CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[Jim in Chicago]

Originally Posted by kbud

4 years to break ground, that is insane. China builds entire new airports in less time. Are they waiting for T5 to be done? There has to be work they can do in parallel, like starting on the satellites.

They're destroying a bunch of gates - there has to be somewhere for those planes to go, so the satellites come first.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Third place doesn't suggest that Gang was "Chicagoan's choice"

It may not be the winner, but it had the biggest bump in Chicago votes compared to non-Chicago based voters?

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

How did you go from the above'....



To this conclusion?

Third place doesn't suggest that Gang was "Chicagoan's choice"

I didn't say it was Chicago's choice, I said Studio ORD was a favorite among Chicagoans who wanted a hometown architect.

When you compare the overall vote preference vs. Chicago voters' preference, the Studio ORD proposal is much more competitive against the Calatrava and Foster proposals.

[NikolasM]

I had not seen the image showing Studio Gang's satellite terminals. They look really good. I think O'Hare should stick with a cohesive design for this project, not try to starchitect it up the wazoo.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i mean, clearly the poll had little impact on the actual decision. if it did, Foster or Calatrava would have won.

The poll by itself had little impact, of course. It would be dumb to choose an airport design just based off of architect popularity or the public looking at pretty renders. But it was probably an important factor used to eliminate Fentress and SOM from the running.

And since neither Calatrava nor Foster had a huge mandate, the committee felt more comfortable going with a local group.

[Kngkyle]

On one hand I'd like a cohesive design for the whole airport, but on the other hand it's unique, and very Chicago, to have a diverse group of architects:

T1: Jahn
T2: Studio Gang
T2S: Foster (or whoever)
T3: (? forgot)
T5: Perkins + Will

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

On one hand I'd like a cohesive design for the whole airport, but on the other hand it's unique, and very Chicago, to have a diverse group of architects:

T1: Jahn
T2: Studio Gang
T2S: Foster (or whoever)
T3: (? forgot)
T5: Perkins + Will

T3 (and the current T2) were originally designed by C.F. Murphy, but they've gone through lots of changes over the decades.


good news on the studio gang win. let's hope they knock it out of the park.

[nomarandlee]

Through I wanted Foster to win I'm really good with any of the designs that were not SOM.

I'd love to know why Foster wasn't chosen though

[Via Chicago]

honestly when i look at Gang's it just looks more....realistic for lack of a better word.

when you watch those videos Foster had super generous public space set aside, but Gang made a point to show all the unsexy stuff like kiosks and food stall locations etc etc which inevitably the city is going to want for revenue. you can tell she thought about where that stuff is going to go, and how to fit it into the bigger picture. im sure theres a lot more technical and budget related things behind the scenes as well, aside from the big "statement" designs, but that stood out to me...looks far easier to execute and build in the real world.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Another interesting aspect of Gang's design is that they plan to use so much wood. Given the huge amount of "serration" on the ceilings and the material, it's going to be very quiet for such a huge public space. Should have very nice acoustics if they don't VE the wood out.

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

China is a centrally planned economy growing at 7% GDP, also completely lacking in worker safety/construction regulations, environmental considerations, human rights concerns etc. I think we can agree there are fundamental differences that will prevent such construction timelines in the US in 2019.

Absolutely, China has also been building infrastructure from the ground up in greenfields. Not exactly as easy as re configuring the central terminal of the busiest airport on earth.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

honestly when i look at Gang's it just looks more....realistic for lack of a better word.

when you watch those videos Foster had super generous public space set aside, but Gang made a point to show all the unsexy stuff like kiosks and food stall locations etc etc which inevitably the city is going to want for revenue. you can tell she thought about where that stuff is going to go, and how to fit it into the bigger picture. im sure theres a lot more technical and budget related things behind the scenes as well, aside from the big "statement" designs, but that stood out to me...looks far easier to execute and build in the real world.

Foster had retailers too, they were just tucked into curvilinear freestanding pavilions (Foster called them "pebbles") instead of terraced like Woodfield Mall. IMO the Gang plan shows too much retail, it literally looks like half of Woodfield Mall was dropped into an airport concourse. I'd rather the city built too little retail and have to carefully curate the vendors, than have them build too much and end up with gloomy empty storefronts.

Style wise, I do like the Gang proposal and it definitely feels very "ecological" in a way that the other proposals did not... hopefully Gang follows through on their commitment to sustainability. LEED certification would be amazing, maybe a green roof?

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Through I wanted Foster to win I'm really good with any of the designs that were not SOM.

I'd love to know why Foster wasn't chosen though

Two solid reasons I can think of:

The diagrid structure looks very expensive to build vs. the other designs that just use columns.

Also, now that I've seen the images showing how the Studio design connects to the other terminals, I see that it's really intuitive when traveling between terminals. Just follow the wooden spine to your gate.

The Foster design screws everybody who's connecting from Terminal 3, because it's on the far side of Terminal 2.

