Quote:
Originally Posted by Paniolo Man
Great article, thanks for sharing.
We have a great around here of misrepresenting the age of buildings. Most of the airport was less than 15 years old at the time of this statement. I'm not opposed to the redevelopment, though I do feel like SLCDA always inferred the age of the whole airport based solely on the portion of Terminal 1 from the 40s. My controversial take is that the redevelopment is happening at the right time, doing it in the 90s and 00s would have been premature.
The old airport was more functionally obsolete than it was structurally deficient.
|
They were a bit off but Terminal 2 was originally constructed in 1978 to go along with Terminal 1, which was built in 1960. There were expansions and remodels, tho. But 2005 was the original completion date, which would have put it 45 years after Terminal 1 opened and 27 years after Terminal 2 was completed. So, the article hedges a little bit between those two dates.
A big reason the airport wasn't actually built by 2005 was 9/11. Had 9/11 not happened, the original design likely would have been built and we would've had a 17 year old airport on our hands.
Here's what the original airport was expected to look like before 9/11 changed things dramatically (photos are small but what're you going to do):
And I believe this is the exact rendering you see in the Tribune article, or close to it:
Not too different from what we got but clearly a design that utilized more glass and had a much larger main terminal (which some of you have complained about being too small lol).
Prev
Linear Mode
