Toronto Ontario Place | ?m | ?s | Infrastructure ON

The presser about the business case announcement for the Ontario Science Centre relocation is out.

Thought the backgrounder w/the details is not, as yet.


1701274332987.png
 
To be clear, OSC won't be moved under the new deal. Rather the old site will be retained to a degree, while plans for a new SC are a foot to my understanding....or least what I've read from what was being reported about this. I think this was one of the concessions the Province made with Mayor Chow here...

...as also in the real world, compromise can cut but both ways.

Edit/Amendment: To be clear also, there isn't much being reported about this outside of the media still considering this as a move. So please don't take my word for it here, as I could be just reading tea leaves all wrongly. >.<

Your reading is not correct here.

The proposal is the wholesale move of the OSC as an institution to Ontario Place.

What has been mooted is the possible retention of some OSC programming at the original site, if the City wishes, (and I would read if the City foots the bill). Specific mention is made of not leaving a low-income area deprived entirely of access to specialized science programming.
 
Your reading is not correct here.

The proposal is the wholesale move of the OSC as an institution to Ontario Place.

What has been mooted is the possible retention of some OSC programming at the original site, if the City wishes, (and I would read if the City foots the bill). Specific mention is made of not leaving a low-income area deprived entirely of access to specialized science programming.
I mean, sorta not correct....because they're not planning on nuking with original OSC site this time around and leaving it as "legacy" site, to my understanding. And for what's that's worth here.
 
I mean, sorta not correct....because they're not planning on nuking with original OSC site this time around and leaving it as "legacy" site, to my understanding. And for what's that's worth here.

That's not exactly the commitment in writing either.

The commitment is to turn over the building that they claim needs 400M+ in repairs to the cash-challenged City.

They have not promised it won't be demolished, just that it won't be demolished by them.
 
Will there be more posts discussing the crassness of women and no substantive comment about the water park?
If you have an issue with that then you should /report it as opposed to engaging with it. And that's all I am going to say about that. Thnkx!
 
Ok..... things gleaned from this Star Article about the 'Technical Briefing/Business case for the OSC move'

1) The cost of the move to Ontario Place omits the cost of restoring the pods.

2) The total cost estimate for restoring/improving the existing OSC (and operating it in its current site) is a whopping 2.3B. I have yet to see how they arrived at this eye popping estimate, but I will express my cynicism as to its accuracy.

3) Clearly the business case is predicated in part on falling attendance at the OSC.

- Not clear is whether the under-fundinging of the OSC at its current site is taken into proper account in that,.

- Also not clear is accounting for the multi-year disruption of the Don Mills/Eglinton intersection as part of the Crosstown construction.

- Further, its not clear whether the opening of the Crosstown and the Ontario Line were factored into potential future attendance.

Source:

 
Last edited:
Ok..... things gleaned from this Star Article about the 'Technical Briefing/Business case for the OSC move'

1) The cost of the move to Ontario Place omits the cost of restoring the pods.

2) The total cost estimate for restoring/improving the existing OSC (and operating it its current site) is a whopping 2.3B. I have yet to see how they arrived at this eye popping estimate, but I will express my cynicism as to its accuracy.

3) Clearly the business case is predicated in part on falling attendance at the OSC.

- Not clear is whether the under-fundinging of the OSC at its current site is taken into proper account in that,.

- Also not clear is accounting for the multi-year disruption of the Don Mills/Eglinton intersection as part of the Crosstown construction.

- Further, its not clear whether the opening of the Crosstown and the Ontario Line were factored into potential future attendance.

Source:

Also seeing on Reddit the claim that 2009 was a high water mark for attendance due to the Bodies exhibit. So it had nowhere to go but down.
 
Lets acknowledge that there is a ton of density proposed in this area, so there will be lots of program demand. The south end of Flemingdon is a considerable distance from the Don Mills Recreation Centre site. (roughly 2km to the Don Mills/Eglinton intersection).

That said, I don't think you would see OSC repurposed as a 'Community Recreation Centre' and if you did, the existing Flemingdon site would likely close.

There are multiple public use options though.

The Flemingdon Library is quite small and no new branch is contemplated in the area; a re-lo here could triple the branch size with lots of room leftover.

There's only one ice pad at the nearby arena, I'm not sure you could refit a rink into the OSC, but its an option, in theory.

There's lots of choices, if the desire is to save the current building.

To be clear, that choice has not been made, instead, the province has simply said, they will give the site and building to the City to do with as they please.
Regarding your point about the ice pad, there will be two ice pads at the new arena at the Aspen Ridge Community Centre site. and two more icepads at eglinton and sloane. Many of the flemo residents can't afford to buy skates tbh. But just wanted to add to your point.

My second question is if the OSC building remains, what happens with the parking lot? Something should be built there? No? Maybe housing?
 
Regarding your point about the ice pad, there will be two ice pads at the new arena at the Aspen Ridge Community Centre site. and two more icepads at eglinton and sloane. Many of the flemo residents can't afford to buy skates tbh. But just wanted to add to your point.

Fair point. Though, Leaside is a hockey hot bed without enough ice time in its local rink, so is Don Mills; and the latter will lose their rink to development.

My second question is if the OSC building remains, what happens with the parking lot? Something should be built there? No? Maybe housing?

Not knowable at this point. Parking that does not currently impede the view of the building, can probably be developed; I know I mapped the options for that out some time ago here.

But it really does depend on the future use of the current OSC buiding, and what of it, if any is indeed retained.

The current OSC building, while not to my taste, is beloved by many here; if its retained, you're going to need to retain a view of it from the front.

Depending on the nature of any use, it may be necessary to retain some parking.

Of course the building at the base of the valley is not architecturally significant, its a box; were it removed, the parking perhaps could go down there; though, you'd then have a significant climb back to the at-grade building. Lots of ifs/unknowns at this point.
 
Fair point. Though, Leaside is a hockey hot bed without enough ice time in its local rink, so is Don Mills; and the latter will lose their rink to development.



Not knowable at this point. Parking that does not currently impede the view of the building, can probably be developed; I know I mapped the options for that out some time ago here.

But it really does depend on the future use of the current OSC buiding, and what of it, if any is indeed retained.

The current OSC building, while not to my taste, is beloved by many here; if its retained, you're going to need to retain a view of it from the front.

Depending on the nature of any use, it may be necessary to retain some parking.

Of course the building at the base of the valley is not architecturally significant, its a box; were it removed, the parking perhaps could go down there; though, you'd then have a significant climb back to the at-grade building. Lots of ifs/unknowns at this point.
Sorry I don't understand your second point regarding parking being developed? There is already so much parking there, why would more be needed?
 
Sorry I don't understand your second point regarding parking being developed? There is already so much parking there, why would more be needed?

I didn't advocate for more.

You asked about developing what was there.

Keeping in mind the north parking lots are already set to be redeveloped, so that parking will be gone.

The issue then is whether any of what remains will need to be retained for any future building function; and if not, if you are preserving a building/facade because you want people to see it, that may be limit what and where things are built around it, so that a view can be retained.
 

Back
Top