500 11.11% 88.89%
4,501-8,000 35.71% 64.29%
Above 8,000 14.29% 85.71%
temperature in summer to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Type of
College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 29.63% 70.37%
University
Table 14.32: Percentage of libraries that have installed solar panels on the
grounds, roof or walls of the library to reduce energy consumption
Yes No
grounds, roof or walls of the library to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by
Renovation Status

years

139
FTE Enrollment

Under 1,750 6.25% 93.75%
1,750-4,500 0.00% 100.00%
4,501-8,000 7.14% 92.86%
Above 8,000 0.00% 100.00%
Type of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 0.00% 100.00%
University
Table 14.37: Percentage of libraries that have reduced library hours of

operation for some facilities to reduce energy consumption
Yes No

operation for some facilities to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by
Renovation Status

years

operation for some facilities to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Public
or Private Status

140

operation for some facilities to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by FTE
Enrollment

Under 1,750 6.25% 93.75%
1,750-4,500 0.00% 100.00%
4,501-8,000 7.14% 92.86%
Above 8,000 7.14% 92.86%

operation for some facilities to reduce energy consumption, Broken Out by Type
of College

4-Year & M.A. Degree 3.70% 96.30%
University
141
Chapter Fifteen: Information Resources & Advice for

Peers
Mention those information resources -- listservs, blogs, newsletters,

magazines, trade associations, conferences -- and other sources that
have been useful to you in learning about library redesign. Add any
advice that you might have for your peers that are planning or
managing a major library re-development project.
1. Conference presentations, visits, talking to librarians who have been involved with building
projects, listservs. My best advice is to stay involved in all meetings with architects, engineers,
and project managers.
2. Visit other libraries, call other librarians, ask staff before and after remodel what they want or
what they would do differently.
3. See earlier entry.
4. Library Journal's issue on best libraries.
5. I would have to pull these resources from my files. I also recommend site visits for ideas and
to read the architectural design issues in ALA journals and Library Journal.
6. I listed them before. We are in the early planning stages, so I don't have great advice. Ask
me next year!
7. Again, I'd be most grateful for a list of these.
8. Conference presentations.
9. Periodicals: Library Journal and American Libraries; Conference vendor shows; Websites of
new library buildings.
10. See answer to question 40.
11. N/A
12. Library journal, American Libraries, info-commons listserv. My advice to my peers is to

involve library staff and students in the redesign of the new library building in the other campus
of LAU (Byblos area), to allocate enough space for infocommons and Internet café and have all
the public services counters in one area in the library whereby students can do anything they
want in one area without having to go from one floor to another.
13. We used a number of resources but cannot cite specifics at this time. Plan for the future and
work with an architect but be prepared for someone higher up in Administration to change your
142
plans and/or do what they want to do. You will find out about the changes once you move in
and then have to live with them.
14. An outside consultant, while expensive, can give an objective point of view that is hard to get
internally.
15. Visit as many exemplary sites as you can, and talk in-depth with these colleagues.
16. My only comments are to be directly involved, don't be afraid to speak up and argue for your
comments.
17. Thought I'd already answered this question.
18. http://www.librisdesign.org/ http://www.infopeople.org/ Keep universal design principles

and green design principles in mind from the start.
19. Conferences & listservs would be my choice. Plus, talk to colleagues who have been through
this.
20. An interior architect or designer with library experience will be worth every cent paid.
21. Websites mostly.
23. INFOCOMMONS-L, LAMA Website.
24. The Request For Proposal process and subsequent presentations allows Architects to share
trends in Library design and new construction. In these discussions services can often be
examined in light of emerging service needs or technologies. Going on library tours was
extremely helpful. Also going on tours of other non-library new construction often brought
different issues to the table for very enlightening and applicable discussion. The League for
Innovation of the Community colleges served as a peer group for examining similar needs based
on common goals and similar missions. Colleagues, Conferences and Library publications were
invaluable for bringing forth the topic of redesigning and/or new library construction.
25. Make visits and talk to those that have been there before. There are lots of great ideas out
there. Also, be sure to read The Information Commons Handbook and Transforming Library
Service through Information Commons as they are both idea-generating, valuable resources.
26. Library journal articles have been useful.
27. Special Libraries Association Annual Conference, Library Journal, University Business, ACRL.
28. Read as much as possible, not limiting yourself to the library world, and talk and visit other
librarians, libraries.
29. Don't give up if it takes a long time to drum up interest; use professional drawings to elicit
interest in a project where possible.
143
Other Reports From Primary Research Group Inc.
OTHER REPORTS FROM PRIMARY RESEARCH GROUP

