Newest Airport Renderings (Kansas City, Overland, Denver: movers, theater, gated)

[kcbluesprings]

Originally Posted by viewwitharoom

The expansion at O'Hare is $10 billion. $1.5 billion doesn't go very far as it relates to airports. The existing airport was due for tear down decades ago. The airlines have little interest in investing in Kansas City and the airlines are footing the bill.

Perhaps that can change after the completion of the new one. I think they designed it in a way that it could expand later on if needed.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by kcmo

The renderings are not all that impressive, but I'm going to wait and see the real thing. I have a feeling it will turn out pretty nice. And yes KC_Retiree, it will be 1000 times better than the combination bus stop / bomb shelter the current terminal is.

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

My observation is, all airports tend to look alike anyway. If anything, the current KCI is one of the most unique airports around!

Second comment first: Yes, existing KCI is truly unique - or almost so: only one other airport in the world, Dallas/Fort Worth International, was designed using the "drive to your gate" concept pioneered at KCI...

...at the behest of KC's hometown airline, TWA. Unfortunately, it had two flaws that proved fatal, one a design flaw and the other brought about by circumstance.

The design flaw: The concourses are narrow, and arriving and departing passengers use the same level of the airport. By the time KCI was designed, most modern airports designed for jet travel had already separated arriving traffic from departing traffic in some way, either by putting the arrivals on a lower level (most new airports) or building separate baggage claim buildings (Philadelphia International, which was retrofitted).

The circumstantial development exacerbated the flaw. That was the installation of metal detectors prompted by the rash of airplane hijackings that took place in the 1970s. Those were installed for clusters of gates, thus defeating the purpose of the drive-to-your-gate design while taking up scarce concourse space by putting a good chunk of it out of the space available for circulation.

AIUI, TWA went back to the city after that latter development took place and asked if the city would build a terminal of a more traditional design (there was space: Terminal D was left unbuilt to accommodate future expansion). The city, pointing to all the money it spent building the one the airline wanted, refused. Not long afterwards, TWA moved its flight hub across the state to Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

The "bomb shelter" appearance is the result of the airport's Brutalist architecture. Brutalism has enjoyed severe public disfavor over the decades since it was popular among architects (which was in the 1970s, when KCI was built), and it remains widely reviled today, but among critics, Brutalism is having something of a Moment, and frankly, KCI is probably one of the more attractive Brutalist works extant, maybe even up there with the Washington Metro - and I think that has to do with its low-slung profile.

I think what all of you who are disappointed with the design are reacting to is the abundance of wood in the building. The departures hall and check-in area in particular resembles a shed because of this - it looks less permanent than the glass-steel-and-concrete structures we're used to seeing in these contexts. But wood is becoming a building material of interest now, thanks mainly to the development of cross-laminated timber (CLT) beams, which are as strong as steel and actually perform better than steel in fires because they char rather than buckle. Wood mid-rise office buildings are popping up in several cities, and CLT is being promoted as a more sustainable alternative to steel. But it also does look like a glorified shed to begin with, even minus the wood - it's basically a box with a big roof overhang over the departures road. We've built so many more visually interesting airports elsewhere (Denver International, Dulles International, the famed TWA terminal (now a hotel) at JFK, the new main terminal at Reagan National in DC, even LAX thanks to its iconic control tower) that this seems rather plain and boring.

But it does separate arriving and departing traffic, finally. That will keep it from becoming obsolete for a good little while.

[Weaubleau]

There is an infamous copy of the Kansas City Times that, on the same front page that is announcing the official opening of the new airport, has a headline on the lower portion of the same front page, reporting on a hijacking where guns were carried onto a plane and used to hijack it to Turkey, essentially rendering the brand new airport obsolete on the very day it opened.

