Quite simple... you start by demolishing one of the older underutilized buildings (e.g. the Carpark), make it tall as the northern wing, and move departments from the Northern Wing into the new building. Then demolish the Northern Wing, move departments from East Wing into it. Then demolish East Wing... move departments from Bice building into it. Then demolish Bice Building... and so on and so forth. It's easier to start a new building from scratch move into it, than what has been done previously with the last two RAH redevelopments which were happening inside the building with everyone still working around them. So essentially it's a staged approach.. it's nothing radical, it's been done time and time again. I still don't see how it'd be cheaper to build on the rail yards... in terms of remediation of land, and not taking into account the lost value from building on such a prime piece of realestate how does it work out cheaper?muzzamo wrote: - How exactly do you propose that you rebuild a hospital in place, for a similar cost?
- Have you even been to the RAH?
- Have you thought about the logistics of doing such a thing?
Have I been to the RAH? Yes, everyday Monday to Friday for the past 6 years. I happen to have an office located here. But that isn't really the point here.