CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[Jim in Chicago]

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

All of theses proposals are pretty stunning and they would be a vast improvement that I would be happy with although the SOM proposal is pretty bland in comparison. I am going to try to go to the Chicago Architecture Foundation Museum on Monday to view the models before I officially vote at https://voteord21.flychicago.com/com...s/default.aspx

Here is my list so far:
1. Calatrava-It is just spectacular. I like the garden concept for the hotel/parking areas although the garden as shown looks too formal. I would prefer a more natural aesthetic that makes use of more native plantings like some of the other proposals do in their landscaping but this is something that could be easily modified in the concept. The terminal building itself is awesome both inside and out and would create an unforgettable gateway to Chicago. My only criticism of the interior is that it could use more warmth to contrast with Calatrava's white skeletal structures. The use of some wood and stone accents would help as well as using a warmer and varied color pallet on the floor.
2. Gang-Very compelling form. I love the vaulted ceilings, use of wood, interior landscaping and support columns that suggest the form of trees. It does a good job at making the orchard theme...much better than the SOM design. I almost like this proposal as much as Calatrava's. I would be happy with Calatrava getting the main terminal and Gang getting the concourses or even visa versa.
3. Foster-Very solid design. I like the three arches along the road reducing to one large arch facing the runways. The huge vaulted ceilings letting in ample light, truss geometry, and copious amounts of open interior open space are all well done.
4. Fentress-I was surprised by this design and how much I like it. It along with the SOM and Gang proposals seems makes use of the Jahn designed canopies that were added recently. I like that it seems low slung and sprawling while at the same time seems to offer visual spectacle and be large enough and still offer vast skyward interior space. I like this almost as much as the Foster design.
5. SOM-Not bad but not spectacular like the other four. Would this be an improvement...certainly. However, this is probably the only design I would be disappointed with if selected. It tries to use the orchard motif like the Gang proposal but no where near as successfully. Outside it is kind of a bore. It would be solid and functional but not something that would leave a lasting impression and make you remember Chicago in a favorable way long after you depart.

Agree on all counts. I think Gang may have the edge - very much in the top of the pack and a home town architect. Grand slam.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by wchicity

Anyone else think it's kind if bizarre that they're going to go with two different designs for the main terminal and satellite concourses? To me it seems like that would lead to a weird hodge podge of different designs/experiences for those traveling through ORD.

Not really, they are entirely separate buildings connected only by an underground train. They don't need to be unified any more than Terminal 1 and 5 need to be unified. The weird part happens when the satellite concourse joins with the existing Helmut Jahn-designed Concourse C, but since Jahn isn't in the competition, no chance of a unified design there.

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

also seems like a loss of efficiency that could be gained by combining the project under 1 firm's umbrella. dont fully understand it either.

That depends on the phasing of the project. My guess is that the satellite terminals will open first, with a temporary security checkpoint in the parking garage linked by buses (resurrecting the virtual "Terminal 4") plus an expanded checkpoint in Terminal 1 using the pedestrian connection from Concourse C - very long walks. Then the old Terminal 2 can get torn down and rebuilt with a new train connection to the satellites. These phases will probably be separately bid, so those efficiencies may or may not pan out.

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

the SOM prairie looks nice but if you cant access it, not really seeing the big deal. it would be nice if they had outdoor seating or a big patio in warmer weather (that type of thing can make a huge difference when you have a layover).

The video specifically mentioned that courtyard gardens would be accessible. I assume the prairies between Terminals 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, would be accessible as well.

[aaron38]

I just can't get excited about an airport, not at all. Long gone are the days where families could go to see someone off or watch them land. Meet grandma at the gate and walk her out. Enjoy the space and amenities, relax, have fun.

Now it's just a battle. No one allowed unticketed, everything is horrible overpriced because you're captive, nothing is relaxed or enjoyable. Airports are not places to meet people or explore. It is a race to get in and out as quickly as possible while dodging around all the slow people.

I could care less what an airport looks like. What a giant waste of money.

And can we please not pretend that giant airport skylights will be anything but dirty and opaque after 6 months?

[Busy Bee]

Allright Debbie Downer. Not that some of what you say isn't true. Also, I'm sure they have considered how to maintain the glass.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Also, I'm sure they have considered how to maintain the glass.

thats a pretty big assumption. street facing windows will get washed, but i doubt the roof/skylights ever gets touched outside of a major maintenance issue

[Baronvonellis]

Anywhere to see the photos for free? I don't have access to Crains.

[lu9]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Anywhere to see the photos for free? I don't have access to Crains.

try googling the exact title of the article

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Now it's just a battle. No one allowed unticketed, everything is horrible overpriced because you're captive, nothing is relaxed or enjoyable. Airports are not places to meet people or explore. It is a race to get in and out as quickly as possible while dodging around all the slow people.

I could care less what an airport looks like. What a giant waste of money.

And can we please not pretend that giant airport skylights will be anything but dirty and opaque after 6 months?

I fly a lot. A well designed airport does not require you to dodge around slow people and when you are there for a few hours, it has pleasant spaces to wait, shop and eat. It seems like someone with your feelings should be MORE excited about a new airport design, not less.

