Guest Opinion: James Spencer and John Fauvre | Central Library Retrofitting: Take a Second Look Before Building For Its Second Century

 We write to encourage the City Council to approve further study of a potentially less expensive retrofitting process. At this stage, City staff has decided not to do so.  It promises to provide a detailed rationale in the indefinite future, and we expect to provide technical responses whenever that occurs. We are long-term Pasadena citizens with no financial stake in the retrofitting project. 

The project is facing a critical choice. A proposal offered in September, 2023, might save around $70million in construction costs but to the construction schedule. 

The current shear-wall City plan would provide adequate safety, be completed around 2028, and cost about $200 million.  The proposed “center-core” method would provide adequate safety, cost around $125 million and be completed around 2028 to 2030.  The decision must fist go to the City Council, and ultimately to the Pasadena citizens voting on bond funding.

 The center-core approach has not been fully vetted.  Its prospects are considered good by several experienced experts, but it needs further analysis.  The method uses steel rods or cords tensioning the roof to the foundation and possibly use of fiber reinforced plasma sheets to provide horizontal stability.  This is in contrast to the current shear-wall approach, which calls for shearing off 1 foot from the  2 feet thick interior walls of unreinforced masonry and replacing it with concrete.

 A BETTER WAY?

The center-core method approach requires testing the strength of the walls and engineering the best retrofitting procedures.  Approval by the City Council is said to require up to 3 months; testing and planning could take about 3 months; construction could take 2 or 3 years.

The center-core method simply wasn’t fully considered when the City Council approved the shear-wall proposal in August 2023.  It has been used successfully on the First United Methodist Church on Colorado Blvd. and on the UCLA Clark Library, built in 192.  The experts with experience think it probably would work for our Central Library. The City’s project staff apparently have very minimal experience with this method.  Evaluation should be done by an independent,  experienced, structural engineer.

 POSSIBLE BUILDING SCHEDULE

The effect on timing of construction depends on several factors.  If a conclusion can be reached quickly, in time for for a 2024 bond election.  Because the center-core method is only used on special projects, there could be delays in providing some materials and trained craftsmen. 

The City’s project team has expressed concern that possible delays would prevent a bond election is 2024.  This fear arises from possible inflation, possible lesser voter support in a different election cycle, and possible impatience from longer closure of the facility.  On the other hand, greater or lesser inflation, interest rate fluctuations, and shifting voter sentiment are all inherently speculative.  In addition, virtually all of the 9 branch libraries, along with the many accessible libraries in neighboring cities, have provided all of the services interrupted by closure of the Central Library.  Only lack of access to the open stacks would result, and nearly all books and information are similarly available through Internet sources.  No polling of citizen concerns has occurred so there is no data showing urgency by Pasadena voters.

 The need for time to develop solutions has already been demonstrated on this project.  For example, in November 2021, the Library Commission received a report projecting costs of $ 111 million (based on a formula multiplying the square footage by an average construction cost) about half the current projection.  Moreover, although the City sought bids for the project about the same time, it did not actually retain the Gruen architecture team until February 2023, at a price of $5.9 million.

 SOME HELPFUL FACTORS

Supporters of the center-core approach point out that the level of building code chosen by the City—as if this were to be a new building—is unnecessarily demanding for a historic building, normally governed by the State Historical Code.  Moreover, although the occupancy rating for a structure is lower for libraries than for meeting rooms, the City is using the standard for for meeting rooms throughout, not just for the auditorium.  In addition, the structural engineering firm now on the City’s team, KPFF, is the same firm that provided the initial seismic report leading to Library closure (though there has been no subsidence or cracking during the hundred years the Library has been in use) and which did the preliminary work for the City before retention of the Gruen team, all at a substantial price, and so may lack the appearance of objectivity that would be appropriate.  This also applies to the Gruen firm, and the City staff feels bound to complete planning with no interruption.

 CONCLUSION

Under these circumstances, we urge the City Council to authorize further study and to provide necessary funding to evaluate the center-core approach.

 James Spencer, Architect
 John Fauvre, Pasadena citizen