Salt Lake International Airport Development Thread

[airhero]

I'm sure they are using some sort of aluminum alloy for the material. I think copper would look way better, but it probably costs 4-5 times what they al alloy does. For a total concourse length (north + south) of over a mile and the terminal, that would be a huge increase in cost. They both look better than orange reflective glass would, and I'm confident 90+ percent of people would agree, but I could be wrong.

I wish they could do some copper inside the terminal. The initial renderings had lots of color on the interior, and now they show boring white all over. I emailed some people with knowledge of the rebuild a while ago and they said the current renderings of the interior don't reflect what the final material selection will be, but I'm sure with the increasing cost of the rebuild we're not going to see them deciding to do anything on the interior that could add significantly more expense to the project.

[bob rulz]

I think those buildings are really ugly tbh

Whether it's orange-tinted glass, copper, orange aluminum....I don't think any of those look particularly good on a large scale. They can work on smaller scales, as accents/highlights/etc.

[jubguy3]

The glass you showed on both projects is a film coating that blocks UV. Its not something that would be applied to glass that isn't acting as a window, and the airport cannot be feasibly clad in glass. I would never want to imagine someone describing triad-brown glass as "beautiful".

For those of you wondering what the cladding is going to look like, page 35 shows (in very poor quality) on this document (https://www.slcairport.com/assets/pd...017Revised.pdf) the mockup building constructed near the realigned terminal drive with finishing materials; I attempted to do some sort of color correction to fix the photocopy quality. https://i.imgur.com/CPiDQja.png?1 Its still nice, but I think we can do better than that. I am not disappointed; it looks to be a high quality finishing and less matte than the renderings show. It's certainly a lot more aesthetically pleasing than the airsides of other airports in the United States like the monstrosity that is DIA's concourses: https://media.gettyimages.com/photos...5814?s=612x612

But, as others have noted, copper is a truly Utahn material, and it looks great on implementations here like the NHMU. Like the titanium cladding used in Gehry works, it shows defects and texturing when polished, which in my opinion, makes it a much more interesting material to work with. Aluminum is very... its very trendy right now, and I think it will go the way of other cladding materials that have seen better days like tinted postmodern glass.

I don't know if you guys are displeased just because you are vehemently traditionalist, but at the very least, I think a material like this (https://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blo...-Building4.jpg) would look great on the concourses, and at the very least, along the uninterrupted square nodes along the concourses. Is it going to look great from the airside? Yes, because I think its the only major airport concourse system in the United States to look anything like it. But if we want to stand out, an interesting finishing choice when the actual design of the concourses is no CDG or DXB would contribute to the theme of "local finishing materials", and in my opinion, would look stunning.

I'm curious. If you don't like the paneling that's going in, what would you want to see? A different color, or a different material? Glass could not be used on the existing airport if I remember correctly because glass panels cannot be present below a certain height due to ricochet complications, and if I understand correctly, the lower edge of the paneling is within that threshold.

[jubguy3]

West Tunnel connection to SCW:
https://www.slcairport.com/assets/cm...W-Jan-2018.jpg

Elevated road:
https://www.slcairport.com/assets/cm...d-Jan-2018.jpg

[jubguy3]

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Z..._interior4.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g..._interior3.jpg

https://web.archive.org/web/20131125...esentation.pdf (beginning on page 19)

These were some of the initial renderings of the airport, which oddly enough, were more detailed in material choices and furniture than the final renderings.


https://imgur.com/a/OkvLh

The new renderings are not as interesting. They have said that it's not a final material choice, but I would still like to see stuff like the plant walls, trees, wood ceilings, and black terrazzo floors in place of office white walls.

I would love to see wood ceilings in the departure area. Wouldn't the following look nice, eg. Scandinavian?

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/61/99/d0/6...ing-panels.jpg

http://www.martinintegrated.com/wood/wood_08.jpg

Singapore Changi, one of my favorite airports in the world, is also full of trees - which is hopefully something that can be incorporated into the higher-ceilinged holdrooms and the plaza.

http://www.globenotes.com/members/ph...ore-168103.jpg

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...5/?format=750w

[jubguy3]

February 7, 2018

• Installed first of 18 moving walkways in South Concourse-West
• Decommissioned Gates D10 and D12 to capture area for the North Concourse-West construction
• Continued Terminal structural steel erection
• Averaged more than 1,000 trade contractor staff onsite

https://www.slcairport.com/assets/Up...t-Jan-2018.jpg

It looks like the cladding has just begun installation. The aerial is from January; I'm flying out to Seattle on Friday so I'll try to capture a photo.

