Tue 8 Jul 2008
Interesting article on the new Library Shelving Facility.
Before Williams College opens its new library, it will open an off-campus, high-security, high-density, solar-powered, heavily computerized library storage facility on Simonds Road.
This building, which is essentially a concrete box, will eventually store about 900,000 volumes in 10,000 square feet of environmentally controlled space, on shelving 30-feet high. The materials will be stored on trays, and stacked according to size, not subject, to allow for the most efficient packing possible. It will be accessed via fork lifts.
During the construction of the new library on campus, some materials will be temporarily housed at the off-campus Library Shelving Facility, which is how college officials refer to it. But once the new library is finished, the off-site building will hold some of the less heavily used volumes and journals on a more permanent basis.
“When we were planning the new library, we realized that there was only going to be so much space we could afford both financially and in acreage because we’re located in the center of campus,” said Sylvia Brown, Williams College archivist. “So we had to think about what do we want to have most in the center of campus and how are people going to be using the library.”
Good stuff. It does not take a futurist to see that, for students in the near future, if something isn’t on-line, it doesn’t exist. The College could cut the amount of space on campus for books and journals by 90% and still be fine. Indeed, I suspect that, in 10 years, this facility will seem like a ridiculous white elephant. Won’t 98% of the material it contains be available on the web for free?
On the roof will be 96 photovoltaic panels, which will generate roughly 30,000 kilowatt hours of electricity annually.
According to Stephanie Boyd, director of the Williams College Zilkha Center for Environmental Initiatives, “This building has a nice, big, flat roof, so there was lots of room to put solar panels up. And it’s easier to do while you’re constructing a new building. So it just seemed like a great application.”
The cost of the solar panel project was partially funded by a rebate award from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative through the Commonwealth Solar program to the tune of $92,670. The remainder, about $170,000, was funded by the college’s capital improvement budget, Boyd said.
She added that this is the first significant photovoltaic installation at Williams College and will help the college achieve its greenhouse gas reduction target of 10 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020.
Hmmmm. Color me skeptical but willing to be educated. Is one quarter of a million dollars a wise investment, either by the College or the taxpayers of Massachusetts? I think that a kilowatt hour in Massachusetts is worth around 10 cents. So, these panels will, at best, save the College $3,000 per year. Am I doing this math correctly? Isn’t it silly to spend $170,000 to save $3,000 per year? And note that this calculation ignores the cost of (annual) maintenance and replacement cells. But what could possibly damage solar panels on a flat roof during a Williamstown winter?
There is a great senior thesis to be written about the actual economics of the College’s attempts to cut carbon emissions — all the messy details of dollars and kilowatts. My suspicion is that the College is wasting money on expensive hair shirts.


July 8th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
David Kane, you are many things but you are not a librarian. Alas there is still a lot of stuff that will not be available for free online for a very long time. The fastest digitizing machine can only do about 20 books a day, and I think there are only about 5 of those in existence at big places like UNC.
What I suspect is that most of the collection being stored there will be periodicals in bound book form. Those will likely not ever be available online for free because most of them are a)still under copyright and b)the fee to gain access to the digitized form of the journals is ridiculously expensive. We’re talking 5-6 figure amounts per year and increasing greatly every year because the publishers have a monopoly on the information.
So Williams has a huge resource that it understandably wants to keep safe and it lacks a giant army of Library Science researchers, librarians and graduate students to do things like digitize the collection. So building a storage facility is still very much cheaper than supplying the human labor hours necessary to digitize all of it.
Don’t take my word for it, try reading some of what other librarians say about digitization.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I may not be a librarian, but I know a useless link when I see it. That site claims that “The most reliable and most optimistic estimates by technology experts predict that half of all information currently in print will be available on the Internet by 2050!”
Absurd. Almost no one has any idea what the web will look like in 2050. This guy is just making stuff up. How can I librarian refer to something as the “most reliable” without giving a citation? Pathetic.
That said, I could easily be wrong about whether or not the LSF is a good or bad idea. (I actually don’t have strong opinions.) If it is true that much/most of the material is periodicals that aren’t/won’t be available in the web, then fine. We need that. But what are some good examples of such periodicals that are in high demand at Williams but which aren’t on JSTOR or other on-line collections?
In terms of books, Williams should, obviously, keep and maintain copies of old books that only it has. But why maintain copies of materials the Google is scanning for free?
Again, we would all need more details to know whether Williams is making reasonable choices here, but it is easy to guess as to the biases of most librarians . . .
