doctorow at November 10th, 2013 15:01 — #1
stephen_schenck at November 10th, 2013 15:20 — #2
And prepare them for a career in stage lighting design!
gilbertwham at November 10th, 2013 15:20 — #3
They have a family library? And it then gets made BETTER?! Lucky little buggers. Man, I wish I had a family library (a shed would do. I'd love a shed).
oktroj at November 10th, 2013 15:26 — #4
Only a great idea until the smallest of the little blighters piss themselves.
glitch at November 10th, 2013 16:06 — #5
Cue scaremongering about the children hurting themselves in 3... 2... 1...
neueheimat at November 10th, 2013 16:10 — #6
Would be rather useful in an earthquake.
bytebro at November 10th, 2013 16:11 — #7
Just have a local library staffed by people who actually give a damn about kids reading... Who encourage them to read more. And read more eclectically. Good librarians are awesome. Bad librarians should be burned on a bonfire.
gilbertwham at November 10th, 2013 16:11 — #8
I tell you what, if that was MY library, I'd be keeping my goddamn kids out of there, so I could have some peace in my lovely, lovely library. Those nets would be utilised in a separate containment facility, let's say.
dbavaria at November 10th, 2013 16:15 — #9
I assume if you have a traditional family library in your home there are also other rooms your kids can use for play. 1% problems.
bcsizemo at November 10th, 2013 16:20 — #10
Reading net...psh that's a missed opportunity for a reading trampoline.
prezombie at November 10th, 2013 17:01 — #12
This is a beautiful idea to add individuality to the library, but I honestly think they should have gone with a finer net. Those holes look to be about three inches square, which is small enough for a careless foot of to fall through if they're small enough, which would suck near the edge. a net with twice as many ropes would've removed most of all the risk such a construct offers.
art_carnage at November 10th, 2013 21:48 — #13
What could possibly go wrong?
droctapu at November 10th, 2013 22:00 — #14
The trick is that you rig it up so when you pull a switch it drops and conveniently packages the children for removal.
rocketpj at November 10th, 2013 23:57 — #17
Well,safely concerns aside (and there are some), the last thing my kids would be doing in that net is reading. Bouncing, flipping, testing it for weakness, using it as a launchpad.
Within 3 hours every book on that top level would be in a jumbled pile on the net, which would be sagging to the floor. My boys would be jumping on top of the rapidly disintegrating books and daring each other to do flips.
capissen38 at November 11th, 2013 00:31 — #18
There's such a thing as a "traditional family library?" And it looks like that? Yeah, look, it's really pretty and well-designed and whatnot, but this really comes off as almost Romney-level detached elitism. "Encourage your kids to learn about the world with their own private jet!"
I don't know what the story is in the Bay Area, but we're poor as shit out here, and getting poorer. Just having books would be nice.
ookboo at November 11th, 2013 03:32 — #19
This assumes that no child could possibly be interested in using the library to find a book and read. A completely false (and somewhat insulting) assumption, if I remember my own childhood.
toyg at November 11th, 2013 03:46 — #20
Ever tried using a hammock without some sort of towel or pillow? Yeah, it can be painful.
On the 1% hatefest (which is fair enough): it doesn't have to be a library, you could probably do this in their own bedroom. If your walls are good enough, of course.
7etoatreides at November 11th, 2013 04:33 — #21
a traditional family library
Is Boinboing a millionaire's blog now?
lemoutan at November 11th, 2013 06:31 — #22
How come only kids get a net? I want one too. But it would have to be at a higher, separate, level so I could look down on them.
OK, now that's beginning to sound a bit creepy. Never mind.
raybert at November 11th, 2013 07:19 — #23
Careful what you wish for!
next page →