Shill.p65 Creating a Better Place 431 431 Creating a Better Place: Physical Improvements in Academic Libraries, 1995–2002 Harold B. Shill and Shawn Tonner Harold B. Shill is Director of Capital College Libraries at Penn State Harrisburg and Penn State Schuylkill; e-mail: hbs2@psu.edu. Shawn Tonner is Director of the Hill Freeman Library & Spruill Learning Center at Reinhardt College; e-mail: sct@reinhardt.edu. Many academic institutions have benefited from new, expanded, reno- vated, or reconfigured facilities since the mid-1990s. Given current con- cerns about the future of the physical library and the nature of space needs, it is important to know what improvements have been made in recent facility projects and what impact these improvements have had on use of the physical library. Based on findings from a survey of 354 academic libraries, this article describes the types of projects under- taken and the kinds of improvements provided. A companion article de- scribing the impact of these improvements on usage of the physical facility is in preparation. Background Academic librarians have debated the fu- ture of “the library as place” for more than twenty years. Technological advances and shifting institutional perceptions have given increasing urgency to this discussion in recent years. The Association of Re- search Libraries (ARL) and OCLC cospon- sored a two-day Strategic Issues Forum, “Future Library Architecture: Conception, Design and Use of Library Space,” in Feb- ruary 2002 to focus attention on the strate- gic importance of physical space issues. The LibQual+ assessment instrument (www.libqual.org) includes five core ques- tions on the quality of physical library fa- cilities as perceived by users. More than four hundred academic li- brary facility projects—new libraries, ad- ditions to existing buildings, and renova- tions—have been completed since 1995. More than fifty other projects are cur- rently under construction or in the design stage. Still other institutions are pursu- ing funding to build new libraries or up- grade existing facilities to meet space, technology, and user needs. Environmental Factors Despite that flurry of building activity, the central importance of library facilities in higher education planning is no longer assured. Academic administrators con- front a succession of difficult decisions in a constrained fiscal environment. Expanding technology needs have be- come the new “bottomless pit” of the twenty-first century, with overall expen- ditures projected to reach $5.2 billion na- tionwide in 2003–2004.1,2 In addition, new student facilities and services are needed to attract and retain students.3 Aging, 432 College & Research Libraries November 2003 “legacy” buildings lack the infrastructure required to permit flexible use of technol- ogy in classroom, lab, and student resi- dence facilities.4 Deferred maintenance of physical facilities has reached crisis pro- portions in some institutions.5 Reduced state funding and eroding endowments have forced many colleges into double- digit tuition increases to cover operating costs.6 At the same time, academic libraries have provided a steadily expanding ar- ray of electronic resources and services. By making these collections and services available to remote users, librarians have made it less necessary for faculty and stu- dents to visit the physical library to ad- dress many of their research and infor- mation requirements. Given the availability of off-site, 24/7 access to subscription databases and Internet resources, some institutions are questioning the need for existing library space, much less new or expanded library facilities. At Rice University, a planned re- placement for the central library has been postponed for a decade “until the elec- tronic thing sorts itself out,” according to its provost.7 Other institutions have de- ferred building projects for a variety of reasons in recent years.8 Challenges: Old and New Questions about the viability of physical libraries are hardly new. Dismissing com- plaints about reductions in California public library hours, Proposition 13 tax cut advocate Howard Jarvis retorted, “Nobody ever went there since the Civil War, so I don’t know what all the fuss is about.”9 In the mid-1990s, a college ad- ministrator announced that the new Cali- fornia State University-Monterey Bay (CSU-MB) campus would open without a physical library and then retracted the statement following adverse reactions from faculty.10 CSU-MB is now planning to open a 200,000 square foot library in 2006–2007.11 More recently, the Pew Internet and American Life Project reported that 71 percent of all high school students relied on the Internet as the primary source for their most recent research project.12 In his studies of Generation Y students, Stephen Merritt has suggested that their fascina- tion with technology may discourage physical library use because the library is perceived as a pretechnology institu- tion.13 Declining Use? Librarians also have been concerned about declines in traditional usage statis- tics. Association of Research Libraries (ARL) members experienced median de- clines of 21 percent in circulation and 31 percent in reference activity between 1995 and 2001.14 Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) mem- bers reported aggregate exit gate count and circulation declines of 8.3 and 25.7 percent, respectively, between 1996–1997, and 2000–2001.15 Although investments in—and use of—electronic resources have increased significantly in recent years, use of those materials is not place bound. Academic administrators are becoming increasingly aware of declines in traditional usage sta- tistics. And as Donald E. Riggs has noted, “Despite its oversimplification, the belief that ‘everything is going to be online’ in- fluences decision makers not to fund re- quests for new libraries.”16 Apart from cit- ing impending shelf space exhaustion, librarians have had difficulty arguing for major facility improvements where usage of the physical “place” is diminishing. Moreover, declining usage undermines the justification for existing physical fa- cilities. Scott Carlson’s controversial Chronicle of Higher Education article, “The Deserted Library,” focused many administrators’ attention on the declining use of many library facilities in November 2001.17 Al- though Carlson’s article cites both signifi- cant declines and major increases in build- ing usage, its subheading, “Why Students Are Abandoning the Library for Book- stores and Starbucks,” implies that other facilities have supplanted the library as preferred research locations. A digitally Creating a Better Place 433 engineered photograph showing student “ghosts” vanishing from a nearly empty library reinforces the impression of a growing trend away from use of the physical facility. Given the almost universal readership of the Chronicle by higher education ad- ministrators, Carlson’s article strength- ened a growing perception, fueled by ex- panding Internet use, that physical librar- ies are becoming less essential in the edu- cational experience of students. Although two recent articles in University Business documented significant usage increases in new libraries at Illinois Wesleyan Uni- versity and Williams College’s Schow Science Library, this publication reaches far fewer academic decision makers than the Chronicle does.18 Alice Harrison Bahr has identified ten arguments justifying library buildings in a recent College & Re- search Library News article.19 However, li- brary science publications are not widely read by nonlibrarian administrators. Increased Usage There is anecdotal evidence that invest- ments in new, enlarged, or renovated li- brary facilities are associated with signifi- cant increases in student usage, even with abundant Internet and electronic database resources accessible from nonlibrary lo- cations. Experienced planners on the Li- brary Administration and Management Association (LAMA) Facility Planning Discussion Group estimate that usage in new buildings typically increases 30 to 70 percent. The King’s College Library at Western Ontario University experienced a 420 percent facility usage increase after opening a new library in 1997.20 After opening a new facility on January 17, 2001, St. Martin’s College reported a simi- lar gate count upsurge, with usage rising from 56,964 persons in 1999–2000 to 171,095 users in 2001–2002.21 A recent ar- ticle in Library Journal reported usage in- creases of 13.8 percent in 2001–2002, three years after a new Loyola University (New Orleans) library opened.22 However, this evidence has not been supported by systematic empirical inves- tigation. Moreover, it is unclear whether specific building enhancements lead to particular types of usage increases. Lack- ing validated evidence of any facility im- provement–library usage relationship, li- brarians increasingly fight an uphill battle to secure funding for facilities projects of any type in an increasingly technology- focused, decentralized, and fiscally con- strained environment. Clearly, there is still significant support in higher education for a physical library, whether as an academic asset or for purely symbolic reasons. However, in an era of escalating technology costs and compet- ing institutional claims for limited capital project resources, it is reasonable for aca- demic administrators to ask whether en- hanced library facilities will provide edu- cational benefits sufficient to justify the investment of scarce resources. Research Questions To plan appropriately when faced with library space issues, it is important that administrators and librarians understand the purposes for which libraries are used and the conditions under which they are being used. As collection growth strains existing stack capacity and technology is infused ubiquitously into the teaching and learning environments, it is similarly important to know (1) whether capital investments in improved library facilities contribute to increased student usage, (2) what types of improvements correlate most closely with significant increases in usage, and (3) whether usage continues to increase after the “novelty” of a re- cently opened building is gone. The following study reports findings from a Web survey of 357 academic libraries completing a new building, an expansion and renovation project, a renovation, an ad- dition, or a major space reconfiguration be- tween 1995 and 2002. Because decentral- ized network access and widespread ownership of laptop computers are rela- tively recent phenomena, pre-1995 projects were excluded. The 1995 starting year was selected to permit a focus on facilities where emergent technology 434 College & Research Libraries November 2003 needs should have been a key planning consideration. The survey addressed four major research questions: 1. What types of improvements have been done in recent library projects, and how extensively have they been done? 2. Do improved buildings experience significantly greater usage than libraries not undergoing major physical improve- ments? 3. What types of improvements are most closely associated with major in- creases in usage, and which types are more marginal? 4. Are initial postproject increases in usage sustained over time, or does usage diminish after the “novelty” of a new fa- cility has worn off? The answers to these questions should help higher education administrators de- termine whether investments in im- proved library facilities are merited. The findings also should help librarians, ar- chitects, and physical plant managers plan library buildings most likely to at- tract future students and to address their evolving educational and social needs. This article focuses on question 1, the types of improvements included in recent projects completed between 1995 and 2002. It is important that librarians, archi- tects, and institutional facility planners know what types of features have been included in recent projects. Questions 2 through 4 will be addressed in a compan- ion article. Study Significance The current study draws on existing knowledge of academic library use, li- brary users, space planning, and the “li- brary as place.” In turn, its findings should have an impact on both practice and research in each of these areas. Use and Users There is a substantial body of research on user behavior, including use of physical library facilities, in the literature. Michael K. Buckland addressed the impact of open stacks on collection use in Book Availabil- ity and the Library User in the 1970s.23 Allen Kent and his colleagues reported in 1979 that many books in research library col- lections go unused for long periods of time.24 Charles B. Osburn examined the implications for libraries of changing re- search patterns in the social sciences, hu- manities, and sciences.25 More recent studies have focused on changing usage patterns as the result of the Internet becoming an established in- formation resource. Ethelene Whitmire and Ruth C. Shoge have examined the relationship between students’ ethnic and racial characteristics and their use of li- brary facilities.26 John Lubans Jr. has stud- ied evolving patterns of Internet use among undergraduates at Duke Univer- sity.27 Reports from the Pew Internet & American Life Project have examined Internet and technology use among high school and college students.28 Researchers in economics, psychology, and higher education administration have examined factors contributing to the use or nonuse of academic libraries.29 Other recent studies have focused on dis- ciplinary information-searching patterns, student seating preferences in libraries, the use of print resources, student Web use in research, and library anxiety, among other topics.30–34 A long-anticipated Council on Library and Information Resources study (known as the Outsell study, reflecting the name of the consulting firm conducting it) fo- cused on student and faculty use of in- formation resources from classrooms, of- fices, libraries, computer labs, and resi- dential locations.35 This study found that respondents’ information use and percep- tions of libraries varied across disciplines, by type of institution, and among stu- dents at various levels of study and fac- ulty.36 A recent OCLC white paper also has addressed student information-seeking behavior.37 Space Planning In addition, there is an ample and grow- ing literature on library facilities and space planning. The facilities-focused contributions are generally practical and Creating a Better Place 435 heuristic in nature, focusing on the plan- ning process, elements of good design, key building features, space requirements for people and collections, incorporation of technology, HVAC systems, furniture, lighting, collection moving, and other aspects of facility planning and occu- pancy.38 Some titles, such as Richard J. Bazillion and Connie L. Braun’s Academic Libraries as High-Tech Gateways, provide superb guidance for blending technology into a welcoming learning environment.39 Michael J. Crosbie and Damon D. Hickey’s When Change Is Set in Stone de- livers visual evidence of successful solu- tions in varied institutional environ- ments.40 Philip D. Leighton and David C. Weber ’s Planning Academic and Research Library Buildings remains useful, despite its 700-page length. 