July 8th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
On the issue of solar panels: you’re assuming the price of electricity will be constant over the next n years, which may not be true. As is, the college will break even in ~60 years (ignoring maintenance, and assuming the people involved are intelligent enough to have planned for snow). If energy prices continue increasing, that number could become much lower. Similarly if we ever manage to implement a carbon tax or similar measure, which would raise the price of fossil-fuel use to reflect its negative externalities. If you look at solar panels as a hedge against future price increases, there’s a chance they could be a very good investment.
At any rate, the point of reducing carbon emissions isn’t to save money (although that is occasionally a nice side effect). The college gets lots of PR benefits; among other things it helps us counter Middlebury’s attempts to claim the “most environmentally responsible LAC” mantle. If nothing else, anything that helps to keep Berkshire air fresh and clean for a few more years is worth something to the college (although if that was a big concern, they probably wouldn’t be doing Stetson-Sawyer).
July 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
First hand research!
I have 8 undergraduates (Williams/Harvard) working near me this summer. I just asked them how often they went to the library this past year to look up something in a physical book or journal. 7 of the 8 said zero or once.
Now, this is obviously not a random sample of Williams students but it is certainly consistent with everything that I have heard or read on the topic. Students today have much less (90%?) occasion to go to the library and consult a physical book or journal. Therefore, Williams probably needs much, much less space for books and journals (both on campus and off) than it did 20 years ago. Are most librarians in favor of decreasing the amount of space on campus dedicated to such storage? I have my doubts.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Probably at least half of all information currently in print is already digitized; the only thing keeping it from free online availability is copyright law. At the rate we’re going, the world’s major library collections will be entirely digitized long before 2050, and it seems plausible to assume that some sort of licensing agreements could be worked out with publishers for libraries to gain access (similar to how services like Rhapsody currently provide music). So I think it’s reasonable to assume that most information will be online before 2050.
That said, ebook readers are going to have to get a lot better before I consider an digital file to be as valuable as a printed book.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I have used some of the digitized books. It is nice to have them as I can’t travel all over to read a book, but they do have drawbacks. There are some serious quality control issues (skipped pages, crooked pages, illegible pages). Drawings, maps, pull-outs and plates (the heart of some types of books) often don’t do well in the digitizing process.
A lot of libraries got rid of original documents when the microfiche technology came along. Anyone who has worked with microfiche knows how difficult that can be. The digitizing is much better, but still far from perfect. I hope the mistakes won’t be repeated.
It is true that it takes a lot of energy to store books and documents. If we digitize all of them, however, we are going to be stuck with a world where we need energy in order to read/access them. Preserving the ability to read many of our books using only simple daylight is a big positive to be thrown into the equation.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
So I gave you a dumbed down version. You can also look here for more authoritative information.
Also about J-stor: it only does humanities/social science journals, and none within the last 3-5 years. Therefore if Williams has to buy subscriptions to these journals.
There are a lot of journals that are not part of J-stor. You would have to ask the school librarians about which ones they specifically have to order.
Also Google will digitize your books, but they will remain the property of Google whereas the there are other organizations like Brewster Kahle’s Open Content Alliance which is making everything they do available to the public. For that controversy see here.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
No. You forget that $3,000 in 60 years is not worth $3,000 today. What is it worth? Excellent question! Read about how to calculate net present value. Assuming a 5% discount rate, $3,000 in 60 years is worth $161 today.
There is no plausible discount rate at which this investment ever “pays” for itself.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
My impression was that Google provides its library partners with full TIFF copies of every page it scans from their libraries. Obviously the copyright itself would still belong to the author/publisher, but I’m not sure what you expect them to do about that. How is the OCA different?
July 8th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Unsexy subject - has nothing to do with drinking beer and chasing broads.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I am happy to believe that Williams needs to subscribe to all sorts of journals, both those not on JSTOR and those on it to have the most recent issues available. Fine. That is not today’s dispute. The issues today are: 1) How much old material does Williams need to save in the LSF? and 2) How much space in the new library on campus should be devoted to the physical storage of books and journals?
My guess is that Williams should store less stuff, both in the facility and on campus.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Also responding to David Kane’s second response: What field are they in? Are they doing a humanities or social sciences thesis? A lot of those people use books. Also you’re forgetting several other things.
1) The library is an essential resource for professors. Professors, especially humanities professors still use books. (Besides that, art history grad students do use the Williams library because it specializes in art books that the Clark does not own, like non-Western art).
2)Williams is a Government Repository. It has to preserve and make available all of the documents that the US government sends to it and can’t get rid of any of them. These are still in paper form and federal law requires that they be kept, even if they are the hearings of chicken farmers in Iowa to the committee on agriculture from 1973. I suspect that a lot of the storage facility is made of stuff like that.
