SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   LOS ANGELES | LAX Modernization Plan (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=161053)

edluva Nov 21, 2008 12:41 AM

^agreed about the bridge. way out of scale.

Quixote Nov 21, 2008 9:01 AM

I added more photos to post #5.

BrandonJXN Nov 21, 2008 6:32 PM

The bridge needs to be worked on. Though I'm sure that this will be modified a bit but overall I like it.

Stratosphere Nov 27, 2008 6:25 AM

The obtrusive bridges ruin this beautiful design. Why can't these new terminals be connected with underground people movers?

Buckeye Native 001 Nov 27, 2008 7:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stratosphere (Post 3937691)
Why can't these new terminals be connected with underground people movers?

Unstable foundation maybe?

edluva Nov 27, 2008 9:20 AM

and/or cost?

the more i look at this proposal the more those bridges seem to be out of proportion and lacking of subtlety

StethJeff Nov 29, 2008 3:56 AM

I think that the bridges create a strong lasting impression. If they're able to further the design elements of the theme building in any way at LAX, I'm all for it.

Overall though, I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised by those renderings. I'm used to shrugging my shoulders and saying, "well, at least it's infill," for most LA projects (Park Fifth, Nokia Theater, Madame Tussaud's). But this one is simply awesome! It's nice having that feeling once again.

If the LAX expansion can even come close to those images, at least part of our airport will have aesthetics that can compete with a Schipol or Suvarnabhumi.

LosAngelesBeauty Nov 29, 2008 7:55 AM

When is this thing supposed to start construction again?

John F Dec 1, 2008 5:30 PM

OK, the model shows the international terminal being rebuilt... What about the domestic terminals?

BrandonJXN Dec 1, 2008 7:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StethJeff (Post 3940722)
I think that the bridges create a strong lasting impression. If they're able to further the design elements of the theme building in any way at LAX, I'm all for it.

Overall though, I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised by those renderings. I'm used to shrugging my shoulders and saying, "well, at least it's infill," for most LA projects (Park Fifth, Nokia Theater, Madame Tussaud's). But this one is simply awesome! It's nice having that feeling once again.

If the LAX expansion can even come close to those images, at least part of our airport will have aesthetics that can compete with a Schipol or Suvarnabhumi.

I said on SSC that I would love to see LAX compete with Changi Airport in Singapore which has ranked pretty high on a lot of 'world's best' airports lists.

WonderlandPark Dec 1, 2008 9:05 PM

Bridge has to be big, the tail of the A380 has to fit under it. It has to be two levels because of circulation of arriving passengers (to customs) and departing passengers. I don't know how you build it "smaller." The design should be altered to make it more light in appearance, IMO.

10023 Dec 1, 2008 10:58 PM

Good luck getting this completed by 2013 (not a chance), but the plans look good. LAX isn't such a pleasure right now (though nothing is as bad as O'Hare).

Stratosphere Jan 16, 2009 8:19 AM

Something like this would look better than the current arch design, I think.

http://www.superbrasilia.com/misc/ponte_jk_dusk.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/thetropics/3416/ponte1.jpg

plinko Jan 16, 2009 6:05 PM

^Well yeah, but this is essentially a public works project. So while it would be lovely to get a Calatrava or Rogers or Foster, Fentress isn't a terrible alternative.

I agree the bridge needs a little work (I like the Theme Building-esque concept), and I actually quite like the concourse roofs. The middle building? Meh...sometimes a theme can get a little overcooked.

There will be lots of value engineering with this (hopefully they don't VE the bridge in favor of some stupid Dulles type transfer system), but if LAX gets something that nearly looks like this concept, I'm alright with that.

And Stratosphere...underground (while ideal) is WAY too expensive..the shoring alone (due to the relative elevation to the ocean) is probably more expensive than a bridge.

dimondpark Jan 16, 2009 8:26 PM

that's hot.

Quixote Jan 18, 2009 11:13 AM

I wish they would do something about the exterior of the current TBIT. It looks like a prison.

Regarding the rail connection, does anybody know if the Green Line is to be extended to Aviation/Century (where it would meet up with the people mover) or to the airport itself? I prefer the latter.

Overall, I'm pretty content with what I see. I yearn for the day when we can greet passengers in an airport like this and transport them to a vibrant and revitalized DTLA via the LAX Express.

J_Taylor Jan 18, 2009 3:19 PM

I like it, and think the bridge is just fine the way it is.

jamesinclair Jan 18, 2009 11:43 PM

The bridge will allow for some fantastic pictures

Quixote Jan 23, 2009 6:59 AM

LAX Chief Says Bring Trains to Airport

By Art Marroquin, Staff Writer
January 16, 2009

The head of Los Angeles International Airport said she supports efforts to extend the Metro Green Line but remained frustrated that the train won't directly connect with airline terminals.

"The plans for bringing it into the airport sound better than they are because they don't actually bring the Green Line into the central terminal area," Gina Marie Lindsey, executive director of LAX, said Thursday during a luncheon hosted by the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum.

For now, the Green Line ends about two miles from LAX, forcing commuters to take a brief bus ride to the airport.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's plan calls for extending the Green Line to nearby Manchester Square. From there, travelers would board a people mover to gain access to the airport terminals.

"That's fine, because it certainly gets you a lot closer to the airport, and that's a good thing, but you still need to get off the Green Line and onto some other conveyance to get into the central terminal area," she said. "We're in support of it, but let's understand it's not as perfect as if we did this from scratch."

MTA spokesman Rick Jager did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment about Lindsey's statements.

The Green Line opened in 1995 at a cost of $700 million, running 20 miles from Norwalk to Redondo Beach, but bypassing LAX by about two miles.

Initial plans called for extending the Green Line to LAX as soon as 2015, but a revised report from the MTA notes that the project won't be completed until sometime from 2018 to 2022 at an estimated cost of $400 million.

LAX officials said the airport's current layout would make it difficult to extend the Green Line directly into the central terminal area. Lindsey lamented that her predecessors should have had the foresight to allow for better access to public transportation. Most large cities have rail lines that directly connect to their airports.

"As a general rule, I think mass transit as a connection to major airports is an absolute must," she said. "If you were building an airport today, you would want a rail line to make it efficient."

edluva Jan 23, 2009 10:21 AM

^the green line isn't exactly an "efficient" way to get to LAX, even with a direct connection to terminals. i know we'll take what we can get, but it's still a shitty option. good for one of green line's original premises though - airport workers


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.