It was the mid-1980s and I had just moved to Denver when the whole “let’s build a new airport” debate was really ramping up. I was excited by the boldness of the plan and was impressed by Denver and its young Mayor Peña, that they had the audacity to pursue such a grand vision. I volunteered for the pro-airport campaign and, after construction started, would drive out to this observation deck off of Tower Road to take photos of the airport’s progress (foreshadowings of DenverInfill it turns out). Building DIA has proved to be perhaps the most important, strategic, decision Denver has ever made. Today, we are blessed with an airport that is modern, efficient, attractive, and widely regarded as one of the best airports anywhere, and one that offers expansion capabilities that are virtually unparalleled and the envy of our peers.
And then there’s FasTracks, another one of the most important, strategic decisions Denver has ever made.
Now we find ourselves at a point in time when these two monumental civic ventures come together. Denver International Airport, meet FasTracks. Curt Fentress, meet Santiago Calatrava.
This is the concept for the East Corridor FasTracks transit station at DIA, with a 500-room Westin Hotel on top and an extension of the airport terminal in between. What it also represents is a great step forward for our city and its infrastructure to a world-class level. Image this, along with what’s taking place at Union Station, as the gateways welcoming the world to Denver. Quite profound, if you ask me, and something that I’m happy and proud to support as a Denver citizen.
For more information, check out the cool video animation and all the details about the new South Terminal Redevelopment program at DIA at the airport website.
Love the design for the hotel and train terminal. What I don’t understand is why they need the bridge? I thought Pena Blvd. was designed so that the rail line can run down the center of the freeway? Why do they have the tracks running parallel on the north side of Pena near the terminal and crossing over the freeway? I think they could save a significant amount of money by eliminating the bridge, as exciting a design that it is.
GC
I like the design, but I wonder if the hotel towers are too tall. From these renderings, I’m worried that this Calatrava creation may overshadow Fentress’ iconic tents.
Dear god. Who wants to stay at the airport hotel? I can’t imagine a motivation to stay in a hotel out there aside from “last flight of the day got canceled” and if that’s the case, people are probably more interested in “free/low cost” than “beautiful exterior.”
Putting the airport three-quarters of the way to kansas in a tornado alley was a mistake and one that it seems people want to compound by putting a hotel where there is no demand for a hotel.
I also love the green grass in the rendering. Apparently Calatrava’s firm has never flown into DIA in the summer or is unaware of the fact that DIA is in a desert and that Colorado has limited water supply. What a joy it must be to live in artists renderings alone, though how disappointing it must be to see the result when rubber meets the road.
This seems like it will be a feather in the cap for the politicians who can claim it and a loss for taxpayers who will no doubt be subsidizing this for years to come.
Is this sarcasm?
The hotel is going to be frequently used by travelers who either land at the airport late in the evening and decide rather than driving up to the mountains, down to Colorado Springs or North to Laramie/Cheyenne at 10:00pm they will spend the night at the airport and leave the next morning. Same thing goes the other way for people with early flights. Not everyone who visits the state is going somewhere within an hour drive of the airport. Not too mention conference rooms and business center at the hotel will have frequent use from business travelers. I for one can’t believe their wasn’t a hotel built when the airport was first constructed.
As far as arguing the airport is too far away? that argument is tired and doesn’t hold water. It is a 25 minute drive from downtown. Not any different from airports in DC, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, or JFK and Newark airport in NY/NJ.
…or Tokyo, Bangkok, Singapore, Delhi, San Salvador, Lima, Madrid, etc. It seems many cities choose not to sacrifice quality of life in urban centers for the convenience of travelers. I am happy to drive further to an airport so that people don’t have to live under landing airplanes.
What Scott said, plus, despite 15 years of erratic times for the airline industry, not one penny of taxpayers dollars have been spent at DIA. It is run as an enterprise and is fully self contained in its revenues and expenses, and it makes a nice profit too–quite the opposite of all the naysayers who predicted the airport would be a financial disaster.
except by placing DIA so far out, taxpayer money has been spent to get people to and from the airport- highway infrastructure and now over 1 billion dollars for the rail line. While JFK and other airports may be a 45 minute drive (with traffic), they do not feel as “out there” as DIA.