INC.
THE INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF LIBRARY & MUSEUM DIGITIZATION
PROJECTS
ISBN: 1-57440-105-X Price: $89.50 October 2008
The International Survey of Library & Museum Digitization Projects presents detailed
data about the management and development of a broad range of library special
collection and museum digitization projects. Data are broken out by type of digitization
project (i.e., text, photograph, film, audio, etc.) size and type of institution, annual
spending on digitization and other variables. The report presents data and narrative on
staffing, training, funding, technology selection, outsourcing, permissions and copyright
clearance, cataloging, digital asset management, software and applications selection,
marketing and many other issues of interest to libraries and museums that are digitizing
aspects of their collections.
THE SURVEY OF ACADEMIC & RESEARCH LIBRARY JOURNAL

PURCHASING PRACTICES
ISBN: 1-57440-108-4 Price: $89.50 November 2008
This report looks closely at the acquisition practices for scientific, technical and academic
journals of academic and research libraries. Some of the many issues covered: attitudes
toward the pricing and digital access policies of select major journals publishers,
preferences for print, print/electronic access combinations, and electronic access alone
arrangements. Covers spending plans, preferences for use of consortiums, and use of, and
evaluation of subscription agents. Charts attitudes toward CLOCKSS, open access, use of
URL resolvers and other pressing issues of interest to major purchasers of academic and
technical journals.
ACADEMIC LIBRARY CATALOGING PRACTICES BENCHMARKS

ISBN: 1-57440-106-8 Price: $89.50 November 2008
This 254-page report presents data from a survey of the cataloging practices of
approximately 80 North American academic libraries. In more than 630 tables of data and
related commentary from participating librarians and our analysts, the report gives a
broad overview of academic library cataloging practices related to outsourcing, selection
and deployment of personnel, salaries, the state of continuing education in cataloging,
and much more. Data are broken out by size and type of college and for public and
private colleges. Survey participants also discuss how they define the cataloger’s range of
responsibilities, how they train their catalogers, how they assess cataloging quality,
whether they use cataloging quotas or other measures to spur productivity, what software
and other cataloging technology they use and why, how they make outsourcing decisions
and more.
144
SURVEY OF ACADEMIC LIBRARY USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL

TECHNOLOGY:
ISBN: 1-57440-107-6 Price: $85.00 October 2008
The Survey of Academic Library Use of Instructional Technology examines use of
information literacy computer labs, classroom response "clicker" technology,
whiteboards, and many other educational technologies used by libraries. In an era in
which library education has become an increasingly important part of the academic
librarian's duties, this report provides insights on how peer institutions are allocating their
educational budgets and choosing the most effective technologies and practices in
information and general library literacy.
CORPORATE LIBRARY BENCHMARKS, 2009 Edition

ISBN 1-57440-109-2 Publication Date: December 2008 Price: $195.00
Corporate Library Benchmarks, 2009 Edition presents extensive data from 52 corporate
and other business-oriented libraries; data is broken out by company size, type of industry
and other criteria.
The mean number of employees for the organizations in the sample is 16,000; the
median, 1700. Some of the many issues covered in the report are: spending on electronic
and print forms of books, directories, journals and other information resources; library
staffing trends, number of library locations maintained and the allocation of office space
to the library, disputes with publishers, allocation of library staff time, level of awareness
of database contract terms of peer institutions, reference workload, and the overall level
of influence of the library in corporate decision making.
LIBRARY USE OF E-BOOKS

ISBN: 1-57440-101-7 Price: $75.00 Publication Date: April 2008
Data in the report are based on a survey of 75 academic, public and special libraries. Data
are broken out by library budget size, for U.S. and non-U.S. libraries and for academic
and non-academic libraries. The report presents more than 300 tables of data on e-book
use by libraries, as well as analysis and commentary. Librarians detail their plans on how
they plan to develop their e-book collections, what they think of e-book readers and
software, and which e-book aggregators and publishers appeal to them most and why.
Other issues covered include: library production of e-books and collection digitization, e-
book collection information literacy efforts, use of e-books in course reserves and inter-
library loan, e-book pricing and inflation issues, acquisition sources and strategies for e-
books and other issues of concern to libraries and book publishers.
LAW LIBRARY BENCHMARKS, 2008-09 EDITION

