Originally Posted by
darthbimmer
My praise for the beauty of the design notwithstanding, I was afraid that was the dark side of reality for that terminal. That happens a lot with beautiful designs, unfortunately. The spaces that look so sublime when empty or when sparsely populated with models for photography fail quickly when exposed to typical usage levels.
Take that picture of the lovely waiting waiting area for example. It looks like an amazing place for 20 people to relax. Now imagine it with 120 people in it, waiting to board a 727. That's reality.
Take that picture of the soaring pedestrian bridge. It looks great empty and it'd still look pretty good with a handful of people scattered across it. But now imagine it with 20 crossing it in either direction at any given moment, including elderly people shuffling along, toddlers darting side to side, adults pushing strollers and baggage carts, and impatient business travelers weaving between them all. That's reality.
You and
badatz make some good points. This terminal was built for 1950s-era passenger loads and usage rates. By the '90s, the building's functionality had far outgrown its capacity (or is it vice versa? It wasn't big enough to to its job gracefully anymore, at any rate). I do remember flying in and out of this terminal a few times in the mid-late 1990s and not being particularly fond of the experience. Look at the Saarinen terminal or the Worldport, and compare them with major international gateways today. Either of those buildings could easily fit into just one wing of, say, today's HKG, EWR, or DFW--probably many times over.