CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion - Page 127

nomarandlee · #**2521** Posted **Jan 30, 2019, 9:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

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.

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.

galleyfox · #**2522** Posted **Jan 31, 2019, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ 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.

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.

LouisVanDerWright · #**2523** Posted **Feb 4, 2019, 5:26 PM**

O'HARE REGAINS "BUSIEST AIRPORT IN USA" TITLE

Suck it Atlanta:

https://abc7chicago.com/travel/ohare-ranked-as-busiest-airport-in-us/5119789/

the urban politician · #**2524** Posted **Feb 4, 2019, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

O'HARE REGAINS "BUSIEST AIRPORT IN USA" TITLE

Suck it Atlanta:

https://abc7chicago.com/travel/ohare-ranked-as-busiest-airport-in-us/5119789/

C. · #**2525** Posted **Feb 4, 2019, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

O'HARE REGAINS "BUSIEST AIRPORT IN USA" TITLE

Suck it Atlanta:

https://abc7chicago.com/travel/ohare-ranked-as-busiest-airport-in-us/5119789/

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.

N830MH · #**2526** Posted **Feb 4, 2019, 7:34 PM**

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

https://archinect.com/news/bustler/7101/...ign-for-o-hare-global-terminal-expansion

F1 Tommy · #**2527** Posted **Feb 4, 2019, 10:59 PM**

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.

RealEstateBroker · #**2528** Posted **Feb 4, 2019, 11:33 PM**

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

Will O' Wisp · #**2529** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 2:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RealEstateBroker

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.

LaSalle.St.Station · #**2530** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 4:06 AM**

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

k1052 · #**2531** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 12:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

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.

k1052 · #**2532** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 1:13 PM**

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.

Steely Dan · #**2533** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 2:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

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

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.

SIGSEGV · #**2534** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 2:51 PM**

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

Steely Dan · #**2535** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 2:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Does MKE have spare capacity?

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.

k1052 · #**2536** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 5:37 PM**

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

1) Everywhere but Chicago

end list

chiphile · #**2537** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.

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.

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:

k1052 · #**2538** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiphile

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.

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.

LouisVanDerWright · #**2539** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 8:02 PM**

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

chiphile · #**2540** Posted **Feb 5, 2019, 9:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by k1052

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.

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.