TRANSPORTATION + ARCHITECTURE COMPENDIUM

COMPENDIUM TRANSPORTATION

AND

ARCHITECTURE

A PROGRAMMATIC ANALYSIS OF DECONSTRUCTIVIST AND FORMALIST TRANSIT HUBS IN TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURE

ARC580 // PROGRAMMING AND RESEARCH METHODS IN ARCHITECTURE FINAL COMPENDIUM

PROFESSOR KEELAN KAISER, AIA PREPARED BY JUSTIN BANDA JUDSON UNIVERSITY SUMMER 2016 TERM AUGUST 1, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Table of Contents

2

2. Executive Summary

3

3. Subjects

6

a. Beijing New Airport // ZHA // Airport // Beijing b. FGL Airport

// BIG

// Airport // Nuuk

c. Long Beach Airport // HOK // Airport // Long Beach d. Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport // Studio Fuksas // Airport // Shenzhen e. King Street Station // ZGF // Train // Seattle f. Delft Blue Streak // Mecanoo Architecten Delft // Train // Delft g. Torino Porta Susa // Silvio d’Ascia Architecture // Train // Turin h. Wilhelm-Leuschner-Platz // Max Dudler Architect // Train // Leipzig i. World Trade Center Transportation Hub // Calatrava // Train + Bus // New York j. Porto Cruise Terminal // Luis Pedro Silva // Port // Porto

2

4. Key Findings + Programmatic Analysis

26

5. Conclusion

30

6. Bibliography

31

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In his Pulitzer Prize-winning 1918 novel The Magnificent Ambersons, author Booth Tarkington writes on the lives of three generations of an American family between the Civil War and the early 20th century. As the Ambersons contend with the rise of industrialization, the topic of transportation (specifically cars) is touched upon briefly. At a dinner discussion, several characters discuss the rise of automobiles and newfangled methods of transportation, when one character, George, blurts out: “Automobiles are a useless nuisance.” The room falls silent, and then the other characters begin to discuss. “I’m not sure he’s wrong about automobiles,” another character offers. “With all their speed forward they may be a step backward in civilization -- that is, in spiritual civilization. It may be that they will not add to the beauty of the world, nor to the life of men’s souls.”

For all the good the industrial revolution contributed to modern methods of transportation, the profession of architecture has often struggled over the years to decipher the hierarchical place of hubs of transportation. Meeting the requirements of the vehicles themselves, as well as various civic, engineering, and social needs, often proves to be a herculean challenge for designers. How should designers position a hub within a city?

Does an airport belong far outside the bustling central hive of a downtown region, as O’Hare does in Chicago, or should a hub nestle into the heart of a heavily-trafficked metro area, as the World Trade Center Hub does in Manhattan? Should the primary function of a transit hub drive the architecture, or should the architect’s formalist tendencies attempt to drive the flow of traffic in the city?

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For my architectural typology, I have chosen to research and gather data on transportation projects, particularly urban-based hubs that serve as portals to either airplanes, trains, or even ships. In order to qualify for review in this study, subjects had to meet three criteria:

1) USAGE // Projects had to be located in areas with populations greater than 100,000 and had to have the capacity to serve people per day.

2) SIZE // Projects had to have a square footage over 25,000 square feet in order to best meet the usage capacity required by criteria #1.

3) DATE // Projects had to have been designed and/or built within the past 15 years in order to remain contemporary for this study.

The subjects I have chosen include four airports, four train stations, one mixed-use bus/train/subway station, and one seaport. Three are located in America; the other seven are scattered throughout Europe and Asia. My compendium is structured in such a way as to be able to quickly go back and refer to key programming elements at a moment’s notice for future academic projects, or for future site documentation.

I have structured this compendium to start out with a brief overview of the ten case studies, where I have presented the projects and called out key design, site, and contextual drivers. Each of the ten case studies features one or two pages of in-depth analysis on how the building came to be, what influenced the design choices, how the building functions as

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

a programmatic executor, and what qualifications have appeared since opening that either aid or hinder it’s ability to serve the stated function. The case studies are standalone chapters that contain information such as square footage, basic site and contextual analysis, and generic building information.

This is then followed-up by a chapter on key findings, in which I draw links between disparate programmatic elements and use qualitative and quantitative analysis to break down each building, and draw links between the various stations. I examine the various program elements and then attempt to synthesize them into one basic “terminal” program for an equivalent hypothetical transit hub of similar size.

I then conclude with a distillation of my findings in summary format and explain what I have discovered from my research, and how to best apply it to future design endeavors.