Beyond that, Chicago is losing perhaps billions of dollars per year because it's difficult to connect to domestic flights from international locations at O'Hare. I find the possibility of Chicago becoming the BEST place to land from an international origin to be damn exciting as a city-booster and as someone who needs and wants to fly internationally myself.

Chicago also has too few gates to meet demand for the large jets that tie us to the global economy. I'm excited about improving our region's connectivity to the rest of the world.

All that stuff is exciting and anyone who doesn't think so has a lot of learning and listening to do. Since we need and are getting new gates and terminals anyway, I'd like them to look good. If you don't that's fine, I suppose. Thanks for sharing your opinions.

[Leveled]

I just wonder how much of a cluster this will make my travel into. Rebuilding an active airport.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I fly a lot. A well designed airport does not require you to dodge around slow people and when you are there for a few hours, it has pleasant spaces to wait, shop and eat. It seems like someone with your feelings should be MORE excited about a new airport design, not less.

Beyond that, Chicago is losing perhaps billions of dollars per year because it's difficult to connect to domestic flights from international locations at O'Hare. I find the possibility of Chicago becoming the BEST place to land from an international origin to be damn exciting as a city-booster and as someone who needs and wants to fly internationally myself.

Chicago also has too few gates to meet demand for the large jets that tie us to the global economy. I'm excited about improving our region's connectivity to the rest of the world.

All that stuff is exciting and anyone who doesn't think so has a lot of learning and listening to do. Since we need and are getting new gates and terminals anyway, I'd like them to look good. If you don't that's fine, I suppose. Thanks for sharing your opinions.

Looking at the proposals, where the selling points are trees and huge glass domes, it doesn't look like efficient people moving between gates is the highest priority.
And the only thing that excites me about paying $28 for an airport hamburger and beer is if corporate picks up the tab. On my dime, I don't eat and shop in airports. My son will never get to come in and see my plane and watch my plane take off. All the fun is gone from air travel and gussying up the terminal isn't going to change that.

[UPChicago]

I voted for Foster

[maru2501]

not sure why every new airport has to look like a rib cage these days

[Rizzo]

I looked at the models at CAC today.

The scale is incrediblely huge when you compare it to the existing terminals. When you consider gate seating and in-line amenities and concessions compacted in those existing terminals and then see million+ of proposed space devoted to something in the center of all that, it leaves me wondering.

[Kngkyle]

From the video. Damn.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Looking at the proposals, where the selling points are trees and huge glass domes, it doesn't look like efficient people moving between gates is the highest priority.
And the only thing that excites me about paying $28 for an airport hamburger and beer is if corporate picks up the tab. On my dime, I don't eat and shop in airports. My son will never get to come in and see my plane and watch my plane take off. All the fun is gone from air travel and gussying up the terminal isn't going to change that.

Your post is an inaccurate assessment of concession needs. Plenty of non-corporate folks dining and drinking. I’m annoyed with how packed airport food courts are and the takeover of seating occupied by suitcases during the afternoon and early evening. More space is desperately needed.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Allright Debbie Downer. Not that some of what you say isn't true. Also, I'm sure they have considered how to maintain the glass.

Probably many of the more ambitious designs will use ETFE to avoid the weight and material limitations of glass.

[jc5680]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Allright Debbie Downer. Not that some of what you say isn't true. Also, I'm sure they have considered how to maintain the glass.

How is the glass maintenance usually accounted for?

I fly about 45 weeks a year, and I am always kind of taken aback by the grime on the outside of portions of terminal 1, particularly the angled 'roof' sections you see just as you pull up to departures. Is it just that cleaning is the kind of thing that gets easily deferred or could it be that the design did not properly account for a way to do so? Some panels have looked bad for years.

With the very white and glassed roofed proposals (particularly the Calatrava one) I couldn't help but cringe a little at imagining how they would look with similar accumulations of dirt.

[rlw777]

I skipped right past the Calatrava proposal when I remembered he's never completed any project anywhere close to the estimated budget.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by maru2501

not sure why every new airport has to look like a rib cage these days

its definitely getting played out and its not just airports. see the Calatrava WTC, new CTA wabash station, etc. Is currently the "in" look for whatever reason

[BonoboZill4]

1.The Fentress one is solid, not too flashy, but definitely a design I could imagine seeing in real life and not going over budget, which is important to factor in.

2.The Foster design is beautiful, and I really like the massive open space shown in the video tagged as "theater to aviation" or whatever. Very neat

3.The Gang design is cluttered, messy, and I just really dislike in general. (I say this is a Jeanne fanboy too, disappointed in their submission) It basically has the worst elements of minimalism and naturalism on display, entirely missing the point of both design concepts.

4.SOM does what Gang was trying to do, still not my favorite, but a close second behind the Foster design (might also be thanks to the Hans Zimmer soundtrack they have playing, leading me to have biased view of it)

5.The Calatrava design is the best one in terms of what would we want if we were trying to live in Guardians of the Galaxy and had no budget constraints, but let's be real here. The other 4 proposals tried to be reasonable with what they could build and Santiago's team didn't even try. That thing would cost 4 times all the other projects lol

I'd take any of the designs really though, but if we had to narrow it down to three it would be Foster, SOM, and Calatrava in no particular order.