Many deduced, and I think correctly, that the original Science Centre grounds would soon be condo fodder.
Then came the news this past weekend, to the shock, but perhaps not the surprise of many: The Science Centre had massive structural inadequacies and had to be immediately and permanently closed as of Friday, June 21st, 2024.
The fences were being put up that afternoon, even as staff were still inside.
Many residents and organizations were deeply skeptical about this decision. Some postulated that the building was purposefully neglected so as to force its closure, or even that a structural engineer had been paid off to state its lack of safety.
The former is more likely, but the fact that the latter was an immediate and popular theory shows how underhanded this entire process felt.
The more accurate take is that the engineer’s report did cite structural concerns, but that closing the facility wasn’t actually necessary. Meaning that the province use the report as an excuse, not an explanation.
And so - Ontario and Toronto suddenly and sadly have to say goodbye to another old friend when we were just figuring out how to say goodbye the first.
The Ontario Place and the Science Centre seem inextricably linked in our hearts and minds. To love one is to love the other, to remember one is to remember the other.
I often think that what we look like, as in, the physical appearance of cities and towns, reflects what we have decided to value. Or perhaps more accurately, what we think we should value.
(At the Science Centre) I would often walk past on good weather days and see parents and their children taking their bows and quivers into the trees on the Science Centre grounds. Those sorts of unique experiences help relationships grow, and help the city have uniqueness and intrigue.
Many condos sit empty downtown, their towers blocking out both rain, sun and common sense, but nothing stings more I think than the lack of cultural entities within the city’s limits. In my mind, condos are only desirable if there are interesting places are proximal.
What does this have to do with the Third Place?
The Third Place, that spot that isn’t work or home, where the average person can converse and exist without the necessity of purchase, is essential to everyone’s daily lives. The Third Place, needs to exist because we’re more than our families and jobs, existing only to work, sleep and buy stuff online. The third place exists in the library, the public park, the garden, the grounds, the waterfront.
The Third Place is often a space where we meet strangers, socialize, and just remember how to be human.
The loss of the Third Place, at least across major English speaking nations, is assumed to be incidental, but in some cases many believe it to be purposeful. A reduction in public space so that people do not gather, converse, or think about their existence past work, school, sleep, and consumption. Venues that closed over the pandemic exacerbated this trend.
The Third Place is often a space where we meet strangers, socialize, and just remember how to be human.
While the Science Centre and Ontario Place, of course, had admission prices, both properties were always public access, their grounds managed for the explicit intention of free enjoyment. There is (was?) also one of the only open air archery clubs in Canada joining grounds of the Science Centre. Considering the closure of not only the buildings, but the grounds themselves, I’m certain the future of their operations is also in question.
I would often walk past on good weather days and see parents and their children taking their bows and quivers into the trees on the Science Centre grounds. Those sorts of unique experiences help relationships grow, and help the city have uniqueness and intrigue.
The Third Place is about possibility, and not for the sole purpose of making money. This too seems like a quaint idea these days, and yes, I know a public park would cost money.
I suppose the broader question we should be asking is: What is the cost of not investing in ourselves?
