The ROM Crystal continues its slow and surprisingly graceful - for a major construction project - evolution. The exterior cladding is now being added. I cycled down Bloor Street late yesterday afternoon for the first time in a while and was surprised by my visceral first impression of the surface. It's lead. For a building called a "crystal" that might seem like a pejorative observation. Stay with me and keep an open mind while I continue.

From the beginning, the crystal reference generated two distinct expectations: The first was of a glass-like transparency and the second a crystalline physical shape. Both the architect and the ROM soon made public pronouncements that the skin was not going to be all glass. Some critics were disappointed but others, more familiar with the tectonic constraints of building, championed the crystal's shape as an inviting contrast to the ROM's existing formality.

I'm in the second camp because of the museum's curatorial needs - not all display spaces need that much light. So, the impression of looking at a mostly opaque cladding is not too surprising in that context. Plus, there's a sense of promise because the crystal does not reveal its contents in one glance. There's also another reason to appreciate the "lead" reference. Toronto's cultural renaissance is a multi-generation process that will never truly end. In many ways it is a story about taking some base elements - like community, creativity, audiences, education, government, money, strategy, influence - and combining them in just the right way to achieve an alchemic conversion: Turning lead into gold.

Update
One of our readers pointed out that this Lead coloured material is not the final surface. Another voiced the opinion that my alchemy metaphor sucks. Let's blame it on today's time change. Editor

1. You’re kidding.
   ‘Base’ elements as related to community?
   That is a weak and misguided metaphor at best and yet another that’s been heaped onto this building since it’s first inception.
   The Chrystal is most certainly NOT about community.

   Surely we don’t need any more allusions for this building. The thing was titled before the ground was turned.

   Architectural metaphors are a tricky business and something I wonder if Libeskind would approve of.How does lead relate to community or education or creativity or anything else but lead? These are the (hoped for) qualities of a finished, working building, not it’s cladding.

   The raw,growling behemoth that was the steel structure was at least arresting and certainly worthy of metaphors precisely becuase it was an object and not yet a building (which depends on inhabition). Possibly not yet architecture.

   The object as it stands now – and probably will in the future – is an agressive assualt on its ancestor, not to mention passersby.
   THAT is what makes it interesting and challenging, not it’s dead, white, lead cladding.

   Posted by  on  04/02  at  05:21 PM

2. I wondered how long it would take for someone to respond to my post. Thanks Ian for taking the time to give the ROM some serious consideration. I agree with one point – not my best metaphorical musings but weak and misguided?? Thou doest protest too much.

   Posted by  on  04/02  at  06:00 PM

3. The “lead” material is not the final skin, but the insulation. The exterior cladding, either titanium or aluminum siding, will be mounted on top.

   One ROM question I’m still grappling with is the issue of uniqueness. Where the original glass design looked quite singular, the new titanium version looks like every other Libeskind effort. Though differently shaped, it looks like the Jewish Museum right down to the slit windows.

   Is this a bad thing? I’m not entirely sure.

   Posted by Mike Varey  on  04/02  at  06:19 PM

4. Thanks Mike for the clarification on the material. I could’nt tell if it was the finished material or not. Internet self-correction in action… Maybe we need a Reading Toronto wiki. Anyone out there with some spare time on their hands?

   Posted by  on  04/02  at  06:23 PM

<< Back to main