8/9/2019 Royal Ontario Museum Extension

1/1

http://archinect.com/forum/thread/56601/libeskind-lands-in-toronto

In an ongoing effort to bring a little architecture to the forum, I bring you Libeskind's latest, theRoyal Ontario Museum

Extension, in Toronto.

From worldarchitecturenews.com:

A dramatic new wing of Torontos Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) designed by Daniel Libeskind is set to open 2 June.

Dubbed the Lee-Chin Crystal, the 175,000 square foot aluminum and glass clad building will house seven collection

galleries on two levels, two special exhibition spaces, new retail and dining facilities and a new main entrance and

lobby. Libeskinds Crystal is comprised of five interlocking, self-supporting prismatic structures that interface with the

historic buildings that embrace it. With hardly a right angle anywhere, its sloping walls create unique interior spaces

with soaring volumes and such distinctive details as the Spirit House, a void at the heart of the building that is

traversed by criss-crossing bridges. Slashing windows fill the rooms with natural light and create uniquely framed

views of the cityscapes outside. The new wing is the centerpiece of the Museums $250 million expansion and

renovation project to be completed by 2009.

...yet after the Denver museum addition all i want to say is, "yes it is very pretty, but is the skin going to look like

aluminum foil?" The skin was what turned me off to the Denver museum and I hope they don't repeat the same

mistakes here. The other thing that concerns me is this little niche Libeskind has fallen into. We see with alot of

architects a development of a style but many mix it up enough to keep us interested, kind of like how the Beetles

approached making albums. However Liebeskind seems to have fallen into this perpetual language of sharp angles

and steel skin, the only time he mixes this up is with his condos which restirct his language more than museums do.

Another architect who seems to be doing alot of this is Ghery, whose consistent use of his "plop" method of design,

involving lots of metal curves, to me at least seems a bit too repetitive.

Another thing i want to ask is this: how does art, which normally is displayed in neutral, orthagonal environments, fare

in an environment which is completely without flat surfaces? I would assume in these spaces there would be lots of

added display walls, which could seriously clutter a space. This seems again alot more of "architecture for

architecture's sake" kind of design. I think that kind of egotistical approach damages the urban landscape. It produces

buildings that typically fail in their operation as spaces for people to inhabit and use and fail in integrating themselves

into the urban fabric. At the end of the day, this supreficial means of design may produce very pretty buildings, but do

they satisfy all the other parameters of a piece of "good" architecture?

http://archinect.com/forum/thread/56601/libeskind-lands-in-torontohttp://archinect.com/forum/thread/56601/libeskind-lands-in-toronto