Diane Plastino Graves
I would like to know who made the decision that Mr. Safdie should be the architect and that his design would be approved? There are so many other types of buildings that would reflect the geography and culture of Boise, instead of another glass/steel/concrete building that could be seen in any city in the World. Have you seen the beautiful mass-timbered buildings of late? Spectacular. And how right for the City of Trees--at least we once were that.

How does “humanistic philosophy” in architecture encompass a respect for history and site in the conceptualuzation of any project like the Boise events center/library? If site and history are sacrificed, does a project cease being fundamentally humanist?

I’ve spoken with a number of Boiseans over the past few weeks who’ve told me, “My father (or grandfather or uncle) worked for the CCC in the 1930s in Idaho and liked the place so much he decided to stay”. Several added, “My dad helped build that cabin”. Still others came up to us and said, “When we were elementary school kids who came to Boise on our class tour of the state capital, one of our stops was the state forester’s office in ‘The Cabin,’ where we learned about trees and fire and natural history”. I think there’s a lot of history on that site. Many just don’t know it, or have forgotten it. The proposal for the new library gives us the opportunity to rekindle that conversation.

The other compelling case against moving “The Cabin,” Jared O. and others, is one that isn’t immediately apparent to many newcomers to Boise, of which we have a rapidly increasing amount. There has been a terrific cumulative loss of historic structures in Boise, stretching back decades or longer. We’d be happy to share with you the lengthy, lengthy list of historic buildings that have either been demolished or moved in this city, under a policy that basically says, “Move it ... or lose it!” That’s not an enlightened policy ... certainly not one that a city that claims the mantle of “America’s Most Livable City” can continue to perpetuate. We think it’s time for new thinking and a new approach ... one that respects history and that declines to regard structures of significance to this city’s heritage as merely “inconveniences” to be pushed aside with little regard for impact on Boise’s history. History belongs where it happened. And a city like Boise, that has much less accumulated history than, say, a Boston or a Philadelphia, needs to conserve what it does possess with even greater tenacity than cities blessed with a longer municipal life. Boise can no longer regard its history as an annoyance; it ought to be capitalizing on it as an economic driver. And that starts with “The Cabin” being the “line in the sand.”

Jared O, and others, I understand why you’re “on the fence” about “The Cabin’s” pending move. Let me take a stab at it. First, you really have to believe that history matters ... where it happened ... and that history moved is hustory diminished. “The Cabin” and its site (along with the other log structure on the other end of the 1931 Capitol Boulevard Bridge, which was the Boise CCC District headquarters and is now an Italian restaurant) formed the “cradle of forestry” in Idaho during the New Deal. Forestry was professionalized and 28,000 boys in FDR’s “Tree Army” were managed from these little cabins. When you move historic structures off of historic sites, their “integrity of place” is lost. Henry Ford’s Greenfield Village in Dearborn is full of historic buildings relocated from all across the U.S. Yes, buildings have been kept but context has been sacrificed. What is left is a Disneyland-like “cartoon” of history. Second, there is no compelling reason to move “The Cabin” since it’s not in the footprint of the new library structure or proposed for parking. It could be evicted solely to gain a lawn, a small patio, and a view of the Boise River (presuming trees are cut). A costly move of “The Cabin” takes money away from the budget for a new library and boosts the tab taxpayers will pay. Hardly a good deal. Take a second look.

I believe that “storytelling” starts with the history that’s currently on the property, and which is now proposed for eviction. I’d tell the story of how this site — the two Civilian Conservation Corps structures that “bookend” the 1931 Capitol Boulevard Bridge were where modern forestry in Idaho really began in the New Deal. More thn 28,000 young men came to Idaho in the Depression (more than any other state but California) to enlist in Franklin Roosevelt’s “tree army”. Many of them stayed, and their descendants are still here in Idaho. Many of them toured “The Cabin” in their elementary school days, when it was the home of the Idaho State Forester, where they learned about trees and wood and fire and mountains for nearly 50 years when the state’s forest programs where centered here. I’d tell them that story was, essentially, lost when we wiped “The Cabin” off this place, to become an idle, museum-piece elsewhere that — like so many other Boise historic structures — was divorced from its birthplace. Yes, I would like to see much more storytelling in any new library. It will be the only way we can remember what Boise once possessed, but lacked the foresight to meaningfully preserve.

No

The new design respects neither the Greenbelt not the Boise River. Its massive, overbearing face overwhelms, rather than complements, its southerly riverfront. A south-facing, four-story glass walled-atrium is setting up a huge temperature control problem — in summer, that facade will be broiling (something that most Boiseans understand, but that maybe Massachusetts architects don’t). A plate-glass, walled front opposite a river corridor heavily used by waterfowl and songbirds has the potential to become a “killing machine” for birds, especially considering how the new library’s rooftop gardens will further lure birds and set up the very real possibility of needless bird strikes, subjecting the City of Boise to possible violation of Federal and state wildlife laws when it is possible to re-orient the new structure to diminish or eliminate such a deficiency. Did the architect spend a morning sitting on the front lawn of “The Cabin” studying the heavy movement of geese, ducks, raptors, and songbirds between the river and Julia Davis Park? If so, he would have understood that plate glass facades are going to create problems.

Certainly not the parking. I suppose I might sit on the front lawn every so often and mourn, and wonder why history — in the form of The Cabin — was booted off the property to achieve ... a lawn. And then I would wonder why a historic cabin was exiled from its historic place because it didn’t interfere with either the footprint of the new library or with the limited parking that resulted. Finally, I would ponder why Boise history was scraped off this parcel, just so the City of Boise’s arts and history program could be re-located from City Hall to the new library. I’d consider the irony of that outcome, just like in Vietnam how we onced needed to “destroy the village in order to save it”. Yes, the new library would give me a place to reflect on such inequities.

Given the massiveness of this facility and its “forbidding” nature, I’m likely to stop going to the downtown library and shift to the Collister or Cole/Ustick branches. When I visit a library, I want a library ... not an “interactive meeting place,” “Lens Room,” gift shop, or rooftop mood bar. Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe in libraries, first-and-foremost, as libraries.

I would like to see less. “Less” can sometimes be “more”. First, it’s apparent that this design is less of a library and more of a “social events center” that relegates library functions to the background, almost as an afterthought. Library functions need greater prominence in this structure, not less. As far as the “urban meeting place” and “epicenter of culture” sales pitches for this new design, I thought Boise was supposed to already possess an “urban meeting place”? It’s called JUMP. Have you considered the possibility that two “urban meeting places” (requiring two massive parking structures) may tend to de-market each other? Pity this project wasn’t approached 10 years ago as a “public-private partnership” between the City of Boise and the Simplot Corporation that would have consolidated all of these functions (library, arts, meeting space, etc.) into one really outstanding venue. It’s called “achieving critical mass” and had these projects been approached collectively, instead of “stove-piping” them separately, we might have gotten a single, better facility, at less overall cost, than two duplicative facilities that may wind up consuming valuable downtown space while providing limited services for the average Boise resident. A real missed opportunity.

No

A beautiful, modernist design ... that belongs in Barcelona, Spain, or Abu Dhabi. It’s not a fit with an intermountain city, between foothills and river, whose character and culture are wedded in the Oregon Trail. A contemporary, Prairie School design with Frank Lloyd Wright as its inspiration would have blended better with its environment but still provided inspiration and modernism. A structure that “works” works best when it respects its surroundings, topography, scale, and culture.