This idea that the primary functional purpose of an important space should be some kind of afterthought is rather depressing, but I guess is follows from the entertainment-centric culture we live in. The purpose of a library is to read, not to entertain your kids.

You can either have no libraries at all or libraries that cater to a different purpose, one that they can offer better then your phone.

For what it's worth, there's still a lot of information you can acquire legally and for free from a library that you can't get both legally and for free from the internet.

If it were true that the purpose of public libraries had been superseded by the internet then no one would be using public libraries, and they would all have closed by now due to lack of funding or public interest. That public libraries continue to exist, and that people continue to use them, suggests otherwise.

Transforming libraries to something children associate with fun, where young people can study together in groups and where culture events happen - is what should be done. Make libraries a bastion of culture and community. And that is not incompatible with a place where you can sit in peace, it's just not everywhere.

Libraries are just repositories for literary or artistic works. They have a secondary function of acting as a "third space" or community center. Being able to find places to read is part of that, but there is no reason you should expect them to be tranquil zen gardens at all times. Most people should be able to tune out the general background noise of kids playing or whatever. It's really just loud conversations that cause problems.

Hell, most public libraries in my town are basically just de facto homeless shelters.

The Berlin city libraries absolutely have spaces for children to play (loudly) and also make point of events with readings for children, and so on. A generation will grow up associating libraries as part of their life.

And that when a society devalues scholarship, it's on its way to the condition of, say, Venezuela.

There is nothing that will suck the enjoyment out of a story faster than a high-school curriculum.

Watch them struggle.

Depending on the forum, and the size of the comments, you'll sometimes see something like:

TL;DR

"too long; didn't read"

In some cases, you'll see a post where there will be a "TL;DR" section summarizing the "long form" version just below it.

The funny thing is, the "long form" might only be a paragraph or two, but apparently for a certain segment of the population who read forums, even that much information is "TL;DR" worthy.

These people don't want to read anything that won't fit inside a tweet. I'd dare say that for some, even 280 characters is just too much text to digest.

It leaves no room for thoughtful discourse. It leaves no room for intelligent debate and conversation.

I see such brush-offs of conversation online, and couple it with what I have heard of some people who eschew being alone; who need noise (particularly people around them talking with each other) so that they don't have to listen to their own thoughts - and it makes me shudder to think to what end our society will arrive at.

In a way, we are already witnessing its decline.

No, libraries serve a specific purpose. You can want them to be banks, or restaurants, or laundromats or whatever, but that doesn't make them anything but libraries. And besides, everyone else wants libraries to be libraries, so you've been outvoted in that regard.

Right now libraries are dying. In my city, 80% of public library use is high school kids or university kids (overflow from the busy university library) studying there during peak exam times, outside of that its extremely underutilised. And for my hometown its even worse, even 15 years ago there would maybe be a handful of people there at a time, in a building that could easily fit 30-50 people.

Turning those libraries not only into a book repository but also as a place to drop your kid to play with other kids while you read, to study (think study rooms with outlets for laptops), to grab a coffee, attend a reading, etc. to me is an amazing initiative.

And there is synergy as well: you can go grab a coffee with your friend whilst your kids play, maybe browse for a new sci-fi book - and hey there is a reading which you can attend whilst your kid is preoccupied and the reading doesn’t feel dead because some other visitors and students are also attending and even if you get thirsty you can grab a tea :)

This whole wall of text might seem a little rantlike but I truly do love libraries (my mom used to take me) and seeing them reinvigorated like that is very cool.

We who didn't have a problem being quiet and going there to either read quietly or to bring books home, going there for the books, seem to be much more likely to actually visit as adults. Is there any evidence to suggest people who use libraries as playgrounds are more likely to use them as adults? Because if there isn't we are removing one of extremely few quiet places for no gain. I remember going to the library or staying after school to be able to read my Asimov and Douglas Adams, which would have been hard at home. If people who have quiet homes came there to let their children off to play I would be less likely to go there, just like I'm less likely to go there now when that is happening.

The new model may be valid, but maybe we should just close the libraries altogether and start calling them "Community Centers".

Though 4 Euros ($4.50) is less than half what I pay for most books I want on Amazon.

