Ontario Place versus Ontario Science Centre.

Separate and apart, their time has come — to come together.

Why not a merged Ontario Science Place?

Ontario Place is long past its prime. The Science Centre remains short of its potential.

The whole would surely be greater than the sum of the parts — now so far apart. That’s why they need each other.

In both matchmaking and scientific terms, it is the attraction of opposites — with a shared goal of pleasing not so much each other, but other people. Think of symbiosis, synergy, complementarity.

In its heyday, Ontario Place offered cultural entertainment and amusement rides, water slides and patio-beer — an enduring echo of Expo 67, right down to the Cinesphere’s derivative dome, projecting Imax movies before anyone else.

Back then, it offered the “unique value proposition” that sells tickets. Yet it has long since lost its uniqueness, and hence its value — you can get beer at any patio bar anywhere, Imax screens are everywhere and nowhere, and you can take your kids to the CNE or Canada’s Wonderland to lose their stomachs in a heartbeat.

That’s why Ontario Place lost crowds and lost money, until a Liberal government lost heart and shuttered it years ago. The bigger question is why the Liberals lacked the resolve to reopen it.

They brainstormed for big ideas — the next big thing — without seeing the sure thing right in front of them. They clung to the maxim that if you build it — something new, something shiny — they will come.

Far better to rebuild it — by relocating the Science Centre to Ontario Place — at which point they will come back.

A previous column raised the prospect of an Ontario Place for all seasons, anchored by a revitalized Ontario Science Centre: Why reinvent the wheel, or rely on a ferris wheel, when the Science Centre is already on a roll?

The reader response suggested a pent-up appetite for a known quantity that befits a public asset like our underused waterfront.

The response from experts suggested an apprehension against making another mistake by the lake by trying something utterly untried.

Which is why the Science Centre is re-emerging as an old solution — a proven remedy — to a perennial problem.

Perhaps the most passionate response came from Gail Lord, who heads a Toronto-based consulting firm that advises on museums and cultural centres around the world, notably science centrepieces that are conjoined with cultural centres.

Lord, it turns out, has twice researched the issue of revitalizing Ontario Place, and keeps landing on the Ontario Science Centre as a natural fit. If only the politicians would pay attention.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

A 2009 government report on the province’s untapped tourism potential, assisted by Lord Cultural Resources, suggested the waterfront needs to “cluster” attractions that scale them up to a critical mass:

“A possible anchor attraction could include the Science Centre — a proven success in attracting a range of local visitors,” it argued. “Other attractions to be clustered around the Science Centres would offer creative programming. The whole precinct could be branded as a Science and Innovation Park.”

In an interview, Lord described the Science Centre as “probably our most successful cultural institution.” But she points to its splendid isolation near the Don Valley Parkway, far from the clusters that attract tourists in larger numbers.

The most ambitious alternatives for Ontario Place — like a windowless waterfront casino — are unproven and unpopular, compared to the sure thing we already have in hand.

“To bring in a new institution is very risky and very challenging. The great thing about the Science Centre is that it exists . . . but it would be even more successful at Ontario Place,” she told me.

“The big trend in the world is clustering of culture, education and entertainment — clustered on the water. This is where the world is going, and Toronto should be as advanced as the rest of the world.”

After 50 years, the Science Centre has accumulated significant deferred maintenance that is long overdue, “and everyone in government knows this.”

Her firm conducted a more recent study for the province that makes the case for relocation. But Infrastructure Ontario’s vice-president of communications, Alan Findlay refused to release it (Premier Doug Ford’s paeans to public transparency and open debate apparently haven’t penetrated).

Politicians need to let the public in on their private debates, at ground level. Yes, it’s about location, location, location; but it’s also about clusters, clusters, clusters.

Whatever we call it (it needn’t be Ontario Science Place, but it mustn’t be Ford Nation Place) its time has come. If we relocate it, and rename it, they will come.

Correction — Feb. 18, 2019: Gail Lord heads a Toronto-based consulting firm advising on museums and cultural centres. This article has been edited from a previous version that misstated her first name as Cathy.

Read more about: