442 replies to this topic

[Camillo Sitte]

bic, on Apr 28 2007, 05:45 PM, said:

You're right about that. I read the initial comments as being sarcastic but after Camillo's elaboration, it's definitely not.

Sorry, but not one ounce of sarcasm intended.  

What will be built is awful and is, sadly, indicative of an utter lack of sophistication on the part of the powers-that-be in Orlando in their refusal to seek out and sponsor really good public architecture.

Truly great cities go out of their way to use the opportunities of a large-scale public project [such as an airport] to find an architecture that represents the best of a communities aspirations, vision, and self-image.

Orlando has as long and sad history of consulting with Disney as to how to efficiently queue large numbers of people and then hire corporate architecture firms that have long and distinguished histories of delivering mediocre-at-best architecture in an on-time and on-budget manner.

Safe perhaps but every single large-scale project in central Florida screams – "we have no vision, we take no chances", and the OIA South Terminal Complex will be no different – though Orlando does have a large number of lovely Wal-Mart SuperCenters…

[orlandonative]

I'm with you Camillo, for the most part, but what about functionality?  What I know of the situation, as I am currently getting close-out doc's from subs on a project from OIA, is that they are not happy with the functionality of the design criteria.  This is in addition to anything that HOK or anyone else for that matter has produced as a matter of standard that has become general condition post 9/11.  HOK or any other architect is not to blame for this lack of glitz and glamour.  What is to blame is the lack of specification that is provided to General Contractors that chose to take on the design-build approach to these projects.  Provided the mock-ups that were posted above become reality, I personally would be quite pleased with the outcome.  

GOAA gives the nod, but doesn't give the cash.  What results is an uninspired piece of crap, that is VE'd to death.  To the point that anyone with a minimal position can easily critique from the sidelines, the resulting building from a Monday morning position.  To me that is more annoying than anything else.  

Same $h!t different building with results to these boards.

[Camillo Sitte]

orlandonative, on Apr 28 2007, 10:17 PM, said:

I'm with you Camillo, for the most part, but what about functionality?  What I know of the situation, as I am currently getting close-out doc's from subs on a project from OIA, is that they are not happy with the functionality of the design criteria.  This is in addition to anything that HOK or anyone else for that matter has produced as a matter of standard that has become general condition post 9/11.  HOK or any other architect is not to blame for this lack of glitz and glamour.  What is to blame is the lack of specification that is provided to General Contractors that chose to take on the design-build approach to these projects.  Provided the mock-ups that were posted above become reality, I personally would be quite pleased with the outcome.  

GOAA gives the nod, but doesn't give the cash.  What results is an uninspired piece of crap, that is VE'd to death.  To the point that anyone with a minimal position can easily critique from the sidelines, the resulting building from a Monday morning position.  To me that is more annoying than anything else.  

Same $h!t different building with results to these boards.

Well, I’ll tell ya, a few years ago I was lured to the dark side into a position with one of the acronym firms [then one of the eight largest architecture firms in the country FWIW].

Was told they were really looking to start doing “high design” so they were recruiting young “hot shots” out of the best schools to try and change their image.

At that time I had my BArch, BAUDes, MArch II, and MA Arch-His and had worked for several high profile firms. My first project was a high-rise located in an affluent Pacific Rim city-state. I spent a number of weeks doing my “thing” only to be told by the VP in charge of that project to go back and look at the other work we had previously done for this client.

I looked at the prior work and then said to the VP that those previous projects we all the self-same cookie-cutter strip mall historicist pastiche crap. The VP relied, “Yeah, you’re right, but the client seems happy with that stuff and he pays well and on time so why go out on a limb and challenge his expectations.”

I put in my resignation the next day.

What should Orlando do with the OIA STC? First they should charter a small committee of architectural educators/designers/critics to select twenty or so participants, regardless of firm size, to submit proposals for an international design competition. The city and GOAA should be open to proposals from lesser know individuals even if they don’t have a great deal of experience with large scale or airport projects.

A long list of designing mediocre projects is, to my mind, no virtue and should not be a requirement for this project.

As far a functionality and meeting post-9/11 design criteria goes trust me, any design architect who chooses to participate in this competition will partner with a thoroughly competent executive architect such as Ove Arup, HNTB, Grinner, etc. who will have no problems meeting any functionality requirements.

[orlandonative]

Nice list of credentials, let me know if work ever becomes slow.  Also a very funny story regarding your experience with the "dark side".  

Seems a lot of these firms get in real good with clients and design down, if you will, to the clients vision rather than their potential.  A shame really but it seems to be more and more common these days for these little love triangles to exist.  Hunton Brady for example, I'll call them out.  Great local firm, perhaps a little quick at times to trust the GC in design build though.  They will literally do a two day turn around on structural steel shop drawings if you need them to, and they have Florida Hospital wrapped around their pinky.

[lala67]

orlandonative, on Apr 29 2007, 12:17 AM, said:

GOAA gives the nod, but doesn't give the cash.  What results is an uninspired piece of crap, that is VE'd to death.  To the point that anyone with a minimal position can easily critique from the sidelines, the resulting building from a Monday morning position.  To me that is more annoying than anything else.

you can say that about just about any public agency contract.  It's frustrating being nickel and dimed to death on contracts then dumped on by the public and client b/c the final product is mediocre.  But I've seen some inovative public designs.  Boone High School's entry is pretty nice, and I'm often amazed that the school board actually approved such a design.  That said, it has it's own shortcomings.

As a planner/uban designer, I'm pretty frustrated with some of the same lack of architectural vision camillo speaks of, don't even get me started on how too many buildings are designed to have no relationship to the street or neighborhood.

