Metro Orlando Airport News

[spenser1058]

Anything but TEAL!

[Camillo Sitte]

Pushing up the brightness slider in photoshop is just so much extra lipstick on the same pig.

Opinions as always and as regards everything will always vary, but it strikes me that a lot of people have been conditioned to have low expectations, willingly accept less as normal, and  equate adjectives like  “new” and “clean” and “bright” alone with good design.

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Camillo Sitte

[nite owℓ]

4 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

Anything but TEAL!

One person's teal is another person's algae-green, which they already have on lock.

[Camillo Sitte]

 

7 hours ago, smileguy said:

I believe the white wall on the right is a construction wall and will be removed when the building is in full service. 

That's some serious stretching  - which IMO you totally don't have to do. Just say you like it. It's not a personal insult that not everyone agrees with you.

The brightness in those photos has been jacked up so high that it has washed out a lot of detail. That "temporary construction wall on the right" is actually restrooms. I suspect that they are permanent.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Camillo Sitte

[dcluley98]

It's mostly because the shots linked above were  shot at night, vs daytime. The lighting is designed not to  be necessary when ambient lighting is available.  If you actually have been there, you would understand that the lighting conditions wich you are seeing are in broad daylight, and the camera likely adjusts exposure to the brighter  areas of the photo, which are outside. As you can see in the latest "dreamstime" photo you linked above, the highest white-point in the clouds outside are over exposed and blown out.  That doesn't mean the terminal is not bright inside. 

Have you actually been inside the terminal in different conditions? 

Not saying my opinion is any "better or worse" than anybody else's opinion, just that you can't judge it from crappy photos on the internet either. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by dcluley98

[Camillo Sitte]

29 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

It's mostly because the shots linked above were  shot at night, vs daytime. The lighting is designed not to  be necessary when ambient lighting is available.  If you actually have been there, you would understand that the lighting conditions wich you are seeing are in broad daylight, and the camera likely adjusts exposure to the brighter  areas of the photo, which are outside. As you can see in the latest "dreamstime" photo you linked above, the highest white-point in the clouds outside are over exposed and blown out.  That doesn't mean the terminal is not bright inside. 

Have you actually been inside the terminal in different conditions? 

Yeah, that's not it at all. 

The photos you posted are the way they are because Turner Construction, or the firm they hired, slathered them with some fashionable photoshop filtering to try to make them pop on their website, but it also erases a lot of finer details. Real estate agents do the same thing in their listings, and for the same reasons - to pop on the website and catch attention and hide finer details.

Unless one is blind, all they have to do is look at the first photos you posted and then compare that to the fourth photo you linked in your second. The fourth photo in the second post is much more realistic that the two photos is your first post which are utterly unrealistic as no human being would ever perceive the actual space they way that photo[shopped] image portrays.

Oh, and I have used Lot C more than a dozen times; day, night, morning, and evening.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Camillo Sitte

[AmIReal]

1 minute ago, Camillo Sitte said:

Yeah, that's not it at all. 

The photos you posted are the way they are because Turner Construction, or the firm they hired, slathered them with some fashionable photoshop filtering in order to try to make them pop on their website, but it also erases a lot of finer details. Real estate agents do the same thing in their listings, and for the same reasons; to pop on the website and hide finer details.

Oh, and I have used Lot C more than a dozen times; day, night, morning ,evening, etc.

Perhaps you should post some of your own photos to provide more insight into the issue. I'm sure that would clear things up.

[Camillo Sitte]

19 minutes ago, AmIReal said:

Perhaps you should post some of your own photos to provide more insight into the issue. I'm sure that would clear things up.

Don't have to, dcluely98 already did.  As I just said, unless one is legally blind or being intentionally obstinate because you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is insulting you, you should be able to see and understand that the first photos posted are utterly unrealistic and the result of heavy-handed software manipulation. The fourth photo in his second post is much closer to what an actual human being would experience.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Camillo Sitte

[dcluley98]

I suppose I just disagree then. 

