[UtakataNoAnnex]

I mean government should have been responsible for the upkeep as oppose to shutting it down and/or moving it when they "discovered" it to be structurally unstable...

...and without seemingly any irony, it now sits there left to rot with likely creeping structural issues due no one being there to keep an eye on it and doing the necessary repairs. This story is far beyond being tragic here. /bleah

 

[innsertnamehere]

@innsertnamehere Debunking the “Business Case” for relocating the Ontario Science Centre

Debunking the "Business Case" for relocating the Ontario Science Centre

This week, Doug Ford’s government struck a deal with the City of Toronto giving the province fuller control over the future of Ontario Place, in exchange for the province taking on responsibility for the DVP and Gardiner Expressway, as well as additional funding for transit and addressing...

www.canadianarchitect.com

"The 78-page document, accompanied by a 333-page appendix, argues that the Ontario Science Centre will require $369 million in deferred and critical maintenance over the next 20 years, and an additional $109 million to upgrade its exhibitions and public spaces, for a total cost of $478 million. In comparison, it says that the cost to build a new science centre at Ontario Place would be $322 million, plus $64 million for its exhibitions, for a total of $384 million—$94 million less."

"It also argues that cost savings would be achieved through lower ongoing maintenance costs for the new building, and would be strongly offset through the larger attendance and new sponsorship opportunities that a new downtown facility might command. Overall, according to the report, the provincial government would save $596 million in nominal costs ($257 million net present value) over a 50-year period by relocating the science centre."

It also excludes the cost of parking or foundation for the new location. It claims the new smaller location will be smaller and also have more visitors. "The estimates count on laying off 53 people, or one out of every six people who currently work at the Science Centre. In short, they are expecting that 50% more people will visit a facility that is 45% of the size of the current Science Centre, with a significantly reduced staff managing it all."

They also didn't account for the Line 5 and Line 3 boosting attendance at the OSC.

Did you read my post? I Agree that the OSC should have stayed where it is.

I was more so explaining the government's reasoning. That "debunking" doesn't debunk that the new facility will be cheaper (and inferior!) to the current facility.. which is why the province chose it. And it doesn't debunk why the province shut the OSC down. They had good reasons to shut it down (due to their own neglect...). It was preventable, but given that they let the OSC deteriorate to the state it is in, it makes sense in that context.

 

[max]

Has anyone noticed if the condemned building still has a roof today?

Infrastructure Ontario isn't sure: https://globalnews.ca/news/11639922/science-centre-roof-snow-storm/

Officials won’t say for sure if the roof of the Ontario Science Centre survived a historic snowstorm in Toronto over the weekend, although the iconic building appears unharmed.

 

[chrisw]

I was more so explaining the government's reasoning. That "debunking" doesn't debunk that the new facility will be cheaper (and inferior!) to the current facility.. which is why the province chose it. And it doesn't debunk why the province shut the OSC down. They had good reasons to shut it down (due to their own neglect...). It was preventable, but given that they let the OSC deteriorate to the state it is in, it makes sense in that context.

I posted precisely because of the dubious claims of the government. And you also make the state of the OSC sound inevitable for closure when you also need to consider the cost to build the replacement.

 

[hawc]

Take a little trip with me around the roofs of the Ontario Science Centre after the record snowfall.

 

[hawc]

Here are a few hi-res stills, if anyone on UT wants to pass this on to a certain someone at BlogTO, it could make for a timely little article. Not sayin' just sayin'

 

[AlexBozikovic]

For better or worse the province let the OSC degrade to the point that it was no longer feasible for it to continue operations.

This is categorically false. None of the government consultant reports even claim that it was not feasible to keep the building open.

In the short term, they claim it would have cost $34-million to do critical roof repairs at 770 Don Mills. Instead: multiple moves, storage of the collection, the fitout and rent for the temporary locations, and lost revenue will almost certainly cost more than that. The temporary centres are not just much worse, but also almost certainly more expensive. Elsa Lam has done some of the math here.

Also: In the long term, whatever repair costs are "avoided" will be borne by the city when they assume control of 770 Don Mills and figure out what to do with it. There's only a cost savings here if the old building is getting demolished, which no government is going to do, and which would itself cost tens of millions of dollars.