4 ms·

> the author forgot to include the Mitterrand library But it's glass, wood and greenery, what's so bad about it? There's little concrete there. I find it a rea

• DenisM 7y ago
  The insides aren't bad. Not on in the league the Richelieu library, but ok. The greenery is nice-looking, but it upsets me I can't actually walk down there. Feels isolating. But it's the outside that's truly awful. Living to the north I had to walk the entire length of the building to get to the only open entrance at the south. The entire space on top is eerie: wast, windy, exposed, gray, empty, with four impersonal gigantic building towering in the distance. No a person in sight, no one reading a book on the bench (no bench either), no one chatting with a friend, no one decorating their place of business. The ultimate anti-human space. It all makes you feel small and insignificant. It's the same feeling I got from walking the Nazi party rally grounds in Nuremberg - being completely oppressed by the scale and indifference of the architecture. In the latter case it was obviously intended, but I have to wonder what happened with the Mitterrand library? It all stands in stark contrast with, say, the Notre Dame. There are tourists upfront, there are locals in the park behind the building, there is always someone reading a book on the bench, there are children playing, there is tree cover, there are flowers, and if you walk a couple minutes you will be on the riverbank that actually has people on it (mostly locals). Keep walking along the bank and you will find someone practicing a trombone or a violin during their lunch break, or an evening waltz party on occasion.