by Karen Hollywood
March 10, 2004
I showed my children the front page picture of the paper and told them before I'd read it, "You can tell the guy that designed this doesn't live here." We went on to read it and of course I was right. No one in their right mind would put that much glass in such a windy place-- one flying stick or drive by BB gun (how could some kids resist?) and we have expensive repairs (or must pay for bulletproof glass to begin with?). I noted that there was much glorious light coming into -- oh! nothing! Not the inside of the building, not the library itself, just on the giant display plane. Even though planes are a large part of Ketchikan's history and 'lore', fishing boats are and have always been even more so. Proportions should be switched. So the details of the design are flawed (not sure why, but the inaccuracy offends me), and geting rid of the "warm interior" offends me more. I did not look at the one in Juneau. The "architect's rendition" on the front page of our weekend paper was enough. SOMEONE, PLEASE INVESTIGATE Mr. Jirschele's "Creek" ideas (EXCELLENT, btw), before the city pours way too much of our money into ANOTHER thing we can all do nothing but grumble about.
We supposedly take pride in our old fashioned 'small town' Alaskan First City looks. We left the big glass buildings in the big cities we all came from. I prefer some glass (YES-LIGHT!), but soft warmth over modern (out of place in the neighborhood) facades.
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.