News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

I have read the report linked by @Northern Light .

RAAC is a type of concrete that is lightweight, offers fire resistance, and is inexpensive. However, it is susceptible to moisture. When the Ontario Science Centre was built in 1968 (it opened in 1969), RAAC’s vulnerability to moisture was nnot fully understood at the time.


It even mentions the Ontario Science Centre!
 
...I think it's one of those deals where Doug gave that to The City knowing they probably don't have the budget to repair/maintain it, so it will all look bad on them when they're forced to pull it down. Also see: Given a terminally ill white elephant. /sigh
Mission successful. The city can raise taxes if it wants.
 
The science centre suffers from years of neglect from all governments. Lots of blame to go around. But what's next. Hopefully when the land is sold or redeveloped there can be a condition that the building must be repaired and repurposed. Perhaps a library or some other community building. As a condition of added density to the developer this can be achieved. Its is clear the move to OP is going to happen. Now the focus should be on saving the building. Let's hope it can be done.
 
The science centre suffers from years of neglect from all governments. Lots of blame to go around. But what's next. Hopefully when the land is sold or redeveloped there can be a condition that the building must be repaired and repurposed. Perhaps a library or some other community building. As a condition of added density to the developer this can be achieved. Its is clear the move to OP is going to happen. Now the focus should be on saving the building. Let's hope it can be done.
Correct. All sorts of governments neglected this place. I don’t like Doug. Didn’t vote for Doug. But everything isn’t Doug’s fault.
 
IMG_4249.png


 
Just came back from the ROM with the kids.

I was struck by how much less run-down the ROM was compared to the OSC.

I'd love a non-cynical, non-bitter, non-conspiracy theory explanation of why the AGO, ROM, ZOO were kept in way better repair than the OSC.

Is it a private, public thing? Is it an adult, kid thing? Is it a location thing?

Why was the OSC left to rot while those other institutions were well maintained. Why were they given care over the decades and the OSC was not?

Did the OSC have a lazy/corrupt board of governors or something?

Constructive answers only. Not looking for "Ford sucks etc..." That's all true, but not helpful to the question. This was decades of neglect and I'm baffled why.
 
Just came back from the ROM with the kids.

I was struck by how much less run-down the ROM was compared to the OSC.

I'd love a non-cynical, non-bitter, non-conspiracy theory explanation of why the AGO, ROM, ZOO were kept in way better repair than the OSC.

Is it a private, public thing? Is it an adult, kid thing? Is it a location thing?

Why was the OSC left to rot while those other institutions were well maintained. Why were they given care over the decades and the OSC was not?

Did the OSC have a lazy/corrupt board of governors or something?

Constructive answers only. Not looking for "Ford sucks etc..." That's all true, but not helpful to the question. This was decades of neglect and I'm baffled why.
I'll put in my top of head comments...

There was talk a while back about how the OSC was struggling financially for years in prior comments. This could be explained by its location (more difficult to access from downtown) - but then I thought so is the zoo... I suggest these two have the most in common, just by the state of buildings and general look/feel (versus comparing to ROM which has a more modern take to it and easily accessible to tourists). I would just guess it comes down to management without actually looking at hard numbers...

As someone with memberships to both, I can say that the OSC and the Zoo both show age and are tired looking, yet the Zoo has started (just in the past 5 years) renovations of their new Master plan...new pedestrian bridges, new zoomobile, new washrooms, new habitats (Orangutan), animals, as well as a new entrance. So there is hope. OSC hasn't done a thing except add items to food menu, and their usual rotation of varying exhibits on the first/main/top floor.

Now, the Zoos exhibits are not the primary attraction, so that could explain the type of crowd it would draw...visitors are there for the animals which change/update. Many (most?) of the OSC exhibits are the same from when I was a child...

I think the one thing OSC was getting right, was the food selection at the cafeteria. They had quite a range of selection including (what I appreciate the most) healthy options. The latter is not as easy to achieve at the Zoo or even the limited selection at the ROM (but who benefits location wise with selection outside the venue). But I gather that doesn't really draw crowds...
 
Just came back from the ROM with the kids.

I was struck by how much less run-down the ROM was compared to the OSC.

I'd love a non-cynical, non-bitter, non-conspiracy theory explanation of why the AGO, ROM, ZOO were kept in way better repair than the OSC.

Is it a private, public thing? Is it an adult, kid thing? Is it a location thing?

Why was the OSC left to rot while those other institutions were well maintained. Why were they given care over the decades and the OSC was not?

Did the OSC have a lazy/corrupt board of governors or something?

Constructive answers only. Not looking for "Ford sucks etc..." That's all true, but not helpful to the question. This was decades of neglect and I'm baffled why.
Bloor and Avenue road VS Don Mills and Eglinton.
 
Just came back from the ROM with the kids.

I was struck by how much less run-down the ROM was compared to the OSC.

I'd love a non-cynical, non-bitter, non-conspiracy theory explanation of why the AGO, ROM, ZOO were kept in way better repair than the OSC.

