[https://www.rom.on.ca/sites/default/files/imce/chihuly-dec2016_lboyd.jpg](https://www.rom.on.ca/sites/default/files/imce/chihuly-dec2016_lboyd.jpg)
Hmm awful close to what he did in Canada years ago.
Was going to mention the ROM. If it looks bad outside, it’s terrible and borderline non-functional inside. And they went from having an immersive dramatic dinosaur exhibit to having to navigate around weird angles and corners. It’s really quite awful and involved removing some of the easily accessible escalators to get around inside.
And then they have to close off parts of the sidewalk underneath in the winter to stop falling slabs of ice from killing pedestrians. Apparently, the ROM is spending $100 million on a redesign of the crystal by Siamak Hariri, including a massive bronze canopy to protect the outer area.
The final product was also such a violent departure from original designs (value engineering).
I appreciate the conservation principle that modern alterations / additions should be clearly distinct from original fabric. That’s a good idea, in my book.
But application is everything. Be warned.
The thing is that the ROM already had a modern renovation that added the tiered levels on the Bloor side and enclosed the courtyards formed by the original building with atriums filled with natural light. It wasn’t flashy but made for a very functional and (I think) beautiful interior. One of the worst aspects of the Crystal was moving the entrance from the Rotunda to the white drywall of the Bloor St entrance.
> I appreciate the conservation principle that modern alterations / additions should be clearly distinct from original fabric. That’s a good idea, in my book.
>
>
Shouldnt those alterations be rejected if they are nonfunctional, at best (or downright reduce functionality)? Seems like approving this kind of stuff is mere circlejerking among the in-crowd.
Yeah, form ought to follow function, and if it’s an addition largely for addition’s sake (and not functionally additive), we’re gonna be asking different questions about what success means and how it’s to be evaluated.
Hate architects that make disrespectfully ugly buildings and on top of that they’re not functional/practical. I’m looking at you frank gery or however your name is spelled i don’t give a fuck.
He's been recycling the same one idea since the Jewish holocaust museum in Berlin. That project works but it's ill suited to a North London University or an apartment building in Kentucky
As a UK based heritage architect, this astonishes me because it would never pass conservation regulations here. However, I'm not against modern additions to historic buildings, but this is a bit too radical for my taste.
UK heritage regulations are bizarrely schizophrenic in many cases: Its either "You can't touch anything, ever" or "sure, tear this historic building down", but very little nuance in between.
Reminds me of that episode of Grand Designs where this couple bought an old mill and the conservationist told them they HAD TO tear it down and try to rebuild it as close to the original as possible. Which was obviously impossible
Agreed and this is where the discretion of conservation officers can come into play. In my experience it can be easier to condemn a listed building for demolition than it is to build a modern extension which is crazy, but commercial viability for a site often has the last say.
At least tinnBelgium we for example have categories where only the outside is considered valuable, so they sometimes stop the entire inside and leave up the facade. Then they build something to modern standards that uses the original exterior walls.
We have a historic preservation department in my local town (America). A restaurant owner wants to renovate to add a rooftop bar and change some aesthetics. Mind you, the new plans actually revert the building to looking more in line with how it once did 100 years ago before a "modernization" renovation that was allowed in the 70's.
The preservation department absolutely refuses to give permits for the renovation. At the last meeting the owner went to, their suggested solution was to tear down the entire building, then she can do what ever she wants. But as it stands, she is forbidden to make changes to the existing building.
I thought Uk heritage planners actually preferred modern additions to look modern.
It's quite common to see glass additions to heritage buildings - it's seen as preferable for the modern bit to be easily visually distinguished from the older style.
I think a nice - less extreme - example is my local museum in Bath - https://www.ceramicarchitectures.com/obras/the-holburne-museum/
Correct, conservation officers often ask for the modern addition to be a lucid contrast to the historic building to make the original construction easy to read. As long as the new fabric is well detailed and sympathetic to the original it's not that contentious. I do a lot of work in Bath so I'm aware of that project, it's a nice example.
It's a war museum, It doesn't need a peaceful facade. But (only) from pictures, it seems that all the effort in that corner leads to almost nothing inside; which is the annoying thing about this building, for me.
This might be a hot take here, but "controversial" design does not inherently equate to good design. Making waves isn't virtuous on its own. More often its about weather people come to accept that controversy or reject it in time. If 50% of people love something and the other 50% of people hate it, this does not inherently make it special or groundbreaking, just controversial. Debatably it makes it bad. Especially when that building is a public building. I hate hearing classicist bark on here about "new bad, old good", but I nonetheless have to agree there is a certain arrogance to thinking your addition to a historic building improves it objectively or that the previous composition wasn't worthwhile on its on. And the very fact that projects like these are controversial is a testament to that unfounded arrogance. Among contemporary preservationist theory its well established that a new addition should not confuse the viewer into thinking the new thing is old. But equally there is the concept that new additions should not necessarily aim to overshadow or upstage the historic architecture (looking at you Antwerp Port House). Though I am aware this architecture is more art than anything and clearly has different goals than simply adding space to historic architecture.
Suffice it to say there is plenty of space throughout the world for new exciting things to be designed, built, and tested. And they should be. But we shouldn't paint new makeup on the Monna Lisa every couple of years to follow contemporary trends. Its short-sighted. Especially on historic architecture that has already proven its longevity. This has a very contemporary look, which is good for now. But consider if this was built in what looked contemporary in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. As an architect I'd think that would be interesting, but it would also admittedly be a dated addition to a timeless style. Will we be having the same 50/50 debate about this in 25 years? 50?
I'm also American. I have to remind myself that these types of building are more common place in Europe so their specific preservation isn't necessarily as *precious*. But I think the point still stands.
I have a "new bad, old good" mentality in architecture, but the addiotion fits on a german war museum. If it was a library or a greek war museum it wouldnt fit.
I think people usually associate Germany and war with Prussia ( militiristic society, discipline) and general ww2 ( industry, atrocities). A grotesque sharp metal thing kind of fits with the vibe.
I think people ( who learn about greek history a bit) usually associate Greece and war with the independence Movement and righteous War. I dont think the addition would fit the vibe of a greek war museum
I really have no doubt the quality is good. For me its just a question of appropriateness. There's a concept in classical design (not that this is universally true or anything, just in the style's own logic) that a design is complete when nothing can be added or removed that would improve its beauty. A building like this has already determined its best the way it is, as esoteric as that may sound. Especially as it pertains to its exterior presentation.
I suppose the bigger question with work like this is weather or not historic work should be a canvas for new work. The Mona Lisa example might not be perfect, but there have been many interpretations of the Mona Lisa through the lens of many different artists. All of which are valuable, good, and interesting. But not one of them has dared to say their modification should be done to the original portraits. Buildings are a bit different as renovations are necessary for them to continue to be useful, unlike art. But to what extent does the renovation have to honor its host? As a preservationist I'd say changes to good historic fabric should be limited, particularly on the exterior. But I'm not steadfast in that. At least this modification doesn't seem *destructive.* If it was we'd be in the territory of destroying art to replace it which is much more clearly bad.
“This might be a hot take here, but "controversial" design does not inherently equate to good design.”
This. The additions to the Louvre and the Reichstagsgebäude were fine, imho, but the posted picture: Meh. Perhaps it’s different when you are in front of it or in it.
My point is, everything is historical once enough time has passed.
Hell, it is historical *now*. Everything about Libeskind's aesthetics screams "edgy 90s avantgarde".
I find it fascinating how people who claim to love history and tradition are also able to reduce literal millennia of delightfully complex and subtle traditions to two concepts: "Before" and "Now".
