We need a new airport!!!
-
- Hotel President
- Posts: 3424
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I've relaxed my opinion after my initial online outrage phase. I think it was a poor presentation that lacked focus.
I hope they can clear up their design goals and come back next time with something that defines better what they want that isn't so airline focused. I guess I got too much of an airline and small KC focus to this.
Maybe less about toilets and more about innovation. Less wood and more glass. More experience and less number of steps and bathrooms
I hope they can clear up their design goals and come back next time with something that defines better what they want that isn't so airline focused. I guess I got too much of an airline and small KC focus to this.
Maybe less about toilets and more about innovation. Less wood and more glass. More experience and less number of steps and bathrooms
-
- New York Life
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:41 pm
- Location: Overland Park
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I did notice that we have glass jet bridges. That's a nice touch.
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3890
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:19 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Evidently, there will always be a soldier in view at the new airport.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
There's 7 open houses in September. Sounds like a good place to give constructive feedback.
https://goo.gl/forms/eRfFYiR17X5RrnLt2
https://goo.gl/forms/eRfFYiR17X5RrnLt2
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34168
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 7477
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Lots of clear material in the roof makes acoustics very challenging. In a space where announcements are important, it would be a less than ideal situation.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:56 am 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?
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34168
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: We need a new airport!!!
acoustics didn't' even occur to me....an airport must be a challenging space to design.
- GRID
- City Hall
- Posts: 17317
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: We need a new airport!!!
The original design of the roof looks 100 times better. I hope they can bring it back. It's not the end of the world if the main terminal is a box, but I was hoping for more of a wow factor.
- im2kull
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3986
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
- Location: KCMO
Re: We need a new airport!!!
They're called conceptual renderings for a reason. They're 99.999% make believe. Making any personal opinions about a project and your backing of it off of those is reckless.rxlexi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:35 am 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.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 7477
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
99.999% of the voting public doesn't know or understand that.im2kull wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:34 pmThey're called conceptual renderings for a reason. They're 99.999% make believe. Making any personal opinions about a project and your backing of it off of those is reckless.rxlexi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:35 am 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.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34168
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: We need a new airport!!!
"reckless"
-
- Hotel President
- Posts: 3424
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Yeah I'm not sure don't use their own pictures against them is going to win many arguments. Maybe we should rethink what party is reckless here lol.
"I can't believe those renderings I released were assumed to be accurate. I give you now, a Walmart."
-
- Oak Tower
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:50 pm
- Location: Mount Hope
Re: We need a new airport!!!
The original KCI ended up looking exactly what they went to voters with. Only thing missing from the renderings was the SST(american version of the concorde) flying in.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Correct me if I’m wrong.....
The proposed elevated section in the middle of the terminal structure (1972) didn’t happen. The 1972 terminals promised space for large planes like the 747 but didn’t deliver on that front. The 1972 terminals promised the ability to become the next North American Superhub which they didn’t turn out being able to handle. I guess you can say the current terminals generally delivered what they promised design wise but basically not in function at all. We all know how that has turned out for us. IMHO a design that provides the promised performance is better than just sticking to what you showed first.
The proposed elevated section in the middle of the terminal structure (1972) didn’t happen. The 1972 terminals promised space for large planes like the 747 but didn’t deliver on that front. The 1972 terminals promised the ability to become the next North American Superhub which they didn’t turn out being able to handle. I guess you can say the current terminals generally delivered what they promised design wise but basically not in function at all. We all know how that has turned out for us. IMHO a design that provides the promised performance is better than just sticking to what you showed first.
Last edited by normalthings on Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.
- TheLastGentleman
- Broadway Square
- Posts: 2962
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
There was also a version with an elevated section above the middle portion of the terminal.
P.S. why did planes park parallel?
-
- Hotel President
- Posts: 3424
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Have they admitted that their design wasn't practical though, or are they still claiming they're going to relocate the fountain and roof to a field?
This just seems to be an airport that's basic as fuck with no pushback from anyone involved.
The sprint center was paid for with use fees, and the renderings changed significantly, but I'm still happy with how it was built. This looks awful. I would have been embarrassed to put it out if I was the project manager.
This just seems to be an airport that's basic as fuck with no pushback from anyone involved.
The sprint center was paid for with use fees, and the renderings changed significantly, but I'm still happy with how it was built. This looks awful. I would have been embarrassed to put it out if I was the project manager.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
A fountain in the center of the entrance isn’t practical..... This is the concept design. Not meant to show the fine details and things. The purpose is much more to show massing and function.WoodDraw wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:24 pm Have they admitted that their design wasn't practical though, or are they still claiming they're going to relocate the fountain and roof to a field?
This just seems to be an airport that's basic as fuck with no pushback from anyone involved.
The sprint center was paid for with use fees, and the renderings changed significantly, but I'm still happy with how it was built. This looks awful. I would have been embarrassed to put it out if I was the project manager.
-
- Hotel President
- Posts: 3260
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:25 am
- Location: West Plaza
Re: We need a new airport!!!
In their presentation they did admit that the fountain design wasn't practical in its placement because they need that space for people. They did however say they still plan to include a significant water feature to highlight KC's fountains. They have not yet come up with where or what that is.WoodDraw wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:24 pm Have they admitted that their design wasn't practical though, or are they still claiming they're going to relocate the fountain and roof to a field?
This just seems to be an airport that's basic as fuck with no pushback from anyone involved.
The sprint center was paid for with use fees, and the renderings changed significantly, but I'm still happy with how it was built. This looks awful. I would have been embarrassed to put it out if I was the project manager.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
The bridge between the two concourses would be an interesting space for one.
Alternate windows and fountains running down the wall the entire length of it. Put LEDs behind the water that can be lit up to match what's going on downtown with lit up buildings.
Alternate windows and fountains running down the wall the entire length of it. Put LEDs behind the water that can be lit up to match what's going on downtown with lit up buildings.