gwrudolph wrote:

Based on these renderings, not sure United is still going to have a hub at ORD. I don't see a single United tail anywhere :>)

They will be busy trying to decide on a new Euro-white livery that will be universally derided. .

United1 wrote:

United787 wrote:

United1 wrote:

I voted for Studio ORD

https://voteord21.flychicago.com/vision ... eam-3.aspx

The stars on the roof of the terminal/concourses remind me of the flag of Chicago, I like the use of green spaces in the terminal and it just seems like a really well thought out design.

I also voted for them. Just read Blair Kamin's twitter and he noted the same Chicago star in their design. Would be fantastic if a Chicago led design team was selected! They also created their own webpage for their submission... https://www.studioord.com

United1 wrote:

It also seems like it would be a very easy terminal to expand when UAs Terminal 1 needs to be replaced.

WHAT?!?!?! Never! T1 needs to be landmarked so it is never torn down, it is timeless IMHO.

T1 is great and has served UA well since the mid 80's when it was the "Terminal of Tomorrow" but I'm not sure if its historic enough to be landmarked. It's a very functional terminal but it's hitting the end of its design life and UA is kind of outgrowing it...as are the aircraft wingspans making it harder for UA to deploy aircraft like the 787/350 to Chicago. T1 will be 40 or so years old when ORD21 opens...they are going to have to consider what to do with T1 eventually.

I got to take a tour of T1 before it opened to the public actually...during a UA employee day...UA was handing out coffee mugs with the design on it. I think I still have that somewhere.

T1 is scheduled to be replaced in a future phase. They really should be doing it now, but it would be too complicated to do so while trying to build the Global Terminal at the same time. T1 will probably be replaced when the third satellite is built so they can move flights while it is rebuilt.

Does anyone know if they plan on keeping the neon light tunnel between B and C when the new tunnel in the center of the airport is built?

United1 wrote:

I got to take a tour of T1 before it opened to the public actually...during a UA employee day...UA was handing out coffee mugs with the design on it. I think I still have that somewhere.

I remember those! Got mine right here:

Love Studio ORD’s website! And I really like what they have done to the parking garages too! Instead of wasted green space, they found a way to incorporate functional parking garage with the green space. They really outdid theirselves imo.

ual763 wrote:

United1 wrote:

I got to take a tour of T1 before it opened to the public actually...during a UA employee day...UA was handing out coffee mugs with the design on it. I think I still have that somewhere.

I remember those! Got mine right here:

Yup thats it

deltaffindfw wrote:

I hope they don't pick Calatrava. His designs are all the same - white rib looking things, overpriced and over budget.

I have to agree. I used to like his designs, but they are all copies of each other. Just google his name and see what he produced. I think the SOM looks very Chicago like but not very original. I think the Foster Epstein and Moreno looks very spacious and well suited to fit between other two terminals unless T1 ans T3 are going to be redesign later as well.

WROORD wrote:

I think the Foster Epstein and Moreno looks very spacious and well suited to fit between other two terminals unless T1 and T3 are going to be redesign later as well.

Yes, T1 and T3 will be replaced down the road, so any of these plans have to provide for flexibility for future work there. The long term plan is to convert everything except T5 into an Atlanta layout with this Global Terminal being the eastern anchor.

SOM I’m calling McCormick place west.

I do like the design by Studio, but....just looking at the layout of gates in the design is making me cringe. Will they be MARS like the new expansion of T5 is?

You would think collectively the design teams would have some commonalities given first place gets the OGT and runner up gets the satellites.

As mentioned previously, the satellites will get built first. I do wonder if there’s anything written within the agreements they need to look similar.

Let’s see, DL is planning a 3rd quarter 2021 move over to T5. Satellite 1 needs to be constructed before any tear down of T2 starts, a new administration will be in place this year.

Challenges await, but given the overall push the city and airlines to bring ORD into the 21st century, it’s going to be an interesting decade to say the least.

All good work, but Studio ORD gets my vote. I love the interior aesthetic with the wood-looking beams, and I also like that's it's not too tall or grandiose. Feels very Prairie-style and Frank Lloyd Wright-ish... just an awesome, chic and modern industrial twist on it. It's basically perfect for ORD.

Foster fails in this regard - not a fan of the "cathedral" affect or the overall shape of the terminal. I like how both Studio ORD and Fentress respect and include the existing walkway portico on the curbside area. I think it's a nice touch as is and does not need modifying or elimanation.

Fentress is a very close 2nd and I do love the Calatrava design, but agree with others that it may be the most impractical. But hey, if the goal is to reach for the stars, I would certainly not be disappointed with Calatrava at all! It screams 'superpower airport'. SOM looks kinda boring and meh (feel like I've seen that terminal elsewhere), and Foster is the weakest of the bunch - just too out-of-context, too tall, and too open.

Final ranking for me:

1) Studio ORD
2) Tie: Fentress-EXP and Santiago Calatrava
4) SOM
5) Foster Epstein

Fargo wrote:

United1 wrote:

United787 wrote:

I also voted for them. Just read Blair Kamin's twitter and he noted the same Chicago star in their design. Would be fantastic if a Chicago led design team was selected! They also created their own webpage for their submission... https://www.studioord.com





WHAT?!?!?! Never! T1 needs to be landmarked so it is never torn down, it is timeless IMHO.

T1 is great and has served UA well since the mid 80's when it was the "Terminal of Tomorrow" but I'm not sure if its historic enough to be landmarked. It's a very functional terminal but it's hitting the end of its design life and UA is kind of outgrowing it...as are the aircraft wingspans making it harder for UA to deploy aircraft like the 787/350 to Chicago. T1 will be 40 or so years old when ORD21 opens...they are going to have to consider what to do with T1 eventually.

