We need a new airport!!!

[hartliss]

Like them all for various reasons, even the practical ones. Unless there is a significant benefit not to go local, go local.

I am not a finance major by any means, but the fact that Aecom can secure a better financing package and lower the annual payment by 15.4 million. Quote from page 6 of their proposal: generate $462,000,000 in savings based on KCI Partnership’s financial Proposal, This has to count for something.

While B&M is "local", I suspect Aecom will use just as many local firms as B&M. While I am all about local, B&Ms approach to putting the PR heat on the city and residents has turned me off. Mailers, full page ads, etc - seems like a class president election.

[cityscape]

Just read through them (skimmed B&M's mostly). First thoughts are that this is really between AECOM and B&M. JLL's unique idea of design may sound more practical, but really would mean more walking and less convenience for the passenger. I personally liked B&M's better than AECOM's, but that's just personal preference. The whole sky bridge for AECOM is a joke. It looks cool and offers a unique vantage point, but I guarantee folks will start complaining once it opens that their flight is on the other side of the bridge and how annoying it is to go up and down. This was where I liked B&M's boulevard style of connecting bridge. Didn't just feel like a bridge, it looked more enjoyable and less utilitarian. What I really took away from all of this was that B&M has really put a LOT of work into this and didn't just come up with some fancy pictures. If you read through the report, they spent a lot of time talking about potential issues and how they plan to solve them. It makes me feel like they would have the upper hand in getting this project started sooner than anyone else. That could be a major deciding factor for the commission. 6 months to a year earlier opening would be a big deal.

[hartliss]

Just read through them (skimmed B&M's mostly). First thoughts are that this is really between AECOM and B&M. JLL's unique idea of design may sound more practical, but really would mean more walking and less convenience for the passenger. I personally liked B&M's better than AECOM's, but that's just personal preference. The whole sky bridge for AECOM is a joke. It looks cool and offers a unique vantage point, but I guarantee folks will start complaining once it opens that their flight is on the other side of the bridge and how annoying it is to go up and down. This was where I liked B&M's boulevard style of connecting bridge. Didn't just feel like a bridge, it looked more enjoyable and less utilitarian. What I really took away from all of this was that B&M has really put a LOT of work into this and didn't just come up with some fancy pictures. If you read through the report, they spent a lot of time talking about potential issues and how they plan to solve them. It makes me feel like they would have the upper hand in getting this project started sooner than anyone else. That could be a major deciding factor for the commission. 6 months to a year earlier opening would be a big deal.

How will the city handle/treat Aecom's better financing proposal? In their PDF they claim that B&Ms plan would fall short in later years and then other sources of revenue would have to be generated somewhere to cover the shortfall.

[KCPowercat]

The AECOM plan we should pick isn't any cheaper. It is choosing how the are presenting that.

Their financing does seem like a better defined and economical one.

That JLL plan is embarrassing

[shinatoo]

Still not sure I understand why they didn't close Term C and build over there to take advantage of the proximity to the rental car building and the long term lots.

[shaffe]

I looked through the B&M proposal but had a hard time finding any actual renderings. Can somebody point me to where in the 300+ pages they are?

Of the 3 proposals I like AECOM's "iconic" terminal best I think.

[hartliss]

I looked through the B&M proposal but had a hard time finding any actual renderings. Can somebody point me to where in the 300+ pages they are?

Of the 3 proposals I like AECOM's "iconic" terminal best I think.

Here ya go, all 367 pages: http://kcilovethisplace.com/wp-content/ ... -Final.pdf

[GRID]

Wow, I love the AECOM design. I actually don't like the B&M nearly as much. It seems too 1960's or something.

I liked Aecom's as well. It will be interesting to see how the city responds and if they will go "against" the hometown team....

Either one would be an amazing improvement. IT just seems like the B&M proposal seems a bit dated, but they are preliminary renderings so you probably can't base too much off that.

I have relatives that live in KC and they actually seem rather annoyed by the B&M media blitz. I think they may have gone a bit too far with that and actually opened the door themselves for people to be more open to outside firms.

It would be nice for a local firm to get the job so they can re-invest any profits back into the community, but I don't see much of a difference with this large of a project. If anything, it could even out because there will be a lot of fresh people coming and going constantly. Lots of local firms will be contracted, but there will be many flights, hotels etc filled up as well. And AECOM may end up opening a permanent office in KC after doing a large job there. IT happens all the time.

