Four major art projects for new KCI terminal revealed

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

Art is an important element of a functioning society. Artists are crucial to imagination and inspiration. Money well spent

Also, I do agree with this.

People don't realize how often their extra tax dollars are spent on beautifying spaces and they don't even realize it. They look at any local public works project and admire having the space or the building or whatever it is, but never want to hear about the "art" price tag that went into that area.

Let's say KCI cut the costs down and didn't put anything up at all to save the $5.3 million. People would bitch. Okay, so what if they just put something up in its place but nothing artsy fartsy and weird? Like... what?

A banner from Party City? People will bitch about how shitty it looks.

A sign that says "Welcome to KCI" or something like that? Unless you put $$$ into the materials and make it look nice, people will still bitch.

How about one of those cost-efficient murals of blown up black-and-white photographs of the Kansas City area? Or panoramic images of the city across the wall? One of those is a lot more expensive than you think, and is actually bordering on the pricetag it would cost for one of those art projects.

How about a good ol' fountain instead of a shitty artist rendering of a fountain? Uh-huh. And fountains aren't expensive at all!

It's one thing if you never wanted a new airport in the first place. But that's not what happened. The new airport is here, and if you're going to dip in and build the damn thing, you need to make it a great ****ing airport. Otherwise, what's the point?

[srvy]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

Also, I do agree with this.

People don't realize how often their extra tax dollars are spent on beautifying spaces and they don't even realize it. They look at any local public works project and admire having the space or the building or whatever it is, but never want to hear about the "art" price tag that went into that area.

Let's say KCI cut the costs down and didn't put anything up at all to save the $5.3 million. People would bitch. Okay, so what if they just put something up in its place but nothing artsy fartsy and weird? Like... what?

A banner from Party City? People will bitch about how shitty it looks.

A sign that says "Welcome to KCI" or something like that? Unless you put $$$ into the materials and make it look nice, people will still bitch.

How about one of those cost-efficient murals of blown up black-and-white photographs of the Kansas City area? Or panoramic images of the city across the wall? One of those is a lot more expensive than you think, and is actually bordering on the pricetag it would cost for one of those art projects.

How about a good ol' fountain instead of a shitty artist rendering of a fountain? Uh-huh. And fountains aren't expensive at all!

It's one thing if you never wanted a new airport in the first place. But that's not what happened. The new airport is here, and if you're going to dip in and build the damn thing, you need to make it a great ****ing airport. Otherwise, what's the point?

Nobody goes to an airport to look at art. They want to get in and get out. Something the old one was very good at.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by srvy

Nobody goes to an airport to look at art. They want to get in and get out. Something the old one was very good at.

People bitch and whine about ugly shit, buddy. Don't know what else to tell you.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by srvy

Nobody goes to an airport to look at art. They want to get in and get out. Something the old one was very good at.

The KC airport?

I've been in a lot of airports, and the KC airport is probably my least favorite. It's confusing, has poor signage, little or no food, and when you go through security you're trapped in a little crate.

[vonBobo]

Originally Posted by srvy

Nobody goes to an airport to look at art. They want to get in and get out.

Airports are often engineering works of art themselves. Then they offer a large space that will be populated by thousands of people every day. The tradition and importance of architecture and artwork in mass transit goes all the way back to trains. No, almost no one go because of the art, but it is a very important element in city planning.

I believe the tile work at the "current" terminals were some of my favorite installations in the city, been gazing at it my entire life. Its an exciting visual that suggests the adventure that is just beginning, and it is there again welcoming me back home.

[srvy]

Originally Posted by vonBobo

Airports are often engineering works of art themselves. Then they offer a large space that will be populated by thousands of people every day. The tradition and importance of architecture and artwork in mass transit goes all the way back to trains. No, almost no one go because of the art, but it is a very important element in city planning.

I believe the tile work at the "current" terminals were some of my favorite installations in the city, been gazing at it my entire life. Its an exciting visual that suggests the adventure that is just beginning, and it is there again welcoming me back home.

Your thinking of architecture. Architects make pretty pictures just like artists. The engineers then take that architect's dream or nightmare and make it work on paper and then in construction. I work with both and have great respect for engineers. Not so much architects.

I am not against the art placed in the terminal at all. I do know that traveling public in a rush will breeze right by it heading for gate or baggage without a glance. An airport terminal is not an art gallery it just isn't. My beef is with a perfectly fine airport that doesn't have a hub airline come and go there. The biggest users of that airport are UPS and FedEx. The biggest public airline is Southwest who has threatened and cut back flight over the years here and can bolt at a moment's notice. The city should have taken care of what they had renovated when needed. Instead, they choose to neglect routine maintenance for 20 years and left it in shambles. They will do the same with the new one and the taxpayer will be dealt the task of paying for it.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by srvy

Your thinking of architecture. Architects make pretty pictures just like artists. The engineers then take that architect's dream or nightmare and make it work on paper and then in construction. I work with both and have great respect for engineers. Not so much architects.

I am not against the art placed in the terminal at all. I do know that traveling public in a rush will breeze right by it heading for gate or baggage without a glance. An airport terminal is not an art gallery it just isn't. My beef is with a perfectly fine airport that doesn't have a hub airline come and go there. The biggest users of that airport are UPS and FedEx. The biggest public airline is Southwest who has threatened and cut back flight over the years here and can bolt at a moment's notice. The city should have taken care of what they had renovated when needed. Instead, they choose to neglect routine maintenance for 20 years and left it in shambles. They will do the same with the new one and the taxpayer will be dealt the task of paying for it.

The whole having 3 separate buildings for the terminals made it basically impossible for it to be renovated and made modern no matter what they did.

[srvy]

Originally Posted by -King-

The whole having 3 separate buildings for the terminals made it basically impossible for it to be renovated and made modern no matter what they did.

There was a renovation plan that was pretty nice and cheaper by I think Burns and Mac. The city would have none of that they wanted new.

The 3 terminals the airlines demanded. In fact 4 were originally planned for future growth. TWA, Pan AM and Fronteir made a lot of promises they didn't keep. With Jumbo Jets and SST it was promised to become a major hub for International Travel. When the SST fell through the airport plan collapsed with it.

I believe the 2 old terminals still remain I don't know if demolition is planned or they will be utilized when new is open.

[vonBobo]

Originally Posted by srvy

Your thinking of architecture. Architects make pretty pictures just like artists. The engineers then take that architect's dream or nightmare and make it work on paper and then in construction. I work with both and have great respect for engineers. Not so much architects.

I am not against the art placed in the terminal at all. I do know that traveling public in a rush will breeze right by it heading for gate or baggage without a glance. An airport terminal is not an art gallery it just isn't. My beef is with a perfectly fine airport that doesn't have a hub airline come and go there. The biggest users of that airport are UPS and FedEx. The biggest public airline is Southwest who has threatened and cut back flight over the years here and can bolt at a moment's notice. The city should have taken care of what they had renovated when needed. Instead, they choose to neglect routine maintenance for 20 years and left it in shambles. They will do the same with the new one and the taxpayer will be dealt the task of paying for it.

Art galleries are a very small portion of where art is located.

Either the tax payers pay for renovations or they pay for new development. Either way we are going to be on the hook somehow. Important infrastructure like this simply needs to be replaced eventually.

I hate losing the old airport because it fit my needs perfectly., But maintaining and replacing it is just a given.