In the first place, never allow the furniture, fixtures or fittings to be chosen primarily for architectural effect, but for special use and fitness in every detail. In material, in shape, in hue, have them harmonize with the surroundings, for in such harmony lies the most effective and the least expensive beauty. Here, the taste of the architect can be of the utmost assistance. But, if possible, bar out what has been called “architectural” furniture, even if money can be spared for it. Heavy show-pieces, hard to move, hard to use, inconvenient, uncomfortable, wasteful of space, are an abomination in any library.
As to proportion of expenditure, Duff-Brown[381] allows eighteen per cent of total cost for fittings and furniture. He suggests, however, that fittings which are fixtures should be counted as part of the permanent structure. Perhaps this qualification explains the different estimate of Champneys,[382] who allows only ten per cent for furniture.
Bostwick[383] also recommends that fixtures be included in the general contract, and movables (which he specifies) be bought separately. He makes an excellent suggestion, that where this is done, a piece of the material to be matched, in its finished form, be sawed in two, and one piece handed to each contractor, so that the furniture and fixtures will match exactly. How important this is will be realized at many libraries, where the tint of fittings meant to match, often “swears.”
Miss Ahern, editor of Public Libraries, writes to me, in answer to an inquiry:—
“I believe in putting technical equipment outside the lines of library building and architecture. A builder cannot make it as well as a specialist in library equipment.”
My experience leads me to endorse her advice most heartily. I would say further, what she probably modestly refrains from saying, on account of her business connections, I would get the catalogues of The Library Bureau, ask and take their advice, and give them the preference where their prices are as low. I say this (I have not even an acquaintance with their present management) because theirs was the first attempt to serve libraries on this line intelligently, and I have understood that many years of altruistic experiment, advised by good librarians, were spent before they even met their expenses; so that their services merit a reward.
Miss Marvin[384] gives a “Typical List of Furniture” for a small building, with prices ruling in her section at the time she wrote. She fears, however, that she may have erred toward too great economy, “cheap furniture being unsightly as well as unprofitable as an investment.”
One matter apparently often forgotten in planning is the matching or contrasts of color, furniture as well as woodwork, shelving, and walls and lamp shades. Not only is the general cheer and comfort of the library secured by harmonious environment, but eyesight is deeply concerned in soft and soothing effects. Here observation and taste may effect wonders in planning for both “utilitas” and “venustas.”