Arts
Clash of the Crystals Round One: Denver vs. TO

There's no doubt that Daniel Libeskind's architectural renovation of the ROM earlier this year drew a lot of publicity, good and bad. It was dubbed the Michael-Lee Chin Crystal in honour of generous monetary contribution of its namesake, and immediately had a polarizing reaction among those in Toronto. One Joe Clark went so far as to say the Crystal "sodomized" and "parasitized" the existing ROM architecture. So is the new ROM dramatic? Yes. Ambitious? Of course. Unique to Toronto? Well, turns out, not so much.
Apparently Mr. Libeskind has a penchant for erecting massive crystals containing priceless historical artifacts. His bio includes similar projects at the Jewish Museum in Berlin, the Imperial War Museum in England, and more close to home, the Denver Art Museum in Colorado.
So how do they stack up? In the first of a two-part series, I'll take a look at the exterior design of The Mile High City's crystal and see how our own humble children-hungry crystalline stacks up.

The first thing to make very clear right off the bat is that Toronto and Denver are very different cities. The GTA's population just about doubles Denver's metro area, and this is made very clear in the downtown core. Businessfolk bustle around the streets during the day, but more often than not, most streets seem just about deserted when night rolls around.
Denver also has some fairly revolutionary transit ideas in motion, making use of free hybrid diesel-electric busses that run up and the 16th Street Mall, a 16-block pedestrian/transit-only mall that makes up the retail core of downtown Denver. This system is heavily used by the public, and the busses are cleverly designed to prioritize standing room.
This forward-thinking is pervasive throughout the city. Walking through various parts of it, I was left with the impression that there's a municipal government that not only cares about the city's image, but is proactive in maintaining clean, well-designed streets with a pedestrian focus.

What does this mean for the Denver Art Museum? Well, approaching the structure you're immediately struck that it is all-encompassing, as if Libeskind was given near free-reign over the design and construction of the structure. The largest 'spike' on the crystal hangs well over 14th avenue, while the ROM's most prominent protrusion hangs just above the sidewalk. As many of you might also recall, Toronto city council went so far as to charge the ROM for using the public space above the sidewalk where the crystal protrudes into it.
Some would argue this measure was necessary for ensuring private-public space compliance, but to me this is an indication of artificial (and archaic) creative constraints.

The other issue here is that the ROM feels completely out of place with its surrounding architecture. This isn't helped by the fact that much of the existing (beautiful) portion of the ROM is completely dominated by the heavily contrasting Crystal structure. At the site of the Denver Crystal, it is surrounded by architecture of equal post-modernist design, including the Denver Public Library.

The surrounding area, stretching into nearby Civic Center Park, was given a high amount of attention to detail, and is lined with complimentary art installations, statues, all of which are illuminated by dramatic lighting at night.
While the same aluminum cladding was used in construction of the Denver museum, the distinct lack of black-outlined windows gives the structure a more consistent, and less cluttered appearance. It gives the impression that there is more confidence in the design of the Crystal itself, while not relying as heavily on heavily angular windows to give it distinction.

Obviously, the ROM has the advantage here of providing natural light for the interior of the museum, but this may have been a logistical choice to prevent the light from damaging priceless works of art in Denver.
So on the exterior front, who comes out on top? My vote goes to Denver. As much as I appreciate Toronto's introduction of post-modern design into a rather tired-looking neighbourhood, I can't help but shake the feeling that the implementation of the Lee-Chin Crystal is "parasitized", as Mr. Clark said.

Denver's Art Museum leverages the surrounding beautiful, complimentary architecture to create a striking building, from every perspective. The level of detail given to the surrounding landscaping, illumination, and pedestrian-friendly areas in the Civic Center give it a welcoming feeling, as well as one that feels as though it conveys the original design inspiration.
In the coming weeks, I'll take a look at the interior of both of these structures in an attempt to show if Denver's good design sense translates into good use of interior space.

All photos by me. Check out some more shots of Denver's Art Museum.


Discussion
12 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Note that the review above was much influenced by the environment outside the museum. Perhaps things would have been different if Bloor and Avenue had the kind of lush landscaping, pavers, street furniture, signage guidelines and architectural restoration that now characterizes many American cities. Toronto is extremely behind in these aspects of public space quality, and its citizens are rather ignorant of the city's relative decline. Very sad. It is perhaps best that the writer is not comparing riding a TTC streetcar to Denver RTD light rail or another depressing result would ensue, again for many of the same urban-public-space-dollars reasons.
Without the glass walls, there's only a series of burnished aluminum planes. If they were polished/shiny (and even illuminated at night), it would improve on the black hole that is situated there after dusk.
Two reasons why I didn't; I wanted to focus on the DAM, and the second is what you mentioned - it's kind of sad to see our transit and public space in the state it is compared to other cities which seem to be flourishing.
I'm no expert, but I think when looking at architecture, the surrounding environment is a really important (if not THE most important) factor in judging the design. It's not like architects plan without any knowledge of the neighbourhood, so it's so important that it's cohesive and complimentary.
Architecture in the states never really has any regard for space. The bigger the better. They love to slap on sidewalks are go no where and areas that look good but are impractical. I would like to see this in real life and see just how practical and how much use is the area around it.
I am in awe of both buildings.
I love that we didn't tear down the ROM and start from scratch as many cities in the south do. The incorporation of old and new in Toronto architecture and it's livability is what makes Toronto unique.
Gloria- I'm proud of Toronto's messy aesthetic, beautifully culminated at Chinatown. And if you want trophy quality perfectionist design, look south of the Crystal. There's the U of T St. George campus where Gothic architecture meets great Brutalist buildings. Then there's the superb modernist Leslie L. Dan Pharmacy Building among some interesting additions. The terrific work done with the Distillery District, and so many other projects could be talked about elsewhere and now they're actually working on the waterfront with a great plan. Neighbourhoods previously in decay such as Queen West and the Junction are doing much better in terms of street life. There are parts of the city that do need work, but I don't need to it to look like the museum of urban design before I like it.
Sent from my mobile using <a href=\"http://www.feedm8.com\">FeedM8</a>
Second, I don't know how anyone can say that Denver is gorgeous next to Toronto. And transit? Please. Let's no go there. I work with lots of people in the Denver area, and the are so jealous of Toronto's transit system.
Toronto is in relative decline? Maybe if sterility is your thing. It is as vibrant as ever. Could it use more love, sure. We all see that, but have a priority on the social responsibilities placed on us by the Provincial government.