Assignment X: The Library We Are, and the Library We Need to Become
Working at Toronto Public Library (TPL) for more than seventeen years has given me a front row seat to the evolving landscape of public library service. When I first began in a public‑facing role at the library, reference work often involved patrons asking in‑depth, research‑based questions that required specialized staff expertise and strong knowledge of library collections. Today, those types of questions are far less common, as many users turn to online tools and AI to find information on their own. Instead, one of the most frequent questions we receive is simply how to send a print job from their mobile phone to our TPL printers. This shift reflects broader changes in how people access information and what they expect from public institutions. As I moved through the module’s foundational readings, I found myself returning to one central question: Are we evolving quickly enough to meet the needs of our communities?
My reflections align most strongly with the article by Casey and Savastinuk (2007), which emphasizes that libraries must embrace continuous, user‑driven change. They argue that “change has been constant for libraries” (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007), a statement that resonated deeply with my experience at TPL. The authors’ call for ongoing evaluation, participatory service, and the removal of barriers mirrors the shifts I have witnessed over the years at TPL. Eliminating fines, refreshing our website, and launching a mobile app recently are all steps toward a more user‑centered model (Toronto Public Library, n.d.). However, I still find myself wondering whether these changes are happening quickly enough.
During COVID‑19, I worked in TPL’s Finance department and watched the organization transition to remote work for the first time. Public‑facing staff rapidly developed virtual programs for all ages, demonstrating creativity and adaptability. This period reminded me of Mathews’ (2012) argument that libraries must cultivate a culture of experimentation. TPL proved during the pandemic that it could innovate quickly when circumstances demanded it.
However, a 2023 TPL cyberattack challenged that confidence. The four month recovery period, widely covered in the media in a negative spotlight, exposed vulnerabilities in our technological infrastructure (Bridge & Zoledziowski, 2024). For the first time, I questioned whether we were keeping pace with digital realities. Buckland (1999) argues that libraries must rethink their systems from the ground up to remain relevant in changing information environments. His observation that libraries must adapt to new forms of information and new expectations felt particularly relevant as I watched patrons struggle without access to public computers and digital services during this long recovery period of the cyberattack.
At the same time, TPL continues to excel in the areas that Stephens (2016) emphasizes in modern librarianship which is grounded in empathy, openness, and community connection. He explains that librarians should cultivate a mindset of radical trust, an idea that captures the spirit of many TPL programs. From free city attractions MAP passes to after‑school clubs with nutritious snacks, to STEM focused programs like robotics and snap circuits, to teen youth hubs that offer safe, creative spaces, TPL consistently demonstrates a commitment to meeting people where they are (Toronto Public Library, n.d.). These initiatives embody Stephens’ (2016) vision of libraries as participatory, human centered institutions.
This contrast between strong community engagement and slower technological evolution became the centre of my reflection. On one hand, TPL has made meaningful progress in removing barriers and improving user experience, aligning with Library 2.0 principles. On the other hand, the cyberattack revealed the importance of proactive technological modernization. Should a large library system with 100 branches have had a mobile app years earlier? Could being more proactive have made the cyberattack less disruptive? These questions are invitations to think more deeply about what library evolution looks like in practice. The foundational readings challenge us to imagine libraries that are both technologically resilient and community‑centered. Together, these ideas form a roadmap for the future of librarianship, one that balances innovation with humanity. As I move forward in this course, I want to explore how large library systems like TPL can strengthen both sides of this equation: maintaining the community‑centered programs that define us while also building the technological readiness needed to support them.
Toronto Public Library. (n.d.). TPL: map. https://tpl.ca/using-the-library/services/map/
References
Bridge, S., & Zoledziowski, A. (2024, February 27). 1 million books and 4 months later, Toronto’s library recovers from a cyberattack. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-library-ransomware-recovery-1.7126412
Buckland, M. (1999). Redesigning library services: A manifesto. American Library Association.
Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2007). Library 2.0: A guide to participatory library service. Information Today.
Matthews, B. (2012). Think Like a Startup: A white paper to inspire library entrepreneurialism. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/77d2cb98-ddab-4543-9e47-b011819231b3/content
Stephens, M. (2016). The heart of librarianship: Attentive, positive, and purposeful change. ALA Editions.
Toronto Public Library. (n.d.). TPL: map. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://tpl.ca/using-the-library/services/map/