That's from 2004. Here's a review by an architecture critic from 2007.[1] "The shin-high steel fences built around the slanting structural I-beams to avert head-bonking look like improvised fixes for a problem nobody anticipated." "'The building's celebrated splotches of weirdness -- the red sea-monster-bowel corridors on the fourth level, the bile-yellow elevators and escalators, the vertiginous canyon overlooks on the upper levels -- exist to draw attention away from the fact that most of its work and pleasure spaces are actually cheaply finished or dysfunctional." "You and other critics have been had. From the tip of this glass squeeze box to the bowels of its red metal stomach, this library is a joke, a monument to the architects' vanity, to the critics' collective vanity, to a city's greedy desire to be noticed. And noticed not for achievement, not for actually doing anything, but for looking cool."

That last seems to nail it.

However, it does have 4 1/2 stars on Yelp.

12 years on, most of the weirder floor materials are gone, replaced by bare concrete. The badly upholstered chairs have been replaced with PVC. Lots of railings and fences have been installed to keep people from hitting their heads on angled beams. They've probably also gone to LED lighting on those high ceiling lights. So the building is at least workable now. I'm impressed that nobody is complaining about it being too hot or too cold; tall atriums are a huge HVAC headache.

If you're in SF, consider joining the Mechanics Institute library. This is a private library with a good, well-curated collection, with new books coming in regularly. Classic multi-level stacks, columns, wood furniture, and librarians who will hush you if you talk.

[1] http://www.seattlepi.com/ae/article/On-Architecture-How-the-...

> Of course, all of the above is just the "icing on the cake" (or "lipstick on the pig") [...] The real purpose of any library is to retain and provide access to the assets within.

I think the quote above underscores how little this critic understands about architecture. Public libraries have a long history as spaces for public gatherings and performance, arguably a more important role than their use as a storage facility. Today, public libraries in the United States are some of the few remaining public spaces we have, with classes for adults and children, spaces for community groups to meet, and free access to computers and the internet. For many people, this is the only place where they can go to apply for certain public services. Public libraries are one of the few places we allow homeless people to without citing them for loitering. A core premise in the design of the Seattle Public Library was that a new library should put greater emphasis on open social spaces than space for the "stacks". A good critique would judge how well it followed through on that premise.

An analogous critique of software would be to look at an enormous, highly-regulated, committee-designed, waterfall-style software project and highlight random technical shortcomings and potential security flaws patched after the initial release. And then never discuss how well the software addresses the core use case.

A better critique would ask: Does the building do a good job of answering the needs of its users?

Showy brutalist architecture without an emphasis on pragmatism is kind of ironic: it's got the charm of a fallout shelter with the convenience of anti-cubism.

It's like "utilitarianism theatre."

There were lots of brutalist style buildings from the 50's and 60's where I grew up, but at least they were ugly _and_ practical.

A "software architect" runs their blog on ASP.NET and makes drive-by comments at real architecture.