I travel a fair amount and am puzzled by the vast wastes of space various airports are. What purpose does 100' ceiling serve? Are all those windows so that you can see every inch of the aircraft about to crash into you? Who picks up the tab for heating and cooling, as it must be astronomical? Can't they add some sound proofing material to reduce the noise levels?
Airport Architecture
- Thread starter BCinSC
- Start date
What purpose does 100' ceiling serve? Are all those windows so that you can see every inch of the aircraft about to crash into you?
If they were going to use my money to build a public service, I'd rather they take the extra buck or two and do a damn good job, rather than churning out some cruddy old POS with 7 foot ceilings, no heating, and dim lighting
If they were going to use my money to build a public service, I'd rather they take the extra buck or two and do a damn good job, rather than churning out some cruddy old POS with 7 foot ceilings, no heating, and dim lighting
you realize how many people get stuffed into these places? they prolly figure you need proper air ventillation and lighting. what better way than to use sunlight.
open spaces yield a feeling of calm. no claustrophobia. this means you can relax a little more, and less likely to screw something up and cause the airport staff inconveinience. you would not believe the number of people who arrive at an airport on time, check in on time, then completely forget to get on the flight. they just completely loose track of time.
Some of them just plain look good. Chicago O'Hare, for example, has ~150' ceilings of arched glass and painted metal (at least the United terminal does...) and a really neat walkway that connects terminals B and C underneath the tarmac. Would you rather be in an ugly airport with less ventilation or a larger, more attractive one with good ventilation?
I'm sure the sun shining through those windows helps keep heating costs down in the winter (though it probably doesn't do any good in the summer).
I'm sure the sun shining through those windows helps keep heating costs down in the winter (though it probably doesn't do any good in the summer).
"stations" are usually like that... OPEN... and "welcoming" very different from the "claustrophobic" nature of airplanes, trains, cars, closets, toilets, and phone booths.
Definitely don't want 7' ceilings, but 15-20 would do. Good ventilation is the key to any structure. I've worked (and lived, ugh) in buildings where the ventilation sucked. Completely agree with the use of natural light, but there is a limit to getting that light. Because of the noise level from echos and obnoxious cheap announcement speakers, calm is the last word I'd use. I've been to O'Hare many times and know of the terminal and walkway of which you speak. Cool, yes; excess, definitely.
several reasons for the very high ceilings
The interior can be changed easily as airlines & seasons change
apparent noise is greatly reduced
the large volume of air buffers heat, cold, CO2, changes etc as the result of large rapid changes in the number of people present. small volume rooms are much less comfortable as the number of people rapidly fluctuate, doors open to the exterior, etc
CO2 buildup when a lot of people are present makes people more grumpy & agitated & more unruly
In summer for instance, no people too cold, then as people concentrate it gets too hot. in large volume rooms, the temp does not fluctuate as much
In winter areas with snow there is a humidity fluctuation as snow & ice tracked in melts
There is also the factor of body odors with large numbers of people
it is very difficult to exchange enough air without noise & air currents in low ceiling buildings
airconditioning cost is somewhat offset by less lighting cost
The interior can be changed easily as airlines & seasons change
apparent noise is greatly reduced
the large volume of air buffers heat, cold, CO2, changes etc as the result of large rapid changes in the number of people present. small volume rooms are much less comfortable as the number of people rapidly fluctuate, doors open to the exterior, etc
CO2 buildup when a lot of people are present makes people more grumpy & agitated & more unruly
In summer for instance, no people too cold, then as people concentrate it gets too hot. in large volume rooms, the temp does not fluctuate as much
In winter areas with snow there is a humidity fluctuation as snow & ice tracked in melts
There is also the factor of body odors with large numbers of people
it is very difficult to exchange enough air without noise & air currents in low ceiling buildings
airconditioning cost is somewhat offset by less lighting cost
Also remember that the first impression of a city you get is in the airport. The better looking and the better the facilities the more chance you have of enjoying yourself(Although I find it VERY hard to enjoy myself in these places..... )
)Ah, Cybersaz, airports make a profit (even govt owned ones) - everytime a jumbo lands they get a good few thousand from the airline, plus they get heaps in rent from the airport shops. So they don't need public money.