41 William W. Sannwald’s Checklist of Library Building Design Considerations remains a unique, indispensable tool addressing the entire spectrum of facility planning issues.42 The annual architectural issues of Li- brary Journal (December) and American Libraries (April) document many library projects completed during the preceding year, plus architectural photographs from selected facilities and AIA/ALA award- winning libraries.43 Articles on postoccupancy evaluation are beginning to enter the library science literature.44 Many recent articles have focused on the development of Information Com- mons facilities within existing or new li- braries.45 Other treatments have focused on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).46 Some books and articles have provided case studies of spe- cific library projects.47 Many other books and periodical articles share knowledge about building planning in general or address specific facility issues.48 The Library as Place Ironically, given the large cost of new or improved facilities, there are no system- atic, empirical studies documenting the impact of enhanced library buildings on student usage of the physical library. Lacking such evidence, librarians must make an overwhelming case for current facility inadequacy or rely on limited, anecdotal evidence of postconstruction usage increases to justify a new building or major improvements to an existing fa- cility. Although anecdotal evidence is use- ful, it is unlikely to be compelling for aca- demic administrators confronted with multiple demands on limited resources for capital improvements. With increasing student reliance on the Internet and electronic resources, along with growing administrator awareness of declining usage patterns in some physi- cal facilities, it is important that a verifi- able relationship between capital invest- ments and student usage be demon- strated. The current study is intended to provide valid, cross-institutional evi- dence of the impact of facility improve- ments on both overall library usage and specific types of usage. Without such clear evidence, academic librarians will be hard-pressed to make the case for future enhancements. There has been some disagreement within the academic community about the significance of the physical library. F. W. Lancaster’s Toward Paperless Informa- tion Systems and similar writings in the 1960s and 1970s forecasted the marginalization of print collections.49 Sev- eral nonlibrary writers have applauded the decline of the physical library as re- sources become digitized and available on the Internet.50 Some virtual library advo- cates have projected a diminishing need for collection and user space as electronic resources become increasingly central in student research and scholarly commu- nication.51 Michael Gorman and Walt Crawford have argued eloquently in several books and articles that the “library as place” serves a number of socially valuable roles beyond that of providing a physical loca- tion for books and librarians.52 Neil Gershenfeld of the MIT Media Lab has noted that materials transmitted on the printed page are more user-friendly in many ways than computer-delivered in- 436 College & Research Libraries November 2003 formation.53 Sam Demas and Jeffrey Scherer have pointed out that new ser- vice structures can sharply increase the use of existing buildings.54 Whatever the relative long-term value of the physical library may be (and these investigators share Gorman’s view that the physical library matters profoundly), the future willingness of academic adminis- trators to invest in library facility improve- ments is likely to depend heavily on the library’s ability to demonstrate that: • Improved facilities will signifi- cantly increase building usage. • Greater use of the library building will improve educational outcomes. • The library knows what types of fa- cility enhancements are most likely to produce the desired usage and educa- tional results. Study Design and Methodology Planning for this project began in sum- mer 2001 when the principal investigator defined major research issues, conducted a preliminary literature review, and drafted a sabbatical leave proposal. The leave proposal was submitted for review by sabbatical leave committees and ad- ministrators in September 2001. The leave request was approved in January 2002 and scheduled for January–June 2003. A $2,000 Penn State Libraries Faculty Orga- nization (LFO) research grant was awarded to support the project. To conduct the study, it was necessary to (1) identify an appropriate sample or population of enhanced libraries match- ing study inclusion criteria and (2) gen- erate a survey instrument to elicit desired facility and usage data from respondents. The selection of a study population and survey design proceeded simultaneously in summer and fall 2002. Survey Population There is no comprehensive source iden- tifying library building projects, but Bette- Lee Fox’s annual compilations of aca- demic and public library projects for Library Journal’s architectural issue provides an extensive listing.55 Her listings, which ex- tend back to the early 1980s, include most known academic library projects. This listing also is published each year in the Bowker Annual of Library and Book Trade Information. An initial review of annual Library Jour- nal listings from 1995 to 2002 identified 197 academic library projects meeting the size criteria for inclusion in this study. The investigators reviewed annual architec- tural issues (April) of American Libraries, along with articles announcing project funding, groundbreakings, and dedica- tions in College & Research Libraries News, LJ Hotline, and other publications to iden- tify additional projects completed during this time span. The investigators also utilized informal communication channels extensively to identify academic library projects not publicized in the standard sources. Many projects were identified through informal communications with LAMA/BES mem- bers and leading architects, solicitations on LAMA/BES and Community College Libraries listservs, and existing LAMA/ BES project compilations. Logan Ludwig of the AAHSL provided a listing of recent medical library projects. James Fox of the Penn State Dickinson School of Law pro- vided similar data for law libraries. Fi- nally, a Google™ Web search was con- ducted to identify additional projects not located through other media. Several criteria were established to determine which projects to include in the study. First, the study was focused on projects completed between 1995 and 2002. As noted earlier, it was reasoned that library facilities completed during this time frame should have been designed to accommodate the growth in electronic resources and increasing student owner- ship of personal computers. Second, a 20,000-square-foot minimum size for the project area was established to exclude minor renovations unlikely to have a significant effect on usage. Some smaller community college libraries were excluded from the study by this criterion, but the response level from two-year in- stitutions was sufficient (n = 20) to allow Creating a Better Place 437 the researchers to reach conclusions about enhanced facility features, quality, and postproject usage levels in two-year in- stitutions. Off-site storage facilities were excluded because they generally are closed to the public, thereby precluding usage mea- surements. Renovations focusing on of- fices and other nonpublic areas were simi- larly eliminated from consideration. Sev- eral facilities identified in the 1995 Library Journal listing were removed from the study population when respondents in- dicated that actual completion had oc- curred in 1994. In some cases (new academic institu- tion, new medical library without a prior equivalent facility, lack of data on preproject usage), libraries were included despite the impossibility of meaningful before-and-after usage comparisons be- cause their responses would provide use- ful data describing facility features in- cluded in recent projects. The number of library projects identi- fied as meeting study criteria far exceeded the total number of improved academic libraries listed in other sources. It is be- lieved that the project listing closely ap- proximates the total number of projects completed during the study time frame and meeting inclusion criteria. Because the study population reasonably approxi- mates the overall population of academic library projects completed during the 1995–2002 period, sampling to control for possible selection bias was unnecessary. In addition to yielding a study popu- lation for this investigation, the listing of 1995–2002 projects will be expanded into an Academic Library Projects Database. This database should help facility plan- ners identify appropriate, completed li- braries for preproject benchmarking. A LAMA/BES committee will expand the database into a more comprehensive re- source including academic, public, school, and special library projects. Survey Design Design of the survey instrument was be- gun in summer 2002. Following a recom- mendation from Penn State Harrisburg’s Survey Research Center (SRC), the inves- tigators decided to conduct a Web survey rather than a mailed survey. The Web sur- vey allowed direct e-mail communication with targeted respondents, eliminated response coding time and costs, and per- mitted bulk data transfer into statistical software packages for data manipulation. Arrangements were made to work with Penn State’s Social Sciences Research In- stitute (SSRI) to program and administer the Web survey. The draft survey was submitted to Penn State’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for a Human Subjects Clearance Review in October 2002. Approval to con- duct a confidential survey was granted by the IRB on November 30, 2002. Respon- dents were to be advised that the survey would be confidential and were given an opportunity to agree to participate, de- cline, or ask questions. The IRB directed that data files from this project be de- stroyed by November 23, 2003, to protect the respondents. The survey contained sixty-eight fac- tual, pre- and postproject comparison and open-ended questions designed to elicit descriptive and usage data about im- proved library facilities. Seven types of questions—six about facility and institu- tional characteristics and one about us- age levels—were asked. It was recognized that the length of the survey imposed a significant respondent burden, and pro- spective participants were advised that completion would require thirty to forty- five minutes when several types of quan- titative data had been assembled. Questions Asked Initially, respondents were asked to pro- vide data about key institutional charac- teristics, such as public or private affilia- tion and special missions (women’s college, historically black institution, etc.). Questions about student body character- istics (percent of commuting students, computer ownership requirements, etc.) were asked to permit the examination of possible relationships between those at- 438 College & Research Libraries November 2003 tributes and facility usage patterns in the companion article. The investigators separately identified appropriate institu- tional classifications (associate, baccalau- reate, law, medical, etc.) for each library from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Web site (www.carnegiefoundation.org). The survey next addressed project-spe- cific variables, such as type of project (new building, addition, addition/renovation, new library within a multipurpose facil- ity), completion date, project cost, and architectural firms responsible for design. These questions provided summary data about the types of facility projects being completed during the study period. They also permitted the investigators to deter- mine whether the number of projects in- creased, declined, or remained stable dur- ing the 1995–2002 period. In addition, these questions provided data necessary for cross-tabulation with other facility and institutional characteristics. Assuming that physical location on campus might affect usage levels, the in- vestigators asked whether the enhanced library had a central, peripheral, or neu- tral location. In addition, the survey asked whether the improved library was located within a quarter mile of student parking lots, residence units, classroom buildings, the student center, and recreational facili- ties. The third set of questions contrasted the pre- and postproject libraries in order to identify the nature and extent of improve- ments made. The investigators were particu- larly interested in learning what technol- ogy, collaborative learning, and instruction lab enhancements had been made in re- cent facility projects. These data enabled the investigators to summarize the major facility changes resulting from these projects, thereby advancing existing knowledge about project improvements beyond the level of anecdotal evidence. To contrast the preproject and en- hanced facilities and to permit summary conclusions about the type and extent of enhancements, this section included be- fore-and-after comparison questions on: • square footage (gross and assignable); • percent of facility designated for library functions; • number of data ports; • number of general use seats; • number of public service points; • number of public access workstations; • number of group study rooms; • number of group study room seats; • number of workstations in instruc- tion labs; • type of wiring; • use of wireless systems; • percent of seats with wired net- work access; • percent of seats with wireless net- work access; • hours of operation (weekly). Additional questions in this section requested data on food and drink poli- cies, presence of artwork in public areas, primary floor covering (carpet, tile, etc.), primary floor and wall colors, and ex- tended-hour access. Fourth, the survey asked questions about the presence of nonlibrary facilities within the library building, both before and after the project. Based on their own knowledge and prior site visits, the in- vestigators expected to find a trend to- ward inclusion of nonlibrary services, particularly where a new building or ad- dition had been constructed. Questions in this section were designed to identify the types of nonlibrary facilities included and to determine whether their presence was more extensive in the postproject li- braries than it had been before the project. The survey asked specifically whether the library building included a general computer lab, a snack bar or cafe, class- rooms, seminar rooms, a conference room, an auditorium, a multimedia pro- duction center, an art gallery, a writing lab, a bookstore, a research institute, or an educational technology center. An open-ended question permitted respon- dents to identify other types of facilities within the physical confines of the library. Each library also was asked to compare facility quality along ten dimensions, plus the overall ambience of the library, before Creating a Better Place 439 and after the project. Quality assessments for the following variables were requested: • layout/ease of navigation; • location of service points; • instruction lab or e-classroom; • user seating/work space; • collection