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

I finally found out why the metallic skin of the ROM isn't as attractive as it appeared in renders. There's no contrast with the space around it. If the sidewalk were a dark granite, the crystal would look so much better IMO.
 
Here we go again with the ROM glass. I wonder if this will be an ongoing thing.

romglas.jpg
 
The frames near the broken glass look damaged, I wonder if this is vandalism?
 
Yeah given the location close to the ground, I think it may be vandalism. Also, it looks kicked in... not just shattered. Hmmm.
 
The cracks are at the very corners of the glass, so it does feel that this has little to do with vandalism.
 
Nobody hates the Partenon,the Alhambra, Hagia Sofia, Saint Peter Basilica, Saint Paul, Fallingwater etc. etc
Click to expand...
.

Ah...time has a way of altering your perception. Don't hear anybody bitching about minor things like cracked windows in any of those buildings.

Funny you mentioned Fallingwater. No architect alive can match the egomania starchitect that was FLW. And ROM could not begin matching the problems of Fallingwater...plagued with basic structural problems during construction and after (the Kaufmanns called it "a seven bucket house" and "Rising Mildew") It cost $11 1/2 million just to repair the damned thing (5 times the cost to build it even after adjusting for inflation)...and it still leaks...and that's just a 2800 sqft house for crying out loud.

The ROM addition is not meant to be appreciated by looking at small details, but to stand back and take in the whole facility as one. I think it is quite beautiful. In fact, I think Libeskind's style looks better when it "grows" out of historic buildings than it does as a stand-alone design. Actually, it's more the opposite...it makes it look like the historic buildings are growing out of it.

For me, the Crystal represents not a modern building, but a natural geographic feature from which these two historic wings were built out of. That's the big difference between Libeskind and all the other designs.
 
freshcutgrass said:
.
Funny you mentioned Fallingwater. No architect alive can match the egomania starchitect that was FLW. And ROM could not begin matching the problems of Fallingwater...plagued with basic structural problems during construction and after (the Kaufmanns called it "a seven bucket house" and "Rising Mildew") It cost $11 1/2 million just to repair the damned thing (5 times the cost to build it even after adjusting for inflation)...and it still leaks...and that's just a 2800 sqft house for crying out loud. .
Click to expand...

You ever been in Fallingwater? It may leak (although I get the impression that a lot of those issues were addressed in the recent reno), but boy, is it an amazing space to be in.

In contrast, the inside of the Crystal lends the feeling of being in a lopsided warehouse with temporary catwalks here and there. The wall finishings are awful. The displays look like they were added as an afterthought. It all feels very, very cheap.

freshcutgrass said:
.
The ROM addition is not meant to be appreciated by looking at small details, but to stand back and take in the whole facility as one. .
Click to expand...

That might work for a large, multipurpose building, where perhaps people could experience the spaces created just for themselves, but this is a museum, where the space is filled with displays and people are expected to examine things closely. I'm definitely a "God is in the details" kind of person in this case.

freshcutgrass said:
.
For me, the Crystal represents not a modern building, but a natural geographic feature from which these two historic wings were built out of. That's the big difference between Libeskind and all the other designs.
Click to expand...
For me, the Crystal is an interesting idea applied to the wrong purpose. Were the Crystal primarily glass, and not filled with displays, I'd probably agree--in fact, it would likely look amazing.
 
Last edited:
When they announced that the glass was to be replaced by metal siding my sense of excitement for this turned more to concern, and I think it turned out well under the circumstances. I do like the entrance on Bloor and the open space in front of the crystal is terrific. Exterior aside, the waste of space inside is significant, notably the bridged walkways between sections. These paths are encompassed in a significant space, which are neither useful for purpose of display nor hold architectural appeal- no views of the city at all like you have at the AGO, nor do they provide any sense of the complex framework that makes up the 'crystal'. Perhaps it would have been better if more glass were used here on the interior- so much more could have been done with this space. Not a disaster by any means, but for me it definitely fell short of the original concept.
 
You ever been in Fallingwater? It may leak (although I get the impression that a lot of those issues were addressed in the recent reno), but boy, is it an amazing space to be in.

In contrast, the inside of the Crystal lends the feeling of being in a lopsided warehouse with temporary catwalks here and there. The wall finishings are awful. The displays look like they were added as an afterthought. It all feels very, very cheap.
Click to expand...

Fallingwater is a small, cozy house, where the entire interior was also designed by Wright. It's a complete turnkey design, giving the architect total carte blanche. The Crystal IS really just a warehouse to house changing displays. Fallingwater also happens to be a masterpiece, which few things are (including ROM, which was a victim of many compromises I'm sure)).


this is a museum, where the space is filled with displays and people are expected to examine things closely. I'm definitely a "God is in the details" kind of person in this case.
Click to expand...

The "space" is just a gallery, where what is (hopefully} examined carefully....are the displays. They obviously opted for the "gallery" look of interesting volumes, with plain, white finish as to not distract from the art/displays. If you're at ROM and not liking the way the walls are painted, then I might suggest you are at the ROM for the wrong reasons. I think the volumes of space are well suited to the various uses they perform. A Libeskind is after all, going to look like a Libeskind (the interior spaces reflect the outside angles). I think a lot of the peeves you have (interior fit and finish) are more the fault of ROM, than the overall architecture. It's a pretty expensive way to look "cheap" if you ask me.
 
freshcutgrass said:
The "space" is just a gallery, where what is (hopefully} examined carefully....are the displays. They obviously opted for the "gallery" look of interesting volumes, with plain, white finish as to not distract from the art/displays. If you're at ROM and not liking the way the walls are painted, then I might suggest you are at the ROM for the wrong reasons. I think the volumes of space are well suited to the various uses they perform. A Libeskind is after all, going to look like a Libeskind (the interior spaces reflect the outside angles). I think a lot of the peeves you have (interior fit and finish) are more the fault of ROM, than the overall architecture. It's a pretty expensive way to look "cheap" if you ask me.
Click to expand...

