I agree the Foster, Fentress, and SOM proposals all have a concourse jutting off of the main terminal like an awkward appendage. Calatrava's and Studio ORD's designs incorporated the concourses in the main terminal building giving a more unified design. I think for the Calatrava proposal in particular this will give a more spectacular arrival experience as travelers disembarking from their planes will be greeted with a breathtaking open area that will also make way finding easier. In the Gang design this won't be as dramatic and way finding may be more of a challenge with the "Y" shaped design creating almost three separate wings.

I think studio ORD did the best job with the satellite terminals. They basically look like slightly smaller versions of the main terminal. The more I think about this the more I am convinced that Calatrava would be the ideal number one because it would keep the best elements of his design (the main terminal) as well as allow for the potential future redevelopment of the hotel and parking area according to his vision. Studio ORD would be the ideal number two since they have the best satellite terminal design and that would retain the best elements of their proposal.

It really seems to me that the Calatrava team is going above and beyond the other teams so far to try to win this. The evidence I have seen to suggest this so far:
-Added the extra (but not necessary) concept to redevelop the hotel/parking into a mixed use space that according to the woman I spoke with from HKS is intended to compete with Rosemont and keep people in O'Hare/Chicago spending money.
-The Calatrava team went much more in depth into cost breakdown and projections than the other teams.
-Calatrava did an interview with Crain's about the project. I don't believe any of the other teams have done this.
-Members of the Calatrava team (HKS) seem to be regularly at the CAC to discuss the model and answer questions. I am unaware of any of the other teams doing this.

Calatrava is putting in more effort because they have to. Even as massively attractive as I find his design for this I just can't shake the feeling that doing it would be irresponsible given his history.

I'll go with Studio ORD. My only worry would be that Gang has never done something like this but their JV partners certainly do have a lot of aviation experience.

Today's the last day to vote I think!

Rahm's official twitter had a video the other day that scoots around them all. Not the most detailed, but the added context flipped my 1st and 2nd preferences.

Blair Kamin just made known his opinion, he says the Foster design is the clear winner.

https://twitter.com/blairkamin/statu...624160257?s=21

I found this extended video regarding the Foster design.

• Video Link

https://www.designboom.com/architect...no-01-24-2019/

I am wondering how many jobs this is expected to generate.

Well one thing is for sure if Foster's proposal gets built, that enormous glass wall will need regular cleaning! :haha:

Yeah, how big is that? It is enormously hard to tell the size of that from the perspective in the rendering, but it looks like 400' tall.

Ethiopian Airlines Is Making Huge Advances In The US

Chicago Increased Frequency

"The airline currently runs the route three times a week but will increase to five times a week in summer 2019. The route flies non-stop eastbound but makes a fuel stop (with no pickup, but passengers can get off) in Dublin on the way back to the USA."

https://simpleflying.com/ethiopian-airlines-expansion/

This is why I can't stand Calatrava. He wants to do his art project so doesn't think of basic shit that is painfully obvious. How do the planes on the right side even get there? You'd have to eliminate the entirety of concourse G to make those gates work. Foster all the way. The column-less design would be an engineering marvel that Chicago deserves. It's the closest design where the form follows the function in my opinion.

https://cdn1.imggmi.com/uploads/2019...d4868-full.jpg

Beautiful design. I know it's early, but it looks like they have wide bodies parked at the "G" concourse. What will American do with all their Eagle flights? They can't fit all of them in the L concourse. I wonder if this assumes they will build another satellite? They'd certainly have to bulldoze G to give it the size for int'l wide body gates.

I would have to guess that this is an error with the rendering.

I hope Foster is selected but the design is tweaked so the large arch is not angled, but faces directly south to the active runways, and that concourse G is rebuilt as an international concourse for American/One World, and AA's regionals go somewhere else, maybe entirely to L.

The whole thing still has the problems that bothered me during the initial conceptual rendering. At any given moment, AA and its partners (British, Japan, Iberia) have usually 8-10 jumbos parked somewhere at O'Hare. If this is truly an expansion, we would want at least 12-15 gates for AA/One World International Ops. Where would they get the 12-15 gates other than the entire global terminal? which would piss off United. I just don't see how this works as a shared concept. Would've made more sense to give terminal 5 to AA and One World with a people mover directly to Terminal 3 past security.

