Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Shudder - I just conjured up the image of a knuckle-dragging skeleton in the Early Life gallery.
Shudder - I just conjured up the image of a knuckle-dragging skeleton in the Early Life gallery.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
With respect, Frank, I think not - or at least no more than the presence of screens on the windows of the China, Japan and Korea galleries in the original west wing negate the architecture of 1914 when it was built. Protecting light-sensitive display objects is a universal challenge, and I think that what we have with the Crystal, as with the 1914 wing, is a building that reflects the passingly fashionable architectural spirit of the age in which it was built. Functionally, the Crystal actually completes the original expansion plan for the Museum by linking the east and west wings at the north end of the site and creating an inner courtyard ... and it's actually rather conventional in that sense. To my way of thinking, the Crystal can be read as a simple, strongly sculptural form that's remarkably consistent when seen both from the street and from inside, and which solves problems created by the 1980s wing that it replaced.
Marko
Active Member
I think the fact that Libeskind himself took what he did at the ROM and improved on it in Vegas says it all IMO - it could/should have been better.
Yes - the design pushed boundaries and the target moved during implementation (never a good thing) and yes - it's always going to seem incomplete or poorly executed to some. That's architecture. It's an eye catcher, conversation starter, showpiece, etc... and needs to be appreciated for that. Of course it could and should have been better, but unless people are going to donate the millions it would take to turn into the perfect gem that it could have been, there's little point in either nitpicking about it, or conversely talking down to anyone who dares say it isn't perfect.
Yes - the design pushed boundaries and the target moved during implementation (never a good thing) and yes - it's always going to seem incomplete or poorly executed to some. That's architecture. It's an eye catcher, conversation starter, showpiece, etc... and needs to be appreciated for that. Of course it could and should have been better, but unless people are going to donate the millions it would take to turn into the perfect gem that it could have been, there's little point in either nitpicking about it, or conversely talking down to anyone who dares say it isn't perfect.
Solaris
Senior Member
definitely agree with your assessment Marko ... the Crystals @ CityCentre Las Vegas surely is way better looking that the ROM expansion that we got in Toronto
MetroMan
Senior Member
I think that the general consensus is that where the Crystal came short was on the cladding. The mismatched slats and overall look ruined it for me. I'm still hopeful that a future generation will replace the cladding and not the Crystal itself. I would love to see white glass slats replacing the aluminum ones. They could be lit from behind where theres already room in place for rain and snow drainage system. That is, behind the cladding, the space is hollow with a couple of inches of room. Lighting can be installed behind. In the daytime the Crystal would be a brilliant white in the sun. At night it would glow in any colour. It's an expensive replacement but definitely well worth it I think.
grey
Senior Member
Denver Art Museum (2006)
junctionist
Senior Member
Though I hope the cladding will one day be improved, the ROM has that feel of the avant-garde. I love it and I always will. It was an adventure, a thrill to see being built, and an unforgettable structure upon completion. How many generations of Torontonians had to look to other cities for the cutting edge in architecture? Various European cities got Modernism in the 1920s, while we waited until the 1950s, and even then elites built their share of Georgian Revivals. Now other cities can anticipate when they might see the creativity of the innovative aesthetic of Toronto. And I hope that the Torontonians who go into architecture in the future will be inspired by this generation of experimentation to do more than constant 90 degree angles, to be creative, and push architecture forward. The more buildings we build like the ROM, the more we can work towards addressing issues like leaks.
old boy
Senior Member
I'm enjoying the good commentary on this project ! With the AGO and ROM reno/additions, and others, Toronto stepped past a design threshold that inspires a lot of us, professional and amateur alike. I gotta say say it - I love this place !
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Lisa Rochon at the Globe is porting a $3M redo of the plaza:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...eway-around-signature-crystal/article9145429/
According to the article, Daniel Libeskind won't be involved in the project. It will be handled by Hariri Pontarini and Claude Cormier (of Sugar Beach fame), from the Bloor entrance to Philosopher's Walk and goes around the intersection to Avenue Rd, with a design inspired by Place des Vosges in Paris.
