Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
Someone on Reddit was wondering why the cost for this hospital ($4.5 billion for construction) is twice the $2.2 billion cost of the St. Paul's hospital rebuild in Vancouver, which is slightly larger (1.2 million square feet), on a similarly challenging urban site, has way more beds, and includes a neonatal unit, which I assume this won't since we have the IWK for that.
Not necessarily saying the costing is suspect--there could be very good reasons for the higher cost, and I am definitely no expert on health-care infrastructure costing--but it is curious. I wonder if anyone here has any insight.
I also wish we could get some real renderings, not this autocad-looking graphic.
|
I don't have an answer either, but I don't think anybody could really understand with the comparison information being this rough.
Thoughts:
- Rebuild vs new build?
- Function/equipment comparison? More beds don't necessarily equate if the function of the new section is not the same... i.e. other complexes having beds vs Vancouver having all its beds in one complex
- Etc.
I don't really know the details of either project (actually I know completely nothing about Vancouver's), but value assessment seems like it needs a deep dive into the details in order to draw conclusions. This would also include the perceived lifespan of the structure as well as costs of labour and materials between the two coasts.