Most of you have followed the tragic story of the Ontario Science Centre’s closure this past summer, a remarkable science museum perched atop a ravine overlooking Toronto’s Thorncliffe Park. An icon of late Modernism designed by architect Raymond Moriyama of Moriyama Teshima Architects, the Centre has been closed since June when the provincial government controversially used an engineer’s report to falsely justify extensive safety concerns, mostly surrounding the condition of the building’s roof. However, the larger and real reason is far more transactional: the Ford government wants to literally pave the way for several high-rise condominiums to eventually occupy the site. Watch for scandalous land deals in the future as politically well-connected developers secure the rights to build their 50-storey condo towers alongside a future Ontario Line subway stop (ironically named “Ontario Science Centre”).
Before its closure, the Ontario Science Centre (OSC) welcomed approximately 900,000 visitors annually, making it one of Ontario’s most visited cultural attractions and playing a vital role in providing interactive science education to a broad audience, including families, school groups and tourists.
Until it can be confirmed where and how a permanent OSC will be built (currently, the plans are for it to be located adjacent to the Therme mega spa being proposed at Ontario Place), it was announced this week that the OSC will literally “pop-up,” at least temporarily. One location will be at Sherway Gardens, a popular regional shopping centre. The second site will be at the Harbourfront Centre. The Sherway Gardens location will feature interactive exhibits like a LEGO® skyscraper, where visitors can play with the colourful trademarked bricks to build and learn about skyscraper construction, and “Circus!”, a popular exhibit exploring the science behind carnival tricks. Meanwhile, Harbourfront Centre will host KidSpark, a crafty, hands-on children’s exhibit. Getting to either location for a little science pop-up will be far more expensive and time-consuming for most parents than visiting the now-shuttered OSC.
This latest OSC-related announcement has been met with mixed reactions, with some supporting the government’s decision, presumably believing that any continued access to science education is better than none. Others have criticized the temporary nature of this latest announcement—the LEGO Towers exhibition will be up for less than three months, and the Harbourfront space will only be open until May—and the potential for decreased accessibility. (OSC staffers were advised that a third temporary location is being considered within an underutilized convention centre somewhere in Mississauga.)
But a shopping mall? Why do I feel the pop-up wonders of science at Sherway Gardens will feel more like a Santa’s Workshop, complete with simplistic, brash interpretation panels with a bravado that could only hope to match the sophistication of a nearby cell phone kiosk? I am depressed by our government’s policy to infantilize science education and exploration while treating it as an entertainment sideshow between purchasing $1,500 down-filled winter coats and vanilla-bomb cosmetics. Besides, any good toy store in any decent mall could offer far more genuine opportunities to explore science than a couple of LEGO®-filled buckets underneath the banner of the Ford-era mall version of OSC 2.0. I wonder if all of this poorly conceived education-, science-, culture- and innovation-related policy mash-up can possibly be pegged to the brazen arrogance of a single politician? What does this say about our culture, political or otherwise?
Those who support the decision believe in “continued access to science education.” Ontario Infrastructure Minister Kinga Surma emphasizes keeping children engaged and excited about science. Really? Does a 25,000 square foot shopping mall experience replace 325,000 square feet of exhibition space dedicated to experiential learning?
There is also an argument that these temporary locations may allow the OSC to reach new audiences who may have yet to visit the Don Mills location—an odd argument, simply because the Don Mills site is closed! Why do I feel the argument over accessibility to learning is at the same level of sophistication as what the “bookmobiles” tried to achieve for literacy and outreach programs (a limited 1970s idea still in operation today)? Furthermore, there are now whole generations of young adults who grew up with the concept of pop-up exhibits and stores. Pop-ups are perfect for selling non-alcoholic cocktail mixes and upscale pet food. But science and innovation? And in a major metropolitan city like Toronto? We can do better.
I agree with critics who feel these new locations will reduce the capacity and impact of science education programs. Dividing the OSC between two places combined with the unimaginative and dilutive idea of creating pop-up exhibits will undoubtedly diminish a science exhibit’s overall effect and scope, no matter how well-designed they may be.
And then there is the cost. There was a stated $500 million cost to repair the OSC. As convincingly and eloquently outlined by Elsa Lam in Canadian Architect, the figure should be far less, debunking the Province’s business case. However, the cost of relocations, building temporary exhibitions, and designing a yet-to-be-determined program for the future, which will likely considerably diminish the OSC’s exhibition capacity, would far exceed the costs of giving the currently mothballed OSC the love and care it deserves.
When learning from other cities’ experience with science centres, we need not look far for inspiration. Chicago’s Griffin Museum of Science and Industry (Griffin MSI), one of the largest science museums in the world, faced significant financial challenges in the early 2000s, but was revitalized through public-private partnerships, becoming a cornerstone of science education in Chicago. The Exploratorium in San Francisco is an excellent example of a museum reinventing itself when it relocated from the Palace of Fine Arts to a bigger waterfront location along the Embarcadero in 2013. Rather than shuttering or downsizing, it doubled down on its mission to inspire lifelong learning through science, transforming both the museum and the visitor experience with a $220 million investment in private donations and grants. Its expansion increased its size to 330,000 square feet of exhibit and public space—coincidentally, almost the same size as the shuttered OSC. With over 800 interactive exhibits for all ages, it trains hundreds of teachers yearly to improve science education across the US. And receiving 1.1 million visitors annually, the new site also incorporates sustainable design with its net-zero energy building powered by rooftop solar panels. The Exploratorium makes me cry: it is what Toronto would have, if the culture and political climate allowed.
The Montréal Biodôme, designed by KANVA, is another inspiring example of using innovation to transform and elevate an existing science centre. Rather than scaling back, the Biodôme enhanced its role as a cultural and educational touchstone in Montreal, starkly contrasting the situation here in Ontario.
We are witnessing a huge—and expensive—missed opportunity. Improving the Ontario Science Centre could have followed the MSI, Exploratorium or the Biodôme examples. Preserving an important architectural and educational icon, instead of erasing it, represents good math, good science, and good architecture.
We should also be mindful of a model of failure: the Center of Science and Industry (COSI) in Toledo, Ohio, which closed in 2007 due to unpaid taxes and a lack of financial support. Why should a city the size of Saskatoon or Windsor be the closest example for what is happening in Toronto? The museum’s exhibition was a quarter of what comprised the Ontario Science Centre, yet it received a very impressive 200,000 visitors annually. Toronto and Toledo sound too similar.
It must be said that science should not just be for children. LEGO® and crafty pop-up exhibits infantilize science. Chicago’s MSI and the Exploratorium treat their science museums as all-ages civic treasures, not pop-up distractions.
In essence, the criticism surrounding the Ontario Science Centre’s relocation stems from a perceived lack of transparency in the decision-making process, concerns about reduced accessibility, and a potentially diminished educational impact. These criticisms highlight the tension between addressing infrastructure needs and maintaining a vital educational resource’s accessibility and quality for the public. To see the downgrading of intellectual engagement and public science-related educational resources is maddening.
Ian Chodikoff, OAA, FRAIC is a consultant who helps architects with business and leadership development. His substack can be found here.
The post Op-ed: Move over Santa’s Workshop—the Ontario Science Centre is coming to your local mall appeared first on Canadian Architect.