An in-depth bibliography page featuring research and findings for each of the ten case studies concludes this compendium.

It is my hope that by gaining a deeper understanding of transit hubs and how architectural programming informs their design, we will be able to better respond formally in the future. After all, as one of Tarkington’s characters, Eugene, muses: “But you can’t have the immense outward changes that [industrialization of transportation] will cause without some inward ones, and it may be that George is right, and that the spiritual alteration will be bad for us.” Let us, as designers, study that we may avoid this future as best as we are able.

5

CASE STUDIES BEIJING NEW AIRPORT In 2014, ZHA won a competition held by the Beijing New Airport Headquarters (BNAH) for the design of a new airport, in order to alleviate Beijing International Airport, which was built in 2008 and opened just a few months before the Olympics and was still suffering from congestion six years later. Located on the outskirts of Daxing, 50 miles away from BIA, the new airport designed by Zaha Hadid Architects features six (initially four) runways, and will be able to handle 72 million passengers when it is completed in 2025, as well as 620,000 planes and 2 million tons of mail and cargo.

Although the main reason for it’s existence is to alleviate congestion, some critics say that the bigger issue lies in the fact that the Chinese military controls 80% of the nation’s airspace. This forces civilian and international aircraft to use narrow sky corridors. This means that even though Beijing is doubling the size of it’s airport capacity, the reason for the new terminal’s existence will still remain fundamentally unfixed.

The airport features three types of terminals (two of each type), layered and bent over each other to accommodate the full program. Two terminals service domestic flights, two service international flights, and two service cargo flights from carriers like FedEx and UPS. According to Ms. Hadid, “The radial layout greatly improves adaptability and sustainability by enabling the terminal to operate in the many different configurations most appropriate to the varying aircraft and passenger traffic throughout each day.”

NAME ARCHITECT SIZE CAPACITY DATE S/F CITY 6

// Beijing New Airport Terminal Building // Zaha Hadid Architects // 700,000m2 total floor area + 80,000m2 ground transit center // 45,000,000 per year, expanding to 72,000,000 after construction // September 2015 // 2025 // Daxing, Beijing, China

CASE STUDIES BEIJING NEW AIRPORT From top to bottom: aerial satellite rendering of the finished skyport; a diagram showing the three different functions; and a more detailed map of the interior of the first two finished terminals.

According to ZHA, the goal of using the six-piered radial design was to minimize the distance between check-in and gate, as well as the distances between gates for transferring passengers.

All terminals converge in a central courtyard, creating “a multi-layered civic space-- a public square and meeting place for passengers from around the globe-- at the very heart of the terminal.�

Programmatically the airport is exceedingly simple-- almost stupidly so. Service spaces are relegated underground (although no detailed plans exist online for security reasons, as with many of these case studies), while the public spaces consist almost entirely of open corridors, as the main programmatic goal is to travel, not linger, from one point to the next.

Estimated Program Percentages: Corridor/Walkway: 60% Kiosks/Check-in: 20% Utility: 10-20%

7

CASE STUDIES FGL AIRPORT Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) presented a concept for a new internation air hub at the 2012 Venice Biennale that would revolutionize transportation in the western hemisphere, serving as a direct stopover link between Europe and North America. BIG designed an utterly massive multi-use skyport + seaport + oil drilling rig + cargo hold.

The incentive for creating a new airport in Nuuk is to eliminate or minimize travel to Kangerlussuaq International Airport (KIA), which sees 135,000 passengers pass through yearly. However, almost 100% of visitors to KIA then continue on to another final destination, including 54,000 of that number who continue on to Nuuk, the capital of Greenland. Thus, to minimize inefficiencies, BIG proposed a multifunctional international hub located in Nuuk, which would better position Nuuk as a future stopover hub, as it is geographically close to both Europe and the Americas.

Due to melting ice caps, new maritime routes are being created yearly, allowing ships to travel along the Northwest Passage, minimizing the travel distance from Nuuk to Shanghai from 20,000 km to 16,000 km. Additionally, new cruise tourism is up from a mere 17 visiting ships in 1998 to 42 ships in 2008, signifying a massive influx of visitors to the frozen north. To accommodate this, BIG inserted a perpendicular shipping and cargo bar of equal size to the airport just below the runway and terminals, both sized out at 5,000,000 square meters.

