urbanSTL

^ concourse not terminal

migueltejada wrote:So we should build a $50 mil structure to save people the minor inconvenience of waiting in the rain? We can build a functional cover that works for about 1/10th of the price...

We also have a perfectly functional train station. Cheap and functional = crap. For reference, search for any topic here with the word "vinyl." And I'm willing to bet that the canopy will be a relatively insignificant part of the overall project.

migueltejada wrote:I've looked over those drawings again - I see the 9 gates (which won't happen cause they're going to lose two right at the top there, where they hit a wall - unless they expect the staff to cram in there). Help to make sure I've oriented myself right - are they at the beginning of the gates, right after the ticket counters? Like, instead of going down the escalator, I run into the security gates before i get there? Is that right? If that's the case, then the security will bottleneck into the ticketing area.

The security gates remain on the lower level; ticketing remains on the upper level. That escalator most people take now from the ticketing level to the C/D security gates - it's going bye-bye.

This looks like a bad remodel job on a historic home. Is the major deficiency of Lambert the lack of a giant canopy?



I like the idea of adding to the existing terminal - maybe 1-3 new domes, if not more.



Then a good interior redesign and it could actually compete with modern airports.

Matt, good points.

Yes, BPE is right, I am NOT advocating tearing down the main terminal building, just the non-descript concourses. Those could be widened, higher ceilings, etc.

I would rather see a few more domes on the terminal than having the canopy. I'm torn. Either it could look pretty cool, or be a total joke. What if it lit up at night? some kind of colorful light display. would that be cool or cheesy? I'm thinking quality lighting, not Branson bulbs.

The security gates remain on the lower level; ticketing remains on the upper level. That escalator most people take now from the ticketing level to the C/D security gates - it's going bye-bye.

So - how are people going to get down to departures then? Honest, I can't read these freaking maps, they're so unhelpful...

We also have a perfectly functional train station. Cheap and functional = crap. For reference, search for any topic here with the word "vinyl." And I'm willing to bet that the canopy will be a relatively insignificant part of the overall project.

Bah! This coming from a Civee!



Most would argue that our train station is far from functional. It still doesn't makes sense to build so much for such an insignificant problem. If it was a totally new airport, I could understand it cause it would be a signature element - but we already have one. There's no need to clutter it up with a new design. True, it may not cost $50 mil, but we're talking a glass canopy the size of a freakin football field. It's gonna cost a TON. And to anyone else out there, that glass is represented on the drawings as single sheet. YEAH RIGHT. There'll probably be about 100 lights in each section. It's not going to look as clean as they're making it out to be.



And to our resident triple crown winner - I've already told you that the concourses need a major overhaul, and you know I'm right. Those shopfronts and drab and uninspiring, and the walkways just look tired and depressed. Nicer shopfronts and concourses will = better retail tennants which wil lead to higher turnover. The main terminal area is vital, of course, but most people spend most of their time in the concourse, on their way to the gate or waiting for their plane. Fix this, and baggage, and everything will be 100% better.

Before we start bashing the canopy, I will repost this from the other lambert thread. Here are some pics from the newer Portland airport. This is similar to what is planned here. Let's here from some forum members who have seen Portland's in person. What was your impression? Was it clean? etc



How about some colorful lighting along the lines of what's hanging in the new CC subway stations?

Gary Kreie wrote:Here are a couple of pictures of the Portand canopy.

I'm more interested in the interior improvements -- both the functional and the esthetic. But I'm ok with the canopy in theory.

OK, got it. Tear down the concourses, not the terminal. Sorry, JCity.

I've been through Boston and Cleveland regularly and I'd say that the main problem(s) with Lambert are lack of shopping/food choices and lack of travelers. Returning yesterday at about 6pm Lambert was packed - I really could have confused it with Logan. And the terminal I departed from at Logan was dismal (American Airlines), no real shops and only Burger King/Pizza Hut and Starbucks for food.

Cleveland is an OK airport to me. Its small enough not to be too crowded all the time and there is a good amount of, as you said, shopping and dining. But they still have the boring Burger King/Panda Express/Sub sandwich place. They have one nice restaurant type thing whos name I cant remember. But I think this is common in just about every airport.

Just returned to Lambert Int. today.



Packed.



We arrived on an international flight from the Dominican Republic. We flew USA3000 and what a beautiful airline. The plane was a Airbus A320 and new and we had to use the concourse C immigration entrance. The lines were long for the customs and immigrations but they were efficient. We were told that the East Terminal's immigration/customs center is under reconstruction and enlargement. There were signs that said it would be done by Summer 07 and apology for the delays. That was interesting. Lambert Int. may be wooing more international flights.



