The largest climatized reading space(snohetta.com)
snohetta.com
The largest climatized reading space
https://www.snohetta.com/projects/beijing-city-library
86 comments
>> Certainly impressive and cool to look at, but maybe not a place you'd want to live long term
"Say this about absolute monarchies: While living under them is awful (tens if not hundreds of thousands died building St. Petersburg, their bodies laid into the foundation), they do leave behind magnificent cities. Democracies, while far more pleasant, leave behind places like Phoenix."
-- https://slate.com/human-interest/2009/02/how-st-petersburg-c...
"Say this about absolute monarchies: While living under them is awful (tens if not hundreds of thousands died building St. Petersburg, their bodies laid into the foundation), they do leave behind magnificent cities. Democracies, while far more pleasant, leave behind places like Phoenix."
-- https://slate.com/human-interest/2009/02/how-st-petersburg-c...
Intermittently and imperfectly democratic (or at least republican) cities such as Venice, Florence, Milan, and Rome managed to build impressive works. The English monarchs would have loved to be absolute, but didn't ever quite manage it, yet London isn't too shabby.
Slate sounds a bit like Harry Lyme in The Third Man contrasting Switzerland and Florence, anyway.
Slate sounds a bit like Harry Lyme in The Third Man contrasting Switzerland and Florence, anyway.
It struck me that the article was talking about the building a lot, but very little about the books. Thanks for explaining.
Well yeah it's an architecture website.
It's not uncommon in not-china either, public libraries are prestige buildings but it often feels like the purpose of them - books - is lost in favor of the prestige aspect.
I mean I'm only seeing a few images actually showing books, and those are only three shelves tall. I'm also seeing high ceilings, literal hills made out of steps but without any apparent function other than maybe crowd photo ops, and some reading tables.
But the amount of books is about the same as a small local library or bookstore. What happened to the multi-storey repositories? Endless rows of categorised books? I don't get it.
I mean I'm only seeing a few images actually showing books, and those are only three shelves tall. I'm also seeing high ceilings, literal hills made out of steps but without any apparent function other than maybe crowd photo ops, and some reading tables.
But the amount of books is about the same as a small local library or bookstore. What happened to the multi-storey repositories? Endless rows of categorised books? I don't get it.
> only three shelves tall
The trend in modern libraries is for shorter shelves to improve accessibility. Not everyone is 2m tall or can climb steps and ladders.
And it must be acknowledged that physical books are less important than access to knowledge, facilities for study, and librarians to assist. All of those can exist in a comfortable, quiet space with a fast internet connection, a few printers, and lots of invisible but still valuable electronic databases freely available: ProQuest, JSTOR, PubMed, ERIC, etc.
Yes, it's comfy and familiar to those of use who grew up before the internet to wander among the dim stacks of dusty books and take in the aromas, but the real value of a library is the information in whatever form it takes.
The trend in modern libraries is for shorter shelves to improve accessibility. Not everyone is 2m tall or can climb steps and ladders.
And it must be acknowledged that physical books are less important than access to knowledge, facilities for study, and librarians to assist. All of those can exist in a comfortable, quiet space with a fast internet connection, a few printers, and lots of invisible but still valuable electronic databases freely available: ProQuest, JSTOR, PubMed, ERIC, etc.
Yes, it's comfy and familiar to those of use who grew up before the internet to wander among the dim stacks of dusty books and take in the aromas, but the real value of a library is the information in whatever form it takes.
> And it must be acknowledged that physical books are less important than access to knowledge,
I guess that explains why so many libraries are tossing old books, even local history books that have probably never been digitized and will be impossible to replace, while at the same time finding money to have larger computer rooms. Libraries are forgetting their purpose, giving people access to books and other documents should come before more vague missions like "access to knowledge" which gets twisted into meaning something other than books and documents.
Free internet access can be gotten all over the place. I can get online at McDonalds, but I can't get books at McDonalds.
I guess that explains why so many libraries are tossing old books, even local history books that have probably never been digitized and will be impossible to replace, while at the same time finding money to have larger computer rooms. Libraries are forgetting their purpose, giving people access to books and other documents should come before more vague missions like "access to knowledge" which gets twisted into meaning something other than books and documents.
Free internet access can be gotten all over the place. I can get online at McDonalds, but I can't get books at McDonalds.
I doubt librarians would agree. Libraries are a lot older than books. "Access to knowledge" has always been their goal.
My librarian friends spend most of their time playing with relational databases and showing patrons how to use computers.
My librarian friends spend most of their time playing with relational databases and showing patrons how to use computers.
I think a society shouldn't leave the responsibility of giving access to internet to those who don't get that at home (if they have one or even if they have a device) to McDonalds. Let alone a place to work, to sit and read, public lectures, meeting rooms etc. Bookstores serve your vision of a library btw.
I'm certainly not opposed to libraries having free internet access (everyone else does, so they might as well too) but they should remember that their foremost purpose is giving the public access to books. They should let the vague "access to knowledge" talk become an excuse to deemphasize books.
And no, bookstores do not fit my vision of libraries. I specifically mentioned libraries hosting old local history books and other documents. Stuff that is long out of print, many times was never "in print" in the first place. In libraries that haven't suffered the purges as badly you can find things like binders filled with documents that a local history buff a century ago compiled, detailing town history a century before that. What bookstore has such a wealth of information? Once libraries get rid of that stuff, it's usually gone forever.
And no, bookstores do not fit my vision of libraries. I specifically mentioned libraries hosting old local history books and other documents. Stuff that is long out of print, many times was never "in print" in the first place. In libraries that haven't suffered the purges as badly you can find things like binders filled with documents that a local history buff a century ago compiled, detailing town history a century before that. What bookstore has such a wealth of information? Once libraries get rid of that stuff, it's usually gone forever.
It's not just access to the internet. It's access to journals, databases, and other sources that are legitimately costly. Individuals can't even get access to ProQuest, for example, because they sell institutional subscriptions.
I never said anything about throwing out books that haven't been digitized.
And yes, you can get free internet access, but those research databases I mentioned are not free to access. There a millions of "documents", to use your term, already indexed and categorized, with varying quality of searchability.
Let's not skip over the main point I meant to emphasize: librarians. I get why people in tech believe that they have all the tools and skills to do their own research. They don't value librarians for the expertise they have, even though just getting an entry level librarian job requires more education than most programming jobs.
And yes, you can get free internet access, but those research databases I mentioned are not free to access. There a millions of "documents", to use your term, already indexed and categorized, with varying quality of searchability.
Let's not skip over the main point I meant to emphasize: librarians. I get why people in tech believe that they have all the tools and skills to do their own research. They don't value librarians for the expertise they have, even though just getting an entry level librarian job requires more education than most programming jobs.
Potemkin books hahaha now I've heard everything.
Beautiful building.
A large open space with lots of hard materials though, I hope sound isn't an issue. The ceiling looks like it might be sound dampening though?
A large open space with lots of hard materials though, I hope sound isn't an issue. The ceiling looks like it might be sound dampening though?
I don't think you need sound dampening in China to keep people quiet.
How ironic that this is in China where what you are and are not allowed to read is strictly controlled by the government. Indeed, if I posted this comment while in that library, I would very likely be arrested.
It’s been illuminating seeing the hong kong public library « harmonized » after the national security law. No books criticizing the cpp are allowed nowadays.
You won’t find cartoons by Zunzi anymore nor will you find back issues of Apple Daily. The entire political history of hong kong as recorded by published media has been sanitized to ensure that the overly sensitive overlords find nothing that might prick their ego.
So it doesn’t matter if the public library is a nice space with good architecture and a comfortable reading space. If only the official sanctioned viewpoints are available then it fails at the real objective of libraries: To allow people to enrich their mind by giving them multiple viewpoints so that they may forge their own opinions.
You won’t find cartoons by Zunzi anymore nor will you find back issues of Apple Daily. The entire political history of hong kong as recorded by published media has been sanitized to ensure that the overly sensitive overlords find nothing that might prick their ego.
So it doesn’t matter if the public library is a nice space with good architecture and a comfortable reading space. If only the official sanctioned viewpoints are available then it fails at the real objective of libraries: To allow people to enrich their mind by giving them multiple viewpoints so that they may forge their own opinions.
Only the official sanctioned viewpoints are available on all of our current LLM chatbots, and yet we still enjoy them and find use in them.
You could just bring your own book you downloaded with VPN and read it there.
Having a public reading space is always nice
Having a public reading space is always nice
There are lots of books that don't get published in ideologically-controlled Western countries anymore.
For example trying to write a balanced biography of the military leader that got us (Romania) into WW2 [1] alongside the Germans has become next to impossible, you'd risk breaking several anti-genocide laws. That was not the case before our accession into the NATO and EU ideological structures (the mid-2000s).
