Good job KC!

Discuss new retail, dining, business, residential projects, or urban affairs in the areas of Missouri outside Metro St. Louis.
First unread post386 posts
Hadn't seen this posted yet.

Drury plans a 242-room hotel near KC's City Hall

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... -hall.html

Does this increase or hamper the chances of the Drury tower on the Landing? Or unrelated?
bwcrow1s wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:02 am
Hadn't seen this posted yet.

Drury plans a 242-room hotel near KC's City Hall

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... -hall.html

Does this increase or hamper the chances of the Drury tower on the Landing? Or unrelated?
Completely unrelated to the Laclede's Landing project. I know Drury is waiting to see how the Peper Lofts and that other conversion goes for residential on the landing till they unveil their vision. I wish the design was more Urban though.
The new KC Airport renderings were just finalized and released. The airport has got to be one of the most underwhelming and blah (ugly) airport designs I have ever seen. WTH? This is what 1.4 billion bucks buys? Sad! It is now opening end of 2022 and almost 12 months behind schedule ( and will most likely not open until 2023 realistically). The only feature of the original design that was unique was the center falling fountain in the check-in hall and it has been nixed (due to "installation issues). Now that area will be a lower ceiling area with skylights and a "performance space".

If I was getting this is KC, I would be furious and embarrassed. But, this is what the KC council / gov't. picked.



https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/a ... 05495.html

https://fox4kc.com/2018/08/16/aviation- ... c-airport/
Yeah, looks pretty bad. As one of the KC commenters said, it looks like the big-box-store of airports. Fortunately, nobody will be able to see the terminal because it's hidden behind the massive parking garage.
........
ldai_phs wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:43 pm
2 Important Points.

1. This is not the final design. The design is still far from being finalized.

2. A fountain in the central area of the head house is a logistical nightmare. This was the reason for its removal in the city council presentation today.

3. These renderings are really just trying to show massing and passenger flow.
Let me put it this way... the initial plans went from mediocre to worse. This IS the airport KC is getting and it is really ashame, ugly to say the least.

As for final plans... 2 weeks is the timeline....
according to KCUR and SOM;

"SOM hopes to finalize the concept designed by the end of August so they can present a package to the airlines for budget approval.

There will also be a project review with The Transportation Security Administration in the first week of September." August 16, KCUR


Nothing is going to get better in 2 weeks.

What's worse is the timeline and the amount of money this is costing. unbelievable.

The place looks like a mall from 1980.

THE STRUCTURE DESIGN IS DONE. NOW KC PUBLIC WILL HAVE SEPTMEMBER TO GO TO 5 MEETINGS. THEIR INPUT WILL BE INTERIOR AND PARKING GARAGE COLORS AND BATHROOM DESIGNS. :o :lol:

The news also said council members believe the biggest excitement the public will have is about the toilets and the public can weigh in on those and colors for the parking garage in the next few weeks.

From a practical standpoint, travelers should be pleased to learn Edgemoor has included double the number of bathrooms (130) compared with the current set-up (63) after the security gate.

We can have individuals go in and talk to the designers and say okay, I see that you've got this bathroom set up this way. Have you thought about x, y and z? I think people are really going to love having that sort of interaction," Councilwoman Jolie Justus said.

Other details, such as color schemes for the parking garage and other minutiae, also could change as the project continues to evolve during the next four years before a planned opening." KSHB August 16


Every media outlet is touting that the public should be excited about more bathrooms. Those things should be like the fricken Taj Mahal at this price.

This place is a joke and so sadly so for KC.
You know what's really funny? SOM shows absolutely none of the new renderings on their website. (I also find it funny they DO have prominent renderings of Saarinen's Dulles ticketing hall. Okay, they added bays to each end. They made it longer. But . . . it's still fundamentally not an SOM design. And sure, every architect does that. And I actually have a fair amount of respect for SOM. They know their stuff. Better than most of the "starchitects" out there these days.)

But back to KCI. Yeah, the exterior is, meh, hidden behind a garage and a lot less interesting than it was. But 1.4 billion is probably not a terrible price tag. Keep in mind, this includes all the fueling system, drainage, taxiway, and ramp improvements. All the site work. Should be all the demo too. Not just the underwhelming terminal.

And the interior spaces aren't that bad. They're typical contemporary small airport. Kind of like T2. They're no worse from what I can see than any American airside I can think of. Small, but . . . That's what it's supposed to be. If we built new we'd get little better. We're really quite lucky to have what we do. And as bland as that new terminal is, it'll probably be a better place to wait airside than what they have now. What do my KC friends complain about most at KCI? . . .

The bathrooms.

