SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87889)

VivaLFuego Nov 26, 2006 9:07 PM

^ Cool where did you find that? I assume this would be the big transit planner wet dream of the bus+commuter(STAR)+rapid transit (blue+airport express) intermodal center, but I've never seen anything this....detailed?

nomarandlee Nov 26, 2006 9:40 PM

Thats been on the Midwest high speed rail page for a long time now. I think its basically conceptual. They have a very detailed ideas about how high speed rail could be incorperted into the OMP. Hopefully the city will make contigencies to allow for such plans if there is ever the political will but its not part of the OMP project that I know of.

http://www.oharedirect.org

spyguy Nov 26, 2006 10:12 PM

I remember seeing that image for Gary, but who knows.

Busy Bee Nov 26, 2006 11:56 PM

^ Yeah, that's what I was thinking. That looks like a South Shore Line MU on the left.

Mikey711MN Nov 27, 2006 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy
I remember seeing that image for Gary, but who knows.

That's exactly where it's from. To this point, the multimodal station for ORD would not be enclosed like this rendering shows, although certainly nothing is anywhere close to being in final design.

Anyway, I spent some time looking for the architect of the GYY Airport redevelopment, but to no avail. That's where I'd seen this image before.

EDIT: Found it! Click on the "Architecture" heading, then the "Transportation" sub-heading followed by the "Gary-Chicago Airport" listing to view four renderings. One of which is the one posted above for ORD.

nomarandlee Nov 28, 2006 11:08 AM

New O’Hare control tower construction begins
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...l=chi-news-hed

New O’Hare control tower construction begins

Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published November 27, 2006, 9:49 PM CST


Preliminary work began Monday on the first of two new air-traffic control towers to serve future runways at O'Hare International Airport.

Breaking ground for the 255-foot north airfield tower marked a transition in the $15 billion O'Hare expansion project from primarily earthmoving activities that began more than a year ago to construction that will lead to the first new runway opening at the airport in more than 30 years.


Walsh Construction Co.'s crews began drilling concrete caissons for the foundation of the tower, where controllers will direct planes landing on east-west runway 9 Left/27 Right. The runway is scheduled to open by November 2008, Chicago aviation officials said.

"We must build a new control tower on the north airfield because the air-traffic controllers cannot view the ends of our new runway because of buildings obstructing the runway ends," said Rosemarie Andolino, executive director of the O'Hare Modernization Program.

The runway and the extension of an existing runway were originally scheduled for completion in 2007.

Chicago officials declined to provide a timetable for construction of the second new runway, 10 Center/28 Center, originally planned for completion in 2009. O'Hare expansion opponents are appealing a federal court decision that would allow Chicago to move about 1,600 graves at St. Johannes Cemetery, which borders the airport.

Once the $32.7 million north control tower is built, it will take up to a year to install and test equipment, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. Air-traffic controllers will work in a temporary facility until the tower is certified for operations sometime in 2009, said FAA spokesman Tony Molinaro.

The tower is being built on a former parking lot for American Airlines employees near Touhy Avenue and Mt. Prospect Road.

It has a cantilevered design to maximize sight lines to the airfield for the five air-traffic controllers who will direct aircraft on the runway.

The tower will operate as a satellite of O'Hare's main control tower, which will continue to handle the bulk of airport traffic, officials said.

A second new satellite tower is planned for the second phase of O'Hare expansion. The far south airfield tower would serve the future east-west runway 10 Right/28 Left.

About 533 residential units and 55 business properties in Bensenville must be razed to make way for the runway. O'Hare expansion opponents are fighting Chicago's land acquisition in court.

The FAA has not approved funding for the second phase of airport expansion and the airlines have not made a financial commitment.

Delays have pushed back the original 2013 completion date for the entire $15 billion project to transform O'Hare's intersecting runways into a more efficient parallel runway configuration. No new date has been set, Andolino said. She disclosed last month that the first phase of O'Hare expansion is running more than $400 million over budget.
jhilkevitch@tribune.com



Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

nicopico Nov 28, 2006 2:48 PM

This pahse $400 million over budget, there's something unexpected. ***rollseyes***

Will Ohare be the first major airport to neccessitate two towers to control air traffic?

