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

[MDV3]

There are a few posts on UT over the years that just take your breath away........we are so fortunate to have the Crystal; controversial as it may be, make no mistake - this is no 'mistake' - a lot of people recognize it for being the daring, iconic structure that it is - I like to think that the way it 'smashes' into the ROM represents a larger 'smashing' of boring old Toronto's aesthetics - it is a literal rip into the fabric of what was second rate and mediocre here; what Toronto today is rapidly metamorphosing from ....to even suggest 'pulling the plug' suggests a reversion to the old, ugly Toronto - it's just a disgraceful idea....pman, you need to give your head a shake....

Nod, props whatever I give u that... Well said... I admit to greatly liking the design but I also admit that the new addition is foreign... Which I have no problem with

 

[Big Daddy]

There are a few posts on UT over the years that just take your breath away........we are so fortunate to have the Crystal; controversial as it may be, make no mistake - this is no 'mistake' - a lot of people recognize it for being the daring, iconic structure that it is - I like to think that the way it 'smashes' into the ROM represents a larger 'smashing' of boring old Toronto's aesthetics - it is a literal rip into the fabric of what was second rate and mediocre here; what Toronto today is rapidly metamorphosing from ....to even suggest 'pulling the plug' suggests a reversion to the old, ugly Toronto - it's just a disgraceful idea....pman, you need to give your head a shake....

I quite like the daring design, but changing the material was handled poorly. If it had been glass as first proposed, it would be gorgeous. Unfortunately the design does not translate well in what appears to be aluminum siding. It has all the markings of a quick job change once someone realized the problems glass would create and yet they didn’t have the time or the budget to make an intelligent substitution. That’s what makes it so annoying – what could have been beautiful and iconic, is instead embarrassing.

 

[pman]

I know what your referring too and I completely disagree ... I'll give you the materials used on the inside at least were definitely of higher quality so you make a good point, but if the ROM could make use of the space inside (which again, is amazing) with all the angles and multi-height rooms / areas - it would be worth it.

A valid argument you may have is that a museum really can't make use of such space efficiently ... I'm not sure that's true, but if it is then it was really a bad idea to go with the design from the get go.

You made my point when you said, "If the ROM could make use of the space inside." But they can't. All those angles and multi-height rooms mean ROM can't display their collection in an intelligent and compelling way, and the pedestrian flows are atrocious.

If you want another example, contrast ROM's dinosaur exhibit with the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller. The ROM fossils and models are crowded together and it's impossible to step back sufficiently to view the really grand specimens. Those hicks in Alberta created rooms out of very large rectangular boxes, some with black walls and spotlights on the exhibits that produce a breathtaking experience, all of which are appropriately scaled to the subject matter.

I agree that ROM's interior is amazing in a funhouse sort of way, but it's a total failure as an exhibit space.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The Crystal creates pedestrian flows, on the second and third floors, that didn't exist before - it links the two heritage wings and allows the Museum to arrange their collections more logically.

 

[Urban Shocker]

For the most part, the museum turns it's back on the design and all the neat spaces it creates on the inside. This is particularly noticeable on the top floors of the buildings where the spaces are amazing to say the least but works themselves really don't make use of the space in any way, it's largely ignored less a couple interesting features.

What do you think of Siamak Hariri's permanent display system in the ICC's Roloff Beny Gallery on level 4? It was a response, I understand, to the challenges that the lack of vertical walls presented to installing exhibitions of flat artwork such as the recent Burtynsky photo exhibition held there.

Huge dinosaur and mammal skeletons don't need to be wall-mounted, of course; like most of the ROM's three dimensional exhibits ( both in the Crystal and the old heritage buildings ) they're displayed in the round.

 

[pman]

What do you think of Siamak Hariri's permanent display system in the ICC's Roloff Beny Gallery on level 4? It was a response, I understand, to the challenges that the lack of vertical walls presented to installing exhibitions of flat artwork such as the recent Burtynsky photo exhibition held there.

Huge dinosaur and mammal skeletons don't need to be wall-mounted, of course; like most of the ROM's three dimensional exhibits ( both in the Crystal and the old heritage buildings ) they're displayed in the round.

Of course they're not wall-mounted. But the small floor plates coupled with the sloping walls mean the whole exhibit is cramped. You need to be able to stand back to appreciate the larger specimens and that's not possible in the Crystal.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

The Crystal creates pedestrian flows, on the second and third floors, that didn't exist before - it links the two heritage wings and allows the Museum to arrange their collections more logically.

US, I've stopped arguing with the haters. They've never been to a museum before, or, at least, had never been to the ROM before.

 

[pman]

US, I've stopped arguing with the haters. They've never been to a museum before, or, at least, had never been to the ROM before.