This may be true but if the airport were closer we’d have to spend billions to acquire land for expansion. DIA is a deal, plus some.
I agree with Ken and Scott in spades. I haven’t found the distance to be as much of an issue as I thought it would have been when it was proposed. Besides I can think of other airports which are much further from town. Tokyo’s Narita for instance takes 90 minutes by express train. Lastly, I believe that JFK and LAX (not that you mentioned it) are two of the most hated airports in America as indicated by frequent travelers, while DEN is near the top. Sometimes you just have to start over when you can’t expand.
If DIA is making a profit, why didn’t DIA contribute more to the East Corridor in order to keep FasTracks solvent? They could have arguably paid for the whole line under the premise that the airport benefits from the rail access to Downtown.
Once again the taxpayers
will pay for a grander DIA -in addition to a new hotel blocking the view.
Meanwhile the taxpayers arelosing the promised “transportationhub” that was to be created at Union Station, for example. with light rail removed from the complex.All of this is to the great benefit of developers. Again, the taxpayers pays and loses!
How are the taxpayers losing Union Station again? And how exactly are taxpayers paying for the expansion again? You need to supply some facts and research before you make such a statement.
Nothing you just said is true.
Taxpayers are not paying for DIA… landing fees are.
The hotel will not block the view to DIA from Denver, it only blocks it from the South.
Light rail is still part of the Union Station complex – it has not been removed.
My only concern on the proposed design is the cost. The choice of the using a “Tent” in the terminal was a cost saving measure. It looks, from the cost of this project, that we are trying to do more with more, instead of more with less.
How are the taxpayers losing Union Station again? And how exactly are taxpayers paying for the expansion again? You need to supply some facts and research before you make such a statement.
Sorry this posted under the wrong commet. For a hotel, it looks like the best possible way to insert one.
Can we put union station on hold and have a Calatrava redesign as part of the tax rate hike on the next ballot. This is stunning. I can imagine middle and upper level managers flying in to meet at this Sheridan for a one or two day face to face meeting.
I was expecting more of a city or ski village feel to accommodate the idea of DIA as a destination you wouldn’t need to leave, and complement the mountain suggestion of the airport. This still reminds me of just an airport with a train terminal. Did Calatrava provide any reasons this structure should reside in Denver, next to DIA, instead of anywhere else in the world?
I love this. I hope it gets built. Denver has taken some risks in the past and they have proved worth it. I hope that happens with the project. I love the bridge to and hope that can happen but time will tell. Supporting this is something I would be more than happy to do.
I like this design. I think he did an excellent job of working with the terminal and complementing it, while also not copying it. It’s good to see high profile architects come in with a light and elegant touch – as opposed to certain big name European architects who recently inserted their bull-in-a-china-shop designs into our city (Denver Art Museum, I’m looking at you).
As for the location of DIA, I think it needs to be kept in mind that cities are not static. Merits of sprawl growth aside, as the years progress, DIA will feel less and less “out there.” As a kid, when we would drive out to JFK to pick family members up, my grandmother would always comment on how when she was younger, the airport (not yet JFK) was surrounded by fields and farms – sound familiar?
They even originally said that about Mile High Stadium (Bears Stadium)!
Man, I sure hope the city won’t grow that much. It already takes up an immense area and traffic’s bad enough on I-70 as it is. Just how many more business parks and big box malls do we need?
