KCRag Forum

cityscape wrote:Right, but Southwest and the airlines said they preferred B&M.

Per the Business Journal they changed their minds privately:

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... e-now.html

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 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.

the polling results were positive when asked about a new terminal w/o public debt.

It doesn't appear the city just picked the lowest bidder, seems all the total amounts were around the same and AECOM had a cheaper overall and per month payment option. Seems like they went with the best financing option with Edgemoor using Meridiam.

I'm definitely going to be supporting this to all my KCMO voter friends...we need to get this 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.

"Why is an election necessary? Is it state law because bonds will be sold? Or is it because of a promise made by a former council? Or something else?"

Does no one else view the requirement for a vote on such an important eco-deco issues an anomaly? Charlotte-Douglas has been under nearly continual expansion for 30 years. Never a referendum. Now like #9 in US due to continual response to Piedmont/USAir/American needs for hub expansion. Why is referendum a necessity in KC? It's an important issue. Please. Some input. Thanks, WoodDraw.

Completely self-inflicted. Not technically needed, but promised. Hancock amendment has fucked us all for a long time whether it is legally applicable or not.

Hopefully after the election, pass or fail, the city moves control of KCI to the Port Authority or some similar entity.

If the vote is not "required" by anything other than a vote (wimp vote, I suspect, i.e. save our political asses) by a previous iteration of the Council, the current Council needs grow some, dump the promise and do what's right for the CSA of nearly 2.5 million people: new terminal.

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.

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.

The building trades will still be local, and I suspect that will carry the most sway with voters. Now, as long as the city council doesn't vote to scrap the recommendations and pick a new winner, we should be ok.

Losing out on a $1 billion project in your home town that you're entirely qualified for is a big blow though. I don't think they're getting much sympathy though which tells you just how poorly managed this was on their part.

Fair point. Add to that the fact that they lost a design competition that they initiated.

https://twitter.com/JoshBoehm/status/905605834796883969

Onsite cows at the new airport to provide methane for heating? (bottom of first image)

.

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?

lol, quite right and well done to all of what pash said.

I'd add, that we must remember where the conversation was before the "reset" and subsequent B&M proposal. Prior to that, there was STARK disagreement about renovation, rebuild, or doing anything at all. This disagreement was split among not just the public, but probably more importantly the council. The fact that we left the conversation last fall trying to convince the naysayers that we needed a new single terminal to awakening in the Spring talking exclusively about HOW we finance a new terminal is a bit of political genius. It is amazing how those LOUDLY stated arguments against a new terminal simply melted away to whispers after that proposal.

Think of B&M's handling of the situation as you will, but the only reason we were even able to get over the political hurdle of renovate or new is because of their "unsolicited" proposal.

Now, its not even a forgone conclusion that the council will even vote for the recommendation made yesterday OR that the public will then vote for that on the ballot (although that seems more likely as time passes). It will be interesting to see how all that shakes out. MORE DRAMA AHEAD!

kcjak 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?

Some people think the airport has 90 gates because someone decided to skip numbers and call one gate #90

One key way to sell this is to say it's going to be more efficient and put absolute facts into statements. Something like "replacing 30 gates in two terminals with a new, more efficient single terminal containing 35 gates" (fake gate numbers)

pash wrote:
But, no, I don't think B&M showed up at the behest of the council

Oh, Pash-shaw! They most certainly did. Not at the official behest of the body, but certainly at the behest of certain members of the body.

Edgmoor schedule says concept renderings and schematic renderings done before vote.

SOM is part of the Edgemoor team as the architects. Airports they've designed:
http://www.som.com/projects#markets=aviation&

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.

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.

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.