My favority in Schipol (Amsterdam) its nice n' simple with 2 wings forming a V, with departures upstairs & arrivals downstairs, & the main entrance in the middle with the bus ranks right out front. Also the railway platforms are directly underneath the airport terminal, so all one has to do to catch a train is buy a ticket from the store in the terminal & go to the escalator that runs up & down between arrival & departures & just keep taking the down escalators & your on the platform itself. Plus all flights whether domestic (Europe) or international depart & arrive at the same terminal. So there's none of that changing terminal crap & having to get an airport bus or train just to change planes.
Whereas Heathrow really sucks, first there's 4 seperate terminals, so it can be a real hassle changing flights, depending on the terminal you can be going down heaps of stairs & lifts & walking along all these passages & hallways, just to get to the railway platform, to change planes. Also its serviced by 2 completely different railway networks (the direct one & the tube) which confuses things even more. I don't like San Fransisco Airport either, but that may have changed over the last 10/15 years.
My favority in Schipol (Amsterdam) its nice n' simple with 2 wings forming a V, with departures upstairs & arrivals downstairs, & the main entrance in the middle with the bus ranks right out front. Also the railway platforms are directly underneath the airport terminal, so all one has to do to catch a train is buy a ticket from the store in the terminal & go to the escalator that runs up & down between arrival & departures & just keep taking the down escalators & your on the platform itself. Plus all flights whether domestic (Europe) or international depart & arrive at the same terminal. So there's none of that changing terminal crap & having to get an airport bus or train just to change planes.
Whereas Heathrow really sucks, first there's 4 seperate terminals, so it can be a real hassle changing flights, depending on the terminal you can be going down heaps of stairs & lifts & walking along all these passages & hallways, just to get to the railway platform, to change planes. Also its serviced by 2 completely different railway networks (the direct one & the tube) which confuses things even more. I don't like San Fransisco Airport either, but that may have changed over the last 10/15 years.
For once, I might have to agree with Crocodile Dundee here. The Schiphol is a very efficient little airport. As for the shopping there, the cologne is a steal, but everything else is a ripoff.
Most American airports are *exactly* the same. They just consist of one, or a serious of, really long terminals. Sometimes you can't tell if you're in Detroit, or in Atlanta, or in Phoenix, because all the damn airports here are the same. None seem to have any aesthetic architectural thought put into them, and seem to serve purely utilitarian purposes (which might be to the liking of the individual that started this thread).
Heathrow airport is not bad. It's just not a good place to transfer
Most American airports are *exactly* the same. They just consist of one, or a serious of, really long terminals. Sometimes you can't tell if you're in Detroit, or in Atlanta, or in Phoenix, because all the damn airports here are the same. None seem to have any aesthetic architectural thought put into them, and seem to serve purely utilitarian purposes (which might be to the liking of the individual that started this thread).
Heathrow airport is not bad. It's just not a good place to transfer
Dullus is unique, but one of the biggest PITAs to get around. Try changing between United and UNited Express there. UGLY and pretty much guarantee to miss connection, as inbound is always late, unless you have 2+ hours.
I am utilitarian to the core. Thank you for the compliment, CyberSax.
I am utilitarian to the core. Thank you for the compliment, CyberSax.
So, did they finally get Dulles repaired after the terrorists took it over in the early 90's??
I heard some NY police officer had to save the whole place.
amish
I heard some NY police officer had to save the whole place.
amish
I agree - Actually, if they made the airports very tiny and cramped, people might think, "Wow, get me on this plane already! I need some space!"
I don't think outside the box. I think on top of the box.
I don't think outside the box. I think on top of the box.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter