Torontoist: Inside The ROM Crystal: A First Look

David Topping

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:41:18 -0500

If anyone's interested, I did a feature article on the McLaughlin Planetarium for Torontoist this past March.

Vincent Clement

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:37:48 -0500

Kevin said "Libraries and schools don't make money either - should they be shut down as well?" Perhaps they should be. At the very least the majority of users should be satisfied with the services provided by a library and school.

Kevin

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:12:03 -0500

Back to the planetarium issue: "We had not enough visitors to justify the huge amounts of money needed to run the planetarium. Renovating is cheap compared to the cost of running things." Again that's wrong. *Thousands* of planetariums all over the world operate with some of the same problems as yours. Making up fictions about how much it cost to operate them does no good. And please do not patronize me. I've worked for a nonprofit organization for 20 years. You miss my point - and this makes it clear that small-mindedness and lack of vision was the only reasons the planetarium was closed, not financial. "The planetarium is now used as staff offices." When you cannibalize your own flesh to survive - you won't.

SLM

Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:14:25 -0500

nice day

Cloverbell

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:54:17 -0500

I still can't believe that there are so many negative remarks made about this building. Yes it's an eye-sore to some people, a beauty to others. What's more important is that this crystal (and many other projects) pushes all the boundaries and breaks all the rules and makes Toronto less typical, less normal and more dynamic, more unusual and more of a welcoming artistic community. Take a look at OCAD, take a look at the AGO. Far from normal. Normal, boring, cheesy, safe, un-enthusiastic architecture would never be memorable. We would never move forward to advance ourselves if we did not come out of our comfort zones. Shock a few people, did things that would be considered "impossible." People may hate the crystal now but maybe 10 or 20 years later we may look upon it differently. At least this structure will be memorable for the way it was created bottom up. I'd say Toronto would be at a loss if nothing special or different happened at all. I'm not in love with the way the Crystal looks but I'm in love with what has been accomplished. I'm bewildered by what creative minds can do. =D In my humble opinion.

John H.

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:08:24 -0500

Architectural left-overs Libeskind's building is just pretentious architecture for low-brow poseurs. Just because it is unusual, and slightly more upmarket than a double-wide trailer doesn't make it architecture. I feel sorry for Toronto. They bought the nonsense that was originally intended to mess up London's Victoria & Albert Museum. Not only did they waste money on it, they will have to waste more in five years when they realize it is a mistake. Hard Luck Toronto. you lose again.

Lifetimer

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:34:46 -0500

Your photos are great and in fact make the rooms look better than they do in person. I visited this past Saturday and was crushingly disappointed by the Crystal's interior. Particularly the lack of an impressive, engaging central entry point or gathering place. The interior court area just seems like a big empty awkward space.

Walter

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:06:51 -0500

Since I was a kid I've been hearing that the contents is more important than the look of the container, but in this market society where culture is a commodity to be sold and to have a profit from it, it's understandable that this out of the ordinary building has to be there to attract people (tourists?). The culture?... very well, thanks. PS. Maybe we could attract people to an extravagant new planetarium building without the need for new seats or projectors.

Giovanni

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:33:25 -0500

The ROM crystal is exhilarating ... I stood in those spaces and watched something unusual - adults and children excited while interacting with architecture. We stood mesmerized in empty spaces - that says alot. Most of the complaints posted here seem to be based on ignorance - does anyone remember how awful the old terrace galleries were? The countless bridges that led to locked doors, the dark corners that seemed to have been forgotten for ages ... these have thankfully been removed though not entirely - we still have to deal with the horrendous pile of concrete filled in on the south side of the building. As far as the planetarium goes, if you've got the courage to find out what someone from out of town thinks when they look at it you might not like what you hear. Not only does it not "fit in" but it looks like an incomplete afterthought .... where are those bulldozers? The ugly terrace galleries that the crytal replaces covered up most of the original building on that side, the new structure actually pulls back and reveals it - which is nice, but are any of you nostaligic complainers able to acknowledge how bland and lacklustre that portion of the structure is? Let's just say it's not in any textbooks, nor will it make its way onto any postcards. Furthermore, your protestations about the crystal being too futuristic are naive, do you really think that this qualifies as radical to the rest of the world? Wake up out of your Toronto slumber! Libeskind's ROM uses shapes and forms that have been around for an eternity (can you say that about your sacred cube?), he's created an image of shifting forms and spaces that's entirely appropriate for a museum dedicated to history because that's what it is - consistently changing and evolving, fragmented, and incomplete.

Manuel

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:37:51 -0500

Kevin: The Planetarium was losing money and had to be closed. We had not enough visitors to justify the huge amounts of money needed to run the planetarium. Renovating is cheap compared to the cost of running things. Otherwise, who told you that we cannot make revenue? we need to pay for stuff, curators, staff, et cetera. What we non-profits cannot make is profits, not revenue. We are not a federal funded museum, and we are not funded as the libraries or schools. You can see on our website where all the money come from, BTW, only 21% comes from paid admissions. The planetarium is now used as staff offices.