I actually like the current landside, but I've never been airside there, so I can't really speak to that. I'll trust that it's probably as grim as the locals say it is.

To compare the prices I googled around a little on the three airports they used for comparisons. Those feel about right, actually. Similar sizes. All newer and ground up clean-build terminals. I'm just looking at pictures and street-views as I've not been to any of them, but I've been to enough airports I think I can at least guess.

Adjusted for inflation the Indianapolis midfield terminal was 1.3 billion. Same idea, more or less, but I think without the demolition aspect. It's a little prettier from the outside, but about the same size, nearly identical configuration (especially when you look at the original SOM proposal), and also very much buried behind a giant parking garage.

The new terminal at Ralleigh-Durham was cheaper at an inflation adjusted 650 million. And that is on the site of something they had to knock down. So maybe there's a way to save money. I'd say it's a bit better, but it's nothing special either. That probaboly comes down mostly to taste. And it's also utterly dwarfed by a mammoth parking structure and completely invisible until you're pretty well on top of it. From the pictures on Google it's not too bad, but . . . I wouldn't trade for it.

Next up is Southwest Florida. Dear lord does that look like a mall. Worse yet, it looks like a 60s mall that got an 80s facelift, complete with linoleum tile and awful acoustic tile drop ceilings. It supposedly opened in 2005 but the layout looks more or less identical to Lambert's . . . in 1960. Three concourses in the same places. Three checkpoints. And from the pictures on Google the airside looks like LaGuardia's terminal B. Seriously. And this? It cost 580 million in current dollars, which, again, probably doesn't include demo. There was an older terminal, but it was way the heck on the other side of the runway. I can't imagine the demo was a part of the bid. I'd take KCI as it stands now over that. Unmodified. Untouched. Sure. It's cheap. And it looks it. The new KCI should be way the heck better than that.

And Lambert is vastly better still. There are apparently a lot of really mediocre and underwhelming airports out there. We're just accustomed to flying through the big kids. Lambert now, though old, is better than any of the other medium hub airports perhaps precisely because it isn't really a medium hub airport. It's landmark grade starchitect stuff. (At least T1, anyway.) Kind of like Dulles. (Which didn't work until later firms like SOM fixed it.) Or T5 at JFK. (Which never worked and couldn't be fixed, which is why it's about to be a hotel.)

Anyway, I don't want to say the KCI terminal is great. Or that it really should be buried in a cornfield behind a sea of parking. But that's more or less the way it's done these days. And flawed as it is it should work better than what they've got. And it actually isn't that ugly. At least there's no acoustic tile.
As long as it is functional that is all that really matters. Airlines don't care about how an airport looks and travelers really shouldn't either. Some of the busiest airports in the country are ugly. The fountain idea was dumb from the beginning. That space could be used a lot more wisely than to be blocking people trying to get in and out of the airport. The currently MCI is horrible so this is an improvement. It reminds me a little bit of Love or Hobby. Nothing special but it does the job. As long as you have plenty of places for people to eat, sit, and use the bathroom then you are doing your job. No reason to spend extra money on fluff.

T2 here isn't anything special but it is functional, which is why Southwest filters so many people through here. I have never been looking to take a trip and said, "Well I would go there but I am not because their airport is ugly." If I am going to go somewhere I am going to go regardless. The current MCI isn't functional so this is a big step up. If it is blocked by a parking garage because it makes it easier to use then even better, now people can park closer. If given the choice to park closer to the gate or be further away so people can see the airport (which is in the middle of nowhere to begin with), I would guess most would say park closer.
^What jshank said.

To be honest, even though I'm an aviation enthusiast, it's rare that I pick a routing because of the airport. (I do sometimes. Once in a while. Always nice to see a new one.) But I can't think of any airport so bad I'd avoid it or any so good I'd really go out of my way to go there a second time. (Okay, if the old TWA flight center were still open as an airport at JFK I'd go there again. But that one was special. I have regrets regarding my one trip through that one that I wish to heck I could fix. Oh well.)
symphonicpoet wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:46 pm
^What jshank said.

To be honest, even though I'm an aviation enthusiast, it's rare that I pick a routing because of the airport. (I do sometimes. Once in a while. Always nice to see a new one.) But I can't think of any airport so bad I'd avoid it or any so good I'd really go out of my way to go there a second time. (Okay, if the old TWA flight center were still open as an airport at JFK I'd go there again. But that one was special. I have regrets regarding my one trip through that one that I wish to heck I could fix. Oh well.)
I'll 100% try to avoid the current MCI. It just is too much of a nightmare for a layover at the moment.
New York I will try to avoid but it is more just the delays, nothing to do with the airports themselves.

Besides that I will go wherever the layover route is the shortest time.