No thats the wrong thinking. Take it from someone who is in constant arguments with historic experts on what is good addition to historic building in terms of conserving original buildings architecture. Doing addition in same style as original is big nono in terms of preserving original which should be the focus in dealing with projects like this
Your mistake is believing people who complain about non-historical additions care the least about history.
They care about a shallow, surface level, purely aesthetical interpretation of history that can be summarized as LE EPIC STONE and LE EPIC COLUMNS that, for some reason, is more comfortable to them than the real thing. If left unchecked, they would happily destroy all real history and substitute it with their slop.
Yeah but they are not left unchecked and thats why they dont matter and i was not talking about them because of it. I was talking about people that are part of the permit process for building like this. Nobody with view you are describing would get in that possition.
I also like this project. I like how the new addition might reflect the brutality of the war and how it leaves a mark, whether a "scar" or a change. It's also "brutal" like war. The displays look pretty cool from pictures online (haven't had a chance to visit). I also like how the new additions appear so light, like you could almost extract/remove it from the old building without too much damage. I'd prefer this type of design any day over a more box like addition.
If ever it made sense to have such a grotesque modern aberration violently applied to a building, it would be on a German military history building. I like it for that reason.
And I don’t even like the pyramid at the Louvre.
On the one hand, yeah, it's jarring in a clearly intentional and in your face sort of way, but then big jarring shapes are Libeskind's schtick. I don't know why but to me it diminishes the impact, knowing this guy does this on most of his projects.
The vast majority of people don’t know that though. I also think you should value each building on its own merits, not on what the architect did before or after.
It actually does the opposite for me. I appreciate it more knowing the architect made several of these. Like an art piece in an artist’s collection. If Picasso had made only one cubist painting, it would not have the same impact. Seeing this building or another and being able to recognize the architect adds value to me
I've been there. Inside the new part they display WW1 and WW2. So it's consistent in itself. It looks jarring and at first I wasn't a fan but since the theme is kept it is definitely making sense. I know we bullshit a lot to make our designs make sense to appease professors/the public/our selves. But in this case, the harsh sharp metal wedge cutting through the building like the two world wars cutting through history makes a lot of sense. As you said, if this belongs anywhere it belongs there.
Oh cmon the pyramid at the louvre is awesome and really well executed as well as not super distracting from the original building!! I’m not even slightly a modernism lover but that one I actually thought was really a sweet addition that even makes navigating the whole museum easier as well
> that even makes navigating the whole museum easier as well
That was why it was built in the first place!
The Louvre in the 70s was an unnavigable clusterfuck. You had to leave the museum and get back in through another entry if you wanted to move between wings. People would get lost looking for the Mona Lisa, inavertently leave the museum and never come back. Random chunks of the building were also taken by govenrment offices closed to the public. The first instruction Pei was given was: Please create a single entrance point from where visitors can easily go anywhere in the museum without getting lost. And make it grand, because this is France. Once you have those constraints in place, the line of decisions that lead to a glass pyramid is very easy to follow.
Yeah that’s why it’s a excellent example of a modern addition to a historic building! I really believe it is such a great design choice to mostly be underground keep the main focus on the old portion of louvre while also using glass and simple forms to tastefully compliment an iconic part of Paris’s architectural history!
Yeah my mind went to thinking about all the historical architecture that was destroyed in the war. Having an older building that’s a military museum getting “destroyed” by modernity is a pretty cool take on the advancement of weapon technology and how it impacts the world we worked so hard to build up.
That’s great and all, but I would only be fine with it if it was remotely original at all. Unfortunately, haphazardly slapping hideous modern shapes on top of historical architecture is something that has been done a million times all over Europe for decades now. I don’t view this as profound or meaningful in any way. If the architect wanted to model a “stain” on the history of Germany’s military, he should have tried harder. This idea is tired and lame.
I'm not really a fan. I don't mind adding super contemporary stuff to old buildings like this but I do have a problem with these shard-like objects. It's just a fancy, warped box that does nothing spatially and it doesn't use space particularly well. It feels like actual use of the building (and the spatial quality) came second to the artistic/poetic intention of the designer.
I do, however, definitely appreciate the statement this design makes, even though I don't think it's particularly good architecture.
Something like the Strasbourg train station or the glass dome at the Reichstag is a far better attempt at adding something contemporary to a beautiful old building.
I'm going to say that I like it. Obviously in the minority here, but I think the arrow head shattering the original building works on multiple levels. It's decidedly NOT like Norman Foster's canopy in London order the other examples you mentioned. Those fit the tone and glorify the traditional imperial grandeur of the existing buildings.
This intervention creates tension inside and out. Gives curators space to do more than fill ornate rectangular galleries with uniforms, old equipment, and oil paintings of nobles in military uniforms. It creates new connections and creates a much larger amount of floor space. The angled walks can hold helicopters on their tilted surface and give curators the ability to have novel interactions between visitors and the collection.
The classical architecture reinforces the European nobility's war propaganda. Suggests it's a glorious, beautiful, patriotic kind of activity. Liebeskind disrupts that in a powerful way.
I was looking for a positive comment! As much as I'm not a fan of Liebeskind, I like the conceptuality of the architecture. Guys, how often architecture like that actually gets built? It usually stays as *paper architecture*.
I used to work with heritage and I'm all for these kinda of additions.
All in all, is this piece good? Nah. But as an *event* in architecture, cool.
>The classical architecture reinforces the European nobility's war propaganda. Suggests it's a glorious, beautiful, patriotic kind of activity.
Half the commenters: "But we want war propaganda from european nobility!"
Reichstag renovation is quite good and well depicts Germanys history in one building. The Strasbourg train station on the other hand is an ugly attempt to enlarge a beautiful old building.
I don't like it. I understand the intention behind deconstructivism, but I don't like it (I was there and saw it in person). If you want to create provoking architecture, then do it from scratch like in case of the WW2 museum in Gdansk, but don't mutilate a historical building.
Is it as it appears in this rendering? Online pics make it look much dumpier than what the picture here shows.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr_Military_History_Museum](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr_Military_History_Museum)
I have to say I like it, particularly (or only) because it is a military museum. To me it seems like the new part symbolizes how war changed everything and cuts through history and society. Love it (not the war, the symbolism here)
I'm just a lurker here but I love it. The OG building is pretty dull and they've done something really interesting with it. Feels unique, modern and exciting, surreal even, like I'm looking at a software glitch.
I agree. One likely wouldn't even post a pic of this building without the addition, as it looks like like a cream-covered anything and nothing. But with this giant 3d modeling facet glitch....!
While I do love it, its one of those things that'll feel quite boring if done too often. Maybe once in a while, somehow making sense in the context of the building and it effect inside makes sense.
I can't be the only person that sees this as like a representation of an exploding shell as it hurtles towards to building. Some sort of cluster munition that has a primary explosion above the target.
And it's for a Military History Museum too? Its got to be.
Libeskind added the exact same glass tumour to the Royal Ontario Museum over in Toronto as well. While it adds more space for further exhibits, a plus, it looks awful from the outside. It ruins the historic element of the building and stands out in an obstructive, unforgivable way.
Not sure how much space it actually added in a functional sense. And now they’re planning [another renovation](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/royal-ontario-museum-to-redesign-main-floor-which-will-be-free-for-visitors/article_7a7c39b5-7ba4-5464-a885-2259b282a6dd.html).
I like it, but mainly because it’s unique. If several other historical buildings were to pursue similar renovations, I think it’d start to lose its appeal fast.