It would be very expensive for me to feed my book-reading habit like that. I couldn't afford it without libraries.

It's nice that you can afford to spend money on books, but we need a solution for everyone else, especially if we agree that books are a good thing for society.

Recently there was that op-ed in Forbes that said we don't need libraries because we have Amazon: https://qz.com/1334123/forbes-deleted-an-op-ed-arguing-that-... -- Was such a disaster that Forbes limped away from it by deleting it.

Most libraries I've been to have a large section dedicated to kids books and activities, often with stuff animals, blocks, etc that kids can use for creative play.

There are usually also rooms that you can reserve for work or study, and tables out in the open that people can sit at to read or work.

Kids are loud and energetic. Usually older people enjoy the vitality they bring to a space. The main age group bothered by them are 20 and 30 somethings who don't have kids and aren't used to being around them.

Besides libraries should change! Who the heck goes to a library to look at encyclopedias to write papers anymore? If you are doing academic research, go to an academic library — a place where you’ll find few kids. But a community library? That should be a place where everyone is welcome and excited about books, not a coworking space for old curmudgeons. If you want a perfectly silent reading environment — go to your home.

But to get excited about a book you have to be immersed in it, and that requires reading it and really focusing on the subject matter.

If people are talking all the time, they're not reading books, and others aren't able to enjoy their books.

> ... not a coworking space for old curmudgeons.

Old curmudgeons aren't part of "everyone"?

Do other people need silence, like absolute silence, to read?

Before I worked for myself, I never worked in any office that remotely came near to silence. Most were roughly the equivalent of moderately loud cafes, at least.

This is precisely what I have been thinking while reading all these comments, but unable to express so succintly.

This is such a straw man. Unless you have an actual academic need for an actual Shakespeare first folio, you can read that text without needing an original printing. If you have such a need, the Palo Alto Public Library isn’t likely to have a it there for the asking.

Academic libraries at universities have their purpose, but your local public library isn’t going to typically be used by Shakespeare scholars.

Reading restricted collection books is a pretty low percentage of why people visit libraries. Reading ultra rare, priceless books is almost non-existent as a percentage of library visits.

First, old-fashioned academic libraries existed; later, public lending libraries existed, but only because various people noticed that the existence of academic libraries was a good thing thing that should be more widely accessible to people outside academia and/or religious institutions. At no point has the purpose of public lending libraries been to provide the community centre and entertainment resource that some people want them to be.

   At no point has the purpose of public lending libraries been to provide the community centre

Of course, they have not traditionally been free-use community spaces in the sense of "hey, come to the library and drop your kids off so they can run around and play" or anything like that. But I don't think anybody's asking for that, either.

Judging by your spelling of "centre," perhaps you're not in the U.S. and therefore have a different experience and perspective.

There's really no reason why there can't be both, especially a library.

In fact a lot of libraries do exactly this, don't they?

Typical library arrangement, at least here in America:

- Center of library has long tables with multiple seats; can be used for group interaction - Sides of library have all the bookshelves - Between the bookshelves and the outer wall there are more private desks. It's naturally quite quiet here because even if the central "public" area is noisy, you have all the bookshelves between you and the central area

But then your kids won't want to go there in the future, because all kids grow up to become adults who want loud places for their kids to grow up to visit loud places...

The main problem we experience is a complete lack of quiet places, and since you don't want any, and that seems to be a majority opinion, we won't have any.

Is the majority really in favor of being loud? I personally believe that it is in fact a minority - just a loud minority. People who enjoy silence are also usually less vocal about their interests - sadly. Because from a public health perspective it's the loud people who can learn something from those enjoying silence.

This is so different to me, it's ridiculous. Loud is not happy. Loud is not sad. Loud is just loud. I'm not going to a loud library. If your kids can't be quiet, then keep them out please.

Probably there should be libraries for children that are louder, but that's a different conversation.

When I go on bushwalks there are teenagers with their damned bluetooth speakers. Every business blares their horrible music at you to get you out of there faster. Workplaces want insanely distracting open-plan offices.

Can we not have one quiet place?

I've never thought about it like that but it's so true. Loudest one wins every time.

Also I just learned a new word, "squaller".