Regardless if DIA is out in the ‘middle of nowhere’ what are the first things guests compliment when they arrive in Denver? They say ‘wow that is an amazing airport’ or ‘wow I didn’t expect Denver to have such a nice airport’. I for one have never heard anything said negative about DIA from friends and family flying in. This addition makes the airport a) look that much more amazing. b) more functional because now there will be rail to and from the airport and c) more convenient because there will be a hotel attached to it which will save bus / taxi fares to those just staying overnight. I think this is another great move for Denver and DIA will still have the same appeal if not more if / when this is done. I like it. (And if it was not out so far we wouldn’t be able to expand it as much as we have now)
“Regardless if DIA is out in the ‘middle of nowhere’ what are the first things guests compliment when they arrive in Denver? They say ‘wow that is an amazing airport’ or ‘wow I didn’t expect Denver to have such a nice airport’. I for one have never heard anything said negative about DIA from friends and family flying in.” – Ryan
Funny, my family first said “who peed on the grass and killed it?”. My buddy said at first he was scared the plane detoured and landed at a circus in Kansas.
I’ll second Charles’ concern above.
I believe that the towers are too high and overshadow the tents. It seems the tents are chopped off at the new hotel building. As a balance, the train station covering could be more “tent like” with the bird wing buildings in between.
This is exciting stuff. I have two questions.
1. Have we heard any details about materials for the ceilings? Natural light is one of the most appealing and sustainable features of the Fentress tent. In the renderings, the South Terminal entrance looks like a couple of giant rib cages. What’s between the ribs?
2. How can we get the local media to stop referring to the East Corridor service as “light rail”? CPR, Westword, and other outlets have made this error repeatedly. I have heard understandable skepticism from fellow Denverites about the viability of light rail to DIA. But it’s not going to be light rail, is it? It’ll be commuter rail, much bigger and faster than what we’re used to here.
Great point! This has bugged me as well.
Forgive me for going off topic, but since Mr. Hickenlooper will be moving across the Civic Center in a few months…
Ken for Mayor!
Don’t forget about Kim Day, she is a real go getter!!! Also, Stephen Jordan would make a great mayor, what he has accomplished at Metro State is very impressive.
Let me state for the record that I don’t understand the fixation with airport architecture — these are glorified hallways, not places that we intend to spend anymore time than we absolutely have to in.
While I don’t regard Fentress’ Terminal to be the “gem” that the rest of Colorado seems to, I am impressed at how Calatrava, with broad and undisciplined gestures has completely subverted the original airport’s design. I will concede that the airport needs a hotel (while I agree that I don’t understand why anyone would want to spend the night at an airport hotel — especially now that you will be able to take the train into town), and believe strongly that the airport desperately needs light rail access. But this is a terminus station, not a hub like Union Station.
If light rail stations are soo very important, why does the station at Alameda amount to little more than a couple of concrete slabs with a canopy? This exposes our hypocrisy when it comes to Denver’s architectural presumptions more than it demonstrates any concern with “high design”. Calatrava is a starchitect, and we’re going to get starchitecture —
for an airport hotel
and a lightrail stop
for better or worse.
The bridge is the best part of the project, even though I too don’t understand why the heck we need such a bridge.
Why? I’m puzzled. Why?
“No one loves an ugly city.” (I believe that was Robert Speer.)
would you say then that the current airport is ugly?
Aron,
Alameda Station is a light rail station. The East Corridor will not be served by light rail. I believe the commuter rail trains will be much larger, with more passengers, and more luggage.
Yes this is true. It also has to do with compliance with federal standards which don’t allow light rails to travel closely with commercial rail lines. Commuter rails are more heavy duty, are faster and carry more.
Aron,
Airport hotels are included in many airports around the world, often business people will meet up in a city and stay a few nights and do some quick meetings, and never having to leave the airport is attractive to them.
The Alameda station is a slab with some canopies, because it is taxpayer funded, and simply an intermediate stop. This will serve as a gateway to the city, it is not a terminus, it is the first thing many visitors to our city will see. As the old saying goes, you only get one chance to make a first impression. Also the fees generated by airlines are paying for this, not tax dollars, so they can afford to do more than slabs with canopies.
I am glad the builders of such projects as the St. Louis Gateway arch, the Golden Gate, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Sydney Harbor bridges did not have your attitude. Those projects while not strictly ‘necessary’ have become symbols of their respective cities.
good points, however the St Louis arch is downtown, and bridges serve a far different function than an airport hotel.