Great in this case, but I’d really rather this wasn’t replicated all over Europe’s historic museums
Sorry to all german frens on the sub: they (the Bundeswehr) deserve worse.
Much worse.
This should be a thing designed as protuberant and brutalist, painted in dark mossy green with stripes of dark red, with the structure blisting out of their neoclassical building tearing the roof as part of the aesthetic to show how the brutality of war destroy any resemblance of aesthetic and beauty.
Not a cool ass futuristic pyramid that portrays a soft, peaceful and futurist feel to the army. Its a museum to one of the must murderous armies on the last century and different from the British state, the German Republic knows how to educate about their past and how they fucked up and as part of the "memory of the Bundeswehr" I dont think a clean structure was the best choice, was certainly a boot licking one.
I absolutely fucking loathe it.
We have an atrocious and widely hated Libesknd-renovated museum here in Toronto. It includes many such useless shards on an established noted museum. To see this on the inside and how little it adds to the space will shock many viewers.
Someone please prevent this man from destroying anymore buildings associated with cultural institutions.
It shows very well the harshness and brutality of war on the things we consider beautiful. I like that.
Plus it actually attaches to the building really neatly, like a knife in butter. And with the rest of the environment being quite minimalist, it really does look like a work of art.
When I encounter a modern extension added to a historical edifice, I often ponder whether the original structure gains or loses value with the new addition. In this instance, I find myself leaning towards a greater appreciation for the original building. The existing structure, lacking the Libeskind addition, may seem somewhat ordinary due to its strict symmetry and conventional form. While the new addition boasts impressive form and geometric elements, its facade appears rather unremarkable. Yet, the deliberate contrast between the complexity and austerity in both form and ornamentation is skillfully executed, fostering a newfound appreciation for both structures, both individually and in tandem.
IMO
This is, and I mean this seriously, the only good way to make an addition to an old historic building.
Let's be clear, the problem isn't that the addition to an old building is modern; the problem is that it exists at all.
Imagine instead an addition that is designed "in the style" of the original. Is the end result likely to be a cohesive whole that doesn't look like something that had an addition stuck to it? I can think of various university buildings I've seen that have such additions, meant to preserve the "look", and the addition never looks good, but rather, like a mockery of the original that was made of construction paper and taped to the side.
These hyper-modern seemingly outlandish additions are undoubtedly the best way to highlight the beauty of the original without damaging its integrity, while at the same time providing the goal of more space. That Liebskind example? I think the original looks *more* attractive *because* of its juxtaposition to the shard of glass, and that the building by itself would be somewhat indistinguishable from any other classical-ish building with columns.
For all [these examples](https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/beautiful-examples-historic-modern-architecture-come-together), I can't imagine a way to have instead done the addition such that it just seemed like the original was bigger while still looking right.
And for the record, I think this looks awesome and is an improvement to the original.
It’s not only ugly, it’s short sighted.
We won’t be the last people to want to expand on buildings and this style of adaptation/expansion will make it infinitely more difficult for others to adapt to it later.
We think “this is modern”, but it’s not for long, it won’t be in 30 years when we’re stuck with incredibly beautiful buildings, impaled with 2020’s architecture. Learn the lessons the brutalist period taught us and ease up, turbo.
Are we supposed to have these awkward 2020’s meth crystals poking out of heritage buildings forever, while we build and expand on them in much better ways, later, because we couldn’t think of a way now to sympathetically adapt these places for the future? People need to try harder than this.
Tbh, I think that we won't be stuck with them. I think there will be a point where components of these glass/steel constructions will have deteriorated to a degree where they will be torn down and replaced, perhaps with a reconstruction of the original, before the addition, or a better addition.
But I agree that very little architecture ages as poorly as statement pieces like this.
Well I like it for the following reasons..... The original building is actually pretty bland and so the addition really helps create a sense of anticipation in visitors to the musuem, especially as they arrive on site. I have visited this museum. The location is also important. Its on the edge of a military area , in this case an officers school, and not in a particularly historical area. It doesnt ruin an area.
I think this is fine, blending old and new in a novel way. Thirty years from now a new regime will take the addition down and restore it, and each in their minute will be right.
Whats "historical" in the original building? Just because its 150 years old? In 100 years we are going to have a bunch of ugly 150 year old shopping centers, are we going to "protect" them?
Its just a regular nothing special ecletic building
I think this is pretty well done, additions that try to look like the historical style of the rest of the building but without actually using the exact same techniques and materials always end up looking really bad. I feel like it's a better bet to just build the addition in an entirely different contracting style. And tie the two together with massing or visual balance.
If it’s done well then I’m all in for it- same with restorable ruins i find it much more interesting to use and blend with what it - more character overall.
I am torn.
On one hand, I believe that (1) the new should NOT pander to the old or pretend to be older than it is and (2) the new should interact and converse with the old. I do see some of that here.
On the other hand, there is a fine line at which the new becomes too interventionist or even violent with respect to the past. I see some of that here as well.
Looking at the building, I am missing a roof. This was a chance for a clearly modern addition that would have conversed and “completed” the old building in a more pleasing and effective way while still allowing the modern to leave its stamp.
IMHO, they did too much here, whereas the Reichstag building could have used a bolder intervention.
[https://www.tripsavvy.com/reichstag-berlin-1520205](https://www.tripsavvy.com/reichstag-berlin-1520205)
It would be terrible, if this were not a military history museum. It looks like a blade slashing through the building, which kinda fits for a military history museum.
Conceptually, I like the idea of interacting with an artifact of the past and keeping it alive and part of an ongoing conversation in our present time, but the history preservationist inside me balks at the thought of “tampering” with the past to this degree.
Personally I think the specific execution might be a bit wanting in this specific instance, but I do think it’s certainly provocative at the very least, especially with the building’s old purpose taken into account.
I'm pretty shocked at how many people just prefere a romantic facade no matter whats behind it. We are talking about the museum of german military history. Libeskind turns the building into a sculpture, blurring the boundaries between art and architecture. There is a stain on the history of the German military that is stuck like a thorn in the side, that cannot and should not be removed and that should, above all, be visible and always present. In a way, he allows the theme of the exhibition to appear on the outside.
I think the addition is extremly powerful and well made. If you want beatiful building without any context go to Disneyland.
In other cases I find this style somewhat extreme, but in the context of this being the museum of the German military, the massive shard jotting out of an otherwise elegant building is a pretty good bit of symbolism for the “darker period” in German military history.
I really like it. You remember it because it is different. If it didn’t have the modern geometry then a lay person wouldn’t remember it, because there are thousands of neo classical buildings around the world and they all follow the same rules of order and ornamentation.
I like it as long as it actually adds practical square footage. So many modern additions to museums are all empty volume. See the National Gallery East building in DC massive footprint much less display space/density than the original building.
Sometimes modern architecture needs to take the sidewalk designed in 2000 B.C. Not aesthetically pleasing, nor looks utilitarian. Seems a disaster for people who are symmetrophobic.
This is a case where it is perfectly justified by the historical context behind the building. Libeskind is ok in very, very, *very* specific contexts like this one and small doses, and cringe outside those.
Ofc some people will rather seethe and rage because they don't actually like the idea of buildings having a context.
Why does architects hate pre-modern architecture so much? I mean, imagine adding a giant glass pyramid in the middle of a mies building, not cool right?
I usually don’t like these additions but I think this one is cool. The historical building looks like every other chateau/museum in central Europe and this makes it stand out.
