I voted for Foster

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

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.

From the video. Damn.

http://kngkyle.com/uploads/183638.png

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.

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

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

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

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.

Calatrava. All. Damn. Day.

Foster as runner up.

Crain's published an interview today with Calatrava, he's already trying to burnish his image here. But even though I love the big moves in his design about uniting the terminals into a cohesive whole, and replacing the parking hellscape in the center with a place designed for humans and not vehicles, I just can't support Calatrava.

You can ignore the debacle at the WTC - NYC transit projects go shockingly overbudget with or without a fancy architect at the helm. But closer to home, the Milwaukee Art Museum still came in way over budget, and in a bad omen for O'Hare, Calatrava's expansion of the Denver airport went so bad they had to fire him and get Gensler to redesign it based on his sketches. That project was far less complex than the O'Hare one, basically just a midrise hotel and a ground-level train platform. When Denver officials realized they had to trim the budget by 25% to make the project happen, Calatrava balked and refused to change a thing. Eventually Denver officials just had to bribe him to go away, and for the rights to his sketches so another firm could come in and finish the job.


As the below article points out, he works best when he has a single client to persuade, and ideally a blank slate. Florida International seems like the kind of place with a single charismatic leader and lots of yes-men underneath, and their campus in central FL is definitely a blank slate. But O'Hare Airport could not be more different. Complex site, huge logistical challenges, politicians, unions, airlines, Feds, business travelers, concessionaires, the list of stakeholders and potential stumbling blocks goes on. I don't see how you can get anything done with the unyielding attitude Calatrava seems to have.
https://www.architectmagazine.com/de...go-calatrava_o

My first reaction was the Calatrava, but the more I look, the more I really, really like the Foster design. Especially since the architect is an avid pilot, and the terminal just has that classy feel of an earlier, more elegant era of flight. This design feels modern, but still rooted in the past much like the city itself.

In fact, it seems a thoughtful tribute to the TWA Flight Center.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf79qrl2gDA

Parking
 

Calatravia - looks great, but where is the parking garage?

After looking at the designs it makes me think that once they build the new satellite terminal C extension that they should tear down the old satellite c and extend the new satellite for more taxi space.

I like the Calatrava best but I do not like the size of the parking garage garden. They have no room for that big an open space on airport property. It looks nice but needs to be downsized. Hell, while they are at it why down they add some bike lanes and a rock climbing area :)

Foster gets my vote.

Love it, looks like a futuristic airplane. Too bad it won't be selected as it blows the budget out of the water. And what I mean by that is, it may end up being the public favorite when the voting is all said and done, but the City may reserve the right to pick one of the other (read: cheaper) designs as the winner, and possibly have Calatrava design the expansion terminals as a consolation prize..

Love the can't do attitude around here.

Outside of the main hall roof, what about the Calatrava plan looks like another Path station money pit? Also, where was the assumption/assertion that the Spire was also unbuildable for the budget it had?

It's not the design. It's Calatrava himself. His entire architectural career consists of projects that go way overbudget or completely ignore important practical features like ventilation or non-slippery walking surfaces.

For example those gardens, if you look closely, are actually rooftop gardens (perhaps parking garages? I'm not sure) linked by bridges to a new proposed convention, hotel, retail complex.

Clearly Calatrava wants them to look like the wings of a bird, but rooftop gardens are a different beast from ground-level parks. And what looks good from the sky isn't necessarily the best from the ground.

Well, tearing down the current parking structures and building new underground ones (presumably) to replace them for one. I don't see any evidence of the ATS system in the renders. If that is replaced or moved that will cost huge money.

The amount of roof glass seems far more than any of the other proposals which has the potential to play havoc with climate control in summer and snow/ice removal in winter.

I don't know how one can't look at it and NOT see an extra billion dollars (conservatively) in just the preliminary renders.

One idea I do like from it though is the idea of a landside market place similar to Amsterdam/Munich. I'm fully for a redeveloped office/hotel component where the Hilton is if there is a market analysis that says it can fly but it should be done using as much of the present infrastructure as possible.