My concern has to do with: A. the fact that the hotel obscures views on the approach to our current “St. Louis arch” (according to your definition) of an airport, and B. the fact that its kinda sad when we would go out of our way to make our airport (15 miles out of downtown) a destination (I don’t think you or I will ever say, “lets take the kids to the airport for the day!”).
Just think its money that compromises what is there, and would be better spent elsewhere. I understand that DIA is a private enterprise, and as such they can (and will) do what they want. I’m just very disappointed…
I agree that the hotel and rail station is needed and will benefit denver for years to come. I do have a big concern over the size of the towers. Some of the slides on the denverpost slide show have car level views and you can barely see the tent structure if at all. Also, I think Calatrava could have done a more interesting design. Look at his website and you will see this has to be one of his most “boxy” designs. I am a big Calatrava fan but I wanted more from him for Denver.
The big dip in the towers reminds me of the new train shed at Union Station. They both have a common bond in preserving a view of iconic architecture. The more I look at Calatrava’s design, it reminds me of bird wings. I wish he would have played up on that more.
I think it has to be this boxy, in order to contain the program: 500 rooms and associated ancillary and public spaces for a hotel. As someone pointed out on the Denver Post website yesterday, they could hardly build the hotel underground–people want views, even if they’re there for only one night.
I bet Curt Fentress is pissed. I remember during the Pena Blvd. design competition he didn’t like Martha Schwartz design because her white walls would have taken away from his terminal design.
As a big fan of Calatrava’s work I am happy to see him design the “gateway” to Denver. I agree that the towers overshadow the iconic Fentress tent roof. The design of DIA has become synonymous with Denver, hiding would be akin to putting a skyscraper in front of the St. Louis Arch or painting the Golden Gate Bridge blue. Decreasing the height of the towers could preserve the iconic form while still enhancing the commuter experience. The real beauty of Calatrava’s design is in the commuter rail terminal itself, not the hotel (which is also being designed by another architect, Gensler).
As for the cost and concern about our misplaced priorities regarding public funding; this is not funded by the tax payer. It is funded through bonds underwritten by revenues generated by DIA itself. These funds come from gate fees and retail rent as well as expected income from the future hotel. However, the bridge over Pena is a different issue that will be sorted out shortly.
All in all this would make a great addition to Denver’s infrastructure. a
Ken, I’ve been waiting on your reaction to the Calatrava design and I’m relieved you like it. You could very well be one of the strongest advocates if DIA and Kim Day think it’s not worth the expense to hire Calatrava. We blew it on having a Steven Holl building so hopefully we can make up for it with this sure-to-be-iconic enhancement to the airport.
This is fantastic and I can’t wait. I really hope that the airport revenue and the bond sales cover this whole thing. Its architecture and transportation hubs like this that create world class cities. I can’t wait for my family members who live other parts of the US to come, take the terminal subway, take the the commuter rail from that magnificent station and arrive in Denver Union station. I will never have to pick up my friends or family, i’ll never have to take another cab, and i’ll never have to ask anyone for a ride to the airport. I’ve grown up here and I cannot believe what this city has done in my life time. Something tells me that Kim Day is standing firm, or appearing this way, because of the concerns of airlines such as Southwest. I can’t imagine that the teams involved wouldn’t be able to get this thing going.
I originally felt the same way as many of you about the design, that it over shadowed the ‘tents’. Don’t just look at the one photo posted here, look at the video posted on the Denver Post website, it gives a much better prospective. Remember this building is to the south of the tents, think about where you always see the tents from… its the east or the west. this building will not be highly visible from the east or the west . There is a shot in the DP video that shows the approach from Pena Blvd, the tent is still the dominant feature, this building will not dominate the view until the last section of the approach where Pena turns north.
http://videocenter.denverpost.com/services/player/bcpid934052406?bctid=309142137001
The shot is at about 0:36
It’s all good. The main point is to get me to the airport fast and comfortably, have a place to meet people there (for business), have an option to spend the night if my flight leaves insanely early or is delayed by weather and take passengers into town (and hopefully beyond one day soon). As long as the tents don’t get obscured and as long as the mad blue horse is removed – because it may be in the way 🙂 – I have no quarrel with it.