VivaLFuego Nov 28, 2006 5:05 PM

^ 255 ft, maybe we can add that to the Chicago Boom rundown list :)

Chicago2020 Nov 28, 2006 8:37 PM

^^^ :cheers:
Rendering of O'Hare Terminal 7 at Remote Parking Lot F Location

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8/t7renddg8.gif

New Air Control Tower

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/7...irfieldep8.jpg

forumly_chgoman Nov 28, 2006 9:02 PM

I am sorry I was browsing through the thread but I didn't notice if there are projections for added volume levels at Ohare post expansion.....my understnding is that Ohare will increase to 8 runways from its current 6

I have seen estimates that state as high as a 60% increase in volume level....but I wonder if that is takeoffs / landings or people....anyone know of any projectiosn of flights and passenger traffic post expansion?

spyguy Nov 28, 2006 10:44 PM

If that's the control tower, it looks pretty sweet.

Edit: found another image on the O'Hare website
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2391/ordnatct3ts5.jpg

Chicago2020 Nov 29, 2006 1:19 AM

It looks Different, and thats a good thing in my opinion :tup:

Marcu Nov 29, 2006 8:02 AM

I was walking near the lake a few days back and happened to notice planes flying overhead every 30 seconds or so. I guess I was under a flight path. I suddenly remembered those "not enough air space" arguments from before the expansion began. Is it really possible for planes to fly into ohare 10 or 15 seconds behind one another? If expansion predictions come to fruition, there's absolutely no airport in the world that will be able to match ord's volume by any measure.

hoosier Nov 30, 2006 5:10 AM

I need to make a concerted effort to check out the airport once it is renovated. It should be amazing!

Marcu Dec 1, 2006 8:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoosier
I need to make a concerted effort to check out the airport once it is renovated. It should be amazing!

Don't worry just take a few flight out of O"hare. I'm sure at least one will be delayed enough for you to wonder around.

denizen467 Dec 1, 2006 8:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago2020
Rendering of O'Hare Terminal 7 at Remote Parking Lot F Location

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8/t7renddg8.gif

Where is T7 ? That looks like just the rail-auto intermodal terminal.

Rail Claimore Dec 1, 2006 8:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu
I was walking near the lake a few days back and happened to notice planes flying overhead every 30 seconds or so. I guess I was under a flight path. I suddenly remembered those "not enough air space" arguments from before the expansion began. Is it really possible for planes to fly into ohare 10 or 15 seconds behind one another? If expansion predictions come to fruition, there's absolutely no airport in the world that will be able to match ord's volume by any measure.

If ORD is expanded to potential, its runway layout will allow for four takeoffs or landings at once provided ATC maintains good runway usage discipline. But what's much more likely is continuous trimultaneous operations for both landings and takeoffs. Takeoffs will probably use the two runways adjacent to the terminal (9R and 10L) along with 10R (the southernmost runway), and landings will use 9C, 10C, and 9L (the northernmost runway). The only big concern when it's all done is O'hare's inefficient taxiway layout, particularly on the north airfield.

DFW and DEN are the only other major airports that either have or will have this much operational capacity, but that's mainly because both airports have much more room to expand.

denizen467 Dec 3, 2006 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore
DFW and DEN are the only other major airports that either have or will have this much operational capacity, but that's mainly because both airports have much more room to expand.

Wasn't ATL also moving toward a similar layout?

atlantaguy Dec 3, 2006 1:10 PM

^We just opened our 5th runway this past May, but we're maxed out now.

Rail Claimore Dec 3, 2006 6:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlantaguy
^We just opened our 5th runway this past May, but we're maxed out now.

Yes, ATL does allow for trimultaneous operations now, but operations aren't quite as flexible as having a 6th runway north of the current airfield. I doubt we'll be seeing something like that soon though.

atlantaguy Dec 3, 2006 6:29 PM

Rail - I really don't think the 6th runway to the north will ever happen.

There is a sort of "Gentlemen's Agreement" between the Airport and College Park & Hapeville that in exchange for support of the now built 5th runway, Hartsfield-Jackson would never seek the 6th runway. The buyout would be prohibitively expensive - both towns are gentrifying rapidly.

nergie Dec 3, 2006 7:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlantaguy
Rail - I really don't think the 6th runway to the north will ever happen.

There is a sort of "Gentlemen's Agreement" between the Airport and College Park & Hapeville that in exchange for support of the now built 5th runway, Hartsfield-Jackson would never seek the 6th runway. The buyout would be prohibitively expensive - both towns are gentrifying rapidly.


Is there no room to expand south of the 5th runway? I have only flown in once since it was open. It is awesome how it spans I-285.