[i_cre8]

Renderings showing the proposed South Terminal, incorporating the South OIA Intermodal Center:








Renderings showing the existing North Terminal, incorporating the proposed North OIA Intermodal Center on the east side of the existing landside terminal:







These are all courtesy of OIA and CFRail.

Edited by i_cre8, 02 May 2007 - 01:46 PM.

[bic]

Oh wow...what happened to the nice organic design we saw in the first couple of renderings? Can't say that I'm a fan of this one.

And is it just me or did they completely jack the design of Disney's Contemporary for the North Terminal station/hotel?

[bulldogger]

bic, on May 2 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

Oh wow...what happened to the nice organic design we saw in the first couple of renderings? Can't say that I'm a fan of this one.

And is it just me or did they completely jack the design of Disney's Contemporary for the North Terminal station/hotel?

The current terminal looks like it enough already.

I think those renderings are just rough drafts.

[shardoon]

so there are going to be two intermodal centers..... one for north and south?

also, im confused about future phases of the south terminal. the first pic shows the intial terminal complex. am i to assume that the completed phased out south terminal will compose of multiple terminals like this interconnected like how the previous rendering on page 2 looked?

what happened to the curves?

[bic]

shardoon, on May 2 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

so there are going to be two intermodal centers..... one for north and south?

also, im confused about future phases of the south terminal. the first pic shows the intial terminal complex. am i to assume that the completed phased out south terminal will compose of multiple terminals like this interconnected like how the previous rendering on page 2 looked?

I believe you are correct on all points.

In addition, I'm pretty sure that the initial phase of the south terminal will be MCO's new international terminal. You can even make out a couple of dual jetway gates that would accommodate the A380.

[Camillo Sitte]

The images recently posted are the "less water" scheme I mentioned earlier.

One of the GOAA consultants feared [perhaps rightly so] that with too much water surrounding the new complex there would be a serious bird problem [birds and 60-90,000 lb thrust turbo-fans don't mix well].

Also, the first built phase of the South Terminal Complex is still slated to be a 24-gate domestic airline terminal.

You have to understand that by giving "signatory” status to just about every domestic airline flying into MCO the GOAA has given them override authority on most construction projects so the airlines are very hesitant to essentially "tax" themselves with new construction. And when they do agree to construction it is usually for domestic facilities that benefit them - not the few international airlines.

VS is an exception to this but as an essentially "budget" airline they seem willing to make do with their current facilities - particularly considering that DL has vacated their wing. With their expanded service to LGW and MAN and their new service to GLA, perhaps they will take another look at approving a new international terminal - time will tell.

[bic]

You should contribute to this forum more often, Camillo.

[orlandonative]

bic, on May 2 2007, 08:17 PM, said:

You should contribute to this forum more often, Camillo.

I'll second that.

Someone with more information please feel free to correct me , but I believe that these pictures only represent half of the full South Terminal.

[Camillo Sitte]

orlandonative, on May 2 2007, 07:10 PM, said:

I'll second that.

Someone with more information please feel free to correct me , but I believe that these pictures only represent half of the full South Terminal.

Actually they only really show 1/4 of the total proposed South Terminal Complex.

The first three images are of the first phase which as I said earlier is still/was still [?] slated to be a 24-gate domestic terminal. I think you can actually count the 24 jet bridges in those images [though I do seem to recall that the gates closest to the landside were envisioned as being able to handle international traffic as well.

It's still the same basic design diagram as shown in the "organic" scheme I posted but with out the large lakes and with all transportation running straight-down the middle; if you look closely and compare the two you can see the similarities.

Not to sound like a broken record but the whole design is really F'd up from a basic design/needs perspective. This whole thing came about during a time when MCO had international ops going in and out of three separate terminals - American was operating their Brazil flights and Copa and MartinAir were oping their Costa Rica and Panama flights out of T1, Air Canada and Aero Mexico/Mexicana were doing ops out of T3 and Delta, British, Virgin, etc. out of T4 - just a complete mess.

Truth is that unless something has happed very recently and has been kept quite, there really is no plan on the near horizon for a dedicated international terminal - which seems a big mistake to me.

I have said it before but anyone who has cleared customs in Orlando and had to claim and then reclaim your bags, go upstairs, down stairs, then upstairs again - knows that MCO completely blows as an international airport.

[sunshine]

I never take any direct international flight to Orlando before, I either clear the custom in LA or NYC. Then, direct flight from NYC or LA to Orlando.

Talking about bad airpot, I was at Newark airport to transfer flight to DC from Orlando. I have to go thru security check to go from one terminal to another terminal for domestic transfer. It was so slow and I have to run to my transfer flight gate after the security check(which always have to be at the very last gate at the end). I was late for 10 mins and luckily the plane was delayed.

[JRS1]

kudos to Camillo and i_cre.  you are both da bomb;

which is the intermodal center exactly?  is the half-moon structure another landside terminal?  is the intermodal center the rectangular complex between the half-moon and the U shaped airside?

Edited by JRS1, 03 May 2007 - 10:37 AM.

[JRS1]

i_cre8, on May 2 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

These are all courtesy of OIA and CFRail.

so, CFRAIL does have designs of running the train thru there.

[Migman]

JRS1, on May 3 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

so, CFRAIL does have designs of running the train thru there.

Maybe an LRT line eventually. One could only hope...

[shardoon]

i came across this in the ssc forums. it looks interesting even though the sat pic is a little old.

[bic]

Inbound at Sanford airport
Grand plans on growth ready for landing as Sanford tries to attract more passengers

Link to Orlando Sentinel Article