Yes, they need to plan for future growth. My hunch is that the new satellite terminal (concourse “c” extender) would be capable of handling intl ops. Hopefully the next satellite concourse would have future int’l capability. Even if they build a new concourse G, I just don’t know how multiple wide bodies would be able to fit between the new G and existing concourss H/ K. I don’t believe all of Eagle’s flight won’t be able to fit in L.

This is correct to my knowledge, the tunnels to the new terminal from the satellite concourses will include sterile corridors to deliver arriving international passengers to the new CBP facility. United will gain a lot of international capacity.

I have to say that the Foster design is growing on me. And this is coming from a Calatrava fan.

The only drawback I see to the Foster proposal is that it looks a little wonky from the air, but tbh I don't really look at airports that much from the air when I am on a plane.

The Foster design looks nice, but I wonder how functional it is to have one single, massive, open room...and not just from a design standpoint but more importantly how it functions, is heated, cooled, how loud/noisy it gets, how the massive 'theater' windows are cleaned, maintained, etc. Same for the Calatrava proposal, even though that has more discreet areas/zones that may be easier to control, from an MEP perspective....maybe.

Edit: The more I thought about it, the more I realized you could potentially say the same thing about all of the 5 finalist designs. I don't know why the Foster one strikes me as potentially problematic; perhaps just because of the scale of the main space being so massive..

^ Well, if you wanna get technical, it's pretty clear to me the Foster proposal can't be built quite as shown in the renderings.

Where is the support for the enormous glass wall facing the airfield? Looks like 8-10 stories of unsupported glass. Even in the best case scenario there will be huge glass fins to back the curtain wall, more likely some kind of tensile system with cables and rods. I will admit that even this could be spectacular, if Foster uses glass sheets as big as he used for the Michigan Ave Apple Store.

Also, what is the roof? It appears to be a steel monocoque like a stadium roof, but the geometry is far more complex than a simple dome or paraboloid. How are those thousands of little skylights waterproofed, there must be literal miles of perimeter and countless areas of potential failure.

Blair Kamin mentioned the building would use radiant floors heavily for heating, and presumably some kind of stack ventilation for cooling.

I think on the surface and without looking at any numbers right now, the Studio Gang/Team ORD seems the most buildable....but the more I look at the Calatrava proposal, the more I love it, because it's so all-encompassing, and completely changes the entire airport into a destination that you seemingly WANT to visit and experience, not solely because you have to travel through to and from there.

I know this is pretty common with renderings, but in my opinion as a simple consumer, that is completely unacceptable and constitutes false advertising. If you win a contract based on a rendering, you need to build it the way you claimed you would.

Glad I typed that out though, because it made me realize the decision makers aren't simply looking at renderings.. :tup:

Really the concept of what Calatrava is proposing could be extended to any of the proposals if the market need is deemed warranted. There is nothing that would prohibit razing and then rebuilding a true mixed-use complex where the current parking deck/Hilton now sit.

The one issue I have with my favorite design (Fosters) is that I don't see any jetways as part of the panoramic main hall window in the design. While that gives an amazing undecomposed view of the airfield it would seem to also needlessly exclude precious potential gate space and at points closest to the security zones. Just seems a bit of a waste.

That's what I find interesting about the design. You can see how the premise is heavily derived from Vladimir Shukhov's work in the 1800s , the Vyksa Production Hall in particular stands out as the clear inspiration for the O'Hare proposal.

But the sheer scale is going to be unlike anything previously attempted.

O'HARE REGAINS "BUSIEST AIRPORT IN USA" TITLE

Suck it Atlanta:

https://abc7chicago.com/travel/ohare...in-us/5119789/

:banana::dancingeggplant

I'm in disbelief. I thought Atlanta was pulling further ahead with each passing year. What changed?

Guess I should have read the article:
City officials attribute part of the increase in air traffic to the addition of nearly 50 new routes, including several international destinations.