ORD for does not have the room to build the far perimeter taxiways as does DIA and DFW. I wish the senior Daley would have grabbed a 100 or so square miles when the Higgins Annex occurred. This would have made ORD expansion less painful.

atlantaguy Dec 3, 2006 7:52 PM

nergie - No, there really isn't any room in that direction either.

The only expansion we'll be seeing from now on will be terminals only - we really are at this point maxed out. The new consolidated rental car center is actually across I-85 from the terminal - that's how hemmed in we now are.

nergie Dec 4, 2006 3:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlantaguy
nergie - No, there really isn't any room in that direction either.

The only expansion we'll be seeing from now on will be terminals only - we really are at this point maxed out. The new consolidated rental car center is actually across I-85 from the terminal - that's how hemmed in we now are.

Are the local authorities looking at alternative airports, I read an FAA study about ATL, and PHI needing another airport. Coincedentally, the report also keys on need to expand ORD and add another airport to Chicagoland.

Well here is hoping you guys do not have to go through the garbage Chicago had to to get this expansion of ORD to get off the ground. Heck even now there is still a battle over expanding the southern part of the airport. It centers around cemetaries being relocated.

Rail Claimore Dec 4, 2006 7:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie
Are the local authorities looking at alternative airports, I read an FAA study about ATL, and PHI needing another airport. Coincedentally, the report also keys on need to expand ORD and add another airport to Chicagoland.

Well here is hoping you guys do not have to go through the garbage Chicago had to to get this expansion of ORD to get off the ground. Heck even now there is still a battle over expanding the southern part of the airport. It centers around cemetaries being relocated.

ATL had to deal with a cemetary as well. In the end, they decided to keep it but limit visitations to twice a year. ORD doesn't have that option considering the cemetary is directly in the way of the future runway. ATL's case was one of just relocating a taxiway or something like that.

Even if southern expansion was possible at ATL, it wouldn't make much sense considering almost all the operations at the current airfield center on the four main runways. If ATL could build a sixth runway, as far as airport operations go, north would be ideal. Any new runway at ATL has a snowball's chance in hell of happening regardless. After the terminal expansions, ATL is done with expansion.

The city of Atlanta has two big tracts of land way out in the exurbs that will serve as a location for a possible second airport... but I really doubt either will ever be needed, much like Peotone wasn't needed for Chicagoland. There are already two plausible options for new commerical service in the Atlanta area: Dobbins ARB and Lawrenceville.

Back on topic with ORD... I think ORD is pretty much done after this modernization project. Just by looking at the layout, you can tell that the designers were pressed for space, especially when looking at the south airfield and seeing how close future runway 10R will be to 10C and 10L thanks to Bensenville Yard. ORD is completely surrounded by either expressways, railroads, or both. Any future investments in the airport after this will be with tweaking the terminals and what not. If anything does strike my curiosity about it all, it's why they're keeping runway 4L, which will intersect future 9C and 9R.

nergie Dec 4, 2006 9:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore
ATL had to deal with a cemetary as well. In the end, they decided to keep it but limit visitations to twice a year. ORD doesn't have that option considering the cemetary is directly in the way of the future runway. ATL's case was one of just relocating a taxiway or something like that.

Even if southern expansion was possible at ATL, it wouldn't make much sense considering almost all the operations at the current airfield center on the four main runways. If ATL could build a sixth runway, as far as airport operations go, north would be ideal. Any new runway at ATL has a snowball's chance in hell of happening regardless. After the terminal expansions, ATL is done with expansion.

The city of Atlanta has two big tracts of land way out in the exurbs that will serve as a location for a possible second airport... but I really doubt either will ever be needed, much like Peotone wasn't needed for Chicagoland. There are already two plausible options for new commerical service in the Atlanta area: Dobbins ARB and Lawrenceville.

Back on topic with ORD... I think ORD is pretty much done after this modernization project. Just by looking at the layout, you can tell that the designers were pressed for space, especially when looking at the south airfield and seeing how close future runway 10R will be to 10C and 10L thanks to Bensenville Yard. ORD is completely surrounded by either expressways, railroads, or both. Any future investments in the airport after this will be with tweaking the terminals and what not. If anything does strike my curiosity about it all, it's why they're keeping runway 4L, which will intersect future 9C and 9R.


Thanks for the info, I believe 4L and 4R are needed for the nasty cross winds ORD experiences. If these were eliminated there are no cross wind runways. If anyone here can shed more light please do

Chicago2020 Dec 5, 2006 6:55 AM

http://www.ohare.com/FACE/T3Exp3.jpg

Chicago2020 Dec 5, 2006 7:16 AM

Virgin Air to resume O’Hare flights

The Associated Press
Published December 4, 2006, 4:43 PM CST


Virgin Atlantic Airways founder Sir Richard Branson said Monday he's bringing his planes back to Chicago and wants to reduce fuel consumption by towing them to and from runways.