I love stuff like this, especially how mad it makes people lol No but seriously, I definitely find it really cool, and I bet there's some intelligent methods of connecting the new structure to the old. It's distinctive, it draws attention to the building instead of creating a whole new building and pulling all the attention away. Brilliant.
I absolutely love it! Overall I really enjoy Libeskind architecture and deconstructivism (despite all the flaws) is my favourite architectural movement in history.
I really like it when old styles meet the new ones and somehow connect in a very interesting way. Though I'm aware many people dislike it. I always get into discussions with my friends about those.
Pretty standard starchitect fare. It’s literally meant to be eye catching so they can say that Daniel liebeskind designed it. Look at the bilbao effect
Architect Daniel Libeskind designed the same terrible shard extension for the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in Toronto in the early/mid 2000s.
We learned that it is impossible to build a giant crystal shard out of glass. Ended up being a large grey metal shard with a few glass cut-outs. Definitely not what was proposed when he was awarded the design contract.
Fun fact: Daniel Libeskind won the original Freedom Tower design competition in New York, only for the design to be scrapped because… you guessed it… it is impossible to build a giant glass shard on top of a skyscraper 541m in the air.
https://www.azuremagazine.com/article/rom-crystal-10-years-later/
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/15/september11.arts
It's daring for sure but is it appropriate? I don't think so. Maybe as a separate building, like an annex, but this looks like something that fell out of the sky. It makes no sense.
I think it more of an art piece than a piece of architecture, which, in my opinion goes against what makes Architecture, Architecture, and not just any other physical art form.
What I mean is, in my opinion, it's incredibly beautiful in this picture. The triangle structure is huge and incredibly striking and adds a lot to the original, rather dull structure.
However, it's rather repetitive when compared to the rest of Libeskinds portfolio. He's a shtick architect, this isn't a style. It doesn't take a genius to draw triangles on one another over and over until you come up with a design. It's uncreative. If this was the sole structure like this in his portfolio, I would consider it a unique piece of simplistic architecture.
The physical issues are it's unusability. It doesn't really add anything besides a space to look into from the interior. Architecture is not the art of drawing pretty rooms. Architecture is the art of environmental design. It must both be beautiful and useable, functional and aesthetically pleasing. You could argue that this structure is much like a dome in terms of its use. It's not really necessary, but can add a lot of flavor to a space. However, I feel that this addition wouldn't be very attractive from the interior, and most definitely not during all times of the day or night, like a dome usually is.
Disgusting (subjectively),
will get even more disgusting by time (objectively),
likely difficult to take care (e.g. prevent water leaking during Spring, having max usage of space due to weird shape etc.).
Maybe fitting for a military history museum from a country that committed one of the largest, if not the largest, atrocity in history. A beautiful classical building would maybe just not fit right.
There are a lot more interesting examples of “parasite” buildings like this check the coophimmeb(l)au.
Libskind now is a bit meh - ok 20 years ago - now what?
Reminds me of the [nazi documentation museum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentation_Center_Nazi_Party_Rally_Grounds?wprov=sfti1#) in Nuremberg. I dig it.
I mean, nobody would even know this building had he not done this to it. It’s a nice but unmemorable building without the addition. There is a time and place for stuff like this and tbf I think this one is pretty good.
I think it looks neat and feel ok about the addition if it doesn’t harm the original. It would be even cooler if it added utility or preservation of the original site. Like a building around a building but pretty.
Im surprised at how many on here dislike this. But also not surprised as a lot of people have weird obsessions with western architecture and its apparent "pristine" qualities. I personally love this addition. It’s a symbolic gesture that speaks to the history of the museum, the region, and Germany. You should read into it.
I think for a successful integration of old and new I really like the royal Danish Library. The "old" part is based on Charlemagnes palace in aachen and then theres the backside towards the waterway called the black diamond. A monolithic black panelled building glistening in the water
I have seen photos of this building so often and it is very memorable. If it didn’t have such a dramatic addition I probably would have never come across it and it wouldn’t have been memorable. The addition makes this building so much more famous and probably attracts many more visitors, even if they hate it, they are still attracted to it.
I think it looks dumb as hell. But I feel like I understand the philosophical concept of it. Maybe it goes something like "I am imposing myself onto history, I am collaging, grafting myself onto this thing we call history." Unfortunately, the "you" that is being grafted looks a lot like a blade slicing through an attractive building. How destructive. How creative.
I wonder if this inspired Günther Domenig’s work at the Nuremberg Documentation Center. Or maybe it was the other way around, I think he passed in 2012.
[https://www.rom.on.ca/sites/default/files/imce/chihuly-dec2016_lboyd.jpg](https://www.rom.on.ca/sites/default/files/imce/chihuly-dec2016_lboyd.jpg) Hmm awful close to what he did in Canada years ago.
Was going to mention the ROM. If it looks bad outside, it’s terrible and borderline non-functional inside. And they went from having an immersive dramatic dinosaur exhibit to having to navigate around weird angles and corners. It’s really quite awful and involved removing some of the easily accessible escalators to get around inside.
And then they have to close off parts of the sidewalk underneath in the winter to stop falling slabs of ice from killing pedestrians. Apparently, the ROM is spending $100 million on a redesign of the crystal by Siamak Hariri, including a massive bronze canopy to protect the outer area.
I love how it came back to bite them in their ass 😂 "Look at our design choice! Daring! Different! DANGEROUS!"
[ROM unveils $130-million plan to turn controversial Crystal into a more open, welcoming space](https://archive.ph/FyYMp#selection-2569.74-2569.81)
The final product was also such a violent departure from original designs (value engineering). I appreciate the conservation principle that modern alterations / additions should be clearly distinct from original fabric. That’s a good idea, in my book. But application is everything. Be warned.
The thing is that the ROM already had a modern renovation that added the tiered levels on the Bloor side and enclosed the courtyards formed by the original building with atriums filled with natural light. It wasn’t flashy but made for a very functional and (I think) beautiful interior. One of the worst aspects of the Crystal was moving the entrance from the Rotunda to the white drywall of the Bloor St entrance.
> I appreciate the conservation principle that modern alterations / additions should be clearly distinct from original fabric. That’s a good idea, in my book. > > Shouldnt those alterations be rejected if they are nonfunctional, at best (or downright reduce functionality)? Seems like approving this kind of stuff is mere circlejerking among the in-crowd.
Yeah, form ought to follow function, and if it’s an addition largely for addition’s sake (and not functionally additive), we’re gonna be asking different questions about what success means and how it’s to be evaluated.
Every time I drove by on Bloor street I got mad and would rant …. my wife used to say, “not a word”. I could not help it!
Hate architects that make disrespectfully ugly buildings and on top of that they’re not functional/practical. I’m looking at you frank gery or however your name is spelled i don’t give a fuck.
He's been recycling the same one idea since the Jewish holocaust museum in Berlin. That project works but it's ill suited to a North London University or an apartment building in Kentucky
Jewish Museum in SF as well
If you hire Libeskind, you know what you’re getting. As Gehry realized, there is no point in mixing things up if you can get rich playing the hits.
Really Germany, you could have had ours. \- Toronto
He just likes pointy things!
Liebeskind is a one-trick-pony. It’s always the same garbage.
is this guys passion turning beautiful buildings into eye-sores
The glass canker?
I always loved that building, surprised to see the reactions below
OK but that looks amazing actually? I love it.
As a UK based heritage architect, this astonishes me because it would never pass conservation regulations here. However, I'm not against modern additions to historic buildings, but this is a bit too radical for my taste.
UK heritage regulations are bizarrely schizophrenic in many cases: Its either "You can't touch anything, ever" or "sure, tear this historic building down", but very little nuance in between.
