Comments on: Daniel Libeskind at Royal Ontario Museum

By: Person of Interest

Person of Interest — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:04:10 +0000

The ROM addition is a monument to Daniel Libeskind, who demonstrates how all minor talents make headlines and commissions — a calculated succes de scandale. And before his expensive flash-in-the-pan building goes out of style and gets replaced, curators will struggle to utilize its arbitrary funhouse interior. But that is my opinion. What would a great architect think of Libeskind’s work? We may surmise by considering the words of Frank Lloyd Wright: “Simplicity and repose are the qualities that measure the true value of any work of art.”

By: Dariusz

Dariusz — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:50:50 +0000

It’s quite Shit; capital S. A tired concept, which is really a one-liner if you ask me. The interior doesn’t work, walls are sloped, so functionally it’s wrong. Pointless to hire curators/museologists as consultants or whatnot. If it’s anything like the Berlin Jewish Museum, cramped spaces are just annoying. I don’t even want to start on the extrerior. First-year C- or D architecture project. Most likely a fail.. Would like to see some smart modern projects in Toronto.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:09:22 +0000

I finally got around to visiting the crystal and found it a depressing experience - contrary to my expectations after following the contruction for so long. The entrance completly lacks in any drama whatsoever and is boringly white. The whole addition gives the impression of unfinshed drywall. The odd angles everywhere are not architecturaly exciting, merely disorienting and make mounting exhibits a nightmare in which the visitor gets to be a participant. Whoever thought that museum space resembling a 1925 expressionist film set would be a great idea for both the curators and the public? I left the crystal for the so-called heritage museum (if its a heritage, it’s been treated with disrespect) with a feeling of relief. This is junk architecture - a really bad idea that I’ll never visit again.

By: ROb Swan

ROb Swan — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:56:03 +0000

The crystal is an amazing engineering feat. I feel that the main goal was to create a building which will make the mind think. The crystal is designed to have no 2 angles the same, a feat no even sought by the Egyptians. I feel it is a masterpiece for the mind.

By: Gareth Thompson

Gareth Thompson — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:04:30 +0000

I go to school literaly on the block over from the ROM. We frequent it often, and we did so before the changes. I remember when they prepared for the change they closed off many parts of the muesem, they still havent reopened them. All the new area’s are filled with construction workers and no items.

Waste of good money. Sadly the conservatory next door is doing a inspired thing, thats slightly less crazy but still sad.

By: John Hanson

John Hanson — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:05:36 +0000

I used to visit the Royal Ontario museum every Saturday when I was a kid and knew it by heart. As an adult I dined regularly on the restaurant’s patio overlooking Bloor Street and the beautiful Chinese garden below. I returned for the first time since leaving Toronto four years ago and felt so sad. This monstrosity, this imposing architectural travesty, is so unfriendly. Inside the lobby is dark, cavernous and lifeless. The old lobby with its marble, vaulted ceiling and balcony was warm and welcoming. Now it is nothing of the kind…. just modern. YUCK! YUCK! YUCK!

By: bill dauterive

bill dauterive — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:04:29 +0000

Space Alien Arrives in Toronto, Commences to Eat Building!!!

It’s one thing to build such a thing as an independent and freestanding structure, but to destroy a landmark by grafting this thing onto it is vandalism (as others have noted).

Kandinsky and Rubens were both good painters; if Kandinsky were to have made a painting by cutting up one of Rubens’ lesser works, he would also have been a vandal. This is not a philistine position, as some (e.g. Christopher Hume) have said. Rather, Hume’s support of this monstrosity brings his full body of intellectual pronouncements into disrepute.

By: zohaib

zohaib — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:09:59 +0000

this building is a revolution of sorts. libesind and a few others are steering the face of the new world of this millenium and they are role models of many. the question is what we learnt from the past and how we feel about what identifies us. perhaps this is what is a reflection of who we are. chaotic, broken, terrorized and parched. perhaps libeskinds philosophy can be seen from a different viewpoint. this chaos is the world today and it needs resurrection. but till then- welcome to the ROM.

By: jaguar

jaguar — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:15:37 +0000

this is not a building …!! this is …….boring

By: Allen

Allen — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:57:02 +0000

It looks messy and unfitting. There are a few buildings in that area of the same type of modern stature and I find them unappealing as well. The outside of the crystal looks quite awful, although the inside is nicer. But, Daniel Libeskind has failed to many people including myself in the hopes of modernization, and on all things a museum! Museums are about the distant past, therefore I think the old building was fitting. The ROM building is a part of Canadian history itself, and it looks as if it’s been vandalized.