What's funny is that the one biography of Antonescu [2] that is not entirely about how "he was a very bad genocidaire" has been written by a person of Jewish ethnicity at a very small printing house (almost self-published), I guess the powers that be thought that it would have looked bad were they to go after a Jewish person who had tried to be impartial to Antonescu.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Antonescu
[2] https://www.libris.ro/maresalul-ion-antonescu-o-biografie-te...
For example trying to write a balanced biography of the military leader that got us (Romania) into WW2 [1] alongside the Germans has become next to impossible, you'd risk breaking several anti-genocide laws. That was not the case before our accession into the NATO and EU ideological structures (the mid-2000s).
What's funny is that the one biography of Antonescu [2] that is not entirely about how "he was a very bad genocidaire" has been written by a person of Jewish ethnicity at a very small printing house (almost self-published), I guess the powers that be thought that it would have looked bad were they to go after a Jewish person who had tried to be impartial to Antonescu.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Antonescu
[2] https://www.libris.ro/maresalul-ion-antonescu-o-biografie-te...
That's a little vague. Do you have examples of banned biographies, and the reasons given for the bannings?
The banning happens before anyone gets to publish anything, so, no, I cannot tell you exactly what samizdat copies of Ion Antonescu biographies there are in the wild. What I can link to is stuff like this [1], meaning the US Embassy here in Romania openly and actively calling out several City Halls for still having streets named after Ion Antonescu.
> Several cities and towns still named streets after Ion Antonescu, the Romanian dictator from the Second World War, and some local authorities refused to change the name despite requests from the Wiesel Institute. After the Wiesel Institute repeatedly requested, in February, Constanța City Hall to change the name of Ion Antonescu Street, Constanța Mayor Vergil Chițac stated in the press that the evaluations of Antonescu's activity are controversial and contradictory and the City Hall will consider renaming the street after members of academia review the topic
(via google translate)
Hope that that clears up the "vague" thing.
[1] https://ro.usembassy.gov/ro/romania-raportul-international-p...
> Several cities and towns still named streets after Ion Antonescu, the Romanian dictator from the Second World War, and some local authorities refused to change the name despite requests from the Wiesel Institute. After the Wiesel Institute repeatedly requested, in February, Constanța City Hall to change the name of Ion Antonescu Street, Constanța Mayor Vergil Chițac stated in the press that the evaluations of Antonescu's activity are controversial and contradictory and the City Hall will consider renaming the street after members of academia review the topic
(via google translate)
Hope that that clears up the "vague" thing.
[1] https://ro.usembassy.gov/ro/romania-raportul-international-p...
That is a little clearer, thanks. What I'm still unsure about is why those places would want to keep their streets named after him. Are the populace proud of him, and why?
I would be resistant to change if a Native American group wanted my home city of Jacksonville to change it's name, because it's named after the perpetrator of atrocities against Native Americans (and also because he apparently never visited the city named after him).
Because there's more to a name than it's namesake. People attach memories and stories and feeling to names. And being told that this all needs to be updated because of bad things in the past by people that don't even live near you will always seem obnoxious.
This makes it sound like I'm against renaming anything, and I'm not. But I don't find it at all surprising when people push back against renaming things or removing monuments due to a reassessment of the past via a modern critical view.
Because there's more to a name than it's namesake. People attach memories and stories and feeling to names. And being told that this all needs to be updated because of bad things in the past by people that don't even live near you will always seem obnoxious.
This makes it sound like I'm against renaming anything, and I'm not. But I don't find it at all surprising when people push back against renaming things or removing monuments due to a reassessment of the past via a modern critical view.
Thanks for chiming in. I do see your point - names have personal meanings that go beyond what they superficially refer to, and having that stripped away feels like an invalidation or a threat to one's identity and experience.
One the other hand I feel like there are some important differences. The Holocaust is still a recent and deep wound in the European psyche, and Antonescu was an enthusiastic and vicious perpetrator of it in Romania. Romania was the only Nazi ally that independently instigated the Holocaust within its borders. Hitler even praised Antonescu for putting in place much more radical policies for eliminating Jews. Anti-semitic policies continued well beyond the end of WW2 - while Germany invested in reparations and remembrance and rebuilding itself as a safe place for Jews to live, Romania was still outlawing Jewish organisations and bargaining with Israel to allow Jewish emigration for cash. There is still a small Jewish community in Romania, but from what I've read they have good reason to feel uncomfortable about expressing their beliefs openly.
