urbanSTL

I don't see how connecting the gate areas will help that much. Very few people connect at MCI (fewer than Lambert) and it will have a minimal affect on their security lines. Once they combine the boarding areas, they'll shut down some of the checkpoints which will only make matters worse. MCI still won't be a very nice airport, considering it already looks very dated.

Mill204 wrote:Did somebody say tear down the concourses? Ludicrous reimagining time!







Phase 1: Tear down Concourse B. Shift B gates to Concourse D. Expand main terminal building so that it can accomodate 8-10 gates.



Phase 2: Tear down Concourse A. Shift A gates to new Phase 1 gates and Concourse D. Build new west concourse with ~32 gates.



Phase 3a: Tear down Concourse D. Close south side Concourse C. Shift south side C gates and all D gates to new Concourse A. Build new east concourse with ~32 gates.



Phase 3b: Tear down Concourse C. Shift C gates to south side of new east Concourse.



Phase 4: Build new concourse west of Runway 6/24 with ~20 gates.

The tear-down/rebuild of the airside would certainly allow unrestricted two-way taxiing in front of the airside, whereas the current configuration does not allow it while a plane has pushed back from its gate. That alone makes it worth consideration!



But while I love your concept, it clearly illustrates the argument for starting from scratch.



I mean, you’re talking about attaching a brand spanking new airside to an outdated terminal. If you use the East Terminal as a guide, the main terminal is incompatible with the way that modern airport terminals are built; newer facilities tend to have taller ceiling height lower levels. By attaching a new, wide open airside area to the existing terminal, people will go from open and airy spaces into a low-ceiling, claustrophobic baggage claim area. Even if the Lambert Experience Project takes shape and opens up the lower level to the outside with windows, it will still have the low ceilings and closed-in feeling.



And still using the East Terminal as a guide, most modern-day facilities have access to the airside from the upper level. In the pre-security checkpoint days, it wasn’t an issue. However, upper level departures/lower level arrivals serve the purpose of segregating security from bag claim allowing the former to have as much room as is needed; plus the fact that some airports use the lower level to house international arrivals as well (granted, the only international service we have is Frontier and charter service to Cancun and the Dominican Republic). Still, with the Lambert Experience, security and arrivals are still crammed into the area.



Personally, I say the city should just leave Lambert as-is since that terminal will need completely replaced one day.



Frankly, that would look a lot better if it was built at…(uh oh…better stop before I get flamed).

Framer wrote:Memo to all of you folks that want to tear down Lambert's landmark Main Terminal:



There's an excellant essay posted on Landmarks Association's website extolling the many virtues of Yamasaki's brilliant design. Required reading, IMO.



I just don't understand why so many people are still so eager to tear down our architectural legacy. Haven't the last few decades taught us anything?

Yes...I agree that it is a landmark design from the standpoint of the upper level. Those domes are legendary and the upper level interior is quite nice.



However the concourses are outdated; by abutting the main taxiway they detract from the fuctionality of the airfield. Granted, we don't have the traffic we once had, but they still do what they do. And there is no denying that the lower level is the pits...or rather A pit.



St. Louis wants a world-class airport (large hub or not). At some point, then, we are going to have to deal with the idea of replacing the main terminal with something that reflects the present and the future because what we have now simply won't cut it. Anything else is simply admitting that the city is willing to settle for second-best rather than striving for WORLD-CLASS.



I remember hearing a song by a local artist who said, "TWO IS NOT A WINNER AND THREE NOBODY REMEMBERS!"



And having read the newsletter, the author apparently agrees having made the following statement at the close of his essay: The fault, St. Louisans, is not in the building, but in ourselves, that we are content to be underlings, subservient to decision-makers who act either precipitously or in their own interests — or both. It is time to intervene, and there’s

no better place to start than at the airport.

ricke002 wrote:Time out.....did s/he just drop some hot Cornell Haynes fire on us all??

