Will it *significantly* improve the image of LAX? Yes.

At the time, CPK @ HKG set a world record for construction costs (US $20 bil in 1998). Yet, visit it today, and the airport is phenomenal. Everything — transportation, check in, security, baggage, etc comes together smoothly to make for an excellent end-user experience. Though I’ve flown through HKG too many times to count, I still love going through it. The same can be said about YVR, which added 9 more gates among others to the tune of 1.4 billion.

Yes, it is possible to design an airport with no architectural value. There’s nothing wrong with that, and it will significantly cut the price. It will also leave the traveler with an experience similar to that of JetBlue’s terminal.

I went through JetBlue’s terminal in April 09. It wasn’t anything memorable. Yes, it was clean and modern and all, but it wasn’t anything memorable, just another concrete-glass building. I would venture a guess and say that within 10 years, the architectural design will begin showing its age. On the other hand, UA @ ORD, DEN, and HKG have all aged well, and will continue to, dare I say it, delight the traveler who passes through.

While I lack experience in airport construction, I would also wonder what the actual cost breakdown is, and how much is directly related to actual glass and steel of the building itself. Runways can be surprisingly expensive. Construction costs are also high if one has to “build over” an actively used building.

Umm, you’re an idiot. The total value of the construction project is $1.5 billion. My company is insuring it. Where are you getting these ridiculous numbers from?

Name-calling is always a great way to engage in a discussion. For some reason, I’m bothering to respond to you. There is no way this thing will be done for $1.5 billion.

First, let’s make sure we’re talking about the same thing. There are two phases to this project. The first is for the new gates in the existing terminal. The second is the remote concourse with new ticketing area. The combined projects are expected to be $6 to 7 billion (but I bet it goes even higher).

In Phase I, which may be what your company is insuring, the costs are expected to be around $1.5 billion, but I’ll be surprised if it comes in that low. They have already awarded $1.26 billion in the form of two contracts, and I’m sure there will be more.

If you’d like to keep having a discussion about this, I’d suggest that you stop being an ass and act like an adult. I won’t respond to name-calling from you again.

But I’d be curious to get your thoughts on JetBlue’s new terminal. It appears to be quite functional, and while somewhat spartan, it’s attractive and will probably last long into the future. For JetBlue to be able to knock down most of the old TWA terminal and rebuild a brand new 26 gate terminal from scratch cost a mere $800 million. Meanwhile at LAX, they’re talking about simply knocking down the existing 11 gate concourse and building a 14 gate one to replace it in the first phase. While this will include some changes to the ticketing/baggage areas to fit with the new concourse, that part isn’t a new structure at all. The only other component here is moving an existing taxiway further west to accommodate for gates on both sides of the new concourse. Yet this much smaller project is going to cost $2 billion.

Airports should always be trying to keep costs low, and in this case, I think they’ve let the design have costs that are running away for the sake of prettiness.

Perhaps the big mistake was Fentress describing their design in such shallow terms People are appropriately suspicious of architects designing for themselves and not the rest of us. It’s hard to imagine Norman Foster (Beijing, Hong Kong) or Renzo Piano (Osaka) describing their work in such trivial terms. Those are great airports in every way because they did not fall into the trap of thinking there is a difference between beauty and function. But that doesn’t make the LAX expansion bad or make it wrong to bear in mind that these are large public buildings that we will have to live with long after the small-minded bureaucrats have retired.