Archinect has a closer look at the SOM Global Terminal proposal:

https://archinect.com/news/bustler/7...inal-expansion

ATL and ORD are always close in total movements. That's because ORD has a lot more heavy cargo and regional flights. It's kind of strange how far ahead both ATL and ORD are to the third busiest airport for movements. ATL kills ORD on total pax count. That's because ATL is Delta's main connecting thru city. Who want's to stay at Atlanta??? Not me.

We haven't had an update on this page in a while on the topic of O'hare expansion. What do you guys think is going to come about as a result of Elon Musks tunnel?

-Property Manager

Everyone is either completely and totally convinced it's the wave of the future and we'll all be riding in them within the decade, or just as sure Musk is just a blowhard desperately trying to suck up transit dollars for a congested underground freeway built exclusively for his cars. No middle ground, it feels like everyone is required to fall into one of the two camps.

My take is that a tunnel would be technologically feasible, but Musk doesn't have the time or energy to see through the construction of a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project in a city he doesn't live in while running one of the largest auto makers in the world and overseeing the development of the largest rocket ever built. And without Musk, there isn't anyone with the resources or charisma willing to spearhead this project. I'd expect it to die a quiet death in a year or two.

Does anyone see Southwest airlines adding service at Ohare eventually. Their operations at Midway are close to being maxed out .

Moving to the 737 Max 8s replacing their 700s buys them more capacity in terms of seats with the same number of ops. That will last them a while but possibly in the long term they could expand to ORD. Maybe the western terminal if it's ever built.

Also I believe that the new central deicing facility at ORD is now open so no more waiting at the gate to get sprayed down.

now that southwest has more or less effectively maxed-out MDW, their strategy for growth in the region appears to be to shift more connecting passengers through STL and its VAST reserve of under-used capacity (STL used to be a TWA hub).

STL has seen strong passenger growth over the past 5 years (+25%, ~12M to ~16M ) and almost all of that is on the back of southwest.

maybe they'll take a stab at ORD someday, but that doesn't look to be in their sights at the moment.

Does MKE have spare capacity? It would make more sense for WN to invest there rather than O'Hare.

yes, and southwest is already the biggest carrier at MKE with a 43% share.

but as i posted above, southwest appears to be planting their second big midwest stake down in STL.

last year, 9.1M passengers flew southwest through STL, only 2.9M passengers flew southwest through MKE. southwest did 21.3M through MDW for comparison.

and from a geographic perspective, STL does make a good deal of sense being a large metro area in its own right centrally located in the middle of the nation with lots of unused capacity.

Really the list of places in the midwest that have spare capacity is:

1) Everywhere but Chicago

end list

The default/primary category for busiest is still total passengers, as it should be.

1,000 canoes offloading six people each would definitely make for a "busy" port, but six passenger cruise liners and six cargo ships is a much more significant occurrence in terms of actual terminal "busy-ness" and economic impact.

ATL is the only airport in the world with over 100 million pax per year, and it does that by bringing in those people on much larger jets and with more gates to park those jets, while AA and UA continue using regional jets even for large markets, like ORD to New York LaGuardia.

ORD has the real estate to exceed well over 100 million people, but the city is insistent on not using it. In fact, an ENTIRE ATL could fit west of the terminals right now. Despite this insane real estate, the city plans to add a grand total of 25 or so gates with the current shortsighted expansion plan which will be outdated and short on gates as soon as it's completed.

Unreal:

https://cdn1.imggmi.com/uploads/2019...75e5d-full.jpg

You don't need to build that to hit 100M. The projections on the extra 30ish gates added will allow that. Until recently the airfield design itself could not accept ATL level of operations. Also most if not all gates are going to common use so airlines can't just sit on them if they're not utilizing.

Yeah when ORD is finally upgraded to take advantage of the new runway configuration it will be a massive beast even more than it is now. The Western terminal can come later once the existing terminals are up to snuff

I agree. What I'm saying is, ORD's master plan is what we needed ORD to be yesterday, not in 2030 or whenever it gets done. In 2030, 100 million pax will be what 80 million is now - and airports like ATL, Beijing, even Heathrow will be doing 120 million when their master plans are fully realized.