I got to take a tour of T1 before it opened to the public actually...during a UA employee day...UA was handing out coffee mugs with the design on it. I think I still have that somewhere.

T1 is scheduled to be replaced in a future phase. They really should be doing it now, but it would be too complicated to do so while trying to build the Global Terminal at the same time. T1 will probably be replaced when the third satellite is built so they can move flights while it is rebuilt.

Does anyone know if they plan on keeping the neon light tunnel between B and C when the new tunnel in the center of the airport is built?

What's your source for a T1 demo after the 3rd satellite? That has not been published anywhere that I have seen. I don't believe that is the case, and it is certainly not part of the O'hare 21 plan. Keep in mind, only O'hare 21 has been funded and approved. All the speculation about what happens after 2030 is just that: speculation.

Even the O'hare 21 plans are somewhat fluid, as was the original Chicago OMP, which also changed significantly over its lifetime, and saw several terminal projects stalled or cancelled.

Terminal 2 has existed in its roughly current form for nearly 60 years... T1 is still functional (and with some proper window-replacements) and gate-area updating, should suite United just fine for many more decades after the additions of the Global Terminal and new satellites. I agree, with United787 it should be landmarked.

Helmut Jahn is this generation's Frank Lloyd Wright - he work is cherished the world over (and several of his works are in the process of getting landmarked), and will be for generations to come. Many people walk through T1 never really appreciating it, but there are many people who do... architectural critics still write about it to this day!

https://www.architectmagazine.com/desig ... -chicago_o

ORDfan wrote:

All good work, but Studio ORD gets my vote. I love the interior aesthetic with the wood-looking beams, and I also like that's it's not too tall or grandiose. Feels very Prairie-style and Frank Lloyd Wright-ish... just an awesome, chic and modern industrial twist on it. It's basically perfect for ORD.

Foster fails in this regard - not a fan of the "cathedral" affect or the overall shape of the terminal. I like how both Studio ORD and Fentress respect and include the existing walkway portico on the curbside area. I think it's a nice touch as is and does not need modifying or elimanation.

Fentress is a very close 2nd and I do love the Calatrava design, but agree with others that it may be the most impractical. But hey, if the goal is to reach for the stars, I would certainly not be disappointed with Calatrava at all! It screams 'superpower airport'. SOM looks kinda boring and meh (feel like I've seen that terminal elsewhere), and Foster is the weakest of the bunch - just too out-of-context, too tall, and too open.

Final ranking for me:

1) Studio ORD
2) Tie: Fentress-EXP and Santiago Calatrava
4) SOM
5) Foster Epstein

Good points about Foster Epstein. Upon further review, I don't think that would be practical to build.

I now think Fentress-EXP-Brook-Garza and Studio ORD are the only practical options that wouldn't be too expensive, but still give a modern feel and would be compatible with future phases of the terminal expansion/redevelopment. My biggest concerns with the other designs are the fact that they seem too elaborate and would likely lead to cost overruns (particularly Calatrava's design) and they would make the future redevelopment of Terminals 1 and 3 more difficult.

The one thing I will say about Studio ORD is that the wood could get dated pretty fast if not maintained.

Fargo wrote:

The one thing I will say about Studio ORD is that the wood could get dated pretty fast if not maintained.

I'm not sure they would use actually wood; it just looks that way in the renderings. They would likely use woodgrain textured sheet-metals or even just a brown-ish/bronze-colored industrial metallic-plating.

I really just appreciate the appearance of it and think it would create a great vibe, something unique. Perhaps the closest would be CDG Terminal 2E gate pier, which is also one of my personal favorite terminals in the world.

ORDfan wrote:

Fargo wrote:

United1 wrote:

T1 is great and has served UA well since the mid 80's when it was the "Terminal of Tomorrow" but I'm not sure if its historic enough to be landmarked. It's a very functional terminal but it's hitting the end of its design life and UA is kind of outgrowing it...as are the aircraft wingspans making it harder for UA to deploy aircraft like the 787/350 to Chicago. T1 will be 40 or so years old when ORD21 opens...they are going to have to consider what to do with T1 eventually.

I got to take a tour of T1 before it opened to the public actually...during a UA employee day...UA was handing out coffee mugs with the design on it. I think I still have that somewhere.

T1 is scheduled to be replaced in a future phase. They really should be doing it now, but it would be too complicated to do so while trying to build the Global Terminal at the same time. T1 will probably be replaced when the third satellite is built so they can move flights while it is rebuilt.

Does anyone know if they plan on keeping the neon light tunnel between B and C when the new tunnel in the center of the airport is built?

What's your source for a T1 demo after the 3rd satellite? That has not been published anywhere that I have seen. I don't believe that is the case, and it is certainly not part of the O'hare 21 plan. Keep in mind, only O'hare 21 has been funded and approved. All the speculation about what happens after 2030 is just that: speculation.

Even the O'hare 21 plans are somewhat fluid, as was the original Chicago OMP, which also changed significantly over its lifetime, and saw several terminal projects stalled or cancelled.

Terminal 2 has existed in its roughly current form for nearly 60 years... T1 is still functional (and with some proper window-replacements) and gate-area updating, should suite United just fine for many more decades after the additions of the Global Terminal and new satellites. I agree, with United787 it should be landmarked.

Helmut Jahn is this generation's Frank Lloyd Wright - he work is cherished the world over (and several of his works are in the process of getting landmarked), and will be for generations to come. Many people walk through T1 never really appreciating it, but there are many people who do... architectural critics still write about it to this day!

https://www.architectmagazine.com/desig ... -chicago_o

I think this has been discussed before, but this Global Terminal is only Phase 1 of what will likely be a multiphase O'Hare 21 project. Future phases of the O'Hare 21 state the intention to redevelop T1 as seen in both the lease agreement and the FAQ on the O'Hare 21 site.

https://chicago.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3357763&GUID=936BA777-935A-43D1-BCD7-DE1164AF51AC&Options=&Search=

http://www.ord21.com/About/Pages/faq.aspx

https://oharenoise.org/resources/presentations/general-meeting-presentations/2018-7/635-o-hare-21-terminal-area-plan/file

To clarify, I do not think they intend to demolish and replace T1 entirely, but rather renovate it to better integrate into the Global Terminal. Only the southern portion of the existing C will be demolished to better fit in with Satellite 1 and provide more FIS-capable gates.