[orlandopilot]

If you go on the SLC airport facebook page there is a post about the South Concourse. They discuss how the cladding will work. They say the last part of the concourse building will be the "copper cladding". It appears copper will be part of the new airport.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by orlandopilot

If you go on the SLC airport facebook page there is a post about the South Concourse. They discuss how the cladding will work. They say the last part of the concourse building will be the "copper cladding". It appears copper will be part of the new airport.

I think they're just referring to copper-colored cladding, but I could be wrong.

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I think they're just referring to copper-colored cladding, but I could be wrong.

I thought it was just anodized aluminum?

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland

I thought it was just anodized aluminum?

This is the quote:

"The New SLC Redevelopment Program construction has been impressive, to say the least, since ground was broken in July 2014. Once the infrastructure work was completed, steel erection began and it now looks like the city is actually building a new airport!
Here's an update on what's happening with construction. Exterior work on the South Concourse-West starts with placement of a green-colored sheathing, which is a base material. Next, a blue moisture barrier is installed, followed by a beige insulation layer and then glass installation. The final layer is the installation of copper cladding that completes the exterior look. Check out the latest construction updates at: www.slcairport.com/thenewslc/construction-updates/"

I guess we will just have to wait and see. I do know that aluminum is hard to anodize to certain orange colors, but copper is also difficult to give the sandblasted finish it has without making it susceptible to rust, and such a smooth / angular surface. We will have to wait and see - I flew out to Seattle on Saturday and came back in yesterday, but I took TRAX both ways so I wasn't able to drive by the concourse where it's being installed. I did get some photos from the parking deck; the scale truly impressive when you're standing near it. If anyone is flying in or out within the next few weeks and you take the main road to leave the airport, could you happen to get photographs of the first two noses of the concourse? Copper has already started to go up, but the only photos I could take had a terminal in the way, and the only recent photos of the concourse are aerial photos.

They constructed a small mockup building near the earthwork portion at the end of the elevated roadway that I showed above. I drove past it landing from my flight from Paris in October and I thought it looked nice, but it was a radiant Utah sunset which might have enhanced the orange hues. I do not like the tan cinderblocks they're using on the first level of the concourses.

[airhero]

I emailed the airport about the metal panels and got a response. According to the project director the panels are painted aluminum.

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Anybody have an update on the airport trax station? Haven’t heard anything in 5 months. If they’re gonna stick with the “deluxe” version, construction would need to begin by the end of the year if its gonna be finished in tandem with the terminal. The same probably goes for the at-grade version.

Honestly the at-grade option doesn’t seem terrible. I was at the airport last night and the new brochure/flyer thingy’s and video kiosks that help people learn about the expansion, have the aerial layout showing the trax station moved next to the terminal in the at grade version. Does this mean it’s quietly been made official?

[jubguy3]

I'd just prefer that the terminal isn't restricted in it's expansion at all. It is already smaller than it should be

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland

Does this mean it’s quietly been made official?

Yep. It is UTA's official option. Salt Lake City was toying with the idea of paying for the elevated option themselves, but I haven't heard anything about that in months. I feel pretty comfortable assuming that we'll get the ground-level option.

As for expansion, doesn't the TRAX ground-level station only impact the ability of the baggage-claim area to expand? As shown in the picture they are leaving space for one expansion, but after that the airport will be built up directly to the end of the TRAX tracks. Could the other portions of the terminal be built out over the TRAX station to handle increased arrivals? That would be extremely cool.

[jubguy3]

If it's on the first level, it would impact the international arrivals facilities. I don't think the ceilings are tall enough to fit a TRAX train underneath - look at the City Creek skybridge. Maybe they could descend down 6 or 7 feet to leave room for the train station? And I don't imagine that building atop an active train station is an easy thing to get pushed through regulation. If they do expand the terminal, I would expect it to be on the west side, where one (section) of the terminal is missing. I do wish the planners thought a bit more proactively, because 740k sq feet is relatively small for a terminal, even considering the fact that we are primarily a connecting hub. Look at what happened to Denver when their new airport opened. They should have built an asymmetrical design that would have allowed for the current road configuration but 300 feet to the South, and had the majority of the terminal west of the center of the concourse. That would have allowed for the existing phasing strategy (terminal complete in one phase) but also allowed for a larger terminal. For reference, Indianapolis's terminal is 1,100,000 sq feet, and Denver's is 1,500,000 square feet. Denver has been running into problems with the capacity of their terminal, and we have a nearly identical 1:2 terminal size and passenger output (maybe slightly less passengers). And the multilevel facility is the same concept employed here at SLC. I really think the planners should have thought ahead and planned for a terminal closer to 1.2m sq feet.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

I don't think the ceilings are tall enough to fit a TRAX train underneath - look at the City Creek skybridge.

I'm gonnna get all pedantic and engineery here, but the City Creek Skybridge is up as far as it is in order to get over the TRAX catenary lines at their standard height. They're up so high to be sure that nothing touches them, and that traffic crossing beneath them will not snag on them and pull them down by accident (or get an electric shock, I suppose...).

According to Siemens, the TRAX vehicles could operate with the catenary line as low as 13-ish feet, as compared to the 20-ish feet used downtown. See the TRAX line on North Temple underneath I-15 and I-215 as an example of where the cantenary goes down pretty low.

Additionally, the catenary could be built into the roof structure of the building above. See the picture of the Berlin airport station below:

That silver metal rod above the tracks? That substitutes for the copper wire, and its built right into the roof structure.

You're very right about regulations concerning construction over an active rail line, and perhaps the station would need to be closed for a month and a bus-bridge put in service while the station is reconfigured to be an indoor station.

I'm only arguing this point because I don't think the TRAX station needs to limit the size of the airport terminal. If the airport needs to expand around the TRAX station, I think everybody wins; we would get a larger terminal and TRAX would take you literally inside the terminal building. I think that would be extremely neat.

[airhero]

I'm having trouble understanding why TRAX arriving at ground level is an issue for expansion at all. If the terminal needs expansion can't the TRAX station just be moved further back along the line, just outside of the area of expansion? Then rip up the small portion of the TRAX line that will no longer be used and build. Seems pretty easy but I guess I'm missing something?

[Hatman]

Shortening the TRAX line would also be a workable option. The airport would need to do a study of the costs and benefits. Expanding the terminal around the TRAX station would cost more but would probably result in closing the station for less time and would have a much better integrated TRAX station in the end. Displacing the TRAX station would mean the station would be closed for much longer (while an entirely new station was built) and would not be an improvement over the current situation - it may even be worse since it would be father away.

To be honest I really like the idea of a train station located within the terminal building, and I need to start building popular support for the idea early.

[jubguy3]

Notice the curved section beyond the station platform itself. The placement for the stopblocks is dependent on a variety of regulations, and for whatever reason, I am assuming that the stopblock can't be at the end of the station platform like it is at the existing airport stop, but has to be further down the track (as is seen at the University Medical and Salt Lake Central stops). I don't know if they are allowed to keep the stopblock adjacent to the airfield, which might dictate the current placement parallel to the terminal wall. I have no idea if this is an actual restriction or not, because I don't understand the regulations behind civil engineering one bit, but if the stopblock is required to be configured how it is in the layout, the terminal could not be extended eastward without creating significant impacts to the airfield and the tracks themselves. If we had to move the airport station again, that would be, what, the 3rd airport station that we've had? EDIT: I just realized that this is so they have a place to store end of line trains. There is currently a small siding for end of line trains but it can only lodge two cars at a time, which means most of the green line trains are stored at the trax facility, creating operational delays when additional trains are needed.

Hatman, the construction impacts on the station would last much longer than a month. You cannot have active construction over an existing structure without limiting its use. If they are erecting steel and a beam falls 50 feet down onto the station, possibly hundreds of lives could be at risk (especially considering the catenary wires which cannot immediately shut off in an emergency) as wells as millions of dollars worth of existing infrastructure like TRAX trains. The steel piles driven at the airport were 70 foot stone columns, and it was noisy even on the terminal sidewalks. You could not have that level of noise surrounding a passenger facility. If you want an enclosed station, the closest thing would be the elevated option. It would be open on the road-facing side, but its immediately adjacent to a wall (the illustrated designs show the roof covering the entire station beyond edge to edge rather than the half assed huts at the rest of the UTA stations). The end of the station would be a set of automatic sliding doors that opens directly into the gateway center, no need to cross tracks. It would open directly onto the gateway center ticketing counters. You could walk off a train and be to the ticket counter about 20 feet away and drop off your bags. With the proposed design, you have to walk farther to get to the terminal, and have to go up 3 flights of escalators to get to the arrivals counters. The TRAX reconfiguration is a critical part of the airport. It is ridiculous that Bill Wyatt isn't fighting the legislation that would allow for airport funds to pay for public transportation projects.

[RC14]

I think it would be a shame if we don't get the elevated station. I would love to see more door to door transit developments.
I feel like you have to take a bus or have a car to get to most of our TRAX and Front Runner stations. Either that or walk across ocean sized parking lots, around fences and through industrial areas (Murray Central is a good example of what I'm talking about.)
I would like to see more developments that incorporate the stations into them.