I found my experience there to be very pleasant. The design had a lot of natural lighting, windows, and voluminous space which is comforting when there will be large crowds using the terminal. The access to the People Mover and the escalators to other areas such as train platform were very open and flowing,  IMO, and you can see all around the building, which is a great thing when people visiting the space may be there waiting for a while or subconsciously looking around to find their bearings. The signage was also very good. The space was clean and open, and also had natural plants throughout.  I do agree with you a bit on the color palette and furnishings/carpet, however, this is more a decor issue than an overall building design issue, IMO. 

 That's Ok, I tend to like it, you don't. No biggie. 

1 minute ago, Camillo Sitte said:

Don't have to, as I just said, unless you are legally blind or being intentionally obstinate because you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is insulting you, you should be able to see and understand that the first photos posted are utterly unrealistic and the result of software manipulation. The first photo in his second post is much closer to what an actual human being would experience.

LOL, Okay, then. Have a good one. 

[AmIReal]

4 minutes ago, Camillo Sitte said:

Don't have to, as I just said, unless you are legally blind or being intentionally obstinate because you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is insulting you, you should be able to see and understand that the first photos posted are utterly unrealistic and the result of heavy-handed software manipulation. The fourth photo in his second post is much closer to what an actual human being would experience.

Got it. Thanks for playing.

[Camillo Sitte]

10 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

LOL, Okay, then. Have a good one. 

All joking aside, and regardless of any differing opinions as to the design of the facility, I find it hard to believe that you really can't see the difference between the first, utterly unrealistic photoshops you posted and the photos in your second post.

I also can't help but point out that in defense of this design which you say you like so much [fine, fair enough, no problem] that you used a bunch of simple descriptive adjectives that really didn't address the actual design, the architecture, or what you feel makes it an appropriate and long-lasting civic representation of Orlando/Central Florida.

There are new construction prisons that are also "bright", "clean", "open", "spacious", etc., but those qualities don't make them great architecture. It just means they are new - not unlike the intermodal terminal. In my opinion of course.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Camillo Sitte

[dcluley98]

2018 Best Project - Airport / Transit Category (Automated People Mover) -   ENR-Southeast

2018 Award of Merit - Airport / Transit Category (Intermodal Terminal Facility) - ENR-Southeast

Grand Award Winner at the American Council of Engineering Companies  -Florida (ACEC-FL) Engineering Excellence Awards

2018 Commercial Service Airport Project of the Year (Intermodal Terminal Facility)  - Florida Department of Transportation

First LEED® v4 New Construction Certified Intermodal Terminal in the World

First LEED® v4 certified project on the Airport’s New Construction LEED Campus

[Camillo Sitte]

7 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

2018 Best Project - Airport / Transit Category (Automated People Mover) -   ENR-Southeast

2018 Award of Merit - Airport / Transit Category (Intermodal Terminal Facility) - ENR-Southeast

Grand Award Winner at the American Council of Engineering Companies  -Florida (ACEC-FL) Engineering Excellence Awards

2018 Commercial Service Airport Project of the Year (Intermodal Terminal Facility)  - Florida Department of Transportation

First LEED® v4 New Construction Certified Intermodal Terminal in the World

First LEED® v4 certified project on the Airport’s New Construction LEED Campus

Lol.

Do you imagine that pointing to a few engineering industry awards is some sort of strong ccomeback or trenchant rebuttal to my criticism of the facility's architecture [or lack thereof]? 

I never claimed that the HVAC didn't work or that the lighting was inefficient.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Camillo Sitte

[AmIReal]

1 minute ago, Camillo Sitte said:

:confused:

Do you imagine that pointing to a few engineering awards is some sort of great trenchant rebuttal to my criticism of the facilities architecture [or lack thereof]? ;D

I never claimed that the HVAC didn't work or that the lighting was efficient.

Maybe it would help if you provided an overview of your expertise/ qualifications in these matters. 