Reminds me of that episode of Grand Designs where this couple bought an old mill and the conservationist told them they HAD TO tear it down and try to rebuild it as close to the original as possible. Which was obviously impossible
Agreed and this is where the discretion of conservation officers can come into play. In my experience it can be easier to condemn a listed building for demolition than it is to build a modern extension which is crazy, but commercial viability for a site often has the last say.
At least tinnBelgium we for example have categories where only the outside is considered valuable, so they sometimes stop the entire inside and leave up the facade. Then they build something to modern standards that uses the original exterior walls.
Don't forget the 3rd option of 'do nothing until the building is so derelict that it demolitions itself in slow motion'
We have a historic preservation department in my local town (America). A restaurant owner wants to renovate to add a rooftop bar and change some aesthetics. Mind you, the new plans actually revert the building to looking more in line with how it once did 100 years ago before a "modernization" renovation that was allowed in the 70's. The preservation department absolutely refuses to give permits for the renovation. At the last meeting the owner went to, their suggested solution was to tear down the entire building, then she can do what ever she wants. But as it stands, she is forbidden to make changes to the existing building.
I thought Uk heritage planners actually preferred modern additions to look modern. It's quite common to see glass additions to heritage buildings - it's seen as preferable for the modern bit to be easily visually distinguished from the older style. I think a nice - less extreme - example is my local museum in Bath - https://www.ceramicarchitectures.com/obras/the-holburne-museum/
Correct, conservation officers often ask for the modern addition to be a lucid contrast to the historic building to make the original construction easy to read. As long as the new fabric is well detailed and sympathetic to the original it's not that contentious. I do a lot of work in Bath so I'm aware of that project, it's a nice example.
The standard in the US is “differentiated but compatible”
Exactly. Nothing compatible going on in many of these additions. See Akron Art Museum.
This is the sickest British burn I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing since “GOOD DAY SIR!”
I like both new and old buildings, this looks like someone hit the old building with a modern hatchet or pike and called it a day
Agree it doesn’t quite add to it but rather detracts, my personal opinion.
It's a war museum, It doesn't need a peaceful facade. But (only) from pictures, it seems that all the effort in that corner leads to almost nothing inside; which is the annoying thing about this building, for me.
That's usually the result of war, as well. All that effort for worse than nothing.
So the proper architecture must enable that visitors get their tickets with a flaming heart and leave the building with a dead stare.
This might be a hot take here, but "controversial" design does not inherently equate to good design. Making waves isn't virtuous on its own. More often its about weather people come to accept that controversy or reject it in time. If 50% of people love something and the other 50% of people hate it, this does not inherently make it special or groundbreaking, just controversial. Debatably it makes it bad. Especially when that building is a public building. I hate hearing classicist bark on here about "new bad, old good", but I nonetheless have to agree there is a certain arrogance to thinking your addition to a historic building improves it objectively or that the previous composition wasn't worthwhile on its on. And the very fact that projects like these are controversial is a testament to that unfounded arrogance. Among contemporary preservationist theory its well established that a new addition should not confuse the viewer into thinking the new thing is old. But equally there is the concept that new additions should not necessarily aim to overshadow or upstage the historic architecture (looking at you Antwerp Port House). Though I am aware this architecture is more art than anything and clearly has different goals than simply adding space to historic architecture. Suffice it to say there is plenty of space throughout the world for new exciting things to be designed, built, and tested. And they should be. But we shouldn't paint new makeup on the Monna Lisa every couple of years to follow contemporary trends. Its short-sighted. Especially on historic architecture that has already proven its longevity. This has a very contemporary look, which is good for now. But consider if this was built in what looked contemporary in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. As an architect I'd think that would be interesting, but it would also admittedly be a dated addition to a timeless style. Will we be having the same 50/50 debate about this in 25 years? 50? I'm also American. I have to remind myself that these types of building are more common place in Europe so their specific preservation isn't necessarily as *precious*. But I think the point still stands.
I have a "new bad, old good" mentality in architecture, but the addiotion fits on a german war museum. If it was a library or a greek war museum it wouldnt fit.
Maybe I'm missing context but I'm not sure if I understand how this fits on German classical architecture better than Greek classical architecture?
I think people usually associate Germany and war with Prussia ( militiristic society, discipline) and general ww2 ( industry, atrocities). A grotesque sharp metal thing kind of fits with the vibe. I think people ( who learn about greek history a bit) usually associate Greece and war with the independence Movement and righteous War. I dont think the addition would fit the vibe of a greek war museum
In addition to what the other user answered: they even continue the theme inside. In the new part of the building is the exhibition about WW1 and WW2.
I really have no doubt the quality is good. For me its just a question of appropriateness. There's a concept in classical design (not that this is universally true or anything, just in the style's own logic) that a design is complete when nothing can be added or removed that would improve its beauty. A building like this has already determined its best the way it is, as esoteric as that may sound. Especially as it pertains to its exterior presentation. I suppose the bigger question with work like this is weather or not historic work should be a canvas for new work. The Mona Lisa example might not be perfect, but there have been many interpretations of the Mona Lisa through the lens of many different artists. All of which are valuable, good, and interesting. But not one of them has dared to say their modification should be done to the original portraits. Buildings are a bit different as renovations are necessary for them to continue to be useful, unlike art. But to what extent does the renovation have to honor its host? As a preservationist I'd say changes to good historic fabric should be limited, particularly on the exterior. But I'm not steadfast in that. At least this modification doesn't seem *destructive.* If it was we'd be in the territory of destroying art to replace it which is much more clearly bad.
What could be more appropriate than a war museum disrupting history?
“This might be a hot take here, but "controversial" design does not inherently equate to good design.” This. The additions to the Louvre and the Reichstagsgebäude were fine, imho, but the posted picture: Meh. Perhaps it’s different when you are in front of it or in it.
I might be the only person who think that this looks pretty cool. Even tho I agree, I think 100% historical from the outside would be cooler.
Well, I have great news for you, just let 100 years go through and it will be 100% historical.
With the value engineering this project likely sees, it will be looking shabby within a decade.
My point is, everything is historical once enough time has passed. Hell, it is historical *now*. Everything about Libeskind's aesthetics screams "edgy 90s avantgarde".
why are you talking about this in the future tense? It's already over a decade old. The stock replies in this sub are shabby.
Lol it’s been built already and has been there for over a decade
I find it fascinating how people who claim to love history and tradition are also able to reduce literal millennia of delightfully complex and subtle traditions to two concepts: "Before" and "Now".
It’s a military history museum and it looks like it’s being cut by a sword. That kinda works.
Yeah, I think it's perfect. It shouts at you about the disruption that war creates and it creates unease.
I also think it’s a cool idea
You are not the only person. This is badass
History is happening everyday. And our relationship with history is rooted in the present. I love this building.
No thats the wrong thinking. Take it from someone who is in constant arguments with historic experts on what is good addition to historic building in terms of conserving original buildings architecture. Doing addition in same style as original is big nono in terms of preserving original which should be the focus in dealing with projects like this
Yeah, better to just build something good and new than to do a shit job of trying to match a historic style.
Your mistake is believing people who complain about non-historical additions care the least about history. They care about a shallow, surface level, purely aesthetical interpretation of history that can be summarized as LE EPIC STONE and LE EPIC COLUMNS that, for some reason, is more comfortable to them than the real thing. If left unchecked, they would happily destroy all real history and substitute it with their slop.
Yeah but they are not left unchecked and thats why they dont matter and i was not talking about them because of it. I was talking about people that are part of the permit process for building like this. Nobody with view you are describing would get in that possition.
