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

The black and white cuts down on their letterhead and advertising costs.

Goes to show you that there is a pretty small thinking group running this show.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
As opposed to the ugly as sin, globally outsourced copycat version that cost $x?

AoD
Click to expand...

The new one, and even the more recently replaced one are lightyears above that garbage.

Big Daddy said:
The black and white cuts down on their letterhead and advertising costs.

Goes to show you that there is a pretty small thinking group running this show.
Click to expand...

Except they use the O as a portal and have full colour photography within.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
As I commented on the front page, I don't know why they're planning on planting trees in front of the Crystal. Architectural landmarks shouldn't be obscured by trees. It seems that few people love the Crystal, but obscuring a landmark with trees is bad form.
 
junctionist said:
As I commented on the front page, I don't know why they're planning on planting trees in front of the Crystal. Architectural landmarks shouldn't be obscured by trees. It seems that few people love the Crystal, but obscuring a landmark with trees is bad form.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous thing to say, in my opinion. Who makes these judgments about "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" of how visual landmarks are to be treated. It's not obscuring anything (and certainly not obscuring the views, given the size of the building and its location on an urban street. What is being done is improving the public realm and strengthening the overall project; architecturally and in terms of urban design, it's a great move.
 
The reason for the principle is that great architectural landmarks are meant to stand out and not blend in with the landscape. Trees grow tall and wide with time and block views of buildings. The city chose not to plant any trees in front of Union Station's grand portico in its Front Street redesign plan--that was explicitly stated. Ordinary buildings can be obscured for a tree-lined street, but not the most outstanding landmarks.

The idea in this plan seems to be not to obstruct the view of the facade from Bloor and Queen's Park--the boldest part of the facade. There are no trees in the plaza closer to Queen's Park. It's not necessarily a bad plan, but the Bloor side is still fairly obscured. The entire facade is remarkable; it's not like there's a grand portico in the middle to keep prominent. I'd prefer to keep the trees close to the entrance to Philosopher's Walk. The rest of the changes will be a welcomed improvement.
 
^ LOL. What I find more interesting is that no one from the city realized this deficiency in the first place. All of this could have been addressed 7 years ago if someone had the balls to call Libeskind out on this design.
Furthermore, I find it a bit of a stretch to call the ROM a 'great architectural landmark'. Denver got the original design. We got the 'napkin' version. Not exactly original or groundbreaking and I don't believe it us put on the global architectural map.
 
Logan said:
^ LOL. What I find more interesting is that no one from the city realized this deficiency in the first place. All of this could have been addressed 7 years ago if someone had the balls to call Libeskind out on this design.
Furthermore, I find it a bit of a stretch to call the ROM a 'great architectural landmark'. Denver got the original design. We got the 'napkin' version. Not exactly original or groundbreaking and I don't believe it us put on the global architectural map.
Click to expand...



^ are you serious? it looks awesome. no doubt Denver art museum is designed in a beautiful way but it is not better than ROM. I think ROM have a much better design. I don't know about the quality but in design ROM wins the race.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top