Euclid's Axioms

@Nicou: Je me demande aussi sur la glace et la neige de glisser d'elle. Une conception stupide. Merci, Nicou.

@Doug: I agree. Toronto is also a relatively young city and our heritage building stock took repeated callous blows from wrecking balls over the decades preceding this new trend of affixing neo-vomit-architecture additions to once elegant older structures. It seems more about temporary "what the hell?" eye catching than something built to last which will contribute to a city's character. Admittedly I am biased against it and there are others who love this mess as shown above. Thanks, Doug.

@Ronnie 2¢: The original blueprints called for a crystal exterior cladding, yes, and then the ghastly cost overruns of actually constructing the thing revised the plan... now it is more like an intergalactic trailer park model home.

@klausZ: I am well acquainted with the awesome Adams, but do appreciate the link here for anyone visiting who may not be and wants to check him out; thanks! I always prefer my city walks (when I bring the camera) to be in the afternoon light that is advantageous for building and people shadows to add so much more nuance to the views. It was the varied greys of building shadow above that made me like the photo opportunity, and the darker angled seats where the woman is... and so, my thanks again for noting those zones :-)

@Phil: A structural nightmare for the iron workers erecting this addition, and your use of the word "instability" is perfect. Glad you like the image, Phil : thank you.

@Phil Morris: I always loved the stately ROM, inside and out. I don't have a general bias against new cutting edge design that pushes the proverbial envelope, but this monstrous thing seems more like an assault. I wish the public had more say and power in some of these decisions. Aside from all of that, it is a photogenic piece of crap for all the right and wrong reasons! ;-)

@Jason Politte: Wow, that is one hideous design for a Parliament building especially! Ughly. The City Hall for our neighbour to the west, Mississauga, is also an abysmal pile. I may walk around downtown for a future serial about my picks for ugliest buildings. At least a dozen will compete for top spot! As with the above, you are right in that people despise the addition but can't help photographing it. It remains popular with the camera toters. Thanks for your comment and the link, Jason.

@Mhelene: Thank you very much.

@Anthony Morgan Lambert: Thanks!

@Slackwater - Don: Indeed this is certainly a type of architecture that can both repulse and attract someone... for a photograph, it has a twisted allure! My thanks, Don.

@Tede: Ha ha... I was tempted to paste in a similar definition text as my TITLE, just to be cheeky... but resisted ;-) Thank you for the visit and positive reaction. I've been enjoying your spectacular close-up images of late.

@Martine: Très gentil de votre part. J'aime votre photo pour aujourd'hui!

@RBL: Much outcry, I think understandable, over slapping this against the existing beautiful old building. I suppose it will draw people no matter what, though, and the museum itself is a very fine one. I place an emphasis on aesthetics that not everyone will share, but I'm also unabashedly affectionate toward the older periods of architectural craftsmanship. I thank you for the comment!

@Irene: Your city is one of beautiful Victorian architecture, too, in particular the many grand old dames of residential dwelling. You make a good point about the glass and very real potential for earthquake activity, which I hope never happens again on a large scale. The major beef with what I show above, aside from its basic ugliness (my opinion), is that building it cost a lot more money than was planned, resulting in a cheaper and cheaper LOOKING exterior finish. The original design called for a luminous crystalline appearance that would have looked much superior to what they ended up using, which resembles wide aluminum siding planks. Yuck! ;-)

@Lewis: I sure wish I could claim that as an intended feature of the shot ;-) ... thanks, Lewis.

@Baldwin VW: So great to have an architect comment on this monstrosity. When you see the original building and its facade, the jarring juxtaposition becomes even more bizarre. It would be less offensive to my eyes if the entire structure was new and separate, but only slightly less so. Thanks for weighing in!

@Denny Jump Photo: It is impractical as well as jarring, because Bloor street and Toronto in general is a wind corridor. This type of structure amplifies the already face whipping winter winds, and I have to wonder about ice coming off of these angles as the temperatures change. (perhaps that has been taken into consideration and dealt with, since I haven't ever heard of anything on the news going badly regarding that...) Anyhow, my thanks as always for a Jump visit and comment !

@Sue-Ann: Bloor street heading west, past Bay street, to Avenue road where the original museum stands on the southwest corner... still a great museum but (in my opinion) a defaced one. I do like some of the other crazy styles of ultra modern/experimental architecture that the likes of Gehry are coming up with, using curves and "melted" zones in the structure. Thanks for the visit and comment, Sue-Ann.

@LauraS: Thanks a lot, Laura.

@Steven: Imagine taking that wonderful Merchandise Mart building that you showcased the other day, and sticking something this nasty up against it! Man oh man... this new crap isn't built to last, and that is the silver lining in this equation. Thanks for commenting, Steven.

@john4jack: Thanks very much, Jack.

@Stephen: This structure doesn't look as pleasing in colour, and that tells you plenty! ;-) Thanks.