The link that paganel provided is a report from the US embassy, advising US government and citizens on the status of religious freedom in Romania. Whilst it does reference specific city halls, it only does so via references to statements from the Wiesel Institute, a public institude established by the Romanian government to study the Holocaust in Romania. As far as I can tell, it's saying "the country's own national institutes having pointed out transgressions of its own constitution regarding religious freedom". This is presumably of interest for people considering tourism, business or diplomatic work in the country.
One the other hand I feel like there are some important differences. The Holocaust is still a recent and deep wound in the European psyche, and Antonescu was an enthusiastic and vicious perpetrator of it in Romania. Romania was the only Nazi ally that independently instigated the Holocaust within its borders. Hitler even praised Antonescu for putting in place much more radical policies for eliminating Jews. Anti-semitic policies continued well beyond the end of WW2 - while Germany invested in reparations and remembrance and rebuilding itself as a safe place for Jews to live, Romania was still outlawing Jewish organisations and bargaining with Israel to allow Jewish emigration for cash. There is still a small Jewish community in Romania, but from what I've read they have good reason to feel uncomfortable about expressing their beliefs openly.
The link that paganel provided is a report from the US embassy, advising US government and citizens on the status of religious freedom in Romania. Whilst it does reference specific city halls, it only does so via references to statements from the Wiesel Institute, a public institude established by the Romanian government to study the Holocaust in Romania. As far as I can tell, it's saying "the country's own national institutes having pointed out transgressions of its own constitution regarding religious freedom". This is presumably of interest for people considering tourism, business or diplomatic work in the country.
> Some of the tentacles of Total Literary Awareness have been unraveled by literary historian Claire Culleton. Delving into the Bureau’s 234-page file on commercial publisher Henry Holt, she uncovers evidence of Hoover’s “custodial relationship” with the pillars of the Cold War book market.
> Holt employees sent the Bureau all manner of literary foreknowledge, from book proposals to page proofs to advance copies—so much material that an editorial staffer wrote Hoover with the news that “I am beginning to feel like a member of the FBI myself.”
> Predictably, Hoover and his ghostwriters were asked to provide blurbs for The Hidden Russia and other anticommunist titles. Just as often, however, the Bureau was granted uncommon rights of pre-refusal. Holt editor Milt Hill, for example, asked FBI contacts for “advice as to whether we should do or not” a McCarthy autobiography, receiving a green light since it “would be a friendly book from a Bureau standpoint.”
> Books less kind to the Bureau were rejected with its help at Holt and other firms. The manuscript of Fred Cook’s muckraking The FBI Nobody Knows, eventually published in 1964, was refused at Random House (home of The FBI Story) after publisher Bennett Cerf shredded professional ethics by forwarding a copy to Hoover.
> Editorial informants such as Cerf, recruited in the wake of the Lowenthal embarrassment, made it practically impossible to criticize the FBI through a major New York publisher without costly delay. With the FBI fed the minutes of editorial board meetings at Time and Life, Fortune and Look, the Reader’s Digest and the Daily Worker, points along the full spectrum of U.S. print culture were opened to Bureau pre-awareness. To adapt Louis Nichols, there was now most always a body poised to throw itself between the presses.
https://theamericanreader.com/total-literary-awareness-how-t...
Of course that all stopped after the 70s/80s, right?
> Holt employees sent the Bureau all manner of literary foreknowledge, from book proposals to page proofs to advance copies—so much material that an editorial staffer wrote Hoover with the news that “I am beginning to feel like a member of the FBI myself.”
> Predictably, Hoover and his ghostwriters were asked to provide blurbs for The Hidden Russia and other anticommunist titles. Just as often, however, the Bureau was granted uncommon rights of pre-refusal. Holt editor Milt Hill, for example, asked FBI contacts for “advice as to whether we should do or not” a McCarthy autobiography, receiving a green light since it “would be a friendly book from a Bureau standpoint.”
> Books less kind to the Bureau were rejected with its help at Holt and other firms. The manuscript of Fred Cook’s muckraking The FBI Nobody Knows, eventually published in 1964, was refused at Random House (home of The FBI Story) after publisher Bennett Cerf shredded professional ethics by forwarding a copy to Hoover.
> Editorial informants such as Cerf, recruited in the wake of the Lowenthal embarrassment, made it practically impossible to criticize the FBI through a major New York publisher without costly delay. With the FBI fed the minutes of editorial board meetings at Time and Life, Fortune and Look, the Reader’s Digest and the Daily Worker, points along the full spectrum of U.S. print culture were opened to Bureau pre-awareness. To adapt Louis Nichols, there was now most always a body poised to throw itself between the presses.
https://theamericanreader.com/total-literary-awareness-how-t...
