WillTo
Senior Member
March 21st, 2026
- Thread starter unimaginative2
- Start date
March 21st, 2026
nightstreak
Senior Member
Umm, I think it looks 'better' than the previous version,
but given all the angles and pointy elements in the layout and arrangement of the cladding,
you'd think that they could configure the cladding so that it blends well with the peaked roof lines of Falconer Hall....
But it doesn't.
That could be as simple as eliminating the flat roofline and creating peaks with the cladding fins instead.
... and then maybe the rooftop mechanicals would be screened
and the building would serve as a counterpoint to the Michael Lee-Chin Pavilion on the other side of the ROM.
There already is a similarity in the angularity of the entrances.
I haven't followed this for a long while. I thought it was stuck in limbo. I'm pleasantly surprised to see the new design. I agree, it fits the Michael Lee Chin Crystal lines elegantly and matches Hariri Pontarini's updates. If the ROM were to commission a south expansion, it could follow this model and continue to fit with Liebeskind's vision while not being as expensive or controversial. It doesn't have to stand out, it just needs to match this new building in height and follow its angles.
Student99
Active Member
So... is it gone now?
AlbertC
Superstar
I'll try to take a look on Tuesday. Unless someone is able to deliver the scoop before then.
fiendishlibrarian
Active Member
Walked by this morning, still there. For now. Related: more sidewalk adjacent to the new Museum Station entrance has been poured. We *may* see the entire sidewalk restored in the next month or so.
Towered
Superstar
AlbertC
Superstar
Still there as of last Friday
mathbath
New Member
tbh this project is an example of an absolutely tragic loss to NIMBYism. this building would’ve been iconic but because some residents who *don’t even live near the building by most accounts* were the loudest, it got scaled down.
correct me if i’m missing anything here?
correct me if i’m missing anything here?
Northern Light
Superstar
You are.
The proposal was iconic in its ugliness and over-bearingness while disregarding and disrespecting the heritage context.
The new version isn't great, but its less bad.
This is my alma mater and I hate seeing the nicer bits of campus molested by out-of-scale and out-of-context architecture.
I might add, this site would have been better served with consolidation to the ROM lands.
ROM is desperately short of space, and this would have afforded an opportunity to address that while also integrating an enclosed, direct connection to the subway, which could then have an up escalator to the surface.
saynotofaux
Active Member
Why do you assert that your opinion is more valid than mathbath's? It's all subjective. The original proposal would have been a landmark piece of contemporary architecture, brash but also sensitively integrated with Falconer Hall and the Edward Johnson Building, with incredible publicly accessible spaces and views from within the building over Queens Park. The design was ultimately watered down as a "compromise" to appease the geriatric residents associations. And now this latest proposal is a
Last edited:
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
Not a “total waste,” but otherwise this is correct.
This building should have been much taller – there were superior earlier iterations, never really made public, that the city shot down – and it should’ve been finished years ago.
Every time an ambitious international firm builds here, they deliver a B-tier building at best.
Northern Light
Superstar
I agree its all subjective, I don't recall saying my opinion on this was more valid than anyone else's. I answered a post; the ending question was 'am I missing something' and I said 'yes you are' (implicitly, from my perspective).
There was nothing personal in my reply that was negative toward's Mathbath, I didn't insult them in any way. I simply differed, offering my take, nothing more or less.
I disagree strongly that it was sensitive to Falconer Hall, I would say it was insensitive to Falconer Hall.
I found the public space/landscape proposal poor and disrespectful of Falconer.
I disagree entirely with the above. You are, however, completely entitled to your opinion; its just wrong, from my perspective in almost every respect. PS, I'm far from geriatric and not an area resident. Sweeping generalizations don't generally add value to one's take.
UtakataNoAnnex
Superstar
I don't share your opinion on the building, but I get your point. Unless they're are planning to revitalize the Planetarium to it's original glory, might as well take it down, put the space to good use..as oppose to letting it sit there and rot for the ages.
...I will miss it, but it's better fate than neglect, IMO.
nightstreak
Senior Member
I might be one of the few who doesn’t mind this building. I don’t like that it’s replacing the McLaughlin Planetarium but that fight is over and we lost.
This is why I’m ok with this building. It tries to reflect the lines the ROM has adopted with the Libeskind addition and is reconfirming and refining with the Hairiri Pontarini update.
In that, it leaves open the potential for the south terrace addition that was originally intended to be another crystal. When the time comes for another round of major fundraising, the ROM could build another angled addition in place of the terrace gallery that would match UofT’s building and could in fact connect to it seamlessly if the two parties come to an understanding of mutual benefit.
Once I saw a “ghost crystal” created in the gap between the ROM and this new building, I couldn’t unsee it. It’ll always be there until it actually gets built in a decade or two.
P.S. Agreed that an underground facility that links the ROM directly to the subway is a no brainer. This new building doesn’t kill that prospect. A landscaped garden seems intended to leave the potential open.
This is why I’m ok with this building. It tries to reflect the lines the ROM has adopted with the Libeskind addition and is reconfirming and refining with the Hairiri Pontarini update.
In that, it leaves open the potential for the south terrace addition that was originally intended to be another crystal. When the time comes for another round of major fundraising, the ROM could build another angled addition in place of the terrace gallery that would match UofT’s building and could in fact connect to it seamlessly if the two parties come to an understanding of mutual benefit.
Once I saw a “ghost crystal” created in the gap between the ROM and this new building, I couldn’t unsee it. It’ll always be there until it actually gets built in a decade or two.
P.S. Agreed that an underground facility that links the ROM directly to the subway is a no brainer. This new building doesn’t kill that prospect. A landscaped garden seems intended to leave the potential open.