KCRag Forum

flyingember wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:15 pm

The project is still in the early stages of design, and Edgemoor managing director Geoffrey Stricker said the team has found $140 million of savings and could possibly make other changes that could lower costs as well. The $1.5 billion does not include the costs of financing.

Thanks. I understand how this works. And this quote makes my point. They've value engineered the project by $140 million and are still looking for additional reductions.

But we'll have one hell of a public art package, though!

Again, why is that a bad thing? 99% of people want to be in the airport as little as possible.

flyingember wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:46 pm Again, why is that a bad thing? 99% of people want to be in the airport as little as possible.

As a business traveler and someone that spends a great deal of time in airports, the quality does matter. But thanks for clarifying that you don't care about the architectural design or the passenger experience related to amenities and the overall environment. Glad we could clear it up and at least we understand each others positions moving forward.

MidtownCat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:19 am I love the comment above about wait until they get into schematic design and we have a better handle on their glazing and furniture package. That’s hilarious.

I love how condescending you are. That’s hilarious.

I’m saying the renderings are shit (as I’ve said on plenty of projects) and details do make a difference. No, not between average and great. It’s still going to be a middling design...but the details can make it above average experience instead of just average, or sub-par.

MidtownCat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:19 amHere’s a little edification. When you go developer led design/build delivery on a $1.5 billion project, you set your design and lock in pricing at concept. They have already gone through multiple design and pricing iterations. Hence, why all the notable design characteristics like the unique scalloped roof and experiential grand lobby space have been removed.

Here’s a newsflash, the design ain’t getting better from this point forward. What you see in the renderings is going to be very close to what we are getting.

As an architect I’d say you’re only partially right. On a design/build, design is often done in tandem with construction. There’s still a lot of design work to do.

You’re using a lot of loaded terms like “experiential grand lobby”, the lobby is the same general design as it’s been from the start except for the fountain and roof. It’s always been average.

MidtownCat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:19 am This is a bad design.

You bitch in nearly every comment you post. I’m impressed...almost.

horizons82 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:22 pm
As an architect I’d say you’re only partially right. On a design/build, design is often done in tandem with construction. There’s still a lot of design work to do.

You’re using a lot of loaded terms like “experiential grand lobby”, the lobby is the same general design as it’s been from the start except for the fountain and roof. It’s always been average.

As an architect you would know that if you’re value engineering close to $150 million at schematic and looking to cut more, the design isn’t going to magically get better.

And yes, the design has always been average. The problem is that the roof and the main grand lobby were the two signature design features that made it palatable. And the bigger problem is that it gets more mediocre every public presentation.

Where's the fountain?

kboish wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:08 pm Where's the fountain?

They removed it ages ago, and are still cutting.

The new talking point is that 1% for the arts with provide "color" to the project.

It's going to be very bare bones.

There is still a fountain they have said but it didn't work logistically in the middle of the lobby where security lines need to be.

Makes sense.

No matter how people try to twist things or defend this design, it has to be one of the most boring, un-inspiring, uninteresting major airport terminal projects I have seen in any city anywhere in the world. There is absolutely nothing architecturally interesting about this design. The renderings are bad (they look like something an intern spent 45 minutes throwing together), but you can get the basic ideas from them.

I think it's great that KC is finally getting a new terminal but I'm pretty disappointed that it's going to be so bare bones. Did they really even need to hire an airport terminal architectural firm if all they were going to do is throw up a big box with a flat roof and a bunch of "off the shelf" designs for everything else (gates etc)?

It will still be a million times better than the current terminal.

GRID wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:00 pm No matter how people try to twist things or defend this design, it has to be one of the most boring, un-inspiring, uninteresting major airport terminal projects I have seen in any city anywhere in the world. There is absolutely nothing architecturally interesting about this design. The renderings are bad (they look like something an intern spent 45 minutes throwing together), but you can get the basic ideas from them.

I think it's great that KC is finally getting a new terminal but I'm pretty disappointed that it's going to be so bare bones. Did they really even need to hire an airport terminal architectural firm if all they were going to do is throw up a big box with a flat roof and a bunch of "off the shelf" designs for everything else (gates etc)?

It will still be a million times better than the current terminal.

Yeah, a car that runs is better than one broken down on the side of the road, it’s just disappointing that’s the bar of expectation.