I’m not sure what your last question is asking, David, but I think I for once agree with you. *grin*
Moving stuff off-site means more space within the library for other things, such as collaborative rooms and more study spaces, which happens to be the way that library design is going nowadays and it is how the new Stetson will be set up.
Yes, most libraries that I know of are gravitating towards off-site storage to free up space within the on-campus buildings. The instance I know of best is the UNC-Duke collaborative off-site storage facility. The Williams case seems very typical among academic libraries, and most younger librarians (myself included) are for changing how library spaces are used.
I would also caution against grouping all librarians in one group, seeing as it is a far from homogeneous group and we are still duking it out, trying to figure out how to deal with a very rapidly changing system.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
To ‘10: We do have the problem that the currently published works only represent a sliver of the books published even within the last 20 years. Unfortunately due to changing tax laws, publishers find it more profitable to destroy books than hold onto them and take the tax liability. Thus a lot of books, especially academic books have a very short run and are no longer available. So it will take a long time to get everything that exists in big libraries such as U of M or Ohio State or UNC into digital form.
Also re: OCA. Google retains the copyright to the books it scans, even though it supplies a tiff to the library. So that one library’s constituents get access to the scanned book, but not everyone else (like tiny liberal arts colleges and people in Zimbabwe). The OCA is making everything it scans available to everyone, as it only makes digital copies of things in the public domain.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
First of all, for someone whose favorite refrain seems to be “sounds like a good idea for a thesis,” David your advocacy for getting rid of books vital to such research seems patently absurd in light of the very real limitations of digitizing books, not to mention things that get lost in such a process.
And while David and ‘10 (at comment 5) seem to have wonderful opinions about how much information is digitized and/or will be digitized by 2050, Suz seems to actually have some knowledge on the subject and finds such unsupported assertions to be rather overly-ambitious. She also provides (gasp) citations for her claims.
From a personal perspective, and as someone whose job entails primarily research and writing, I truly hope that the books are not gotten rid of. There is something important, exciting, and truly unique about the quality of an old book in your hand. There are things to be learned from holding the item itself and seeing how it was put together, the colors, the different paper, the plates, the fold-outs - not to mention the value to your sanity and eyesight. What you lose in online books are the discoveries from initially opening to the wrong page, or scanning the table of contents or reading a few pages past where you intended. When you do a search of whatever type online, you pull the page and span of pages that cover your topic and stop. You don’t get the dedication or the title page or the illustrations (where these are applicable obvioulsy). For looking at raw data or something, you don’t need a book. For doing research on Williams history, you need the books!
Suz has already addressed some of the other comments I would have made, and much more eloquently, so I’ll end my ode to the tangible book here.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
David, I hate to tell you this, but you’re not an expert on everything. Whatever your guess is is just your guess. Librarians and library science scholars have been studying it for years and don’t have a clear consensus. There are too many variables in play for us to know what’s going to happen in the next 20 years. And the last thing we want is to lose all of the priceless information stored in those books. I don’t know if it is worth all of that money to build an uber-facility but I know the consequences of losing important irreplaceable material. Williams’ main focus should be on academics and preserving/creating knowledge. If the library and its material is not one of the core focuses of the college/university than I rather have a lack of faith in that institution of higher learning.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
JG, thanks. What you described about books is something we’re still trying to duplicate digitally and just are not there yet. We’re a long way from being there yet.
And damn right I know my stuff. My current job is to digitize art images for use in the university’s image database, and even with 4 people at it, it still is going to take us proly 5 years to do about 4,000 photographic images. Nevermind the slide collection. It’s a lot of work, especially adding all the data about the individual image to make it searchable. All of that takes so much damn time. Probably on a good day it takes me about 30 minutes per image to scan it, clean it up and then enter minimal data about it. It is a whole lot of work and the task is epic.
Luckily for me it means I’ll have a job for the next 10 years or so.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Here’s a detailed study of the Tri-College library system (Bryn Mawr, Haverford, Swarthmore) prepared for the Mellon Foundation in 2003.
Report to The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
BTW, it appears that the current faculty is a major impediment to faster progress towards a 21st century model of the college library. Today’s professors seem to believe that everything must be available in hard copy, in person, at their whim. Perusing the focus groups, it appears the professors were largely against weeding collections (even where two or more libraries have copies a book that hasn’t circulated in 11 years), against eletronic formats, and against off-site storage.
