室內(nèi)設(shè)計外文翻譯-作為公共空間-圖書館設(shè)計和公共空間的創(chuàng)建

PAGE2–PAGE18–本科外文翻譯作為公共空間：圖書館設(shè)計和公共空間的創(chuàng)建BecomingPublic:LibraryDesignAndTheCreationOfPublicSpace學(xué)部（院）：建筑與藝術(shù)學(xué)院專業(yè)：環(huán)境設(shè)計學(xué)生姓名：學(xué)號：指導(dǎo)教師：完成日期：2015年4月10日BecomingPublic:LibraryDesignAndTheCreationOfPublicSpaceByMeganClarkAbstract：Publiclibrarydesignisanimportantrealmwithinwhichtheroleandphilosophyofthepubliclibraryasapublicspaceiscommunicated.Thispaperanalyzesvariousreadingsofpubliclibrarydesignsandfurtheranalyzesthetopicbyconsideringtheuseofthesebuiltspacesbylibrarypatrons.Theinteractionbetweenlibraryusersandthelibrarydesignisrevealingofboththecontradictorynatureofpublicspaceandthewaysinwhichthelibraryisbeingunderstoodandimagine.Thepublicinterpretationoftheprinciplescommunicatedthroughlibrarydesignisrevealingofthevalueofcontemporarypublicspace,whichiscurrentlybeingchallengedbytheencroachingroleofcommercialestablishments.Thispaperconcludesthatlibraries,aspublicspaces,playasignificantroleinthecreationofcivicsociety.Keywords:library;publicspace;designIntroductionThedesignoftheominousandimpressiveLibraryofCongressincludesacentralreadingroomcontainedinadomedenclosureattheheartofthebuilding.Thereadermusttraversetothecenterofthebuildingtocalluponitsresources.Collins(2009)notesthatdepthconnotespowerandthedeeperthereadersgointothebuildingtheclosertheygettoaccessingthefullpoweroftheinstitution.ThisbuildingdesignliterallyreflectsthephilosophicalgoalsandcharacteroftheLibraryofCongress.Intheaveragecommunitybranch,itisnotlikelythatpatronswillbedemandingaccesstothecentrallylocatedfurnaceroominthebasementinordertoharnessthepoweroftheinstitution.Yet,evenonthesmallestscale,librarydesignplaysasignificantpartintransmittingthevaluesandrolesoftheinstitution.Inthecaseofthepubliclibrarybuilding,contemporarydesignhassoughttospeaktofreedomofaccessandcommunity.Butthisnarrativeisnotthepropertyofthedesignalone.Thepublicinteractswithandinterpretsthespacewhichinturnaffectsthedesign.Togetherthedesignandtheusercreatealibraryspacethatishometoanumberofcontradictoryclaimsregardingidentityandpurpose.Itisthisinteractionbetweenthepatronandthepubliclibrarydesignthatwillbeexploredinthispaper.PublicSpaceandthePublicLibraryBeforeconsideringlibraryarchitectureanddesign,itisimportanttoexplorethelibrary’sroleasapublicspaceasthissignificantlyimpactshowthelibraryisdesignedandused.Scranton(1987)definespublicspaceasa,“sphereofbroadandlargelyunplannedencounter”(p.13).Thepublicsphereisaplaceteemingwithunexpectedencounterswhichbringalongwiththemmanychallenges,contradictions,andrevelations.Thesecanvaryfromarudeexperienceonpublictransitorthediscoveryoftheperfectbook,leftwaiting,onalibrarytable.Interactionswithstrangersinpublicspacerequiresadegreeofflexibility,andthisflexibilityisrewardedwiththefruitsofpubliclifeincluding:convenience(streetsandtransit),beauty(parksandarchitecture),andcommunity.Theacceptanceofthepossibilityofsurpriseandtherelatedfreedomthatproducesitencouragesandenablesavarietyofbehavesuniquetothepublicsphere.Scranton(1987)makestheimportantobservationthat“aspaceismadepublicbythenatureofitsboundary”(p.15).Publicisdefinedbythesimpletruththatitisnotprivate.Peoplemayenterorexitatwill,foravarietyofreasonsandperhapswithoutanyjustification.Theyarenotburdenedbytheexpectedroleoftheconsumerortheguest.Insteadpeopleinhabitaspacethatissharedwithstrangerswithwhom,atleastideally,theyexistequally.Thevarietyofpeoplethatmayinteractinthisspaceismuchbroaderthaninprivatecommercialpropertiesorinprivatehomes,andtherefore,publicspaceofferstheimportantpossibilityofanexpandedperspectiveandofbelongingtoacommunitylargerthanwhatindividualscouldconstructontheirown.Ifweneglectpublicspaces,intheoryandinuse,wediminishthepossibilityofvariedsocialinteractionsandtheexperienceofdiversityassocialgroupsbecomemorecontrolledandsegregated(Sickie&Hopkins,2002).Thisdoesnotmeanthatthepubliccommunityisnecessarilydesirableorevenpalatable.JaneJacobs(1987)emphasizesthespecialrelationshipbetweenmembersofthepublic,writingthatpublicspaces,“bringtogetherpeoplewhodonotknoweachotherinanintimate,privatesocialfashionandinmostcasesdonotcaretoknoweachotherinthatfashion”(p.95).Itisexpected,acceptable,andinsomewaysdesirablethatpublicspacebreedsuncomfortableinteractions,aslongasitmaintainsaveneerofsafety.Suchanenvironmentisoftencreatedbytheself-policingofthepublic(Sickie&Hopkins,2002).Theexpectationsofpublicbehavearethereforereinforcedbysocialmores;although,becausepublicspaceoftenintroducespeoplefromavarietyofclassesandbackgrounds,anindividualmayexperiencebehavestheywouldnotpersonallyperforminpublic.Lees(2001)givestheexampleofahomelesswoman,undressinginordertocleanherself,usingthelibrary’sbathroomfacilitiesandrecognizesthatevenwithinthisuncomfortablesituationtheuniquenatureofpublicspaceallowsthiswomantofeelasenseofbelongingthatpromptshertoundertakesuchanactivity.Regardlessofthisandotherunusualusesofpubliclibraries,arecentsurveyofUnitedKingdomlibrarypatronsconcludedthatpubliclibrariesareseenasasafeenvironment(Dewe,2006).Currently,weareexperiencinganintellectualcrisisoverthevalueandmeaningofpublicspace.Asprivateandcommercialintereststakeprecedenceoverpublicspace,theresourcesprovidedtosupportpublicspacesaswellasadevelopedunderstandingoftheimportanceofpublicspacehasdeclined(Tangelo,2006).Apologistshavearguedthatthelibraryisoneofthefewremainingauthenticpublicspaces(Given&Sickie,2003).Yet,asprivatespacesexpandtoprovidesimilarservices(acoffeeshopasagatheringplace,bookstoreswithcouchesandreadingspaces),publicspacetheoristshavefalteredinprovidingagoodexplanationfortheexistenceoflibrariestothegeneralpublic.Giventhelackofacohesiveunderstandingofthevalueofpublicspaceandwhatmakesitunique,itisonlynaturalthatthearchitectureofpublicbuildingsisalsofacingacrisisofidentity.Wemustfirstknowwhatpublicspaceisbeforeweattempttobuildit(Blazer&Lila,1987).TheLibraryasPublicSpace:TheBuilding“Architecture,byitsverynature,isapublicmatter.Whetherweconsiderbuildingsintheiraesthetic,economic,ormoraldimensions,wemustbeprepared,atthesametime,totreatthosedimensionsinpublicterms:toseethatbuildingscanalsoserveaspublicart,orascivicmonuments,orascontributionstothesociallifeofthecity.”