Nobody thought or expected something world class like Minneapolis or Denver, but damn, I never thought we would be basically settling for a big version of the Wichita airport.

^ A bigger version of Wichita's new terminal would be huge improvement honestly.

GRID wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:42 pm ^ A bigger version of Wichita's new terminal would be huge improvement honestly.

I’m not ready to throw in the towel yet, but we’re inching closer with every round of new watered down design presentations.

I think the only thing that might help is the 1% for art. Outside of that, this is basically going to be the most generic airport terminal ever built. I just hope the city finds a way to apply the 1% for art in a way that actually enhances and improves the terminal and is not just a bunch of nonsense slapped onto the property somewhere.

MidtownCat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:54 pm As an architect you would know that if you’re value engineering close to $150 million at schematic and looking to cut more, the design isn’t going to magically get better.

VE can be cut from both front of house and back of house. In a project as engineering-heavy as an airport, it's a good bet that a large amount of those cuts will never be noticed by the average traveler. Plenty of the cuts will though! Only a tiny fraction of projects don't get VE'd. SOM is well versed enough to know that was coming. What Pollyanna out there didn't think that would happen?

As a business person you'd know Edgemoor was chosen for their financials, not the design. I feel like people forget that. This was always about the money and what the real client, Southwest, wanted. And Southwest clearly has a type, see: Houston Hobby, Midway in Chicago, or Dallas Love Field.

My whole original point is we still do not have enough information to determine the quality level, other than it's going to be in the mid-range. Anything outside of that is purely speculation.

GRID wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:00 pm I think it's great that KC is finally getting a new terminal but I'm pretty disappointed that it's going to be so bare bones. Did they really even need to hire an airport terminal architectural firm if all they were going to do is throw up a big box with a flat roof and a bunch of "off the shelf" designs for everything else (gates etc)?

You're right, these renderings are bad, especially compared against SOM's own renderings. That's why I'm saying the renderings are almost hindering the perception more than they're clarifying.

For example, look at this rendering:


- The wood texture on the ceiling is undefined. Is it a laminated panel? Wood planks? Who knows! It's wood-esque...
- The tile is a grey mass. Terrazzo? Tile? Who knows!
- When's the last time you saw airport signage that minimalist?
- There's no lighiting in the lobby! The only lights shown is some strip lighting above security.
- What's that on the wall? Sandstone? Marble tile?
- How's that glazing being joined? Mullions? Butt glazed? Spider glazing?

You get the point. The design can go a number of different ways, but there needs to be more detail, either written or rendered.

I mean it seems like it's going to be about on par with every mid sized city airport terminal built lately. There is nothing sexy or interesting about PDX, AUS, IND is there?

Interesting modern architecture generally requires expensive materials and/or expensive forms. As the evolution of this project has so dramatically demonstrated, once you strip those away, all that's left is a box.

I fear that wall where it says "all gates" will be that ugly stuff they are putting up now at the current terminal when they build 1 stall bathrooms.

this stuff


Making that wall rock would be pretty neat.

I agree with most of the above. I just hope people remember the political leadership that led us here. No one campaigned for a beautiful airport. They were scared to even mention it with a vote, and even after the vote passed overwhelmingly, they're still scared.

We're waisting money on financing because the city is so stupid. [edit] this appears to be wrong [/edit]

There was no political leadership to make this a good airport. Compare that to the Sprint center, or power and light, or private initiatives like the performing arts center or Nelson Atkins.

This project has had a complete lack of leadership and it shows in what we ended up with.

People thought P&L was ugly when built and the Sprint Center was value engineered from its original rendering. The PAC is missing its entire third hall.

Now no one cares because they’re super functional as they are. The PAC look is super nice from the nkrth but I find the south side to be lazy at best and it really doesn’t matter.

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:22 pm I agree with most of the above. I just hope people remember the political leadership that led us here. No one campaigned for a beautiful airport. They were scared to even mention it with a vote, and even after the vote passed overwhelmingly, they're still scared.

We're waisting money on financing because the city is so stupid.

There was no political leadership to make this a good airport. Compare that to the Sprint center, or power and light, or private initiatives like the performing arts center or Nelson Atkins.

This project has had a complete lack of leadership and it shows in what we ended up with.

I believe the city is not moving ahead with the private financing option because it was a stupid idea.

https://fox4kc.com/2019/03/07/nearly-1- ... -terminal/