As a former B&M employee, I would love to see them get it though. They are a great local company and one of the few that have not played the (we will move to Kansas game). But they have to "deserve" the project. The best proposal should win the job. And for all I know they could have the best proposal.

[KCFan]

I liked AECOM's fly through video....really surprised B&M didn't take the time to do that. I'm certainly much more open to AECOM's plan now and it looked nicer than the few renderings we got from B&M. My only thing is I think B&M probably has to get this to have any chance of passing at the ballot box. We're going to need every vote we can get so that local connection and advocacy will be huge. If I thought both proposals would pass at the ballot box, I'm not sure which way I would go? Obviously I want the local firm, but if I threw that out, I probably would rather have AECOM's KCI. I want an airport that's beautiful. I loved the KCI and large screens on the parking garage. Loved the fountain and gathering areas inside and while I do think people would complain about having to take an escalator up and down, I liked the way the arch looked and felt like it gave the airport some character. I was hoping for a little more from B&M.

[beautyfromashes]

How will the city handle/treat Aecom's better financing proposal? In their PDF they claim that B&Ms plan would fall short in later years and then other sources of revenue would have to be generated somewhere to cover the shortfall.

Can you explain this? I know AECOM said their financing was better in the Star article, but B&M said after that was published that was a comparison to the maximum cost that the airlines would allow, a number that B&M was much lower than in their latest proposal.

[horizons82]

FWIW, AECOM has a local office at Crown Center. They just aren't headquartered here like B&M. Beyond that, anybody can tell you that on a project like this, A&E is a tiny sliver of the budget, the whole "local" thing is just good spin by B&M backers.

I'd be more than happy with either AECOM or B&M. I agree with other's though, AECOM's proposal is far more aesthetically pleasing and looks more infused with KC culture. Which is ironic given how many architecture firms are "involved" with Burns&Mac's proposal.

[kcjak]

How will the city handle/treat Aecom's better financing proposal? In their PDF they claim that B&Ms plan would fall short in later years and then other sources of revenue would have to be generated somewhere to cover the shortfall.

Can you explain this? I know AECOM said their financing was better in the Star article, but B&M said after that was published that was a comparison to the maximum cost that the airlines would allow, a number that B&M was much lower than in their latest proposal.

I have a problem not getting caught up in flashy pictures and renders instead of treating them as concepts, but anyone else afraid that if B&M gets the contract they'll be back at that maximum cost, and initial renderings will be scaled back; we'll be left with a bare-bones terminal at the maximum cost? Remember the bid for Sprint Center when the local group brought out an rough draft to upend the Frank Gehry team? People were wowed by an exterior design that was never going to be affordable, then we end up with a no frills exterior, sub-par entry plaza and native grasses instead of fountains?

I'm pretty satisfied with all of the proposals, except the one from JLL that appears to have been put together by a high school civics class - although I do like the concept of connecting to the Marriott.

[beautyfromashes]

B&M will get it and they'll 'modify' their design to incorporate the cool aspects of the other designs.

[kboish]

I don't see how AECOM's proposal offers a better financing package. There plan offered four potential terminal build options:

1. 35 gates with bells and whistles- same exact cost that has been discussed
2. 35 gates stripped down- minimal savings.
3. 25 gates (w/ potential to expand to 35 gates) and bells and whistles- significant savings.
4. 25 gates (w/ potential to expand to 35 gates) with no bells and whistles- HALF A BILLION in savings!!!

Sooo, basically they're saying if you want to save a bunch of money...build less. Seems like a bit of a marketing ploy.

Edit: here are their cost estimates

[kboish]

I agree though, AECOM's design looks way better.

[KCPowercat]

How they would finance any amount seemed more defined and secured. They had many options which makes me feel they have a better chance of executing the private financing

Jobs and money will still for the most part stay local. B&m profit is really the only difference

[kboish]

How they would finance any amount seemed more defined and secured. They had many options which makes me feel they have a better chance of executing the private financing

Jobs and money will still for the most part stay local. B&m profit is really the only difference

How they finance it doesn't really matter. Annual payments are what matter and those would be basically the same.

[KCPowercat]

It matters if they can't secure the amount in the quick timeframe at the rate proposed

[KCPowercat]

Much like you don't buy a car with only the monthly payment in mind. You'll end up with junk and exactly the payment you asked for

[kboish]

Fair point, especially since B&M's whole pitch seems to be speed of delivery.