storage; • telecommunication network; • artificial lighting; • natural lighting; • HVAC. The responses in this section were ex- pected to indicate the degree of improve- ment occurring in these facility areas as a result of the project. In addition, these questions were designed to identify building components where architects had been most and least successful in enhancing the library facility. Finally, re- spondents were asked to assess their overall satisfaction with the postproject library facility and to identify any further strengths or deficiencies in the pre- and postproject libraries. Several collection variables were in- cluded to determine what provisions had been made for postproject collection growth and access. Respondents were asked to identify an approximate date when their postproject shelving capacity would be exhausted, the percentage of the collection stored in compact shelving, and the percentage stored off-site. The shelf space exhaustion question was intended to determine how effectively the partici- pating libraries had planned for print col- lection growth. Responses to this ques- tion also could reflect libraries’ future plans for reliance on electronic resources. The compact storage question was de- signed to determine how extensively compact storage is used to extend the library’s capacity to provide on-site access to materials. Postproject reliance on off- site storage indicated that the library had not placed its entire collection under one roof, whether as a result of inadequate funding, poor planning, or a conscious choice to use remote facilities to store lower-use items. Finally, the survey requested data on four usage variables—exit gate count, total circulation, in-house collection use, and reference transactions—from 1993–1994 through December 2002. The resulting responses provided the “dependent vari- ables” data for the before-and-after usage comparison reported in the companion article. Study Conduct By mid-January 2003, the investigators had identified 384 academic library projects appearing to meet study inclu- sion criteria through this combination of search strategies. An initial invitation message was e-mailed to all 384 libraries initially identified on January 20, 2003. That communication explained the project, invited voluntary participation, provided a statement of research subject protections, gave prospective respon- dents a unique password for their librar- ies, and offered them the opportunity to ask questions about the survey. Following initial respondent feedback, twenty-seven projects were excluded from the study, reducing the number of qualifying libraries to 357. The excluded libraries did not meet project criteria, such as facility size or completion during the 1995–2002 study period. Initial responses and several partici- pant questions were received on the first day of the survey. Several respondents in- dicated a high level of interest in the project, noting that the findings would provide valuable knowledge for academic librarians and higher education admin- istrators. E-mail reminders were sent on Febru- ary 10 and February 24. Respondents were asked to complete the survey by March 6. The investigators sent targeted reminder messages to specific libraries after that date. Some respondents experi- enced difficulty in viewing completed responses and/or submitting the last part of the survey, so the project investigators provided e-mail assistance to help those individuals participate fully. Data analysis began on March 18, with data from 179 responding libraries. The responses from each participating library 440 College & Research Libraries November 2003 were coded automatically and stored on a database created by the SSRI. The re- sponses then were exported from the SSRI database into an Excel spreadsheet for initial analysis and data manipulation. Three additional libraries responded af- ter the data analysis began, expanding the number of participating libraries to 182 and providing a 51 percent overall re- sponse rate for the survey. Specific findings about pre- and postproject library features are reported below in the following sections: (1) gen- eral project characteristics; (2) technology; (3) user space; (4) collection provisions; (5) interior features; (6) nonlibrary facili- ties; and (7) facility quality. A final sec- tion summarizes the major findings about facility improvement, indicates their sig- nificance for academic library planning, and suggests directions for future re- search. Findings: General Project Characteristics To secure an overview of general trends in recent academic library building projects, respondents were asked ques- tions about the type of project done at their libraries, completion dates, public/ private affiliation, facility size, the library’s campus location, and shared usage with other campus operations. The investigators also determined the Carnegie classification for each library’s host institution. The findings from those questions are described in this section. Project Types Respondents were asked to place their li- brary project into one of five categories: (1) new stand-alone library; (2) new li- brary in multipurpose facility, (3) addi- tion and renovation; (4) addition only; or (5) other type of project. The “new/mul- tipurpose” category was created to reflect possible differences in libraries located within a larger facility, such as a science branch library in a science building. The “other” category included renovations, reconfigurations, and “re-purposing” of existing facilities without any new space added. For statistical analysis, renova- tions were separated from the remaining types of “other” projects through respon- dents’ descriptions of their projects in open-ended questions. The number of li- braries in each category is shown in table 1. Fox’s 1995–2002 annual summaries documented 197 completed academic li- brary projects, including off-site storage facilities, meeting this study’s minimum size criterion of 20,000 square feet. Using slightly different categories (new, addition and renovation, renovation only), Fox identified ninety-one new academic librar- ies, seventy-six addition and renovation projects, twenty-nine renovation-only projects, and one addition-only facility completed during this eight-year period. The current study’s “new” and “new, multipurpose” categories were combined temporarily for comparison with Fox’s data to determine whether there were any differences in the distri- bution of project types found. Of the 182 re- sponding libraries, 43.1 percent fit into Fox’s “new” category, yet Fox found that 46.2 percent of the libraries answer- ing her annual Library Journal surveys were new. Similarly, 38.6 per- cent of Fox’s libraries were placed in the “ad- dition and renovation” category, whereas 42.0 TABLE 1 Libraries Participating in Study, by Project Type Number of Type of Library Project Responses Percentage New stand-alone library building 54 29.8% New library in multipurpose facility 24 13.3% Addition only 5 2.8% Addition and renovation 76 42.0% Renovation 14 7.7% Other 8 4.4% Total Responses 181 100.0% Creating a Better Place 441 percent of the responses in the current survey matched that category. Finally, 14.7 percent of Fox’s libraries and 12.1 per- cent of the libraries completing the cur- rent survey could reasonably be placed in the “renovation-only” category. The closely similar distribution of project type responses confirms that the current study is consistent with known patterns of academic library improve- ment. This finding further confirms that the use of multiple strategies to identify recent academic library projects did not introduce any unintended bias into the current study. Completion Pattern Many library leaders feel that the number of facilities projects has declined in recent years. Although it likely is becoming more difficult to argue the case for new or ex- panded physical facilities, the impression of a long-term facility project decline is not sup- ported by the survey findings. As shown in figure 1, the number of completed projects remained relatively stable from 1995 through 2000 but declined significantly in 2001. However, the number of project completions then rebounded to its highest level during the entire study period in 2002. The 2002 increase in project comple- tions does not constitute evidence of a long-term trend toward greater institu- tional investment in library projects. However, that finding does confirm that overall building activity has not declined. Because a number of new libraries (Marquette University, San Jose State University, Arcadia University, Univer- sity of Georgia Student Learning Center, among others) will open during the 2003– 2004 academic year, it appears that many libraries are making an effective case for facility improvements despite fiscal con- straints, internal competition for limited funds, and technological changes in the information environment. Public and Private Projects The Carnegie Foundation for the Ad- vancement of Teaching lists classifications for 3,941 higher education institutions on its Web site. Public institutions comprised 41.7 percent of the institutions listed, and private nonprofit and private for-profit institutions accounted for 42.7 and 15.6 percent, respectively, of the institutions listed.56 Not surprisingly, the current study did not identify any new or improved library facilities at for-profit institutions. To com- pare the extent of building activity and subsequent usage changes in public and private, nonprofit institutions, partici- pants were asked to indicate their insti- tution type. Given their relative propor- tion in the overall institutional popula- tion, 51 percent of the library projects FIGURE 1 Academic Library Projects, 1995-2002, by Completion Date (n = 182) 442 College & Research Libraries November 2003 would be expected to occur in private colleges if the improvements were spread evenly among all institutions. However, 64 percent of the responding libraries were in public institutions, 35 percent were in private institutions, and one per- cent was categorized as “other.” This apparent difference in construc- tion activity may be somewhat mislead- ing because 63.6 percent of the Carnegie doctoral/research universities are public institutions and several libraries in this category (University of Maryland, Ohio State University, University of Minnesota, Penn State University) completed mul- tiple facility projects between 1995 and 2002. According to the Carnegie Founda- tion, private control is most prevalent in baccalaureate colleges (82.3%) and spe- cialized institutions (77.4%), where there is typically only one library on campus. In contrast, most associate degree insti- tutions (61.4%) are controlled by public agencies. The survey responses confirm that pub- lic institutions completed more library facil- ity projects than private, nonprofit entities during the study period. However, this finding should be accepted with some caution because the predominance of large, public, multilibrary institutions in the “doctoral/ research” category influ- ences the relative distribution of facility projects across public/private control boundaries. Carnegie Class It was likewise deemed important to de- termine whether there were any signifi- cant differences in facility completion among institutions in different Carnegie classes, regardless of public or private affiliation. The investigators combined similar Carnegie classes (Baccalaureate- Liberal Arts with Baccalaureate-General, Master ’s I with Master’s II, etc.) to facili- tate statistical analysis. In addition, they created a separate category of “branch or undergraduate library” to reflect possible configuration and usage pattern differ- ences in these libraries. The distribution, by modified Carnegie class, of libraries participating in the survey is shown in figure 2. Doctoral and master’s institutions com- prise 6.6 and 15.5 percent, respectively, of the overall institutional population in the 2000 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. In contrast, baccalau- reate and associate degree colleges consti- FIGURE 2 Library Project Completions, 1995�2002, by Modified Carnegie Classification (n = 182) Creating a Better Place 443 tute 15.4 and 42.3 percent, respectively, of the current Carnegie listing. “Specialized institutions” (theological seminaries, law and medical schools not affiliated with a university, etc.) account for the remaining 19.4 percent of all included institutions. Most branch and undergraduate libraries included in figure 2 are located within a doctorate-granting university, although several private, baccalaureate colleges (Williams, Oberlin) completed significant science branch libraries during the study period. The frequency distribution data in fig- ure 2 indicate clearly that doctoral institu- tions enjoyed the greatest success in complet- ing building projects, relative to their number, during the 1995–2002 period. Doctoral insti- tutions accounted for 23.1 percent of all projects completed during the study pe- riod while comprising just 6.6 percent of the institutional population. Public master’s institutions also completed build- ing projects at a rate higher than their 15.5 percent share among higher education in- stitutions, receiving 26.9 percent of the projects. In comparison, associate institu- tions were least successful in bringing li- brary-building projects to culmination. New, expanded, and renovated librar- ies were built by all type of institutions during the study period. However, it ap- pears that activity was greatest among public, doctoral/research, and master ’s institutions. Associate institutions were least successful in securing major library facility improvements. Library Size An overall increase in physical size was anticipated for most libraries, except those renovating or reconfiguring an existing facility. Overall size was considered im- portant, particularly because there has been some recent discussion of building steady-state or downsized facilities, as- suming that libraries relying increasingly on electronic collections have a dimin- ished need for physical space.57 In the case of renovation or reconfiguration projects, the investigators were interested to see what space allocations were made within an existing building footprint. As figure 3 confirms, there was a signifi- cant overall increase in the size of physical library facilities as a result of building projects. Prior to completing their facility projects, 54.1 percent of the responding libraries reported having fewer than 50,000 square feet of space, whereas only 27.6 percent fit into this size category following the project. In contrast, the number of librar- ies reporting more than 200,000 square feet increased from 10.9 percent before the project to 25.3 percent afterward. Because respondents were asked to in- dicate a range (25,000 to 49,999 sq. ft., for example) within which their libraries fit, exact space figures were not available to do a more precise study of space changes. FIGURE 3 Pre- and Postproject Square Footage of Library Projects Completed, 1995�2002 (n = 174) 444 College & Research Libraries November 2003 However, figure 3 indicates a definite pat- tern of space increases in all size catego- ries of 50,000 square