Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill
Would a modern design still look okay after 30 or 40 years? Remember, at one time we actually thought avocado paint was da bomb...
|
yes, it would if it were a defining piece of work. it'd be nice to see the billion plus dollars go towards a more noteworthy design. say what you personally will about barajas, beijing, incheon, or kansai, but those airports are the architectural landmarks of their time. they will be in textbooks 35 years from now whereas lax's expansion will be forgotten before it's even built. lax's expansion is a 1.5 billion dollar architectural yawn.
there's nothing "airport architecture" about the blocky columns and trusses in the fentress design. to use my favorite analogy, this design is to "airport architecture" what the 2005 mustang is to the 65 mustang. graceless mimicry. yeah, fentress has got some of the requisite "modern airport" features...you know, the curvilinear roof and the glass curtainwall, and yeah it's got a couple diagonally positioned walkways for kicks, as if incorporating a few elements common to noteworthy projects elsewhere qualifies as "modern airport architecture" - it's too bad this design lacks the originality, imagination, and the aesthetic lightness of its contemporaries. but it is "safe" and "inoffensive", which tends to be the best la can muster without being gaudy.
and i was exaggerating. it's more like an early nineties rendition of the something that might have existed in the late 80s.