Of course that all stopped after the 70s/80s, right?
Contrary to popular belief, China does not give a damn about what any random particular individual reads or even writes. It's not exactly an efficient use of resources to jail everyone who says something they find objectionable on the Internet. China's censorship and punishment mostly aims at maintaining the legitimacy of the Communist Party.
> Contrary to popular belief, China does not give a damn about what any random particular individual reads or even writes.
Try to get through Chinese immigration wearing a T-shirt that says "Tienanmen Square 1989" or "Free Tibet" and I'll bet you will find that they care quite a lot.
Try to get through Chinese immigration wearing a T-shirt that says "Tienanmen Square 1989" or "Free Tibet" and I'll bet you will find that they care quite a lot.
Try wearing a shirt with the N-word on it and getting through TSA. Each country has its triggers.
Whilst true, there is a stark difference between stating a fact and using hatespeech.
Definition of "hatespeech" is arbitrary. How are yall not getting this.
"1989 Tiananmen Square" is hatespeech too. It's disrupting harmonious society, harming hardworking people etc..
It's ambiguous. Vague, even. But not arbitrary. For example, it pretty much universally relates to speech that discriminates on the basis of identity factors such as race, religion or sexual orientation. A country cannot categorise "1989 Tiananmen Square" as hatespeech and expect to be taken seriously. What identity group is being hated?
Who gets to decide the difference between facts and hatespeech? A famous meme is citing FBI crime statistics by demographics, which are considered factual information but using them in any argument will have you branded a racist.
If after November, the powers that be decide that "Donald Trump lost the 2020 election" is no longer allowed speech, you're screwed. Especially if you wear it on a T-shirt.
If after November, the powers that be decide that "Donald Trump lost the 2020 election" is no longer allowed speech, you're screwed. Especially if you wear it on a T-shirt.
> FBI crime statistics ... are considered factual information but using them in any argument will have you branded a racist
Are you talking about this kind of thing? https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
Depends how you "use" it, surely. Using it to claim that black people are inherently more violent, or to justify police crackdowns on black neighbourhoods is still racist and is not supported by the fact in itself.
Are you talking about this kind of thing? https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
Depends how you "use" it, surely. Using it to claim that black people are inherently more violent, or to justify police crackdowns on black neighbourhoods is still racist and is not supported by the fact in itself.
[deleted]
There are many facts that you aren't allowed to state in the west, including ones which would likely cause you trouble at TSA.
Could you give examples? I can think of some cases where a controversial interpretation of the evidence will get you in trouble, but not well-established facts in the realm of "this historical event did in fact occur".
If you go back to before Jeffrey Epstein was exposed, you would likely face high level suppression if you made a public accusation of Prince Andrew. Many accusations of sexual assault were suppressed before they became believed during #MeToo. Courtney Love publicly warned about Harvey Weinstein in 2005, implying that his behavior was widely known for decades before he was finally arrested. We can talk about it now, but if a young actress had accused him in 2010, for example, she would have been suppressed.
It's almost certain that there are other things like this going on right now. We just haven't heard about them yet. In other words, within our lifetimes we will almost certainly learn, "In 2024, they did..." and we're not aware of it now.
It's almost certain that there are other things like this going on right now. We just haven't heard about them yet. In other words, within our lifetimes we will almost certainly learn, "In 2024, they did..." and we're not aware of it now.
Well sure, but Prince Andrew conducting sexual abuse isn't currently in the realm of established fact. You and I have our strong suspicions, but he hasn't been convicted of anything and as far as I'm aware the evidence boils down to a few witness statements. The Tiananmen Square massacre is supported by photos, multiple eyewitness accounts from protestors and soldiers, foreign media reports, and even remorseful statements from government officials.
> if a young actress had accused him in 2010, for example, she would have been suppressed
She probably would have worsened her career prospects, which I agree is horrific. It's a testament of how the entertainment industry reinforces patriarchal norms. But it is a far cry from actual suppression. Personalities like David Icke have been lobbing accusations around about the Royal Family for years, publishing books and giving talks. As far as I'm aware he hasn't been imprisioned or censored in the UK for any of that. He's been banned from countries for denying the Holocaust and spreading COVID misinformation, but neither of these are cases of stating well-established facts.