feet or more. Even though the inclusion of renovation/ reconfiguration projects (12.1% of total project population in table 1) suppresses the overall tendency toward greater size, it is clear that significant expansion of the physical library was accomplished in most projects completed between 1995 and 2002. Because the number of partici- pating libraries with 200,000 square feet of space increased from 10.9 percent be- fore the project to 25.3 percent afterward, it also is clear that large physical libraries are still being built. Campus Location Location is a pivotal consideration in the success of small business firms. In the aca- demic context, some directors consider on- campus location to be a factor affecting li- brary usage levels. The survey asked respondents to indicate whether their librar- ies were placed in a central location on cam- pus, a location between the center and the outer edges of the campus, or in a periph- eral place. Respondents also were asked to indicate whether their libraries were located within a quarter mile of student parking lots, classroom buildings, residence halls, student centers, and recreation facilities. Most (62.1%) of the responding librar- ians indicated that their libraries occupied a central location on campus, whereas 18.7 percent reported a neutral location and 19.2 percent a peripheral location. Proximity to a classroom building was reported by 98.9 percent of the respond- ing libraries, indicating that library facili- ties continue to be located with consider- ation for the library’s academic mission. Proximity to student parking areas (91.2%) and student centers (89.0%) like- wise was very high, and most of the re- sponding libraries also were located close to student residence halls (73.6%) and rec- reational facilities (73.1%). Siting for a new facility can be a major concern on campuses where existing buildings occupy all of the prime locations. Relocation was not an issue for libraries experiencing an addition/renovation, ad- dition, or renovation/reconfiguration project. However, because 43.1 percent of the responding libraries (new, new multi- purpose) were placed in a different physi- cal location, it appears that most library buildings are still located in areas frequented by students, even along the periphery of campus. As a result, physical location should not affect facility usage levels at most responding libraries. Library and Nonlibrary Uses Historically, library buildings have been built primarily to accommodate library collections and functions, rather than to provide shared space for the library and other units. The major exception to that tendency has been the location of subject- specialized branch libraries (music, sci- ence, engineering, etc.) in the same build- ing with faculty offices and classrooms supporting those disciplines. In recent years, however, many aca- demic institutions have combined new or expanded library buildings with space for other campus operations. In addition to seeing how many multipurpose facilities were completed during the study period (table 1), the investigators were interested in seeing the relative proportions of space allocated for library and nonlibrary func- tions in all projects studied. Although only twenty-four responding libraries fit into the “new, multipurpose” category, it is apparent from figure 4 that many more academic libraries share at least some of their space with nonlibrary units. The percentage of facilities allocating 100 percent of their space for library purposes declined from 41.6 to 32.9 percent follow- ing project completion, suggesting a slight trend away from the stand-alone library concept. However, the number of facilities dedicating 90 to 99 percent of their space for library purposes actually increased from thirty-one (17.9%) to forty-seven (27.2%) in the improved facility. With 79 percent of the participants reporting 75 percent or greater postproject space allocations for library uses and 76 percent indicating similar preproject allocations, there is no clear tendency toward Creating a Better Place 445 greater inclusion of other units in library facili- ties, contrary to expectations. It may be more significant that the number of libraries occupying less than 50 percent of available building space declined from 17.3 percent (n = 30) preproject to 10.4 percent (n = 18) after the project was completed. This finding indicates that fewer libraries are occupying small spaces in buildings primarily built for other purposes. However, the type of nonlibrary facilities sharing building space may be more important for librar- ies in the long run that the presence of nonlibrary units. Findings: Technology As student ownership of portable com- puting devices has grown, it has become increasingly important for libraries to provide access to networked resources in general seating areas, as well as through public access workstations. Student own- ership of computers has grown sharply over the past five years, and some insti- tutions now are requiring incoming stu- dents to acquire a computer. According to a university survey, 96 percent of all full-time Penn State undergraduates owned a computer in fall 2002, laptop ownership was increasing, and 15 percent of the students had a personal digital as- sistant (PDA) device.58 Of the responding libraries, 6.5 percent reported an institutional mandate for stu- dent computer ownership. Although per- sonal computers with limited portability still account for the majority of student computer ownership, the declining prices of laptop computers are making them in- creasingly the machine of choice for stu- dents. Given the range of electronic and Internet resources being used by students, libraries need to provide extensive power and network access in public seating ar- eas to permit simultaneous usage of print, electronic, and Internet materials within the physical library. Copper or fiber-optic telecommunica- tion systems were the preferred choice for wired, end-user network access at the start of the study period. However, recent advances in wireless systems have made it important to examine the use of both network access solutions in academic li- braries. This section examines a wide range of technology solutions—premises wiring systems, data ports, wireless sys- tems, public access workstations, and in- struction labs—implemented in library fa- cility projects between 1995 and 2002. Premises Wiring Systems To accommodate mobile computing/net- work access needs, academic libraries need both an extensive, high-quality telecom- FIGURE 4 Percentage of Facility Designated for Library Use, before and after Project Completion (n = 173) 446 College & Research Libraries November 2003 munications infrastructure and wide- spread data connectivity in public seating areas. Table 2 shows the type of premises wiring (i.e., wiring to the desktop or wall jack, not data lines connecting library data closets to the campus network) used be- fore and after project completion. Table 2 confirms that major telecom- munications upgrades were accom- plished in most of the projects examined. More than 83.6 percent of the libraries re- sponding to this question now have, at minimum, unshielded twisted pair (UTP) category 5 (CAT-5) copper wiring throughout the building. This type of wir- ing infrastructure provides sufficient bandwidth to accommodate downloads of large textual, graphic, and data files. More than one-third of the responding li- braries utilized basic CAT-5 as their postproject wiring solution. Smaller percentages of libraries used more advances versions of CAT 5 (5-E, premium CAT-5) and CAT-6 copper wir- ing systems for providing network access throughout the facility. Somewhat sur- prisingly, 16.4 percent indicated that they are still using UTP CAT-2, a far less ro- bust solution with a bandwidth consid- erably smaller than that in CAT-5 wiring. It is possible that the number of CAT-2 installations was exaggerated slightly by survey respondents because CAT-2 wir- ing was the default answer registered for libraries skipping this question. However, it appears that approximately one-fifth of the participating libraries did not imple- ment major infrastructure upgrades. At the opposite end of the bandwidth spectrum, 21.0 percent of the responding libraries indicated that they deliver fiber- optic cable connections directly to the desk- top. Although it is possible that some re- spondents confused fiber-optic connec- tions to data closets with premises wiring, follow-up site visits have confirmed the presence of “fiber to the desktop” in many enhanced library buildings. Although the investigators are not entirely confident that building-wide fiber installation has ex- ceeded the 20 percent level in these projects, the data clearly confirm that fi- ber-optic wiring has been utilized in many new and improved academic libraries. Even allowing for some respondent errors, it is clear that 80 percent or more of the participating libraries now provide CAT- 5, CAT-6, or fiber-optic data connections for end users. These libraries are well posi- tioned to accommodate growing student use of laptop computers and other mo- bile devices. Wired Network Connections A high-quality telecommunications infra- structure is a prerequisite for effective delivery of data to end users. However, an extensive system of data ports (a.k.a., docking stations) or wireless transceivers is needed in public seating areas to per- mit effective, facilitywide use of mobile computing devices. Figure 5 documents a dramatic, postproject increase in the availability of wired network connections. Of the re- sponding libraries, 62.2 percent had fewer TABLE 2 Premises Wiring Systems Used Before and After Project Completion (N = 171) Wiring Type Preproject Postproject Preproject Postproject Uses Uses Percentage Percentage CAT 2 120 28 70.2% 16.4% CAT 5 37 62 21.6% 36.3% CAT 5-E 5 20 2.9% 11.7% Premium CAT 5 4 12 2.4% 7.0% CAT 6 0 13 0.0% 7.6% Fiber Optic 5 36 2.9% 21.0% Total 171 171 100% 100% Creating a Better Place 447 than fifty network connections before project completion. Because the data port figures also include staff, public access computer, and instruction lab connections, the preproject figures actually overstate the availability of network connections for end users. Clearly, most responding libraries were poorly equipped to address mobile computing needs prior to project initiation. Following project completion, 51.7 percent of all responding libraries reported having 250 or more data ports. Only 7.6 percent of the participants had had this many data ports be- fore improving their telecommunication in- frastructures. Although the inclusion of office and public access computer ports may slightly exaggerate the direct impact on mobile end users, it clear that many postproject data ports were allocated for plug-in use. In contrast, it is surprising that 14.0 percent of the responding librar- ies did not report having more than fifty data ports following project completion. On balance, postproject connectivity ad- vances are quite significant for student users, who are finding network ports al- ready present in many enhanced library facilities as they acquire mobile comput- ing devices. Wireless Systems Wired systems have been the dominant option for providing end-user network access through most of the 1995–2002 study period. More recently, sharp im- provements in wireless systems and some user preferences for “untethered” solu- tions have made them a viable, lower-cost alternative for providing end-user net- work access. The wireless option has been especially attractive for facilities under- going renovation, where the installation of wired data channels would be disrup- tive and costly. Wireless systems were rare in academic libraries before project completion, with 87.1 percent of the responding libraries lacking any wireless installation. In con- trast, 57.9 percent of the participating li- braries reported that wireless connectiv- ity was available in their facility, to at least some degree, by early 2003. In many cases, wireless systems were installed well after the building project was com- pleted to complement an existing wired infrastructure. However, the data indicate that wireless systems are now commonplace in libraries undergoing a building improve- ment project since 1994. FIGURE 5 Number of In-library Data Ports, before and after Project Completion (n = 172) 448 College & Research Libraries November 2003 Public Access Workstations Although student ownership of comput- ers has increased rapidly, the majority of student-owned computers are still not portable. The library also has an obliga- tion to provide equitable, on-site access for electronic and Internet resources. Some libraries have recently installed ap- plications software on public worksta- tions to help students manipulate search results, retrieve e-mail, and write papers without changing locations. Figure 6 compares the number of public access workstations provided in responding li- braries before and after project comple- tion. As figure 6 confirms, most enhanced libraries have expanded their number of public access workstations significantly. Prior to project completion, 49.1 percent of the responding libraries had fewer than ten public access workstations. After project completion, only 15.8 percent of these libraries still had fewer than ten public computers and just 32.2 percent had fewer than twenty such workstations. In comparison, 68 percent of the postproject libraries had more than twenty public access computers, 41 per- cent had more than sixty public worksta- tions, and 24.6 percent had more than one hundred such devices. Because only 12.1 percent of the responding libraries had as many as sixty public computers in the preproject library, it is clear that expand- ing the number of public workstations was a frequent project priority. Although the survey did not address the inclusion of applications software in library com- puters, many libraries have done so, thereby increasing the potential use and functionality of these machines. During postsurvey site visits to re- sponding libraries, it was discovered that a low number of public access computers might not reflect a lack of provision for student access to electronic and Internet resources. The Howard University Law Library loans laptop computers to law students, instead of providing a conven- tional cluster of public workstations. Eight public workstations are provided for community users. Although “loaner laptops” are becoming a commonplace service of academic libraries, Howard Law’s substitution of loaner machines for a fixed workstation cluster may presage a coming trend. FIGURE 6 Number of Public Access Workstations, before and after Project Completion (n = 171) Creating a Better Place 449 Library Instruction Facilities Information literacy instruction is a ma- jor focus of library services today. Most respondents identified inadequate (or nonexistent) instruction facilities as a major shortcoming of the preproject li- brary. The number of workstations in a dedicated library instruction lab or elec- tronic classroom has a significant effect on the type of instruction provided. Where more individual workstations are available, students are able to participate more actively in library instruction