It addresses many of the issues being discussed here including electronic publishing, off-site storage, focus groups of students & faculty on library usage, etc.
The three libraries have a shared on-line catalog and books are delivered back and forth among the three colleges daily so they have more than a decade of easily accessible circulation data, some of which is featured in the report, for example:
Circulation since 1991
57% of volumes: zero
17% of volumes: once
19% of volumes: one to five times
6% of volues: six or more times
July 8th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Love books.
Love fonts, and ink and the paper; the smell of it, the weight of it, the cover, and then opening it the first time, and settling down with it. I love the feeling of devouring the pages one by one and then shutting the book once done…and setting it on the table, ready to pick up again for the next leg of the adventure.
I can spend hours in a bookstore…and I’d rather splurge on a book than just about anything.
And though my son is about as techie as they come, he loves books as well…and has gone on and on about what he has found on the shelves at Williams.
BTW, the clouds in the photo of the facility are gorgeous.
And Suz? You get today’s EB award for diplomacy.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Suz: For the record, it looks like Google doesn’t claim any sort of copyright to the public-domain books they scan (how could they?), but we do make them available only on an individual basis; there’s no way for a third party to grab their entire collection all at once in the same way that OCA or Project Gutenberg would allow. So even if they have no legal authority over what people do with their scanned public-domain books, they have a good deal of practical control. I assume that’s what you were getting at, and I can see how that could be an issue.
Anyway, for the record, I think offsite storage is a good compromise for the “digital age”. It frees up library space for studying, collaboration, and online/digital access, so in that sense it’s far more forward-looking than the current model. And we still get to keep all the rarely-used books, in case we need them. I don’t know what David’s suggesting, but if the alternative to building a storage facility was to just throw out all the books that won’t fit in the new library, I can see why that course wasn’t chosen.
FSM: aren’t you usually careful not to mention your offspring’s gender? :-)
July 8th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Woo hoo! I get a diplomacy award!
Seriously though, my job as a specialist is to inform people about things I know a lot about. And as a librarian I am required to help people even if they are pretentious.
Also, if I can work on a project with Mark C. Taylor, I can be diplomatic to anyone.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Why didn’t Williams just build a little bigger offsite storage building and keep the library they have?
July 8th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
“Also, if I can work on a project with Mark C. Taylor, I can be diplomatic to anyone.”
Add to your award a Nobel nomination.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Larry - agreed, I’d nominate Suz for a Nobel for that ;)
hwc - Sawyer Library is just not a good space. It has limited technology, the space isn’t well laid out, it is like a bunker, many of the various study spaces are old and outdated, etc. I could go on. They have spent years and years on various permutations of how to update or fix Stetson-Sawyer, eventually reaching the decision to tear down and rebuild. I don’t know all the details of what was considered, but I do know that one of my best friends was on the Stetson-Sawyer committee way way back in 1999 or 2000 talking about these same issues. Of all the things for Williams to spend money on, I think libraries are right up their in terms of priorities.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
wasn’t this article (or a version) previously cited and mentioned on ephblog by someone? We had a whole nice discussion of the architecture. Where is that? it was recent.
Further, David, you criticize ‘10 for not adjusting for the change in value of $3000, yet you don’t consider also the change in value of solar paneling. Unfair!
As for the rest of the argument–at worst, this facility is useless as a library storage facility in twenty years and we’d need to find another use for it (i’m sure there’s something we could do with that space). At best, it is useful far beyond that. At worst, the solar panels do not give a 1:1 monetary benefit but do provide cleaner energy. At best, they could do even better than 1:1 while still providing cleaner energy. Seems like you’re being too harsh, david.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Hi ‘10:
Yeah…Oops.
Don’t tell anyone, okay? Cause she really likes her privacy. ;-)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Why didn’t Williams just keep its library?
Because Sawyer is the worst library ever.
Ask librarians, ask staff, ask students. It’s the worst. Layout, design, aesthetics, HVAC, no bathrooms on the main floor (!?!), you walk down a ramp to go up stairs, the lighting is bad, limited space, and so forth.
And they ran the numbers on just renovating it to make it into a more workable space, which involved filling in the “light wells”, and adding a floor I believe, and that was more expensive than just building a brand new state of the art library. Yowza!
July 9th, 2008 at 12:47 am
I love the smell of real thing too, but the sexy part of it ends when we meet, where the pedal to the metal engages.
Digitizing information is very important. Being able to instantly access data and correlate it effectively in record time is essential to manage tasking.