NAME ARCHITECT SIZE CAPACITY DATE S/F CITY 8

// FGL air + port // Bjarke Ingels Group // 10,000,000m2 // Unknown // 2012 / NA (concept) // Nuuk, Greenland

CASE STUDIES FGL AIRPORT From top to bottom: aerial satellite rendering of the finished skyport; a rendering showing the multi-use skyport, cargo storage, and cruise ship terminal; and a photograph of a model showing oil drilling rigs compared to the scale of airplanes.

BIG also wanted to accommodate new and planned drilling programs in the Arctic Circle, and to do that they designed oil rigs along the lower bar, designed to capture huge amounts of oil as well as rare-earth minerals, of which Greenland is estimated to have the most out of any other continent on the planet.

By combining all of these currentlydisparate elements in the Greenland economy and eliminating the need for trucks to transport cargo and passengers between points, BIG is creating a sustainable system which minimizes the amount of traveling needed between economic points and creates sustainable synergies.

Estimated Program Percentages: Airport Half: Corridor/Walkway: 20% Kiosks/Check-in: 5% Utility: 15% Seaport Half: Cargo: 20% Docks: 10% Oil-Rig Systems: 10% Utility: 10%

9

CASE STUDIES LONG BEACH AIRPORT In 1941 Long Beach, California got it’s first airport, at the dawn of the air-travel movement. Originally designed by W. Horace Austin and Kenneth Wing as a Streamline-Modernist structure, it was always a small airport (originally only 24,000 square feet large). However, over the years, as security and jet size requirements grew, the airport found itself adding on ad-hoc structures that neither fit the original design or the program itself very well.

In 2005, the airport hired the firm HOK as well as engineers from CH2M Hill to explore updating passenger facilities. However, community opposition temporarily halted the expansion due to concerns over the new airport potentially violating Long Beach’s strict noise policies. But by 2010, after reaching an agreement with the local community to keep the number of gates at 11, HOK won the $45,000,000 commission to design new concourses, including lounges, concessions, a TSA security-screening building, an outdoor plaza, and landscaped grounds.

The goal of the new program was simply to expand the existing, relaxed structure (including maintaining the midcentury Modernist feel of the original airport structure, keeping it front-and-center) to allow for more spacious, modern areas for travelers to linger in. LBA is unique in that even after passing through security, passengers are able to enjoy a 21,000 square-foot outdoor garden, full of local flora and fauna, as well as fire-pits, local restaurants and concessions, and even a faux boardwalk meant to evoke the image of the nearby beaches.

NAME ARCHITECT SIZE CAPACITY DATE S/F CITY 10

// Long Beach Airport // HOK // 46,000 ft2 // 1.4 million passengers yearly // December 2012 // Long Beach, California

CASE STUDIES LONG BEACH AIRPORT From top to bottom: site plan showing the relatively-small interior program compared to the larger outdoor program; a section showing the three levels-- one utility, one public, and one for air traffic controllers; and a shot of the exterior concourse and boardwalk LBA is famous for.

According to HOK, “We weren’t trying to mimic or upstage the historic terminal. Our idea was to quietly offer a different, but compatible experience that would complement or resonate with the original.”

“It’s more of a destination than a transportation hub,” says LBG senior civil engineer Jeff Sedlak.

The program allows participants to act as guests in the program, with an emphasis on personal comfort rather than treating them like cattle to be bustled from one terminal to the next.

The program is organized as a vague triangle, with HOK’s new concourse connecting the two buildings containing boarding gates (25,000 and 13,000 SF). Most of HOK’s work is with terminals, concourses, and concessions.

Estimated Program Percentages: Corridor/Walkway: 30% Kiosks/Check-in: 10% Lounge: 20% Concession: 20% Utility: 20%

11

CASE STUDIES SHENZHEN BAO’AN AIRPORT Italian architect Massimiliano Fuksas describes his approach to designing the Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport as being similar in style to the way Alfred Hitchcock crafted his films. He wanted passers-by in cars to feel like the building was morphing and evolving at 24 frames per second, just like the average frame-per-minute ratio of a movie.

The program was exceedingly simple, if totally oversized: departures on the top level, arrivals below, and a large drop-off/pick-up area at one end. Fuksas described his biggest challenge as manipulating scale: making a gargantuan space feel like it was actually human-scale.

Fuksas and his wife designed the form based off of hexagonal/honeycomb wrapping paper they once received a gift in. By rolling the honeycomb wrapping into a twisting tube, Fuksas created a unified structure where walls and roof were indistinguishable. Fuksas also designed it to have dual-skins for the humid, hot Shenzhen weather; the outer layer made of flat metal panels and glass, and the inside layer made of a three-dimensional folded metal lattice forming hexagonal openings in the interior ceiling and walls. The envelope, Fuksas says, seems to flicker and dance like an old film reel as one moves through the space.

