Leckie & Hopkins VS. Buschman

Bridge's questions are also on my mind. When reading Leckie & Hopkins' article, I was comparing it with Buschman's Dismantling book, and it's very interesting to see their common points and discrepancies. Both talking about public place (though "public sphere" has much more implications than "public space"), and criticizing "new economy", some of Leckie & Hopkins ideas seem to be in line with the "new public philosophy" and much less critical, for example, their comments on the modernist buildings and their accounting of "foot traffic", and that "public monies spent on the … central libraries are a sound investment."

Back to "public sphere" and "public space", I think Leckie & Hopkins explain "library as a public space" much more clearly than Buschman does with "library as a public sphere". I wonder whether it is due to the complexity of the concept of "public sphere" itself or because Buschman confound "public sphere" and "new public philosophy" as we discussed in class.

And a small issue about Leckie & Hopkins: they emphasize the diversity of the clientele of the central libraries. However, almost of all these people are "well-educated". To me, this greatly weakens their argument of diversity.