Is it a private, public thing? Is it an adult, kid thing? Is it a location thing?

Why was the OSC left to rot while those other institutions were well maintained. Why were they given care over the decades and the OSC was not?

Did the OSC have a lazy/corrupt board of governors or something?

Constructive answers only. Not looking for "Ford sucks etc..." That's all true, but not helpful to the question. This was decades of neglect and I'm baffled why.
I wonder how much of this might be attributed to different organizational structures? It always has felt like ROM is more of its own organization rather than a creature of the province like the Ontario Science Centre.

Makes me wonder why beyond the early 2000s-spurt of investment that got us a few updated exhibits at the OSC, there hasn't been much since the 2010s. How far back do the plans for shuttering it down stretch to?
 
I'd love a non-cynical, non-bitter, non-conspiracy theory explanation of why the AGO, ROM, ZOO were kept in way better repair than the OSC.

Is it a private, public thing? Is it an adult, kid thing? Is it a location thing?

Both ROM and AGO receive significant private funding for large-scale renovations every couple decades. Structures built to modern code almost always have much lower energy and maintenance costs than older structures of the same size.

In addition, revenue for ROM and AGO was considerably higher in 2022 than OSC at $120M and $77M respectively versus $38M. Simply put, the organization with the highest energy and maintenance costs due to oldest structures also has much lower revenue.

It would be interesting to see what a combined ROM/OSC organization would be able to do. I think there is enough overlap for it to work. Either the ROM team would be able to fund-raise for multiple ever-improving locations or both might go bust.
 
Last edited:
Both ROM and AGO receive significant private funding for large-scale renovations every couple decades. Structures built to modern code almost always have much lower energy and maintenance costs than older structures of the same size.

In addition, revenue for ROM and AGO was considerably higher in 2022 than OSC at $120M and $77M respectively versus $38M. Simply put, the organization with the highest energy and maintenance costs due to oldest structures also has much lower revenue.

It would be interesting to see what a combined ROM/OSC organization would be able to do. I think there is enough overlap for it to work. Either the ROM team would be able to fund-raise for multiple ever-improving locations or both might go bust.

Excellent. Thank you. Good to have those actual numbers and I agree.
 
Just came back from the ROM with the kids.

I was struck by how much less run-down the ROM was compared to the OSC.

I'd love a non-cynical, non-bitter, non-conspiracy theory explanation of why the AGO, ROM, ZOO were kept in way better repair than the OSC.

Is it a private, public thing? Is it an adult, kid thing? Is it a location thing?

Why was the OSC left to rot while those other institutions were well maintained. Why were they given care over the decades and the OSC was not?

Did the OSC have a lazy/corrupt board of governors or something?

Constructive answers only. Not looking for "Ford sucks etc..." That's all true, but not helpful to the question. This was decades of neglect and I'm baffled why.
I think it's a Science Centre/Museum thing. I've seen similar in London, Paris, and Birmingham (UK). They're often marketed heavily towards families and locals, which means they have limited re-visitability, and the touring exhibits tend to be niche. All three of the above were remarkably unbusy on the days I visited over the last decade or two. London's Science Museum is around the corner from the V&A and Natural History Museum, which both overshadow it in terms of interesting stuff, but you'd still expect there to be spillover considering its free entry. Meanwhile, Paris' Cité des Science is right on the border of the inner ring road (relatively suburban compared to most of the sights and it felt like a trek to get there) and Birmingham's Thinktank is out of the way on a university campus.

Meanwhile, zoos and art galleries and history museums either always have touring exhibitions, or, with the case of zoos, tends to have local fauna that tourists might not have in their own cities. So they not only attract the locals but also droves of tourists too. Tend to be quite central as well, even the urban zoos of Europe.

After all, how many of you folks, assuming you travel, go to the local science centre museum vs another type of cultural attraction?
 
Just came back from the ROM with the kids.

I was struck by how much less run-down the ROM was compared to the OSC.

I'd love a non-cynical, non-bitter, non-conspiracy theory explanation of why the AGO, ROM, ZOO were kept in way better repair than the OSC.

Is it a private, public thing? Is it an adult, kid thing? Is it a location thing?

Why was the OSC left to rot while those other institutions were well maintained. Why were they given care over the decades and the OSC was not?

Did the OSC have a lazy/corrupt board of governors or something?

Constructive answers only. Not looking for "Ford sucks etc..." That's all true, but not helpful to the question. This was decades of neglect and I'm baffled why.

Part of it is also patronage - if you look at the board of ROM or AGO, it's a A-list of money/power; also the artifacts themselves are worth money - OSC doesn't have this kind of asset. Neither ROM nor AGO are purely provincial constructs either.

I do note with a rather cynical sense of irony that it is the PCs that delivered the coup d'grace to the ideals of their predecessors. You know, spa and beers over nature and science as priorities of investments - you get who you voted for.

AoD
 
Last edited:

Back
Top