KCRag Forum

flyingember wrote:

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.

As I said, we are beyond that.

shinatoo wrote:

flyingember wrote:

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.

As I said, we are beyond that.

Go back and revisit that. It's beyond being workable to replace terminal A and B for airline needs.

But why couldn't Terminal C be expanded using this method and turned into something like aviation offices?

If you read Edgemoor's proposal, they suggest redevelopment of the old terminals is a major opportunity for KCI.

KCFan wrote:If you read Edgemoor's proposal, they suggest redevelopment of the old terminals is a major opportunity for KCI.

Link

KCMO.gov/newkci

WoodDraw wrote:

KCFan wrote:If you read Edgemoor's proposal, they suggest redevelopment of the old terminals is a major opportunity for KCI.

Link

I think it's around page 139 of their qualification proposal. Wasn't a whole lot of meat to what they thought about a new terminal, but a couple pages worth of comments. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0omgwnz1onob2 ... l.pdf?dl=0 http://kcmo.gov/airport-committee/

To me, even saving one of the existing terminals would have clear value. Even just expanding the semicircle could be a 500,000 square foot building.

KCFan wrote:If you read Edgemoor's proposal, they suggest redevelopment of the old terminals is a major opportunity for KCI.

In what capacity do they suggest? Just wondering how you re-purpose an airport terminal and keep the new use compatible with the on-the-tarmac airport location.

VML seem to be making it work

Just talked to a number of Northlanders who did not realize the airport was going to a vote. After seeing all the press coverage and private financing they thought it was just going to be built bc why would a private project need a city wide vote. Once I told them they do in fact have to vote on this they said they would. Apparently, they also had no idea that there even was a light rail vote last month (all said they would have gone and voted yes if they knew).

^ And no one was going to vote for Trump. Northlanders might be nice and say they would vote for the streetcar and a new airport, but the truth is, they either don't care or are anti-everything that doesn't directly affect them.

beautyfromashes wrote:^ And no one was going to vote for Trump. Northlanders might be nice and say they would vote for the streetcar and a new airport, but the truth is, they either don't care or are anti-everything that doesn't directly affect them.

It was a group of 20-30-year-olds(young people are usually pro light rail and such) who had no idea there were elections going on. My comment was more supposed to point out that we need to do better getting people aware of not only the elections we care about, but elections in general.

nothing causes me more rage than "not knowing elections are going on". get your head out of your fucking snapchat account and read the local news!

kceb snap ads!

Part of the problem is there are too many elections.

I call BS. You are either aware of what's going on or you are not. Life is complicated on purpose.

chingon wrote:Part of the problem is there are too many elections.

three a year? come on...

"But, I have an ultimate frisbee game that night!"

Bro do you frolf???!!!??

DaveKCMO wrote:

chingon wrote:Part of the problem is there are too many elections.

three a year? come on...

I will not. And neither, apparently, will like 92% of other eligible voters.