Almost four years ago the Library Commission voted to place the
new library behind the corner of Edmundson and Monterey. It was
also the site desired by the Parks and Recreation Commission for
the Indoor Recreation Center.
Almost four years ago the Library Commission voted to place the new library behind the corner of Edmundson and Monterey. It was also the site desired by the Parks and Recreation Commission for the Indoor Recreation Center. The site is centrally situated and fully accessible. I proposed back then that both facilities share the site and mutually share resources in its construction. The proposal was a good one then and I believe it will be the best choice amongst all the alternatives being considered today.
The combination of the two sites offers a list of economies that would put the others to shame – one large parking lot, joint-use facilities, the sharing of resources, mutual maintenance, activity coordination and unique partnerships that would maximize the utilization of both facilities. In addition, its adjacent location to Community Park offers many other co-located opportunities that would generate an incredible list of greatly expanded programs and services.
Let me give you a singular example. The Recreation Center will offer youth activities, including an extensive computer center. I am sure the library will offer a similar center and functions. To economize on cost, both facilities could share a single computer center as opposed to two separate facilities. There would be savings from construction through maintenance. There are many other cost-saving examples.
To understand how the two facilities could enjoy a mutual arrangement on programs and activities you have to envision the libraries of tomorrow. They are not just passive read-only facilities but active learning centers, addressing and ulitizing all of our senses. From one who has been teaching for 20 years, learning is very much an active process.
Locating the library adjacent to the Recreation Center would allow for cooperation and the ability to share facilities around many programs that promote active learning. For example, there could be a program on aerodynamics or man’s first step into outer space in either the library or the Recreation Center with demonstrations and hands-on activities on the lawn at Community Park. Afterwards, children and others could go to the library and find books and other resources to further explore the topic. The possibilities of similar use are endless.
For many seniors in our community, getting around and to and from facilities is often an obstacle to life’s simplest pleasures. I am sure they will appreciate a one-stop facility for recreation and library services. Having access to a single-site places expanded services before a needy and often forgotten population.
Tired of driving from one activity to another, you’ve got to love the idea of a single location for a whole host of activities. You could take an exercise class at the Recreation Center. While you are exercising, your children could be at the library researching a term project or completing a home work assignment. Taking this a little further, a child could be practicing baseball at Community Park or taking a dance class at the Recreation Center while mom or dad could be in the library catching up some needed reading or other activities and featured displays. As a teen you could hang at the Recreation Center with friends and then hang at the library later on for perhaps some much needed tutoring or other learning activities without ever having to leave the site.
Does this not make sense? Library Commission Member Dillman called it S-Y-N-E-R-G-Y. I would add fantastic, wonderful, cost efficient and program effective. None of the other proposals allow for this incredible flexibility, and it would serve a much broader population at a single site than any of other proposals combined.
The only opposition to this idea is self interest. Yes, I too would want a library across the street from my home, and if I had a store in the downtown, I too would want to have a public building of high traffic close to me to possibly stimulate my business. But let’s place those interests aside and look at the community to be served (children, teens, young adults, adults and seniors), and when you look at the needs instead of the wants, the placement of the library adjacent to Community Park and the proposed Recreation Center makes the most sense.
Mired in self interest we face a decision that fails to recognize the potential of what we have and where we need to go. A few years from now, I would hate for us to say, “We should have” or “could have,” “if only had we done that instead of this.” We seem to be locked to traditional views that obstructs our vision of the future and ignores the needs of the whole community. We have a wonderful opportunity. It comes along just once in our lifetime. Placing the library at the site in conjunction with the Recreation Center is a proposal of great merit that deserves very serious consideration.
Mark Grzan is an active member of the Morgan Hill community and a current member of the Urban Limit Line Advisory Committee. The Board of Contributors is comprised of local writers whose views appear on Tuesdays and Friday. gr******@*****on.net
