Torontoist: Everything Old Is Pug Again

Adam Sobolak

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:47:54 -0500

Given that the ROM Crystal epitomizes the kind of architecture that divides popular opinion, I think it'd be more genuinely "lackluster" if it were 38% pro/62% con than vice versa...

TokyoTuds

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:12:46 -0500

The architect is actually very experienced and celebrated, but why I do not know. He has designed many of the blights upon landscapes around the world: http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/ Just because you can make a statuette of Jerry Seinfeld out of fusilli pasta, doesn't mean you should. Likewise, just because the technology is there to make these monstrous buildings (I mean that as in ugly, not large), doesn't mean you should. Fusilli Gerry http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ncsjMVzcc Cheers, Tuds

David Topping

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:46 -0500

Paul, the Crystal did well, but only compared to the other buildings. 62% is pretty lackluster (38% didn't like it), and "middle of the pack" is probably not as apt a description as middle of the scale. My point is that polarizing buildings don't have a chance at winning (or losing).

Astin

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:55:55 -0500

I can't verify anything, but apparently the scuttlebutt around the ROM office when the winner was announced was that it wasn't really the winner. A different design had been picked, but the Crystal was chosen because of a relationship between the architect and a higher-up at the museum. Rumours aside, the original design was mostly glass, which the final product obviously isn't. You'd think someone on the board would realize that a building that has the sole purpose of housing artifacts shouldn't allow sunlight to beam directly inside all the time. Toss in the horrible lack of space inside, and the bargain details, and it's a terrible building. I'm getting pretty annoyed with the recent snobbery of architects in Toronto. TVO had a roundtable on the Pugs a couple weeks ago, and Adam Vaughn seemed to be the voice of reason. As architects lamented how the Argyle failed to SHOW that it was modern, Adam pointed out that ANY heritage perservation in this city is a good thing. The ROM was defended weakly with the tired argument of how it creates discussion, and Vaughn once again brought up the lack of functionality for a museum. People praised glass-balconied condo after glass-balconied condo, when in reality, they all looked strikingly similar and unimaginative. A design needs to contribute to the area around it and the city it belongs to, as well as perform its function adequately at the least. If it's hated by a large percentage of the population - you've failed.

Paul Kishimoto

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:31:59 -0500

"after the fourth"... feh.

Paul Kishimoto

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:31:23 -0500

Wait, what? Tell me if my comprehension is off: 21 buildings were nominated 8 buildings received over 50% 4 buildings received over 60% The ROM Crystal is one of those four The ROM Crystal had a "lackluster showing" The ROM Crystal's lackluster showing proves that "interesting buildings are doomed to the middle of the pack" ...isn't there a bit of a disconnect around the fourth point? I can't view the PUG website on this work computer (Flash troubles), so I'm not going to put my foot in my mouth by assuming statistics...but at the very least the crystal is in a decent percentile, isn't it?

panko

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:29:42 -0500

Agreed with friend68 - I loved the crystal when the design was unveiled but the finish is atrocious. Inside or out, the architects, engineers and workers just dropped the ball. What particularly annoys me is that the crystal does not look much like a crystal but instead the cladding evokes a cheap spare parts warehouse in an industrial zone. Big opportunity to make something spectacular missed thanks to poor execution.

friend68

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:53:55 -0500

I agree completely with spacejack. The problem with the ROM "crystal" is not that it is risky or daring or interesting -- it is that it is poorly done. The interior spaces are dismal and don't take full advantage of the concept, the interactions between new and old seem accidental, the materials inside are cheap (and will not wear well) and the detailing is terrible. When this architect was chosen, I believe he had only had about two buildings actually built, and his lack of experience shows. I'm tired of it being glorified because it is edgy. Sure it gets attention, which is what they wanted, but so does screaming obscenities on the street corner.

spacejack

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:41:46 -0500

Well, most ridiculous doesn't always mean the best.

David Topping

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:13:08 -0500

I think the Argyle building is beautiful (I didn't call it "plain," though I did suggest it was "tame"); I really, really, really like it, and am happy it won. I also really love the ROM and think it's by far the most interesting, most exciting, and ultimately best building built in the city in 2007.

AdamS

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:54:22 -0500

I'm not sure I'd called the Argyle building "plain" - I'd say it's deserving of the win. Also, I think they should make a line of paint named "unbelievably beige" available at Home Depot.