NAME ARCHITECT SIZE CAPACITY DATE S/F CITY 12

// Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport // Studio Fuksas // 5.4 million ft2 // 45 milllion passengers/year // 2008/2014/2025/2035 // Shenzhen, China

CASE STUDIES SHENZHEN BAO’AN AIRPORT From top to bottom: an interior photograph of the wide-open interior space, as well as the rippling hexagonal ceiling; a site plan showing the airplane streets; and a close-up plan showing the numerous gates.

Because of Fuksas’ insistence on minimizing portals and creating one long tubular structure, the program melds together in a sort of blob.

Circulation makes up the majority of the space, moreso than perhaps any other case study on this list. Kiosks are scattered around the interior, and gates are blended into the space, leaving only a bit of room for hidden utility, creating one seamless experience.

Estimated Program Percentages: Corridor/Walkway: 80% Kiosks/Check-in: 10% Utility: 10%

13

CASE STUDIES KING STREET STATION Designed by ZGF Architects in Seattle, King Street Station is unique on this list (aside from Long Beach Airport) because of it’s historic preservation nature. Fairly small by comparison to it’s peers on this list, King Street is an urban hub in downtown Seattle, stitching together Pioneer Square and International District, as well as two new sports stadiums nearby and a $300 million mixed-use complex. King Street services just 1800 Amtrak passengers a day, but it’s role in the community couldn’t be larger.

Built in 1906 by Reed and Stem, the campanile was modeled after the Piazza San Marco in Venice, right down the red-brick and Italianate flourishes. A nationwide decline in train use in the second-half of the 20th century led to the building deteriorating almost beyond repair. A half-hearted remodel in 1965 chose to hide the main hall’s coffered ceiling and arcade, as well as destroying original marble finishes and detailed plasterwork.

In 2008, during the global housing crash, the city of Seattle bought the property for $10 and then began a hearty funding campaign that eventually raised $55 million in funding. Once the city brought ZGF on-board, ZGF hired Arup and Otak to seamlessly insert and repair new supports and structure to strengthen and bolster the old building. ZGF undid much of the work from the 1965 remodel, unhiding the coffered ceiling in the main hall and exposing the clerestory windows. The architects matched the original sources and brought in similar materials as were existing to make it feel like a restoration, not a renovation.

NAME ARCHITECT SIZE CAPACITY DATE S/F CITY 14

// King Street Station // ZGF Architects // 62,400 ft2 // 1800 users/day // 2008 / 2013 // Seattle, Washington

CASE STUDIES KING STREET STATION From top to bottom: a photograph of the restored main hall and Amtrak waiting area; a ground-level site plan showing interaction with major roads; and a second-floor structural plan.

Because the building is one of the oldest existing of it’s type, the program is fairly straightforward, as seen in the plans to the left. There is a large open waiting hall, stairs and core/utility elements in the middle, and a concourse on the north side.

The simplistic program is one of the reasons King Street is experiencing a revival in public opinion: it is culturally relevant, restored, and easy to navigate in the context of the city.

Estimated Program Percentages: Corridor/Walkway: 30% Check-in/Waiting: 30% Utility: 10-20% Concourse: 20%

15

CASE STUDIES DELFT BLUE STATION Mecanoo set out to repair a broken urban fabric: after Delft’s historic town center was destroyed over time due to a number of factors-- war, urban renewal, development-- Mecanoo attempted to combine multiple programs at once while stitching together a torn urban fabric, by replicating Delft’s historic alleyways, recreated in glass and steel.

The result is a hugely-popular metro station popularly known as the “blue streak” station. Featuring a four-track, 1.4 mile long tunnel, as well as brand-new office spaces leased out to local companies for additional revenue, Blue Streak is a testament to Dutch creativity and resilience.

“Connectivity is what this building is all about,” says partner and project architect Francesco Veenstra. “The building will be a new beating heart for Delft’s municipal government and will provide offices for about a thousand civil servants and local politicians.”

The building has four entrances, each featuring generous stairs and escalators leading either above to the office spaces or below to the train concourses.

