How great is the library?
Just recently, I was in Gosford, borrowing a small mountain of books when I was saddened to learn that the Gosford library building may be demolished to make way for an outdoor amphitheatre.
That building holds many architectural features, ones that exemplify Australian life at that time (1969).
Next time you are there, take note of the cosy wood panelling and exposed beams on the inside.
Look at the line textured brickwork.
There is so much more.
I also learned that the downstairs toilets are to be replaced with one unisex toilet.
What?
If you are concerned about any of this you can go to the council’s website and fill in the form about “the future of Gosford library building” and make some suggestions for the future use of this iconic building.
Email, Jun 2
Michelle Shoemark, Woy Woy
I agree with Michelle, and having just viewed the Council led survey am concerned at the bias in their presentation of information for the costs and benefits of either keeping or demolishing the Gosford Library building. The Council’s costing of $4 million to keep the building have not been founded or fully detailed, and the cost of demolition being $480,000 does not include any information on what it would costs to replace this area with the proposed concrete steps and landscaping.
There is no mention of the value of the heritage significance and architectural distinction in the benefits of keeping this public purpose-built facility.
There is no mention that council rewrote the NSW Government Architect’s Urban Design Framework plan that recommending that the library be kept and repurposed due to its heritage and architectural significance. Council instead changed this report to read the recommendation to keep the more recent and unremarkable cafe building, currently the temporary home the Funhaus whilst their new venue in William St is refurbished.
This consultation was forced on council by a council-led committee investigating the decision to demolish this heritage item and was set up because under administration, the community consultation that specifically mentioned demolition was supported by 6 people, 6 others were against the decision and 6 were neutral. Another, unrelated public safety consultation was also used to support demolition but its conclusions on the solution to make kibble park more friendly did not specify demolition of the library
Now the supposed impartial survey to get input on the situation is written in a way that is heavily biased toward support for council’s decision to demolish and a petition with several thousand signatures is ignored!
I’m glad we have elected Councillors now, but I’m concerned that it may be a case of ‘too little, too late’ for some ideas determined whilst Council was under Administration.