Toronto Royal Ontario Museum | ?m | ?s | Daniel Libeskind

Speaking of the planetarium, it's being restored if the sign out front is to be taken literally.

mIOzHy2.jpg


Also, I was talking about the restoration of the old wings a few posts back and it now looks to be happening. Here's the west wing from Philosopher's Walk:
jVpr88N.jpg


The Queens Park entrance stairs and ramp rebuild is also underway:

ITp03VV.jpg


On Bloor, the hoarding goes beyond the area slated for a canopy. They're definitely starting to work on the new Bloor street plaza in sections. I also noticed some minor work inside some of the galleries.

And finally, as per my earlier comments about flow though the museum, it is definitely the fault of the unrenovated old wings. They really are a mess of a maze. The restored west wing's first floor (Asian galleries) are beautiful, open and easy to navigate. I hope that they find a budget to continue that work throughout the entire museum. The Crystal will make so much more sense if they fix the old buildings to match its open, minimalist style.

And finally, the cancelled south crystal is such a critical piece to fulfilling the vision of Renaissance ROM. It's such a shame that they had to scale back. The bunker that is there now really breaks up the natural circulation of the building and hides the beautiful brickwork of the original wings:

oyEeLz4.jpg
 
The Crystal will make so much more sense if they fix the old buildings to match its open, minimalist style.

Please God no. It's like people who buy an old Victorian house because they claim to love Victorians and then they make it open-concept and remove everything that made it Victorian in the first place. The old wings were never meant to have an "open, minimalist style" and they are beautiful because they offer something different than the contemporary.
 
Please God no. It's like people who buy an old Victorian house because they claim to love Victorians and then they make it open-concept and remove everything that made it Victorian in the first place. The old wings were never meant to have an "open, minimalist style" and they are beautiful because they offer something different than the contemporary.

Actually if you look up some of the archival photos the original galleries were far more open than the diorama, inward focused installations in the 70s - and in some way, minimalist. It certainly wasn't ornate.

Examples:

http://heritage.utoronto.ca/fedora/repository/default:21919
http://heritage.utoronto.ca/fedora/repository/default:21930
http://heritage.utoronto.ca/fedora/repository/default:21928

The revitalized galleries in the Philosopher's Walk (mainly ground floor Asian galleries) and Queen's Park galleries aren't really the problem (though I would have preferred more of an effort to hide the plenum).

AoD
 
Last edited:
There's a long way between minimalist, in the sense of the postmodern Crystal's stark interiors, and ornate in the classical sense.

What I am responding to his use of the language "open" and "minimalist" in the vein of the Crystal. They are certainly not ornate compared to a lot of Canadian architecture from their time, no, but it would still be a travesty to change them to try and make them more like the Crystal.

When someone is calling for historical galleries to be updated to match the starkness of a postmodern building addition like the Crystal - especially when the old galleries are the most established and meaningful for many people in Toronto, in addition to their objective historical and architectural value - I think it's pedantic to point out that the galleries are not in fact very ornate for their time of construction or are 'minimalist' or open. In the context of a postmodern conception of space in the 2008 addition to the building, and someone calling for them to be 'fixed' to match that design sensibility, it's a non-sequitur.

In the case that MetroMan is expressing a desire for the old buildings to be 'fixed' by tacking more ill conceived / post rationalized Libeskind "crystals" onto the complex, I still maintain that it's very flawed thinking. There is a good reason that the architecture community was never supportive of the Crystal proposal - it was pushed by a select group of individuals within the institution and few others. More of the Crystal wouldn't fix the ROM - it would take it in the very wrong direction. (Not to mention the yet-again increased ticket costs and other funding issues that would come along with it.) No thanks.
 
Last edited:
There's a long way between minimalist, in the sense of the postmodern Crystal's stark interiors, and ornate in the classical sense.

What I am responding to his use of the language "open" and "minimalist" in the vein of the Crystal. They are certainly not ornate compared to a lot of Canadian architecture from their time, no, but it would still be a travesty to change them to try and make them more like the Crystal.

When someone is calling for historical galleries to be updated to match the starkness of a postmodern building addition like the Crystal - especially when the old galleries are the most established and meaningful for many people in Toronto, in addition to their objective historical and architectural value - I think it's pedantic to point out that the galleries are not in fact very ornate for their time of construction or are 'minimalist' or open. In the context of a postmodern conception of space in the 2008 addition to the building, and someone calling for them to be 'fixed' to match that design sensibility, it's a non-sequitur.

In the case that MetroMan is expressing a desire for the old buildings to be 'fixed' by tacking more ill conceived / post rationalized Libeskind "crystals" onto the complex, I still maintain that it's very flawed thinking. There is a good reason that the architecture community was never supportive of the Crystal proposal - it was pushed by a select group of individuals within the institution and few others. More of the Crystal wouldn't fix the ROM - it would take it in the very wrong direction. (Not to mention the yet-again increased ticket costs and other funding issues that would come along with it.) No thanks.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we put in window staches, cut up the existing heritage buildings and pour neutral flooring so that the spaces resemble that of the Deconstuctivist addition - but more a suggestion that there is a more consistent style to how artifacts and overall gallery design is implemented. As a member of the ROM I offer a different take - the idea of the Crystal isn't the problem - even broadly speaking the individual galleries in the Crystal aren't the problem (sure there are circulation issues and quality of materials chosen, but they are not showstoppers). What is the problem is that Renaissance ROM is fundamentally an incomplete project and have taken shortcuts to get the addition built, with insufficient funds to basically renew all the galleries and truly tie up everything in a consistent manner. They did it on the ground floor - but the same vigour petered out on the 2nd and 3rd floor - you end up with closed gallery spaces (the so called Early Life gallery at the north end of the Queen's Park wing that with luck will finally open after a decade), old galleries that are more or less forced to accommodate the new addition and its' circulation demands, and even renewed galleries (e.g. Cyprus) that basically deviated from the design vocabulary. The result is fundamentally discordant - almost like an institution trying to figure out what museological approach they wanted to use - and they did, given the approaches of the CEOs chosen. This is way more than an architectural issue