> if a young actress had accused him in 2010, for example, she would have been suppressed
She probably would have worsened her career prospects, which I agree is horrific. It's a testament of how the entertainment industry reinforces patriarchal norms. But it is a far cry from actual suppression. Personalities like David Icke have been lobbing accusations around about the Royal Family for years, publishing books and giving talks. As far as I'm aware he hasn't been imprisioned or censored in the UK for any of that. He's been banned from countries for denying the Holocaust and spreading COVID misinformation, but neither of these are cases of stating well-established facts.
It’s easy enough to make the case for "Tienanmen Square 1989" and "Free Tibet" to be hate speech as well. The people who go around saying that don’t tend to think very highly of the CCP.
The CCP control is strictly about blast radius. Individual citizen in their homes are rarely subject to any enforcement action. Even talking critically on social media in small circles is mostly fine (apart from simple "bad-word" filters that just remove whole messages).
The moment you reach a wider audience or "disrupt public harmony", they come down on you.
Yeah but ultimately that is far more dangerous, no? The law enables severe punishments that are applied arbitrarily by those tasked with enforcing it. Knowing there is a clear and reliable line you can't cross allows for opposition movements to take advantage of that line and build within the narrow demarcations. Arbitrary enforcement means you can never know if someone in charge has it out for you that day because you probably already broke laws that could be used against you before coming anywhere near actively participating in political dissent.
As the common wisdom goes: Al Capone was not arrested for being a crime boss but for tax evasion. Why bother setting clear boundaries on what behavior is or isn't anti-revolutionary if you can just make sure everyone already violates the law based on technicalities and then just decide who you want to arrest for it as necessary?
As the common wisdom goes: Al Capone was not arrested for being a crime boss but for tax evasion. Why bother setting clear boundaries on what behavior is or isn't anti-revolutionary if you can just make sure everyone already violates the law based on technicalities and then just decide who you want to arrest for it as necessary?
No, the DDR “spy on your neighbor” situation is much more dangerous.
I'm not sure what the surveillance has to do. I was responding to a comment saying that while the CCP cracks down on dissidents it does so mostly based on perceived "blast radius" (i.e. reach). I'm saying this selective enforcement is actually worse than if they just blindly enforced a specific ban.
If anything "spy on your neighbor" plays into what I said: you not only need to worry about getting on the bad side of the authority (i.e. those able to enforce the law against you) but of literally anyone else who might have it out for you. The legal basis for arresting people is just legalistic window dressing to create a pretense of law and justice.
This is, by the way, the biggest practical distinction between the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: in peak Nazi Germany the police would just drag you off the street and throw you in a hole or shoot you for treason, in the Soviet Union the police would disappear you into a gulag but only after giving you an unwinnable mock trial where you would be put on record to confess (after torture if necessary or desired) to your treasonous counter-revolutionary beliefs. Because one followed purely from "might makes right" and the other tried to maintain a pretense of ideological principles and justice. Not that this mattered much to those on the receiving end - you'd still end up dead or imprisoned.
If anything "spy on your neighbor" plays into what I said: you not only need to worry about getting on the bad side of the authority (i.e. those able to enforce the law against you) but of literally anyone else who might have it out for you. The legal basis for arresting people is just legalistic window dressing to create a pretense of law and justice.
This is, by the way, the biggest practical distinction between the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: in peak Nazi Germany the police would just drag you off the street and throw you in a hole or shoot you for treason, in the Soviet Union the police would disappear you into a gulag but only after giving you an unwinnable mock trial where you would be put on record to confess (after torture if necessary or desired) to your treasonous counter-revolutionary beliefs. Because one followed purely from "might makes right" and the other tried to maintain a pretense of ideological principles and justice. Not that this mattered much to those on the receiving end - you'd still end up dead or imprisoned.
This is ironic in the same way that Alanis Morissette's song is.
Beautiful space. I'm sure it's a great place to spend some time.
Beautiful space. I'm sure it's a great place to spend some time.
You can't read whatever you want in America either, yet we still have bookstores. The Chinese government controls a handful of things very tightly and is laissez-faire about many other things. Also you wouldn't be arrested. Chinese people aren't automatons. They know how to get around silly rules, just like we do.
What? I've never read a law passed by Congress that makes any reading material illegal.
Are you referring to the inappropriate sexual books pandered to little children in schools?
Are you referring to the inappropriate sexual books pandered to little children in schools?
> What? I've never read a law passed by Congress that makes any reading material illegal.
That's correct. In the US, we have the First Amendment to prevent government interference, and the genesis of that law goes back to John Milton's Areopagitica.