If Denverinfill.com/blog had existed in 1880:
Curmudegeon says:
July 30, 1880 at 4:39 pm
This is a waste of the resources of this fair city. We have four perfectly good train stations, and they’re conveniently located in different parts of the downtown area. Most people have their favorite railroads, and seldom have reason to transfer from, say, the Union Pacific to the Denver and Rio Grande Western. Myself, I prefer If they build it, the railroads will have to charge so much that no one will be able to afford the price of a ticket to Kansas City. Since all I ever do is attend to my mining business in Fairplay, the only railroad I ever need is the Denver, South Park & Pacific. You can keep your “union” station.
Conspiracytheorist says:
July 30, 1880 at 4:44 pm
They only want to put all the railroads in one station because they have a secret plan to send us all to work camps in Wyoming, slave labor for Mr. Jay Gould.
JohnnyReb says:
July 30, 1880 at 5:57 pm
As a proud veteran of the War Between the States, I will NEVER enter the doors of something called “UNION Station.”
This here is some funny dang stuff. 1880 comments for dang sure.
I think the Calatrava design is beautiful and exciting. It does not obstruct the view of the airport terminal from the East and West, which are the most important vantage points. Any design, unless it was completely underground, will block the view of the terminal building anyway. I would much rather have such an interesting building as this built next to the terminal instead of another boring box. I am proud of Denver having the vision to hire one of the best architects in the world to create a world class train station and airport hotel. I happen to be in Milwaukee right now, which has the amazing, and awesomely impractical, Calatrava designed art museum addition. I am thrilled Milwaukee had the courage to build this structure that is just as much a gigantic piece of art as a functional addition to the rather dull original building (Designed by one of the Saarinan, I believe). I am sure alot of people in Milwaukee were thinking, “what in the heck is that!,” when the Calatrava design was introduced. It has since become a huge destination site for this city, and is almost universally loved by the public.
Hate it. Generic and has nothing to do with the site, with Denver, with Colorado, or with the West. Might be OK on its own, but it doesn’t harmonize with the existing structure at all. For all of you asking why there’s a bridge: it’s so we could have a Caltrava bridge, of course. Just like everyone else.
So why didn’t they just have Fentress do the station and hotel? I’m sure he would have been much cheaper, more of the money would have stayed in Colorado, and he could have made something that looked like it belonged to the rest of the site.
It’s not as though thousands of people are going to travel to Denver just to see the amazing new Calatrava airport hotel (not that starchitecture has paid off very well elsewhere in town).
This just looks like another biggest johnson contest. Boring.
Bitter much?
Talking to me? Not bitter at all.
Denver has been falling for this “world class” boosterism for well over a century. It’s particularly silly when we fall for it at the freaking airport. It’s a million miles from where anyone lives, and you’ll only ever see the exterior for about 15 seconds as you drive past it on the way to the parking lot.
By “generic,” do you mean that it’s not site-specific, that it could be plopped down in Oman or Omaha just as easily? If so, I have to disagree. Yes, Calatrava uses similar elements in all of his projects, just as any “branded” architect does. Liebeskind’s new shopping pavilion in Las Vegas looks a lot like our Hamilton Building. Most of Michael Graves’ buildings have color palettes and punched windows similar to our Central Library. Calatrava’s design for DIA simply utilizes the architect’s signature design vocabulary, and does so in a way that brilliantly expresses the client’s program.
