The Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) became one of the most divisive buildings in Canada when it was overhauled in 2007. With an old meets ‘super-new’ mishmash, the museum’s identity was forever changed. Let’s dive in.
Since the museum’s establishment in 1912, the ROM has evolved to become one of the largest museums in North America, housing a vast collection that spans natural history, art, and culture from around the globe.
In 2007, the ROM unveiled the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal, designed by architect Daniel Libeskind. This modernist addition, characterized by its angular, crystalline forms, marked a bold departure from the museum’s original neo-Romanesque architecture.
The Crystal’s futuristic design has dramatically polarized opinions: some hail it as a stunning piece of contemporary architecture, a beacon of innovation and creativity in the heart of Toronto.
Its supporters admire the way it contrasts with and challenges the traditional architectural landscape of the city, viewing it as a symbol of forward-thinking and a landmark of 21st-century design.
Conversely, there are many who criticize the Crystal for the very reasons others celebrate it. Detractors argue that its sharp, metallic façade clashes with the museum’s original structure and the surrounding urban environment, labeling it as one of the “most hated buildings” in Canada. That’s saying a lot.
Critics often point to its unconventional appearance and the perceived impracticality of its design, suggesting that it detracts from the cohesive aesthetic of the cityscape.
The building’s addition….
“famously scrawled on the back of a napkin by star architect Daniel Libeskind – became a part of Toronto’s streets. The addition is all angles, its glass and aluminum seem to jut out of the ground in a display of raw power. It’s a stark contrast to the stately ROM that had stood since 1914.”
Despite these divergent views, the Royal Ontario Museum continues to thrive as a great destination for both art and history enthusiasts.
Whether loved or loathed, the ROM undeniably makes a bold statement, and to us, that’s one of the major points of art.
What’s your take? Do you find the juxtaposition exciting or detracting?
Subscribe to Moss and Fog!
Discover more from Moss and Fog
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
15 Comments
I think it’s too much. Being joined with the old. Perhaps if they made it a separate building, it wouldn’t look so offensive .
Ha! One of the best comments we’ve had.
Looks like an old man with a new bride
It’s brutal.
Yes, bold & exciting…but why no sense of even a minimal visual connection to the original building?…Some salut to the old as it boldly dives into the new!
Too bad— Such a fine opportunity to create a connection/tribute, etc.
Just a “do your own thing” attitude.
We tend to agree, the juxtaposition is the drama.
I think it’s interesting looking. Part of me wishes it was separate from the original old building, but part of me enjoys the fantastic, unexpected mash-up.
It looks like a giant disfiguring cancer has grown out of the side of a perfectly innocent historic building. Almost offensively ugly.
Great eye, it was the same architect!
Reminds me of the Denver Art Museum’s reno – also quite controversial, but that hasn’t stopped patrons from continuing to attend and enjoy art both in and out!
I like the building but, I don’t like where it is against the older part of the building.
It makes it look wrong. They shouldn’t just built the newer one someplace else with a garden around it.
That’s a pretty good description!
Wow but weird!
We agree!
I think it is cool