Does anyone see the possibility that the ample dimensions of the Therme structure could possibly be repurposed as a science museum/planetarium--with some natural history thrown in--when the spa goes bankrupt? It's acually in close proximity to the pods/cinesphere which could be much more effectively woven into the complex than the itsy-bitsy structure on the mainland that barely looks big enough for a seasonal fries & ice cream shack.
 
lenaitch said:
I wonder how suitable the current OSC footprint is for housing. A lot of it seems to be slopeside and/or flood plain.

I don't know if the OSC has holdings like a museum. Typically, what you see on display at a museum is only a fraction of all the artefacts in its possession. Storage and other 'back-of-house' needs can eat up a lot of space. If so, I'm wondering if the space allocated is sufficient?
Click to expand...
Judging with what Doug Ford is doing with the Greenbelt, he'll likely legislate changes to the definitions of "flood plain" to build anything he wants.
 
Irishmonk said:
Does anyone see the possibility that the ample dimensions of the Therme structure could possibly be repurposed as a science museum/planetarium--with some natural history thrown in--when the spa goes bankrupt? It's acually in close proximity to the pods/cinesphere which could be much more effectively woven into the complex than the itsy-bitsy structure on the mainland that barely looks big enough for a seasonal fries & ice cream shack.
Click to expand...

Counting on a private proprietor to go under as a way to expand a facility seems like a good idea? /s. In any case the operating cost of something like Therme would be high.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Still pretty miserable considering OSC was once the world leading model for STEM museums.

AoD
Click to expand...

Just to come back to this; with which I agree; something our younger members may not know is that the OSC used to be a regular on many U.S. talk shows, including Late Night with David Letterman, showing up something like 3x per year to do fun science demos.

They were renowned for their ability to do real science and science education that was fun, funny, and relatable.

Unfortunately, its position was allowed to erode both in absolute terms and relative to its peers (of which it once had almost none, and now has many, several of which are a level above, the current OSC offering)
 
I can't say I was at the Ontario Science Center Opening day, but I was there on the first weekend. LIned up for well over 60 minutes for door opening with 100 hundreds of others. The Centre was impressive. Interactive space exhibits, programmable control systems releasing boxes on rollers, a real laser, water screws and water wheels, a desk sized computer which played tick-tack-toe, theatres with nature shows and some rather questionable by today's standards photos of unfortunate children with illness. There are a few exhibits from 1969 still in existence today, the 2 steel balls released at the same time, one on a linear path, one on the curved path with the curved path ball reaching the bottom first demonstrating the effects of acceleration. A new city hall, new airport terminal and new Science Centre, Toronto was on an impressive trajectory! Sad to see that this architectural and cultural masterpiece is going to be torn down.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Counting on a private proprietor to go under as a way to expand a facility seems like a good idea? /s. In any case the operating cost of something like Therme would be high.

AoD
Click to expand...
That makes me even more nervous if it all falls through. /bleh
 
Northern Light said:
I can read financials.

So before I discuss what they do say, there's something major they do not say:

View attachment 470503

Given the above, we lack a clear understanding from the Financials of the state of major capital needs on site.

***

The second thing we learn is how utterly miserly the province has been with OSC.

I want you to compare two numbers:

View attachment 470507

That's not of alot money...............

But wait......is that what's really being transferred every year on a net basis? No

The province recovers some of it through lease payments:

View attachment 470510

*****

Here's the Statement of Operations (for all intents and purposes, the Income Statement)

View attachment 470512

The operation loss for the year is ~2.5M That's not great, but hardly catastrophic. If the province gave the OSC the same sweetheart lease deal as the City gives them, the OSC would have netted (profited) about the same last year.

***

Here's something interesting, the break down of cost-recovery by facility/program

View attachment 470513

So they lose 400k per year on the Omnimax.

They also lose money on international sales/rentals (I'm not clear if this is the OSC renting stuff to others, or renting stuff from others, but either way that's not good)

What really has my eyes bugging out, they lose money on concessions! And look how low that revenue number is..........how is that even possible. The hot dog cart outside my local Canadian tire pulls in twice that every year.

****

This shows that capital assets are under invested in (does not include the building itself as noted above, but only exhibits, classrooms etc etc.

View attachment 470518

****

So in sum total, the numbers are not dire..