Progress wrote:
I remember hearing a song by a local artist who said, "TWO IS NOT A WINNER AND THREE NOBODY REMEMBERS!"

Yes, HE did!

b777stl wrote:I sure hope St. Louis can reevaluate the airport experience project. We'll spend a hundred million or so just "cleaning up" the main terminal. Shortly after the project is completed, our airport will be just like Cleveland (low ceilings, poor design, poor quality). I strongly hope Hybrokaw and the others at the airport reconsider the project, although it is highly unlikely since they already have a contract. [They only got one bid!]

MY point exactly!



Shamefully, our airport terminal will not only be comparable to CLEVELAND, it will be comparable to the L.C. Smith Terminal in Detroit. If you've ever been there, you KNOW what I mean.



The new wall coverings on the lower level are simply another BAND-AID solution, and the Lambert Experience is nothing more than a whole box of band-aids!



Can you imagine Detroit doing the same thing to its old terminals rather than the new North Terminal that is being built specifically to the needs of today and the future? Or Washington, D.C. simply refurbishing it's old facility rather than building the magnificent new one they have now? Or Indianapolis?



We can't continue to put band-aids on the problem expecting world-class results.



It AIN'T EVER gonna' happen!



Turn the building into an avaiation museum or something since it is historically significant, but it's TIME to GIVE UP THE GHOST as far as that building being our primary passenger facility!

ricke002 wrote:

Progress wrote:
Turn the building into an avaiation museum or something since it is historically significant, but it's TIME to GIVE UP THE GHOST as far as that building being our primary passenger facility!

Is there a reason that building would have to be torn down to build a new terminal? Couldn't that area still be a grand entrance to a possible new terminal such as Mil's proposal? The building could easily be built around, rather than tearing it down.



It could also serve as a main terminal a la Sea-Tac (sort of) and have underground trams to satellite terminals on the western and northern edges of the airport grounds.

As much as I love Mil's proposal, I see this problem:



What would be the sense of stripping off all the current airsides to build a single airside a la Detroit's McNamara Terminal? A bright, open, spacious facility attached to a baggage claim area with low ceilings.



It screams HALF-MEASURES!



No shade here, but it really amazes me that people here are willing to accept LESS THAN THE BEST just to hang on to a LONG OUTDATED building as a functioning facility.



Even more amazing is how the city wants to spend $105 million on a project that will do practically nothing to the airside. At least Mil's proposal would allow a wider airside with moving sidewalks throughout.



I mean, if Lambert is ONLY the BEST we can do, how about this? Build a new main terminal just east of the current one and house all airlines. Tear down the East Terminal build 1 long airside for all carriers with some portions of it having gates on both sides. Hey, I know...they can EVEN build it with 4 NEW DOMES! THAT oughtta' get folks here all TWITTERPATTED! Along with a new parking garage, the old one could be the main long-term lot along with parking for that aviation museum.

Gary Kreie wrote:Or we could just rebuild at Mid-America, kind of like the old Columbia Illinois plan for an all-new airport that Missouri Senators and Congressmen killed back in the late 1970's.



American Airlines is already starting to use Mid-America Airport.



http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.a ... yid=128684

Certainly they're not using it in any official capacity...just emergencies.



But PLEASE...don't get me started on that! I could PLOTZ!



You can't get people, let alone city leadership, to let go of those FOUR DOMES! Four domes = airport! You can't have a main terminal without THOSE four domes! And you can't have a primary air carrier facility without Lambert! I swear, these people here are so narrow-minded that they'd rather have NO airport AT ALL than to "concede to Illinois" by developing MidAmerica-St. Louis as the major airport for the region. All because it just happens to be across the river.



Never mind the endless possibilities that are possible with that airfield that Lambert will NEVER achieve. For starters, the fact that the runway and terminal cost a total of $320 million versus the ONE BILLION DOLLARS that was spent building the world's most displaced runway!



No. We're STUCK with Lambert...FOREVER!