I’m not surprised by the reading today, but I definitely have problems with it. Having visited LA and other Californian cities like it, I know what the city is like. I know its history. But I was most caught by Davis’ description of the Goldwyn Library. The library itself is fairly unassuming. If sentries and fences are problematic, then so is much of NYC. But for a library that had faced arson previously, the anti-vandalism and anti-theft measures are understandable. The vilification of safety seems ridiculous. Davis is projecting his own biases on Gehry’s architecture, claiming that the Library’s security measures – which, according to the Library, are used to protect a valuable archive of rare film materials – is a measure to intimidate ‘undesirable’ people, the poor and homeless, from being in the library. Libraries are public spaces with a purpose. And I’d expect libraries with rare collections who’d been previously burned to enforce that purpose. Trying to claim ulterior motives only serves to bring up the old argument that the only people concerned with security are the people who have something to hide.

Question: What is your take on the Goldwyn Library and the ‘Panopticon Mall’? What do you think of overt security in public places?