Not true at all. Sounds like the architects in charge of designing our airports have an equally one dimensional mentality when it comes to their work. ;)

Go peruse some world airports thread and you'll see just how varied the architecture is. Canadian airports are utilitarian to a fault; everything else is an after thought. In lots of other countries they seem to pay a lot of attention to the actual architecture of the structure. It's almost given equal billing with functionality. They view them as showpieces for their respective countries or regions and splurge to make sure they are architecturally stunning.

Ours are just there to be efficient. Our airports aren't offensive, but they're nothing that's going to stop you in your tracks in awe either. Then again, our bland utilitarian, toned down, modest designs do reflect our culture: tons more of the same can be found right outside the airport grounds. In that respect, at least our airports aren't out to deceive passengers about where they've just landed. I take it you've been to Waterloo?

It's an airport not a museum. The purpose is to get people to and from their planes as efficiently as possible. As long as it's comfortable to wait there (ergonomic chairs, enough washrooms, well-spaced gates, enough shops in the waiting area) this is one area of a city I can live with being simply utilitarian.

I really like Calgary's new terminal, it doesn't look like any other airport I've been to in Canada. All glass and skylights, ultramodern. Looks like a showpiece to me :D

Image too large:

Have you been to the new Winnipeg terminal? I think it might be almost as modern as the one in Calgary

No but I've seen lots of pics. It looks very cool!

Mirabel was all glass in the 70's.

and it still managed to not look very good or attract any significant passenger service.

YVR rated No. 1 airport in North America, ninth in the world [Skytrax]
 

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/rated+ai...#ixzz2xCeXxwD0

Canada did pretty great!

YVR came in 1st for North America, was the 9th place airport overall in the world, plus it was 1st globally in the 10-20 million passenger category, and 2nd place in North America for staff. The Fairmont Hotel at the YVR was the best airport hotel in North America.
Toronto came in 5th place in North America and 9th globally in the 30-40 million passenger category.
Halifax came in 7th place in North America, it took 3rd place globally in the under 5 million passenger airport category, and it took 3rd place in North America for the regional airports category.

Here is the link to the Skytrax Global Airport Awards category top 10 lists: http://www.worldairportawards.com/Aw...Categories.htm

But we all know why. HSR failed to materialize. In the 70's , it was the largest airport in the world in terms of surface area ever envisioned. It is one of two airports in Canada with sufficient right-of-way that can be expanded to accommodate 50 million passengers per year. The terminal was hailed as an architectural triumph when it first opened.

Sorry, Chad, but I really don't see it. It's a huge expansion for Calgary, and I'm sure it will look quite nice on the inside, but the exterior is very basic and uninspired.

Some days I feel Vancouver can do no wrong aside from cost of living.

I'm staying no matter what.

thats not unusual when there are two cities, almost similarly sized through much of history, separated by several hours drive.

Vancouver has the best airport in North America for the 5th year in a row. I like that.

Again, we're talking about airports here, not art museums...

Sometimes the bickering on this forum about architecture is a little bit over the top. Not everything needs to be a piece of art. Some things are perfectly fine by being utilitarian and functional in design.

In other words the same as all other airports in Canada and most of the world ;)

Agreed, it's pretty basic, which is normal for an airport. The architecture's first concern is functionality over beauty. I think it's as nice as any other airport expansion in Canada.

Cost of living is pretty reasonable if you ignore the real-estate portion. Buy a place and use magic to pay it off, and you'll be golden.

That is a very Canadian way of looking at things.... hence why our airports look the way they do. Canadians, as a whole, are an extremely pragmatic bunch. It serves us well, but sometimes I wish we'd diverge from that line of thinking a bit more. Beauty, design, aesthetics can't be measured in dollars and cents, but it does effect the quality of life of our cities and towns.

Canada is big, but very small at the same time. Italia 60M, the size of Quebec City-Windsor.

Disagreement is not bickering; I only stated that I don't see what Chad sees in the new YYC terminal. You'll also notice that I didn't argue anywhere that it should be an architectural masterpiece, but that said, I certainly wouldn't complain if we ever got a Calatrava-designed terminal somewhere in Canada.

Quite a few of our railway stations are/were stunning. Too bad our airports aren't.