(Blazer&Lila,1987,p..ix)Thecontemporarypubliclibrarybuildingismuchdifferentthanitspredecessorsofthelastcenturyandeventhelastfewdecades.Architecturaldesignstrivestoimbueitsbuildingswiththevaluesoftheinstitutionandactivitiesthatwillbehousedwithin.Itisimportanttorememberthatarchitecturecannot“determinesymbolismovertime”(Vale,1992).Symbolsembeddedwithinthedesignofabuildingwillnotremainstatic.Thebuildingwilllivebeyondthepagesofdraftpaperandtheexcitedordisparagingremarksmadeonthedayoftheopening.Thisisparticularlyinterestingtonotewhencontemporarylibrariesarehousedinhistoricbuildingswheretheouterworkofthebuildingencouragesaweandrespectwhiletheinteriorisradicallyredesignedwithanewopenconceptmodelmeanttoencourageinteractionbetweenthepatronsandthecollection,andpropagatethenotionofthepubliclibraryasagatheringplace.Thepubliclibraryasagatheringplaceisarapidlyadoptedideathatservestoexpandthepurposeoflibraryspacebeyondthetraditionalnotionofitbeingawarehouseforbooksandinsteadintoacentralpartofthecreationofcommunity(Official,2010).Librarieshousedinrestoredhistoricalbuildingscanfunctionwellwhentheycombinetheoldersenseofreverenceforknowledgewiththemorerecentfocusoncommunity.Whiletheoreticallythetwococcicomeintoconflict(theoldandnewphilosophiesofthelibrary),thesecontradictionsarehousedcomfortablywithinthepublicspherewhereavarietyofinterpretations,opinions,andindividualsareexpectedtoreside.Thestrikingdifferencebetweentraditionallibrarydesignandmodernlibrarydesignrevealsanattempttocommunicateanevolvingsetofvalues,frompreservationtoaccess,controltocommunityinvolvement..Fasick(2011)demonstratesthisclearlybyarguingthat“everypublicbuildingcontainsametaphor–avisionofwhatthebuildingrepresents”(p.101).Hegoesontosuggestthatthemetaphorsthathavebeenexemplifiedinrecentlibrarybuildingprojectsincludeexploration,asecureplace,aninformationshoppingcenter,andatheater(p.103).Somelibrarieschoosetoexhibitthevaluesofthelibraryasapublicinstitutionwithintheirdesignplan.Forexample,theSeattlePublicLibrary,builtin2004,employsanexpanseofglasswallstosymbolizeopenness(Fasick,2011).Similarly,newinteriordesignsaimforflexiblelayoutsandmultiplemeetingroomsthatencouragepatronstoviewthelibraryasapubliccommons(May&Black,2010).Theoristsofcontemporarylibrarydesignrepeatedlyemphasizeflexibility(Waldensian,2003).Thisisbecausetheworldofthepubliclibraryischangingsorapidlythatthesolidoaktablesandimmovablestacksofdayspassedarenolongerrealisticordesirable.Inthisway,thepermanenceoftheolderdesignprincipleshavebeenreplacedbothliterally,bymoreflexibledesignsandfurniture,butalsometaphoricallywithlibrarieswhosepurposesandcommunityrolesareinflux.Duringthisperiodofchangelibrarieshavealsohadtocontendwiththeincreasingimportanceoftheinternetandaccesstotechnology.Thisincludesthenotionofthe“l(fā)ibrarywithoutwalls”andvirtuallibraries.Whileaninterestingtopic,itisbeyondthescopeofthispaperwhichconcernsitselfinsteadwiththeimpactofarchitectureanddesignontheconceptofpublicspaceandbehavewithinthatspace.Importantly,arecentstudyofNovaScoutlibrarypatronsrevealedtheywere“unanimousintheimportancetheyplacedonphysicalspace”(May&Black,2010,p.23).DesignandInteractioninthePublicLibraryUltimately,itisneitherthearchitecturenorthefactofaplacebeingpublicthatdeterminesitssignificancetoanindividual,althoughbothofthesethingsinfluencehowaplaceisinterpretedandused.Infact,architecturalprinciplesandgoalscansometimesevensubvertthepurposeofthelibrary.Someofthemostcelebratedbuildingshavebeendescribedbylibrariansandusersas“inhuman,”“sterile,”or“simplyuncomfortable”(Cohen&Cohen,1979,p.3-4).Instead,“placestakeonmeaningsthroughourparticipationwiththem”(Lyndon,1987,p.157).Eventhesimplestlibrarydesignscanhaveanenduringimpactontheuser’sunderstandingofthelibrary.Forexample,whenrecallinghischildhoodlibraryWald(2011)describedthe“well-stockedwarrenofinterconnectedsand-coloredbrickbuildings”(p.346).HerethedesignisintimatelyconnectedtotheaweWaldfelttowardsthecollection.Hemaintainsamemoryofthephysicalrepresentationofhisexperienceofthelibrary’scollection.Itisthistypeofinteractionwiththepubliclibrarythatdetermineshowitisunderstoodbythepublicitserves.Boththearchitectureandtheinteriordesigninfluenceuserinteractionandtheycanbecreatedwiththepurposeofcommunicatingcertainvaluesandroles.Yet,theyhingeontheoftenunexpectedformsofinteractionthatareproducedbythepublic.Peoplethereforeconsumethedesignwhileapplyingtheirowninterpretations,expectations,andexperiencesonit.Inthiswaythepubliclibrarypatronsbehaveaccordingtoasenseofbelongingandco-ownershipofapublicspace(tovaryingdegreesabidingbytherulesofthespace).ASenseofBelongingPublicspaceisessentialincivicsocietyasitprovidesaplaceoutsideofhomeandworktowhichpeoplecanattachasenseofownershipandbelonging.Significantly,itisaspacethatdoesnotrequirethemtobehaveintheroleofaconsumer.Instead,itpermitsasenseoffreedomandentitlementtomembersofthepublicviasharedspace.Peopleactoutthissenseofbelongingbydesiringandfeelingentitledtoasmallsenseofterritoryinthepublicplacesthattheyfrequent.Thisfeelingcanbeextendedtocommercialestablishmentssuchascoffeeshops,butwithlimitations,astheindividualisalwaysaconsumerandarenolongerwelcomeiftheyrejectthatrole.Thedesireforsmallpersonalterritoriesdrivespeopletodevelophabitswithinthepubliclibrary,suchasreturningtothesamestudycarreldayafterday.Theywilloftengofurtherandbeginleavingpersonalobjectsormarkersinthatspotandiftheyreturntofindthefavoredspotoccupiedtheywillfindoneasnearaspossible(Cohen&Cohen,1979).Thisdevelopmentoffamiliarityandattachmentstosmallsub-locationswithinthelibraryspaceisincrediblyimportantforilluminatingthesenseofbelongingthatcandevelopandiswelcomeinthepublicspace.Inthiswaythelibrarybecomesthe“thirdspace”describedbyRayOldenburg(1999)inGreat,GoodPlace.Interestingly,althoughBrandenburgideahasbeenappliedtopublicspaces,theauthorhimselffocusesentirelyoncommercialenterprisesinhisseminalexplorationofthe“thirdplace.”Thelibraryintheroleofa“thirdplace”becomesaspacewherepeoplecangatherandsocializeoutsideofhomeandwork.Inmodernlibrarydesignthismaybeaninteractionthatoccursoverthetraditionalstacksofbooksoroneoveracupofcoffeeasincreasinglynumbersoflibrariesbegintoincorporatecomfortableseatingspacesandcafes(Harris,2007).TheUrgeandRighttoDisruptAsaresultofthesenseofbelonging,patronswilloftendisruptorreinterprettheintendeduseoflibraryspace.AnanthropologicalstudyoftheLibraryofCongressundertakenbyCollins(2009)shedslightonthesepocketsofdisruptionwithintheofficialstructureoftheLibraryofCongress.Activitiesincludedsleeping,noisyidleness,andmysteriousindividualshedescribesas“synagoguesengagedinresearchquiteoutsideofacademia”(p.37).Collins’concludedthatsuchdiscordisanimportantpartofthecreationofapublicspace.Despitethepurposesthespacewasinitiallydesignedfor,inthecaseoftheLibraryofCongressquiet,officialstudyandresearch,patronswillfindotherusesandthistypeofbehaveiswhattransformsabuildingintoaplace(Collins,2009).WhilethemissionoftheLibraryofCongressismuchdifferentthanthatofastandardbranchlibrary,thenecessityofamiabledisruptionisequally,ifnotmore,presentinpubliclibraries.Asanextensionof“feelingathome”inapublicspace,individualswillmovefurnituretobettersuittheirneedandleavetheirbelongingsattablesandcarrelsastheyexplorethespace(Cohen&Cohen,1979;Given&Sickie,2003).Anticipatingthisneedhasbeenoneofthegreatestchallengesofpubliclibrarydesign.Librariesmuststrivetocreateflexiblespacesthatcanbemanythingstomanypeople.Thismeansprovidingaspacethatallowsforpatronstointeractwiththedesignmorethantheywouldwhenvisitingaprivateorcommercialsetting.Interestingly,researchconductedontheoppositeperspectiveexploreshowlibrarydesignseekstocontrolthebehaviorofitsinhabitants.FormoreonthisperspectiveseeGriffin(2010).AloneinPublic:IndividualswithinthePublicLibraryTheoriesonpubliclifemaintainthatpublicspaceembodiesthe“paradoxofvisibilityandisolation”(Sennett,1987,p.47).Thisideaisevidentintheuseofthepubliclibrary.Unlikelibrariesofdecadesearlier,silenceisnolongerstronglyenforcedinmostlibraryareas.Theindividualsmaintaintherighttopositionthemselvesinthelibraryaccordingtotheirneeds,andtherefore,onelibraryspaceoftenaccommodatesboththecommunity’smoststudioushermitandmostboisterousperformer.Theconceptofthelibraryasafreeandopenspacewhereavarietyofindividualscaninteractbothwiththespaceandeachotherisauniqueandessentialfeatureoftheinstitution.Librariesareaplaceto“bewithothers,yetalone;tofilltimeinpermissivelyornot;toreflect,relaxorreact”(Dewe,2006).Eventhequietactivityofreadingaloneinthelibraryisessentiallysocialbecauseofitspublicsetting.Asaresultitbecomes“scriptedintotheproductionofthecivic”(Thelma,2001).Simplybeingpresentwithinthepublicplaceproducesatacitacknowledgmentofitsprinciplesandexpectations.Librarydesignreflectsandprotectspatronsagainstthisreality,oftenatthesametime.Oneexampleofthisisthestudycarrel.Studycarrelsallowpatronstomarkoutahumbleterritoryforthemselveswithinthebroaderpublicspace.Thisprovidesthemwiththesecurityofatemporarilyprivatespacehousedwithinthepleasureofbeinginpublic.Atensionexistsbetweentheuseofthelibraryasaplaceforsolitarystudy,reflection,orrelaxationandtheessentialsocialnatureofitasapublicspace.Nowhereisthismoreevidentthanintheuseofmufti-seatedstudytables.Librariesconsistentlyreportthat“unlessalibraryissocrowdedthatpatronshavenootheroption,fourpeoplewillneveropttosittogetheratonetable”(Fetter,2006)AsCohen&Cohen(1979)artfullyrecognize“thereisjustnotenoughpsychologicalroom”(p3).Studiesofroomgeographywhichmapthehumantrafficthroughlibraryspaceconfirmthisbynotingthatindividualswillalwaystrytofindaspotalonefirstandtheniftheyareunsuccessfulwillresorttothespotatthegreatestdistancefromothers(Given&Sickie,2003).Thisphenomenonisconfirmedbyresearchonthepsychologyofdistancezoneswhereithasbeendiscoveredthatthestandardcomfortabledistancebetweenpeopleinpublicspacesisbetweentwelveandtwenty-fivefeetunlesscircumstancesdonotallowforit(Cohen&Cohen,1979).Circulartablesaretheleastdesirableinthelibrarysettingastheylimitthenumberofusersatonetimebecausetheymakeitmoredifficulttomarkoutterritory(Cohen&Cohen,1979).Importantly,publicspacedoesnotcanceloutalltheexpectationsassociatedwithclassandhierarchy.Cohen&Cohen(1979)givetheexampleoftheself-assuredyoungattorneywhowillspreadhisbelongingsacrossanentiretableandthinknothingofthelossofsharedspace.WayfindingAnotherimportantconsiderationforlibrarydesignistheconceptofblinding.blindingreferstothewayindividualsmovethroughoutabuiltspacetofindspecificlocations(Handel,2010).Understandingthepatternsofmovementthroughoutabuildingcanproducesignificantimplicationsfordesign.Ifalibrarydoesnotconsiderpatronblinding,thenitrisksprovidingservicesandmaterialswhicharerendereduselessbyapatron’sinabilitytofindthem(Handel,2010).Alibrarydesignthatiscognizantoftrafficpatternswillemphasizealayoutthatfeelsnaturalorintuitive.Thiscanincludeproperandclearsignageandaneasilyavailablestaff.Intuitivedesignandusefulsignageisbothpracticalandservestocommunicatethelibrary’sprioritiesofimprovingaccessandeliminatingbarrierstoinformation(Mason,1975).Astudyonpreferredentrancesandexitsatamedium-sizedurbanlibrarywasconductedbyHandel(2010)whodeterminedthatblindingstudiesofthiskindcanbeextremelyeffectiveindeterminingkeylocationsfordisplaysandotherlibrarymarketing.blindingrevealsboththewayabuildinginstructspatronmovementandtheunexpectedwayspatronsmaymoveinstead.Theseunexpectedpathscanbeusefulinexposingelementsofthedesignthatarecommunicatingsomethingunintended.ArchitecturaltheorysupportsthefindingsofMandelastudy,emphasizingthemessagesdesigncommunicatestotheuser.Seeminglysimplestructureslikeentrancescanbecomequicklycomplexifnotproperlyemphasizedinthedesign(Arthur&Abyssinia,2002).Onceinabuilding,especiallyonewithamodernopenconceptdesign,thereareinnumerablepathswhichtheusercantake.Onemayperceiveembarkingonthechosenoneanexerciseinwhimsy,butinfactthearchitecturaldesignhasalargeimpactonthisbehave.AsArthur&Abyssinia(2002)explain,“pathsandtheirphysicalarticulationareattheheartofarchitectural…design”.DesigningAccordingtoUseTheworkofH.Faulkner-Brown,acelebratedarchitectnotedforhisworkonNewcastleUniversity’sRobinsonLibrary,isusefulforunderstandingmanyofthebasicgoalsinlibrarydesign(NewcastleUniversity,2008).Faulkner-Brown’stencommandmentsoflibrarydesign,firstdevelopedinthe1970s,andhislaterworkonlibrarydesign(Faulkner-Brown,1999),adequatelysummarizedtheneedsofcontemporarypubliclibrarydesign,andconsideredallofthetopicsdiscussedincludingthesenseofbelonging,theneedfordisruption,solitaryexperienceinpublic,andtheimportanceofBlinding(Dewe,2006).Ithasbeenadaptedseveraltimessinceitsdevelopmentbutstillstandsasageneralguidelineforconsideringlibrarydesign.Thelistofcommandmentsincludesthefollowingqualities:flexibility,compactness,accessibility,flexibility,variety,organization,comfort,consistencyinenvironment,security,andeconomy(Dewe,2006).Thislistcovers,inahighlypracticalway,allofthephysicalandphilosophicalconcernsofthecontemporarylibrary.Itemphasizesaflexibleandfriendlydesignthatiseconomicallyconscious(giventherestrictedbudgetsofcontemporarylibraries)whilenotingtheimportanceoforganizationandcomfort,whichsuggestshowtousethelibraryandwelcomesthepatrontotheuniquesettingofapublicplace.Thecommandmentlisthassincebeenupdatedanumberoftimesinordertoaccountfornewissuesinlibraryserviceandsomeversionsnowinclude:interactivityandsuitabilityforinformationtechnology(Dewe,2006).Thecommandmentsexposetheneedoflibrariestocreatespacesthatexpresstheintangiblegoalsandprincipleswhilefunctioningashighlyusable,flexible,andwelcomingspaces.Oneconsequenceofthisnewemphasisonflexibledesignhasbeenareducedinteractionbetweenthelibrarianatthetraditionalreferencedeskandthepatron,whonowoftenwandersinastateofidlediscoveryanddoesnotthinktoapproachthelibrarianforhelpbecausethespaceisnolongerdirectedorcenteredonthelibrarianandreferencedesk(Dewe,2006).Thisdoesnotmeantheopenspacedesigneliminatesthepossibilityofinteractionbetweenstaffandpatronagebutitdoesrequirenewmethodstoencouragethatinteraction.Infact,the“l(fā)ivingroom”feelingofnewlibrarydesignscanencouragenewandmorepersonalinteractionswithlibrarystaffwherepatronsfeelmoreintimatelyassociatedwiththestaffandlocation,andfeelcomfortablediscussingpersonalmattersbeyondtraditionalinformationretrievalinteractions(May&Black,2010).ConclusionThepubliclibrarybuildingisavesselofcontradictorydesiresandperceptions.Thesevacillatingphilosophiesservetostrengthenthepubliclibrary’srelevanceandnotderailitbecausetheprinciplesofpublicspaceandthecivicsocietyuponwhichtheseprinciplesarebuiltuniquelyallowforthistypeofuncertainty,andevenencourageit.Publiclibrarybuildingsanddesignsaimtoreflectthis.Thesespacescommunicatethevaluesandprinciplesofthepubliclibraryandalsobecomeembeddedwithnewideasthroughthepublic’sinteractionwiththem.Librariesareessentiallyandfundamentallypublic.Thepublicsphereisaspaceofconflictandcollaborationthatcanonlyfindtrueexpressioninapublicspacelikethatwhichisprovidedbypubliclibraries.Theproductofthisdistinctivesettingisanimportantsenseofcommunityinwhich,withavarietyofexpressionstochoosefrom,theindividualfindshimorherselfanactivepartofthepublicsphere.Toquestionthelibrary’sroleinsocietyistorecognizetheshiftingneedsofthepublic.Torejectitsimportistoignorethecomplexnatureofpubliclifeandthreatenthedelicate,criminalspacethatprotectstheindividualfromadichotomousexistenceofshiftingbetweenprivateandcommercialspheres.作為公共空間：圖書館設(shè)計和公共空間的創(chuàng)建ByMeganClark達(dá)爾豪斯大學(xué)碩士研究生摘要：在哲學(xué)領(lǐng)域中，公共圖書館作為公共空間交流的載體，公共圖書館的設(shè)計是一個重要的角色。公共圖書館設(shè)計的各種數(shù)據(jù)分析,考慮使用圖書館的讀者,進(jìn)一步分析了主題。圖書館用戶和圖書館之間的交互設(shè)計是揭示公共空間的矛盾和圖書館被理解和重塑的方式。公眾溝通的解釋原則通過圖書館設(shè)計揭示當(dāng)代公共空間的價值,目前受到了商業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)的侵犯。本文得出了結(jié)論:圖書館作為公共空間,在公民社會的創(chuàng)建過程中發(fā)揮這重要作用。關(guān)鍵詞：圖書館、公共空間、設(shè)計簡介令人印象深刻的美國國會圖書館的設(shè)計是一個圓頂外殼的建筑，包括一個中心閱覽室。讀者必須閱遍的中心建筑中的資源。柯林斯(2009)指出,代表著權(quán)力和更深層次的目的讀者越深度研究完整的建筑,他們越接近權(quán)力的機(jī)構(gòu)。這個建筑設(shè)計確實反映了哲學(xué)的目標(biāo)和美國國會中圖書館的角色。它不太可能平均社區(qū)分支,為了利用權(quán)力機(jī)構(gòu)，顧客將會要求訪問集中爐室位于地下室的區(qū)域。然而,即使是最小的規(guī)模,圖書館設(shè)計在傳輸中也扮演一個重要部分和角色的機(jī)構(gòu)。公共圖書館的建設(shè),是一種試圖提供言論自由區(qū)域的現(xiàn)代設(shè)計。但這種說法并不單單是設(shè)計的價值，公共與和詮釋空間進(jìn)而影響設(shè)計。共同設(shè)計和用戶創(chuàng)建一個圖書館空間,許多矛盾的聲明是關(guān)于身份和目的的。正是這種相互作用的支持為人和公共圖書館的設(shè)計探索鋪平道路。公共空間和公共圖書館之前考慮圖書館架構(gòu)和設(shè)計,重要的是探索圖書館作為公共空間的概念,因為這明顯影響了圖書館的設(shè)計和使用。斯克蘭頓(1987)定義了公共空間：“廣泛的范圍和很大程度上面臨未知”。公共領(lǐng)域是一個充滿了未知的地方，它們面臨許多挑戰(zhàn)、矛盾,和啟示。這些可以改變可促使人們從一個粗魯?shù)墓步煌ɑ蚪?jīng)驗中獲得完美的發(fā)現(xiàn)。交互與陌生在公共空間中需要一定程度的靈活性,這種靈活性獲得公眾生活的成果包括:方便(街道和交通)、美(公園和架構(gòu)),和社區(qū)。接受驚喜的可能性和相關(guān)的自由,它鼓勵和支持各種表現(xiàn)獨特的公共領(lǐng)域。斯克蘭頓(1987)的重要的觀察結(jié)論：“自然的空間是公開的邊界”。公眾被定義為簡單的事實,這不是私有的。人們可能會進(jìn)入或離開,出于各種原因,也許沒有任何理由。他們并沒有受到消費者的預(yù)期作用或客人。相反人們的居住空間,是與陌生人共享,至少在理想的情況下,他們同樣存在?？赡芟嗷プ饔玫母鞣N各樣的人在這個空間比私人商業(yè)地產(chǎn)或更廣泛的私人住宅,因此,從擴(kuò)大的角度來看，公共空間提供了重要的可能性,使社會比個人可以自己構(gòu)造。在理論和在使用中,如果我們忽視了公共空間,我們就減少了社交的可能性,變得與社會群體隔離(精神病患者&霍普金斯,2002)。這并不意味著公眾社會是必然可取的,甚至是好的。簡雅各布斯(1987)強(qiáng)調(diào)公眾之間的特殊關(guān)系：寫作,公共空間,”匯集那些不了解彼此的人們,私人社會時尚和在大多數(shù)情況下是并不在意彼此了解的”。預(yù)計,可以接受的,在某些方面理想的公共空間的是一種不舒服的交互,是只保持安全的單板。這樣的一個環(huán)境中通常是由公眾自我管理(一天的病假&霍普金斯,2002)。因此公眾的期望行為強(qiáng)化了社會習(xí)俗;盡管如此,因為公共空間經(jīng)常會匯集各種種類和背景的人,一個人可能會經(jīng)歷的事在公共場合他們不會親自執(zhí)行。李(2001)給出了例子,一個無家可歸的女人,為了干凈而脫衣,使用圖書館的浴室的設(shè)施,即使在這種不舒服的情況下，公共空間的獨特性質(zhì)允許這個女人感到歸屬感,提示她承擔(dān)這樣一個活動。最近的一項調(diào)查顯示,不論這和其他公共圖書館不尋常的使用方式,英國圖書館讀者認(rèn)為公共