>>8088491>>8090629>>8091788Take a deep breath, anon. This isn't an architecture thread. The building style can add to the experience but it's still tangential. I've been in some gorgeous old libraries and also ones that were just the back room of an old store set aside for the purpose. Both have their merits and comfiness, and different feels while still being libraries. It's the books that make a library, not where it's housed, and as long as the building does its job of safely housing the books then that's what it is. Having beauty is great and I encourage it, this isn't an argument against that, and I do agree that "boring box utilitarianism" is a bit too ubiquitous in modern building design, but I also get that that's more of a money thing. Just saying to pick which ones you prefer, like anyone else. I, myself, don't mind the variety of design and complexity. You clearly do.
I get that you probably read a book on these topics, or some blog articles, or watched a few videos and went "hey YEAH" and are now super stoked to start an argument about it to show off what you think you know, but you're going about it in the most asinine way and in a place you're the least likely to actually have an impact, so all you're doing is making yourself look like a stuck-up armchair-riding retard with no contextual or social awareness. Quit angrily R*ddit-spacing in a bookhouse thread on a shitposting site's dead board, and try doing this
>>8098243 for a while.
