A few years ago, the doughty trustees of the New York Public Library decided they needed an architectural upgrade. So they asked Norman Foster, the renowned British architect, to design a 21st-century interior for one of their iconic Manhattan buildings, one that would be practical, cutting-edge – and cost-saving.

幾年前,紐約公共圖書館(New York Public Library)的理事們做出了一個勇敢的決定,該館的建筑需要升級。于是他們邀請著名英國建筑師諾曼?福斯特(Norman Foster)為這座曼哈頓的標志性大樓設計21世紀風格的內(nèi)部裝飾,同時兼具實用、前衛(wèi)以及節(jié)約成本等特點。

Late last year these $300m-and-rising plans finally went on display – and sparked a bitter fight. Never mind that Foster has proposed removing some of the dark, 19th-century features to create a light and airy vista; what has really sparked controversy is that he wants to remove the old stacks of barely used books from the above-ground areas and put them in underground storage.That would let the library house popular collections from elsewhere in New York (and sell other buildings), as well as creating a café. “We want to use the above-ground areas for people, not book storage,” explains Anthony Marx, head of the NYPL. Or as Foster says: “There is an opportunity to create a major public space for New Yorkers.” The plans horrify some New York grandees. “Do we really want a Starbucks there, instead of books?” asks one big New York philanthropist. Indeed, Michael Kimmelman, the celebrated New York Times architecture critic, recently issued a furious attack on the “celebrity architect”, claiming that his plans were “a cramped, banal pastiche of tiers ... potential Alamo of engineering … a money pit”.
去年年底,這一預算高達3億美元、并且還在追加當中的裝修方案終于出爐,并引發(fā)了激烈爭論。先不談福斯特關(guān)于移除某些色調(diào)偏暗的19世紀風格裝飾,以打造明亮通透效果的提議。真正引發(fā)爭議的是他希望把很少有人翻閱的老舊圖書從地上展區(qū)移走,并放入地下儲藏。此舉可以使圖書館有條件展出來自紐約其他地方的流行藏品(并出售其他大樓),以及開設一家咖啡廳。紐約公共圖書館館長安東尼?馬克斯(Anthony Marx)解釋道:“我們想把地上區(qū)域給人使用,而不是用來儲藏圖書?!被蛉绺K固厮裕骸斑@是一個為紐約人打造一處重要公共空間的機會?!痹摲桨缸屇承┘~約名流驚恐不已。一位著名的紐約慈善家問道:“我們真的想在那里開設一家星巴克(Starbucks),而不是存放圖書嗎?”《紐約時報》(New York Times)的著名建筑評論家邁克爾?基梅爾曼(Michael Kimmelman)近期對有“名人設計師”之稱的福斯特發(fā)起了猛烈攻擊,稱他的方案是“狹隘平庸的臺階大雜燴……可能成為工程領(lǐng)域的阿拉莫(Alamo)之戰(zhàn)……以及一個金錢陷阱”。

But in truth there is far more at stake than just architectural taste. For the key question that men such as Marx are grappling with is this: what on earth is the point of a public library at all these days? Why would anyone really need those physical book stacks – be that in an airy, Foster-designed Manhattan building, an underground warehouse, or anywhere else?
但事實上,受這一方案影響的遠不僅是建筑品味。馬克斯等人正在努力回答的關(guān)鍵問題是:如今公共圖書館的存在意義究竟是什么?為什么還會有人確實需要這些實體書庫,不論它們是放置在由福斯特設計的位于曼哈頓的通透大樓中、地下儲藏室里、或是其他任何地方?

It is a very fraught issue. When the NYPL was first created in 1895, by merging a collection of small private library collections, it seemed obvious why libraries were needed. Books were precious stores of knowledge and entertainment, and it was difficult for academics (or poor people) to get access to them.
這是一個非常難以回答的問題。當紐約公共圖書館靠吸收多家小型私人圖書館的藏書于1895年最初建立時,其創(chuàng)建理由非常顯而易見。圖書是提供知識以及娛樂的寶貴載體,學者(或窮人)很難獲得圖書。

So, in true American style, philanthropists stepped in to support the public good and leave an ego-enhancing legacy. Grandees such as Samuel J. Tilden and John Jacob Astor gave vast sums to New York libraries, while in 1901 Andrew Carnegie donated $5.2m, one of the biggest single donations in history. The tradition continues: in 2008, Stephen Schwarzman, the private equity guru, donated $100m to refurbish the most iconic NYPL building on 42nd Street. That ensures that his name is now attached to the building in perpetuity and inscribed at the base of the pillars (an honour which some New Yorkers think was sold far too cheaply).
因此,按照典型的美國風格,慈善家們登上舞臺為作為公共品的圖書館提供支持,并留下讓他們引以為傲的遺產(chǎn)。薩繆爾?J?蒂爾登(Samuel J. Tilden)以及約翰?雅各布?阿斯特(John Jacob Astor)等名流為紐約的圖書館捐贈了大筆資金。1901年安德魯?卡內(nèi)基(Andrew Carnegie)捐獻了520萬美元,這是歷史上最大的單筆捐贈之一。這種傳統(tǒng)延續(xù)到了現(xiàn)在:2008年,私募股權(quán)大亨史蒂芬?施瓦茨曼(Stephen Schwarzman)捐贈了1000萬美元,用于修葺42號大街上最具標志性的紐約公共圖書館大樓。此舉使他的名字和這座大樓永遠連在了一起,并被鐫刻在大樓廊柱的底座上(某些紐約人認為這一榮譽的售價太低)。

