Four major art projects for new KCI terminal revealed

[srvy]

Originally Posted by vonBobo

Airports are often engineering works of art themselves. Then they offer a large space that will be populated by thousands of people every day. The tradition and importance of architecture and artwork in mass transit goes all the way back to trains. No, almost no one go because of the art, but it is a very important element in city planning.

I believe the tile work at the "current" terminals were some of my favorite installations in the city, been gazing at it my entire life. Its an exciting visual that suggests the adventure that is just beginning, and it is there again welcoming me back home.

Your thinking of architecture. Architects make pretty pictures just like artists. The engineers then take that architect's dream or nightmare and make it work on paper and then in construction. I work with both and have great respect for engineers. Not so much architects.

I am not against the art placed in the terminal at all. I do know that traveling public in a rush will breeze right by it heading for gate or baggage without a glance. An airport terminal is not an art gallery it just isn't. My beef is with a perfectly fine airport that doesn't have a hub airline come and go there. The biggest users of that airport are UPS and FedEx. The biggest public airline is Southwest who has threatened and cut back flight over the years here and can bolt at a moment's notice. The city should have taken care of what they had renovated when needed. Instead, they choose to neglect routine maintenance for 20 years and left it in shambles. They will do the same with the new one and the taxpayer will be dealt the task of paying for it.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by srvy

Your thinking of architecture. Architects make pretty pictures just like artists. The engineers then take that architect's dream or nightmare and make it work on paper and then in construction. I work with both and have great respect for engineers. Not so much architects.

I am not against the art placed in the terminal at all. I do know that traveling public in a rush will breeze right by it heading for gate or baggage without a glance. An airport terminal is not an art gallery it just isn't. My beef is with a perfectly fine airport that doesn't have a hub airline come and go there. The biggest users of that airport are UPS and FedEx. The biggest public airline is Southwest who has threatened and cut back flight over the years here and can bolt at a moment's notice. The city should have taken care of what they had renovated when needed. Instead, they choose to neglect routine maintenance for 20 years and left it in shambles. They will do the same with the new one and the taxpayer will be dealt the task of paying for it.

The whole having 3 separate buildings for the terminals made it basically impossible for it to be renovated and made modern no matter what they did.

[srvy]

Originally Posted by -King-

The whole having 3 separate buildings for the terminals made it basically impossible for it to be renovated and made modern no matter what they did.

There was a renovation plan that was pretty nice and cheaper by I think Burns and Mac. The city would have none of that they wanted new.

The 3 terminals the airlines demanded. In fact 4 were originally planned for future growth. TWA, Pan AM and Fronteir made a lot of promises they didn't keep. With Jumbo Jets and SST it was promised to become a major hub for International Travel. When the SST fell through the airport plan collapsed with it.

I believe the 2 old terminals still remain I don't know if demolition is planned or they will be utilized when new is open.

[vonBobo]

Originally Posted by srvy

Your thinking of architecture. Architects make pretty pictures just like artists. The engineers then take that architect's dream or nightmare and make it work on paper and then in construction. I work with both and have great respect for engineers. Not so much architects.

I am not against the art placed in the terminal at all. I do know that traveling public in a rush will breeze right by it heading for gate or baggage without a glance. An airport terminal is not an art gallery it just isn't. My beef is with a perfectly fine airport that doesn't have a hub airline come and go there. The biggest users of that airport are UPS and FedEx. The biggest public airline is Southwest who has threatened and cut back flight over the years here and can bolt at a moment's notice. The city should have taken care of what they had renovated when needed. Instead, they choose to neglect routine maintenance for 20 years and left it in shambles. They will do the same with the new one and the taxpayer will be dealt the task of paying for it.

Art galleries are a very small portion of where art is located.

Either the tax payers pay for renovations or they pay for new development. Either way we are going to be on the hook somehow. Important infrastructure like this simply needs to be replaced eventually.

I hate losing the old airport because it fit my needs perfectly., But maintaining and replacing it is just a given.