Eilleen

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:28:08 -0500

In response to the Planetarium tangent. I am "in the know" as well. The Planetarium didn't have to close, the ROM wanted it closed. Furthermore the planetarium shows were done using a Zeiss projector, not a camera. The Zeiss was a incredible piece of optics and it was NOT "out of date". I think the city has been greatly misinformed (or completely uninformed) about the reasons for closing the Planetarium. The ROM looks terrible now, is this the price we have to pay to attract more tourism? A huge ugly metal building hanging over Bloor.

Dave

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:43:01 -0500

I will have to see it for myself before I really decide if I hate it or not. I never liked the model or the concept when the winner of the expansion was announced, I thought the Crystal looked out of place ( which is probably what the designer wanted) , museums are about the past not the future, the Crystal is too modern - that's how I feel about it, maby the contrast between the old and new is interesting but I dont think angles and angles and more angles are soothing or appealing as a space to house artifacts, the Crystal reminds me of a set from a 1970's sci fi movie, Logans Run, Buck Rogers, Star Wars even... sure its cool but so far I'm not that convinced. I would have done something large but with more glass and stone and metal with curves instead of sharp angles, a kind of traditional space with modern materials, perhaps with several high atriums seperating different exhibits, sure its not as radical as the Crystal but we'll see how the Crystal holds out, however I'm pretty sure it will be impressive in the end and I'm still going to join regardless :) See u there.

Marc

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:13:06 -0500

Bahhhhhh, another piece of skewed irregular diagonal boxes put together in a very unorderly fashion.... wow, very creative mr. Libeskind(sic). I especially dislike the diagonal openings which you can also see at the Berlin jewish museum, one of the least impresive "High profile buildings" I've seen in my little life. Poor Toronto....

Kevin

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:04:19 -0500

Whoever told you that planetarium shows were no longer being produced in the right format is lying or greatly mistaken - I know as I run a planetarium. Besides they closed this planetarium in 1995 and there were no format issues at that time. True renovating the planetarium now would be expensive, but seems like the organization is awash in cash. As far as making money goes - educational organizations are supposed to be educating visitors not generating revenue. Libraries and schools don't make money either - should they be shut down as well?

Marc Lostracco

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:47:53 -0500

The wider shots I took weren't as interesting as the quirky Libeskind details so I didn't publish them, but the spaces are much larger than they look in the photos. I went into the building not sure if I was going to like it, but I came out loving it, and a large part of that was that it was restrained inside, considering the extreme design. It's a lot more subtle than it seems. The spaces are huge and all very open—a lot of the large spaces can be split into open-concept sub galleries, especially the basement gallery that's shown in the photo with the woman vacuuming in the display case. The floor materials make the spaces relatively quiet. Dinosaurs and ancient mammals will be on the second floor (photo above the "What the New ROM Means for Toronto" title), which is the area facing the street with the largest expanses of windows, and I actually thought the criscrossing visible skeleton elements of the structure will complement the open dinosaur skeletons, and having natural light in an exhibit like this is unusual and interesting. Some of the specimens will be visible on street level through the windows, allegedly, which is also kinda cool. Pretty much most of the concerns I had with the building went away once I saw it...it looks quite different in person and the inside is much less audacious than the outside. I also wasn't too sure how I felt about the exterior aluminum cladding, but it's growing on me a bit, and now that the construction hoarding has been removed from Bloor Street and the forecourt has been opened up, it's a remarkable piece of architecture to stand in front of. The thing just looms. I should also mention that the old Historic building looks the same inside, if not even spruced-up a bit, so purists can perhaps breath slightly easier. The integration from the old into the new seems to work pretty well, although the main entrance was actually smaller and more cramped than I expected (bottom photo). It opens into the large atrium with the skylights, but it's not immediately open. I wonder how large school groups are going to organize themselves. It should also be noted that the quality of workmanship is top-notch, especially considering how difficult it would have been to drywall extreme angles and all the nooks and crannies. It's going to be an interesting exercise keeping the white walls clean—so many places where people will have their grimy little hands, especially on sloping walls where people will lean over to look down. We weren't allowed in one area that I was dying to see because of the construction, which was the criss-crossing catwalks atrium; a Libeskind signature. The walkways are floored in open metal grating, so spectators can look all the way up or down the impressive space where the crystals meet. There were some areas where the artifacts were already being installed, and there seemed to be a good integration into the designs with new, freestanding and sunken wall display cases. I'm curious to see it when it's full of artifacts and people.