But while men such as Schwarzman might care about the pillars, what is less clear is whether modern citizens really care about those physical books. Library visits and book circulations across the western world have been declining in recent years, as more people turn to ebooks, Wikipedia or Google. The library world is fighting back by installing systems to lend ebooks, give online access to publications, and enable borrowers to get books on delivery. Some of these experiments are increasingly bold – or desperate. This month, for example, a county in Texas decided to create a new library to serve their community – but exclusively online, without any tangible books or buildings at all.

雖然像施瓦茨曼這樣的人或許會關(guān)心柱上留名,但當代公民是否確實關(guān)心這些實體書籍則不甚明了。近年來西方世界的圖書館訪問量以及圖書發(fā)行量持續(xù)下滑,因為越來越多的人轉(zhuǎn)向了電子書、維基百科(Wikipedia)和谷歌(Google)。為對抗這一趨勢,圖書館紛紛開始安裝新系統(tǒng),可以提供電子圖書借閱、在線閱讀出版物以及用郵寄方式將圖書送到借閱人手中等服務。其中某些嘗試正變得越來越大膽——甚至可以說得上是絕望。例如,本月德克薩斯州某縣決定成立一家為自身社區(qū)服務的新圖書館,但服務范圍僅限于線上,沒有任何配套的實體圖書或者建筑。

But this horrifies many academics, publishers and librarians. After all, they argue, ebooks tend to be very impermanent; physical books, by contrast, have historical value. And the sheer act of visiting libraries creates a sense of community. Or as Marx admits: “We are not designed to live alone in caves with computers; we need to get out and meet people.”
單是訪問圖書館的這一行為本身就能讓人產(chǎn)生一種群體歸屬感?;蛘哒珩R克斯所言:“在洞穴中與電腦為伴的孤單生活并不適合我們;我們需要走出門來與人交流?!?/div>

Nevertheless, Marx also knows that the pressures for change are growing. As it happens, his institution is one of the few western libraries where attendance has actually been rising – not falling – with 18.2 million visits last year, up 3.4 per cent from 2010. But it is not necessarily those book stacks that are pulling people in.
但馬克斯也明白,變革的壓力正在日漸增大。而他所在的機構(gòu)恰巧是訪問人次不降反升的少數(shù)幾個西方圖書館之一。去年紐約公共圖書館的訪問人次達到1820萬,較2010年增長了3.4%。但吸引人們到來的原因并不一定是館藏書庫。

On the contrary, the library runs a dizzy array of community projects, commercial events, language training and educational programmes, as well as free internet services and ebook lending programmes. Since 2009, the NYPL has quadrupled its budget for ebooks, and spent $1m on 45,000 ebook copies. Indeed, Marx envisages his library as being akin to a giant cyber educational hub, offering anyone access, anywhere in the world, however poor. “We need to be the leading educational programme, cradle to grave,” he says.
正相反,這家圖書館運營著一系列令人眼花繚亂的社區(qū)項目、商業(yè)活動、語言培訓以及教育項目,并提供免費上網(wǎng)服務以及電子圖書借閱。自2009年以來,紐約公共圖書館用于電子書的預算規(guī)模翻了兩番,斥資100萬美元采購了4.5萬冊電子圖書。按照馬克斯的設想,他的圖書館就像一個龐大的網(wǎng)絡教育中心,能向世界任何角落、不論多么貧窮的人提供書籍。他表示:“我們必須成為領(lǐng)先的教育機構(gòu),滿足個體在從搖籃到墳墓的各個階段對知識的需要?!?/div>

But that, of course, is why Foster’s design is so symbolic – and so controversial. If you believe in Marx’s vision of elearning, cafés and computers make sense; if, however, you want libraries to be reverential museums, they do not. Personally, I think the crucial issue is creating community and egalitarian access to knowledge. But either way, the debate could get very noisy – even amid those solemn, historic book stacks.
而這也正是福斯特的設計如此具有象征意義、并引發(fā)如此巨大爭議的原因。如果你認同馬克斯有關(guān)電子學習的愿景,那么在圖書館內(nèi)設立咖啡廳、擺上電腦就有意義;如果你希望圖書館成為令人心生敬意的博物館,那就沒有這個必要。個人而言,我認為最關(guān)鍵的問題是打造社區(qū)以及獲取知識的平等途徑。但不論何種情況,爭論都會甚囂塵上——即使是在這些莊重而富于歷史感的書庫之間。