Is this “falling for this ‘world class’ boosterism” something that is limited to Denver? Hardly. Go to the Dallas Arts District and see all of the pretty, disconnected starchitect buildings lined up in a row–the Foster, the Pei, the Koolhaas, etc. Go to Chicago and see the big hole in the ground for Calatrava’s unbuilt corkscrew skyscraper, and then meander over to Millennium Park and take in the Gehry bandshell. Then, hop on a jet to La Guardia, get in a cab, and ask them to take you to Fifth Avenue. There you will find the ur-starchitect building, a giant spiral parking garage ramp for viewing art known as the Guggenheim. Is New York any less provincial than Denver? (ask someone from London or Paris or Shanghai, all homes to various starchitect buildings of their own).
Denver has always embraced its architecture (when it wasn’t busy tearing it down), whether it was by talented local architects, or famous people from out of town. This is not a bad thing–it gets people to talk about their built environment and it makes us proud of our city. It’s also human nature, to embrace the best, most artistic parts of our built environment, to claim a piece of them for our own.
As for “you’ll only ever see the exterior for about 15 seconds as you drive past it on the way to the parking lot”–um….no. I expect to take the train every time I go to the airport, once I have that option available. It’s the parking garages and outlying lots I won’t be seeing as I exit the trains, walk through Calatrava’s vaulted terminal space, and ride the escalators up to the Jeppesen building. I can’t wait.
Well said. The hotel and station designs complement the terminal without mimicking it, and still exhibit Calatrava’s signature style.
I reckon you’ll be drivin’ to Colorado Springs to fly?
Are you guys kidding me? Naysayers be gone. As a Native in New York, this on par when Calatrava unvieled the design of the WTC Transportation Hub. This is world class! I just hope DIA (and the RTD) find a way for both the station and the bridge. Amazing!
I agree wit Dave. Why are there soo many haters. I really hope we build it. It looks flipping awesome. I just wish Denver would have this good of design in all its projects.
These designs are stunning! Most impressive will be the user experience, arriving at the train station and crossing through the lobby space on your way to the airport. Airports, like trains stations of the past (and future?) are one of the few and most widely used public structures we have, so it makes sense to invest in extraordinary design.
Unless the hotel is more of a landscraper, I don’t see how it can’t block views of the main terminal from the South. Lowering the hotel height and making it wider would mean a longer walk from the train station which would not be good.
About Southwest, we need to take their comments with a grain of salt… if they had their way, all of their passengers would be on a weight loss program to save fuel costs, Douglas Bruce would be President, and the Mayor of CO Springs would be running DIA (2/3 of runway lights would be turned off; pack out your own trash, etc.) 😉
I love your comments about colosprngs:
As a person who started out my college career to be an architect, but ran out of money to finish and am still a frustrated wannabe architect, I find this design compelling, iconic and it melds well with the existing design. You will still be able to see the iconic Fentress design as you drive in from the west on Pena Blvd, then add to it the new design which will compliment the design to a tee. I just hope they keep all of the elements as innovative as the concept appears and not let some civil engineer change the design to meet the mundane tastes of today’s architecture. I have had it with beige, taupe and other earth tones for color schemes in Denver. I think Denver is off to a great start with regard to our gateway architecture, and this will only enhance the gateway.
Great looking hotel and a TRAIN station this is truly a world class airport, You can stay at hotel and ride train to downtown see the sights and take train back and will not have to rent a car are worry about parking.
Curt Fentress’ iconic terminal tents are to mimic mountains; no doubt, but they still have a very sophisticated modern feel to them. Santiago Calatrava’s concept provides an additional allure to the tents by creating a dialogue between the two spaces. Sure the design is dramatic, but in true Calatrava style, it remains light, energetic, clean and bright—a very awe-inspiring combination of engineering and cautious detail.
He was quoted saying that “airports are the modern gates to a city”, so in many respects, his concept helps paint an initial picture and literal link of the type of city Denver is today and tomorrow. He also states this new design will “[bring] the airport closer to the city and [bring] the city to the airport.” We’ve already seen tremendous growth towards the airport and this project will only enhance with the commuter rail station. If you grew up Denver, you’ll remember that Stapleton actually felt far outside the city.