On the flip side, that same document gives private business broad economic freedom, and businesses are not afraid to use their economic power to suppress or bury ideas that threaten their profits.
That's correct. In the US, we have the First Amendment to prevent government interference, and the genesis of that law goes back to John Milton's Areopagitica.
On the flip side, that same document gives private business broad economic freedom, and businesses are not afraid to use their economic power to suppress or bury ideas that threaten their profits.
The recent increase in book bans and burnings are terrible, but there are many more examples much older. See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_govern...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_the_United_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_govern...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_the_United_...
So some books were banned from being sent by mail for excess obscenity. I find it correct that material that is immoral and lewd for its own sake be restricted in some way.
Another was banned 100 years before the US was founded.
More recently: one book was banned for containing classified information, another for seducing people to commit tax fraud (the author's followers having already committed $56MM in tax fraud. I agree with both of these restrictions.
A more interesting one was Nixon trying to suspend the publishing of the Pentagon Papers, but a court opposed it.
I don't see any actual book banning or burning.
Another was banned 100 years before the US was founded.
More recently: one book was banned for containing classified information, another for seducing people to commit tax fraud (the author's followers having already committed $56MM in tax fraud. I agree with both of these restrictions.
A more interesting one was Nixon trying to suspend the publishing of the Pentagon Papers, but a court opposed it.
I don't see any actual book banning or burning.
> I find it correct that material that is immoral and lewd for its own sake be restricted in some way.
I think freedom means that we get to decide for ourselves what is "immoral" or "lewd" and can choose to read or not read those books accordingly. I'm guessing you've never read "Forever Amber" or "Naked Lunch" or even "Howl", but you might just be surprised at what your would-be masters decided was too explicit for you to be allowed to read.
> I don't see any actual book banning or burning.
You must have missed the parts where books were banned by states and even where in the 60s the federal government forced a publisher to pull all copies of a book from the shelves of bookstores and to stop publication of it entirely just to appease a foreign country that was embarrassed by the truths the book exposed about them.
I think freedom means that we get to decide for ourselves what is "immoral" or "lewd" and can choose to read or not read those books accordingly. I'm guessing you've never read "Forever Amber" or "Naked Lunch" or even "Howl", but you might just be surprised at what your would-be masters decided was too explicit for you to be allowed to read.
> I don't see any actual book banning or burning.
You must have missed the parts where books were banned by states and even where in the 60s the federal government forced a publisher to pull all copies of a book from the shelves of bookstores and to stop publication of it entirely just to appease a foreign country that was embarrassed by the truths the book exposed about them.
Examples of publication bans might include the government level publication ban on mass shooter manifestos. And the quasi-government Amazon bans of books. America also sees activist-led retractions of scientific studies. More prosaically, non-legitimate possession of classified material is illegal.
More prosaically, non-legitimate possession of classified material is illegal.
People who leak classified material can be prosecuted, if discovered, but the press is not bound by classification directives in the United States. It was established in this 1971 court case around the classified Pentagon Papers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
People who leak classified material can be prosecuted, if discovered, but the press is not bound by classification directives in the United States. It was established in this 1971 court case around the classified Pentagon Papers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
> I've never read a law...
Funny that.
Funny that.
I started browsing some of snohetta.com's designs... my brain could barely comprehend how astounding and magnificent some of their designs are. Truly amazing stuff.
Snohetta definitely my favorite architecture firms. They strike that balance between having creative ideas and nuanced and functional execution
I like the stairs, until I wondered how handicapped or elderly people would get tp their sought after books.
While I was a regular when I was young, visiting once or twice each week to bring and get as much books as I could carry. I now read less often, and what I read are mostly e-books. I do sometimes sit in VR reading an epub for the ambiance.
This is certainly a cool looking space. I could see myself walking through it with cathedral-like awe. I don't know if I would want to browse the stacks here, being as they are in short cases separated by many stairs. I don't know if I would actually want to read here for any length of time, it seems sterile and echoey, with no privacy. I don't believe there has been any modern architectural innovation which surpasses a cozy nook with a wing-backed chair when it comes to pure reading enjoyment. Keep trying though.
I sometimes wonder, as I did with Rem Koolhaas' Seattle Central Library design, whether architects spend a lot of time actually using or working in libraries. I guess the brief isn't "make the best library for patrons" but "make a library which can symbolize the glory of our city and its wealth".