Beginning in April, Virgin Atlantic will offer daily service between London's Heathrow Airport and O'Hare International Airport. The airline cut that route after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"As far as I'm concerned, we're going to be here to stay," said Branson, a British business mogul who also is involved in environmental causes.

Virgin Atlantic currently flies to 27 destinations worldwide and carried 5 million passengers last year.

Branson said towing airplanes would reduce the time jet engines run, saving fuel and cutting emissions. Under Branson's plan, planes would be towed to a holding area closer to the runway, where engines would be started for takeoff.

Mayor Richard M. Daley said the city was willing to study the idea and would talk to federal aviation officials about it. One consideration is whether towing would slow operations at O'Hare, where delays have a ripple effect around the country.

Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Tony Molinaro said many questions about safety and efficiency must be resolved.

Planes aren't all Branson dabbles in. The tycoon is also in the music business with his Virgin Megastores.

But Branson acknowledges brick-and-mortar music stores like his must evolve to stay alive in an era of music downloads. He knows it won't be easy and says there could be a time when music stores disappear.

"Hopefully, Virgin Megastores will be the last, the last standing," he said.

denizen467 Dec 5, 2006 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago2020

T2 ?

Rail Claimore Dec 6, 2006 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie
Thanks for the info, I believe 4L and 4R are needed for the nasty cross winds ORD experiences. If these were eliminated there are no cross wind runways. If anyone here can shed more light please do

If crosswinds are a major factor in the runway layout, then the new plan should have kept 14L and 14R, which are actually the most important runways since winds in the area frequently blow from NW to SE. However, Mayor Daley wants to minimize commercial aircraft flying over downtown. Still though, considering ORD is about 17 miles from the Loop, that's plenty of distance to minimize such concerns as it is.

Considering those runways are two of three longest, not eliminating them would hinder operations on the four future E-W runways adjacent to the terminals, all of which will be longer than all of the current runways at ORD except 14R. My guess is that 4L and 4R are being kept primarily for general aviation and smaller regional planes. 4R isn't a major concern because that runway doesn't intersect any other runways even now, and most planes that use it take off and land from the SW. Having many operations on 4L though would limit operations on future 9C and 9R. Ideally, 4L would be moved either west of the current north airfield (which would require taking up more of Elk Grove Village), or farther north of its current location, where it would take up a big chunk of Des Plaines and would require tunneling of the NW tollway.

nergie Dec 7, 2006 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore
If crosswinds are a major factor in the runway layout, then the new plan should have kept 14L and 14R, which are actually the most important runways since winds in the area frequently blow from NW to SE. However, Mayor Daley wants to minimize commercial aircraft flying over downtown. Still though, considering ORD is about 17 miles from the Loop, that's plenty of distance to minimize such concerns as it is.

Considering those runways are two of three longest, not eliminating them would hinder operations on the four future E-W runways adjacent to the terminals, all of which will be longer than all of the current runways at ORD except 14R. My guess is that 4L and 4R are being kept primarily for general aviation and smaller regional planes. 4R isn't a major concern because that runway doesn't intersect any other runways even now, and most planes that use it take off and land from the SW. Having many operations on 4L though would limit operations on future 9C and 9R. Ideally, 4L would be moved either west of the current north airfield (which would require taking up more of Elk Grove Village), or farther north of its current location, where it would take up a big chunk of Des Plaines and would require tunneling of the NW tollway.

Well to build out the western terminal complex and appropriate taxiways you have to eliminate 14-L and 14-R, this is something I read. The controllers also state the importance of 14-L and 14-R. As for 4R this I have taken off on this runway in 737 upto 757s.

nomarandlee Dec 7, 2006 8:39 AM

South African Airways opens route to riches
 
Not to do with O'Hare but its pretty big news since its new service to the whole African continent. Its great to have Africa linked up with Chicago.....

http://www.suntimes.com/business/161...rica06.article

South African Airways opens route to riches
O'Hare flights 'great news for us'


December 6, 2006
BY MARY WISNIEWSKI Business Reporter

A new direct flight to Africa will open the entire continent to Chicago business, doubling or tripling the volume of trade, according to the head of an economic development group.