[dcluley98]

Because "Welcome to 1987" is so descriptive of the architecture and the functional use of space, as opposed to actually describing it. 

Gotcha. 

I'm overmatched here, obviously. I don't even know how photoshop works.  I better call it a night. 

Not one to get into fights on the internet. I always seem to lose. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by dcluley98

[jrs2]

15 minutes ago, Camillo Sitte said:

All joking aside, and regardless of any differing opinions as to the design of the facility, I find it hard to believe that you really can't see the difference between the first, utterly unrealistic photoshops you posted and the photos in your second post.

I also can't help but point out that in defense of this design which you say you like so much [fine, fair enough, no problem] that you used a bunch of simple descriptive adjectives that really didn't address the actual design, the architecture, or what you feel makes it an appropriate and long-lasting civic representation of Orlando/Central Florida.

There are new construction prisons that are also "bright", "clean", "open", "spacious", etc., but those qualities don't make them great architecture. It just means they are new - not unlike the intermodal terminal. In my opinion of course.

I'm late to the party on this discussion.  I just flew in from O'Hare and in the past year I've flown into or out of Terminals 5, 3, and 1 (Intl, American with redesign, and United).  If the design is so out of date, can you give me an example of a design that isn't from another airport? 

I don't care about the photoshop discussion.  I've been to the facility several times in bright and dim light.  There is a large white construction wall that will be taken down when the train terminal opens as Dcluley pointed out, but, errantly.  In that shot, it would've been to the left side out of frame.

You are correct that as orlandoans we've been conditioned to be satisfied with less ala many designs in downtown.  As for this facility, with green glass adorning it en mass I don't get how the design is so outdated.  Maybe I'm out of touch, but can you show examples that would be more with the times?  Thx.

[Camillo Sitte]

3 hours ago, AmIReal said:

Maybe it would help if you provided an overview of your expertise/ qualifications in these matters. 

Why? 

You are asking me to engage in a logical fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam, or an appeal to authority. 

One doesn't need a professional B.Arch, or second profession M.Arch2, or an MA in the history of architecture, or combined 20 years of various practical, professional, and educational experience , etc. to have an intelligent and informed opinion on the matter. Though I will not deny that the years and experiences in acquiring all of that have unquestionably informed and influenced my opinions.  There, without question I have a far, far better foundation by education, by profession, and by experience to opine on this topic. Does that mean that your opinion is now invalid? No, of course it doesn't.

What's really funny about all of this is that while I haven't made any personal comments about anyone's opinions, a couple of you seem to have a real problem with me criticizing this facility, as if you see doing so as some sort of personal attack.

There is no point is going into detail about why I think it's really bad architecture because that effort would be completely lost on you - not because it would be beyond your understanding, I'm not insulting you - but because you clearly have no interest in challenging how you feel about the matter and frankly I don't care to try to change your opinion because it simply doesn't matter.

I have stated my opinion and I don't care if you or anyone else agrees with me, as evidenced by the fact that I have not tried to change your opinion.

But you know, let me take another look. Maybe the intermodal terminal isn't so bad, so out of date

Woops, sorry. My bad. Those are photos of airside 3 [1990] and airside 2 [2000]. they just look like the intermodal terminal [2019]  

Edited January 31, 2020 by Camillo Sitte

[jrs2]

14 minutes ago, Camillo Sitte said:

Why? 

You are asking me to engage in a logical fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam, or an appeal to authority. 

One doesn't need a professional B.Arch. or second profession M.Arch2, or an MA in the history of architecture, or 20 years of practice, etc. to have an intelligent and informed opinion on the matter. Though I will not deny that the years and experiences in acquiring all of that have unquestionably informed my opinions. 

Can you please just give some examples of modern non-out of date terminals so I and/or we can have a frame of reference?  Miami's AA terminal?  That newish airside at Charles de Gaulle? Hong Kong?  What are we talking about here?  Thx...

