Quick Facts: Building: Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). Location: Toronto, Canada. Original opening: 1914. Controversial renovation: 2007. Architect of the addition: Daniel Libeskind. Style: Deconstructivist crystalline forms clashing deliberately with the original Edwardian facade. Local nickname: “The Crystal.”
When the Royal Ontario Museum reopened in 2007 after Daniel Libeskind’s dramatic renovation, Toronto didn’t know what to think. Locals were divided, critics were divided, and the building became one of the most talked-about architectural interventions in Canadian history. Nearly twenty years later, it’s worth asking: was the outrage fair?
What Libeskind Actually Built
Libeskind’s addition, officially called the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal, is a cluster of interlocking angular forms that burst from the ROM’s original 1914 Edwardian facade like a geological event. It is emphatically not trying to blend in. It doesn’t match the stone, the scale, the rhythm, or the mood of the original building. That was the entire point.
Why People Hated It
The objections were real and understandable. The original ROM is a handsome, authoritative building that took decades to earn its place on Bloor Street. Libeskind’s addition felt, to many, like aggression rather than dialogue. The angular protrusions created awkward interior spaces that were difficult to program. The collision of old and new read as hostile rather than creative.
Why It’s Worth Defending
Divisive architecture has a track record of aging well. The Pompidou Centre was despised at first. The Louvre Pyramid sparked national controversy. Buildings that make a clear argument, even an uncomfortable one, tend to outlast the buildings that don’t. The ROM Crystal is unmistakable. It has presence. It changed Toronto’s skyline in a way no polite glass box ever would have.
The Building Today
The ROM remains one of the most visited museums in North America, and the Crystal has become part of Toronto’s visual identity whether critics like it or not. The debate around it is itself a kind of legacy. Architecture that makes people argue is architecture that makes people think.
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