AoD
PS: Will (should?) split from this thread (which is about RenROM by Libeskind) as more info becomes available.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...eway-around-signature-crystal/article9145429/
According to the article, Daniel Libeskind won't be involved in the project. It will be handled by Hariri Pontarini and Claude Cormier (of Sugar Beach fame), from the Bloor entrance to Philosopher's Walk and goes around the intersection to Avenue Rd, with a design inspired by Place des Vosges in Paris.
AoD
PS: Will (should?) split from this thread (which is about RenROM by Libeskind) as more info becomes available.
Last edited:
SP!RE
°°°°°°
3 million dollars for something that should have been considered in the redevelopment. Ouch. I guess a quality public space that people would want to spend time in didn't fit Libeskind's grand vision he wanted to foist on the site.
junctionist
Senior Member
I like the current plaza. People mingle there, and there's always a busker in the summer whose music bounces off the crystal in unusual directions. I'd welcome something bolder and more memorable, but how much can they really achieve with that relatively small space?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I guess you don't understand the reality of budgets and the fact that the ROM decided it wanted as much as the budget could allow to be spent on the building, as the plaza could be redone a couple of years later, while the building suffers no such ease of replacement.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
A big part of designing for a client is creating something that is appropriate in terms of cost... you shouldn't have to take a grand "vision" and hack it down to a cheaper version. The architect is, in my opinion, responsible for creating something that falls within budget yet STILL performs all its functions well. As I will explain down below, one of the important considerations in a project are the spaces being created, and that includes outdoor spaces.
You may not like my opinion, but please don't make judgments on my understanding of budgets until you grasp the concept yourself, and please don't pass off your own theories as fact. (Unless you want to find me a source from the time of the redevelopment that explains that this was a phased plan all along.)
Regardless, I stand by my opinion that it's ridiculous after the millions and millions of dollars they put into the Renaissance ROM renovation and expansion, after all the admission cost increases for the public, it's going to take another 3 million dollars on top of those costs to make a well-considered space that people want to spend time in.
Architecture Lesson #1: Architecture is, fundamentally, the creation of spaces. I'll say it again: Architecture is not just about BUILDINGS. It's about SPACES (both open and enclosed). I can't agree for a minute that it's appropriate to pour your money into a building and simply overlook the public space you create out front of it. The open and outdoor spaces in any project are part-and-parcel of the entire design. The failure in the design of the public space out front of the ROM reinforces for me just how out-of-whack the priorities in this project were. They wanted a flashy BUILDING but overlooked the space around it.
Maybe the people behind the Renaissance ROM truly did want a high-quality public space to be part of the design. Perhaps they were just star-struck by Libeskind and entrusted that his plaza space would turn out to be an interesting and engaging space that the public would want to spend time in... something that would give back to the city. In any case, I don't see many positive qualities about the space they created there, and apart from some darker shapes set into the paving, it doesn't seem to relate to the building in any way.
I look forward to seeing what the new landscaping looks like, in any case. Certainly an exciting opportunity to really change that intersection and the experience of the site.
The possibilities are endless. There are all sorts of intriguing ways that space (which is actually quite generous, IMO) could play off the ROM and its surroundings... you could play with the elevations and the topography of the space for one. (But that's usually the direction I go in when I think about the creation of / carving out of spaces.)
Last edited:
pw20
Active Member
+1 In my opinion Liebeskind's ROM has been a failure of creating space both internally and externally. If you have the chance - Gehry's Disney hall in Los Angeles has some amazing spaces around it, how they relate to the public and the building quite remarkable. Patina, the restaurant in the Hall, actually uses the gardens around the Hall for some of its produce: http://www.patinarestaurant.com/PatinaWDCH_GardenMapInfo.pdf
C5, the restaurant up top of the ROM, also uses produce grown on the roof gardens.
42
42