This is not about the LOVE of a book, this is about accessing information and managing data. I LOVE books. I have a LIBRARY that is unparalleled in my neighborhood community. But when I am doing research and have little time, immediate access is essential to results.
I imagine that when I am aged, that having the smell of paper and ink and the feel of the texture of that BOOK will take on an importance that supercedes any immediate interests and fulfills a personal satisfaction in touching a BOOK.
Books are important, but in an age of information, access and data retrieval times are important to success and thus survival. The luxury of the senses may overwhelm our readers who lament the advent of technology and information.
I, too, love that chair, that book, that place, where we come together to drift onto the writer’s plane of presentation.
The new library will be a great addition. Others will experience its value later.
When I return to see it, I will comment upon it then.
Until the following semester, adieu!
PS: I hope you all are having as much fun as I am this summer.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Just to clarify, I think digitizing information is essential. It democratizes the information, and I think it will totally revolutionize the “library” experience - in fact it already has.
At this juncture, however, I find it very premature to talk about dumping the paper copies of resources that are not duplicated on campus or in town. Obviously, like the study hwc cited, if there were two copies in the college’s system alone a source can be thinned out.
Having a storage facility that is accessible, but will use space to the maximum is a great solution for our current time. There will always be a need for some books to be kept, so I think that temperature and humidity controlled building will remain useful.
Books and digital information are both good - I don’t those ideas are in conflict.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Not only is Sawyer a hideous and unpleasant space, but it was a disaster in terms of campus planning. While extremely expensive, this is essentially the key to a new master plan which totally remakes the Williams campus into a much more sensible, attractive, space that finally has a true campus center / green / heart, does not feature an enormous brick wall smack dab in the middle of campus blocking out the mountains, and will reshape the campus for 100 years going forward in a much more student-friendly fashion. Why just patch up a disastrous space, at very high cost, when the college can reform the entire heart of campus in the meanwhile? Plus, Williams crucially needs new humanities office space, and that had to happen regardless of the library — and there was really no other great option to place the needed buildings.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
A few years ago when extensive renovations of Widener Library began the local university let us know that very little space for additional books was being provided, since the print collection was essentailly complete as of the turn of the last millenneum. In the future everything will be on line only. So no new stacks will be needed.
The great Medievalist, the late Arthur Darby Nock once wrote a little essay called “How to tell if you live in a dark age?” I always thougth Nock was hinting not too subtlely, that the 20th century was a dark age. The 21st has not begun all that well.
Perhaps it is just as well that there not be room for hard cover books of the 21st century in Widener. Perhaps the 22nd century will produce better literature, history, and philosophy. We can always build an addition to for real books for Widener then. And the litle college in the Village Beautiful can follow.
People living in dark ages should not expect anyone to take their writings seriously enough to put them in real libraries.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
David and hwc, you betray your lack of historical research experience! I know statistics like “57% of volumes not accessed in the past 17 years” seems like an indication of an archival cesspool. I know I’d be frightened by those kinds of numbers in any other business. But as an art historian who is hoping to make a living by bringing to light information that has been tucked away for many years, I’m not at ALL surprised at that number. I’m pulling printed books (not just archival material, which certainly should never be destroyed,) that haven’t been seen by anyone for two, three, four decades.
Obviously Williams doesn’t need to bulk up its art collections too much – the Clark fills that role fine. But barring any massive changes in copyright law or the interests of publishing companies and databases like JSTOR, the college will still need space to store books younger than one hundred years, as well as to contain complete holdings of minor, specialized journals that are overlooked by databases that themselves have to leave things out for efficiency’s sake.
Would I love to see everything digitized? My GOD yes, it makes research flow incredibly faster. Would librarians like to see more digitization? You bet they would – how exactly is it in the interests of a WCL librarian to stonewall digitization or subscription to digitization services when that will stick redundant bound periodicals in valuable space that could instead be home to a broader collection of current publications or precious archival materials? I think you’ll find very few librarians today who are willfully ignorant of the benefits of digitization (Nick Baker, who oversees web services at WCL, is especially active in integrating online databases into the WCL research process.) Really, they don’t want to spend their days running through cramped stacks pulling out books. I certainly don’t.
The percentage of material digitally available will explode in the next couple of decades, no doubt. You’re right to point out we have no earthly idea what databases will look like in fifty years; I agree. Which is all the more reason to construct a flexible off-site storage space, where printed books can be tucked away safely and retrieved efficiently, while freeing even more library space for study areas that take advantage of digital information and the ways it can be collaboratively accessed. Let’s be efficient with our libraries, but let’s also recognize the inevitability of continuous expansion when it comes to cataloguing human knowledge.