The pros and cons of Ottawa's new central library site — and a few questions, too

Since the conversation began 15 years ago, Ottawa is as close to getting a new central library as it's ever been.

The Ottawa Public Library announced Thursday that it's recommending a new library be built in partnership with the federal Library and Archives Canada and that it should go on a city-owned piece of land on Albert Street, just west of Bronson Avenue, on the eastern edge of LeBreton Flats.

Like any good city-building project, the site has its proponents and its detractors, its pros and cons. And like any city process, there's a growing list of questions that need answers.

The pros

• Free and fast: The city already owns the property at 557 Wellington St., which is not on the famous part of Wellington but on a relatively unknown section near the Fleet Pumping Station and aqueduct. That means building a central library here would be cheaper, and the process would move faster than other options which would involve land deals. This matters: sure, a projected mid-2018 groundbreaking is convenient for politicians running for re-election, but there also seems to be political will on this particular council to approve this project, which won't necessarily be the case in the future.
• Federal partnership: Teaming up with Library and Archives Canada — not quite yet a fait accompli, but looking very positive — works to the city's advantage. It means we'll be able to build a bigger site, spend more money (while using fewer city dollars) and, on a city-building front, collaborate on some great public spaces.
• Stand-alone facility: For skeptics of the finances surrounding private-public partnerships, it'll be welcome news that library staff are recommending a design-bid-build model. Even better, that recommendation means no central library in the podium of a condo tower. A stand-alone library has the potential of being a new iconic landmark in the capital, with the potential to attract other development to the area.

The cons

• Far from workers: The site evaluation team talked about the density of residents around the 557 Wellington St. site, and how most of the growth in the core in the future will happen west of Bronson. However, some of the future intensification assumptions are based on the current proposal to redevelop LeBreton Flats, a plan that's still far from confirmed. More importantly, taking a look at density around the site suggests the evaluators didn't properly take workers into consideration. About one-quarter of the visitors to the current main library branch at Metcalfe Street and Laurier Avenue come directly from work, most likely in the downtown core.
• Specific site issues: The evaluation team gave importance to transit and accessibility when scoring the locations. The city-owned property is some 240 to 270 metres away from the Pimisi LRT station that's currently under construction, which means it merely "meets" the board's criteria for transit accessibility instead of exceeding it (as other sites do). Worse, the future library would be uphill from the station, which could be an issue for people with mobility issues, like the elderly and folks in wheelchairs. (The building itself, however, would be accessible.) 
• Farther from downtown: The new central library is meant for residents from across the city, but it's also the plan for it to serve the downtown, which includes Centretown. For those residents, it's a much farther  trip on foot and an inconvenient one by public transit. Of course, any location will be better for some and worse for others, but it's important to keep in mind that those who are now likely the heaviest users of the main branch (including downtown workers) will have a harder time getting to this location. It's also true that most new central libraries are in the bustling hearts of their city's downtowns, as opposed to areas that merely promise to be vibrant one day.

The questions (so far)

• Importance of vistas: One reason the city-owned site scored well was that a library there would not only have great views from within, but also would itself would be an iconic landmark. These are both laudable qualities in a building, of course, but how much weight should they be given? It seems the most important factor in a central public library is that it's in a location that makes it as easy as possible to access for the widest number of people.
• Subjectivity of evaluation: The site-evaluation report explains how sites were scored based on the various criteria, but sometimes the explanations don't seem to match the score. For example, in considering whether a site is near existing or planned cultural, commercial, residential and institutional facilities, the library's preferred site scored 85 per cent. And yet, the attached property to the west — which is right on the Pimisi station and the base of the proposed LeBreton Flats redevelopment — scored only 70 per cent. The rationale is unclear. There are a number of these sorts of questions in the 68-page report.

Public meeting good idea

Thursday's technical briefing on the library recommendation was held before about 600 pages of reports were made public. It'll take some time to digest and sort through these hundreds of details, during which people will come up with reams of questions.

And there's currently no opportunity to get those answered.

The library board will be discussing the library's recommendations at its Jan. 31 meeting, which allows members of the public to make presentation but not ask questions. Coun. Catherine McKenney, who happens to be a board member, has said she wants to hold a public meeting at city hall on Jan. 18, and on Thursday somewhat angrily asked library staff to vow to attend.

Library CEO Danielle McDonald understandably didn't commit to the spontaneous demand. 

Still, a question-and-answer session is a good idea. The site at 557 Wellington may well be a fine location for a new central public library. But the reasons why we're building there should be as clear as possible.

We're about to commit a lot of public money to an important public project and, as much as possible, we should have public buy-in for it.