Pop quiz time: Name the chair of the public library board and three of its members. I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of Ottawa residents can't do this. Don't worry, I couldn't either until I looked it up. Suffice it to say, library issues aren't top of mind for many people, unless they have an overdue book from 1978 with fines running higher than what is owed on the household mortgage.

Yet very soon, we are going to hear a lot more about our library system in general and the need for a new main library branch in particular. Councillor Rick Chiarelli, the chair of the library board will make sure of this. As far as councillors go, he is one of the more media savvy, which is to say he can actually speak on camera or radio without humming and hawing his way through an interview and give specifics as opposed to pointless pontificating platitudes.

Mr. Chiarelli (Rick, not Bob) is already hard at work trying to manage public expectations by acknowledging the need for a new facility but cautioning against any grandiose mega-project type visions. Indeed, library board types, urban planners and the folks at city hall should heed his advice. Think function, not fantasy. Think service, not statues. Think books, not boondoggle.

Admittedly, Ottawa's main library branch at the corner of Laurier and Metcalfe streets is bursting at the seams. The building exterior is pretty much like the rest of downtown's architecture: boxy, bland and boring. Inside, the escalators and square configuration could easily pass for a former department store as opposed to an institution designed to be a community place that promotes literacy and civic discourse. Within this confine, library personnel have worked hard to deliver a quality service. But given the choice, most of us would probably still chose Chapters over this dreary-like place for a good read.

There are solid arguments for a new library. The current one has exceeded capacity, it is not wired to reflect the new realities of learning let alone be consistent with Ottawa's push to be perceived as a smart city, and it could accommodate community needs for public meeting facilities.

To move forward, several questions should be answered. How do we fulfill this need in a way that is fair to taxpayers? What sort of design concept is innovative yet protects the integrity of the library concept? Will a new main branch augment or detract from the other branches? And what priority should be assigned to this "infrastructure" project relative to other demands such as a convention centre, local roads or suburban recreation facilities?

To be fair to taxpayers, it is clear that some form of public-private partnership will be fostered. The key here is the word partnership. If a construction and/or operation deal is structured in such a way to truly share risk, great. But we can't allow a deal that allows the contractor to borrow on the city's good credit rating and leave the city holding the financial bag at the end. Politicians will need to be upfront about total project costs and have a contingency plan for overruns or delays, something that wasn't done in the whole cuckoo choo-choo (read: Light rail) fiasco.

As for design, some are talking about a Vancouver-style library, a nine-floor structure with an impressive atrium and a façade similar to the coliseum in Rome. Some architects call it a source of civic pride. Funny though, in my many visits to Vancouver on business and pleasure over the past five years, not once has a local implored me to see the library when pressed for sights to see or things to do.

A definitive - perhaps even striking - architectural structure is fine, but planners and library governance types should remember that the building is not the end in itself, the materials, learning environment and the resources inside are what count the most.

To build civic pride or ownership of the "new library concept," the need for consultation with users and the general public should be self-evident. This consultation should include gathering input on potential site selection to architectural models right down to the choice of a building name or brand.

Library officials should also define how a new branch fits with overall corporate objectives. While it may seem strange to some to speak of corporate objectives in a library setting, a library is not only a service but a business like many others. How will services and access be improved? What new learning tools and research technologies will be incorporated in the facility, and across the library system? These questions need to be answered: the sooner, the better.

Finally, we should ask where the library structure fits in the overall plan for Ottawa infrastructure. In January, the Ottawa Partnership (TOP) told us that the city faces a massive infrastructure deficit and it laid out the priorities and projects requiring public and private infusions of cash. After double-checking a copy of TOP's whiz-bang PowerPoint presentation (tucked away on my hard drive) delivered last January, yours truly found that libraries weren't mentioned on a slide that listed public transit, roads, affordable housing, convention facilities, recreation improvements, hospitals and schools as infrastructure priorities.

To be fair, there was an etcetera abbreviation (etc.) after schools at the bottom of one slide, so maybe libraries were contemplated. But even it they were, they surely were not at the top of the list.

Library proponents have their work cut out for them. They need to answer some of the questions posed here and engage Ottawans in this debate. They should view today's column as a 953-word mini-book on moving forward. And the best news, there's no due date for its return.