The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)
The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)
The University of California Libraries: A Plan for Development (1977)
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
176 <strong>The</strong> <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cali<strong>for</strong>nia</strong> <strong>Libraries</strong><br />
built in the Northern part <strong>of</strong> the state or the South. According<br />
to the Office <strong>of</strong> the Coordinator <strong>of</strong> Physical <strong>Plan</strong>ning in Systemwide<br />
Administration, the cost <strong>of</strong> such a facility on campus in the South<br />
would be approximately $98 per asf, and in the North approximately<br />
$108. <strong>The</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> a facility <strong>of</strong>f campus would be approximately $76<br />
per asf in the South and $81 in the North.<br />
<strong>The</strong> additional cost <strong>for</strong> on-campus construction takes into account<br />
the fact that the building must blend architecturally with other campus<br />
buildings, may involve some demolition, and may need to be a<br />
multi-story building; the <strong>of</strong>f-campus facility is assumed to be a lowcost,<br />
one-story warehouse. <strong>The</strong> estimated costs <strong>for</strong> the <strong>of</strong>f-campus<br />
facility include the cost <strong>of</strong> land, which in the case <strong>of</strong> the on-campus<br />
facility is assumed to be free. In all figures, the cost <strong>of</strong> temperature<br />
and humidity control <strong>for</strong> proper preservation <strong>of</strong> the material is<br />
included.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Facilities. <strong>The</strong> experience <strong>of</strong> research libraries in<br />
the past has been that compact shelving as a strategy <strong>for</strong> individual<br />
institutions is marginally efficient at best. 14 From the analysis<br />
made in connection with development <strong>of</strong> the space model <strong>for</strong> this plan,<br />
however, it appears that there may be significant economic benefits<br />
from a compact shelving facility if it is shared cooperatively, on<br />
a regional or systemwide basis. Beyond about 4 million volumes in<br />
capacity, however, there appear to be no further economies <strong>of</strong> scale,<br />
so that there is little economic difference between, say, two facilities<br />
(one in the North and one in the South) and one facility <strong>for</strong> the<br />
system as a whole.<br />
From the standpoint <strong>of</strong> the per<strong>for</strong>mance goals mentioned in other<br />
parts <strong>of</strong> the plan, <strong>of</strong> course, it is important that there be at least<br />
two facilities. Material to be placed in them may be material needed<br />
within two days, so if this material is to be supplied within that<br />
time frame it must be housed within the region.<br />
14 See, <strong>for</strong> example, C. E. Friley and R. W. Orr, "A Decade <strong>of</strong> Book<br />
Storage at Iowa State College," College and Research <strong>Libraries</strong>, v. 12,<br />
1951, pp. 7-10; and George Piternick, Book Storage in Academic<br />
<strong>Libraries</strong>, Council on Library Resources, 1974.