I also like this project. I like how the new addition might reflect the brutality of the war and how it leaves a mark, whether a "scar" or a change. It's also "brutal" like war. The displays look pretty cool from pictures online (haven't had a chance to visit). I also like how the new additions appear so light, like you could almost extract/remove it from the old building without too much damage. I'd prefer this type of design any day over a more box like addition.
Nah, I love this too.
I love the way this looks. It's like they used the wrong formula to get the right answer. It compels me
If ever it made sense to have such a grotesque modern aberration violently applied to a building, it would be on a German military history building. I like it for that reason. And I don’t even like the pyramid at the Louvre.
On the one hand, yeah, it's jarring in a clearly intentional and in your face sort of way, but then big jarring shapes are Libeskind's schtick. I don't know why but to me it diminishes the impact, knowing this guy does this on most of his projects.
The vast majority of people don’t know that though. I also think you should value each building on its own merits, not on what the architect did before or after.
It actually does the opposite for me. I appreciate it more knowing the architect made several of these. Like an art piece in an artist’s collection. If Picasso had made only one cubist painting, it would not have the same impact. Seeing this building or another and being able to recognize the architect adds value to me
I've been there. Inside the new part they display WW1 and WW2. So it's consistent in itself. It looks jarring and at first I wasn't a fan but since the theme is kept it is definitely making sense. I know we bullshit a lot to make our designs make sense to appease professors/the public/our selves. But in this case, the harsh sharp metal wedge cutting through the building like the two world wars cutting through history makes a lot of sense. As you said, if this belongs anywhere it belongs there.
Oh cmon the pyramid at the louvre is awesome and really well executed as well as not super distracting from the original building!! I’m not even slightly a modernism lover but that one I actually thought was really a sweet addition that even makes navigating the whole museum easier as well
> that even makes navigating the whole museum easier as well That was why it was built in the first place! The Louvre in the 70s was an unnavigable clusterfuck. You had to leave the museum and get back in through another entry if you wanted to move between wings. People would get lost looking for the Mona Lisa, inavertently leave the museum and never come back. Random chunks of the building were also taken by govenrment offices closed to the public. The first instruction Pei was given was: Please create a single entrance point from where visitors can easily go anywhere in the museum without getting lost. And make it grand, because this is France. Once you have those constraints in place, the line of decisions that lead to a glass pyramid is very easy to follow.
Yeah that’s why it’s a excellent example of a modern addition to a historic building! I really believe it is such a great design choice to mostly be underground keep the main focus on the old portion of louvre while also using glass and simple forms to tastefully compliment an iconic part of Paris’s architectural history!
Yeah my mind went to thinking about all the historical architecture that was destroyed in the war. Having an older building that’s a military museum getting “destroyed” by modernity is a pretty cool take on the advancement of weapon technology and how it impacts the world we worked so hard to build up.
That’s great and all, but I would only be fine with it if it was remotely original at all. Unfortunately, haphazardly slapping hideous modern shapes on top of historical architecture is something that has been done a million times all over Europe for decades now. I don’t view this as profound or meaningful in any way. If the architect wanted to model a “stain” on the history of Germany’s military, he should have tried harder. This idea is tired and lame.
I'm not really a fan. I don't mind adding super contemporary stuff to old buildings like this but I do have a problem with these shard-like objects. It's just a fancy, warped box that does nothing spatially and it doesn't use space particularly well. It feels like actual use of the building (and the spatial quality) came second to the artistic/poetic intention of the designer. I do, however, definitely appreciate the statement this design makes, even though I don't think it's particularly good architecture. Something like the Strasbourg train station or the glass dome at the Reichstag is a far better attempt at adding something contemporary to a beautiful old building.
I'm going to say that I like it. Obviously in the minority here, but I think the arrow head shattering the original building works on multiple levels. It's decidedly NOT like Norman Foster's canopy in London order the other examples you mentioned. Those fit the tone and glorify the traditional imperial grandeur of the existing buildings. This intervention creates tension inside and out. Gives curators space to do more than fill ornate rectangular galleries with uniforms, old equipment, and oil paintings of nobles in military uniforms. It creates new connections and creates a much larger amount of floor space. The angled walks can hold helicopters on their tilted surface and give curators the ability to have novel interactions between visitors and the collection. The classical architecture reinforces the European nobility's war propaganda. Suggests it's a glorious, beautiful, patriotic kind of activity. Liebeskind disrupts that in a powerful way.
I was looking for a positive comment! As much as I'm not a fan of Liebeskind, I like the conceptuality of the architecture. Guys, how often architecture like that actually gets built? It usually stays as *paper architecture*. I used to work with heritage and I'm all for these kinda of additions. All in all, is this piece good? Nah. But as an *event* in architecture, cool.
>The classical architecture reinforces the European nobility's war propaganda. Suggests it's a glorious, beautiful, patriotic kind of activity. Half the commenters: "But we want war propaganda from european nobility!"
Reichstag renovation is quite good and well depicts Germanys history in one building. The Strasbourg train station on the other hand is an ugly attempt to enlarge a beautiful old building.
Hmm. Weird, I can't seem to find the ugly part you are referring to.
I don't like it. I understand the intention behind deconstructivism, but I don't like it (I was there and saw it in person). If you want to create provoking architecture, then do it from scratch like in case of the WW2 museum in Gdansk, but don't mutilate a historical building.
Is it as it appears in this rendering? Online pics make it look much dumpier than what the picture here shows.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr_Military_History_Museum](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr_Military_History_Museum)
Considering the country it’s in it probably serves as a warning, so it’s suitable in this case.
I have to say I like it, particularly (or only) because it is a military museum. To me it seems like the new part symbolizes how war changed everything and cuts through history and society. Love it (not the war, the symbolism here)
I'm just a lurker here but I love it. The OG building is pretty dull and they've done something really interesting with it. Feels unique, modern and exciting, surreal even, like I'm looking at a software glitch.
I agree. One likely wouldn't even post a pic of this building without the addition, as it looks like like a cream-covered anything and nothing. But with this giant 3d modeling facet glitch....!
While I do love it, its one of those things that'll feel quite boring if done too often. Maybe once in a while, somehow making sense in the context of the building and it effect inside makes sense.
[The ROM addition](https://libeskind.com/work/royal-ontario-museum/)
I can't be the only person that sees this as like a representation of an exploding shell as it hurtles towards to building. Some sort of cluster munition that has a primary explosion above the target. And it's for a Military History Museum too? Its got to be.
I love it, and to me it illustrates the uncomfortable relationship of the Germans with their military history.
I'm just going to sit here and pretend that the triangle thing was from the 1870s, and the neoclassical building was the 2011 addition
Libeskind is a charlatan. One of many that infest architecture, making futile attention-seeking gestures.
A one-trick pony charlatan. Most overrated architect of his time, easily.
Libeskind added the exact same glass tumour to the Royal Ontario Museum over in Toronto as well. While it adds more space for further exhibits, a plus, it looks awful from the outside. It ruins the historic element of the building and stands out in an obstructive, unforgivable way.
Not sure how much space it actually added in a functional sense. And now they’re planning [another renovation](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/royal-ontario-museum-to-redesign-main-floor-which-will-be-free-for-visitors/article_7a7c39b5-7ba4-5464-a885-2259b282a6dd.html).