I have no idea when they intend to do that work, I was just speculating it could be done when Satellite 3 is built so it could be staged. As of now, other than Satellite 3 and the installation of the APM, the future phases of O'Hare 21 are just concepts. However, unlike the original OMP terminals, this has a bit more formality to it because of the way the Global Terminal is being built and the terms of the lease agreement.

Fargo wrote:

ORDfan wrote:

Fargo wrote:

T1 is scheduled to be replaced in a future phase. They really should be doing it now, but it would be too complicated to do so while trying to build the Global Terminal at the same time. T1 will probably be replaced when the third satellite is built so they can move flights while it is rebuilt.

Does anyone know if they plan on keeping the neon light tunnel between B and C when the new tunnel in the center of the airport is built?

What's your source for a T1 demo after the 3rd satellite? That has not been published anywhere that I have seen. I don't believe that is the case, and it is certainly not part of the O'hare 21 plan. Keep in mind, only O'hare 21 has been funded and approved. All the speculation about what happens after 2030 is just that: speculation.

Even the O'hare 21 plans are somewhat fluid, as was the original Chicago OMP, which also changed significantly over its lifetime, and saw several terminal projects stalled or cancelled.

Terminal 2 has existed in its roughly current form for nearly 60 years... T1 is still functional (and with some proper window-replacements) and gate-area updating, should suite United just fine for many more decades after the additions of the Global Terminal and new satellites. I agree, with United787 it should be landmarked.

Helmut Jahn is this generation's Frank Lloyd Wright - he work is cherished the world over (and several of his works are in the process of getting landmarked), and will be for generations to come. Many people walk through T1 never really appreciating it, but there are many people who do... architectural critics still write about it to this day!

https://www.architectmagazine.com/desig ... -chicago_o

I think this has been discussed before, but this Global Terminal is only Phase 1 of what will likely be a multiphase O'Hare 21 project. Future phases of the O'Hare 21 state the intention to redevelop T1 as seen in both the lease agreement and the FAQ on the O'Hare 21 site.

https://chicago.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3357763&GUID=936BA777-935A-43D1-BCD7-DE1164AF51AC&Options=&Search=

http://www.ord21.com/About/Pages/faq.aspx

https://oharenoise.org/resources/presentations/general-meeting-presentations/2018-7/635-o-hare-21-terminal-area-plan/file

To clarify, I do not think they intend to demolish and replace T1 entirely, but rather renovate it to better integrate into the Global Terminal. Only the southern portion of the existing C will be demolished to better fit in with Satellite 1 and provide more FIS-capable gates.

I have no idea when they intend to do that work, I was just speculating it could be done when Satellite 3 is built so it could be staged. As of now, other than Satellite 3 and the installation of the APM, the future phases of O'Hare 21 are just concepts. However, unlike the original OMP terminals, this has a bit more formality to it because of the way the Global Terminal is being built and the terms of the lease agreement.

Right I have seen those documents as well, and not to get into semantics, but I agree with your clarified comments. Your original comment was that CDA intends to replace T1, and I don't think "replace" is an accurate representation of the Phase 2 long-term plan for T1.

Per the source material and my previous understanding, you can see that T1 is scheduled for "renovation," not replacement, even in the 30-year plan. Page 7 of the powerpoint shows as much. When that happens, I'm as lost as anyone, and like I said... a lot can change between now and phase, as we have seen with the OMP. Either way, it's going to be an interesting time for ORD for the foreseeable future!

-Cheers

Fargo wrote:

Yes, T1 and T3 will be replaced down the road, so any of these plans have to provide for flexibility for future work there. The long term plan is to convert everything except T5 into an Atlanta layout with this Global Terminal being the eastern anchor.

I haven't seen the long-term plan you referenced -- could you shoot me a link? The Phase II plans in the TAP don't refer to AA doing anything but redeveloping T3 (and UA T1).

ORDfan wrote:

Fargo wrote:

ORDfan wrote:

What's your source for a T1 demo after the 3rd satellite? That has not been published anywhere that I have seen. I don't believe that is the case, and it is certainly not part of the O'hare 21 plan. Keep in mind, only O'hare 21 has been funded and approved. All the speculation about what happens after 2030 is just that: speculation.

Even the O'hare 21 plans are somewhat fluid, as was the original Chicago OMP, which also changed significantly over its lifetime, and saw several terminal projects stalled or cancelled.

Terminal 2 has existed in its roughly current form for nearly 60 years... T1 is still functional (and with some proper window-replacements) and gate-area updating, should suite United just fine for many more decades after the additions of the Global Terminal and new satellites. I agree, with United787 it should be landmarked.

Helmut Jahn is this generation's Frank Lloyd Wright - he work is cherished the world over (and several of his works are in the process of getting landmarked), and will be for generations to come. Many people walk through T1 never really appreciating it, but there are many people who do... architectural critics still write about it to this day!

https://www.architectmagazine.com/desig ... -chicago_o

I think this has been discussed before, but this Global Terminal is only Phase 1 of what will likely be a multiphase O'Hare 21 project. Future phases of the O'Hare 21 state the intention to redevelop T1 as seen in both the lease agreement and the FAQ on the O'Hare 21 site.

https://chicago.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3357763&GUID=936BA777-935A-43D1-BCD7-DE1164AF51AC&Options=&Search=

http://www.ord21.com/About/Pages/faq.aspx

https://oharenoise.org/resources/presentations/general-meeting-presentations/2018-7/635-o-hare-21-terminal-area-plan/file

To clarify, I do not think they intend to demolish and replace T1 entirely, but rather renovate it to better integrate into the Global Terminal. Only the southern portion of the existing C will be demolished to better fit in with Satellite 1 and provide more FIS-capable gates.