ses- sions, thereby increasing their knowledge of—and comfort level with—a wide range of electronic resources. Those com- fort and knowledge levels should, it was assumed, result in more sophisticated use of library resources and more frequent use of the postproject library facility. Figure 7 provides before-and-after comparisons of the number of workstations available in library instruction labs or dedicated e- classrooms. Prior to project completion, 66.7 per- cent of the participating libraries either lacked a dedicated instruction lab alto- gether or had a facility with only one in- structor workstation. These libraries had a severely limited capacity to provide an active learning experience for students in the library instruction context. After completion, 75.4 percent of the responding libraries had at least eleven workstations in their instruction labs, and 59.6 percent had more than twenty com- puters. In comparison, only 15.2 percent lacked an instruction lab and just 5.8 per- cent had an instructional facility with only one workstation. The improvements in in- struction lab facilities are among the most dramatic findings revealed by this survey. In- struction lab enhancement was clearly a major objective for librarians in project planning. The vast majority of libraries secured a teaching facility conducive to in-depth student training in the critical use of catalogs, print resources, electronic databases, and Internet sites. Findings: User Space Many academic libraries have cannibal- ized existing seating areas to accommo- date collection growth. Although this measure has been justified to maintain and preserve print and nonprint collec- tions in the absence of other alternatives, it has affected library use by reducing the number of seats available for research and study. The investigators were interested to know whether libraries had identified seat- ing expansion—and the type of seating pro- vided—as a priority for facility improve- ment. If seating were not expanded, it could be inferred that planners considered the library’s current seating capacity adequate or gave greater weight to other facility needs. If wired and/or wireless network access was provided at a significant num- ber of seats, the need for both traditional and technology-enhanced learning stations FIGURE 7 Number of Workstations in Instruction Lab, before and after Project Completion (n = 171) 450 College & Research Libraries November 2003 had been envisioned. If the number of group study rooms was increased signifi- cantly, planners had anticipated the grow- ing need for collaborative learning spaces. Overall User Seating It was anticipated that most projects would expand the amount of general use (table, carrel, lounge) seats. The data in figure 8 confirm this expectation. Smaller libraries benefited most dra- matically from seating increases. The per- centage of libraries having fewer than one hundred seats declined from 37.4 percent before the project to 12.3 percent after- ward. At the other end of the spectrum, the number of libraries with 1,500 or more seats increased from eight to thirty-three facilities. Clearly, general seating expan- sion was a priority for most projects. No respondents reported a reduction in the amount of public seating after project completion. The consistent expansion of on-site seat- ing capacity is an important finding because it reflects planner expectations that users will continue to come to the physical library. As- sumptions about future library facility use underlie the types of seating provided. Group Study Seating Group study rooms generally are recog- nized as an essential component of success- ful library design today, given the empha- sis on collaborative learning in recent years. Because 45.6 percent of the responding li- braries did not have a single group study room before project implementation and 80.7 percent had five or fewer such rooms, most of the responding libraries had an acute need to increase their group study capacity. Figure 9 compares the number of group study rooms available in the pre- and postproject libraries. The post-project increase in group study capacity was significant, but not as dramatic as might have been expected. Following im- provements, 44.5 percent of the respond- ing libraries had eleven or more group study rooms, whereas 8.2 percent still did not provide any group studies and an- other 19.9 percent had just one to five studies. Fifty-four percent of the respond- ing libraries clustered in the six to ten or eleven to nineteen study room range. Only eight percent of the responding li- braries provided more than thirty group study rooms, even though some of them serve large student populations. FIGURE 8 General Use Seats in Library, before and after Project Completion (n = 171) 37.4% 12.3% 33.3% 39.8% 15.8% 21.1% 8.8% 7.6% 4.7% 19.3% Creating a Better Place 451 Although these libraries clearly expanded their group study capacities, most did not in- crease it on a scale sufficient to fully address current and future demand. The University of Georgia’s Student Learning Center, with ninety-six dedicated group study rooms, was a major exception to this ten- dency toward incremental increases. Postsurvey site visits have confirmed that demand for group study spaces often ex- ceeds library capacity. A parallel demand for enclosed, single-user rooms also was noted in the site visits. Wired Seating Even though figure 5 indicated the actual number of data ports in a library facility, that figure does not necessarily reflect the extent of network connectivity options available for mobile computer users. Many of those data ports are allocated for fixed functions, such as public access computers, instruction labs, and staff of- fices. Advances in providing wired net- work access for end users are depicted in figure 10, which shows the percentage of wired user seats in the library before and after the project. The advances in wired seating are among the most dramatic findings of this study. Of the responding libraries, 73.7 percent lacked any wired public seating before undertaking their improvement projects. These libraries were simply not equipped to any direct network access for laptop computer users. Since project completion, 46.8 percent of the respond- ing libraries now offer wired network access from at least half of their seats, with 12.3 percent providing data access from every seat in the facility. The survey also confirmed that 14.6 percent of the improved libraries did not provide wired network access at any user seats. There are two explanations for this finding. First, many projects completed since 2000 have relied exclusively on wire- less systems to provide network access at the desktop. Wireless systems have been especially attractive for renovation and addition/renovation projects in older buildings, where installation of wired systems would be expensive, time-con- suming, and disruptive to library ser- vices. Second, a few projects completed early in the 1995–2002 study period ap- parently did not anticipate the need for decentralized network access. Clearly, wired, end-user network ac- cess has been an objective in most recent library facility projects. Although physi- cal and financial constraints have often precluded building-wide, wired access, a significant investment has been made. As a result, mobile computing device users can find wired network connections at more than 85 percent of the facilities completed since 1994. This capability is a major advance, enabling users to conduct research, write, and study from many or all library seat- ing locations using both print and online resources. 45.6% 8.2% 35.1% 19.9% 10.5% 27.5% 3.5% 27.5% 4.1% 9.4% 1.2% 7.6% FIGURE 9 Group Study Rooms in Library, before and after Project Completion (n = 171) 452 College & Research Libraries November 2003 FIGURE 10 Wired User Seating in Library, before and after Project Completion (n = 171) Wireless Seating As noted in table 3, 93.0 percent of the responding libraries lacked any wireless installation prior to finishing their build- ing projects. In contrast, 24.6 percent of the responding libraries offered wireless coverage at 100 percent of all public use seats following project completion. The percentage of libraries delivering wire- less network access at all seating locations was approximately twice that of libraries providing wired access at 100 percent of all public seats. (See figure 10.) However, when libraries sup- plying facilitywide wireless access are excluded, the breadth of wireless coverage access declines sharply. Although 34.6 percent of the postproject libraries offered wireless access at one-half of their seats, 46.8 percent de- livered wired network access at one-half of all seating locations (figure 10). The relatively lower usage of wireless systems partially reflects their inferior carrying capacity during earlier years of the study period. Given their lower cost, improved quality, and popularity with consumers, it is likely that wireless sys- tems will be utilized increasingly in all types of future library projects. Many wired libraries are now installing wire- less systems to complement their exist- ing wired infrastructure. This hybrid so- lution is likely to become increasingly TABLE 3 Seats with Wireless Network Access, before and after Project Completion (n = 171) Percent of Preproject Postproject Preproject Postproject Wireless Seats Libraries Libraries Percentage Percentage 0% 159 81 93.0% 47.4% 1�24% 5 20 2.9% 11.7% 25�49% 4 11 2.3% 6.4% 50�74% 0 8 0.0% 4.7% 75�99% 0 9 0.0% 5.3% 100% 3 42 1.8% 24.6% Total 171 171 100.0% 100.1% *Note: Percentages in postproject percentage column do not equal 100.0% due to rounding. Creating a Better Place 453 popular in the future, although wireless systems present security problems and still cannot match the bandwidth capac- ity of fiber-optic systems. Findings: Collection Provisions The exhaustion of shelf space for print col- lections is a visible, readily understood reason justifying library facility expansion. When books cannot be reshelved, students and faculty members complain and higher education administrators understand that a space crisis has developed. However, collection space planning is not as simple and straightforward as it was just ten to fifteen years ago, given expand- ing library investments in electronic data- bases and the growth of digital libraries. As libraries provide access to collections in multiple formats, the balancing of user, technology, collection, and staff needs has become more complicated.59 Libraries need to include accurate projections of future collection growth patterns in facility plans despite long-term uncertainties about col- lection evolution. Survey participants were asked to in- dicate the provisions their libraries have made for print collection growth during project planning. The investigators fo- cused on three facets of print collection planning: long-range stack capacity, use of compact storage, and reliance on off-site storage facilities. It was felt that these ques- tions would indicate the nature and qual- ity of planning for collection expansion. Print Growth Capacity Many libraries have cancelled print jour- nal subscriptions aggressively because the same or comparable titles have become available online through aggregator data- bases.60 Others have redirected mono- graphic acquisitions funding to acquire a broad array of electronic resources. Older (microform) and more recent (DVD) tech- nologies place additional space, equipment, and fiscal pressures on academic library budgets. The investigators were specifically in- terested in knowing how extensively project planners had allowed for print collection growth. It was believed that collection space allocations would reflect four factors: (1) projected future impor- tance of print collections for library us- ers; (2) accuracy of space requirement projections; (3) availability of project funding to address long-range collection needs; and (4) relative importance of on- site collection storage among competing space priorities. To ascertain how effectively facility planners had addressed long-range col- lection needs, the investigators asked re- spondents to indicate a projected date of shelf space exhaustion for print collec- tions at current acquisition rates. These projections incorporate shelf space in both conventional and compact shelving. The responses to this question are summa- rized in figure 11. It is impossible to determine the exact mix of factors influencing collection space decisions without follow-up interviews or surveys. However, the findings in figure 11 indicate that more than one-third of the responding libraries will exhaust their exist- ing shelf space by 2010. Many of these li- braries already are experiencing an acute shelf space crisis; others are rapidly de- pleting available shelf space. Another 17.3 percent of the responding libraries will exhaust their shelf space by 2015, giving them some time to plan storage alterna- tives or start mobilizing support for an- other facility project. In contrast, 29 percent of the libraries built at least twenty years of collection growth capacity into their facility im- provement plan. Having sufficient stack space to accommodate collection growth in the near term, these libraries should be able to manage and preserve their print collections effectively, with minimal shift- ing in the near future. Those libraries with twenty or more years of shelf space capacity are well po- sitioned to manage their print collections and provide ready access to them in the foreseeable future without impacting other library operations or user seating. Those postproject libraries without ad- equate stack capacity are facing some 454 College & Research Libraries November 2003 hard decisions. It is difficult and embar- rassing to argue that additional collection space is needed less than ten years after the completion of a building project. Given the many claims for limited insti- tutional funding, directors in those librar- ies will need to weed collections exten- sively, explore off-site storage options, retrofit some stack areas for compact shelving, or cannibalize other areas to accommodate collection growth. Compact Shelving Use Compact shelving has emerged as a vi- able and effective means for storing a large number of print or nonprint items in limited space, given a floor loading capacity sufficient to support added weight. Although it traditionally has been viewed as a high-density storage option for low-use materials, compact shelving has been employed in many new librar- ies to stretch their storage capacity and capture space for user seating, service points, and other needs. The University of Kentucky stores more than 90 percent of its primary print collec- tion on compact storage in its new main facility, the William T. Young Library. Nova Southeastern University has intermixed compact shelving and user seating areas effectively to provide ready access to col- lections and nearby seating. This human- izing approach also minimizes the indus- trial, warehouse ambience found in some compact storage installations. Many libraries have utilized compact shelving as a preferred alternative to off- site storage facilities and/or overcrowded traditional shelf space. Although lacking the