KCRag Forum

got my vote, but i can't shake how small it looks and feels. like it should be Wichita's airport.

AECOM has my vote if the 35 gate iconic version is chosen of their 4. The burns one is fine too but seems AECOM is doing more with the money...i haven't seen the other 2 proposals yet though.

I haven't been in ICT new terminal but that terminal is 272k sf. vs. these are coming in at 750k sf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_D ... al_Airport

shinatoo wrote:got my vote, but i can't shake how small it looks and feels. like it should be Wichita's airport.

Looked roughly comparable to Austin to me, which seems about right. Never been in Wichita's though.

Austin is 660k sf. and 25 gates....so the small AECOM version.

While the small AECOM version is cheaper and may fit us currently, that doesn't seem the route to go. Money is cheaper now, let's not pigeonhole ourselves into a terminal that may require expansion plans the day it opens.

New B&M Renderings

http://kcilovethisplace.com/wp-content/ ... -Final.pdf

KCPowercat wrote:Austin is 660k sf. and 25 gates....so the small AECOM version.

While the small AECOM version is cheaper and may fit us currently, that doesn't seem the route to go. Money is cheaper now, let's not pigeonhole ourselves into a terminal that may require expansion plans the day it opens.

Were all the AECOM versions in the video? I assumed the video was just one option that looked somewhat comparable in size to Austin to my completely untrained eye that had no idea what it was looking at. I mean, 660k vs 750k is at least more or less in the same ballpark, way closer to each other than Wichita anyway.

yeah I'm not sure....I posted that just more because I just found the info so thought I'd share.

Agreed on it looking similar...it seems like their proposal for 25 instead of 35 gates was more just extending the ends of the terminal building...and based on the site plan the pre-security area looked smaller and not as well designed.

Liking Acoms better. The B n M one will look dated sooner and doesn't incorporate enough natural light.

.

Does B and M's proposal also require you to go Up or Down some sort of bridge or change levels between security and the gates?

.

The bridge makes sense I guess and it's sexy. Even without it I like that proposal better as it seems like they even have the financing more figured out.

B&m proposal is like a really really long resume

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

http://media.kansascity.com/livegraphic ... CI-DVM.pdf

JLL plan. I like the linear terminal idea. Seems more feasible, but their proposal looks like I put it together. I'd like to see something more developed, especially if they are planning to turn dirt the day after the election. Also no financing plan.

The linear design would require tearing out a bunch of other buildings and seems the most likely to offer the longest possible distances.

I don't like it for that reason.

Not that it means anything, but AECOM's video uses the airport sound effect from SimCity 2000 in the beginning of the video. I just found that amusing.

shinatoo wrote:http://media.kansascity.com/livegraphic ... CI-DVM.pdf

JLL plan. I like the linear terminal idea. Seems more feasible, but their proposal looks like I put it together. I'd like to see something more developed, especially if they are planning to turn dirt the day after the election. Also no financing plan.

Is it just me or did the JLL plan look like a summer intern project? The PowerPoint was all sorts of font types,etc.

GRID wrote: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....

Go with BM. Keep the money in the city instead of shipping profits out. Will stimulate the economy more.

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