Journalistic Essay | The Royal Ontario Museum

"Why should one expect the new addition to the ROM to be 'business as usual'? Architecture in our time is no longer an introvert's business. On the contrary, the creation of communicative, stunning and unexpected architecture signals a bold re-awakening of the civic life of the museum and the city."

- Daniel Libeskind

The Royal Ontario Museum, 1933

 The Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) opened in March 1914 on one of Toronto’s most prominent intersections of Bloor St. and Avenue Rd. It was to be a place of education and discovery with a wide variety of exhibitions acquired from ancient Egypt to the Persian Empire. Since its opening, the original Romanesque building has undergone 3 separate renovations: 1931-1933, 1978-1984 and most recently (and most acclaimed), Daniel Libeskind’s 2001-2007 remodel. With each addition/renovation came a new style and consequently new opinions from many. None received more feedback – in the form of both harsh criticism and praise – than Daniel Libeskind’s new 100,000SF exhibition space.

Libeskind hails from a small Polish town and has been known for his eye-catching, occasionally controversial modern design throughout his career as an architectural principal, professor and theorist. The ROM project came about after a large donation was made available by a foreign museum patron – as it often seems to be the case with high-profile starchitect projects of late. Money was made available, a project was scoped and several contenders from all over the world submitted design plans. The team at Studio Daniel Libeskind submitted a plan that blew away the previously criticized additions of the ROM in terms of the lack of style fusion. Nevertheless, Libeskind was the chosen man for the job.

The winning design was inspired by Libeskind’s first visit to the ROM, when he viewed a mineral crystal exhibition during a wedding that he had been attending. He was fascinated by the unique shape and light-play each crystal contained and determined this allurement was enough to base 100,000 square feet of exhibition space. The original design became the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal and called for six crystal shapes (eventually dropping to five due to budgetary constraints) built from steel and clad in brushed aluminum on the exterior. The interior exhibition spaces take advantage of the strategically placed windows, taking in as much natural light as possible. Throughout the addition, both active and passive green building systems were also implemented. It’s apparent that Libeskind’s addition has many admirable qualities and undoubtedly put the ROM on the iconic architectural map. However, why it has made its way into the debates concerning iconicity and how it is discussed is worth looking further into.

The Queen Elizabeth II Terrace Galleries (later replaced by the Crystal)

Before any additions or renovations, the ROM was an arguably good-looking ‘regular’ building. It was regular in its symmetry, pretty stone façade and typical Romanesque medieval details. The ROM was a Toronto gem but did not garter the attention of world-renowned architectural critics. The first addition included the art deco east wing Byzantine-inspired rotunda and new main entrance. Inside, the rotunda is stunning in its mosaic detail. Outside, it is simply a dome structure neither trying to stand out or blend in with the original building. The second addition that took place in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s revealed the Queen Elizabeth II Terrace Galleries and McLaughlin Planetarium. The terraces were modern, straight-edged and somewhat reminiscent of the brutalist style. All together, the second addition’s style was at least sympathetic to the existing style. Then there is the third addition and suddenly the ROM becomes a global architectural icon…

Why is the ROM considered iconic? It’s interesting to recognize the fact that the word ‘icon’ isn’t quite associated with the ROM until a starchitect is brought into the picture. The third addition to the ROM is an outrageous one if you consider the complete lack of style blending. The uber-modern crystal motif that Libeskind brought to life truly is beautiful in terms of the technical and engineering complexities it took to build it. So could any eccentric design plopped next to the ROM achieve the same level of popularity? Or could the exact same design hypothetically designed by a lesser-known architect reach iconicity? Perhaps the real thought worth contemplating is that this radical addition is truly only discussed as a modern icon because Libeskind put his uniquely unconventional stamp on it.

How is the ROM discussed within the context of iconicity? Not surprisingly, when researching the ROM in terms of its architecture, the results lead with Libeskind. He is the face of not only the Crystal but also consequently the ROM as a whole. The discussion seems to circulate around the architect versus the architecture. Libeskind’s design, Libeskind’s inspiration, Libeskind’s legacy. It’s unfortunate and a concept we’ve discussed often throughout the semester – is the building famous because of the actual building or because of the brains behind the building? The ROM, especially since the Crystal is actually only a fraction of the entire institution, seems to ultimately become unfairly overshadowed by the starchitect; leaving its history and journey to stardom in the background.