instant browsability of traditional shelving units, high-quality compact shelving systems are reasonably intuitive and can be used readily by most students and faculty members. Compact shelving systems permit libraries to bring entire collections together under one roof, when space is not available for doing so without impacting user seating space or other func- tions. Table 4 shows the extent of compact storage use in the libraries surveyed. Slightly more than one-half of the re- sponding libraries made some use of com- pact shelving, but only 12 percent used it for one-quarter or more of their collec- tions. Compact shelving is used in vari- ous libraries to store older periodical vol- umes, archival materials, reserve read- ings, vinyl records, compact disks, and other media. In some libraries, it is an in- tegral part of the monographic storage system. FIGURE 11 Projected Dates of Shelf Space Exhaustion, Library Projects Completed, 1995�2002 (n = 162) Creating a Better Place 455 Although 47.3 percent of the responding libraries did not in- clude any compact shelving in their facility plans, compact shelv- ing is increasingly accepted as a mainstream option for “stretching” the physical facility’s storage capa- bility and limiting the overall per- centage of space devoted to collec- tion storage. Although some ex- tra user effort is required to re- trieve materials, the compact storage option expands collec- tion access within a finite space, does not infringe on other li- brary needs, and appears to be generally accepted by users. It has become a strategic choice for maximizing the use of space within facili- ties, and its growing use in new buildings for core monographic collections, not just archival or low-use materials, is significant. Off-site Storage Use From the standpoint of user access, off-site storage is the least desirable of the major options for addressing shelf space limita- tions within the physical library. Most ob- viously, patrons do not have immediate access to items stored off-site. Where low- use items have been selected carefully for relocation to a remote location, the impact on most users can be minimal. However, the library and/or the institution does in- cur additional staffing and utility costs for maintaining such a facility. Usage of off- site storage facilities by survey participants is described in table 5. Most (72.7%) of the libraries completing a facility project between 1995 and 2002 were able to avoid dependence on an off- site storage location. However, 15.2 percent of the responding libraries did rely on a remote site to store one-quarter or more of their print collection materials, whereas a small percentage (1.2%) of the postproject libraries had one-half or more of their col- lections stored in another location. Off-site storage solutions are preferable to the reduction of user seating or other cut- backs in facility features. In some cases, off- site storage may be a conscious choice uti- lized to maximize the enhancement of other functions in a new or expanded building. In renovated buildings, it may be needed increasingly as other spaces are improved. In the long run, however, materials stored off-site are not immediately accessible to pa- trons. Moreover, they create off- site storage maintenance and re- trieval costs. Off-site storage may be necessary in many cases, but it also may reflect a project’s failure to bring entire library col- lections under one roof for con- venient user access. Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems Although the survey did not specifically ask whether librar- ies were using automated stor- TABLE 4 Libraries Using Compact Shelving in Postproject Facility (n = 165) Percentage of Collection Number of Percent of in Compact Storage Responses Responses None 78 47.3% < 10% 38 23.0% 10�24% 29 17.6% 25�49% 8 4.8% 50�74% 7 4.2% 75�99% 4 2.4% 100% 1 0.6% Total 165 99.9% *Note: Percentages do not equal 100.0% due to rounding. TABLE 5 Off-Site Storage Use in Postproject Libraries (n = 165) Percentage of Collection Number of Stored Off-site Responses Percentage None 120 72.7% <10% 20 12.1% 10�24% 14 8.5% 25�49% 9 5.5% 50% or more 2 1.2% Total 165 100.0% 456 College & Research Libraries November 2003 age and retrieval (ASAR) systems, both the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and Cali- fornia State University-Northridge re- ported that they are doing so. The UNLV installation provides a planned, long-term collection expansion capacity within the physical confines of a major new facility opened in 2001. The ASAR system is clearly visible from the main atrium area in the UNLV library, so it is a viable, on- site solution to a collection space issue. The Cal State-Northridge system was installed as part of a reconstruction and retrofitting project following a major earthquake.61 Findings: Interior Features Although they are not the major focal points of this study, several environmen- tal factors also may contribute to facility use by creating a comfortable, pleasing setting. The authors asked respondents to indicate what floor coverings, floor col- ors, and wall colors were used in both the preproject library and the current facility. In addition, they were asked about the presence of artwork in public areas in both the old and current libraries. The findings in this section are indica- tors of current trends in library interior design. They also may be factors subtly encouraging people to use or avoid par- ticular library facilities. Floor Cover One of the more dramatic changes found in the study was the shift from harder (tile, wood) floor surfaces to softer, car- pet coverings. Of the responding librar- ies, 35.6 percent had hard floor surfaces in the preproject library, but 86.5 percent of them installed a carpeted (or predominantly carpeted) surface in the postproject library. Although the trend toward carpeted surfaces is unmistakable, it is not an en- tirely unmixed blessing. Carpeted sur- faces are easier on staff and user legs, and provide some noise absorption, but are more difficult to maintain and may har- bor disease-bearing microbes. However, softer carpeted surfaces are the clearly the preferred choice of architects and librar- ians today. Floor Color The choice of floor color has both archi- tectural and behavioral implications for academic library facilities. As table 6 il- lustrates, many institutions moved in a different visual direction when planning library facility improvements. The significant increases in blue and green floors are indicative of a growing preference for soft, “cool,” timeless colors in a learning envi- ronment. In contrast, orange and yellow have clearly fallen from favor as dated, 1970s colors. Brown earth tones have also diminished in popularity, although not as dramatically as orange and yellow. Beige, gray, and multicolored coverings have re- mained popular choices, with the latter also appealing to many institutions for its concealment of dirt. Somewhat surpris- ingly, given the overall tendency away from bright, “hot” colors, red floorings have increased in popularity. Wall Color Before-and-after changes in wall color selection were minimal, in contrast with the floor color findings. Of the respond- ing libraries, 46.3 percent reported hav- ing white walls after the project, com- pared with 45.2 percent in the preproject library. The percentage selecting beige as their wall color increased from 24.8 to 32.5 percent. Multicolored and gray walls were reported for 6.3 percent of the re- sponding libraries. No other color ac- counted for more than 2.5 percent of the postproject wall colors. Well-selected color schemes can create architecturally interesting spaces without detracting from the research and study en- vironment. The University of Maryland Health Sciences & Human Services Library has eight wall colors, including a dramatic, two-story, red wall opposite the circulation counter in its entrance atrium. Cooler col- ors are used in patron seating areas. How- ever, this facility is an exception from the general tendency to use one or two nondistracting colors on wall surfaces. Whereas floor color selections changed significantly, the postproject distribution of wall color choices was remarkably Creating a Better Place 457 similar to the preproject distri- bution. Clearly, there is an ongo- ing preference for neutral col- oration in library interior walls. Artwork The presence of artwork in the li- brary facility is a potentially wel- coming feature. Because 68.4 per- cent of the preproject librar- ies already dis- played artwork on their walls, the presence of art- work in 81.9 per- cent of the postproject libraries was not a major departure from preproject ambience features. It appears that the use of artwork to improve the library environment has long been part of academic libraries’ deco- rative agenda and continues to be so. Findings: Nonlibrary Facilities As noted in table 1, new, separate, stand- alone libraries comprise less than 30 per- cent of the survey population. Multipur- pose facilities are becoming increasingly popular as a means for institutional cost containment, and they may create strate- gic partnerships benefiting both library and the nonlibrary organizations.62 In other instances, inclusion of the library in a multipurpose facility may be the only politically viable strategy for securing institutional commitment toward a ma- jor facility enhancement. However, even libraries defined by their directors as stand-alone facilities often in- clude nonlibrary components within the building. A comparison of figures 12 and 13 confirms the increasing presence of nonlibrary facilities in postproject libraries. Nonlibrary facilities were hardly un- usual in the preproject libraries, with con- ference rooms and general computer labs found most commonly. However, closer inspection of figures 12 and 13 reveals two major trends. First, the presence of every type of nonlibrary facility listed above not only in- creased but also doubled or nearly doubled in postproject libraries. Second, the percentage of libraries providing food and drink service (cafe or snack bar) more than quadrupled. Although they are found increasingly in library facilities, snack bars and cyber cafes are still a controversial issue for some academic librarians. Its supporters perceive the inclusion of a food and drink service as a step toward providing a wel- coming environment for sustained use. They note that major bookstores have cre- ated a more congenial environment by providing coffee and solid refreshments. Its detractors view the snack bar or cyber cafe as a threat toward preservation of li- brary materials and the maintenance of a reasonably quiet atmosphere. The growing presence of nonlibrary fa- cilities within the library shell is not sur- prising. The investigators expected to find significant increases in the presence of snack bars, computer labs, and multime- dia production centers. However, the pres- TABLE 6 Primary Library Floor Colors, before and after Project Completion Color Preproject Postproject Preproject Postproject Number Number Percentage Percentage Beige 23 23 15.2 14.1 Blue 19 37 12.6 22.7 Brown 21 12 13.9 7.4 Gold 3 0 2.0 0.0 Gray 25 27 16.6 16.6 Green 16 28 10.6 17.2 Multi-Colored 20 23 13.2 14.1 Orange 12 0 7.9 0.0 Purple 0 3 0.0 1.8 Red 4 9 2.6 5.5 White 3 1 2.0 0.6 Yellow 5 0 3.3 0.0 Total 151 163 99.9 100.0 *Note: Percentages do not equal 100.0% due to rounding. 458 College & Research Libraries November 2003 ence of art galleries, auditoriums, or educational technology centers in more than 20 percent of the postproject libraries was not anticipated. The abundance of postproject libraries housing classrooms, seminar rooms, and writing labs also is impressive. The trend toward inclusion of nonlibrary facilities within the building has changed the character of the postproject library in signifi- cant ways. Rather than having a few nonlibrary units occasionally occupying space in the building, the physical library is becoming the home base for a wide va- riety of operations. As such, it is becom- ing a more complex facility, one that both attracts students for multiple purposes and may assume additional responsibilities to accommodate nonlibrary services. Clearly, the inclusion of nonlibrary facilities is be- coming a standard feature of recently im- FIGURE 12 Percentage of Libraries Containing Specific Nonlibrary Facilities before Project Completion FIGURE 13 Percentage of Libraries Containing Specific Nonlibrary Facilities after Project Completion (n = 173) Creating a Better Place 459 proved libraries. The true stand-alone li- brary is fading from the scene as new fa- cilities are erected and older ones are ex- panded, renovated, and reconfigured. Findings: Facility Quality A final set of questions addressed facility quality and “owner” (i.e., librarian) sat- isfaction with libraries before and after project completion. The responses to these questions were expected to indicate the degree of facility improvement resulting from the project. The investigators also expected to identify areas where archi- tects had been most successful and least successful in improving facility quality. Tables 7 and 8 report librarian assess- ments of both overall facility quality and the quality of specific features most asso- ciated with user satisfaction. As shown in table 7, preproject dissatisfaction was clearly greatest with library instruction labs and heating, ventilation, and air con- ditioning (HVAC) systems, with respec- tive “poor” ratings of 58.7 and 52.1 per- cent for those facilities. More than 40 per- cent of the respondents also rated collec- tion storage, telecommunication systems, user seating, and natural lighting as “poor.” Survey participants reported the least degree of dissatisfaction with the location of service points, with 22 percent actually regarding them as “very good.” However, the preponderance of “poor” and “fair” ratings indicates that these fa- cility features were seriously deficient in most preproject libraries. How well did the architects, contractors, and librarians succeed in delivering an improved facility? Table 8 indicates that they were most successful in addressing user seating, public access workstation, and telecommunication needs, with each of these factors receiving “excellent” rat- ings from more than 60 percent of the re- spondents. Instruction lab solutions also were well received, with 87.8 percent of the participants rating this teaching facil- ity as either “excellent” or “very good.” More than 50 percent of the responses also indicated that natural lighting (59.3%) and collection storage results were “excellent.” Consistent with researcher expecta- tions, the facility planners were least suc- cessful in providing a suitable HVAC sys- tem. Although virtually no respondents (0.6%) rated their HVAC systems as “ex- cellent” before the project, only 26.9 per- cent gave this rating to the heating and air system after the project was com- pleted. Also, respondents gave their postproject HVAC systems the highest percentage of “good” (27.5%) and “fair” (9.6%) ratings among the ten variables. TABLE 7 Preproject Quality of Library Facility (N range = 143�163) Preproject Quality Response Percentage of Library Facility Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor Layout/ease of navigation 2.5% 11.0% 19.0% 29.4% 38.0% Location service points 3.1% 22.0% 28.9% 28.9% 17.0% Instruction lab/e-classroom 2.8% 4.9% 9.8% 23.8% 58.7% User seating/work space 2.5% 3.1% 16.6% 33.7% 44.2% Collection storage 1.2% 5.5% 13.4% 30.5% 49.4% Public access workstations 1.9% 4.3% 18.5% 38.3% 37.0% Telecommunications 1.9% 6.8% 13.6% 30.9% 46.9% Artificial light 2.5% 5.5% 19.0% 42.9% 30.1% Natural light 3.7% 10.5% 20.4% 24.1% 41.4% HVAC 0.6% 1.2% 19.0% 27.0% 52.1% Overall ambience 2.5% 1.2% 18.0% 34.2% 44.1% *Note: Percentages in rows may not equal 100.0% due to rounding. 