ISBN: 1-57440-104-1 Price: $129.00 Publication Date: October 2008
Data in the report are based on a survey of 55 North American law libraries drawn from
law firm, private company, university, courthouse and government agency law libraries.
Data are broken out by size and type of library for ease in benchmarking. The 120+ page
report covers developments in staffing, salaries, budgets, materials spending, use of blogs
& wikis, use of legal directories, the library role in knowledge management, records
145
management and content management systems. Patron and librarian training,

reimbursement for library-related education and other issues are also covered in this latest
edition.
RESEARCH LIBRARY INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKS

ISBN: 1-57440-103-3 Publication Date: June 2008 Price: $95.00
Research Library International Benchmarks presents data from a survey of 45 major
research libraries from the U.S., Australia, Canada, Spain, the U.K., Japan and others.
Data are presented separately for university, government/non-profit and corporate/legal
libraries, and for U.S. and non-U.S. libraries, as well as by size of library and type of
library, corporate/legal, university and government. The 200-page report presents a broad
range of data on current and planned materials, salary, info technology and capital
spending, hiring plans, spending trends for e-books, journals, books and much, much
more. Provides data on trends in discount margins from vendors, relations with
consortiums, information literacy efforts, workstation, laptop and learning space
development, use of scanners and digital cameras, use of RFID technology, federated
search and many other pressing issues for major research libraries, university and
otherwise.
THE SURVEY OF LIBRARY DATABASE LICENSING PRACTICES

ISBN: 1-57440-093-2 Price: $80.00 Publication Date: December 2007
The study presents data from 90 libraries – corporate, legal, college, public, state and
nonprofit libraries – about their database licensing practices. More than half of the
participating libraries are from the U.S., and the rest are from Canada, Australia, the U.K.
and other countries. Data are broken out by library type and size of library, as well as for
overall level of database expenditure. The 100+-page study, with more than 400 tables
and charts, presents benchmarking data enabling librarians to compare their library’s
practices to peers in many areas related to licensing. Metrics provided include:
percentage of licenses from consortiums, spending on consortium dues, time spent
seeking new consortium partners, number of consortium memberships maintained;
growth rate in the percentage of licenses obtained through consortiums; expectation for
consortium purchases in the future; number of licenses, growth rate in the number of
licenses, spending on licenses for directories, electronic journals, e-books and
magazine/newspaper databases; future spending plans on all of the above; price inflation
experienced for electronic resources in business, medical, humanities, financial, market
research, social sciences and many other information categories; price inflation for e-
books, electronic directories, journals and newspaper/magazine databases; percentage of
licenses that require passwords; percentage of licenses that have simultaneous access
restrictions; spending on legal services related to licenses; and much more.
THE INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF INSTITUTIONAL DIGITAL

REPOSITORIES
ISBN: 1-57440-090-8 Price: $89.50 Publication Date: November 2007
The study presents data from 56 institutional digital repositories from 11 countries,
including the U.S., Canada, Australia, Germany, South Africa, India, Turkey and other
146
countries. The 121-page study presents more than 300 tables of data and commentary and
is based on data from higher education libraries and other institutions involved in
institutional digital repository development. In more than 300 tables and associated
commentary, the report describes norms and benchmarks for budgets, software use,
manpower needs and deployment, financing, usage, marketing and other facets of the
management of international digital repositories. The report helps to answer questions
such as: who contributes to the repositories and on what terms? Who uses the
repositories? What do they contain and how fast are they growing in terms of content and
end use? What measures have repositories used to gain faculty and other researcher
participation? How successful have these methods been? How has the repository been
marketed and cataloged? What has been the financial impact? Data are broken out by size
and type of institution for easier benchmarking.
PREVAILING & BEST PRACTICES IN ELECTRONIC AND PRINT SERIALS

