nah

yeah you're right i'd much prefer the city's 400 million dollar superstation goes unused and we shy away from new technologies, remaining satisfied with what we already have. that's the classic chicago way right? /s

Foster's design is the best in my opinion. It looks unique from every angle. Caltrava's looks like...well a Caltrava. Absolutely nothing we haven't already seen from his other spaces. SOM's would be a second place. The interiors look amazing. The others look quite interesting from aerial shots, but honestly who cares what it looks like from way up in the sky. To me the interiors and views from the ground are what needs to have the most impact. Those are the views we're going to see and remember.

Nah to that too.

Really though, I'm trying to prepare you for what you'll inevitably realize. The whole Musk magic tunnel thing is a scam. And after we clean the pie off our face we still won't have a first class high speed airport link. The most sensible and logical option is the one generally espoused by the Crossrail vision.

If it were just the WTC PATH station, he wouldn't be controversial. His entire working history is filled with massively overbudget and sometimes non-functional buildings.

He's also ridiculously inflexible and dismissive when it comes to designing spaces people have to actually use. (Transit centers without benches so people have to sit on the floor, museums without elevators for the disabled)

Which is a disaster for an airport where the quality of the interior is 10 times more important than the exterior.

Best case scenario for the Calatrava is if they purchase the design, but assign the construction to another architect.

I think an airport is the one exception to this statement, many first and last impressions will actually be from the sky

Also I totally agree interior renderings from SOM are gorgeous and Calatrava isn't moving away from their comfort zone

architecture firms are never responsible for construction

All of Calatrava's over budget projects :

https://thefullcalatrava.wordpress.com

I voted for Foster. The whole "theater of aviation" concept where you can see the airfield all the way from the ticketing counters pre-security is awesome and what many airports are missing today. The giant arch is a huge statement, and these guys know how to do airports. Know-how means keeping an eye on passenger experience and other details. And I'm assuming they've only gotten better after designing Hong Kong and Beijing--two of the top terminals ever.

I was hoping SOM would come out on top and come up with a statement building that is completely Chicago, but unfortunately we are getting McCormick Place O'Hare with them.

Studio Gang just doesn't say Chicago whatsoever, and there's a chance it won't age well in my view. And nothing about it says aviation or travel or flight. May as well be a concert hall.

No thanks to the guy who built DEN giving us those little sand hills.

And Calatrava, anything but, please! Next time I want to feel like I'm inside the skeleton of a giant dead whale I'll check out WTC hub. His design elements are non-functional and pure aesthetic - the only giant sculpture of his that belongs in an airport is the bird on top of Milwaukee's art museum.

Really hoping for Foster or a revised SOM proposal with some more height and/or Chicago muscle incorporated into it.

Will the square footage be released? I love the Foster design, but it seems undersized compared to Calatrava's. Seems like Calatrava's is a more practical use of space.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/161786...posted-public/

Foster screen grab from youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf79qrl2gDA&app=desktop

Calatrava is from their video.

I'm not sure why the image isn't displaying. sorry.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/161786...posted-public/

All - I'm a complete idiot. My first time trying to post images. I'm going to log off and turn off my computer and not visit for awhile. Sorry for screwing up this thread. I'm highly interested in Chicago infrastructure and wanted to contribute to this thread. Obviously I'm a complete novice and I apologize for the interruption. Take care all.

http://i68.tinypic.com/21r61u.jpg

^ Hilarious

Don't sweat it, we don't know your real name or anything :haha:

^ Would be cool to get Foster for the main terminal and Calatrava for the satellites, but Calatrava would probably just take his ball and go home after public histrionics.

Studio Gang's wood ceiling concept could work at the smaller scale of a satellite concourse.

I went to the Chicago Architecture Center yesterday to look at the models. After seeing the models and watching all the videos several times I am more convinced that the Calatrava proposal is the best. I think Calatrava doing the main terminal with Studio ORD (Gang) doing the satellites would be the best combination...the overall design aesthetics of both play off of each other well.

While I was at the CAC there was a women there from HKS Architects who is part of the Calatrava team. She had a lot of interesting insights about the Calatrava proposal:
-Calatrava sent a number of different versions of the proposal. One with just the terminal, one with the terminal and the garage and hotel redevelopment, one with the terminal and the original control tower removed/replaced. The hotel/garage area is viewed by the team as a vision and not necessary to the proposal.
-The notch in the canopy on the hotel side of the terminal was designed as a slot to go around the old control tower if it were to stay either temporarily or permanently.
-The control tower at the tip of the proposal would replace the the function of the original tower.
-The Calatrava team submitted very detailed plans with the proposal showing the cost projections (this was also mentioned in the Crain's interview with Calatrava). There are at least 40 pages of details just about the cost breakdown and projections for the proposal...far more in depth and detailed than any other team submitted. Their projections show the terminal coming in under budget.
-The canopy structure is designed to collect snow melt and rainwater to use in irrigation for the plantings and brown water uses.

My second favorite is the Gang design followed very closely by Foster. If any of the three, Calatrava, Gang, or Foster is selected as one with one of the other two being the secondary I would be happy but as I said I think Calatrava one and Gang as the secondary is the best combo.

I like the Fentress proposal but there is a wide separation between it and the top three. The SOM proposal is a distant fifth.

thanks for that info 2pru, honestly surprising and swaying me towards Calatrava. collecting rainwater for irrigation? love it.

are the models free to view at the center or do you have to pay entry? i am not a member

The models are free to view.

You thought wrong.

The WTC PATH station is a disaster for the people that use it and the Port Authority that has to maintain it. The tourist think it's pretty though. But it's pretty useless as a transit facility as others have mentioned. I'll share this random excerpt from an official recognizing the mistakes of the past when discussing plans for the replacement of the Port Authority Bus Terminal:

"Concerned with the $10 billion price tag, one Port Authority Board member suggested a design competition similar to the one Gov. Andrew Cuomo has hosted for the beleaguered LaGuardia Airport. John Degnan, PA chair, seemed amenable to the idea so long, as he said, as “maybe not a Spanish architect” emerge the winner."

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2015/03...ort-authority/

Caveat emptor

I looked at these again today and have to give it to Calatrava with a runner up prize going to Foster. . .

. . .

If you can, GO TO THE CAC AND LOOK AT THE MODELS!

After I did, Studio ORD jumped to the front, with Calatrava next, followed closely by Foster and Fentress, and last, sadly, SOM. (though a caveat - SOM's arrival hall is the best).

Foster, Fentress, and SOM all have concourses separate from the main terminal, while Studio ORD and Calatrava incorporate that concourse into the main building. This is very striking when viewing the models. Some HKS architects were there (on the Calatrava team) and mentioned that they and Studio's plan are actually 70,000+ sq. ft. smaller, though they appear much more open.

Also, Studio and Cala... both connect to terminals 1 and 3 in a much smoother fashion.

Ultimately, I just like the look of Studio ORD proposal more. Also, don't trust Calatrava to bring it in remotely on budget.

For those of us that cannot make it to the CAC, would anyone be able to provide photos of the models? Do they allow taking photos?