Since the establishment of first toy library in Japan at Mitaka in 1981, the concept of toy library started to spread among Asian countries. Unlike public library, toy library exists in different ways varies from stand alone facility, supplemental service for hospital or kindergarten to mobile toy library. This variation has caused confusion to many and after many years its existence still remained negligible among the general public. However, a closer look to this toy library will leads one to recognize its contribution and significance to the users as it is not only allows children and their parents to borrow toys, games and others as they would books from a public library, it also provide a place for the children from different families to play together and encourages the exchange of ideas among parents about the development of their children. Therefore, it is necessary to have a better understanding on the utilization of toy libraries before the suggestions for future improvements can be made. Generally, toy library can be divided into two categories, which are Community Type and Supplemental Type toy library. Community Type Toy Library can be considered as a type of welfare facilities under community center, volunteer center or it itself is a stand-alone community facility. Whereas the Supplemental Type Toy Library is usually attached to another main facilities like hospital or nursery and operated as an additional service. Before pin-pointing the existing problems in toy library, it is important to find out the similarities and differences of utilization among different types of toy library. Therefore, this study is generated to compare the users’ utilization of Community Type and Supplemental Type toy library by focusing on the spatial elements as well as the users’ behaviors. From there, merits from each type are suggested for another for better usage of space and more user-friendly environment. For methodology, case studies are used and 2 toy libraries from each type are selected for further survey. The survey is carried out during the operation hours of each sample, by using non-participation observation, behavioral mapping and interviews. The results show: 1) Spatial planning of each sample differs according to the objectives of the toy library, which is largely affected by the type of toy library. 2) The users’ utilization and atmosphere of the place is influenced by the type of space provided in the toy library, as well as the type of toys available at each sample. 3) The way of communication among children users and parents are different at each sample, which is also highly related to the type of toy library. In conclusion, although the 2 types of toy libraries have different target users, the spatial planning should not be limited to certain pattern only. Since each type of toy libraries have their pros and cons, the merits should be integrated into the others in order to optimize the function of toy library.