While not intentional, Calatrava’s design reflects some of the proposed Union Station redevelopment design traits, creating a sense of continuity between the two transportation hubs. It also continues to play up the city’s severe and purposeful architectural trend by Daniel Libeskind (Hamilton Building), Michael Graves (Denver Public Library), and David Adjaye (Museum of Contemporary Art).
Every design by Calatrava doesn’t seem to fit for that city at first glance (see the Puente del Alamillo in Seville, Spain; Chords Bridge in Jerusalem, Israel; Chicago Spire; or Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències in Valencia, Spain), but they create a sense of suspense and an indisputable link between the past and future. As a resident of Lower Highland, I cannot imagine the Central Platte Valley without the Millennium Bridge, Platte River Bridge and Highland Bridge due to the similar vision of dramatically fusing two historic neighborhoods (LoDo and Highland) together. As a city, we should embrace this intellectual point of view. Calatrava’s style has an opportunity to continue to change the way people experience and feel about Denver, whether you’re a visitor or a local. Not everything built here in Denver needs to be a box, built with stucco or natural stone, rustic in style, or painted beige.
Justin – Are you sure the reflection between Calatrava’s proposal and Union’s Station’s isn’t intentional on his part? As you said it creates some sense of continuity between the two… it makes sense that Calatrava is mindful of this.
I am not certain. I agree with you, I am sure Calatrava and other city officials are mindful of this or at least inspired by the Union Station redevelopment design.
Great design, yet again, from Calatrava which will continue to add to the fabric of our city. Proud that Denver continues to dream big. Let’s hope this trend continues in both the public and private sectors. We deserve world class architecture and public spaces.
Thank you Ken for the site – love it.
It’s a very elegant and striking design that compliments the existing structure.
I think DIA is looking dated and there is very little sense of arrival or a “front door”.
I especially like the civic-like nature of the outdoor spaces, which is lacking currently.
It will be a great addition to Denver.
Alan,
Agree with all of your comments. Except for a small terrace on the South side, there is no outdoor space away from the cacophony and fumes in the taxi/shuttle/bus areas.
About being dated… the main areas in A, B, C terminals (called Gates now?) looking away from the center spectacle feel like an indoor shopping mall from anywhere America. Noise in these areas needs to be mitigated some. And somehow soften these areas better with light and/or paint color. Lately if felt that the circular sanded/buffed stainless steel look through out the airport seems so 1990’s.
I am thrilled.
While anything new and innovative will elicit skepticism (clearly already evinced), I love this coming together of two successful progressive gambles of the city of Denver.
Imagine a new set of eyes landing in Denver: this terminal on one end and Union Station on the other. That.will.impress.
I -very- much hope that DIA can fund the ‘signature’ bridge… truly the icing on the cake.
Kudos Denver!
I’ll start by saying that I am a big fan of most of Calatrava’s work. However, I can’t get past those giant, hulking masses of the hotel. Instead of complimenting the existing, iconic airport, they overpower the site. They even take away from the elegant shell over the rail station. I could even go for more of a podium design with taller structures. I want to see the terminal! Additionally, perhaps some color would be nice to set off the station shell structure from the hotel.
Agreed, though, will be a nice addition for Denver. Albuquerque needs to step it up…a lot.
I think color would be a mistake; it would destroy the symbolic snow-cap white. And I think the towers will simply reveal the striking terminal in a new and different way.
Color… that would’ve been bold! I’m picturing a solid block of it (somewhere? everywhere?) to contrast the stark white snowcaps. But that sort of audacious stroke would probably only ‘fly’ in certain cities of Europe and Asia.
As the first poster pointed out — I really don’t understand why a bridge is required? – It is very nice, but why?
The rail will run south of Peña until just after the E-470 junction; it must then cross Peña to get to the terminal.
The towers are tall, I agree. They will obstruct and detract from the tented roof. They’ll make the tented roof seem secondary, sort of subservient to the towers. I think it should be the other way around. I’m not sure what the bridge does either. I love the renderings of the inside. That does look beautiful.