AoD
 
Last edited:
Please God no. It's like people who buy an old Victorian house because they claim to love Victorians and then they make it open-concept and remove everything that made it Victorian in the first place. The old wings were never meant to have an "open, minimalist style" and they are beautiful because they offer something different than the contemporary.

Have you seen the renovated West Wing? It was restored to largely its original condition: wide open spaces where the artifacts stand out in minimalist glass cases that don't call attention to themselves. It's what I'd like to see for the remaining galleries in the old wings. Gone with the kitsch and dioramas, gone with the walls added over time that have turned the old wings into mazes and dead ends.
 
I'm a member as well. Having visited the ROM for most of my life, ( I'm 69 ), I can say that my close relationship to the place probably clouds an objective appraisal of what's right or wrong with the overall presentation. The three previous posters all make valid points - there is a confusing layout , with jarring contrasts between minimalist and the more Victorian galleries. Perhaps the the issues might have been resolved had funding been in place to finish the project as AlvinoDiaspar suggests. This is the pre-eminent institution of it's kind in Canada. Maybe it's time to launch another major fund raising drive to complete what should be a crowning jewel in Toronto. With all the construction going on in Toronto it's been a while since anyone has heard of major cultural investments.
 
Have you seen the renovated West Wing? It was restored to largely its original condition: wide open spaces where the artifacts stand out in minimalist glass cases that don't call attention to themselves. It's what I'd like to see for the remaining galleries in the old wings. Gone with the kitsch and dioramas, gone with the walls added over time that have turned the old wings into mazes and dead ends.

Indeed - Haley Sharpe did excellent work with the new galleries - and it still remained fresh after a decade. The minerals and gems gallery is almost timeless in execution.

http://haleysharpe.com/projects/royal-ontario-museum-2/

I think the ROM went with Retch+Petch with the later phases (e.g. Biodiversity) and it started to deviate. Also look at how say the Byzantium gallery was handled:

http://www.rom.on.ca/en/exhibitions...res/joey-and-toby-tanenbaum-gallery-byzantium

It looks sloppy compared to Phase 1.

I'm a member as well. Having visited the ROM for most of my life, ( I'm 69 ), I can say that my close relationship to the place probably clouds an objective appraisal of what's right or wrong with the overall presentation. The three previous posters all make valid points - there is a confusing layout , with jarring contrasts between minimalist and the more Victorian galleries. Perhaps the the issues might have been resolved had funding been in place to finish the project as AlvinoDiaspar suggests. This is the pre-eminent institution of it's kind in Canada. Maybe it's time to launch another major fund raising drive to complete what should be a crowning jewel in Toronto. With all the construction going on in Toronto it's been a while since anyone has heard of major cultural investments.

The problem is that there feels like a bit of a "push-pull" between the "museum as repository of artifacts" school vs. the "museum as a place of experiential learning" school. The new galleries are done in the former; and the old, the latter - and it is jarring to move from glass case and platform displays in open galleries to bat cave and dioramas that is designed to create the illusion of somewhere else. It doesn't not jive at all - and the latter quite frankly belongs more to the Science Centre. The Thorsell to Carding swing also reflected this split personality.

Also, the dual mandate (natural history and world culture) is ungainly, and I find that the modern and contemporary culture focus of late is a particularly bad fit. Like why would I want to visit the ROM to look at Arne Jacobsen chairs? Some of the recent exhibitions are also cringe inducing - like Chihuly at ROM? Why?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Also look at how say the Byzantium gallery was handled:

http://www.rom.on.ca/en/exhibitions...res/joey-and-toby-tanenbaum-gallery-byzantium

It looks sloppy compared to Phase 1.
The Byzantine gallery is very byzantine in layout.

It is time for the ROM to split off into two museums: one focusing on natural history and another on world culture. A new building would need to be constructed nearby as well.

Given that, the ROM would be an art museum (think Met, not AGO) and be called ROMA (Royal Ontario Museum of Art). A natural history museum (perhaps call it the ROMNH (Royal Ontario Museum of Natural History), but also run by the ROM) would he home to the blue whale.
 
Last edited:
I don't wonder if ROM (and AGO) couldn't afford more investment in quality galleries and spaces if they had higher attendance?

I also wonder if they could generate said attendance though expanded hours? (During a recent exhibit at ROM it was bursting at the seems near closing, they could have sold
a lot more tickets staying open till 9pm, instead of 5:30pm, I would think).

I also wonder whether moving to free admission might pay off. It's my understanding that many galleries in the UK saw a significant uplift in donations and/or PWYC on exit.

Aside from a reduced staffing cost and money-handling cost in a 'free' scenario, I also don't wonder if people who now pay $30 on a visit, but come once a year, feel no need/desire to donate
since they paid for their ticket.......might come 3-4x per year and drop $10 on the way out or make a $50 donation instead?

I'm not stuck on that last idea.......but I think it merits study.
 

Back
Top