[Camillo Sitte]

19 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

Can you please just give some examples of modern non-out of date terminals so I and/or we can have a frame of reference?  Miami's AA terminal?  That newish airside at Charles de Gaulle? Hong Kong?  What are we talking about here?  Thx...

I hesitate to do that because I wouldn't want anyone to misconstrue that I was simply advocating for a particular style of architecture, it goes far beyond that. But in the spirit of not wanting to seem ungracious, I would point to Gardermoen, both the original terminal and the new addition. Everyone is free to surf the net for photos, though they can't do that building justice, you really do have to experience it in person to appreciate just how good it really is, but there it is.

Yes, it's a smaller facility that handles ~29M passengers a year, not ~50M, but if a city of 600,000 [fewer than 2M in the metro] can do something like that, so too could Orlando - if it wanted to.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Camillo Sitte

[jrs2]

8 minutes ago, Camillo Sitte said:

I hesitate to do that because I wouldn't want anyone to misconstrue that I was simply advocating for a particular style of architecture, it goes far beyond that. But in the spirit of not wanting to seem ungracious, I would point to Gardermoen, both the original terminal and the new addition. Everyone is free to surf the net for photos, though they can't do that building justice, you really do have to experience it in person to appreciate just how good it real is, but there it is.

Yes, it's a smaller facility that handles ~29M passengers a year, not ~50M, but if a city of 600,000 [fewer than 2M in the metro] can do something like that, so too could Orlando - if it wanted to.

Yeah, the Oslo airport is really nice.  You won't get anything that looks like that in the United States.  They've got alot of money and Oslo is the largest and/or principal city in that country.  Orlando is not even the largest city in Florida.  O'Hare has a couple of terminals that are nice.  DFW doesn't; they are mainly functional, as are most the airsides at O'Hare sans United and at Hartsfield. Same with LAX, SFO, MIA sans the AA Terminal.  Newark? Logan?  Philly sans the Intl Terminal? JFK sans the AA Terminal? You may find individual terminals or airsides that are nice in older outdated terminals, but i don't think what MCO is getting is that deficient compared to these other airports around the country.  I think the Oslo terminal with glass jet bridges ala Charles de Gaulle  is too expensive and unrealistic.  

[Camillo Sitte]

25 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

Yeah, the Oslo airport is really nice.  You won't get anything that looks like that in the United States.  They've got alot of money and Oslo is the largest and/or principal city in that country.  Orlando is not even the largest city in Florida.  O'Hare has a couple of terminals that are nice.  DFW doesn't; they are mainly functional, as are most the airsides at O'Hare sans United and at Hartsfield. Same with LAX, SFO, MIA sans the AA Terminal.  Newark? Logan?  Philly sans the Intl Terminal? JFK sans the AA Terminal? You may find individual terminals or airsides that are nice in older outdated terminals, but i don't think what MCO is getting is that deficient compared to these other airports around the country.  I think the Oslo terminal with glass jet bridges ala Charles de Gaulle  is too expensive and unrealistic.  

The only structural impediment to Orlando doing something like Gardermoen is that Orlando/GOAA and to a lesser extent the state, have given enormous approval/veto powers for airport capital projects to the individual airlines. The Norwegian parliament didn't have to first get permission from SAS or Wideroe. 

 

[dcluley98]

"There is  no point is going into detail about why I think it's really bad architecture because that effort would be completely lost on you - not because it would be beyond your understanding, I'm not insulting you - but because you clearly have no interest in challenging how you feel about the matter and frankly I don't care to try to change your opinion because it simply doesn't matter."

I actually want to hear this. I am no architect, but I want to hear why this inherently bad  from a knowledgeable source in a descriptive way  with detailed explanations and dumbing it down for us. 

We  can't understand it if you don't explain it. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by dcluley98

[dcluley98]

I'm  a blank slate. 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by dcluley98

[spenser1058]

2 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

I'm  a blank slate. 

 

Ooooh - our very own tabula rasa!

[dcluley98]

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by dcluley98