America’s libraries need to be fun if they are to survive
By D.K. | PHILADELPHIA
THE central branch of the Free Library of Philadelphia is an impressive building—its neoclassical facade looming over most of a block. But inside, though chandeliers still hang from the ceilings and the floors are of polished marble, there is a feeling of neglect. A musty taste hangs in the air; many of the books are rather battered. “The building opened in 1927 and we’ve really not touched it since then,” says Siobhan Reardon, the library’s president and director. “And you can tell.”
That, happily, is now changing. On September 11th Philadelphia announced it had secured a $25m grant from the William Penn foundation to update its old libraries. Yet libraries in general are struggling. Americans tell pollsters they love them, but fewer use them. In June the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), a federal agency, published data showing that library visitor numbers have declined in recent years. Polling published on September 10th by the Pew Research Center, a think tank, revealed that more people say they are going to the library less than going more, with a sharp gap among the young.
This is not because people are reading less: young people read just as many books as their parents. Nor is it straightforwardly because of the internet. In the 1990s and 2000s public libraries attracted huge numbers of visitors by providing computers—many paid for by Bill Gates, a technology billionaire—and fast broadband connections free of charge. The rise of online application forms, particularly for minimum-wage jobs with big firms such as Walmart, helped to draw in poor people who could not otherwise afford to get online.
Rather libraries’ woes are the result of several headwinds. First, smartphones and cheap laptops have brought down the cost of accessing the internet, emptying some of those (often ageing) PC terminals. Firms like Amazon and the rise of e-readers have made books cheaper and easier to buy. And since the start of the recession in 2008, state and municipal budget squeezes have hurt libraries. Philadelphia has cut its funding for the Free Library system by 20%; Pennsylvania, by 34%. In nearby Darby, so short is cash that a library opened by Quakers in 1743 is at risk of closure. Nationwide, the number of library staff declined by 6% between 2008 and 2011, says the IMLS.
In Philadelphia the main response has been to raise more money privately. The William Penn foundation grant will pay for ageing stacks in the central library to be replaced by a collegiate “shared working space”. Beneath, a “business and entrepreneur innovation centre” will be opened to provide space for startups. Smaller neighbourhood branches will be refurbished too. Libraries should be less like “temples of knowledge” and more like community centres, says Ms Reardon. One clever experiment already underway involves installing kitchens—the idea is that teaching people to cook will encourage them to read recipe books. That has helped keep Philadelphia's libraries busy. In other places, things have gone further still: a library in Bexar County, Texas, opened last year that has no printed books to lend out, only e-readers.
Such innovation upsets some—many librarians dislike the idea of their hallowed spaces becoming publicly-funded alternatives to bars, cafes or creches. Yet libraries face a curious challenge. Supporters tend to see them as instruments of social improvement—making available high culture and specialist knowledge to the poor. The William Penn foundation describes them as “gateways to opportunity”. But if they are to make a difference—and justify the money spent on them—they have to get people to visit. Echoing marble and the smell of gently decaying paper is not enough to compete with smartphones.