They do, however, show:

Miserly provincial grants that too low, leasing costs that excessive; very poor business planning.
Click to expand...
The reason why they loose money on the concessions is because they don’t operate them. The concessions are operated by a different company and the centre receives a small percentage of the profits.
Northern Light said:
I can read financials.

So before I discuss what they do say, there's something major they do not say:

View attachment 470503

Given the above, we lack a clear understanding from the Financials of the state of major capital needs on site.

***

The second thing we learn is how utterly miserly the province has been with OSC.

I want you to compare two numbers:

View attachment 470507

That's not of alot money...............

But wait......is that what's really being transferred every year on a net basis? No

The province recovers some of it through lease payments:

View attachment 470510

*****

Here's the Statement of Operations (for all intents and purposes, the Income Statement)

View attachment 470512

The operation loss for the year is ~2.5M That's not great, but hardly catastrophic. If the province gave the OSC the same sweetheart lease deal as the City gives them, the OSC would have netted (profited) about the same last year.

***

Here's something interesting, the break down of cost-recovery by facility/program

View attachment 470513

So they lose 400k per year on the Omnimax.

They also lose money on international sales/rentals (I'm not clear if this is the OSC renting stuff to others, or renting stuff from others, but either way that's not good)

What really has my eyes bugging out, they lose money on concessions! And look how low that revenue number is..........how is that even possible. The hot dog cart outside my local Canadian tire pulls in twice that every year.

****

This shows that capital assets are under invested in (does not include the building itself as noted above, but only exhibits, classrooms etc etc.

View attachment 470518

****

So in sum total, the numbers are not dire..

They do, however, show:

Miserly provincial grants that too low, leasing costs that excessive; very poor business planning.
Click to expand...
They centre doesn’t actually operate the concessions it’s operated by a different company. The centre makes a small percentage from the profits generated.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I just find it odd that for a plan to see OSC move by 2025 that there is so little tangible details for how OP will accommodate it. Moving a museum isn't a 2 year arrangement. This suggests to me that the whole thing is about getting OSC to move away from the Don Mills site and less about moving it properly.

AoD
Click to expand...
yrt+viva=1system said:
Going back at least a decade, I remember them having some holdings in storage. This was behind the main halls from what I remember having given a tour/short cut to other exhibit halls when it's very busy.

Also the Science Centre has classrooms and fully functioning labs that they use for school trips and summer camp.
Click to expand...
They used to have a large storage area offsite where they would store exhibits that they no longer wanted to use. I don’t believe they still have that storage area.
 
In discussion the OSC here, I stumbled across an interesting photo of the OSC under construction in the Heritage Designation Report for 'The Foresters' office tower at 793 Don Mills.

Maybe @ProjectEnd can explain what looks to be a very strange elevation from the main building.



1681998239404.png
 
ProjectEnd said:
Apologies, but what seems "strange" here, @Northern Light?
Click to expand...

In looking at this, I'm assuming I'm looking at the main OSC building; in the picture, there are very large mounds of dirt and or hills between said building and Don Mills, where today the grade is flat.

One doesn't usually see temporary mounds of soil piled that high; so I was curious about what the elevation of the site may have looked like at/prior to construction (did they back fill a slope/hill here?)
 
Yeah, you're looking at this corner of the building there (I can't tilt the camera to properly replicate it):

1682000753184.png


Regarding the fill, I'd expect it was just piled there temporarily. There's a good distance between the building and Don Mills Road itself, and I don't believe there was ever any significant regrading there, especially after larger, principal, buildings had already started to go in.

Funny corollary to that story, Foresters was Olympia and York's second-ever building, the first being the smaller tower further in the distance (the name of which escapes me right now). Paul and Albert always liked to gamble on emerging areas of the cities they worked in (Don Mills, World Financial Centre in NYC, Canary Wharf in London) because when it worked for them, their land cost was essentially nil. It wasn't until the late 80s / early 90s crash, when they held immense debt on Canary Wharf, that their thesis caught up with them and it all collapsed.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Funny corollary to that story, Foresters was Olympia and York's second-ever building, the first being the smaller tower further in the distance (the name of which escapes me right now)
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are referring to 10 Edgecliff Golfway, a Condo Tower just off Wynford Drive built in 1974 by Olympia and York Developments.

It is a 19 story building.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top