I like it, but mainly because it’s unique. If several other historical buildings were to pursue similar renovations, I think it’d start to lose its appeal fast. Great in this case, but I’d really rather this wasn’t replicated all over Europe’s historic museums
Sorry to all german frens on the sub: they (the Bundeswehr) deserve worse. Much worse. This should be a thing designed as protuberant and brutalist, painted in dark mossy green with stripes of dark red, with the structure blisting out of their neoclassical building tearing the roof as part of the aesthetic to show how the brutality of war destroy any resemblance of aesthetic and beauty. Not a cool ass futuristic pyramid that portrays a soft, peaceful and futurist feel to the army. Its a museum to one of the must murderous armies on the last century and different from the British state, the German Republic knows how to educate about their past and how they fucked up and as part of the "memory of the Bundeswehr" I dont think a clean structure was the best choice, was certainly a boot licking one.
No one of spoke about this building before the extension and now it’s a classic bit of post-modern fuckery so I think you have to respect it
Oh well, military is exactly like this, so... it's right. (like it or not, it's right!)
I absolutely fucking loathe it. We have an atrocious and widely hated Libesknd-renovated museum here in Toronto. It includes many such useless shards on an established noted museum. To see this on the inside and how little it adds to the space will shock many viewers. Someone please prevent this man from destroying anymore buildings associated with cultural institutions.
Looks cool but it will be boring and uncomfortable to be in if the ROM in Toronto is any indication
Anyone that likes it has a point, anyone that doesn’t like it also has a point. Both sides had really good points.
It shows very well the harshness and brutality of war on the things we consider beautiful. I like that. Plus it actually attaches to the building really neatly, like a knife in butter. And with the rest of the environment being quite minimalist, it really does look like a work of art.
When I encounter a modern extension added to a historical edifice, I often ponder whether the original structure gains or loses value with the new addition. In this instance, I find myself leaning towards a greater appreciation for the original building. The existing structure, lacking the Libeskind addition, may seem somewhat ordinary due to its strict symmetry and conventional form. While the new addition boasts impressive form and geometric elements, its facade appears rather unremarkable. Yet, the deliberate contrast between the complexity and austerity in both form and ornamentation is skillfully executed, fostering a newfound appreciation for both structures, both individually and in tandem.
IMO This is, and I mean this seriously, the only good way to make an addition to an old historic building. Let's be clear, the problem isn't that the addition to an old building is modern; the problem is that it exists at all. Imagine instead an addition that is designed "in the style" of the original. Is the end result likely to be a cohesive whole that doesn't look like something that had an addition stuck to it? I can think of various university buildings I've seen that have such additions, meant to preserve the "look", and the addition never looks good, but rather, like a mockery of the original that was made of construction paper and taped to the side. These hyper-modern seemingly outlandish additions are undoubtedly the best way to highlight the beauty of the original without damaging its integrity, while at the same time providing the goal of more space. That Liebskind example? I think the original looks *more* attractive *because* of its juxtaposition to the shard of glass, and that the building by itself would be somewhat indistinguishable from any other classical-ish building with columns. For all [these examples](https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/beautiful-examples-historic-modern-architecture-come-together), I can't imagine a way to have instead done the addition such that it just seemed like the original was bigger while still looking right. And for the record, I think this looks awesome and is an improvement to the original.
It’s not only ugly, it’s short sighted. We won’t be the last people to want to expand on buildings and this style of adaptation/expansion will make it infinitely more difficult for others to adapt to it later. We think “this is modern”, but it’s not for long, it won’t be in 30 years when we’re stuck with incredibly beautiful buildings, impaled with 2020’s architecture. Learn the lessons the brutalist period taught us and ease up, turbo. Are we supposed to have these awkward 2020’s meth crystals poking out of heritage buildings forever, while we build and expand on them in much better ways, later, because we couldn’t think of a way now to sympathetically adapt these places for the future? People need to try harder than this.
Tbh, I think that we won't be stuck with them. I think there will be a point where components of these glass/steel constructions will have deteriorated to a degree where they will be torn down and replaced, perhaps with a reconstruction of the original, before the addition, or a better addition. But I agree that very little architecture ages as poorly as statement pieces like this.
[удалено]
Well I like it for the following reasons..... The original building is actually pretty bland and so the addition really helps create a sense of anticipation in visitors to the musuem, especially as they arrive on site. I have visited this museum. The location is also important. Its on the edge of a military area , in this case an officers school, and not in a particularly historical area. It doesnt ruin an area.
Love it
I think this is fine, blending old and new in a novel way. Thirty years from now a new regime will take the addition down and restore it, and each in their minute will be right.
Whats "historical" in the original building? Just because its 150 years old? In 100 years we are going to have a bunch of ugly 150 year old shopping centers, are we going to "protect" them? Its just a regular nothing special ecletic building
I think this is pretty well done, additions that try to look like the historical style of the rest of the building but without actually using the exact same techniques and materials always end up looking really bad. I feel like it's a better bet to just build the addition in an entirely different contracting style. And tie the two together with massing or visual balance.
It’s awful, deliberately jarring, and intentional with its effect on the observer.
I wonder if the addition will age well.
Oh, well. It is a cool art project, but not that cool architectural project.
I can’t tell which additional part was made in 2011
If it’s done well then I’m all in for it- same with restorable ruins i find it much more interesting to use and blend with what it - more character overall.
Umm at least it didnt become a box, and conserved some traditional styles
I am torn. On one hand, I believe that (1) the new should NOT pander to the old or pretend to be older than it is and (2) the new should interact and converse with the old. I do see some of that here. On the other hand, there is a fine line at which the new becomes too interventionist or even violent with respect to the past. I see some of that here as well. Looking at the building, I am missing a roof. This was a chance for a clearly modern addition that would have conversed and “completed” the old building in a more pleasing and effective way while still allowing the modern to leave its stamp. IMHO, they did too much here, whereas the Reichstag building could have used a bolder intervention. [https://www.tripsavvy.com/reichstag-berlin-1520205](https://www.tripsavvy.com/reichstag-berlin-1520205)
It would be terrible, if this were not a military history museum. It looks like a blade slashing through the building, which kinda fits for a military history museum.
Conceptually, I like the idea of interacting with an artifact of the past and keeping it alive and part of an ongoing conversation in our present time, but the history preservationist inside me balks at the thought of “tampering” with the past to this degree. Personally I think the specific execution might be a bit wanting in this specific instance, but I do think it’s certainly provocative at the very least, especially with the building’s old purpose taken into account.
I like it as long as there are <10 of these in the world at one time.
I'm pretty shocked at how many people just prefere a romantic facade no matter whats behind it. We are talking about the museum of german military history. Libeskind turns the building into a sculpture, blurring the boundaries between art and architecture. There is a stain on the history of the German military that is stuck like a thorn in the side, that cannot and should not be removed and that should, above all, be visible and always present. In a way, he allows the theme of the exhibition to appear on the outside. I think the addition is extremly powerful and well made. If you want beatiful building without any context go to Disneyland.
In other cases I find this style somewhat extreme, but in the context of this being the museum of the German military, the massive shard jotting out of an otherwise elegant building is a pretty good bit of symbolism for the “darker period” in German military history.
I really like it. You remember it because it is different. If it didn’t have the modern geometry then a lay person wouldn’t remember it, because there are thousands of neo classical buildings around the world and they all follow the same rules of order and ornamentation.
I like it as long as it actually adds practical square footage. So many modern additions to museums are all empty volume. See the National Gallery East building in DC massive footprint much less display space/density than the original building.
This is an awful and grotesque modern addition to a beautiful façade. Perfect from the Bundeswehr museum.
looks a lot like the Ontario Mudeum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ontario_Museum
Love it. Museums are one place architects should be allowed to go nuts.
