YEG - Edmonton Int Airport - Page 160

LO 044 · #**3181** Posted **Oct 17, 2008, 8:07 PM**

Posted by JimR on the C2E Forum:

Quote:

Given the world financial crisis, I wouldn't expect any eath-shattering announcements any time soon.

However, the expansion continues and is on track. Right now we're finishig about 90,000 square metres of apron, still 200,000 more to go over the next several years, and we should have 2,000 new stalls available for Christmas, so there'll be no more field parking during the Christmas rush.

Jasper and one o nin · #**3182** Posted **Oct 18, 2008, 7:55 PM**

Good thing they started expansion when they did. I imagine if they hadnt, they would not have the same access to credit.

Jasper and one o nin · #**3183** Posted **Oct 18, 2008, 9:18 PM**

what the hell is this? found it on C2E -- quite awhile back mind you

dansk · #**3184** Posted **Oct 18, 2008, 10:38 PM**

That is what the engineers were looking at for expansion before they realised how bad of a design it would be.

This has been terminated.

Jasper and one o nin · #**3185** Posted **Oct 19, 2008, 12:32 AM**

maybe, the design makes sense, but with all the other infrastructure (roads), it would probably cost much more

dansk · #**3186** Posted **Oct 19, 2008, 11:38 PM**

once again this is not the final plan. it has been updated check the website. www.edmontonairports.com

Jasper and one o nin · #**3187** Posted **Oct 19, 2008, 11:53 PM**

yeah I know what the final plan is. Thats why I asked, what that was?

IKAN104 · #**3188** Posted **Oct 20, 2008, 12:29 AM**

I kind of liked the original plan. Why does it not make sense?

Great Dane · #**3189** Posted **Oct 20, 2008, 2:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IKAN104

I kind of liked the original plan. Why does it not make sense?

Make that 2.

Jasper and one o nin · #**3190** Posted **Oct 20, 2008, 3:06 PM**

Looks like someone pasted a google earth shot into Paint
I assume, the final plan that is under construction was the best way to deal with the sudden growth. Do do that plan (above) would probably cost 2X as much because of roads, bridges etc...

CMD UW · #**3191** Posted **Oct 20, 2008, 11:35 PM**

I hate those concepts and they shouldn't even be used as discussion purposes. Honestly now....

rapid_business · #**3192** Posted **Oct 21, 2008, 12:12 AM**

/\ Moi aussi. It looks like an impractical use of space and what I assume would have to be a larger tarmack.

IKAN104 · #**3193** Posted **Oct 21, 2008, 2:41 PM**

It seems to me that original design would've made future expansions easier to plan. When the hammerhead is complete where would the next expansion go?

Jasper and one o nin · #**3194** Posted **Oct 21, 2008, 2:43 PM**

I think expansion can still be accommodated - further east - with a connection adjacent to the road

dansk · #**3195** Posted **Oct 21, 2008, 2:56 PM**

Once again, look at this plan compared to the actual. Look how much more bang for the buck you get with the hammer head being surronded by apron you get more plans around the building than the plan some of you for some reason are drooling about.
No wonder you have some crappy designs in Edmonton, some of you look at weird as good even though it sucks.

IKAN104 · #**3196** Posted **Oct 21, 2008, 3:02 PM**

Ya, you do get more bang for your buck with the current design, I agree with that. But the original design had some merit too. (and it's not weird)

240glt · #**3197** Posted **Oct 21, 2008, 3:02 PM**

^ With all due respect, Dansk, I don't think any one of us is an architect specializing in the design of airports, and it's hardly likely that our opinions have anything to do with actual designs.

dansk · #**3198** Posted **Oct 21, 2008, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ With all due respect, Dansk, I don't think any one of us is an architect specializing in the design of airports, and it's hardly likely that our opinions have anything to do with actual designs.

Yes you have made that very clear.

240glt · #**3199** Posted **Oct 21, 2008, 4:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dansk

Yes you have made that very clear.

Excellent. Then you can direct your criticisms at the organizations that can affect change, rather than whipping up rhetoric.

It's a non-issue anyways, as that design, as you said, was turfed early on in the process.

dansk · #**3200** Posted **Oct 21, 2008, 8:43 PM**

Rhetoric with helps move things on these forums. Apparently you know that already along with many of the bunch down there in Edmonton.