NAME ARCHITECT SIZE CAPACITY DATE S/F CITY 16

// Municipal Offices and Train Station (Blue Station) // Mecanoo Architecten Delft // 305,000 ft2 // N/A // February 2015/December 2016 // Delft, The Netherlands

CASE STUDIES DELFT BLUE STATION From top to bottom: photo of the main concourse and escalators connecting 1F and 2F; a site plan showing the river and local context; and a section showing how the concourses connect to the office spaces.

The program here is unusually complex for a train station; although it roughly follows the “long-andnarrow� rule for train depots, the shell also houses a mall and offices, which definitely throws a wrench into the mix. From an architectural standpoint, the bubble-blob shape is also unusual for a program like this.

The program roughly follows a single multi-level corridor along a straight line, leading across a concourse sprinkled with kiosks and mall elements. Office program rests on the upper levels.

Estimated Program Percentages: Corridor/Walkway: 15-20% Kiosks/Mall: 20-30% Utility: 20% Offices: 30%

17

CASE STUDIES TORINO PORTA SUSA In the theme of stitching together broken neighborhoods and repairing local connections, Torino Porta Susa follows Delft’s Blue Station as a social tool, used by the designer to heal problems that inconsiderate design had wrought on local communities. Silvio d’Ascia designed the Turin hub as a crossroads, intending to bridge a rift that the old station had unintentionally created in the middle of the city.

The station is a key part of a master plan called “Spina”, which is trying to undo years of poor Italian design by burying old railroad tracks and creating public access for bicyclists and pedestrians. D’Ascia, who won the contract in a competition, includes a yet-to-be-funded 38 story mixed-use tower at the south end of the station.

The station also serves a more global link, housing high-speed trains that stretch from Rome to Paris. There is also a Metro stop, as well as a promenade filled with cafes, a mall, and restaurants. Mezzanines and terraces help bridge the interiors of the long space together, creating more of an indoor-outdoor feel.

NAME ARCHITECT SIZE CAPACITY DATE S/F CITY 18

// Porta Susa High-Speed Train Station // Silvio d’Ascia Architecture // 323,000 ft2 // N/A // January 2013 // Turin, Italy

CASE STUDIES TORINO PORTA SUSA From top to bottom: an aerial photo showing the length of the station in relation to it’s urban context; a site plan showing connections to the ground-level city; and a section showing the curve of the tube’s arch.

Programmatically this station is inventive but ultimately makes sense: it is long and flat-ish, and features the basics: concourses, shopping, and dining stretched along the spine of the walkway, which is a major thoroughfare for local and nonlocal pedestrians and visitors.

Estimated Program Percentages: Corridor/Walkway: 35-40% Kiosks: 10% Shopping: 20% Dining: 20% Utility: 10-20%

19

CASE STUDIES WILHELM-LEUSCHNER-PLATZ Designed by Max Dudler, a Zurich-based architect, this Metro station attempts to bring the sensation of daylight into an underground space. A simple, reinforced concrete tube, Wilhelm is a basic, functional train stop that connects Leipzig to Berlin.

It’s main claim to fame is in the simplicity of it’s design, as well as a hugely-inventive faux-daylighting system that makes it appear as though the station is actually aboveground. A system of LEDs lights the entire space with a cool, Apple-like glow at all hours of the day or night.

“If only for a few minutes while waiting for a train, the minimalist aesthetic and the impression of daylight offer a respite from urban stress and mitigate the reality of being deep below the city. ‘We wanted to restore a sense of dignity-- and maybe even splendor-- to this space of everyday life,’ says project architect Christof Berkenhoff.”

NAME ARCHITECT SIZE CAPACITY DATE S/F CITY 20

// Licht Kunst Licht, Wilhelm-Leuschner-Platz // Max Dudler Architect // 56,800 ft2 // N/A // December 2013 // Leipzig, Germany

CASE STUDIES WILHELM-LEUSCHNER-PLATZ From top to bottom: photo of the unique concourse with faux daylighting; a plan showing the simple diagrammatic and programmatic functions; and a section showing the same.

Programmatically this is perhaps the most simple building on this list. The entire space is one long concourse/waiting area, with two escalators on either end of the tunnel ferrying passengers up and down from above. Utility is hidden behind the backlit panels.

Estimated Program Percentages: Corridor/Walkway: 90-95% Utility: 5-10%

21

CASE STUDIES WORLD TRADE CENTER HUB The original Hudson Bay Terminal was built in the late 19th century, and gradually grew to include five tracks and three platforms by 1914. When highways opened up in the 1950s, ridership declined from 113 million yearly in 1927 to 26 million in 1958. When the World Trade Center was being constructed in the late 1960s, the station was re-created, opening in 1971 to connect the New Jersey PATH lines with the local Metro and regional Amtrak lines.

