Two venerable San Francisco architecture firms joined forces to renovate the Marina branch of the San Francisco Public Library. Field Paoli has a long track record with public libraries and Tom Eliot Fisch has worked with the city on several significant buildings. Together the two firms worked to renovate and expand the 1950s library and update it for the new century. Although this library was well loved by its patrons, it was not a historic landmark. Across the country, 50-year-old buildings are coming up for demolition or renovation. It's one thing to save a landmark by Marcel Breuer, Mies van der Rohe, Philip Johnson, or Richard Neutra. But what about those modest moderns?

Contract: These modest buildings from the middle of the last century—why should we bother with them? Tell us your first impressions of the existing building. What worked?

Mark Schatz, FAIA, principal, Field Paoli: The original interior spaces and the way the building is nestled into a corner of a public park are very beautiful. The library is L-shaped, framing a wonderful courtyard, so the light brought inside is terrific. The scale difference between what is now the children's room and the adult reading area is especially well done. Originally, the children's room was a smaller adult reading room; we kept the modern brick and black granite fireplace, which was never used, but it provides a great '50s ambiance. What we found out about community buildings was that the community had a long memory and that people loved using the resource.

Doug Tom, AIA, principal, Tom Eliot Fisch: Oddly enough, it was a kind of suburban model in the middle of the city. Given land values, you wouldn't do that today. But this building read like a public building while being very welcoming. The high volumes and the contrasting low volumes made sense in terms of their functions.

Contract: So, what didn't work? What was your main challenge?

Tom: The modernist design suggested a solution—open flexible space. We tried to peel back what had been added and return the building to its original spirit.

Schatz: To my mind, one thing that was not successful in the original design was the street façade. When you walked along the sidewalk, a trellis in front of the children's room blocked views in and out. A solid brick wall closed off the office area, and there was a large unused side lot. My reaction was that we should not expand into the park, but instead bring the library out to the street.

Tom: Redefining the entry and the front façade offered the most impact for the budget.

Contract: What was your solution?

Schatz: One of the designers from our office, Joe Champion, took the brick wall, reconstructed it closer to the street, and added that glass box that houses a third reading room, so now you see in and out. It was the appropriate modest response. All told, we added only 1,500 sq. ft. of program space, and half of that was for new, accessible public restrooms.

Contract: Do you think the library turned its back to the street because of the popularity of Usonian houses at that time?

Schatz: I think that was part of it; another part was to have an element of surprise. You entered through an opaque front, which then opened into this light-filled box with views out to the park. Over time, the brick wall was vandalized; by adding the glass box, we kept the original sense of entrance but also put eyes on the street.

Tom: We had another significant challenge. Security for patrons and materials was not such a big concern in the 50s. While the building is still used as if it were the Marina District's living room, we also had to provide visual oversight, and of course, upgrade technology options.

Contract: Was flexibility key to the original diagram?

Schatz: Absolutely. Over time, the original children's room expanded, and staff office space and the children moved into one of the reading rooms. By the time of our renovation, the library was jammed with material. With creative storage, we actually expanded the collections and provided more seating.

Contract: Do you think that people in the community now see this modest building in different light?

Schatz: Yes, because of the new views in and out to the street. But this has always been a well-used and well-loved library. So it was nice to respect the original structure and respond at an appropriate scale with the right materials. It's funny—50s modernism is now a resource, and more in sync with today's aesthetic than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

Contract: What about the materials?

Schatz: We used durable materials—steel, insulated glass, the reconstructed brick wall. And we preserved what was unique to the era and meant to last, like wood plank ceilings and one entire wall that is ribbed glass block with colored glass inserts. We did have to seismically upgrade the original masonry structure.

Contract: How did you choose the furnishings? They seem to fit without being overtly nostalgic.

Tom: Bobbie Fisch, the principal from our office, used this project as a test case for the San Francisco library system's recently adopted fixture and furnishings standards. As Mark said, they seem appropriate.

Contract: At what point does it become impossible to save one of these modest moderns?

Tom: It's not necessarily a judgment about a modernist building that is not a significant landmark. It's about the community gathering around an existing public building, and it's about whether the existing building can work for the new program.

Both of our firms are renovating Carnegie-style branch libraries. They are classic object buildings that are not very open and difficult to expand. But nobody is going to argue about whether to keep those or not.

Schatz: Doug's right. When there are seismic, plumbing, and electrical issues to the extent that there were here, renovation is almost as expensive as a new structure. Saving a particular building often becomes an emotional issue. Community affection and political will are primary determinants of how money will be spent.

There is a tradeoff for sustainability as well. Keeping existing buildings is environmentally sound, but only if they will function well in the future, from both a human and energy standpoint.

Interestingly, both the traditional and modern branch libraries followed a simple pattern of books around the perimeter and tables in the middle. While downtown central libraries were all stately civic buildings, these branches were designed to be neighborhood gathering places, modest and straightforward in their appearance and use. Often you walked to them; there was little or no added parking.

And yet, in their residential settings, at a park edge, or set back from the street edge, their public purpose is recognizable. Mind you, we are very fond of these modest moderns, but our case for saving them is stronger when the community likes them as much as we do.

|c|

Mark Schatz, FAIA, is a principal of Field Paoli and Doug Tom, AIA, is a principal of Tom Eliot Fisch.