The essential issue I have with it is that the Liebskind is lost. Because the focus is on the displays, you lose the structure. And that's why I think the design is fundamentally wrong for its purpose.

I've been to other museums where they have kept things simple so as to focus on the displays but not come off as cheap. I've also been to museums that were interesting architectually, but where the architecture served to compliment the artwork (which I think is one of the strengths of Gehry's work at the AGO, for instance, but the Guggenheim is another example, speaking of FLW.) The wall finishings in the AGO scream "IKEA" to me, for some reason, and those catwalks really rattle. And this is coming from someone who thinks industrial styling is pretty cool, so it's nothing against catwalks.

The structure comes closest to working where there is glass--for instance, in the galleries with the dinosaur bones. But where you see the serious fail is in the textiles department. The structure is completely lost, and the displays just sort of are plopped in this odd-shaped room.
 
It's a very " expensive way to look cheap ". I've been several times to the Crystal, each time looking for redeeming elements in the architecture, and each time coming away with the opinion that this is a Liebeskind fantasy on angular surfaces, and nothing more. Maybe I'm just too damn old, but the interior of the crystal too me is incoherent and cheap. Did the architect show any interest that displays would fit and be mounted inside the improbable skin ? The new entrance off Bloor misses any sense of occasion the old entrance under the Rotunda had, and looks like any other side entrance to a suburban mall. The exterior look of the Crystal on Bloor is eye-catching and that's about it.
 
I have been in a number of museums where the architecture overshadowed the exhibits, sometimes in a good way, and sometimes for the worse. The best example of good architecture overshadowing the exhibits that I have personally seen was a Spanish art museum that had been converted from a palace, with the interior walls and ceilings of the very large, almost barn-sized rooms covered with intricate carvings. I ended up paying more attention to the architecture than to the paintings.

The ROM Crystal also falls in this category, but in the opposite sense. The architectural spaces are so poorly designed and fabricated that they severely detract from the exhibits, in my opinion.
 
My semi-annual post defending the ROM (this time with a comparison to the AGO)

My wife, with her eternal optimism that her parents aren't Philistines, bought us an AGO annual pass to take her parents to see some culture while they were in town. They demurred... but it does mean that I've gone to see the Maharajahs and Blackwood exhibitions (both great! BTW) and feel like I can now compare the two museums with a wee bit of authority. Beware, though, haters, as I am a fan of both...

I really find some of the disparaging comments about the ROM hard to understand. The 'the tilted white walls with rivets look cheap' comment I understand. I personally don't agree, but I understand. However, the 'entrance is like a mall -- give me back my Rotunda' is strange. Yes, the plaza would be nicer in granite and that would really make the entrance better, but the benches/music plaza/space to move around outside the doors and look at the Crystal is WAY better than the cramped, narrow drop off area outside the old Avenue Road entrance. As you enter the new doors, you no longer have to pile up outside to pay, the vestiaire is accessible, and once you pay, you enter a dramatic open space where the old museum itself becomes an exhibit as you decide which way to go. The AGO entrance is more horizontal, but is essentially exactly the same layout where you come in -- gift shop with separate entrance to the side, vestiaire on the other side, go through the ticket booth, enter into an open space to orient yourself.

Clear glass display cases rather than stuff hanging on the walls? The AGO's Thomson galleries are eye-blearing -- picture after picture hung side by side. In contrast, the new display cases in the Chinese gallery or the dinosaur gallery make the old ROM -- and new AGO -- look extremely dated. Much better! Why does it chafe on people so much that the walls no longer have stuff on them? And if it drives them so batty, why don't they go straight to the 5th floor and check out the massive contemporary African art on display? Now THAT's art on walls!

Lastly, I think most Crystal haters have no clue that the modernist pile that was there before was not open to the public and didn't provide a way to get from one wing to the other. The number of gripes about the catwalks and passages from east to west ignores the fact that there was NO east/west route beforehand, except the main building. The Crystal has provided not just better exhibition space, permanent space, front entrance space and ancillary (restos/shops) space, it provides better circulation!

So -- in summary -- the new ROM. Much bigger. Much better.

And WAY more dramatic when driving down Bloor!

Cheers.
 
I think we've done rather well with all of our new cultural buildings, which for the most part suit their purposes admirably. The AGO, in particular, has become the gallery I had always hoped it would be by virtue of all the additional space for display, even though the Moore Gallery is no longer the destination it once was, and the wonderful Atrium at the south end adjacent to The Grange is sadly diminished by Gehry's reno.

For me, being inside the Crystal is like being inside a huge sculpture - you feel the bones of the place, rising from its foundations in the basement exhibition gallery to the tippy-top of the Costume & Textiles and ICC galleries, wherever you stand, wherever you walk. There's a particularly wonderful place, at the north end of the Crystal's second floor overlooking Bloor, where you're at the apex - a sweet spot - where two massive planes intersect diagonally. And, unlike the AGO - which promises one thing when the great billowing glass canopy is seen from Dundas Street, but delivers something entirely unrelated inside ( those nice little box-shaped galleries that Rink Rat talks about ) - the exterior shape of the Crystal is translated directly to the interior spaces. I think we can appreciate a museum building as a versatile interior display space as well as an architectural statement at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top