I have no idea when they intend to do that work, I was just speculating it could be done when Satellite 3 is built so it could be staged. As of now, other than Satellite 3 and the installation of the APM, the future phases of O'Hare 21 are just concepts. However, unlike the original OMP terminals, this has a bit more formality to it because of the way the Global Terminal is being built and the terms of the lease agreement.

Right I have seen those documents as well, and not to get into semantics, but I agree with your clarified comments. Your original comment was that CDA intends to replace T1, and I don't think "replace" is an accurate representation of the Phase 2 long-term plan for T1.

Per the source material and my previous understanding, you can see that T1 is scheduled for "renovation," not replacement, even in the 30-year plan. Page 7 of the powerpoint shows as much. When that happens, I'm as lost as anyone, and like I said... a lot can change between now and phase, as we have seen with the OMP. Either way, it's going to be an interesting time for ORD for the foreseeable future!

-Cheers

Yes, "replace" was the wrong term to use. I used it because the term "redevelopment", which they use to describe the T1 work, usually means demolition and replacement. They ought to clarify that in this case, it means renovation and not replacement, so it appears Helmut Jahn's design is safe for the foreseeable future (other than the southern half of C). Nonetheless, T1 does need work to upgrade/modernize it while retaining the charm of Jahn's design.

Agree with your last comments, a lot can change. But again, this is a bit more formal because the airlines never agreed to the terminal plan in the OMP while this they've at least agreed to the basic framework (i.e, Phase 1). My biggest question(s) here are, as it seems it is ORD's desire to reconfigure the main terminal complex to an ATL style layout, how exactly is that going to work? Will the Terminal 1, 2, 3 designations be phased out in favor of simply lettering the concourses and will one be able to check in, collect bags and access ground transportation on the west side as they do on the east?

chidino wrote:

Fargo wrote:

Yes, T1 and T3 will be replaced down the road, so any of these plans have to provide for flexibility for future work there. The long term plan is to convert everything except T5 into an Atlanta layout with this Global Terminal being the eastern anchor.

I haven't seen the long-term plan you referenced -- could you shoot me a link? The Phase II plans in the TAP don't refer to AA doing anything but redeveloping T3 (and UA T1).

See slide 7 on the first link, and the plans are discussed in more detail in the lease agreement on the second link.

https://oharenoise.org/resources/presentations/general-meeting-presentations/2018-7/635-o-hare-21-terminal-area-plan/file

https://chicago.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3357763&GUID=936BA777-935A-43D1-BCD7-DE1164AF51AC&Options=&Search=

ORDfan wrote:

I'm not sure they would use actually wood; it just looks that way in the renderings. They would likely use woodgrain textured sheet-metals or even just a brown-ish/bronze-colored industrial metallic-plating.

I really just appreciate the appearance of it and think it would create a great vibe, something unique. Perhaps the closest would be CDG Terminal 2E gate pier, which is also one of my personal favorite terminals in the world.

FWIW, StudioORD states real wood on their site.

ORDfan wrote:

Helmut Jahn is this generation's Frank Lloyd Wright - he work is cherished the world over (and several of his works are in the process of getting landmarked), and will be for generations to come. Many people walk through T1 never really appreciating it, but there are many people who do... architectural critics still write about it to this day!

After 1998, Helmut Jahn did not build much of anything in the US. He fell quickly out of favor, except in his native Germany.

His architectural contemporaries in the US were Gehry and Mayne. Both have far surpassed Jahn in reputation and recognition.

Usually I like stuff from SOM but not too excited by what they put out there. I'd probably pick Foster then Studio ORD.

I'm slightly nervous about the glass roofs after seeing ORD T1 in its current state. The proposed designs are beautiful but I can't help but wonder if ORD would be better off with a more utilitarian design.

All of these designs have merit. Although the SOM one seems the least interesting, other factors need to be considered, such as which design would be the most efficient in terms of moving passengers through the terminal. Particularly if all T1 and T3 (and some T5) passengers will now be checking in at the new T2, that is going to be a pretty big challenge that a more conventional design, such as SOM's box design, might be able to meet. I think the actual models need to be studied, and those are available at T2 and downtown at the Chicago Architectural Foundation.

However, all of the designs reinforce my reservations that the new T2 global terminal will still have, and perhaps exacerbate, integration issues with the rest of the airport. Not everyone who has a flight on United or American and another international carrier will avoid T5. The stated goal is for all Star and oneworld alliance partners to operate out of T2, but there is no guarantee that will happen. Also, connecting from T2 to certain parts of T3 and to a lesser degree parts of T1 may be difficult. Yes, at some point in the future T3 will be redeveloped, but no one knows for sure when and how at this point.

Rahm wants to get all of the design and construction contracts signed before he leaves office this Spring. That is a big challenge. I just hope that the next mayor and her administration (as chances are good that it will not be "his" administration), look at this with fresh eyes to make sure that it makes the most sense for Chicago and O'Hare.

I personally think that Foster for the Terminal and SOM for the Satellites could be an amazing combination. Foster's terminal, especially with the "theater of aviation", just seems miles better to me than the rest of them. It looks like a hangar, ties in nicely with Jahn's work, and that view is honestly just incredible.

In terms of the concourses themselves, I think SOM's design is actually pretty interesting, with the small gardens spaced throughout. Plus, I'm sure their work would be extremely high quality and hopefully less budget straining.

AAplat4life wrote:

However, all of the designs reinforce my reservations that the new T2 global terminal will still have, and perhaps exacerbate, integration issues with the rest of the airport. Not everyone who has a flight on United or American and another international carrier will avoid T5. The stated goal is for all Star and oneworld alliance partners to operate out of T2, but there is no guarantee that will happen. Also, connecting from T2 to certain parts of T3 and to a lesser degree parts of T1 may be difficult. Yes, at some point in the future T3 will be redeveloped, but no one knows for sure when and how at this point.

Most SA/OW carriers only have one/two flights a day at most, and the new Global Terminal will have plenty of widebody/FIS-capable gates available for them to use (remember, Satellite 1 will have widebody/FIS-capable gates as well, so it's not just the Global Terminal itself). There is no need for any UA/AA/SA/OW flights to operate out of T5. As such, there will be very little connecting between the main terminal complex and T5 once this project is completed.

I have a feeling, barring a major economic downturn, the threshold to trigger the next phase of O'Hare 21 (Satellite 3 and the installation of the APM) will be hit by the time the Global Terminal is finished, maybe even sooner. Yes, we don't know for sure how it's going to look, but I am pretty confident the airport wants to go in the direction of ATL and the ultimate layout will look pretty similar, if not exactly like the 30 year plan in the links I shared above. Also, keep in mind that, while it has been renovated and better maintained, T3 is just as old as T2 and will need to be replaced in the not too distant future, the longer they wait, the more costly it will become.

AAplat4life wrote:

Rahm wants to get all of the design and construction contracts signed before he leaves office this Spring. That is a big challenge. I just hope that the next mayor and her administration (as chances are good that it will not be "his" administration), look at this with fresh eyes to make sure that it makes the most sense for Chicago and O'Hare.

True, but on the other hand, this needs to be expedited as fast as humanly possible. This was needed 20 years ago; ORD is falling further behind to its competitors each passing year and this project is needed to reverse that trend and unlock its full potential. UA in particular cannot invest in new flights and newer aircraft (such as the 787 for international routes) until the new gates come online.

Will Concourse G remain after Terminal 2 is rebuilt?

The ceiling in this concept has a very strong resemblance to the ceiling at Ashgabat International Airport, which I happen to think is very pretty.

Here's a longer video presentation of the Foster Epstein Moreno design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf79qrl2gDA

blacksoviet wrote:

Will Concourse G remain after Terminal 2 is rebuilt?

Yes, but once the O'Hare21 project is complete, attention turns to a revamp of T-1 and T-3. There is also a traffic figure (if I remember correctly, 100M), which triggers further terminals west of Satellite 2. If you really want to dig deeper into the subject, see Chicago Aviation thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411825&start=50

Confuscius wrote:

Here's a longer video presentation of the Foster Epstein Moreno design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf79qrl2gDA

FWIW, my favorite. Love how they use the spectacle of aircraft on the field as an attraction; too often terminals wall the traveller away from the action.

I do not live in Chicago, so maybe I shouldn't say this but...

I flew through Chicago this past week and while I love T1 as much as anyone it looks to me like all of these projects are more status symbols than a project that will help people move from place to place, do not cost much to maintain or repair, or last for a long time. I'm all for public buildings that look beautiful, but all these projects seem to put very expensive beauty first, and utility, cost, and convenience second, third or fourth. The city has a lot of other things to repair or replace and throwing so much $$$ into this renovation seems to be a waste of resources.

All the plans do look nice, I hope the city government chooses the best one for the taxpayers of Chicago.

Here's my ranking. My top two were Foster and Studio Gang's, ironically for opposite reasons.

Foster's: his vision of the the large open windows onto the runways is jaw-dropping. For those who've only seen the short summary video on the voting site should check out the longer youtube link posted by Confuscius above ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf79qrl2gDA ). And using that as a focal point to create essentially a stage where the action is the flights taking off / landing / taxiing I think is a great idea and well done. Too many airports these days are designed as primarily shopping malls that happen to have oversize taxis dropping customers in and out (*cough* LHR *cough*). I really like it.

Studio Gang's: this is actually the opposite This design emphasizes replicating a vibrant neighborhood, with a small central park, walking boulevards, little corners and nooks, etc. It's a much more human-scale design that, IMHO would probably be less overwhelming and a little more welcoming to a harried international traveler or connecting passenger who's unfamiliar with the airport. It seems to emphasize usability over grand design (although the design is not bad). In that sense, I think her design is much more aligned with Mies van der Rohe's old maxims that form should follow function and that God is in the details.

Fentress: I think this is similar to Foster's design, with a grand overlook onto the airside operations, but it's less well done.

SOM: Take's Mies van der Rohe's first maxim "less is more" a little too far It's a boring box, basically a bigger, more functional T2 with a nicer roof.

Calatrava: Don't care how impressive his designs are. He has a well-earned reputation for designs that go over budget, are maintenance nightmares, and heavily emphasize design over actual usability for the people that must live/work/play in his structures every day. Truth be told, I didn't even want him on the top 5 list (would have preferred giving Helmut Jahn a chance to see what he could do, since T1 is still awesome and doesn't look dated despite being 30 years old).

So my overall rank list would be:
1) Foster
2) Studio Gang (close 2nd)
3) Fentress
4) SOM
5) Calatrava
My ideal scenario is that Foster and Studio are forced to work together, and maybe we get Foster's grand design, with Studio's more human-scale interior planning and little details. *fingers crossed*

StuckinCMHland wrote:

I do not live in Chicago, so maybe I shouldn't say this but...

I flew through Chicago this past week and while I love T1 as much as anyone it looks to me like all of these projects are more status symbols than a project that will help people move from place to place, do not cost much to maintain or repair, or last for a long time. I'm all for public buildings that look beautiful, but all these projects seem to put very expensive beauty first, and utility, cost, and convenience second, third or fourth. The city has a lot of other things to repair or replace and throwing so much $$$ into this renovation seems to be a waste of resources.

