There are many Lawrence residents who can understand the pain of living through a major remodeling project — perhaps of a bathroom or a kitchen — in their homes. But how many residents have put up with those hassles for a full two years?

As it is planned now, thousands of Lawrence residents will be asked to deal with major inconveniences associated with the remodeling of the Lawrence Public Library for 24 months or more while the project is under construction.

But an idea has emerged at Lawrence City Hall that would have library operations temporarily move to another location so that construction crews would have unfettered access to the building at Seventh and Vermont streets.

City commissioners naturally have questions about how such a plan would work. Where the library would move and how much would the city have to pay for a temporary lease, are two large questions that would have to be answered. But city commissioners should insist that the idea of a temporary move be fully explored. At their meeting Tuesday evening, commissioners were assured they would receive a full report on the idea.

The city’s architects have speculated that the temporary move could cut the duration of the construction project to around 12 months. City officials haven’t yet estimated how much money the shorter construction project could save on the estimated $19 million project.

Other architects have questioned the entire project: its costs, the time required to complete the construction, how long a temporary facility would be needed and other related matters. It continues to be a highly debated project.

City leaders have an obligation to get answers to these questions. The library project did not win a massive majority when voters approved the project last November. The price tag, coupled with the economy and the uncertainty about the future of libraries, made a significant number of people in the community wonder whether this was the right project at the right time.

The city runs the risk of increasing frustration with the project if community members are asked to endure for two years a library that is constantly in flux, constantly short of parking, and full of noise, dust, debris and other byproducts of a major construction project.

There have been some comments by library leaders that it would be difficult to provide library services at any temporary site outside of downtown. Such concerns should be discussed, but city commissioners should not remove any options from the table at the moment. A temporary site wouldn’t have to be large enough to accommodate the entire library collection. One idea might be to move the library’s most public services such as computers, video rentals and the children’s section and institute a system that allowed patrons to request other items from the collection and pick them up at the temporary site.

Commissioners should send a clear message to all involved that they’re looking for opportunities to sensibly save money on this important project. Like a fine opening chapter of a good book, it could set the proper tone for the entire project.