picard102
Senior Member
Love the disinformation and conspiracy theories people are coming up with on this.
It is on Agenda as a MM and they are scheduled for tomorrowI saw on IG that there was a motion by a councillor to have the City take over the Science Centre but can’t find it now and haven’t seen it elsewhere. Was it deferred until Thursday’s meeting?
And I think that's where you'll find "horseshoe theory" on the part of the so-called "left" who opts to side with, or at least burnish the case for, DoFo's OSC scheme: some notion of "people don't like Brutalism". That is, they're already indisposed to the notion that there's any architecture worth being "sensitive" to here.Yeah, "to put it mildly". But, Mallick's had a history of hyperactively framing Modernism/Brutalism in what one might call architectural #MeToo terms (like its defenders are akin to Polanski apologists or something).
Like, a decade ago, *this*.
Heather Mallick: Meet the man who ruined a century of cities: Mallick
If I could travel back in time to kill someone, it would be the world’s worst architect, Le Corbusier.www.thestar.com
This is not a PR blunder - it is questionable decision-making and ulterior motives - just like the Greenbelt (unless you want to call flip-flopping on major policy "PR"). Calling it a PR issue cheapens the modus operandi of this government - it's the equivalent to someone using "ha ha, it's just a joke" as an excuse.
Also, the government appointed the board - did the board just realize that the building has long standing maintenance issues? If that is so, I question the competence of the board in their duties and by extension, whose interests are they reflecting.
AoD
This is not a PR blunder - it is questionable decision-making and ulterior motives - just like the Greenbelt (unless you want to call flip-flopping on major policy "PR"). Calling it a PR issue cheapens the modus operandi of this government - it's the equivalent to someone using "ha ha, it's just a joke" as an excuse.
Also, the government appointed the board - did the board just realize that the building has long standing maintenance issues? If that is so, I question the competence of the board in their duties and by extension, whose interests are they reflecting.
Exactly! People are quick to forget Mcguinty and Wynne! Two pathetic individuals. I actually was employed at the centre when those 2 clowns were in powerCorrect. All sorts of governments neglected this place. I don’t like Doug. Didn’t vote for Doug. But everything isn’t Doug’s fault.
It's Doug's fault now. And whataboutisms can only cover his arse so far here as he is one who pulled the trigger. /shrugExactly! People are quick to forget Mcguinty and Wynne! Two pathetic individuals. I actually was employed at the centre when those 2 clowns were in power
Worked there for over two decades and the higher ups didn’t care to maintain it. funny thing is that they started closing for a full week in the first week of September and asked all the staff to do maintenance work like painting and patching dry walls. Instead of hiring the right people to do the work they would find ways to cut corners to save money for their bonuses at the end oI think anyone would close it if they found out. The problem is that the conservatives have been in charge for a few years now. Why hasn’t it had the maintenance it needed.
And you know what my present hunch is? That the whole spin about how "nobody likes Brutalism" (needless to say, implicitly or explicitly advanced by bad actors on the right as well as the Heather Mallicks on the left) is a smokescreen. Because as I said, the real mass instinct might be more along the lines of a "Doors Open pluralism". People *aren't*, in and of themselves, hung up over its being "ugly", any more than they are over modern art being more "displeasing" than traditional portraits and landscapes.And the brutalism of the entire design had a honesty about it. It wasn't trying to be anything it wasn't. It wasn't trying to impress you. It was just had a quiet confidence about itself.
Doug shipped some buck a beer. I hated this location so I’m indifferent.The Former CEO and Chief Scientist of the OSC is out with an opinion piece in The Star suggesting that its probably time to let the OSC in its current location go.
But he doesn't advocate for demolishing the Main building up top, suggesting perhaps a repurposing.
The main thrust of his piece aside from the poor condition of the existing building is that the business model of the OSC is broken no matter where you put it, and that that needs addressing.
The OSC needs far more robust ancillary revenues (parking, concession/food, complimentary retail/merch) as well as more robust grants, and a lower cost to operate and maintain building.
I led the Ontario Science Centre for five years. This is the real reason it’s time to let go of the old building
Rather than fighting the relocation based on nostalgia, the future viability of the science centre would be better served by the public holding the government to account on conditions aroundwww.thestar.com
I can get behind this...but I never going to let that building or it's locations. Sorry TorStar, et al, never going to accept those apologetics either.The OSC needs far more robust ancillary revenues (parking, concession/food, complimentary retail/merch) as well as more robust grants, and a lower cost to operate and maintain building.