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

Red October said:
Not relevant to what's being discussed currently, but I would love if the ROM could renovate and reopen the McLaughlin Planetarium. I love the Adler and Hayden ones, and Toronto deserves one beside our museum!
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more! It would be a great follow up to the aquarium. I suspect the structure is too outmoded/small but something along the lines of the Rose Planetarium would be thrilling. Requires a serious benefactor.
 
Yes - though given site constraints and mandate it might be a better fit with the Science Centre, besides we do have the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics in town. To get to the Rose Planetarium level of excellence will require some serious cash - it's pretty ridiculous a city of the size and wealth of Toronto doesn't have a serious one.

AoD
 
It fixes some problems with dead spaces caused by the sharp angles of the crystal but Libeskind must not be happy. While respectful to his style, the addition of the canopy and all those trees really breaks up the spareness of the crystal which I think was Libeskind's intent.

Still, if it's well executed, it could create a great new space on Bloor.
 
I wonder why they feel a canopy is needed at the entrance? I hope whoever is in charge will take note of what happened along Bloor (dead trees) and plant a different species! I don't want to see a bunch of dead trees again. Maybe they've figured it out by now ;)
 
I thought the canopy look really quite awkward and have that tacked on feel to the building. I thought the original red signage plinth is really eye-catching in a slick way, and I wish they'd keep it.

AoD
 
The canopy is proposed for two reasons. One is to highlight the entrance better as it has often been criticized for being not prominent enough for the building. The second is to give visitors a break when they are lined up on rainy days. There are lineups to get in most weekend mornings and early afternoons.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The canopy is proposed for two reasons. One is to highlight the entrance better as it has often been criticized for being not prominent enough for the building. The second is to give visitors a break when they are lined up on rainy days. There are lineups to get in most weekend mornings and early afternoons.

42
Click to expand...

On the issue of prominence - conceivably they can remove the dark cladding for the entrance portal and replace it with a translucent material lit from within 24/7. That, and maybe use the current store location as new main entrance?

AoD
 
Conceivably they could, but they're not. I think they are happy enough with this plan.

42
 
I don't like the canopy or trees along Bloor in front of the Crystal. They obscure an important landmark like it was an ordinary building. Perhaps the ROM itself doesn't care for the Crystal that much. They might consider replacing it in a generation (but I hope they won't).
 
You know what would make a great entrance to the museum? The atrium of the original building on University... Oh wait.

Kidding, but not kidding aside, it's clear that the main Bloor Street entrance to the building was ill-conceived and confuses people. Anything they do to enhance or emphasize it is a positive step for me even if it detracts from the original aesthetic intention of the designer.
 
I recall at the time many people saying 'the entrance is on the wrong side' because of the greater volume of pedestrian traffic on Bloor. The old situation also had its flaws, in that the Bloor exposure was a fenced-off dead space (albeit with some cool Chinese lion statues) facing the now-demolished original addition.

However, I agree that the Queen's Park side now looks odd with the entrance shuttered. What was in the old days a very animated space because of the three museum entrances (the main one, a group entrance on the side, and the planetarium) is now virtually empty, since there is so little of pedestrian interest.

I take a relatively measured view of the Libeskind reno, which I think could be vastly improved with a few fixes--one of which is the Bloor forecourt improvements now being discussed. But losing the grand Queens Park entrance was a shame, I think.
 
junctionist said:
Why did they abandon the original entrance?
Click to expand...

Increased capacity for one and because they wanted to orient the museum towards Bloor St. which is much busier than University. I like the new entrance and atrium but I think the entrance can be emphasized without building a canopy. Like Alvin said earlier, replacing the dark frame with more transparency and lighting elements could draw more attention to the entrance.

What significantly reduced my opinion on this building was the final treatment. The mismatched cladding looks terrible and it looked terrible on opening day. Perhaps some good news is that these panels don't appear to be aging well and will need to be replaced in as little as a decade. I think the building could look absolutely brilliant with a white frosted glass treatment with LED lighting below the skin. This would accomplish the "crystal" look with a glass treatment and the building would be gorgeous at night turning into any colour according to programming like the CN Tower.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top