Whatever - snappy quip aside, you and I both know how much money talks, especially when a project this massive will constantly be scrutinized over cost (and potential cost overruns).
My supposition is based on the fact that there still may be a large gulf between the most popular design and what is ultimately selected as the final design, because of money. Calatrava's designs ALWAYS incur major cost overruns because his designs, while beautiful always present unique engineering challenges for each building, which leads to unique construction challenges, etc, etc. The fact remains, many cost estimators and contractors have initial difficulty in providing pricing for projects like his because there isn't a typical cost basis benchmark that they're able to use as a reference.

Haha. I knew I'd get some heat. Time will tell of course. I'm loving the "make no small plans" Calatrava concept. I guess I'm a dreamer though.

As for the ATS, that bitch needs to be underground anyway.

I think we broke it. My vote got this response:

Form over quota
This form has passed it's allocated quota
and cannot be used at the moment.

Try contacting the owner of this form.

Though unofficial, of course, Curbed Chicago has a poll as well.
Not surprised that SOM is coming in last at the moment.

I wasn't trying to be bitchy, sorry if it came off that way. Additionally, I LOVE the Calatrava design, even though I'm part of one of the other teams :D

I would love Calatrava to win AND to actually see his design built..the feasibility of his design (even with an initial $8.7 billion budget) makes me sweat a lil, tho..

Those are my thoughts. I'm actually pretty "meh" about the actual terminal in the Calatrava proposal, but the overall complex is very interesting as a big picture approach.

The City of Chicago should acquire the design rights and when the Hilton and Parking Garage reach the end of their lifespans, they can implement parts of the Calatrava.

Calatrava is my vote. He shows the ATS train in the video. The Milwaukee Art museum is a work of art itself. I don't care if it went over budget, it's amazing. If we could have O'hare be similar that would be incredible! Make no small plans! Driving in and out of Ohare now is pretty ugly, and not very welcoming. I wish they would tear down that ugly parking garage and put some kind of outdoor shopping and park, that would be so much nicer. Yea, something like the Munich airport outdoor shopping area would be great! I like the overall concept alot better that Calatrava came up with.

Second, I like the Foster design, it's very attractive as well.

Any of the designs are a big improvement over the present terminals.

The Calatrava is very pretty but you will be paying for it with more expensive airfare for decades when it inevitably goes miles over budget and the cost gets recovered with increased landing fees.

I laughed out loud during the SOM video. They made a rectangle hahahah. Also, second busiest airport in north america, one hammock is not a selling point for your architectural vision. who would want to sit on that nasty thing anyways, displaying themselves like a zoo animal to hundreds of travelers

On a serious note, I think I'll be voting for Gang because of how their alluring design incorporated so much flora throughout common areas. I have read many studies on the affects that green space has on humans mental health, and think it's a great. Though it might have just been fluff for the renderings which will never get incorporated, which would be unacceptable.

Calatrava is my favorite design of course, it is arguably the best. But if everybody in this thread has decided it can't be built on-budget, I totally believe it and would rather vote for the design that gets built.

Parking garage doesn't concern me in the slightest. By the time this terminal opens, mass adoption of autonomous vehicles will be on the horizon (uber everywhere for cheaper than cost of auto insurance, or be rich and own a car that drops you off and parks itself at home for free), and hopefully Boring Co. express tunnel will be under construction. Not saying a garage won't be utilized as soon as this thing opens, and as long as it stays open, just thinking about the "building for the future" aspect of designing something such as an airport.


Oh, and I would also be happy with the Foster proposal getting built.

I thought Calatrava's WTC PATH station went over not because of the structure itself but because of last-minute security logistics and the fact that infrastructure projects in NYC always seem to go over more than other projects outside of the city/region (2nd Ave Subway/Fulton Center etc). Not saying it isn't possible for the budget to go up but I would think the actual terminal itself would be similar to build as Foster/Fentress' designs.

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?