I sometimes wonder, as I did with Rem Koolhaas' Seattle Central Library design, whether architects spend a lot of time actually using or working in libraries. I guess the brief isn't "make the best library for patrons" but "make a library which can symbolize the glory of our city and its wealth".
I like the space, but I think that's because it loosely resembles a Frank Lloyd Wright space.
https://franklloydwright.org/frank-lloyd-wrights-larkin-and-...
https://franklloydwright.org/frank-lloyd-wrights-larkin-and-...
That was my first reaction as well. Very much inspired by the wright work. It does look cool! I wonder about noise levels with all the hard surfaces and open space.
"Climatized"? Is this a fancy way to say "it has air conditioning" or does it mean "this building is so big it has its own microclimate without any attempt on our part to make this happen"?
I gather it's a way of saying it's climate controlled, i.e. heated or cooled depending on the season. I suppose as a contrast to calling any semi-random outside space the largest reading space.
Not in the original title, so either it was removed over there or extraneously added over here.
Merriam-Webster says that "climatized" means "acclimated" so I don't think it makes sense as used here.
Merriam-Webster says that "climatized" means "acclimated" so I don't think it makes sense as used here.
Not entirely extraneous; the second paragraph of the page begins with "The library boasts the world’s largest climatized reading space and China’s largest load-bearing glass system[...]"
I assume you were joking about a building being so large it has its own microclimate, but I have been inside a building that has its own rain clouds. The building housed a styrofoam factory.
It was always hot and humid in there, probably due to the manufacturing process itself, but not uniformly so. Certain spots would be extra humid, which would cause water vapor to rise up to the ceiling. There were enough particulates in the air for it to then condense into droplets that looked like clouds, which would then create a very light drizzle 20-50 feet away.
I fucking hated that place.
It was always hot and humid in there, probably due to the manufacturing process itself, but not uniformly so. Certain spots would be extra humid, which would cause water vapor to rise up to the ceiling. There were enough particulates in the air for it to then condense into droplets that looked like clouds, which would then create a very light drizzle 20-50 feet away.
I fucking hated that place.
I am not joking about this, I was specifically thinking of the building NASA puts rockets together in before launching them. It's infamous for this sort of thing.
The styrofoam wasn't negatively affected by the moisture?
What are the greatest libraries / reading spaces of the western world today?
Oodi in Helsinki is a quite interesting concept, although not the best if you want to be in complete silence.
Funny, I would have thought if anyone valued a quiet space to read without being bothered, it'd be the Finns. Looking at the pics on Wikipedia[0] though, it does look like there are some quieter spaces one can duck into. From what's pictured in the wiki article, it does look more like a tech company office crossed with a community center than a public library to me.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Central_Library_Oodi
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Central_Library_Oodi
Snohetta's design looks quite similar to Oodi in places, I must say. It's just a lot bigger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Central_Library_Oodi#...
The British Library, maybe, famous as being the haunt of Karl Marx, as well as of Lenin, Bram Stoker, and Arthur Conan Doyle.
This is an artificial hill covered in artificial trees illuminated by artificial lights, sealed in glass so they can maintain an artificially habitable atmosphere.
In other countries, you can just read outside on a real hill, under real trees, in the light of the real sun, breathing in non-polluted air.
In other countries, you can just read outside on a real hill, under real trees, in the light of the real sun, breathing in non-polluted air.
Not so many books there, though, unless they are hidden away underground.
I will take the New York Public Library, which has a good reading room with lots of tables, and a very good collection.
I will take the New York Public Library, which has a good reading room with lots of tables, and a very good collection.
a space to cultivate community, as long as said community is entirely nonthreatening to the CCP
Very close to BJ, the BinHai Library for example was pretty much empty when I was there last time, apart from people going in to take photos of the admittedly beautiful design. But when most of the upper shelves have fake books in them (I kid you not), it says a lot about how far China's dedication to reading goes. The average Chinese isn't interested in intellectual stuff currently, it's all about making money and reading is basically only for students to get good grades and strike well-paid jobs.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of cool modern architecture that imo doesn't get enough recognition. It's sadly rarely practical though, it's more built for prestige than anything else. The top down planning has a lot of advantages and there's certainly a lot of bold designs that architects couldn't get approved in any democratic place these days, where there are endless committees ultimately settling for the most plain and boring construction, the lowest common denominator. But these party officials also aren't really thinking about what the people need, what would make cities more livable. It reminds me a bit of Albert Speer's Germania vision. Certainly impressive and cool to look at, but maybe not a place you'd want to live long term.