The eternal triangle of architecture – program, budget, and aesthetics – is an essential guide for thinking about the fate of Raymond Moriyama’s iconic building now that the Ford Government has decided to vacate it. The brutalist aesthetic of the structure remains, but it no longer has a program, and it will be expensive, though not impossible, to convert it to another purpose. But before discussing what can be done about the building now, it’s important to understand how we got to this point.

The Decision to Close the Building

Last week Rimkus Consultants reported that they examined the roof of the Ontario Science Centre (OSC) building and found that approximately 5 percent of the concrete roof panels needed remediation before next winter. Their report, delivered on June 18 to Infrastructure Ontario (IO), said that this remediation should be done by October 31. But because it is now too late to finish the work, they recommended restricted access to, or full closure of, the OSC. IO immediately accepted the latter recommendation and shuttered the building last Friday. And by October 31 the OSC, as an agency, will have removed the exhibits and workshop materials – in architectural terminology, the building’s program or in management terminology, the organization’s intellectual capital.

Any consulting gig involves a process of interaction between consultant and client. The reports released by the Ford Government provide some hints about what happened. We are told in the three detailed building reports (but not in the executive summary) that the consultants inspected the roofs between December 6, 2023 and March 26, 2024. Thus, they finished collecting data nearly three months before issuing their official report. We are also told that the small number of roof panels (less than one percent) with critical risk “were identified immediately to the client” and there was “immediate installing of shoring (reinforcement) … completed prior to report preparation.” In other words, the consultant and client (IO) were in close contact and some essential remediation was done while the study was ongoing.

As the consultant was reporting in real time on the status of the roof panels, it is easy to imagine that a government that wanted to keep the building open would have asked the consultant what work needed to be done before next winter and would have immediately started on that work. Such a government would also have consulted with OSC staff about how to minimize disruption to ongoing programming.

In a press conference earlier this week, Infrastructure Minister Kinga Sirma said the consultants advised the Government to replace the roof in its entirety and close the building for as long as necessary to do that, which could be between two and five years. But the Government didn’t have to take that advice and could have kept the building operating while replacing the most compromised roof panels. Sirma also said that it was the OSC’s Board of Trustees that made the decision to close the building. In my view, Sirma was using a classic political ploy. When a government’s decision is being criticized publicly, blame the decision on other parties. Furthermore, it is well known that boards of public sector agencies are rubber stamps for government decisions.

To get a full accounting of the discussions between the consultant and the government and the government’s process of making the decision, we would need both paper trails. In an attempt to do that, I filed a Freedom of Information inquiry with Infrastructure Ontario asking for i) the contract with Rimkus, ii) the paper trail of discussions between Rimkus and Infrastructure Ontario, iii) the paper trail of discussions within Infrastructure Ontario about the contract and about the OSC, and iv) the paper trail of IO’s discussions with the rest of the government, in particular Cabinet Office and the Premier’s Office. I will report on what I receive in subsequent posts, but I’m not hopeful.

Finally, the timing of the release of the Rimkus report was politically convenient, after the Legislature had recessed for the summer. and, in a Machiavellian touch, the building was closed in haste, with no notice to staff or visitors.

What about the Building?

The Government’s announcement of the closing did not say whether any remediation of the roof would be done. In the so-called “New Deal for Toronto” struck last fall, “the Province agree[d] to discuss partnership opportunities with the City for maintaining public, community-oriented science program at the legacy Ontario Science Centre.” The problem now is that the building is unusable and, in the deal, the Province made no commitment to keep it usable. In addition to the problems with the roof, due to long-term neglect the bridge between the upper and lower parts of the building is no longer functional, as I discussed in a previous post. The heating system for the auditorium and Great Hall needs replacement. Finally, the materials to support a science program are being removed from the building. The City and Toronto Region Conservation Authority own the land the provincial government has leased for $1 for the OSC. The provincial government can terminate the lease and give the City an empty, unusable building.

The Province and the City will negotiate about the building, but the Province has the upper hand because it is the senior level of government and because its finances are more robust. The City will likely ask the Province for financial assistance to keep the building open and to keep it within the public sector. The Province might well refuse to, from its point of view, throw good money after bad. Another alternative would be to find a private sector owner. In any event, after October 31 the Moriyama building will be an empty shell without a program, in the architectural sense, and in need of repair to support a program. It didn’t have to come to this, but the Ford Government’s fixation on Ontario Place as a legacy project set this train of events in motion.