They require too much space to fit into any "urbanist" landscape. For starters, by their very nature, airports are not "urban" spaces, even though they're necessary elements of any functioning city. There was nothing "urbanist" or "progressive" about the criticism of KCI. Now I know that your own interpretation is clouded by your own worldview.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the airport, but plenty wrong with our priorities - which were turned upside down long after KCI had endeared itself to most KC users. But for apparent neglect, it still could be today. KCI was a breath of fresh air when it opened and remained such for decades to come. Perhaps you're just a lot younger than I had assumed. Your posting history doesn't follow their pattern. I honestly don't know what to make of this comment as it sounds cut and pasted from the gospel according to urbanist "progressives", who are always agenda-driven, sensibility be damned.
No it didn't.and I think you know better. It does feel like being in a communist bus station for those of who fly regularly. For the KC residents who fly once a year nonstop to a hub city airport it's probably fine. I rather have a new airport with more nonstop flights to cities, than to fly out of it to a hub and deal with connecting. KCI in 1972 the day it open it's door was probably a beautiful and incredible experience, but it became obsolete immediately.
0 kommentar(er)
