Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue
No. US is already full of ugly, need more pretty. Land in Frankfurt and everything is very nice and pretty, and then land in Newark or LGA and what do you see? Utilitarian infrastructure, outdated highways and bridges, crap terminals. Beauty is important whether you like it or not. Efficiency leads to a dull environment. We don't want to look like trash and have people viewing America in a bad light. Image is important.
Let's not fall further behind the rest of the developed world in looks. Urban America is ugly enough because philistines and bean counters have built it for efficiency rather than charm. Sorry, but a good looking airport is a big deal for NYC and its reputation as a global world city. It doesn't have to be a Shanghi or HK, but it has to be reasonably nice. And this terminal isn't even that beautiful, it's an OK terminal in comparison to European beauties and Asian palaces. Do yo ureally want to make it some kind of greyhound terminal. This is NYC, not podunkville.
|
LGA and Newark are usually dead last in the entire US when it comes to things like on-time departures. They're the least utilitarian airports in the country because the entire utility of an airport is getting you on in the air on schedule. These airports aren't just ugly.. they're dysfunctional. Would it be nice if they were more beautiful? Of course. But so long as NYC infrastructure costs 10x as much as the rest of the developed world we're stuck with a reality where every Billion dollars wasted on form is a Billion that can't be spent on function. At the end of the day this is where every discussion on NYC infrastructure must ultimately lead.. to the importance of breaking the corrupt unions and their political cronies.