All the plans do look nice, I hope the city government chooses the best one for the taxpayers of Chicago.

Like T5, awards left and right but in the end a massive failure on it's sole purpose. Ok, maybe not massive but nevertheless...

Function over Form, that's the vision these folks should have taken.

Where will all the flights be moved to while Terminal 2 is being rebuilt?

blacksoviet wrote:

Where will all the flights be moved to while Terminal 2 is being rebuilt?

The Global Terminal (replacement for T-2) will start after Satellite 2 is complete, therefore all UA T-2 operations can move there and DL flights will move to the newly expanded T-5 (whose addition reportedly starts construction this Spring).

1:
Terminal 5 additions
2:
Satellite 2
3:
Global Terminal (including Satellite 1)

yeogeo wrote:

blacksoviet wrote:

Where will all the flights be moved to while Terminal 2 is being rebuilt?

The Global Terminal (replacement for T-2) will start after Satellite 2 is complete, therefore all UA T-2 operations can move there and DL flights will move to the newly expanded T-5 (whose addition reportedly starts construction this Spring).

1:
Terminal 5 additions
2:
Satellite 2
3:
Global Terminal (including Satellite 1)

Where is Satellite 2 going to be built?

blacksoviet wrote:

Where is Satellite 2 going to be built?

Keep in mind the Global Terminal consists of the "O'Hare Global Terminal & Concourse" and "Satellite 1".
Current operations in T2 will be moved to Sat 2 and T-5.

http://ord21.com/renderings/pages/default.aspx

Here's the 30 year plan:



The Global Terminal with Satellite 1 and the domestic Satellite 2 are the blue terminals in the center of the image.

https://oharenoise.org/resources/presen ... -plan/file

A rundown of the proposed projects by Blair Kayman, architectural critic for the Tribune, here:
https://news.wttw.com/2019/01/21/ohare- ... -proposals

A prediction based on (current) political situation, NOT what should: StudioORD gets the OGT and SOM the satellites.

1. SOM is probably closest to being ready to go, between their experience and the fact they've been doing the basic planning on this for CDA since the start. They're also emphasizing (according to the Kamin interview) on-budget, making the carriers happy and putting functional structures up quickly (by ORD standards).
2. Gang has advantages of being local, being very successful and female, and being Chicago architecture's current face to the world. I don't see them giving it to an out-of-Chicago architect; city's reputation, architecture standing, etc, etc -- I just don't see Foster, Fentress or Calatrava really having much of a chance, fair or not.

As part of my contribution to conspiracy theory, I'll note that SOM pictures the interior of a concourse in their press release, not the exterior of their OGT proposal. https://www.som.com/news/som_reveals_design_for_new_ohare_global_terminal_in_chicago

chidino wrote:

As part of my contribution to conspiracy theory, I'll note that SOM pictures the interior of a concourse in their press release, not the exterior of their OGT proposal. https://www.som.com/news/som_reveals_design_for_new_ohare_global_terminal_in_chicago

The link cycles through four illustrations including exterior and interior. What am I missing in this "conspiracy"?

yeogeo wrote:

chidino wrote:

As part of my contribution to conspiracy theory, I'll note that SOM pictures the interior of a concourse in their press release, not the exterior of their OGT proposal. https://www.som.com/news/som_reveals_design_for_new_ohare_global_terminal_in_chicago

The link cycles through four illustrations including exterior and interior. What am I missing in this "conspiracy"?

Sorry, my browser wasn't scrolling. No conspiracy.

Ah well - I'm the king of double posts so no worries!

jcwr56 wrote:

StuckinCMHland wrote:

I do not live in Chicago, so maybe I shouldn't say this but...

I flew through Chicago this past week and while I love T1 as much as anyone it looks to me like all of these projects are more status symbols than a project that will help people move from place to place, do not cost much to maintain or repair, or last for a long time. I'm all for public buildings that look beautiful, but all these projects seem to put very expensive beauty first, and utility, cost, and convenience second, third or fourth. The city has a lot of other things to repair or replace and throwing so much $$$ into this renovation seems to be a waste of resources.

All the plans do look nice, I hope the city government chooses the best one for the taxpayers of Chicago.

Like T5, awards left and right but in the end a massive failure on it's sole purpose. Ok, maybe not massive but nevertheless...

Function over Form, that's the vision these folks should have taken.

'Honest question: how is T5 a failure? Yes, it's currently stuffed to the gills with flights, so there are delays, etc. And I can see that the design is outdated, because it was built in the pre-9/11 era. But you can't really blame the designers for that. Overall, IMHO, I think it's a reasonable terminal. Not outstanding, but not a massive failure by any means. I was actually surprised when I learned it won a bunch of design awards, because to me, it seems like a fairly plain, functional design.

And regarding the costs of good design, it doesn't have to be expensive. This is expensive because building terminals is expensive, what with all the infrastructure, services, specialized construction, etc. that's needed. Not because of a few design flourishes. Good design isn't really about expensive materials or frivolous extras. It's about laying out space and planning the user experience. While lots of starchitect's showpieces have gone overbudget (e.g. Calatrava), that has more to do with the architect. Most responsible firms like the rest of the competitors tend to bring their stuff in on budget or else they wouldn't be in business for very long.

The Hancock building is a beautiful design. Yet it's purely a functional, and made of steel and glass. Nothing frivolous. Even the X-bracing is functional. I doubt using a less beautiful design would have saved any money. Same with anything.