"This is great news for us," said Paul O'Connor of World Business Chicago, as South African Airways dislcosed details Tuesday of four weekly flights between Chicago and Johannesburg. "The newest, latest area of opportunity is the African continent, and clearly that's going to be driven out of South Africa. It's historically the business center."

Top brass of South African Airways, which announced the Chicago flights late last month, appeared at a news conference Tuesday with Mayor Daley at O'Hare's International Terminal to discuss details of the new service.

Flights to Africa from O'Hare will begin May 8. The 8,100-mile flight will make a short stop in Dakar, Senegal, in West Africa before proceeding to Johannesburg, South Africa. Passengers can connect to more than 30 cities from those two stops, according to Marc Cavaliere, executive vice president of South African Airways.


Prices for the Chicago flights were not yet available. However, comparable roundtrip flights from other U.S. cities start at $1,000, rising to $7,500 to $7,800 for business class.
South African Airways already has flights from New York and Washington, D.C. The airline decided to add Chicago, rather than a West Coast city, because of local demand and Chicago's central location, Cavaliere said.

A member of the Star Alliance, SAA codeshares with United Airlines. That means United Mileage Plus fliers can earn full mileage credit for South African Airways flights. The United connection at Chicago links SAA to 80 other U.S. cities.

Daley noted that Chicago area companies, including Aon, Hyatt, Grant Thornton, Sara Lee, Wrigley, Motorola and Navistar already have operations in Johannesburg.
"With this new air service, I expect more Chicago businesses will begin looking to Africa as they seek new markets for their products and services," Daley said.

South African companies also have operations here, including Destiny Health; Macsteel Service Centers; Logicalis, an information technology networking company and a unit of Datatec, and the paper company S.D. Warren, a unit of Sappi.
O'Connor said direct flights are essential for allowing mutual investment to grow between Chicago and Africa.

"If you change planes at that kind of distance, it gets old on the third trip -- it's physcially too much," O'Connor said. That's why direct flights are "critical."

O'Connor said current two-way cargo trade volume between Chicago and South Africa is about $300 million annually, and that could triple in coming years. That isn't counting trade in services.

Three types of traveler want to fly to Africa: the leisure traveler, the business traveler, and the "ethnic" traveller, who wants to visit family, Cavaliere said.

Traffic from the United States to South Africa increased by more than 12 percent last year, Cavaliere said.

"It has rapidly become one of the most requested, aspirational vacation-of-a-lifetime destinations," Cavaliere said.



mwisniewski@suntimes.com

Chicago2020 Dec 8, 2006 9:34 PM

O'Hare Hyatt To Shut Down For Renovations
Hotel Will Reopen In Late January


(CBS) ROSEMONT, Ill. The Hyatt Regency O'Hare is shutting down for the next month and a half for renovations.

The hotel, at 9300 W. Bryn Mawr Ave. in Rosemont, is getting a $60 million makeover.

Once it is finished, among the new features will be a lobby-level restaurant, bar and lounge area, enclosed skywalk access to the nearby Donald E. Stephens Convention Center, and meeting rooms for small and mid-sized gatherings.

A new marble floor will be put in the lobby, which will be the location of the front desk, now at street level.

The 37-year-old facility is scheduled to reopen on Jan. 29 of next year, but the work will not be done until next April. The restaurant and bar will reopen by February.

The hotel's 1,100 guest rooms will be renovated in 2008.

Daquan13 Dec 9, 2006 2:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago2020 (Post 2491647)
Virgin Air to resume O’Hare flights

The Associated Press
Published December 4, 2006, 4:43 PM CST


Virgin Atlantic Airways founder Sir Richard Branson said Monday he's bringing his planes back to Chicago and wants to reduce fuel consumption by towing them to and from runways.

Beginning in April, Virgin Atlantic will offer daily service between London's Heathrow Airport and O'Hare International Airport. The airline cut that route after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"As far as I'm concerned, we're going to be here to stay," said Branson, a British business mogul who also is involved in environmental causes.

Virgin Atlantic currently flies to 27 destinations worldwide and carried 5 million passengers last year.

Branson said towing airplanes would reduce the time jet engines run, saving fuel and cutting emissions. Under Branson's plan, planes would be towed to a holding area closer to the runway, where engines would be started for takeoff.

Mayor Richard M. Daley said the city was willing to study the idea and would talk to federal aviation officials about it. One consideration is whether towing would slow operations at O'Hare, where delays have a ripple effect around the country.

Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Tony Molinaro said many questions about safety and efficiency must be resolved.

