ProjectEnd
Superstar
It cannot and will not, per the proposed programming shared by peroxide boi's government in the past (complete abandonment of scientific research in favour of 'exhibition', whatever that is).
|
|
|
Ontario Science Centre
- Thread starter hawc
- Start date
UtakataNoAnnex
Superstar
...the worst of this is that 568,000 square feet was already there for the taking if they kept OSC where it was.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
So an overall space that's half as big with a smaller amount of "indoor exhibit space."
hawc
Senior Member
The Science Centre was the building not the exhibits. Putting it anywhere else isn't the Science Centre. Rename it. It's dead to me. 
I still hold out hope, U of T or York or George Brown or TMU buy the building and use it as a campus.
I still hold out hope, U of T or York or George Brown or TMU buy the building and use it as a campus.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The scrutiny should have happened before a decision was made on relocation with problematical assumptions. Anything else is just decision-based evidence making.
AoD
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
The province promised a temporary 50,000 to 100,000 ft.² of exhibition space.
The temporary OSC space at Harbourfront right now is about 8000 ft.². There is not that much vacant space into which they can expand.
While this is speculation, because everyone refuses to answer any questions, a solid guess is that the OSC will end up with 15,000 ft.² of its own and sharing the theatre and other spaces with Harbourfront.
Basically, the OSC is turning into a sad indoor playground for little kids while also eclipsing Harbourfront. This situation will probably last a decade.
This appears to be radical downsizing of what the OSC is and does.
It’s not what the government promised and it’s not what they claimed last week they are doing.
UtakataNoAnnex
Superstar
^...I think I've eaten at a bigger McDonald's. >.<
ProjectEnd
Superstar
You may or may not have eaten there, but it does exist:
World's Largest Entertainment McDonald's - Wikipedia
narduch
Senior Member
rbt
Senior Member
Has anyone noticed if the condemned building still has a roof today?
Amare
Senior Member
innsertnamehere
Superstar
given that the snow yesterday was mostly light, fluffy stuff.. probably. It's not the kind of snowfall the report warned against.
The 40cm of snow that dropped here yesterday weighs probably as much as 15cm of heavy, wet stuff.
The 40cm of snow that dropped here yesterday weighs probably as much as 15cm of heavy, wet stuff.
narduch
Senior Member
We all know the report was bs
PL1
Senior Member
Which report?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Also: Ya'll need to understand how Engineers work and design structures.
Factors of safety are critical. Just because a building hasn't physically collapsed doesn't mean it's safe - because buildings are safe until they very suddenly aren't.
To quote Ernest Hemingway:
Buildings work this way too.. they are fine, with minor signs of structural wear.. until they very suddenly are not.
The province's report on the structural security of the building discusses factors of safety being diminished - the roof panels are capable of holding themselves up still, but the factors of safety have declined to the point where the engineers could no longer satisfactorily state that the panels meet the minimum factors of safety to deem the building structurally sound. And without an engineer willing to sign off on it, god forbid they do collapse the province would be left with a massive liability. Because Engineers hold professional liability against their statements on these things.
The Engineer that issued the report saw the gradually part happening. And they didn't want to risk their professional liability on the suddenly part.
Perhaps the Province could have found an engineer that would sign off on it and put their liability on the line.. but is that a risk you really want to take?
The OSC had already had a history of structural issues - the pedestrian bridge in the valley had been closed for over two years with a ham-fisted, poorly organized "shuttle" bridging the gap instead and creating an absolutely awful visitor experience. The province initially only closed the bridge for structural concerns (and yes, the bridge has not yet collapsed..), and I'm not surprised engineers didn't sign off on the roof structure too.
Ontario has very recent histories of collapsing heritage structures because of the neglect of structural engineers and not properly reviewing structural safety, after all.
Factors of safety are critical. Just because a building hasn't physically collapsed doesn't mean it's safe - because buildings are safe until they very suddenly aren't.
To quote Ernest Hemingway:
Buildings work this way too.. they are fine, with minor signs of structural wear.. until they very suddenly are not.
The province's report on the structural security of the building discusses factors of safety being diminished - the roof panels are capable of holding themselves up still, but the factors of safety have declined to the point where the engineers could no longer satisfactorily state that the panels meet the minimum factors of safety to deem the building structurally sound. And without an engineer willing to sign off on it, god forbid they do collapse the province would be left with a massive liability. Because Engineers hold professional liability against their statements on these things.
The Engineer that issued the report saw the gradually part happening. And they didn't want to risk their professional liability on the suddenly part.
Perhaps the Province could have found an engineer that would sign off on it and put their liability on the line.. but is that a risk you really want to take?
The OSC had already had a history of structural issues - the pedestrian bridge in the valley had been closed for over two years with a ham-fisted, poorly organized "shuttle" bridging the gap instead and creating an absolutely awful visitor experience. The province initially only closed the bridge for structural concerns (and yes, the bridge has not yet collapsed..), and I'm not surprised engineers didn't sign off on the roof structure too.
Ontario has very recent histories of collapsing heritage structures because of the neglect of structural engineers and not properly reviewing structural safety, after all.