Concourse C was crazy! The mobs of people. The new flat screen flight panels are wonderful and overall I think the concourses look great. The new stores, restaurants, etc... I loved hearing the announcments for American Airlines connecting passengers. Nice to see connections up at Lambert Int. as well.



I love the new design look that Lambert will soon boast.

Did somebody say tear down the concourses? Ludicrous reimagining time!







Phase 1: Tear down Concourse B. Shift B gates to Concourse D. Expand main terminal building so that it can accomodate 8-10 gates.



Phase 2: Tear down Concourse A. Shift A gates to new Phase 1 gates and Concourse D. Build new west concourse with ~32 gates.



Phase 3a: Tear down Concourse D. Close south side Concourse C. Shift south side C gates and all D gates to new Concourse A. Build new east concourse with ~32 gates.



Phase 3b: Tear down Concourse C. Shift C gates to south side of new east Concourse.



Phase 4: Build new concourse west of Runway 6/24 with ~20 gates.

I really like your plan here. Make the new concourses two stories tall, and run an indoor rail line on the upper level with a few stops -- just like the one in the brand new Northwest terminal in Detroit -- which is very long like this. That is one of the newest and best terminals in the country, and this could be even better.

=D> EXCELLENT idea. Could this actually happen? Would they even consider looking at something like this? great plan!

JCity wrote:
I've always been a huge fan of this main building. Clearly, it is famous and is the inspiration for modern airport design worldwide. Now, we are finally going to polish it up a bit.

Or obfuscate it with a gimicky glass canopy.

Ya know, if you take the "st louis" point of view, well end up doing neither. Well just spend millions of dollars and not be noticed by anyone from around the rest of the country.... whats the point of spending money (for better of worse in some peoples minds) when nobody will care anyway....



Just a little sarcasm to lighten the mood.

I'm torn on the canopy. Yes, it will seem to block the terminal if you're driving by on 70, but I don't think it will block it at all if you're actually going to the airport.

matguy70 wrote:Just returned to Lambert Int. today.



Packed.



We arrived on an international flight from the Dominican Republic. We flew USA3000 and what a beautiful airline. The plane was a Airbus A320 and new and we had to use the concourse C immigration entrance. The lines were long for the customs and immigrations but they were efficient. We were told that the East Terminal's immigration/customs center is under reconstruction and enlargement. There were signs that said it would be done by Summer 07 and apology for the delays. That was interesting. Lambert Int. may be wooing more international flights.



Concourse C was crazy! The mobs of people. The new flat screen flight panels are wonderful and overall I think the concourses look great. The new stores, restaurants, etc... I loved hearing the announcments for American Airlines connecting passengers. Nice to see connections up at Lambert Int. as well.



I love the new design look that Lambert will soon boast.

My guess is that its more packed during the March 15-April 1 period than usual. College/High school spring breakers mostly. I cant remember which terminal I was in for my senior trip.

I sure hope St. Louis can reevaluate the airport experience project. We'll spend a hundred million or so just "cleaning up" the main terminal. Shortly after the project is completed, our airport will be just like Cleveland (low ceilings, poor design, poor quality). I strongly hope Hybrokaw and the others at the airport reconsider the project, although it is highly unlikely since they already have a contract. [They only got one bid!]

I was in last in Kansas City for a trip about a year ago. It certainly was "an experience", considering the heightened security measures and the configuration of the airport. (There is a security check point for every 3-4 gates, and the stores, restaurants, and even restrooms are outside of security). It was for this reason many years ago that TWA favored STL over MCI (Kansas City IATA code), and relocated their hub, as Lambert would offer easier connections for passengers and be more practical for crew. If I'm not mistaken, MCI had undergone a terminal modernization program in the 2002/2003 time frame for all three terminals.

b777stl wrote:I was in last in Kansas City for a trip about a year ago. It certainly was "an experience", considering the heightened security measures and the configuration of the airport. (There is a security check point for every 3-4 gates, and the stores, restaurants, and even restrooms are outside of security). It was for this reason many years ago that TWA favored STL over MCI (Kansas City IATA code), and relocated their hub, as Lambert would offer easier connections for passengers and be more practical for crew. If I'm not mistaken, MCI had undergone a terminal modernization program in the 2002/2003 time frame for all three terminals.

I believe the rationale behind the MCI layout was that back when it was designed, the goal was to get passengers from the street to the gate as quickly and easily as possible. When security became an issue and checkpoints needed to be installed, that plan became a bit flawed. TWA had a pretty decent sized operation at MCI at one point, and had a huge maintenance facility - TWA may have been the largest employer in KC for a time.