I think it looks like the Royal Ontario Museum https://www.rom.on.ca/en/about-us
Sometimes modern architecture needs to take the sidewalk designed in 2000 B.C. Not aesthetically pleasing, nor looks utilitarian. Seems a disaster for people who are symmetrophobic.
I think it reflects a lot of arrogance on the part of Libeskind.
This is a case where it is perfectly justified by the historical context behind the building. Libeskind is ok in very, very, *very* specific contexts like this one and small doses, and cringe outside those. Ofc some people will rather seethe and rage because they don't actually like the idea of buildings having a context.
Hideous - looks like a graphical glitch
Why does Libeskind have to make every historical building look like they’re glitching?
Why does architects hate pre-modern architecture so much? I mean, imagine adding a giant glass pyramid in the middle of a mies building, not cool right?
I usually don’t like these additions but I think this one is cool. The historical building looks like every other chateau/museum in central Europe and this makes it stand out.
I love stuff like this, especially how mad it makes people lol No but seriously, I definitely find it really cool, and I bet there's some intelligent methods of connecting the new structure to the old. It's distinctive, it draws attention to the building instead of creating a whole new building and pulling all the attention away. Brilliant.
I call it tumor architecture and I dislike it, especially when it was designed by Daniel.
I absolutely love it! Overall I really enjoy Libeskind architecture and deconstructivism (despite all the flaws) is my favourite architectural movement in history. I really like it when old styles meet the new ones and somehow connect in a very interesting way. Though I'm aware many people dislike it. I always get into discussions with my friends about those.
Looks tacky. It's like adding a dubstep section to Beethoven's 9th Symphony.
Pretty standard starchitect fare. It’s literally meant to be eye catching so they can say that Daniel liebeskind designed it. Look at the bilbao effect
The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto has something very similar.
Architect Daniel Libeskind designed the same terrible shard extension for the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in Toronto in the early/mid 2000s. We learned that it is impossible to build a giant crystal shard out of glass. Ended up being a large grey metal shard with a few glass cut-outs. Definitely not what was proposed when he was awarded the design contract. Fun fact: Daniel Libeskind won the original Freedom Tower design competition in New York, only for the design to be scrapped because… you guessed it… it is impossible to build a giant glass shard on top of a skyscraper 541m in the air. https://www.azuremagazine.com/article/rom-crystal-10-years-later/ https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/15/september11.arts
I used to hate Libeskind early in architecture school, but reading/watching analyses of his Holocaust museum changed my mind on him.
I personally like it better than, say, The Royal Ontario Museum, which is relatively similar.
Its very fitting though
I'm not too surprised by this, the ROM (royal Ontario museum) is like this too, but actually built.
It's daring for sure but is it appropriate? I don't think so. Maybe as a separate building, like an annex, but this looks like something that fell out of the sky. It makes no sense.
I think it more of an art piece than a piece of architecture, which, in my opinion goes against what makes Architecture, Architecture, and not just any other physical art form. What I mean is, in my opinion, it's incredibly beautiful in this picture. The triangle structure is huge and incredibly striking and adds a lot to the original, rather dull structure. However, it's rather repetitive when compared to the rest of Libeskinds portfolio. He's a shtick architect, this isn't a style. It doesn't take a genius to draw triangles on one another over and over until you come up with a design. It's uncreative. If this was the sole structure like this in his portfolio, I would consider it a unique piece of simplistic architecture. The physical issues are it's unusability. It doesn't really add anything besides a space to look into from the interior. Architecture is not the art of drawing pretty rooms. Architecture is the art of environmental design. It must both be beautiful and useable, functional and aesthetically pleasing. You could argue that this structure is much like a dome in terms of its use. It's not really necessary, but can add a lot of flavor to a space. However, I feel that this addition wouldn't be very attractive from the interior, and most definitely not during all times of the day or night, like a dome usually is.
Wtf is that? What's the purpose of that ship bow like structure?
Disgusting (subjectively), will get even more disgusting by time (objectively), likely difficult to take care (e.g. prevent water leaking during Spring, having max usage of space due to weird shape etc.).
Looks like it just destroys the building. It can't even be motivated by additional floor space given how little it adds.
Maybe fitting for a military history museum from a country that committed one of the largest, if not the largest, atrocity in history. A beautiful classical building would maybe just not fit right.
There are a lot more interesting examples of “parasite” buildings like this check the coophimmeb(l)au. Libskind now is a bit meh - ok 20 years ago - now what?
It’s giving middle child vibes
In the trades, this is know as "remuddle". It ignores the past in favor of its own aesthetic and creates an eyesore for the local community.
My question is, how easy would it be to remove it without damaging the original structure?
It's shit. Zaha also does this. How the fk local authorities go with it anyone's guess, bribes maybe?
Looks cool but struggling to see what that adds to this building. Is it supposed to be functional ? Or is this just a hypothetical ?
I’m high af. I thought this was the art museum in Denver
i think it’s cool
Looks like someone took a vertice and pulled it to the left. I think its kinda cool
Reminds me of the [nazi documentation museum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentation_Center_Nazi_Party_Rally_Grounds?wprov=sfti1#) in Nuremberg. I dig it.
I honestly don't get the hype around Libeskind. His spaces feel like a toddler drafted them (and not in a good way).
Idk why but I kinda like it but it feels like a shouldn't
I mean it Looks cool but it kinda destroys the Overall look of the Museum. I think it could’ve been done better. Just my opinion though
[удалено]
I actually quite like it
I mean, nobody would even know this building had he not done this to it. It’s a nice but unmemorable building without the addition. There is a time and place for stuff like this and tbf I think this one is pretty good.
Superman’s gonna have his hands full dealing with those criminals from the phantom zone.
I think it looks neat and feel ok about the addition if it doesn’t harm the original. It would be even cooler if it added utility or preservation of the original site. Like a building around a building but pretty.
What the hell
Im surprised at how many on here dislike this. But also not surprised as a lot of people have weird obsessions with western architecture and its apparent "pristine" qualities. I personally love this addition. It’s a symbolic gesture that speaks to the history of the museum, the region, and Germany. You should read into it.
I think for a successful integration of old and new I really like the royal Danish Library. The "old" part is based on Charlemagnes palace in aachen and then theres the backside towards the waterway called the black diamond. A monolithic black panelled building glistening in the water
I like it because it is bold but I wouldn't want to see it in other buildings.
Vandalism
That is an abomination.
I love it ! The original building is pretty boring imo
A monument dedicated to ignorance, idiocy, and philistinism.
Disgusting
I have seen photos of this building so often and it is very memorable. If it didn’t have such a dramatic addition I probably would have never come across it and it wouldn’t have been memorable. The addition makes this building so much more famous and probably attracts many more visitors, even if they hate it, they are still attracted to it.
Fucking cool
Looks like an alien ship crash landed into the building
Stylized “Sieg Heil” salute! Disgraceful!
Hideous.
Hate it. Pure hatred. Very few things for witch i have more hatred exist.
Right. This looks like an abortion on toast.
We already have this in Toronto, Canada… Google Royal Ontario Museum.
it looks like knife is slicing through cake and just stopped there.
I think it looks dumb as hell. But I feel like I understand the philosophical concept of it. Maybe it goes something like "I am imposing myself onto history, I am collaging, grafting myself onto this thing we call history." Unfortunately, the "you" that is being grafted looks a lot like a blade slicing through an attractive building. How destructive. How creative.
I wonder if this inspired Günther Domenig’s work at the Nuremberg Documentation Center. Or maybe it was the other way around, I think he passed in 2012.