9.1.2 Royal Ontario Museum – Toronto, Canada

9.1.2 Royal Ontario Museum – Toronto, Canada

Figure 96 The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada

The Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in Toronto reopened with The Crystal – A 100,00 sq. ft extension designed by Ar. Daniel Libeskind to the original structure of the museum. The structure is composed of interlocking prismatic structures made of glass and aluminium on a steel frame. The structure does not touch the Neo-Romanesque architecture built in 1914,

except for the connecting bridge, it dramatically alters the experience and aesthetics of the museum.

The crystal has been a highly controversial building, where some are praising it as a contemporary monument since critics have always questioned its aesthetics, function and purpose. One can look at it from a modernist approach of it harmoniously co-existing with the old building, not overpowering it and still serving the purpose it was built for. (Byard & Spencer, 1998)

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND:

Royal Ontario Museum, over the years, had started to create a public image of being old,

conventional, and out of touch with modern social practices. It was seen as a place visited mainly by schoolchildren and tourists, as an institution having little interaction with the diversity of the modern world and the vibrancy of its surrounding community.

(Byard & Spencer, 1998)

In an effort to revitalize its public image and its collections, the ROM had taken on some drastic transformations in recent years. The changes were aimed at integrating the ROM into the urban fabric of Toronto by making it a part of the city fabric, making it a state-of-the-art structure. and building on a reputation of international excellence in an age of global competition. In seeking to become a ‘new museum,’ it would have failed to reconcile historical aspects and narratives embedded in the ‘old museum.’ Bridging the gap between its past and its present was one of ROM’s most challenging and essential task.

ARCHITECTURE:

The Crystal’s internal structure angles upwards to meet the Royal Ontario Museum’s original brick edifice, providing grand cross-sectional views of both old and new architectures, and establishing a grand space where public and private events can be held. On any given day people will meet, mingle, and relax in this area. It serves as the ‘commons’ within the museum’s space, offering comfortable places to sit amidst the grandeur of century-old brick and the icy clean white walls of the Crystal. This contrast and juxtaposition

of space follow the visitor throughout the museum. As people weave their way in and out of different galleries, there is a constant flux of exposure to ‘old’ and ‘new,’ catching the viewer

somewhere between reverence and inspiration. (Byard & Spencer, 1998)

Figure 97 Old meets new in the Gloria Chen Court, the original structure of brick and stone is met by the abstract internal angles of the Crystal. (Left- In the interiors of the museum, Right- in the exteriors)

INFERENCE:

A modern society so distanced itself from the past, that the Modern Art, crafts and architecture has no visual connection with history. This is particularly true of the first phase of the so-called international style-which tried to put forth a clean & pure form of architecturerepresented by skyscrapers of pure geometrical shapes-which has pervaded the townscapes of the third world countries only after 1950.

In architectural design, history & historic buildings are so strong is the influence of these images, that they are now being borrowed selectively by designers & artists to provide an identity. The present scenario in architectural development has become quite confusing, as the essential question of identity, which, it is feared is getting lost in the growing global culture. The sheer magnitude of architectural changes to the structure of Royal Ontario Museum which prompts the visitor to engage physically, intellectually, and emotionally with the institution. Contrast, conflict, and contrast are at the core of these engagements. Radical changes to its architectural and spatial significance. have been accompanied by more subtle experimentations in musicological practices. The museum is truly modern in nature by making the building, and exhibits accessible for people with physical disabilities has also become a priority for the ROM. In addition to being wheelchair accessible, the museum’s ‘wayfinding’ system includes Braille and tactile elements.

Figure 98 Aerial View of the museum (archdaily)