[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]--建筑設(shè)計(jì)外文翻譯--從建筑師的視角看當(dāng)代大學(xué)圖書(shū)館設(shè)計(jì)

1、中文 中文 3400 字， 字，1850 英文單詞， 英文單詞，10500 英文字符 英文字符出處： 出處：Foote S M. An architect's perspective on contemporary academic library design.[J]. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 1995, 83(3):351-356.An architect’

2、s perspective on contemporary academic library designSteven M. FooteThe making of space and place (architecture) requires cultural and financial consent as to societal value. Standards and values about the academic lib

3、rary of the immediate future are not always shared by librarians and architects; however, architects and librarians do possess several shared perceptions. Among these shared perceptions are that print collections will

4、 remain a primary function of libraries for the foreseeable future, flexibility in shelving arrangements are essential, adjacencies must be fluid, floor-to-floor heights should be generous, compact shelving has become

5、 commonplace, print and electronic media must coexist, and technology has not reduced library space requirements. Experience reinforces the continuing and increasing significance of the library on college and universit

6、y campuses.Symbols and iconography in the late twentieth century pose tremendous challenges for architects. Many of our building types, libraries among them, are shackled by outdated imagery at the same time that they

7、remain the centers of intellectual purpose. Library designers struggle in a search for the symbolic meaning of technology; it is a challenge in which the traditional values of western culture are met by the indetermin

8、acy of and questions about the formal meaning of technology and electronics. As we strive for greater discernment, understanding, and ad- vancement of the architectural meaning of library, our task has hardly begun; we

9、 must then be able to convince our clients of the wisdom of our thought process and to part with their cash to build the results.The making of space and place (architecture) requires cultural and financial consent as

10、to societal value. If we cannot agree on standards, how are we to judge quality in what we build? At times, even the most erudite and far-thinking clients cannot overcome their traditional ideas of appropriate library

11、design; classical mon umentality has been accepted for libraries for centuries. The competition for the main branch of the Chicago Public Library, in which some of the most prominent members of our profession particip

12、ated, was a case in point. In the end, that jury rather poignantly selected the winner mainly on the grounds that “It looked like a library.” The standards and values of the nineteenth century still applied, because no

13、 more modern imagery has convincingly captured our cultural endorsement.We are not alone here, by the way. Writing in the New York Times on February 12, 1995, Herbert Muschamp observed that Mario Botta, the architect o

14、f the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, had missed a chance to “say something about the changing nature of modernity,” or to display “the power of architecture to reckon with the discordance that lurks beneath our

15、masks of composure” [1]. The same issues confront the jury of librarians and architects as they attempt to recognize the best designs in the biannual American Library Association/Architectural Institute of America awa

16、rds program. Our professions, mutually dependent, still battle with fer- vor and passion as we search to redefine quality in our work.That search will not lead red herringly to an imagery in which time-honored principl

17、es of proportion, massing, detail, light, and design in context are subordinated to literal interpretations of electronic high fashion, any more than principles of aerodynamics and fuel efficiency in automobiles have b

18、een abandoned because of the 150-pounds-per-square-foot live loading, to permit full-height shelving any-where the staff may wish to put it. Office space, normally designed at fifty pounds' live loading, is far too

19、 likely to be reconfigured in the early life of the new building. We have observed that the premium from 150 pounds’ to 300 pounds' loading, which will per- mit compact shelving anywhere, is only 10% of the structu

20、ral cost of the project. This translates to roughly 2% of the overall cost of construction.Adjacencies must be fluid. Increasingly, we find readers, collections, and staff blended together on every 0oor. Richard DeGenn

21、aro’s definition of a librarian, that of “everybody’s assistant,” seems more apt with every passing day [2]. We now include a number of oversized work stations, fifty-four inches in width on every 0oor, accommodating

22、both a student and a professional o6ering momentary assistance. In the new Health Sciences and Information Services Building at the University of Maryland at Baltimore, positions for both librarians and computer system

23、s staff will be on each of its six floors.On the entry levels of both public and academic libraries, service points can be found located in architectural arrangements that bear uncanny resemblances to cafeteria server

24、y plans. Reference desks (rotisserie chicken), interlibrary loan (hot drinks),media services (salad bars), and OPAC terminals (condiments) can all be found on the way to circulation desks (cashiers). Persons using sel

25、f-checkout kiosks (automatic-teller machines) can bypass any requirement for human interaction. Traffic and noise levels are high and are likely to remain so. Traditional functions blur, and even staff job description

26、s can change during the course of the design process. New staffing efficiencies are developed in response to increasing responsibilities rarely matched by increases in numbers or funding.Floor-to-floor heights should b

27、e generous. McKim et al. determined in the nineteenth century that seven feet was the maximum shelf height for most persons’ comfortable reach and from that developed an elegant system of Boor relationships [3]. Using

28、 seven feet, six inches as the Boor-to-Boor heights for self- supporting closed stacks, the architects arranged corridors and minor galleries of fifteen feet at every other stack level. Nfajor reading rooms of thirty f

29、eet were then placed adjacent to four stack levels or two gallery levels. Today’s mechanical systems and building codes restrictions no longer permit the volumetric density of such a system (Figure 2).Figure 2.Olin Mem