We need a new airport!!!

[KC_JAYHAWK]

Price goes up, quality goes down....what a cluster fvck. Give the damn project to AECOM/B&M before it's too late.

[cityscape]

I agree that removing the scalloped roof design is a mistake and makes this airport more 'meh'. I'm okay with removing the indoor two story fountain, it just seemed like a logistical nightmare and it took up a lot of space. Surprisingly, the bathroom looked decent. My main concerns still is with the width of the concourses. They look way too narrow and I don't feel like we're going to have enough amenities to support the number of passengers. All of that is based on my observations of the diagrams and images. This just feels like they are simplifying most everything to get the project done quickly.

EDIT: looking at the image showing gates 4,6,8. That looks SOOOOO cramped. With Southwest being our largest airline, how will they fit the lines in those spaces for loading A,B, and C groupings. This just doesn't make sense.

[KCPowercat]

Blocking? Sizing? People want pretty pictures to analyze?

My concerns so far is there isn't any retail spaces down at the end of the terminal? Maybe those are smaller kiosks that aren't in these designs...seems like retail space is sparse overall

Also no retail space at all pre security?

I'm no fan of the wood ceilings and would like the wavy roof back.... I have hope the prior but afraid the later is gone.

[KCPowercat]

Price goes up, quality goes down....what a cluster fvck. Give the damn project to AECOM/B&M before it's too late.

Price was going up no matter who did it. Hmmmmm SoM or b&m... Who do I trust more on design?

[KCPowercat]

Early renderings are the lifeblood of kcrag.com!

[rxlexi]

Early renderings are the lifeblood of kcrag.com!

Ha, too true. And now I will proceed to continue ranting about these five low-quality images.

While I do "trust" SOM, this is pretty bad for a first impression of official renderings, after what we saw from all firms during the bidding war. Huge downgrade, thus far.

An airport is the front door to the region, and IMO should have some level of civic aspiration, especially when it's a from-scratch design in a rebounding city. Bring back the scalloped roofs, ASAP!

[KCPowercat]

Definitely

[cityscape]

Except why release them if you don't want them to be scrutinized?? I imagine a lot of man hours went into those images to be released to the general public and if that's the case I am slightly concerned about the firm's attention to detail. AECOM had a fly through video before they were even selected.

[flyingember]

They're supposed to show the shape of the building, the size of the rooms.

The chairs are bad because they picked something from their stock image library and stuck them in to show how many will fit in the space and that's all you're supposed to get from it.

Except why release them if you don't want them to be scrutinized?? I imagine a lot of man hours went into those images to be released to the general public and if that's the case I am slightly concerned about the firm's attention to detail. AECOM had a fly through video before they were even selected.

Because 99% of people *don't* scrutinize them. They want to see larger restrooms, short distances to the gate, a large security area and the like. They really don't care the exact materials chosen or how wide the space is as long as they have a chair with power, wifi and they don't miss their flight.

I bet very few man hours went into the images. Any good architecture software package has this capability built in. You create the plans as wireframes and generate a rendering in the end selecting materials to fill the space from the software library.

[rxlexi]

Except why release them if you don't want them to be scrutinized?? I imagine a lot of man hours went into those images to be released to the general public and if that's the case I am slightly concerned about the firm's attention to detail. AECOM had a fly through video before they were even selected.

Yep, with a Twitter announcement and everything. They are in the Star, KCBJ, etc.

[beautyfromashes]

I’ve been an advocate for Edgemoor since the initial selection by Justus and friends. I trusted that they had assurances on price and timeframe and now design. I was wrong. I also have no faith now in our own Aviation Department personnel. In past meetings, they were way unprepared, couldn’t answer basic questions and seemed to need prompting from council questions in what to do next. It should have gone to Burns & Mac. ((Lowering expectations even more than they already were))

[GRID]

Pretty bad renderings for sure, but you can tell a LOT has been cut from the original plans. You don't want to overdo it and over spend, but this looks extremely generic so far.

More importantly is function. Baggage claim level is fine. Add some art or something. Not much you can do there.

I agree with KCP. You need at least some retail pre-security. Enough room for a single sit down restaurant and a couple of smaller spaces for whatever would be fine, but to not have any room for any retail pre-security is pretty stupid. I don't even see any restrooms pre-security.

On the air side, the gate areas look cramped and I don't see a lot of open seating outside the gates. The one thing hate about a lot of airports is how little seating there is. You have restaurants, but no place to sit down and eat. Hopefully those retail/dining areas have a lot of chairs and tables. The concourses just look cramped and narrow for a new airport. This might be because they are trying to cram this entire thing into the space of terminal A. I think if this were designed from the ground up without space limitations, it wouldn't look so cramped.

