Libraries are repositories of books for people to take away. The idea that they need to provide office space for people who could just as well read at home is stupid.
This is precisely what I have been thinking while reading all these comments, but unable to express so succintly.
First, old-fashioned academic libraries existed; later, public lending libraries existed, but only because various people noticed that the existence of academic libraries was a good thing thing that should be more widely accessible to people outside academia and/or religious institutions. At no point has the purpose of public lending libraries been to provide the community centre and entertainment resource that some people want them to be.
At no point has the purpose of public lending libraries been to provide the community centre
Of course, they have not traditionally been free-use community spaces in the sense of "hey, come to the library and drop your kids off so they can run around and play" or anything like that. But I don't think anybody's asking for that, either.
Judging by your spelling of "centre," perhaps you're not in the U.S. and therefore have a different experience and perspective.
This is such a straw man. Unless you have an actual academic need for an actual Shakespeare first folio, you can read that text without needing an original printing. If you have such a need, the Palo Alto Public Library isn’t likely to have a it there for the asking.
Academic libraries at universities have their purpose, but your local public library isn’t going to typically be used by Shakespeare scholars.
Reading restricted collection books is a pretty low percentage of why people visit libraries. Reading ultra rare, priceless books is almost non-existent as a percentage of library visits.