Planes aren't all Branson dabbles in. The tycoon is also in the music business with his Virgin Megastores.

But Branson acknowledges brick-and-mortar music stores like his must evolve to stay alive in an era of music downloads. He knows it won't be easy and says there could be a time when music stores disappear.

"Hopefully, Virgin Megastores will be the last, the last standing," he said.



I didn't know that Virgin had stopped operating from and to Chicago.:shrug:

nomarandlee Dec 9, 2006 2:27 AM

The next new destinations at I would like to see O'Hare would be some service to Buenos Aires and Moscow. It surprises me that with a substantial 1rst generation Russian population there are no flights to Moscow or anywhere east of Warsaw.

nergie Dec 9, 2006 3:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 2498054)
The next new destinations at I would like to see O'Hare would be some service to Buenos Aires and Moscow. It surprises me that with a substantial 1rst generation Russian population there are no flights to Moscow or anywhere east of Warsaw.

United flies to Buenos Aires, did they suspend the flights for winter\? Aeroflot pulled out of O'Hare after 9/11,

nomarandlee Dec 10, 2006 2:52 AM

I thought Buenos Aires was listed a month ago on Wiki but its not there anymore. I'll check the UA webpage to see. I thought I remember Aeroflot being at ORD at one time. Maybe like a lot of routes they will chose to bring back some canceled pre-911 routes.

honte Dec 10, 2006 4:36 PM

Control Tower
 
Here is a press release about that sweet new control tower.

I never heard that there was a design competition, but I am certainly glad there was. I hope the rest of the O'Hare expansion lives up to these great standards.

http://www.dmjmhn.aecom.com/NewsMedia/44/70/index.jsp
________________________

A New Tower for the Windy City
DMJM Design Selected for O’Hare Control Tower Project

Los Angeles, CA – Architecture firm DMJM Design has won the commission to design the new North Air Terminal Traffic Control Tower at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. O’Hare, the world’s busiest airport, has embarked on an extensive modernization program. The program involves the reconfiguration of the airport’s runways as well as the addition of a new runway that falls out of range of the existing control towers and will be served by the new control tower.

DMJM Design, with principal designer Jose Palacios, AIA, was selected by the FAA and the City of Chicago for the project which is slated for commission in June 2006.

DMJM’s competition winning scheme proposed an asymmetrical, cantilevered tower beneath the cab. The cantilevered form creates greater efficiencies of space in the 250-foot tower and maximizes visibility of the north runway. The control tower will be sheathed in a pewter-colored zinc alloy skin and presents an elegant silhouette visible from a mile away.

Lighting is an important element in the tower’s design. Palacios and the DMJM team were mindful of the need to avoid light pollution. A random pattern of cut-outs along the stairway area of the tower allows light to spill out, creating a twinkling effect similar to buildings in a skyline at night.

“An air traffic control tower is like a Swiss watch,” says Palacios, “it’s purely functional, but because of the height of the O’Hare tower, it will be a dominant form in the skyline and its aesthetic imprint on the landscape can’t be ignored.”

Chicago has a legacy of daring and elegant architecture. “We were mindful of Chicago’s great architectural heritage and wanted something daring but daring for real reasons, embodying the ‘form follows function’ principle of modernism.”

scribeman Dec 10, 2006 5:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arbeiter (Post 1605936)
i think chicago's big enough that they need to create a second international airport. i don't want a heathrow syndrome.

Ugh, Heathrow... I don't think any American airports are as bad as Heathrow. This expansion can only help to serve coastal citizens and international business people moving across the country.

VivaLFuego Dec 13, 2006 6:50 PM

Now there's talk of a United / Continental merger.

United is the bigger airline, but conventional wisdom is that Continental has better management. Obviously this is all speculation, but that conventional wisdom suggests to me that Chicago might not be the obvious headquarters for the merged airline, should Continental management retain control from Houston. While O'hare would still be a major hub for the consolidated airline, I still have a bit of concern over this, since as part of the consolidation many routes would likely be cut, especially international, from the non-primary hub, aside of course from the potential economic effect to O'hare and Chicago if jobs are cut.

Rail Claimore Dec 14, 2006 12:14 AM

^O'hare is not about to lose any transpacific flights in any merger to Houston. Dallas had so much trouble with their DFW-KIX route that AA axed it a few months ago, and now their DFW-PEK route is also threatened. What makes you think the new airline would relocate those routes out of IAH when the clear advantage rests with ORD? In such a merger, ORD and IAH would have nothing to worry about because their strengths are in different places. Neither would routes be cut at EWR or IAD for that matter. It's CLE's hub status that would be gone, and perhaps a few routes out of DEN would also be cut.

the urban politician Dec 14, 2006 4:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
Now there's talk of a United / Continental merger.

