Funding Cuts and Usage Decline....Which Comes First?

HornetSaver

lawriejones1 wrote: »

I should point out I hadn't used a swearword there, but an old English word that had been appropriated by the drunk old man from Father Ted!

Girls?

Without culture and creativity there's very little point in us being here, so I'm happy to pay my (quite substantial) taxes to the libraries.

Creativity I'll give you, but culture is a constantly evolving thing.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be publicly-funded provision for access to information or indeed fictional works, not even that this shouldn't take the form of free access to books. But the way we do it at the moment is inefficient to the point that provision suffers due to insistence on retaining the number of buildings.

If I were to take a bus, right now, from my current home to my former school (a journey of six miles through an urban area, no bus changes involved), I would pass within 300 metres of four libraries. If all four must stay open, my preferred structure would be that an increased proportion of the funding went to the major one in the town centre to continue operating as a "traditional" library and indeed to expand its services.

As for the others, give them smaller grants, scale back their number of books in stock at a given time (retaining existing options for getting a book in from elsewhere), and use the extra space to find ways of subsidizing themselves to a better extent than they currently do. That might mean renting out space to community groups, or to an appropriate business (coffee franchise, post office, something that doesn't compete with the library but does encourage people to go there).

zagubov

On another thread I'd suggested we look at Brazil and follow Curitiba's example, turning them into Lighthouses of Learning.

The concept needs reinvigorating.

vivatifosi

HornetSaver wrote:

If I were to take a bus, right now, from my current home to my former school (a journey of six miles through an urban area, no bus changes involved), I would pass within 300 metres of four libraries. If all four must stay open, my preferred structure would be that an increased proportion of the funding went to the major one in the town centre to continue operating as a "traditional" library and indeed to expand its services.

As for the others, give them smaller grants, scale back their number of books in stock at a given time (retaining existing options for getting a book in from elsewhere), and use the extra space to find ways of subsidizing themselves to a better extent than they currently do. That might mean renting out space to community groups, or to an appropriate business (coffee franchise, post office, something that doesn't compete with the library but does encourage people to go there).

I am not stalking you so don't know where you live, but there is a good chance that at least some of the libraries you are passing are, or are in the process of becoming, volunteer led community libraries. Both north London boroughs and Herts CC are in the process of this and info on the specifics should be available on their websites.

In terms of other points re stock, sharing facilities etc, this is also already happening. Again, a lot of this can be found on the relevant council's website if you are interested. There are also broader, more overarching reports that you can read, eg
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/libraries-deliver-ambition-for-public-libraries-in-england-2016-2021