You know in looking at SOM’s interior shot of the satellite, I just now noticed that they too include a wood paneled ceiling. Unfortunately, the rendering doesn’t emphasize this. And this appears only in the interior rendering of the satellites and not the Global terminal. So with this in mind. I agree with the guy above that SOM would be good for the satellites and Studio would be great for the Global Terminal! You can never have too much wood in a design, imo. And both have vegetation inside so they’d complement each other very well.

Checked-in at T-3 this morning, and walked over to T-2 to view the exhibit of the proposals. The exhibit itself was disappointing. The walk back and forth renewed my concerns that the new global terminal will be poorly integrated with the rest of the airport with the exception of portions of T-1. I hope that I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen anything to lead me to conclude otherwise. Rahm’s track record with Chicago projects only substantiates my concerns. Frankly, I’m surprised he hasn’t reconfigured the runways at ORD to add bicycle lanes.

muralir wrote:

jcwr56 wrote:

StuckinCMHland wrote:

I do not live in Chicago, so maybe I shouldn't say this but...

I flew through Chicago this past week and while I love T1 as much as anyone it looks to me like all of these projects are more status symbols than a project that will help people move from place to place, do not cost much to maintain or repair, or last for a long time. I'm all for public buildings that look beautiful, but all these projects seem to put very expensive beauty first, and utility, cost, and convenience second, third or fourth. The city has a lot of other things to repair or replace and throwing so much $$$ into this renovation seems to be a waste of resources.

All the plans do look nice, I hope the city government chooses the best one for the taxpayers of Chicago.

Like T5, awards left and right but in the end a massive failure on it's sole purpose. Ok, maybe not massive but nevertheless...

Function over Form, that's the vision these folks should have taken.

'Honest question: how is T5 a failure? Yes, it's currently stuffed to the gills with flights, so there are delays, etc. And I can see that the design is outdated, because it was built in the pre-9/11 era. But you can't really blame the designers for that. Overall, IMHO, I think it's a reasonable terminal. Not outstanding, but not a massive failure by any means. I was actually surprised when I learned it won a bunch of design awards, because to me, it seems like a fairly plain, functional design.



And regarding the costs of good design, it doesn't have to be expensive. This is expensive because building terminals is expensive, what with all the infrastructure, services, specialized construction, etc. that's needed. Not because of a few design flourishes. Good design isn't really about expensive materials or frivolous extras. It's about laying out space and planning the user experience. While lots of starchitect's showpieces have gone overbudget (e.g. Calatrava), that has more to do with the architect. Most responsible firms like the rest of the competitors tend to bring their stuff in on budget or else they wouldn't be in business for very long.

The Hancock building is a beautiful design. Yet it's purely a functional, and made of steel and glass. Nothing frivolous. Even the X-bracing is functional. I doubt using a less beautiful design would have saved any money. Same with anything.

This goes even to pre 9/11 - way too small hold rooms, ticket hall not designed for free flowing of passengers, designed to be both for International and domestic flights but issues where co mingling of these types of passengers happen more often than should be (that's a design issue), security checkpoint about half the size it should have been even in the initial days of start up. No consideration of ground service equipment storage. ATO space, hell space in general. Granted there was limitation to the footprint but the designers never considered going up a level or two to create usable space.

19 airlines started back in '93, I believe it's nearing 45 that operate into the building now.

With all do respect, you have these massive open space terminals that look great but wait till TSA, CDP, even the FAA get involved. Anyone noticed not one has a operational ramp tower? The FAA won't control the ramp areas and I do not see UA controlling AA and AA controlling UA within the alleyways. (talk about messing with your competitor).

jcwr56 wrote:

muralir wrote:

jcwr56 wrote:

Like T5, awards left and right but in the end a massive failure on it's sole purpose. Ok, maybe not massive but nevertheless...

Function over Form, that's the vision these folks should have taken.

'Honest question: how is T5 a failure? Yes, it's currently stuffed to the gills with flights, so there are delays, etc. And I can see that the design is outdated, because it was built in the pre-9/11 era. But you can't really blame the designers for that. Overall, IMHO, I think it's a reasonable terminal. Not outstanding, but not a massive failure by any means. I was actually surprised when I learned it won a bunch of design awards, because to me, it seems like a fairly plain, functional design.



And regarding the costs of good design, it doesn't have to be expensive. This is expensive because building terminals is expensive, what with all the infrastructure, services, specialized construction, etc. that's needed. Not because of a few design flourishes. Good design isn't really about expensive materials or frivolous extras. It's about laying out space and planning the user experience. While lots of starchitect's showpieces have gone overbudget (e.g. Calatrava), that has more to do with the architect. Most responsible firms like the rest of the competitors tend to bring their stuff in on budget or else they wouldn't be in business for very long.

The Hancock building is a beautiful design. Yet it's purely a functional, and made of steel and glass. Nothing frivolous. Even the X-bracing is functional. I doubt using a less beautiful design would have saved any money. Same with anything.

This goes even to pre 9/11 - way too small hold rooms, ticket hall not designed for free flowing of passengers, designed to be both for International and domestic flights but issues where co mingling of these types of passengers happen more often than should be (that's a design issue), security checkpoint about half the size it should have been even in the initial days of start up. No consideration of ground service equipment storage. ATO space, hell space in general. Granted there was limitation to the footprint but the designers never considered going up a level or two to create usable space.

19 airlines started back in '93, I believe it's nearing 45 that operate into the building now.

With all do respect, you have these massive open space terminals that look great but wait till TSA, CDP, even the FAA get involved. Anyone noticed not one has a operational ramp tower? The FAA won't control the ramp areas and I do not see UA controlling AA and AA controlling UA within the alleyways. (talk about messing with your competitor).

I think the Calatrava design has a ramp tower. But that’s a good point. What are they using the old tower for? Would that be an option? I’m not familiar with the UA side of the ramp, I only ever parked in the G/H alley when I was based at ORD.

