Ontario Science Centre Closure Attributed To ‘Political Move,’ Says Architecture Firm

 

The Ontario Science Centre, a beloved institution in Toronto, recently faced an abrupt closure due to safety concerns related to its roof. However, the architectural firm behind the centre, Moriyama Teshima Architects, has expressed disbelief at the decision, labeling it as “absurd” and driven by political motives rather than genuine safety concerns.

The late architect Raymond Moriyama designed the science centre, which opened in 1969 near the west branch of the Don River. Last week, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Infrastructure Ontario announced the closure, citing health and safety concerns over failing roof panels made with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, a material popular in the 1960s and '70s. The government acted swiftly after receiving an engineer’s report detailing roof problems, but the architects argue that the entire building need not have been shut down immediately.

Brian Rudy, a partner with Moriyama Teshima Architects, emphasized that the roof panel issue was not a surprise and had been known for years. He criticized the decision as a “political move” and questioned the need for a complete closure. Replacing the roof would take years and cost upwards of $40 million, according to Infrastructure Minister Kinga Surma. However, Rudy contends that public areas of the building could have remained open during repairs.

The closure sparked outrage from local residents, science enthusiasts, and opposition politicians, who have called on the government to reconsider its decision. While safety is paramount, the architects’ perspective sheds light on the complexities of balancing safety concerns with the preservation of cultural and educational institutions.

In summary, the Ontario Science Centre’s closure has become a contentious issue, with the architectural firm attributing it to politics rather than a straightforward health-and-safety matter. The centre’s fate remains uncertain, but the debate continues as stakeholders advocate for a more nuanced approach to addressing structural challenges while keeping the institution accessible to the public.