If it's planned now, even conceptually, for a full build-out to the west, we'd have an O'Hare that can do 150 million easily in 2030 or 2040 when 150 million becomes the norm for mega airports. The biggest shortsightedness when it comes to infrastructure, historically, has always been numbers and growth - planners think such numbers are inconceivable until they aren't.

And you get to wait in a queue at the central facility instead?

Probably not for long since I think it can take a couple dozen planes at a time. Operationally it's a big plus that frees up gate space faster during the winter and reduces the time from deice to takeoff (and thus the odds they'll have to deice again).

The main pad is not 100% finished as several taxiways to it are still under construction. I drove by it today. What a cluster the UAL North hangar pads are now with the old hangar pad closed. I counted 10 777's sitting along with 2 757-300's 6 767-300's and a million regionals all lined up. Looked like Marana Air Park.

Ethiopian Airlines ending service to LAX, increasing flights to Chicago, NY

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/...-lax-adds.html

I actually mentioned that a few weeks ago!

Yes, they will build a large TSA checkpoints. They will reduced wait times at security. The lines will be shorter and no need to worried about long lines anymore.

This was about de-icing. Not something I want to be subjected to by TSA!

https://www.ttnews.com/articles/amaz...k-cargo-record

Chicago Rockford International Airport Break Cargo Record

ROCKFORD, Ill. — More than 2.1 billion pounds of cargo made its way through Chicago Rockford International Airport in 2018 — shattering the previous record, set in 2017, by 55%.
Cargo business at the airport has been booming for the past few years because of the arrival of Amazon Air and because UPS is routing more freight through its Rockford Air Hub, the company’s second-largest U.S. package-sorting center.

The airport is spending about $10 million to expand its 72,000-square-foot cargo terminal to 200,000 square feet by July 1, when Amazon will assume the lease for the next five years, providing the airport with nearly $1.9 million in rent the first year and increasing sums thereafter.

The city’s airport became the nation’s 22nd busiest in terms of cargo activity — up from 31st in 2017 — according to the Federal Aviation Administration. Airport officials believe it may soon land somewhere in the top 20.

…

Amazon is the driving force behind the expansion of the cargo terminal. The online retail giant has requested that the airport include several add-ons to the building — at Amazon’s expense — including significant parking lot and driveway improvements and a carport-like canopy feature that will extend the length of the building. The improvements, worth several million dollars, not only increase the value of the airport building, but suggest that Amazon’s presence here will extend beyond the five-year lease it has signed with the airport.
“They are putting a lot of money into that building — a lot of money,” RFD Director Mike Dunn told airport commissioners last week. “And we will benefit from it extremely.”

...

They also built that huge hangar at RFD to work on 747 and A380 aircraft(A380 being pulled out of production in 2021 by the way). RFD is getting big, and all this is at ORD's expense but good for Illinois. Chicago has stupid rules about how long aircraft can stay on the ground for a major overhaul, so the RFD hangar makes a lot more sense. And RFD is a lot cheaper than ORD or MDW.

The more I study it, the more attracted I become to the Calatrava submissing - laying aside little questions about whether he could really bring it in at anything close to a budget, or even a typical Chicago inflated final cost.

The approach reminds me of sort of a combination of MUC and FRA. At MUC, there is a pedestrian entrance off the S-Bahn, that takes you through a very lively open area with shops, a Christmas market in December, a skating rink and so on. The stations to buy the train tickets are just as you leave the terminal, so you stop buy a ticket and then take the short walk to the train station. The area is packed with people. The Squaire at FRA which is also very lively, incorporates 2 mid-rise hotels, office buildings, shops, a huge parking garage, restaurants a full-sized grocery store which seems popular with both travelers and airport employees and as a bonus it sits right on top of the mainline rail tracks. There is almost direct access to the autobahn. This part isn't as viable for ORD, but in FRA you can walk off your plane and within minutes be on a high speed train to many parts of Germany and beyond. LH even has a check-in station and "I think" bag drop on the route between the Squaire and the airport terminals.