KCRag Forum

What’s wrong with an airport with a flat roof and no fountain? Does the shape of the roof have anything to do with how well it moves people around?

Do you think most people are upset that costs are being kept under control by taking out a feature that is nice but provides no utility in exchange for more gates?

Community meetings next month. Show up or somehow voice concerns to the airport committee so they can address.

flyingember wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:23 am What’s wrong with an airport with a flat roof and no fountain? Does the shape of the roof have anything to do with how well it moves people around?

Do you think most people are upset that costs are being kept under control by taking out a feature that is nice but provides no utility in exchange for more gates?

I guess my goal wasn't to build the cheapest thing possible. If airlines wanted more gates, they should pay for more gates. Not strip everything down to its utilitarian core.

flyingember wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:23 am What’s wrong with an airport with a flat roof and no fountain? Does the shape of the roof have anything to do with how well it moves people around?

Do you think most people are upset that costs are being kept under control by taking out a feature that is nice but provides no utility in exchange for more gates?

Functionality is one thing and I have some concerns about how well this airport is designed post security to meet the needs of the traveling public (concourses look too narrow, seating looks limited, boarding space between gates is cramped, and lack of food/shop amenities). However, with renderings we're supposed to get a better impression of design and it is obvious that some of the initial design elements meant to inspire us a bit were just misleading. I don't agree with the idea that 99% of people who see renderings don't scrutinize them. That's what the general public does on just about everything these days. Sure 99% may not voice their concern publicly, everyone is a critic. Bottom line is that price went up, design went down and that shouldn't have to be a sacrifice when the price goes up by 25-30%. If they brought back the scalloped roof design, I suspect it would be enough to help this airport have its own slightly unique design. As it looks now, this could fit in any mid-market city and be unrecognizable in a few years. We can't let Edgemoor off the hook for this.

I think functionality will be great. Concourse widths seem to line up with what I consider a quality airport like PDX. Amenities look to be enough.

I do want more sexy than these pictures are showing... Mostly I want more of the roof to let in light. Whether it's the beginning design or not I don't care.

However, with renderings we're supposed to get a better impression of design and it is obvious that some of the initial design elements meant to inspire us a bit were just misleading

Price going up is a theme of just about every big project. Promise everything, scale back as the budget gets defined and what they build costs more. It's actually a well known aspect of big projects. https://www.citylab.com/life/2013/07/wh ... cted/6364/

How many times have you gone to the airport today and lamented the shape of the roof not being different? Is having an airport that would fit into any mid-sized city a bad thing? It would mean our airport isn't severely outdated.

And you can't complain the price went up and they cut a feature that adds to the cost without providing function. You can't complain about price and want the airport to be bigger when it was already increased in size which raised the price.

The concourses look like most other airports to me. Do you really think the airlines don't know exactly how much space is needed for people? There have been decades of studies around terminal design for KC that have helped define where the space is needed. Not everyone sits down. Remember, there's a large number of travelers that love being able to show up last minute and make their plane.

I get that prices are going up everywhere, we can't control that. Honestly, I do notice roof design quite often. Denver's roof is too low in most of the concourses, makes it feel more cramped than it really is. Sacramento's terminal has a nice sweeping scalloped roof and it it draws your eye to it. The new San Jose terminal also has nice high arched ceilings. Washington Reagan's ceiling is a point of pride and architectural wonder. Point is, flat roofs are boring and don't give the sense of space. We selected Edgemoor because they came to us selling a promise of a design that would showcase the city while meeting our functional needs. They showed us some initial wow factor and then took it all out. How are you not frustrated by that bait and switch. Even if that roof adds $50 million more (which would be insane), that's worth it to make building have a sense of uniqueness for the next 50 years. This is our front door to the city, an uninspiring airport isn't much of a welcome mat.

Agreed, a roof can make an airport very cool. I think we need to voice that to the airport committee.

PDX

Anyone know if Zahner is part of this team? I'm guessing they would have some cool ideas for the roof.

Question for architecture/engineer types...does a lot of clear materials in the roof make for more or less energy efficiency? Obv natural light helps with lighting costs but how expensive of "glass" do you need to make sure you aren't wasting a ton of energy to heat/cool?

https://youtu.be/iT5GFADp7yM. New Changi Terminal in Singapore with a flat roof.

mykem wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:58 am https://youtu.be/iT5GFADp7yM. New Changi Terminal in Singapore with a flat roof.

I want all of that stuff!

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?

+1

The new airport terminal is one of the biggest civic infrastructure projects in KC history - it needs to have some reasonable amount of wow factor in addition to being a pleasant and functional ticketing and plane-boarding box.

We need a Union Station for the 21st century and this is not it.

can someone point to a new terminal (similar sized city would be helpful) built since KCI that you say meets your standards?

Union Station isn't walking through that door.

I think that they could have avoided this pushback by stating a coherent image of what they want the airport to be. Instead it came across as, "ran out of money, sorry".

I just find it really weird to highlight toilets. Maybe they overindexed on what they heard from people about kci and lost sight of the design.

I mean imagine reading an article about a new terminal in any other city and they talk about the fucking bathroom doors opening out

I think you underestimate how much complaining there is about bathrooms. They highlighted the things they heard most about (close walk, bathrooms).

things I was pleased to hear about yesterday:

* Business lounge that could be shared among multiple airlines/credit cards programs....
* Front drive mostly covered (was concerned that went away)
* Good amount of space for security
* International gates to the immediate left could also be used for domestic (would have been a bit of a waste to have 4 gates so close and yet only usable to international
* Coming around on enough room for retail/restaurants
* Focus on greenspace around the airport
* USO

Things I'm holding out hope that are improved
* better pre-security retail
* better design elements
* Impactful design on garage facing as you drive in ...this is a no brainer for part of the 1% for arts
* Roof overall design

San Jose, Sacramento, Indy, Portland.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:24 am I think you underestimate how much complaining there is about bathrooms. They highlighted the things they heard most about (close walk, bathrooms).

But that's because kci is trash. The bathrooms are fine, but they're all before security. It was always a given that this would be fixed.

I don't know. I should stop complaining. I just expected more. I think the presentation was disappointing, and a company I supported earlier is now doing a poor job.