United is the bigger airline, but conventional wisdom is that Continental has better management. Obviously this is all speculation, but that conventional wisdom suggests to me that Chicago might not be the obvious headquarters for the merged airline, should Continental management retain control from Houston.

Why isn't Chicago the obvious HQ? It's United's largest and most important hub, United has close ties to Chicago, and United wouldn't want to piss off its home city (who happens to own an expanding Ohare). Plus, United is the bigger corporation. I don't see how you came to that conclusion

denizen467 Dec 14, 2006 8:26 AM

A merged HQ being in Houston is not likely. Even if you assume (as a stretch) that Continental would be the dominant player in a merger, merged companies relocate their HQs to the acquired's location all the time. Bank One of Columbus acquired First National of Chicago, and was wise to the fact that Columbus was no kind of banking center so moved the HQ to Chicago. (The KMart-Sears merger also ended up with a HQ in Hoffman Estates even though technically KMart was acquiring Sears (though essentially Lampert was just acquiring both).) In United's case I'd say it's even more so, because their business is increasingly not just flying planes but doing consumer marketing - all kinds of cross-selling with credit cards, hotels, restaurants, etc, etc. To do that well you need to be in a vibrant creative and advertising center, where Chicago trounces Houston.

trvlr70 Dec 14, 2006 3:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 2508910)
Why isn't Chicago the obvious HQ? It's United's largest and most important hub, United has close ties to Chicago, and United wouldn't want to piss off its home city (who happens to own an expanding Ohare). Plus, United is the bigger corporation. I don't see how you came to that conclusion

The decision will ultimately rest with the Board and they live all over the world. Since most analysts favor Continental's management, it is likely they'd be running the show. I'm not sure they'd all want to uproot their lives in Houston to move north.

With the US Airways merger, although they adopted the new name, management still choose to stay put in Phoenix, the HQ for America West.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

VivaLFuego Dec 14, 2006 4:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trvlr70 (Post 2509562)
The decision will ultimately rest with the Board and they live all over the world. Since most analysts favor Continental's management, it is likely they'd be running the show. I'm not sure they'd all want to uproot their lives in Houston to move north.

That's exactly my concern. Apparently control is the sticking point to any proposed merger, so the deal might break down on personal grounds as there are some big egos involved. But if Continental management ends up running the show, I don't see at all how it's a given that they'd all be happy to uproot and move to Chicago.

trvlr70 Dec 14, 2006 4:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 2509635)
That's exactly my concern. Apparently control is the sticking point to any proposed merger, so the deal might break down on personal grounds as there are some big egos involved. But if Continental management ends up running the show, I don't see at all how it's a given that they'd all be happy to uproot and move to Chicago.

I think it looks bad for UA and Chicago. Apparently, Tilton doesn't really care much about UA's future, but more feels an obligation to stock holders and creditors. I don't see him even wanting to continue managing the airline. With a merger, I expect UA to retain the name, but the HQ to be located in Houston.

yaga Dec 14, 2006 6:22 PM

Article from Wednesday's Houston Chronicle concerning the possible merger.

Continental, United discussing a merger
An agreement could create the largest U.S. airline
By BILL HENSEL JR.
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle


Continental and United Airlines are in preliminary talks regarding a possible merger that could create the nation's biggest carrier.

Talks between the two got under way before US Airways made a hostile bid for Delta Air Lines several weeks ago and then intensified, a source in New York familiar with the talks said Tuesday.

The US Airways bid triggered speculation about the likelihood of additional consolidations in the airline industry. Other carriers likely also are having discussions about their options.

Continental Airlines Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Larry Kellner, who was in Tel Aviv, Israel, on business Tuesday, has said he preferred that the Houston-based airline remain independent.

However, Kellner also has said the carrier would be ready to take action to protect the interests of Continental, one of Houston's largest employers, and its stakeholders.

The city is home to one of the airline's three major hubs.

"If the landscape of the U.S. airline industry does indeed change, we'll do what we need to do to act in the best interests of you, our customers, our shareholders and the communities we serve," Kellner said in a recently recorded message to employees.


