[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]--建筑設(shè)計(jì)外文翻譯--從建筑師的視角看當(dāng)代大學(xué)圖書館設(shè)計(jì)（原文）

1、An architect's perspective on contemporary academic library designBy Steven M. Foote, AIA PresidentPerry Dean Rogers however, architects and librarians do possess several shared perceptions. Among these shared perce

2、ptions are that print collections will remain a primary function of libraries for the foreseeable future, flexibility in shelving arrangements are essential, adjacencies must be fluid, floor-to-floor heights should be ge

3、nerous, compact shelving has become commonplace, print and electronic media must coexist, and technology has not reduced library space requirements. Experience reinforces the continuing and increasing significance of the

4、 library on college and university campuses.Symbols and iconography in the late twentieth cen- tury pose tremendous challenges for architects. Many of our building types, libraries among them, are shackled by outdated im

5、agery at the same time that they remain the centers of intellectual purpose. Li- brary designers struggle in a search for the symbolic meaning of technology; it is a challenge in which the traditional values of western c

6、ulture are met by the indeterminacy of and questions about the formal meaning of technology and electronics. As we strive for greater discernment, understanding, and ad- vancement of the architectural meaning of library,

7、 our task has hardly begun; we must then be able to con- vince our clients of the wisdom of our thought pro- cess and to part with their cash to build the results. The making of space and place (architecture) re- quires

8、cultural and financial consent as to societal value. If we cannot agree on standards, how are we to judge quality in what we build? At times, even the most erudite and far-thinking clients cannot over- come their traditi

9、onal ideas of appropriate library de- sign; classical monumentality has been accepted for libraries for centuries. The competition for the main branch of the Chicago Public Library, in which some of the most prominent me

10、mbers of our profession participated, was a case in point. In the end, that jury rather poignantly selected the winner mainly on the grounds that “It looked like a library.“ The standards and values of the nineteenth cen

11、tury still applied, because no more modern imagery has convincingly captured our cultural endorsement. We are not alone here, by the way.Writing in the New York Times on February 12, 1995, Herbert Muschamp observed that

12、Mario Botta, the architect of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, had missed a chance to “say something about the changing nature of modernity,“ or to display “the power of architecture to reckon with the discordance

13、 that lurks beneath our masks of composure“ [1]. The same issues confront the jury of librarians and ar- chitects as they attempt to recognize the best designs in the biannual American Library Association/Ar- chitectural

14、 Institute of America awards program. Our professions, mutually dependent, still battle with fer- vor and passion as we search to redefine quality in our work. That search will not lead red herring-ly to an im- agery in

15、which time-honored principles of propor- tion, massing, detail, light, and design in context are subordinated to literal interpretations of electronic high fashion, any more than principles of aerody- namics and fuel eff

16、iciency in automobiles have been abandoned because of the installation of cellular phones. Architecture, fortunately, remains with us. Technology and electronics are merely tools for our use. Of far greater interest is h

17、ow they have changed the ways we use our libraries. In that context, I offer several perceptions about the academic library of the immediate future about which librarians and archi- tects generally agree. Among them are

18、these.Collections in print will continue to dominate our libraries. The housing of print collections and readers remains the primary function of libraries today andBull Med Libr Assoc 83(3) July 1995 351An architect'

19、s perspectiveFigure 2 Olin Memorial Library, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut1. ORIGINAL MAIN LOBBY, NOW RESTORED2. STACKS 4. ATTIC READING ROOM3. NEW INDEX AND REFERENCE ROOM BU IL DI NG SECT ION 5. NEW READ

20、ING GALLERYwhere the staff may wish to put it. Office space, nor- mally designed at fifty pounds' live loading, is far too likely to be reconfigured in the early life of the new building. We have observed that the pr

21、emium from 150 pounds' to 300 pounds' loading, which will per- mit compact shelving anywhere, is only 10% of the structural cost of the project. This translates to rough- ly 2% of the overall cost of construction

22、.Adjacencies must be fluid. Increasingly, we find readers, collections, and staff blended together on every floor. Richard DeGennaro's definition of a li- brarian, that of “everybody's assistant,“ seems more apt

23、with every passing day [2]. We now include a number of oversized work stations, fifty-four inches in width on every floor, accommodating both a stu- dent and a professional offering momentary assis- tance. In the new Hea

24、lth Sciences and Information Services Building at the University of Maryland at Baltimore, positions for both librarians and computer systems staff will be on each of its six floors. On the entry levels of both public an

25、d academic libraries, service points can be found located in ar- chitectural arrangements that bear uncanny resem- blances to cafeteria servery plans. Reference desks (rotisserie chicken), interlibrary loan (hot drinks),

26、media services (salad bars), and OPAC terminals (con- diments) can all be found on the way to circulation desks (cashiers). Persons using self-checkout kiosks (automatic-teller machines) can bypass any require- ment for

27、human interaction. Traffic and noise levels are high and are likely to remain so. Traditional func- tions blur, and even staff job descriptions can change during the course of the design process. New staffing efficiencie

28、s are developed in response to increasing responsibilities rarely matched by increases in num- bers or funding.Floor-to-floor heights should be generous. McKim et al. determined in the nineteenth century that seven feet

29、was the maximum shelf height for most persons' comfortable reach and from that developed an ele- gant system of floor relationships [3]. Using seven feet, six inches as the floor-to-floor heights for self- supporting

30、 closed stacks, the architects arranged cor- ridors and minor galleries of fifteen feet at every other stack level. Major reading rooms of thirty feet were then placed adjacent to four stack levels or two gallery levels.

31、 Today's mechanical systems and build- ing codes restrictions no longer permit the volumetric density of such a system (Figure 2). Floor-to-floor heights of fourteen to fifteen feet areBull Med Libr Assoc 83(3) July