460 College & Research Libraries November 2003 Although the quality of HVAC systems was clearly improved after the project was done, the level of postproject satisfaction fell well below that found for the other variables reported. Survey respondents also assessed the overall ambience of their facilities both be- fore project implementation and after facil- ity improvements were completed. Of the participants, 78.3 percent regarded their preproject facility ambience as either “fair” or “poor,” compared to only 3.7 percent who gave it a rating of “very good” or “ex- cellent.” Clearly, these facilities were in need of major environmental improvement as well as space and technology enhancement. In contrast, respondent assessments of the postproject library ambience were consistently positive, with 70.4 percent assigning an “excellent” rating and 94.7 percent considering the facility ambience either “excellent” or “very good.” Signifi- cantly, no respondents rated their postproject facility ambience as either “fair” or “poor.” As a result, despite HVAC shortcomings, the respondents appeared sat- isfied that their facility planning efforts had created a more comfortable, functional, user- friendly environment. This is a significant finding because some respondents in a 182-respondent survey would normally be expected to express dissatisfaction with project results. As a result of this finding, it appears reasonable to conclude that the building projects covered in this study were success- ful in producing learning environments meeting or exceeding librarian expecta- tions. The high frequency of “excellent” and “very good” ambience ratings indi- cates that the projects did make a major difference in library facility quality. It is statistically improbable that this pattern of responses could occur by chance. Study Findings and Significance Despite differences in institutional set- ting, project type, and project scale, it is possible to discern several important trends and directions in academic library facility improvements during the 1995– 2002 period. Major Conclusions First, contrary to the views of some pes- simists, academic library building activ- ity has not diminished in recent years. In fact, the pattern of activity was remark- ably stable during the study period, with identified activity reaching its highest point in 2002. The most common project types were new facilities (43.1%, including 13.3% in multipurpose buildings) and addition/ renovation projects (42.0%). Addition- only and renovation-only projects were TABLE 8 Post-Project Facility Quality (N range = 164�169) Preproject Quality Response Percentage of Library Facility Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor Layout/ease of navigation 43.8% 37.3% 17.8% 1.2% 0.0% Location service points 47.9% 40.2% 10.1% 1.8% 0.0% Instruction lab/e-classroom 57.9% 29.9% 8.5% 3.0% 0.6% User seating/work space 68.6% 23.1% 5.9% 2.4% 0.0% Collection storage 51.5% 24.0% 18.6% 4.8% 1.2% Public access workstations 65.7% 26.0% 7.7% 0.6% 0.0% Telecommunications 60.4% 32.5% 5.9% 1.2% 0.0% Artificial light 43.8% 33.7% 18.9% 2.4% 1.2% Natural light 59.3% 24.6% 13.2% 1.2% 1.8% HVAC 26.9% 34.7% 27.5% 9.6% 1.2% Overall ambience 70.4% 24.3% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% *Note: Percentages in rows may not equal 100.0% due to rounding. Creating a Better Place 461 less frequent. Also, the University of Maryland and several other institutions have “re-purposed” existing facilities to permit new uses. Despite some writers’ contentions that space requirements have diminished, the size of improved library facilities has increased in all cases except renovations, with doubling or tripling of existing building size common in many smaller institutions. There were more significant facility projects, in relation to institutional popu- lation size, in public institutions than in private institutions. Projects were com- pleted more often in doctoral/research and master ’s institutions than in bacca- laureate and associate degree colleges. Although the number of libraries in multipurpose facilities did not increase, the presence of special facilities increased dramatically in the postproject libraries. More than one-half of the 182 respond- ing libraries reported having conference rooms, general computer labs, and semi- nar rooms following project completion. The greatest type of facility increase was found for cafes or snack bars. All twelve types of special facility occurred with greater frequency in the postproject li- brary than the preproject building. Major technology upgrades were implemented in most building projects. Most libraries reported using UTP cat- egory 5, category 6, or fiber-optic wiring to the desktop. Of the responding libraries, 51.7 per- cent had 250 or more data ports follow- ing project completion. The number of public access workstations increased sig- nificantly, as did the number of comput- ers in library instruction labs. Wireless network access, available in only seven percent of the preproject libraries, was found in 52.6 percent of these facilities after project completion. The responding libraries reported sig- nificant advances in the number and type of user spaces. The amount of general user seating was increased in all types of li- braries, and major investments in group study rooms were made. Nearly three- quarters of the participating libraries lacked any wired seating for users before facility improvement. After project completion, more than 59 percent of these libraries provided wired network access from at least one-quarter of their user seats and 12.3 percent delivered wired access at 100 percent of all seating Similar advances were made in the provision of wireless network access, al- though this option became viable prima- rily in the latter years of the study period. More libraries (24.6%) delivered wireless than wired access to all seats following project completion, although wireless penetration diminished sharply among libraries providing network access at less than 100 percent of their seating spaces. Provisions for print collection growth varied significantly, with some libraries securing more than thirty years of growth capacity and others already facing shelf space crises. Compact shelving was used extensively to increase the on-site collec- tion capacity of existing buildings. It also has been used increasingly as an integral part of new and expanded facility plans to stretch shelf capacity within a finite space, thereby freeing valuable library space for other uses. Off-site storage was used by 27.3 percent of the responding libraries. Architects and librarians have demon- strated a clear preference for softer, car- peted floor surfaces in the improved li- braries, with softer, “cool” colors sup- planting orange and earth tones as the predominant carpet colors. Wall colors were generally neutral, with white and beige emerging as the colors of choice. Overall facility quality was improved profoundly in all types of library projects. Prior to project completion, none of the eleven building features selected to indi- cate facility quality received “excellent” ratings from more than 3.7 percent of the respondents. With the exception of HVAC systems (26.9%), no facility quality ele- ment received an “excellent” rating lower than 43.8 percent in the postproject librar- ies. The “excellent” ratings for overall ambience improved from 2.5 to 70.4 per- cent after the building was done. Clearly, 462 College & Research Libraries November 2003 facility quality has improved profoundly in the participating libraries. Significance of Findings Where significant library building projects have been completed, students, faculty members, and librarians have experienced a very different postproject building. The finished facilities are generally larger, have greater seating and collection storage ca- pacities, provide a greater number of com- puters for end users, allow for collabora- tive learning in dedicated rooms, contain instruction labs with hands-on learning resources, and provide network access (wired and/or wireless) at many or all public seating locations. The majority of them include special facilities (computer labs, snack bars, multimedia production centers, etc.) that enable a greater range of activities to occur under the library’s roof and/or provide increased user comfort and convenience. These facilities also provide a vastly improved ambience that encourages use, rather than avoidance, of the library building. They still are located near other academic facilities and along major pedes- trian traffic routes. In many cases, they have become showpiece facilities for their parent institutions. Often they have made the library an on-campus leader in tech- nology implementation. In most cases, they have provided a technologically ad- vanced learning environment where print, nonprint, and electronic resources can be used simultaneously for individual or group research at multiple locations throughout the building. The ultimate test for these facilities, of course, is the amount and type of usage they are receiving. Usage findings from this study will be reported in the com- panion article. However, it is clear that most libraries included in this survey have created a different type of facility, one clearly identifiable as a library while also infusing new technology and user requirements into a physical setting. These “hybrid print/electronic libraries” are positioned to address evolving teach- ing and learning needs well into the fu- ture. Although usage ultimately reflects many factors, including library service quality and curricular change, a robust physical facility provides a platform from which libraries have the opportunity to remain vital, pivotal participants in the academic enterprise. Implications for Further Research Academic libraries are complex social in- stitutions with an evolving educational mission. The full range of their activities and impact is not always grasped by other members of the academic community— or sometimes by librarians themselves. There is considerable interest in the “library as place” among academic librar- ians today. Recent CLIR/DLF and OCLC studies have focused on changes in infor- mation-seeking behaviors within the aca- demic community. Librarians are becom- ing increasingly aware of the Pew Internet & American Life Project’s ongoing series of reports on many facets of Internet use. Nicholas C. Burckel is studying the im- pact of digital technologies on library buildings.63 Working with a CLIR grant, Scott Bennett has surveyed directors of libraries completing recent projects to identify patterns in space-planning prac- tices.64 At present, there are abundant oppor- tunities for research about academic li- brary buildings and their users. Librar- ians need to know more about space needs for current and emergent technolo- gies. Greater knowledge is needed about the actual use of various types of space within both older and newer libraries. Postoccupancy assessment studies are desirable to identify patterns of building success and failure, including the obso- lescence of certain facilities. The building component needs to be factored more actively into studies of stu- dent information seeking. Patterns of fa- cility use and nonuse across disciplinary lines need to be identified. Student, fac- ulty, and administrator perceptions of li- brary facilities need to be better under- stood. The “politics of the building pro- cess” requires greater attention. Studies Creating a Better Place 463 comparing library facility use with stu- dent use of other “places” (residence halls, classrooms, student unions, book- stores, coffee bars) will provide greater understanding of user choices and con- tribute to user-sensitive facility planning. This article should contribute to exist- ing knowledge about “the library as place” and to the planning of successful facilities. By identifying the types of li- braries built between 1995 and 2002, it provides valid, empirical evidence of academia-wide activity patterns in an area where systematic knowledge has been lacking. By providing such evidence, it helps advance research and discussion about the physical library, both present and future, beyond the realm of anecdote and speculation. This article also should have a practical benefit, assisting librar- ians and facility planners to plan new and improved academic libraries with system- atic knowledge of the initiatives under- taken since 1994. Paired with the forthcoming, compan- ion article comparing usage patterns in pre- and postproject libraries, this article also should contribute to a broader un- derstanding of physical spaces on cam- pus in a technological age. Administra- tors and librarians face difficult choices among legitimate competing interests in the years ahead. The findings from this study should contribute toward the selec- tion of choices enhancing student learn- ing experiences in an uncertain future. Notes 1. Robert F. Munn introduced the term bottomless pit several decades ago to describe many administrators’ perceptions that the library was an insatiable source of growing resource de- mands because librarians were unable to place any limits on their collection needs; see Munn, “The Bottomless Pit, or the Academic Library as Viewed from the Administration Building,” College & Research Libraries 29 (Jan. 1968): 51–54. See also Larry Hardesty, “The Bottomless Pit Revisited,” College & Research Libraries 52 (May 1991): 219–30, for confirmation that many aca- demic administrators still regarded the library as a source of unreasonable demands even before the 1990s upsurge in technology expenditures. 2. Florence Olsen, “Colleges Expect to Increase Information–Technology Spending by 5%,” Chronicle of Higher Education (Mar. 26, 2003): Electronic edition. Available online from http:// chronicle.com/free/2003/03/2003032601t.htm. [Cited 25 June 2003.] 3. For a discussion of technological and comfort improvements in student residences, see Scott Baltic, “Designer Dorms,” University Business 4 (Sept. 2001): 34–41: 70–71. 4. Scott Carlson, “Colleges Struggle with a 60’s Legacy: Ugly, Wasteful, and Outdated Build- ings,” Chronicle of Higher Education 47 (Aug. 17, 2001): A23–A25. 5. See Walter A. Brown and Cayo Gamber, Cost Containment in Higher Education: Issues and Recommendations, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 28, no. 5 (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 2002), 50–55, for a discussion of deferred maintenance issues and options. 6. Jeffrey Selingo, “The Disappearing State in Public Higher Education,” Chronicle of Higher Education 49 (Feb. 28, 2003): A22–A25. 