This photo shows how the towers will obstruct the terminal (and it looks like a bat): http://business.flydenver.com/%28S%28dajjp5eef0rtjx45wm2wf445%29%29/community/southTerminal/imgDetail.aspx?imgName=model12
Cool, now DIA can now be called The Bat Cave.
The Albino Bat cometh.
I am shocked at how many people see this addition as overshadowing the terminal. The main image we keep seeing is a relatively low angle FROM THE SOUTH. Of course it’s going to dominate from this angle. But only from this angle. And the “iconic” view of DIA is FROM THE EAST with the mountains in the background. The hotel will in no way detract from the tent, and in fact it compliments the terminal beautifully! Why complain about such a perfect addition to the airport?? I just don’t get it.
Because it is more fun to hate. I’m not crazy about it… but it doesn’t overshadow the airport in anyway. As you approach from the South… and get close to… yes, it will eclipse the terminal. Any structure will. But approaching the airport from Pena… in cars, on the trains, in the air, it will still be dominated by the main terminal.
As for all of the complaints about how it is so stupid to put a hotel way out there… it is simple: 35-40% of air travelers are traveling on business. This is not a tourist thing, it is a matter of money and efficiency. I’ve stayed in countless airport hotels, but of course, I will never stay at the Denver one as long as I live here. But its not for us… its for the business travelers. While they are there… and as millions of others pass through, it makes sense to develop a welcoming, retail area to cash in on these visitors.
Most people, as they drive (and soon train) in from Denver, see the building from the south at a low angle (because most people don’t live in the sky). A few cows and a farmer see it from the east, and mostly pilots see it from the North or above.
And all the worries of cost are unjustified… DIA has managed to lower airfares by the 2nd highest margin in the US over the prior 15 years. DIA management has delivered a world class airport that has an annual impact of $20 billion (BILLION) on the local economy. DIA has been a tremendous engine for growth… and I’m confident that this will pay for itself…
I really can’t believe anybody in their right might would argue against the success of Denver International Airport. I suggest we the rational collectively agree to ignore the ignorant.
As for the topic of design, I think it’s a fantastic compliment to the existing architecture. My only wish is that they could have put the hotel on the north side of the terminal so that it served as a backdrop to the iconic tensile structure as opposed to the south, where it blocks the view to it as cars and trains approach.
PS… where did all those trees in the renderings come from? It would cost $650m alone just to plant all those. I think Calatrava and Gensler should admit the yellow field is a reality and work with it for a truly fantastic design.
Yesterday I hated this concept but after giving it some time to settle I LOVE IT NOW. I do however wish it was on the north side but I really get the city meets the mountains reference. Depending on where you are in the city, you can’t always see the mountains so this makes sense to me now. (Maybe, The Jetsons go camping lol.) It took me awhile to appreciate the terminal architecture too. Between Union station Fastracks and DIA I’m so excited for the future of Denver!
This is mostly to get to 80 Comments. Let’s put the Blue Mustang in the train terminal.
Let’s put the blue Mustang ON a train and ship it out of here. Seriously, when I was picked up at the airport, my dog started to bark at it… she knows bad art when she sees it.
I’m tired of seeing swooping white… everywhere. DIA is a statement, and has wonderful natural light, but must we recreate Valencia here in Denver? Calatrava’s “City of the Arts” was designed nearly 20 years ago…how has his design evolved? This form of construction is not energy efficient, nor does it take advantage of the spectacular views known to our Mile High. At least Calatrava’s design compliments the current DIA, unlike that of the commuter rail train hall canopy behind the historic Union Station. I still believe that SOM’s design does nothing to appeal to the grandeur of a historical landmark. Paris, London, Prague… all have the gorgeous appeal of rustic and complex metal and glass in their train halls… it saddens me to see this swirl of white as our new entrance to Downtown Denver.
it is gross. It is not compatable with either the existing structure or its location on the Great Plains.