MANAGEMENT
ISBN: 1-57440-076-2 Price: $80.00 Publication Date: November 2005
This report looks closely at the electronic and print serials procurement and management
practices of 11 libraries, including: the University of Ohio, Villanova University, the
Colorado School of Mines, Carleton College, Northwestern University, Baylor
University, Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of San
Francisco, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and the University of Nebraska
Medical Center. The report looks at both electronic and print serials and includes
discussions of the following issues: selection and management of serials agents,
including the negotiation of payment; allocating the serials budget by department;
resolving access issues with publishers; use of consortiums in journal licensing; invoice
reconciliation and payment; periodicals binding, claims, check-in and management;
serials department staff size and range of responsibilities; serials management software;
use of open access archives and university depositories; policies on gift subscriptions,
free trials and academic exchanges of publications; use of electronic serials/catalog
linking technology; acquisition of usage statistics; cooperative arrangements with other
local libraries and other issues in serials management.
CORPORATE LIBRARY BENCHMARKS, 2007 Edition

ISBN: 1-57440-084-3 Price: $189.00
This report, our sixth survey of corporate libraries, presents a broad range of data, broken
out by size and type of organization. Among the issues covered are: spending trends on
books, magazines, journals, databases, CD-ROMs, directories and other information
vehicles, plans to augment or reduce the scope and size of the corporate library, hiring
plans, salary spending and personnel use, librarian research priorities by type of subject
matter, policies on information literacy and library education, library relations with
management, budget trends, breakdown in spending by the library versus other corporate
departments that procure information, librarian use of blogs and RSS feeds, level of
discounts received from book jobbers, use of subscription agents, and other issues of
concern to corporate and other business librarians.
147
EMERGING ISSUES IN ACADEMIC LIBRARY CATALOGING &

TECHNICAL SERVICES
ISBN: 1-57440-086-X Price: $72.50 Publication Date: April 2007
This report presents nine highly detailed case studies of leading university cataloging and
technical service departments. It provides insights into how they are handling 10 major
changes facing them, including: the encouragement of cataloging productivity; impact of
new technologies on and enhancement of online catalogs; the transition to metadata
standards; the cataloging of Websites and digital and other special collections; library
catalog and metadata training; database maintenance, holdings and physical processing;
managing the relationship with acquisitions departments; staff education; and other
important issues. Survey participants represent academic libraries of varying sizes and
classifications, with many different viewpoints. Universities surveyed are: Brigham
Young; Curry College; Haverford College; Illinois, Louisiana and Pennsylvania State
Universities; University of North Dakota; University of Washington; and Yale
University.
THE MARKETING OF HISTORIC SITES, MUSEUMS, EXHIBITS AND

ARCHIVES
ISBN: 1-57440-074-6 Price: $95.00 Publication Date: June 2005
This report looks closely at how history is presented and marketed by organizations such
as history museums, libraries, historical societies, and historic sites and monuments. The
report profiles the efforts of the Vermont Historical Society, Hook’s Historic Drug Store
and Pharmacy, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation/Monticello, the Musee Conti Wax
Museum of New Orleans, the Bostonian Society, the Dittrick Medical History Center, the
Band Museum, the Belmont Mansion, the Kansas State Historical Society, the Computer
History Museum, the Atari Virtual Museum, the Museum of American Financial History,
the Atlanta History Center and the public libraries of Denver and Evansville. The
study’s revealing profiles, based on extensive interviews with executive directors and
marketing managers of the institutions cited, provide a deeply detailed look at how
history museums, sites, societies and monuments are marketing themselves.
LICENSING AND COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT: BEST PRACTICES OF

COLLEGE, SPECIAL AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES
ISBN: 1-57440-068-1 Price: $80 Publication Date: May 2004
This report looks closely at the licensing and copyright-management strategies of a
sample of leading research, college and special libraries and consortiums and includes
interviews with leading experts. The focus is on electronic-database licensing, and
includes discussions of the most pressing issues: development of consortiums and group
buying initiatives, terms of access, liability for infringement, archiving, training and
development, free-trial periods, contract language, contract-management software and
time-management issues, acquiring and using usage statistics, elimination of duplication,
enhancement of bargaining power, open-access publishing policies, interruption-of-
service contingency arrangements, changes in pricing over the life of the contract,
interlibrary loan of electronic files, copyright clearance, negotiating tactics, uses of
148
consortiums, and many other issues. The report profiles the emergence of consortiums
and group-buying arrangements.
TRENDS IN TRAINING COLLEGE FACULTY, STUDENTS & STAFF IN