Let me get this straight - any sophisto who has ever visited a museum has to love the Crystal and anybody who hates it is just an ignorant citizen of Ford Nation?

One museum I haven't visited is the Denver Museum of Art, another Liebeskind fiasco that would appear to be a Crystal clone from the outside. Read fellow hater Witold Rybczynski's comments on DMA here: http://www.slate.com/id/2145439/ Withold's probably been to a museum before - he was an architecture professor.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Let me get this straight - any sophisto who has ever visited a museum has to love the Crystal and anybody who hates it is just an ignorant citizen of Ford Nation?

No. But most or all critics of the Crystal go in prepared to hate it. I haven't read all of your comments, but your apples to oranges comparison of the Royal Tyrell (a very nice little museum devoted to dinosaurs) to the ROM (a very large museum with a million stories to tell) meant that, IMHO, you weren't going to be adding anything new to the debate.

As for the sophisto versus 'ICOFN' comment -- I go to the ROM with my 14 and 12 year old daughters, or pop in with my wife to see the new exhibits. We're long-time ROM members, and this is a much, much better museum than it was before the new Native American exhibit started the expansion, way back when. It's also a museum which announces itself (yes, through the dramatic Crystal) in a way that it never did before. I like that, and I like the Crystal.

 

[wopchop]

^ I agree. Something that would really make it shine and bring clarity to it's external form would be great. Surely there must be another way to handle drainage issues, instead of how it was done?

The simple fact of the matter is that "traditional" designs are traditional because they work. Water drains easily and efficiently. Snow doesn't build up too much. Daring designs tend to always have problems with water. That's part of the reason why they never built this way before - it's not very practical.

That being said, I like the crystal. I think that it would look even better with new cladding.

 

[pman]

No. But most or all critics of the Crystal go in prepared to hate it. I haven't read all of your comments, but your apples to oranges comparison of the Royal Tyrell (a very nice little museum devoted to dinosaurs) to the ROM (a very large museum with a million stories to tell) meant that, IMHO, you weren't going to be adding anything new to the debate.

As for the sophisto versus 'ICOFN' comment -- I go to the ROM with my 14 and 12 year old daughters, or pop in with my wife to see the new exhibits. We're long-time ROM members, and this is a much, much better museum than it was before the new Native American exhibit started the expansion, way back when. It's also a museum which announces itself (yes, through the dramatic Crystal) in a way that it never did before. I like that, and I like the Crystal.

First, comparing the ROM's dinosaur exhibit to the Royal Tyrell's is actually apples to apples. Second, if you get out of Toronto a bit and check out the recent additions to MFA in Boston or MOMA in NYC, you might understand how much of a failure the Crystal really is. But the a Washington Post columnist put it better than I could when he listed the Crystal as one of the worst buildings of its decade:

"The Michael Lee-Chin Crystal. Sure, there were a lot of Wal-Marts thrown up in the Aughts, but Daniel Libeskind's addition to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto surpasses the ugliness of bland functional buildings by being both ugly and useless. His aluminum-and-glass-clad crystalline forms grow out of the building's original 1914 structure, and from the street it's dramatic. But go inside and you need a map to move around its irrational and baffling dead spaces.

And where do you put art in a room of canted walls? Curators seem as baffled and frustrated by it as casual visitors. And it cost only $250 million."

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

First, comparing the ROM's dinosaur exhibit to the Royal Tyrell's is actually apples to apples. Second, if you get out of Toronto a bit and check out the recent additions to MFA in Boston or MOMA in NYC, you might understand how much of a failure the Crystal really is. But the a Washington Post columnist put it better than I could when he listed the Crystal as one of the worst buildings of its decade:

"The Michael Lee-Chin Crystal. Sure, there were a lot of Wal-Marts thrown up in the Aughts, but Daniel Libeskind's addition to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto surpasses the ugliness of bland functional buildings by being both ugly and useless. His aluminum-and-glass-clad crystalline forms grow out of the building's original 1914 structure, and from the street it's dramatic. But go inside and you need a map to move around its irrational and baffling dead spaces.

And where do you put art in a room of canted walls? Curators seem as baffled and frustrated by it as casual visitors. And it cost only $250 million."

I promised... I promised... so, my last post.

1. Comparing ROM's dinosaur exhibit -- which took out a tired diorama and made it into a modernist space with many, many more artifacts and descriptive panels (mostly touch screen with added detail) -- to the Royal Tyrell -- a museum made specifically to highlight the ongoing explorations and discoveries of dinosaur bones around Drumheller, using real ferns, etc. to create a diorama effect much better than the ROM's old one, is apples to oranges.

2. Been to MOMA. It's a good addition to a museum where they hang stuff on the walls. Again, nothing to do with what the Crystal adds/is/does.