Has there ever been discussion about reorienting the access road to T1-T3 further north to allow T5 expansion to complement the parallel concourses further west? The current arrangement of the access road (I-190), CTA Blue Line, and Landside APM exist because of the former 14L-32R runway that protruded into the midfield area. Now with that runway gone, it seems like an ideal plan to straighten the access road approach further north towards 27L and straighten the cross-midfield taxiways between T3 and T5 perpendicular to the runways.

This would require a realignment of the CTA Blue Line at-grade segment in the I-190 median, but likely no change to the existing underground approach. It would also require a complete realignment of the landside APM between T3 and T5, though that would be worth the additional airside/concourse space for T5.

Most importantly, I wonder if there was ever discussion of an extension of the proposed underground airside APM eastward from T3 to T5. While that's not shown in any of the long-term plans, it seems like that would provide additional connectivity and could possibly reduce the need for the landside APM (which won't go to the western terminal anyways).

mattsteele wrote:

Has there ever been discussion about reorienting the access road to T1-T3 further north to allow T5 expansion to complement the parallel concourses further west? The current arrangement of the access road (I-190), CTA Blue Line, and Landside APM exist because of the former 14L-32R runway that protruded into the midfield area. Now with that runway gone, it seems like an ideal plan to straighten the access road approach further north towards 27L and straighten the cross-midfield taxiways between T3 and T5 perpendicular to the runways.

This would require a realignment of the CTA Blue Line at-grade segment in the I-190 median, but likely no change to the existing underground approach. It would also require a complete realignment of the landside APM between T3 and T5, though that would be worth the additional airside/concourse space for T5.

Most importantly, I wonder if there was ever discussion of an extension of the proposed underground airside APM eastward from T3 to T5. While that's not shown in any of the long-term plans, it seems like that would provide additional connectivity and could possibly reduce the need for the landside APM (which won't go to the western terminal anyways).

You would still need the landside APM for parking and rental car access, so you can't just get rid of it.

Likewise, relocating the Blue Line, the APM, and the Highway would be extraordinarily expensive and offer little benefit. Instead, you could just add some gates to the north and keep the access road/taxiways more or less the same - just bridge over the roadway.

jcwr56 wrote:

muralir wrote:

jcwr56 wrote:

Like T5, awards left and right but in the end a massive failure on it's sole purpose. Ok, maybe not massive but nevertheless...

Function over Form, that's the vision these folks should have taken.

'Honest question: how is T5 a failure? Yes, it's currently stuffed to the gills with flights, so there are delays, etc. And I can see that the design is outdated, because it was built in the pre-9/11 era. But you can't really blame the designers for that. Overall, IMHO, I think it's a reasonable terminal. Not outstanding, but not a massive failure by any means. I was actually surprised when I learned it won a bunch of design awards, because to me, it seems like a fairly plain, functional design.



And regarding the costs of good design, it doesn't have to be expensive. This is expensive because building terminals is expensive, what with all the infrastructure, services, specialized construction, etc. that's needed. Not because of a few design flourishes. Good design isn't really about expensive materials or frivolous extras. It's about laying out space and planning the user experience. While lots of starchitect's showpieces have gone overbudget (e.g. Calatrava), that has more to do with the architect. Most responsible firms like the rest of the competitors tend to bring their stuff in on budget or else they wouldn't be in business for very long.

The Hancock building is a beautiful design. Yet it's purely a functional, and made of steel and glass. Nothing frivolous. Even the X-bracing is functional. I doubt using a less beautiful design would have saved any money. Same with anything.

This goes even to pre 9/11 - way too small hold rooms, ticket hall not designed for free flowing of passengers, designed to be both for International and domestic flights but issues where co mingling of these types of passengers happen more often than should be (that's a design issue), security checkpoint about half the size it should have been even in the initial days of start up. No consideration of ground service equipment storage. ATO space, hell space in general. Granted there was limitation to the footprint but the designers never considered going up a level or two to create usable space.

19 airlines started back in '93, I believe it's nearing 45 that operate into the building now.

With all do respect, you have these massive open space terminals that look great but wait till TSA, CDP, even the FAA get involved. Anyone noticed not one has a operational ramp tower? The FAA won't control the ramp areas and I do not see UA controlling AA and AA controlling UA within the alleyways. (talk about messing with your competitor).

The plan mentions a 'virtual' ramp tower. I believe this is now becoming pretty commonplace with new airport construction projects given how the quality of video cameras has improved drastically over the years.

FLL does this: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/trans ... story.html

Here's something to consider. When Terminal 1 opened, it was an outstanding piece of architecture. But since it opened in the late 1980s, the exterior has become very, very dirty. Between the dust that gets kicked up from time to time, the exhaust of jet aircraft, the exhaust of the motor vehicles that drive by every day, etc., the whole exterior looks like it needs to be washed and then gone over a second time with Windex or Sparkle glass cleaner.

Terminals 2 and 3, done in the International Style with dark exterior glass, have aged quite well. They may be just as covered in dust, grime, and the like at T1, but they still look good.

In selecting a design for the new Global Terminal, there needs to be some consideration as to how the terminal will look in 10, 20, and 30 years.

The Chicago Tribune's architecture critic, Blair Kamen, says the Foster proposal is a clear first choice:

One of the five plans for the massive O'Hare expansion soars above the rest
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/col ... t12aH-1gp2

"Chances for architectural greatness are rare. When they come around, we best grab them. Such is the opportunity Chicago has before it with one of the five plans for a new global terminal at O’Hare International Airport. That plan, from a team led by London-based Foster + Partners architects, promises to be everything an airport should be: a precisely-honed machine for moving people and baggage; easy to get around intuitively; and an enthralling gateway to its city. The design would evoke the great railroad stations of the past, yet be flexible enough to evolve as the demands of travel change in the future. Add a dose of structural bravura and you have a design that uniquely suits Chicago."