Ken Hamel

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:25:57 -0500

The photos are striking, but as we have seen in Denver, the building does not look well suited to maximizing the enjoyment of the artwork, from either a quantity (number of pieces that can be accommodated) or quality (pieces unencumbered by special mounting structures as well as a nausea-free experience) standpoint. Ken Hamel denverarts.org

Andrew

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:29:12 -0500

This building is ugly. It doesn't look at all right next to the old building. It probably would have looked better if it were a completely new building.

geokatgirl

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:27:20 -0500

just to clarify (as i am in the know) the planetarium HAD to close because they were no longer making shows in the format that was compatible with that camera. Without a HUGE injection of capital (you have to had seen the seats in that place, all those laser shows were not kind to the furniture) So they could no longer purchase new star shows, the place was losing money every year, and the collections needed more space.

Marc Lostracco

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:56:45 -0500

Almost all of the original 1914 building is as visible as it was before the Crystal was built. The ROM's been through a few renos already, each of which did little to "enhance" the original structure.

chris

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:49:43 -0500

umm, carl, the rest of the museum is still there...

Carl

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:37:44 -0500

It does nothing to enhance the original structure, which was a beautiful building. It covers it up like it's ashamed, and it makes bold futuristic statements that seem to shun away the history inherent in the original structure. That is not the mood you want to convey in a museum, which is supposed to uncover and welcome the past, not plaster it up behind futuristic walls.

rek

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:51:41 -0500

It's so... bleak. The track lighting depresses me too.

chris

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:37:51 -0500

a "corporation" is a legal entity with many of the same legal rights as a person based on a perverse interpretation of the 14th amendment of the American Constitution. this was done during a supreme court ruling int he 19th century (i have forgotten the case although it should be easy to find)

Marc Lostracco

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:36:03 -0500

The National Post has a great flythrough animation on the Crystal today.

Marc Lostracco

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:30:58 -0500

My favourite part of the photo above "What the Renovation Brings to the ROM" is the woman vacuuming in the display case. It's almost like those anthropological exhibits with the models of cavemen. "In the early twenty-first century, humans used devices called 'vacuums' to collect dirt and debris from their households..."

Meomee

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:24:00 -0500

So amazing !

David Wozney

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:16:06 -0500

Re: "... the ROM will host Governor General Michaëlle Jean ..." The Governor General of Canada is a “corporation sole”, according to Elizabeth II in this document. A “corporation sole” is defined and recognized as being a corporation. It is a fiction that a corporation is a person. “A corporation is a fiction, by definition, ...”, according to Patrick Healy in a statement found here. “A corporation is a ‘fiction’ as it has no separate existence, no physical body and no ‘mind’”, according to this presentation by Joanne Klineberg.

Amanda Buckiewicz

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:39:15 -0500

I love it! Great photos, Marc.

will alsop

Thu, 31 May 2007 23:43:04 -0500

It is great to see the ROM add a further great building to Toronto. It is evidence of a growing confidence in the city as it continues its progress toward world status

Marc Lostracco

Thu, 31 May 2007 20:20:34 -0500

I believe the planetarium is now being used for storage! I loved that place...all the theatres in Toronto and nobody could think of anything for the poor McLaughlin.

Kevin

Thu, 31 May 2007 20:15:57 -0500

Odd how they can raise more than a quarter of a billion dollars and yet can't seem to find a loonie to reopen the McLaughlin Planetarium...

Gloria

Thu, 31 May 2007 19:47:59 -0500

Wow, I like it even more now. I love the corner of the original ROM building poking out.

Marc Lostracco

Thu, 31 May 2007 19:03:22 -0500

I quite liked the tables in the Crystal Five café (pictured). I think they were metal, with a piece of bronze-yellow opaque polycarbonate over them. They reminded me a bit of the matte doubleshot plastic used in Zune MP3 players. I didn't know what to expect when I went inside, but it was surprisingly subtle considering how the exterior looks, which is perfect for a museum. Obviously, the more interesting photos are of the more detailed areas of the empty place, but it's surprisingly restrained considering the deconstructionist design. Everything is in slightly warm and neutral tones, which is great against the brick of the Heritage buildings. The first thing I thought of when I walked in was that everyone is going to be wanting to hold their events/weddings/parties there...it really lends itself to swanky soirées. The second floor will be the first to open, which is where the dinosaur and early mammal exhibits are to be located (two of the wall-mounted dinosaur skeletons are already in place). And there is still a LOT of work left to do.

aidan

Thu, 31 May 2007 18:39:43 -0500

Blah blah... ugly. Design a building for humanoids.

nate

Thu, 31 May 2007 18:14:06 -0500

i enjoyed this article. good research.

Sean Galbraith

Thu, 31 May 2007 18:13:08 -0500

Kudos on the media scoop. Beautiful photos indeed.

Stephanie Hart

Thu, 31 May 2007 17:45:48 -0500

Amazing photos!