Just don't make the new terminal all cramped feeling. I do hope the main entry part of the terminal has at least some "wow" factor to it. Right now it looks like the parking garage is the main attraction. That wood looks terrible and the ceilings seem low for the main entry part of the terminal.

Hopefully it will get at lot better as the design progresses, but so far, I'm not impressed at all. It really seems like this project is way over the heads of this firm.

Whatever they build will still be 1000 times better than what's there now. I'm sure it will turn out fine in the end. Just keep them on their toes and make them do something KC can be proud of.

[normalthings]

The whole purpose of renderings like this are to give an idea of massing and flow. I am 100% confident the construction firm building this, Clark, which is much larger than Burns and Mac, has both has a better handle of how much stuff costs and has more leverage in material pricing.


Burns&Macs and AECOM’s proposals were designed without any input from the airlines and so they don’t represent any of the changes that happened in the last year. Their prices would have shot up just as much as anyone else’s.

[KCPowercat]

I get why people are wigging a bit but agree with normal.... It was initial concept for sizing.... The roof being flat is my concern... That seems like something that maybe decided.

[bobbyhawks]

They just redid most of the terminals at LAX, and the number one issue with them at Southwest and Delta (for me) is the seating around each gate is still lacking. Even when there are wide-open spaces that could include additional seats, they only put exactly the number of seats as the plane capacity or just under. The upshot is people are sitting all over the floor, standing, lying down, leaning against the wall. It takes away 100% of the higher-end finish they were going for.

Another issue I see with at least one of the renderings, is people think they will get cute and create "innovative," "fun" seating areas, like couches that wrap around things or built-in design elements. When I'm at the airport, the only people using this type of seat are the people who "lost" the battle for the other better seats. Nobody wants to sit on a fabric ketchup-stained bench with four strangers. Just put more of the standard row seats in, and have more with plugs. Make it so my head doesn't hit the person behind me when I mildly lean back. It's not that complicated.

[normalthings]

Almost impossible to tell from these poor initial renderings, but where is the awesome scallop-roof design from the preliminary images? I loved that element, and if we get a generic flat box I'll be very disappointed.

I understand perhaps losing the two-story indoor fountain, but first impression is this looks like a major downgrade from earlier images. We want something a "little" special, right? Will withhold further judgement until much higher quality images become available.

Agree. And after all these months we get just five new images? Aside from a fountain near garage and terminal, there isn't much of a 'wow' factor. I'm not advocating for hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades, but the terminal appears to be...a box. I do like all of the natural light and maybe they can do something interested with the exterior wrap on the garage, but there really doesn't appear to be anything unique about the interior or exterior of the terminals.

Anyone been to Terminal C at IAH? Nearly every seat has it's own power station/USB port and tablet computer that can be used to order food from anywhere in the terminal and delivered right to you. https://www.aviationpros.com/article/12 ... experienceThe waiting areas in the new renderings show seating that's nothing better than what's there now. Maybe aim for additional revenue like from an attached hotel https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/airport ... inals.html

This is feeling more and more like the Sprint Center process all over again - promised bells and whistles in the initial renderings in order to get people on board and then delivered 'what we can afford' pared down version.

1. The nice terminals at Houston are essentially owned by United. All of the nice finishings like iPads and nice tables have been paid for by United. Many parts of the terminals don’t have them but a lot of high traffic areas do. It’s important to remember that United knows that the investment will pay off since they keep their Houston terminals full 24/7 with many multi hour laying over passengers. This type of investment doesn’t make sense outside of a hub and is why United only has them installed at their largest hubs.

2. Edgemoor brought the idea of a Terminal hotel to the city in their original proposal. I have a feeling that the newly renovated Marriot at the airport has something to do with it. Is Marriot the exclusive airport hotel operator?

[beautyfromashes]

It seems the airlines are getting what they want, a stockyard pushing as many cattle through the pen in the smallest amount of space. Who’s advocating for the citizenry?

[KC_JAYHAWK]

Seriously, these are the best "conceptual" renderings Edgemoor can put out after 10+ months? That is what concerns me. Doesn't seem like a priority to them. I still think it was a mistake to choose them, never liked the choice. It's going to be a bland airport that is good at one thing; shuffling people through the terminal like cattle.

[TheLastGentleman]

Like everyone else, I'm not liking the look of these renderings. Not going to be good for KC's national image.

[WoodDraw]

I don't get why everyone keeps saying renderings are just for "this". They show a flat roof with wooden paneling and no fountain.

If any of that is wrong, I'll take back my criticism.