COMPUTER LITERACY
ISBN: 1-57440-085-1 Price: $67.50 Publication Date: April 2007
This report looks closely at how nine institutions of higher education are approaching the
question of training faculty, staff and students in the use of educationally oriented
information technologies. The report helps answer questions such as: what is the most
productive way to help faculty master new information technologies? How much should
be spent on such training? What are the best practices? How should distance learning
instructors be trained? How formal, and how ad-hoc, should training efforts be? What
should computer literacy standards be among students? How can subject-specific
computer literacy be integrated into curriculums? Should colleges develop their own
training methods, buy packaged solutions, find them on the Web?
Organizations profiled are: Brooklyn Law School, Florida State University College of
Medicine, Indiana University Southeast, Texas Christian University, Clemson University,
the Teaching & Learning Technology Group, the Appalachian College Association,
Tuskegee Institute and the University of West Georgia.
THE SURVEY OF LIBRARY CAFÉS

ISBN: 1-57440-089-4 Price: $75.00 Publication Date: 2007
The Survey of Library Cafés presents data from more than 40 academic and public
libraries about their cafés and other foodservice operations. The 60-page report gives
extensive data and commentary on library café sales volume, best-selling products,
impacts on library maintenance costs, reasons for starting a café, effects on library traffic,
and many other issues regarding the decision to start and manage a library café.
149

Primary Research Group Staff - Academic Library Building Renovation Benchmarks-Primary Research Group Inc (2008)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Primary Research Group Staff - Academic Library Building Renovation Benchmarks-Primary Research Group Inc (2008)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academic Library Building Renovation Benchmarks

Academic Library Building Renovation

ISBN 1-57440-110-6 ©2008 Primary Research Group

Characteristics of the Sample............................................................................................ 20

TABLE 3.1: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT OFFER A SPECIFIC CENTER OR DEFINED

TABLE 4.1: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE USED THE SERVICES OF AN

TABLE 4.38: MEAN, MEDIAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF COMPUTERS IN

TABLE 5.56: DESIRABILITY OF INSTALLING, EXPANDING OR BETTER SITUATING A

TABLE 5.75: DESIRABILITY OF REDUCING THE LIBRARY’S ELECTRICITY AND/OR

TABLE 5.98: DESIRABILITY OF ADDING ELECTRICAL OUTLETS AS A GOAL OF YOUR

TABLE 9.7: MEAN, MEDIAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF

TABLE 12.1: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES WHOSE CURRENT OR PLANNED LIBRARY

TABLE 12.2: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES WHOSE CURRENT OR PLANNED LIBRARY

TABLE 13.1: MEAN, MEDIAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM AMOUNT SPENT

TABLE 14.1: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE USED HIGH-PERFORMANCE

TABLE 14.10: PERCENTAGE OF LIBRARIES THAT HAVE MADE ARCHITECTURAL

Characteristics of the Sample

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Renovation Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Public or Private Mean Median Minimum Maximum

FTE Enrollment Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Carnegie Class Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Summary Of Main Findings

Capital Budget Trends

Spending on Library Re-Design

Info Technology Centers in the Library

Information Commons and Computer Labs

Reasons for Renovating the Library Building

Goals of the Next Library Re-Design

Spending on Furniture for the Library

Spending on Flooring for the Library

Impact of the Library Renovation Efforts on Patron Satisfaction

Shutting Down the Library For Renovations

Encourage of Discourage Use of the Library as a “Mobile Office”

The Role of Landscaping in Library Renovation

Artwork in the Library

Design Measures for Energy Savings

Chapter One: Capital Budget

It has decreased It has remained It has increased It has increased

Renovation It has decreased It has remained It has increased It has increased

Be less than it Be about the Increase Increase

Renovation Be less than it Be about the Increase Increase

Public or Private Be less than it Be about the Increase Increase

FTE Enrollment Be less than it Be about the Increase Increase

Carnegie Class Be less than it Be about the Increase Increase

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Renovation Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Public or Private Mean Median Minimum Maximum

FTE Enrollment Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Carnegie Class Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Please briefly describe this redesign project.

1. New joint use library.

6. Renovation of second of three floors.

9. We are planning one but do not have a budget as yet.

11. We are designing a whole new library/learning commons on a new campus.

12. Redesign of interior; reconfiguration of ground-floor level to include new services.

13. New addition to the existing facility.

17. Moved to a totally new building.

19. Learning Commons Renovation Project.

21. We will be building a new structure in the next 3 years.

23. New "library" structure and renovation of existing structure, adjacent.

25. Replace the handrail and guardrails on the main staircase.

26. Extensive interior reworking.

30. Built a new library in 2005.