[MayorOfChicago]

Originally Posted by kbud

4 years to break ground, that is insane. China builds entire new airports in less time. Are they waiting for T5 to be done? There has to be work they can do in parallel, like starting on the satellites.

That's for the Terminal 2 replacement. They have to build the new satellite concourses first to get those replacement gates for tearing down Terminal 2.

Terminal 5: 2019-2021
New Satellite: 2020-2023
New Conc C Ext: 2021-2024
New Terminal 2: 2024-2028
3 new gates to Concourse L: 2022
New transport to satellites: 2024

Only thing that doesn't make sense here is the transport needs to be up and running when the new satellite terminal opens in 2023.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Foster had retailers too, they were just tucked into curvilinear freestanding pavilions (Foster called them "pebbles") instead of terraced like Woodfield Mall. IMO the Gang plan shows too much retail, it literally looks like half of Woodfield Mall was dropped into an airport concourse. I'd rather the city built too little retail and have to carefully curate the vendors, than have them build too much and end up with gloomy empty storefronts.

Style wise, I do like the Gang proposal and it definitely feels very "ecological" in a way that the other proposals did not... hopefully Gang follows through on their commitment to sustainability. LEED certification would be amazing, maybe a green roof?

Oh, I agree with you. But airports are the new malls...

i also wonder how much potential heating/cooling costs played a role in not choosing Fosters design. you look at that enormous open space and those huge panes of glass, and one has to wonder how well insulated all of that would be, and how much energy it would take to keep it comfortable. especially seeing as we're going through all this hand-wringing now with the Thompson Center, which most acknowledge as a "cool" design but not practical. HVAC is conspicuously absent in any of those renderings.

[jc5680]

I am more happy about the choice the more I think about it. I have spent a lot of hours in airports over the last couple years and there is a sterile sameness to a lot of the newer terminals and concourses (at least domestically). The warmth of the wooden structural elements and inclusion of the trees go a long way to soften the experience and add some distinction without going full log cabin like you see in small airports like Jackson.

I had originally preferred Foster, but shared similar concerns about heating/cooling. If you have lined up at one of the newer United gates in Houston with a full exposure an afternoon summer sun, soaring clear glass walls lose their appeal pretty quick.

Not everyone is happy, naturally:

Via Blair Kamin—Jahn isn't so happy with the Studio ORD choice, or the process at least:

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Foster had retailers too, they were just tucked into curvilinear freestanding pavilions (Foster called them "pebbles") instead of terraced like Woodfield Mall. IMO the Gang plan shows too much retail, it literally looks like half of Woodfield Mall was dropped into an airport concourse. I'd rather the city built too little retail and have to carefully curate the vendors, than have them build too much and end up with gloomy empty storefronts.

I doubt those storefronts will go unused. My understanding from a buddy of mine who helps run vendors for the department of aviation is that they have a massive waiting list of people who want to get into O'Hare, but can't because of space constraints. I'm all for it, make it a giant mall, like a reverse duty free shop as we strip all of the layovers of their cash via our vampiric 10.25% sales tax.

Originally Posted by galleyfox

T

Also, now that I've seen the images showing how the Studio design connects to the other terminals, I see that it's really intuitive when traveling between terminals. Just follow the wooden spine to your gate.

Watch her video about it, she talks about how the "Y" shape is inspired by the confluence so it makes perfect sense that her design is optimized to channel crowds to their destinations like water. I really like the six point star occulus at the center too.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I doubt those storefronts will go unused. My understanding from a buddy of mine who helps run vendors for the department of aviation is that they have a massive waiting list of people who want to get into O'Hare, but can't because of space constraints. I'm all for it, make it a giant mall, like a reverse duty free shop as we strip all of the layovers of their cash via our vampiric 10.25% sales tax.



Watch her video about it, she talks about how the "Y" shape is inspired by the confluence so it makes perfect sense that her design is optimized to channel crowds to their destinations like water. I really like the six point star occulus at the center too.

Which video is that? do you have a link


• Video Link

[k1052]

Originally Posted by jc5680

Not everyone is happy, naturally:

Via Blair Kamin—Jahn isn't so happy with the Studio ORD choice, or the process at least:

Respectfully, Jahn can fuck off.

[the urban politician]

I'm quite excited about the Gang choice. I think the wooden aesthetic will be unique and make O'Hare stand out around the world.

Of course, that's unless somebody else does a wooden interior within the 4 year timeframe before construction even begins.

When doing novel things, execute them quickly, I say, lest somebody else steal your idea and beat you to it....

[Steely Dan]

^ it's like you're not even reading this thread.

several other forumers have tried informing you, but you apparently refuse to listen/comprehend.

- construction on the new global terminal can't begin until the current T2 is demolished.

- the current T2 can't be demolished until all of its 30 gates can be accommodated in a new satellite concourse that has to be designed and built first.

- the new satellite concourses aren't going to start until the T5 expansion that just started last week is finished.


what are you not understanding about the timeline of how this project has to be phased?