3. Yeah, I can Google old reviews, too: http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...-chin-crystal-as-one-of-world-s-7-new-wonders . Apparently, some people thought it was the best thing ever, even at the opening. But, to answer the WaPo critic's concern, the ROM has built transparent cases for all of its artifacts, both in the Crystal and in the rest of the museum. It's really easy to walk around most of the new exhibits, see stuff from all sides, etc. And -- oh, by the way -- which is it you don't like? The fact you can't put 'art' on the walls? (Kind of weird, seeing we're talking about dinosaur bones.) Or you can't get perspective (go outside on the street and see the cool view from there.)

Finally -- you insulted me by saying I was a 'sophisto'. Then you insulted me by saying I'm a Toronto hick that never gets out of town. I'm starting to think you've never been to the Tyrell or MOMA yourself. (I can't say much about Boston as I haven't been in years.) Given that it's a couple of hours outside Calgary and a little underwhelming once you get there, I was a little disappointed by the Tyrell. Given that it's a nice but not particularly special museum (the collection is excellent), MOMA isn't even in my top three museums on Manhattan, much less the planet. My favourite ROM-style museum is the British. My favourite MOMA-style museum ('art on walls') is Musee d'Orsay. My favourite museum in Toronto, for many and varied reasons, but particularly the great new collections in its new expanded space, is the ROM.

I'll stop now, except to say that, IMHO, you post like you're a bit of a dick. (Yes, I feel better now, thank you for asking.)

 

[pman]

I promised... I promised... so, my last post.

1. Comparing ROM's dinosaur exhibit -- which took out a tired diorama and made it into a modernist space with many, many more artifacts and descriptive panels (mostly touch screen with added detail) -- to the Royal Tyrell -- a museum made specifically to highlight the ongoing explorations and discoveries of dinosaur bones around Drumheller, using real ferns, etc. to create a diorama effect much better then the ROM's old one, is apples to oranges.

2. Been to MOMA. It's a good addition to a museum where they hang stuff on the walls. Again, nothing to do with what the Crystal adds/is/does.

3. Yeah, I can Google old reviews, too: http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...-chin-crystal-as-one-of-world-s-7-new-wonders . Apparently, some people thought it was the best thing ever, even at the opening. But, to answer the WaPo critic's concern, the ROM has built transparent cases for all of its artifacts, both in the Crystal and in the rest of the museum. It's really easy to walk around most of the new exhibits, see stuff from all sides, etc. And -- oh, by the way -- which is it you don't like? The fact you can't put 'art' on the walls? (Kind of weird, seeing we're talking about dinosaur bones.) Or you can't get perspective (go outside on the street and see the cool view from there.)

Finally -- you insulted me by saying I was a 'sophisto'. Then you insulted me by saying I'm a Toronto hick that never gets out of town. I'm starting to think you've never been to the Tyrell or MOMA yourself. (I can't say much about Boston as I haven't been in years.) Given that it's a couple of hours outside Calgary and a little underwhelming once you get there, I was a little disappointed by the Tyrell. Given that it's a nice but not particularly special museum (the collection is excellent), MOMA isn't even in my top three museums on Manhattan, much less the planet. My favourite ROM-style museum is the British. My favourite MOMA-style museum ('art on walls') is Musee d'Orsay. My favourite museum in Toronto, for many and varied reasons, but particularly the great new collections in its new expanded space, is the ROM.

I'll stop now, except to say that, IMHO, you post like you're a bit of a dick. (Yes, I feel better now, thank you for asking.)

Sorry to have insulted you RRR, and since I'm replying to your post you should feel free to reply to this.

1. Dinos to dinos = apples to apples.

2. MOMA and MFA may not be your favourite museums but they are examples of how to do an addition properly.

3. Having a bad day?

 

[old boy]

The ROM is a unique institution in Canada, and one which Toronto is very fortunate to host. It's varied collections of natural and cultural heritage simply astound. As I'm not that familiar with museums around the world, the ROM is my window. The Crystal blows the roof off our notions of what a comfortable museum ought to be, but it is still only an addition. Some of those funny angled windows must have been very costly and a real pain to construct. The fact that a lot of them are screened to protect the displays simply negates those architectural features. I visited with an out-of- town friend, ( who did purchase a distance membership), on Monday, and everyone we saw appeared to be enjoying themselves. It's a great place, Crystal and all.

 

[Urban Shocker]

And where do you put art in a room of canted walls? Curators seem as baffled and frustrated by it as casual visitors.

To answer that, please answer this:

What do you think of Siamak Hariri's permanent display system in the ICC's Roloff Beny Gallery on level 4? It was a response, I understand, to the challenges that the lack of vertical walls presented to installing exhibitions of flat artwork such as the recent Burtynsky photo exhibition held there.