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

SP!RE said:
Another example of what a shitty building the ROM addition is. Sorry, but... I still can't really name anything that is GREAT about this addition.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like the ROM has suffered a case of vandalism. Now, please don't get me wrong and assume I like Liebskind's horrendous work (the interior looks like an unfinished construction site, exposed screws and all) but I don't agree that this is at all an "..example of what a shitty building the ROM addition is." Unless you consider "someone throwing a rock at the ROM due to the shitty quality of the building" a valid design flaw.
 
Like many Torontonians, I watched the proposals for the renovation of the ROM with great interest, as well as the ongoing soap opera of the relationship between the staff and previous directors over the past 15 years or more. I was excited at the idea of the "crystal" and still recall looking at the architectural drawings in the newspaper years ago. It looked great from the bird's eye sketches. When I discovered later that the addition was merely aluminum siding like on my old house, I was disappointed. Surely they shouldn't have bothered when they learned that the thing couldn't be done in glass. What a shame. This is entirely unimpressive from the street. There was a journalist at the time that claimed that the addition was most likely to be taken down within 20 years. Given the economy, I doubt that, but I expect it to be gone in my lifetime. This is not a permanent structure on Bloor St.

The ROM will need more space, and they probably needed just a simple addition, or roof raising. What about making a deal with the city/university and expanding westwards a few metres, or up a couple of storeys? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against progress or expansion, and I certainly found the staff's documented reluctance to the project distressing (as documented on the film "The Museum" which made the staff come across as rather parochial and stuffy), but this thing looks too much like any old house with aluminum siding panels on it. When the ROM needs its next expansion, they will learn (or use it as an excuse) that the north-end crystal wing will need to be removed in order to accomodate the heightened storeys and new wings.
 
Last edited:
I remember the models inside the ROM and being able to vote for a preferred addition. I don't remember which I chose, but do remember the Crystal being glass. Was also disappointed w/ the final result; but wasn't it done to protect the items on display? If so, they did what needed to be done to protect/preserve historical artifacts from around the world.

The fact that ppl still to this day stop, look up and around the 'crystal', IMO shows it's a success as a piece of thought-envoking architecture. Oh ya, and the fact that we're still taking bout it on this board adds to that too.
 
^ Yes, the original design was to have glass but it was changed as you said, to protect the items inside. Somehow the design committee missed that when they were choosing or the architect missed the requirement when designing his proposal, who knows.

At the end of the day, the deed is done - some people don't mind the aluminum siding. But I'm not one of them.

ROMMMMM1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think it's great ... but my problem with it is the inside it self actually ...

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.

I generally sum it up to others: The museum as is today doesn't deserve the crystal, if they were always planning on using the space the way they did they should have opted for something more run of the mill.
 
There's no reason they can't replace the aluminium slats with opaque glass like they've done with First Canadian Place.

Like some buildings in Toronto, the crystal is ahead of its time and will be more appreciated as it establishes itself as an icon of Toronto architecture. Heck, look at OCAD. It uses what is really corrugated siding and it's won numerous awards and is considered a Toronto icon.
 
MetroMan said:
There's no reason they can't replace the aluminium slats with opaque glass like they've done with First Canadian Place.

Like some buildings in Toronto, the crystal is ahead of its time and will be more appreciated as it establishes itself as an icon of Toronto architecture. Heck, look at OCAD. It uses what is really corrugated siding and it's won numerous awards and is considered a Toronto icon.
Click to expand...

Also, I see a lot more use of the pixi-sticks (or whatev they're called). I hated them when OCAD first opened, but don't mind them so much any more.
But yes, the inside of the ROM Crystal is pretty bleak. It's so institutional, in a not-so-museum-y way!
 
I recently spent two days at the MFA in Boston, which just completed a major addition. The MFA addition is everything the Crystal is not - a light-filled, soaring atrium housing the cafe, a coherent and functional entry space, and most important, new galleries in the form of rectangular boxes that are suitable for exhibiting art and artefacts. Given the lack of structural complexity and cost, MFA was able to use high-quality finishes for the interior. Assuming the Crystal meets the same well-deserved fate as the 1970's addition it replaced, ROM should consider the MFA addition when it pulls the plug on its Thorsell-Liebeskind mistake.
 
pman said:
I recently spent two days at the MFA in Boston, which just completed a major addition. The MFA addition is everything the Crystal is not - a light-filled, soaring atrium housing the cafe, a coherent and functional entry space, and most important, new galleries in the form of rectangular boxes that are suitable for exhibiting art and artefacts. Given the lack of structural complexity and cost, MFA was able to use high-quality finishes for the interior. Assuming the Crystal meets the same well-deserved fate as the 1970's addition it replaced, ROM should consider the MFA addition when it pulls the plug on its Thorsell-Liebeskind mistake.
Click to expand...


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.
 
pman said:
I recently spent two days at the MFA in Boston, which just completed a major addition. The MFA addition is everything the Crystal is not - a light-filled, soaring atrium housing the cafe, a coherent and functional entry space, and most important, new galleries in the form of rectangular boxes that are suitable for exhibiting art and artefacts. Given the lack of structural complexity and cost, MFA was able to use high-quality finishes for the interior. Assuming the Crystal meets the same well-deserved fate as the 1970's addition it replaced, ROM should consider the MFA addition when it pulls the plug on its Thorsell-Liebeskind mistake.
Click to expand...

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....
 
Last edited:
yyzer said:
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....
Click to expand...

+1

Love it or hate it, I appreciate its originality and its out-of-the-box design.
 
ROM Pro's:
- "interesting" architecture - it gets people talking and debating (Always a good thing)

ROM Con's:
- it looks cheap (internally and externally)
- inside it looks cramped and NOT airy
- it meets the street poorly, IMO

In my mind - its worse from the inside. I also don't buy this - will it be torn down in 20 years? Probably not - will it become the icon it was told to be? 100% not. Its just not daring enough for what it could and should have been. I'm not sure the site is large enough to make the vista of the crystal truly shine.

And: "Love it or hate it, I appreciate its originality and its out-of-the-box design."
- Liebskind is a one trick pony. Denver's Art Museum expansion looks the same, if not better.
 
^ 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?

That, and a re-think of some of the interior materials. Notably, the firedoors and handrails on the Stair Of Wonders.
Maybe a re-do of the Spirit House room. The original renderings showed thin glass-railed walkways criscrossing a fairly open red-walled space. The way it turned out is thick-fingered and obtuse.
Finally, a mere coat of gently coloured paint here and there might be nice on those acres of drywall. If done properly, it would ease the eye and even help with orientation, without compromising the tectonic thrill of the place.

It's a really fantastical and provocative addition. It just needs some finessing, IMO.

p.s. Has anyone heard anything about the Libeskind designed chandelier that was supposed to be installed outside the restaurant?

chandelier.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top