7. Statement made by Gene Levy, provost of Rice University, in presentation, “Provosts’ Perspective on Library Architecture,” 3rd ARL/OCLC Strategic Issues Forum, Future Library Architecture: Conception, Design and Use of Library Space, Las Vegas, Nev., Feb. 16, 2002. 8. Leonard Kniffel, “Cal State U. Freezes Construction to Ponder ‘Virtual Library,’” American Libraries 24 (Sept. 1993): 692, 694. 9. Jean Seligman, “Jarvis Keeps Battling Taxes,” Newsweek, 5 Oct. 1981, p. 12B. [Cited 27 June 2003 on Lexis-Nexis™.] 10. David L. Wilson, “New California State Campus Has Ambitious Plans for Technology,” Chronicle of Higher Education 43 (Oct. 18, 1996): A23–A24. For further information on the reversal of this decision and subsequent development of the CSUMB libraries, see John Ober, “Library Services at California State University, Monterey Bay,” in Building Libraries for the 21st Century: The Shape of Information, ed. T. D. Webb (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2000): 122–37. 11. Bill Robnett, “Re: Study of Facility Quality and Academic Library Usage,” e-mail to Harold B. Shill, March 4, 2003. 12. Steve Jones, et al., “The Internet Goes to College: How Students Are Living the Future with Today’s Technology.” September 15, 2002. [Cited 17 September 2002.] Available online from http://www.pewinternet.org. 464 College & Research Libraries November 2003 13. Stephen Merritt, “The Millenials: A Perspective on America’s Next Generation and Their Impact on Higher Education,” Associated College Libraries of Central Pennsylvania Fall Confer- ence, Harrisburg, Pa., October 18, 2002. 14. The 1995–2001 trend data were extracted from a table showing 1986–2001 ARL library usage data in ARL Statistics, 2000–01, comp. and ed. Martha Kyrillidou and Mark Young (Wash- ington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 2002), 7. 15. American Association of Health Sciences Libraries, Annual Statistics of Medical School Li- braries in the United States and Canada, 2000–01, 24th ed. (Seattle: AAHSL, 2002), xxiv. 16. Donald E. Riggs, “New Libraries Remain an Excellent Investment,” College & Research Libraries 63 (Mar. 2002): 109. 17. Scott Carlson, “The Deserted Library,” Chronicle of Higher Education 48 (Nov. 16, 2001): A35–A38. 18. Jeff Morris, “The College Library in the New Age,” University Business 5 (Oct. 2002): 26– 29, contains a panel discussion of the diverse social roles occupied by new and renovated librar- ies. A second article, Jeff Morris, “History Meets State of the Art,” University Business 5 (Oct. 2002): 31–35, describes the usage of a new stand-alone library at Illinois Wesleyan University and a science library placed strategically in a larger science center at Williams College. 19. Alice Harrison Bahr, “Library Buildings in a Digital Age, Why Bother?” College & Research Libraries News 61 (July/Aug. 2000): 590–91, 608. 20. “King’s College Library Wins Award,” College & Research Libraries News 59 (Mar. 1998): 150. 21. Dalia Hagan, “Directory of Completed Academic Library Building Projects, 1995–2002,” e-mail to Harold B. Shill, October 9, 2002. 22. Andrew Richard Albanese, “Deserted No More,” Library Journal 128 (Apr. 11, 2003): 34–36. 23. Michael K. Buckland, Book Availability and the Library User (New York: Pergamon, 1975). 24. Allen Kent, Jacob Cohen, et al., Use of Library Materials: The University of Pittsburgh Study (New York and Basel: Marcel Dekker, 1979). 25. Charles B. Osburn, Academic Research and Library Resources: Changing Patterns in America (Westport, Conn., and London: Greenwood Pr., 1979). 26. Ethelene Whitmire, “The Relationship between Undergraduates’ Background Character- istics and College Experiences and Their Academic Library Use,” College & Research Libraries 62 (Nov. 2001): 528–40; ———, “Cultural Diversity and Undergraduates’ Academic Library Use,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 29 (May 2003): 148–61; Ruth C. Shoge, “The Library as Place in the Lives of African Americans,” in Learning to Make a Difference: Proceedings of the Eleventh Na- tional Conference of the Association of College & Research Libraries, April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, N.C., ed. Hugh A. Thompson (Chicago: ACRL, 2003): 161–69. 27. John Lubans Jr., “How First-year University Students Use and Regard Internet Resources” (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Library, April 8, 1998). [Cited 21 February 1999.] Available online from http://www.lubans.org/docs/1styear/firstyear.html. 28. For Internet use patterns among high school students in the 15–17 age group, see Pew Internet & American Life Project, “The Internet and Education: Findings of the Pew Internet and American Life Project,” September 1, 2001. [Cited 15 September 2001.] Available online from http://www.pewinternet.org. See Jones, et al, “The Internet Goes to College,” for 2002 data on technology adoption by college students. 29. Cynthia Gal, et al., “Territoriality and the Use of Library Study Tables,” Perceptual and Motor Skills 63 (1986): 567–74; Paul W. Grimes and Marybeth F. Charters, “Library Use and the Undergraduate Economics Student,” College Student Journal 34 (Dec. 2000): 557–70; Joy K. Pothoff, et al., “An Evaluation of Patron Perceptions of Library Space Using the Role Repertory Grid Procedure,” College & Research Libraries 61 (May 2000): 191–203; Lemuel W. Wilson, “How Do Students’ Perceptions of Their Library Usage Influence Their Educational Outcomes?” College Student Journal 35 (Sept. 2001): 366–72. 30. Roberto Delgadillo and Beverly P. Lynch, “Future Historians: Their Quest for Informa- tion,” College & Research Libraries 60 (May 1999): 245–60. 31. Virginia E. Young, “Can We Encourage Learning by Shaping Environment? Patterns of Seating Behavior in Undergraduates,” pp. 161–69 in Learning to Make a Difference: Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference of the Association of College & Research Libraries, April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, N.C., ed. Hugh A. Thompson (Chicago: ACRL, 2003). 32. Juris Dilevko and Lisa Gottlieb, “Print Resources in an Electronic Age: A Vital Part of the Research Process for Undergraduate Students,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 28 (Nov. 2002): 381–92. 33. Philip M. Davis, “The Effect of the Web on Undergraduate Citation Behavior,” College & Research Libraries 63 (Jan. 2000): 53–60; Deborah J. Grimes and Carl H. Boening, “Worries with the Web: A Look at Student Use of Web Resources,” College & Research Libraries 62 (Jan. 2001): 11–24; Creating a Better Place 465 Xue-Ming Bao, “A Comparative Study of Library Surveys of Internet Users at Seton Hall Univer- sity in 1998 and 2001,” College & Research Libraries 63 (May 2002): 251–59. 34. Terrence F. Mech and Charles I. Brooks, “Anxiety and Confidence in Using a Library by College Freshmen and Seniors,” Psychological Reports 81 (Dec. 1997): 929–30; see also Anthony J. Ongwuegbuzie and Qun G. Jiao, “I’ll Go to the Library Later: The Relationship between Aca- demic Procrastination and Library Anxiety,” College & Research Libraries 61 (Jan. 2000): 45–54. 35. Amy Friedlander, Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment: Introduction to a Data Set (Washington, D.C.: Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Informa- tion Resources, 2002). A shorter summary of major study findings is available in Daniel Greenstein and Leigh Watson Healey, “National Survey Documents Effects of Internet Use on Libraries,” CLIR Issues, no. 27 (May/June 2002). [Cited 5 May 2003.] Available online from www.clir.org/ pubs/issues/issues27.html. 36. Leigh Watson Healy, “The Voice of the User: Where Students and Faculty Go for Informa- tion,” EduCause 2002 Conference, Atlanta, Oct. 2, 2002. 37. OCLC, “How Academic Librarians Can Influence Students’ Web-based Information Choices,” OCLC white paper on the information habits of college students (Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, 2002). [Cited 6 July 2003.] Available online from http://www2.oclc.org/oclc/pdf/ printondemand/informationhabits.pdf. 38. See, for example, Elizabeth Chamberlain Habich, Moving Library Collections: A Manage- ment Handbook (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1998); Carol R. Brown, Interior Design for Librar- ies: Drawing on Function and Appeal (Chicago and London: ALA, 2002); Jeannette Woodward, Countdown to a New Library: Managing the Building Project (Chicago and London: ALA, 2000). 39. Richard J. Bazillion and Connie L. Braun, Academic Libraries as High-tech Gateways: A Guide to Design and Space Decisions, 2nd ed. (Chicago and London: ALA, 2001). The second edition of this work substantially updates the similarly excellent first edition of the same title published by ALA in 1995. 40. Michael J. Crosbie and Damon D. Hickey, When Change Is Set in Stone: An Analysis of Seven Academic Libraries Designed by Perry Dean Rogers & Partners, Architects (Chicago: ACRL, 2001). 41. Philip D. Leighton and David C. Weber, Planning Academic and Research Library Buildings, 3rd ed. (Chicago: ALA, 2000). 42. William W. Sannwald, Checklist of Library Building Design Considerations, 4th ed. (Chicago and London: ALA, 2001). 43. The two most recent annual compilations are Bette-Lee Fox, “The Building Buck Doesn’t Stop Here,” Library Journal 127 (Dec. 2002): 42–55, and “Building for the Future,” American Librar- ies 34 (Apr. 2003): 40–62. 44. Dennis C. James and Sharon L. Stewart, “Library Design Analysis Using Post-occupancy Evaluation Methods,” Science & Technology Libraries 15 (1995): 3–15. 45. Anita Lowry, “The Information Arcade at the University of Iowa,” CAUSE/EFFECT 17 (Fall 1994): 38–44; Donald Beagle, “Conceptualizing an Information Commons,” Journal of Aca- demic Librarianship 25 (March 1999): 82–89; Allison Cowgill, Joan Beam, and Lindsey Wess, “Imple- menting an Information Commons in a University Library,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 27 (Nov. 2001): 432–39; Russell Bailey and Barbara Tierney, “Information Commons Redux: Con- cept, Evolution, and Transcending the Tragedy of the Commons,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 28 (Sept. 2002): 277–86; Donald Beagle, “Extending the Information Commons: From Instruc- tional Testbed to Internet2,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 28 (Sept. 2002): 287–96. 46. Library Buildings, Equipment and the ADA: Compliance Issues and Solutions (Chicago: ALA, 1996). 47. Shelley Heaton and Kenneth E. Marks, “Planning the UNLV Lied Library,” Library Hi Tech 20 (2002): 12–20; Myoung-ja Lee Kwon and Kenneth E. Marks, “Construction of the Lied Li- brary,” Library Hi Tech 20 (2002): 21–32; Jason Vaughan, “Preparing for Technology: Systems Plan- ning and Implementation in Lied Library,” Library Hi Tech 20 (2002): 33–46; Richard J. Bazillion, “The Wisdom of Hindsight: A New Library One Year Later,” American Libraries 32 (Apr. 2001): 72–74; Frieda O. Weise and M. J. Tooey, “The Health Sciences and Human Services Library: This Is One Sweet Library,” Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 87 (Apr. 1999): 170–77; Jeannette Woodward, “The Tale of the Terribly High-tech Library Building,” American Libraries 26 (Apr. 1995): 308–10; Ronald Litke, “Building a Dream,” University Business 2 (Nov. 1999): 38–45. 48. See, for example, Drew Harrington, “Six Trends in Library Design,” Library Journal (Dec. 2001): 12–14 (Buyer’s Guide Issue); Jeffrey Scherer, “Light and Libraries,” Library Hi Tech 17 (1999): 358–71; Richard Boss, “Facilities Planning for Technology,” Library Technology Reports 31 (July/ Aug. 1995): 389–483; Lamar L. Veatch, “Toward the Environmental Design of Library Buildings,” Library Trends 36 (1987): 361–76; Denelle Wrightson and John M. Wrightson, “Acoustical Consid- erations in Planning and Design of Library Buildings,” Library Hi Tech 17 (1999): 349–57. 49. F. W. Lancaster, Toward Paperless Information Systems (New York: Academic Pr., 1978). 466 College & Research Libraries November 2003 50. C. William Day, “The Library of the Future,” American School & University (Sept. 1998): 48– 49. 51. Laverna Saunders, “The Virtual Library Today,” Library Administration and Management 6 (spring 1992): 66–70. 52. Walt Crawford and Michael Gorman, Future Libraries: Dreams, Madness & Reality (Chicago and London: ALA, 1995); Crawford, “Paper Persists: Why Physical Library Collections Still Mat- ter,” Online 22 (Jan. /Feb. 1998): 42–48; ———, “Library Space: The Next Frontier,” Online 23 (Mar./Apr. 1999): 61–62+; ———, Being Analog: Creating Tomorrow’s Libraries (Chicago and Lon- don: ALA, 1999); Gorman, Our Enduring Values: Librarianship in the 21st Century (Chicago and London: ALA, 2000). 53. Neil Gershenfeld, When Things Start to Think (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1999). 54. Sam Demas and Jeffrey Scherer, “Esprit de Place,” American Libraries 33 (Apr. 2002): 65–69. 55. Fox, “The Building Buck Doesn’t Stop Here,” 42–55. 56. Comprehensive Carnegie classification listings are available online at the Carnegie Foun- dation for the Advancement of Teaching Web site, http://www.carnegiefoundation.org. 57. This issue is discussed at length in Charles W. Bailey Jr., “Brick, Bytes or Both? The Prob- able Impact of Scholarly Electronic Publishing on Library Space Needs,” in Information Imagineering: Meeting at the Interface, ed. Milton T. Wolf, Pat Ensor, and Mary Augusta Thomas (Chicago and London: ALA, 1998): 89–99. 58. The Pennsylvania State University, Faculty Advisory Committee on Academic Comput- ing, FACAC Student Survey 2002 (University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University, 2002). 59. For further discussion, see Mary Augusta Thomas, “Redefining Library Space: Managing the Co-existence of Books, Computers and Readers,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (Nov. 2000): 408–15. 60. The large-scale cancellation project at Drexel University has been observed with consider- able interest by academic librarians. For an initial description of the migration to an “all-elec- tronic collection,” see Carol Hansen Montgomery, “Print to Electronic: Measuring the Opera- tional and Economic Implications of an Electronic Journal Collection,” Learned Publishing 15 (Apr. 2002): 129–36. For an update on that project, see Carol Hansen Montgomery and Donald W. King, “An ‘All’ Electronic Journal Collection in a University Library: Two Years Later,” in Learn- ing to Make a Difference: Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference of the Association of College & Research Libraries, ed. Hugh A. Thompson (Chicago: ACRL, 2003): 116–20. 61. Susan Carol Curzon, “When Disaster Strikes: The Fall and Rise of a Library,” American Libraries 31 (Apr. 2000): 64–69. 62. The political advantages of strategically selected partnerships are considered in Harold B. Shill, “Strategic Positioning and the Building Project: Penn State Harrisburg’s Library of the Fu- ture,” in Racing toward Tomorrow: Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference of the Association of College & Research Libraries, ed. Hugh A. Thompson (Chicago: ACRL, 1999): 370–79. 63. Nicholas C. Burckel, “Library Space in the Digital Age,” Kanazawa Institute of Technol- ogy Roundtable, Kanazawa, Japan, July 3, 2003. 64. Scott Bennett, “Survey of Recent Library Space Planning Practices,” Council on Library and Information Resources, Sept. 2002.