United 'not waiting'
United Airlines Chief Executive Glenn Tilton has said there is too much capacity and that consolidation in the industry is needed. He indicated Tuesday that United wasn't sitting idly by while merger talks swirled.

"We are not waiting for opportunities to come to us simply because we haven't identified to you which one works best," the Associated Press quoted Tilton as saying at the conclusion of a management presentation to more than 75 analysts.

Continental spokesman Dave Messing declined to comment Tuesday when asked about a potential merger between his airline, the nation's fourth largest carrier, and United, the second biggest.

Jean Medina, spokeswoman for the suburban Chicago-based airline, also declined to comment late Tuesday.

"We don't comment on rumors or speculation," Medina said.

A factor in any merger involving Continental is that Northwest Airlines holds a so-called "golden share" of Continental, meaning it could stop another airline from taking over the Houston carrier.

Any pairing involving Continental would likely require that Continental be the buyer, which would prevent Northwest from having a say.

How well Continental and United fit together remains to be seen, although some view such a merger favorably.

"The market has always liked this combination and it provides the most international diversification," said CreditSights analyst Roger King in a recent report. "However, integration issues are almost as high as with United/American."

Such integration issues can include such things as putting two disparate corporate cultures together and merging two fleets that have totally different types of aircraft.


'A tremendous partner'
The analyst said in an interview Tuesday that Continental "would make a tremendous partner with United if they could pull it off."

The analyst said there essentially are six big airlines in the U.S., and there could be, at best, two mergers.

"One is a fairly high probability, two is a low probability and three mergers is a longshot," he said.

When it comes to a merger between Continental and United, one key is whether Tilton would take his "pile of non-cash compensation" and turn the airline over to Continental, King wrote in his recent report.


Continental 'on a roll'
"Continental management is on a roll right now, so it is hard to imagine the board throwing its management team under the bus," he wrote.

The industry buzz about consolidation got louder late last week when Northwest Airlines, which is in bankruptcy, asked for permission to hire financial adviser Evercore Partners.

Northwest, which has headquarters outside Minneapolis, said that the hiring of Evercore Partners does not mean that the company has received or is looking for a merger or acquisition opportunity. A message it posted for employees said that the company is engaged in contingency planning.

Richard Rose, a shareholder at Buchanan Ingersoll, who focuses on mergers and acquisitions, said Tuesday that he would expect Delta and Northwest to get together before US Airways and Delta.

"I would think it would be an easy deal to accomplish," Rose said. "That is what I read out of Northwest's hiring of a banker, to see if they can't work on finding financing to be a white knight to Delta, which makes good sense. It was a way to give Delta an alternative to US Airways."

bill.hensel@chron.com

VivaLFuego Dec 18, 2006 8:44 PM

^ why the need to relocate willow-higgins creek? Is this important for storm runoff? they can't just fill the damn thing in?

bnk Dec 19, 2006 10:18 PM

City wins ruling in O'Hare expansion battle


By Paul Merrion
Dec. 19, 2006

(Crain’s) — Chicago has won another round in the multi-pronged legal battle over expansion of O’Hare International Airport.
But airport expansion foes may ask the Supreme Court to review last week’s decision by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied a request to reconsider its August decision relating to the city’s plan to use part of adjacent St. Johannes Cemetery to locate a new runway.

The court ruled that the city’s plans are not a federal action subject to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that the FAA’s approval of the airport expansion plan was not a final order that could be litigated.

“We may take an appeal of that,” says Joseph Karaganis, attorney for the Village of Bensenville, one of the parties that brought the suit against the city of Chicago and the Federal Aviation Administration.

But a more recent filing by airport foes in the same court may make last week’s decision a moot point. Expansion opponents sued in November to apply the cemetery protection law to grant funding decisions by the FAA made after the court’s August decision.

"We are pleased with the Court's decision because it affirms the O'Hare Modernization Program's importance to the national aviation system," Rosemarie S. Andolino, executive director of the program, said in a statement. "Construction continues on this critical project, and we look forward to delivering much-needed capacity enhancement and delay reduction for air passengers and the airlines operating at O'Hare."

Rail Claimore Jan 5, 2007 5:37 PM

^Runway 10/28 is really helping ATL at the moment, and given that old runway 8R was closed immediately thereafter for a few months while being completely rebuilt, all five runways have been operational only since November. Even with the flight restrictions lifted, ORD will probably trail ATL until future runway 9L (far north runway) is completed. Capacity is key here as 9L will allow ORD to handle trimultaneous operations like ATL is doing at the moment. That's still a couple of years off at the earliest.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.