Per the Business Journal they changed their minds privately:cityscape wrote:Right, but Southwest and the airlines said they preferred B&M.
https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... e-now.html
Per the Business Journal they changed their minds privately:cityscape wrote:Right, but Southwest and the airlines said they preferred B&M.
the local business push isn't B&M getting this bid, it's http://betterkci.org/ and the like getting out to local business community the positives of a new airport....which they have done.KC_JAYHAWK wrote:We all have our own opinions and thoughts and that's great, but I think the committee just shot themselves in the foot. There may not be organized opposition, but we've all seen the polling results and this won't help sway those that want to save KCI or were on the fence. I'm guessing in October when polling starts again, the outcome will be even worse.
Remember, the city dropped the airport promotion process and came out and said, we need local businesses to push this endeavor. That's exactly what B&M did, along with Americo and JE Dunn. The City basically gave them an F U and went with the lowest bidder.
They would have received serious blowback for not taking low bid. Wash.KC_JAYHAWK wrote:We all have our own opinions and thoughts and that's great, but I think the committee just shot themselves in the foot. There may not be organized opposition, but we've all seen the polling results and this won't help sway those that want to save KCI or were on the fence. I'm guessing in October when polling starts again, the outcome will be even worse.
Remember, the city dropped the airport promotion process and came out and said, we need local businesses to push this endeavor. That's exactly what B&M did, along with Americo and JE Dunn. The City basically gave them an F U and went with the lowest bidder.
The local thing was wildly overblown. Part of what makes a design office a successful design office is the ability to understand what's best for their clients, no matter where they are. Certainly B&M, who has projects in Doha, understands that. And sometimes going with the out of towners can provide some insight that the locals couldn't. Someone local could have built an expansion of the Nelson or a new symphony hall, but they probably would not have achieved what Holl and Safdie did with the Bloch and the Kauffman. And if none of that's convincing, remember that the current KCI was a local design that's basically made expansion impossible.KC_JAYHAWK wrote:I was referring to the "casual" user of the terminal that like it the way it is, but would vote Yes for a new terminal knowing it was being designed, developed and built by primarily local firms that understand what is best for us, as a city. It will be a hard pitch to convince these people that an east coast company has their best interests in mind, therefore, I think it will get shot down.
Some people think the airport has 90 gates because someone decided to skip numbers and call one gate #90kcjak wrote:One of the local newscasts interviewed on the street asked why they were only going to build one terminal - why not replace all three? She said 'everyone is always talking about how people don't want to stick around our city - they just fly in and out. We need three terminals to keep people here longer!' WTF? And is it even possible people think that replacing KCI with a single terminal means downsizing everything by a third?
pash wrote:
But, no, I don't think B&M showed up at the behest of the council
It's not a stupid idea, but it doesn't fix enough problems like the luggage system and other belowground aspects to make building new a worse choice.shinatoo wrote:The roof on the San Francisco project is what I thought would be a good way to enclose the center portion (parking) of one of the current terminals. But I think we are beyond that.