Toronto’s Royal Ontario Museum’s Crystal: a Time Lapse Video

1. Ali S.
   December 12th, 2007 at 5:04 am

   Ah, Toronto. My old stomping grounds where my little sister now lives at. Can’t wait to move back.

2. Carrington Vanston
   December 12th, 2007 at 6:24 am

   I live in Toronto, and I don’t know a single person who doesn’t loathe the new ROM building design.

   It’s garish, but much worse it’s architecturally trendy. It’ll look as dated as 1970s poured concrete structures in a few years (I think it already does).

   Shouldn’t a museum be … timeless?

3. Ali S.
   December 12th, 2007 at 7:48 am

   @ Carrington

   I know what you mean. While helping my little sister move to the U of T dorms I couldn’t help but cringe at the site of the museum. It does quickly become an eye sore after the initial amazement.

4. Jerrold
   December 12th, 2007 at 8:36 am

   It’s become so trendy to loathe the new building. I for one love the new ROM crystal.

5. Sid Morrison
   December 12th, 2007 at 8:38 am

   Goodness, that’s quite an abortion, isn’t it? Were they trying to outdo the I.M. Pei work at the Louvre? Some sort of a battle of museum wreckovation concepts?

   It’s one thing to design a new ugly deconstructed structure, but something entirely different to hack up an existing building with a slap-on that makes no attempt to be sympathetic to the original structure. Additions throughout a building’s life are ometimes necessary and it’s not necessarily desirable that they be 100% seemless (ever see brickwork match perfectly? It’s impossible… better not to try) with the original, but they should *respect* the existing design. Architecture is art and it’s a shame to have some new architect piss all over a predecessor’s work so that he can get more attention.

   Bloody awful.

6. Jocelyn
   December 12th, 2007 at 10:52 am

   I initially thought that more parts of it were going to be transparent, but I guess the heating bill was going to be too high. I think I’m starting to like it .. haven’t gone inside yet though.

7. Nick
   December 12th, 2007 at 2:21 pm

   Looks exactly like a building designed by the same architect in Denver that opened last year. Not only is it ugly, but Toronto got the clone!

8. vandoo
   December 12th, 2007 at 3:12 pm

   What is most Neatorama about this is Sid still knows everything!

9. Sid Morrison
   December 12th, 2007 at 3:39 pm

   Sid doesn’t know everything (by a long short), but has strong feelings on what he does know.

10. Sid Morrison
    December 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    my last comment was (oxy)moronic. I meant “long shot”, not “long short”. Yuck yuck yuck.

11. redphone
    December 13th, 2007 at 10:29 am

    I’m not big on it either, but I’m not a fan of modern architecture - this piece in particular. Still, despite the risk of being blinding on sunny days, I can’t help but admire it’s complexity. I saw it every day from start to finish and even recently had the opportunity to look at the blue prints. If you couldn’t look at it with some amount of respect before, you would after flipping through those prints.

    I do wish that the ROM had gone ahead and bit the financial bullet and had it finished properly. The original design called for a lot more glass, and the building is weaker without it.

12. DGF
    December 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pm

    “If you couldn’t look at it with some amount of respect before, you would after flipping through those prints.”

    I did have respect for it until I found out they decided to wedge it in between an older building. It is such an eye soar. Its a zit.

    If it was standing by itself, it would be considered in the top 10 worldwide. But, because the designing idiot had the idea to sandwich it between 2 older buildings makes it the ugliest building in Toronto (people voted on it in the Toronto Star). I personally would’ve thought it would’ve been better to redo the outside structure, and add a new building to make it look like a castle. There’s a reason why Europe interests so many Canadians, and Canada lacks all of it. Yeah it wasn’t populated at the time like Europe when castles were built, but that’s why you build them. Then, it looks like a museum, which represents history. If this was the museum of architecture, then there’s no problem, but it’s history.

    Now Union station is on the hit list, including the distillery districts Roundhouse. And it will not surprise me of Loblaws sells Maple Leaf Gardens to someone to butcher it as well. I guarantee you when the building needs to be redesigned there will be little objection, no matter how complex or hard it was to build. You can build a car for 2 million dollars but what good is it if it lacks function.

13. Pamela
    March 29th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    It’s not just a matter of taste, but of waste! I listened to an architecture prof explain why the structure couldn’t have been built of glass or plexi: it wouldn’t have possible to have those materials at those angles without considerable metal support, which would have ruined the look. Secondarily, transparent panels would have looked like garbage with opaque adhesive holding them together, but the only sufficiently strong transparent or translucent adhesives apparently degrade in direct sunlight! Then there’s the matter of the German engineering firm who were supposed to ensure that the joins between the older structure and the crystal were water-tight. As my inside source told me, they procrastinated beginning work and held up the completion of construction before finally admitting that they didn’t think it could be done. So, tens of millions of $$$ doesn’t buy something that won’t leak.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT