Quote:
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.