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

ROM addition versus Louvre Addition

Compare the exquisite sensitivity of the I.M. Pei addition to the Louvre to the aggressive addition to the ROM. Look at the transparency of the glass pyramid compared to the bulkiness and awkwardness of the "Crystal".
 

Attachments

  • 454.jpg
    454.jpg
    95.6 KB · Views: 219
  • 505.jpg
    505.jpg
    94.1 KB · Views: 253
  • 540.jpg
    540.jpg
    102.1 KB · Views: 238
  • 457.jpg
    457.jpg
    92.4 KB · Views: 242
Light-sensitive objects from the Louvre's collection aren't displayed beneath the glass pyramid, though - and the main function of the Crystal is to provide additional display space for similar objects, hence the lack of the transparency you talk of. Functionally, the Crystal gives the ROM a pedestrian promenade linking the earlier east and west wings, much as Napoleon added a north wing to the Louvre, on several floors.
 
And it's not like the pyramid at the Louvre hasn't been criticized as much or more than the ROM. Whenever you build anything that pushes certain boundaries you're going to have people up in arms. I, for one, really like the Crystal, particularly the exterior and I found the pyramid at the Louvre to be a bit out of place. Of course, that's just my opinion.
 
jn_12 said:
And it's not like the pyramid at the Louvre hasn't been criticized as much or more than the ROM. Whenever you build anything that pushes certain boundaries you're going to have people up in arms. I, for one, really like the Crystal, particularly the exterior and I found the pyramid at the Louvre to be a bit out of place. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Visually I'm quite happy with both the pyramid and the crystal. I was quite suprised when I saw the pyramid ... I don't really understand what all the fuss was. I'd have thought the covered atrium at the British Museum would have been more controversial, as it physically altered the structure (though I love that too).

My problem with the crystal is how poor the space is inside. And how little floorspace we ended up with for such a large amount of money, and ground. And even simple things such as lack of washrooms ... and try finding a drinking fountain.
 
Doubts

Urban Shocker said:
Light-sensitive objects from the Louvre's collection aren't displayed beneath the glass pyramid, though - and the main function of the Crystal is to provide additional display space for similar objects, hence the lack of the transparency you talk of. Functionally, the Crystal gives the ROM a pedestrian promenade linking the earlier east and west wings, much as Napoleon added a north wing to the Louvre, on several floors.
Click to expand...

Your comments would make sense if "The Crystal" hadn't been sold as a very transparent and glimmering object. That obviously it is not.
 
Urban Shocker said:
The Crystal would have made little sense if it had been built as initially "sold", given the function.
Click to expand...

If this is true the competition's jurors were not up to the task, and considering the developments, another jury would certainly have selected a different architectural solution. Too bad for us.
 
Not necessarily. Both Bing Thom and Andrea Bruno's designs, for instance, called for the demolition of the 1934 wing that links the east and west wings in the centre of the "H" plan; the jury may have looked more favourably on Libeskind's design because it didn't do that, and preserved more of the existing buildings than the other shortlisted firms, as well as setting up a better pedestrian flow between the old and new structures. Perhaps they felt Bing Thom's "dinosaur jar" feature was too transparent? Perhaps they thought Bing Thom's wing-like translucent roof was too transparent compared to Libeskind's faceted cladding? There could be any number of resons why the jury chose the design they did.
 
Liebskind's proposal also provided the biggest increase in gallery space, a major factor.

People like to dismiss it as 'starchitecture', but it really was the most practical solution...and it had the added benefit of making the ROM even more of a landmark.
 
syn said:
Liebskind's proposal also provided the biggest increase in gallery space, a major factor.

People like to dismiss it as 'starchitecture', but it really was the most practical solution...and it had the added benefit of making the ROM even more of a landmark.
Click to expand...

Practical solution? Landmark? Chopping the original building at random and adding an alien and experimental form to it should not be condoned so easily.
 
JoeRoe said:
Practical solution? Landmark? Chopping the original building at random and adding an alien and experimental form to it should not be condoned so easily.
Click to expand...

Ah, but as US said, it involved *less* chopping of the original building than the finalist competition...

Both Bing Thom and Andrea Bruno's designs, for instance, called for the demolition of the 1934 wing that links the east and west wings in the centre of the "H" plan; the jury may have looked more favourably on Libeskind's design because it didn't do that, and preserved more of the existing buildings than the other shortlisted firms, as well as setting up a better pedestrian flow between the old and new structures.
Click to expand...
 
JoeRoe said:
Practical solution? Landmark? Chopping the original building at random and adding an alien and experimental form to it should not be condoned so easily.
Click to expand...

Sure it should ... you just described exactly why I love it ... and I'm glad you hate it ... that makes it all the better.
 
I like it because it's different. It's risky. It's a bit ridiculous, but that's kind of what makes it cool. I like that it provokes a reaction.

I see people taking photos of the ROM all the time and that wasn't happening before the addition.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top