[elkotronics]

I think what all of you who are disappointed with the design are reacting to is the abundance of wood in the building. The departures hall and check-in area in particular resembles a shed because of this - it looks less permanent than the glass-steel-and-concrete structures we're used to seeing in these contexts. But wood is becoming a building material of interest now, thanks mainly to the development of cross-laminated timber (CLT) beams, which are as strong as steel and actually perform better than steel in fires because they char rather than buckle. Wood mid-rise office buildings are popping up in several cities, and CLT is being promoted as a more sustainable alternative to steel. But it also does look like a glorified shed to begin with, even minus the wood - it's basically a box with a big roof overhang over the departures road. We've built so many more visually interesting airports elsewhere (Denver International, Dulles International, the famed TWA terminal (now a hotel) at JFK, the new main terminal at Reagan National in DC, even LAX thanks to its iconic control tower) that this seems rather plain and boring.

Hey, thanks, MarketStEl, for that lesson on CLT beams that char rather than buckle in fires. Nice to know about that. I remember all the airport talk in KC when we were still there in 2016-2017.

[lovekcmo]

I just got back sunday night from a roundtrip Southwest flight, what a mess that terminal is and you walk as much from bag drop to security to your gate as you do in much larger airports, yet in those larger airports it's better because you have places to sit, eat and go to the restroom easily. The only plus KCI/MCI has over other airports is that smokers, I'm one, have the easiest walk to get outside and smoke while waiting for our baggage to arrive. Love that part about KCI, easily accessible to smoke.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

I just got back sunday night from a roundtrip Southwest flight, what a mess that terminal is and you walk as much from bag drop to security to your gate as you do in much larger airports, yet in those larger airports it's better because you have places to sit, eat and go to the restroom easily. The only plus KCI/MCI has over other airports is that smokers, I'm one, have the easiest walk to get outside and smoke while waiting for our baggage to arrive. Love that part about KCI, easily accessible to smoke.

I love KCI the way it was before the construction. It is a big mess now Construction everywhere. I have resigned myself to the fact that we are going to have a new airport. But I am going to miss being able to park and walk across the street to my terminal, easy in and easy out.

[KC_Retiree]

Originally Posted by luzianne

I love KCI the way it was before the construction. It is a big mess now Construction everywhere. I have resigned myself to the fact that we are going to have a new airport. But I am going to miss being able to park and walk across the street to my terminal, easy in and easy out.

It's been a big mess for years because there simply isn't enough space behind security (among other issues that ranks it annually as one of the nations worst airports).

Construction is short lived. It's not permanent. And if you look at the renderings of the new terminal, you will notice a very large parking structure directly across the street from the terminal. Your ability to park directly across the street from the terminal will not change.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by KC_Retiree

It's been a big mess for years because there simply isn't enough space behind security (among other issues that ranks it annually as one of the nations worst airports).

Construction is short lived. It's not permanent. And if you look at the renderings of the new terminal, you will notice a very large parking structure directly across the street from the terminal. Your ability to park directly across the street from the terminal will not change.

Parking across from the terminal won't change. But easy of getting to your gate after you get to the terminal will.

[KC_Retiree]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Parking across from the terminal won't change. But easy of getting to your gate after you get to the terminal will.

The result will be a much better airport and experience for everyone. You may have to walk a little more but it will not be much. KCI is not a hub and it serves a mid-sized city that is not a holiday destination. Those three things pretty much always translate into relatively low volume airports that are very convenient.

[lovekcmo]

Originally Posted by KC_Retiree

The result will be a much better airport and experience for everyone. You may have to walk a little more but it will not be much. KCI is not a hub and it serves a mid-sized city that is not a holiday destination. Those three things pretty much always translate into relatively low volume airports that are very convenient.

the new terminal will be a much better experience in many ways. Terminal B/C both do look like a bus terminal that many non-residents compare it to. If KC had rebuilt/made a new terminal years ago, we would probably be better off and probably would have more non stop flights than we do now. KC is never going to be a "hub" so the new terminal will not be overwhelming.