KCRag Forum

cityscape wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:31 am San Jose, Sacramento, Indy, Portland.

Sacramento opened in 2011 at a cost of $1billion for 740k sqft. Most purchasing happened between 2008-2010. (We will use 2009). It appears a lot of our purchasing will happen at least next year. So in 2019 dollars, Sacramento’s Terminal was $1.21 Billion for a terminal 70-75% the size of ours. $1,630 per sqft. The New KCI is $1,230 sqft. Sacramento is 33% more expensive per sqft.

On top of that Sacramento’s terminal was built on a surface parking lot and the grass midfield.i do not think think the demo of the existing terminal was included in their budget, but even then they were not demoting 3 solid thick concrete tubs.


Upon opening, Sacramento realized their terminal was way too expensive for their pax levels. SWA’s fee to the airport there shot up from $6 to $20. Other fees were levied and/or increased (Source:SFGate.com)

I still think the fountain should be re-thought...I mean, we are not talking about a fountain the size of JC Nichols, JFC. A cool interior fountain with LED projections would have been a hit for people new to the city taking pictures and whatnot. I mean, Kansas City is known as the city of fountains and we can't even have that?

I expect more too...I am just tempering my expectations at the "concept design complete" stage of the project.

Conceptual design is by definition "the broad outlines of function and form of something are articulated" (as per wikipedia)

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.

Probably the single best example that I have personally used is Indy. Expected something similar here.

New Orleans has yet to open their new north terminal but might be another decent example.

^ Sacramento included runway development. That’s a big cost.

KC_JAYHAWK wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:00 am I still think the fountain should be re-thought...I mean, we are not talking about a fountain the size of JC Nichols, JFC. A cool interior fountain with LED projections would have been a hit for people new to the city taking pictures and whatnot. I mean, Kansas City is known as the city of fountains and we can't even have that?

They literally said at the presentation an interior fountain location is still part of the plans it just couldn't go where the early pictures put it due to that space being needed for other things (guess the security gates)

rxlexi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:01 am

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.

Probably the single best example that I have personally used is Indy. Expected something similar here.

New Orleans has yet to open their new north terminal but might be another decent example.

To take your example, would we be happy with this roof?

God! Why are we always chasing Indy? I’m starting to develop a genuine hatred for that city.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:02 am ^ Sacramento included runway development. That’s a big cost.

All I can find is taxi way and apron development. Which appears to be minimal in comparison to what we are doing.

Indy looks a lot like a mall

I personally dislike that design except the height.

I can't think of one thing we chase Indy on.

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:23 am 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 thought the design aspects relating to cleaning were quite responsive to one of the worst aspects of the current airport.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:11 am I personally dislike that design except the height.

I can't think of one thing we chase Indy on.

It seems like every time a city comparable to KC is mentioned on here it’s always Indy. I don’t know if it’s because it’s a similar size and in the Midwest, but we need a better city to compare ourselves to.

agreed...we should in no way compare ourselves or strive to be Indy. We lapped them about 5 years ago from my experience there.

agreed...we should in no way compare ourselves or strive to be Indy. We lapped them about 5 years ago from my experience there.

I'm no huge fan of Indianapolis, but I wouldn't be so sure of this statement. Getting off topic, but - their heavy investments in downtown convention and sports infrastructure (both professional and amateur) has arguably paid off better than other midwest cities, with some nice wins like the Super Bowl, Final Fours, and poached KC-pride items like the NCAA HQ and FFA. They are on the final 20 list for Amazon HQ2 - neither KC nor STL made the cut.

Nice new airport terminal and the airport is also a major FedEx and maintenance hub. Beats most other rust belt regions in a variety of economic indicators. The Cultural Trail has been a major hit and nationally recognized. It's no utopian ideal of a midwest metropolis like say the Twin Cities, but to say we've lapped Indy is an overstatement.

RE: the airport roof, I thought the scalloped roof was beautiful, significantly more attractive than the Indy terminal. And it looked feasible, not a pie-in-the-sky crazy design element (like the two story fountain). To me it was integral to the overall airport design and would have been a pretty unique element to KC.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:02 am

KC_JAYHAWK wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:00 am I still think the fountain should be re-thought...I mean, we are not talking about a fountain the size of JC Nichols, JFC. A cool interior fountain with LED projections would have been a hit for people new to the city taking pictures and whatnot. I mean, Kansas City is known as the city of fountains and we can't even have that?

They literally said at the presentation an interior fountain location is still part of the plans it just couldn't go where the early pictures put it due to that space being needed for other things (guess the security gates)

Ok, I'll take your word on it, but on the news last night, can't remember the channel, but the airport committee spokes person said the fountain could be placed outside by the parking garage, which would be silly, especially in the winter, and the fact nobody would see it...lol.

Now back to the roof. Scalloped roof or no roof at all.

In the designs there was an outside roof too....it's at the end of the presentation based on a twitter question (from me) Jolie asked and they said they are still planning for an interior fountain....I'll go ahead and assume it won't be a 2 story crazy fountain that we saw in the original concept though.

I don't think anyone is up in arms over the loss of the fountain, but if one is built, there are plenty of other lower-cost options than one that requires pumping water up to the roof. And come 'cloud' art hanging from the ceiling would go a little ways to prevent it from looking like the inside of a Best Buy. Maybe Edgemoor stripping everything down so they could build up from a low bar and then blame the increased costs on community involvement.

I remain confident in SoM design standards

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:04 am

To take your example, would we be happy with this roof?

How is that roof bad? Do people go to the airport to look up inside? If anything a roof that lets me watch planes take off and land no matter the shape would be worth talking about. I liked the idea of a roof deck for this reason.

KC_JAYHAWK wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:00 am I still think the fountain should be re-thought...I mean, we are not talking about a fountain the size of JC Nichols, JFC. A cool interior fountain with LED projections would have been a hit for people new to the city taking pictures and whatnot. I mean, Kansas City is known as the city of fountains and we can't even have that?

I think a fountain would be interesting but it's not the kind of thing that is going to make or break how people view the city.
It's great for symbolism and that's about it. Remember, there's the big fountains on the approach road already that are super unique.

On the way to Galveston the freeway close into the city the median and streetlight poles undulate like ocean waves. It's a cool feature and totally forgettable. They spent money doing something different and it really doesn't have an impact. How many kids care what the concrete median looks like? How many kids care what shape the roof is?

Doing something more than a square box is little more than trying to design something in a "I'm better" contest no one ever wins. It's easily forgotten by visitors. Their experience with how easy it is to come and go is far more important.

In this sense the one comment I saw that has value is it didn't look like there was much seating space. This is something worth looking into.

Funny you mentioned Galveston. I was down there this summer and my wife and I commented on the waves of the concrete median. So, yes that caught our attention and I think that's the point of design. It's meant to soften things and not make structures so utilitarian. That's what most of us are upset with. Look at some of the internal design of the new terminal, there is no creativity there. Form and function. That's certainly needed, but again, with the airport being the front door to the city, we need good design to make the initial impression a good one. I'm not suggesting we bump the price by $200 million, but I think asking for 5-10% of the price tag to go towards a unique design is not ridiculous.