After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the station was destroyed, and a temporary station served those lines from 2003 until the opening of the new building by Santiago Calatrava in 2016. The new Hub features a magnificent structural feat which Calatrava called his “Oculus”, as well as new mall and shopping program elements. The Oculus, which is the only aboveground portion of the station, sits just across the street from where the Twin Towers fell, and connects to the PATH line from under the Hudson river.

Calatrava says that the Oculus “resembles a bird being released from a child’s hand.” The building opened in 2016 to a flurry of mockery due to the unique spiked nature of the Oculus’s spine; however, critics have praised the station’s functionality and integration with the local lines, calling it a success in stitching together and re-briging the broken New York WTC territory and lines.

NAME ARCHITECT SIZE CAPACITY DATE S/F CITY 22

// World Trade Center Transportation Hub // Santiago Calatrava Architects // 365,000 ft2 // N/A // 2016 // New York City, New York

CASE STUDIES WORLD TRADE CENTER HUB From top to bottom: map showing how the WTC Hub links into the New York City Metro system lines; a site plan showing the complex in relation to the Hudson River and neighbors; and a diagrammatic section showing the scale of the terminal in comparison to the mall.

The program at the WTC Hub is diverse: in addition to housing PATH, Metro, and Amtrak lines, the Hub also houses a large mall in the main Oculus courtyard. Because of the nature of the site itself, security also plays a large role, with both the TSA and the NY Port Authority taking up the task of securing the premises.

The program also features several long concourses (glimpsed briefly in section below) that connect the red, yellow, green, blue, and brown lines of the NYC Metro.

Estimated Program Percentages: Corridor/Walkway: 20% Kiosks/Check-in: 20% Mall/Shopping: 30% Concourses: 20% Utility: 10-20%

23

CASE STUDIES PORTO CRUISE TERMINAL Portuguese architect Luis Pedro Silva wanted this seaport to emulate the works of Gehry and Wright. This is a short, simple building rendered in a single elegant, concrete flourish. The walkways curve up into walls and ramps, and the entire mass blends into the sea.

Designed as a centerpiece for the port at Leixoes, resting on the Atlantic Ocean six miles north of Porto, the building is protected by two breakwaters that stretch 2500 feet into the ocean. Within this waterway, daily visitors include ships, oil tankers, fishing fleets, and recreational boats.

Silva wanted the terminal to be the first and last thing that visiting ships saw as they entered the harbor, but eventually moved the cruise-ship dock to the end of the breakwater, so it could be closer to the city. This helps connect the port to the city, via high-speed transit at the end of the docks. Spiral ramps and generous stairs help guide people off large cruise ships into an in-between space: not quite land and not quite sea.

NAME ARCHITECT SIZE CAPACITY DATE S/F CITY 24

// Porto Cruise Terminal // Luis Pedro Silva, Arquitecto, LDA // 188,000 ft2 // N/A // March 2015 // Porto, Portugal

CASE STUDIES PORTO CRUISE TERMINAL From top to bottom: a photograph showing the unique honeycomb coating on the interior walls; a site plan showing how Porto Cruise rests in the Atlantic Ocean; and a section showing the wedding-cake layers interlapping with each other.

Silva’s program here is deceptively complex. In addition to functioning as a breakwater, the program also accomodates primarily ramp and concourse space. There is some minor utility program like small offices and restrooms, but the bulk of the program is in circulation, boarding, and a massive cruiseship quay that allows passengers to disembark comfortably.

Estimated Program Percentages: Corridor/Walkway: 50% Kiosks/Check-in: 20% Utility: 20-30%

25

KEY FINDINGS + PROGRAM ANALYSIS

To properly synthesize these ten case studies, we have to understand that from the outside looking in, there will always be information that we do not have— whether that is additional or hidden programming goals, additional unseen maintenance or security features or spaces, and even true square footages— due to security and privacy concerns, as transit hubs are often points of interest for terroristic threats. With that in mind, the percentages estimated in the case studies may not even be close to accurate; with so much left unseen, there is little way of telling how much program is hidden beneath the surface, especially for airports.

FIG. A WALKING

GATES

UTILITY

It seems in a large number of these cases that the program follows a similar footprint, in ratio if not in scale. An unusually large amount of space in transit hubs is dedicated to walking, in the form of concourses and terminals. Kiosks and gates, though numerous, take up only a small footprint in the overall program square footages, and they are frequently placed alongside major walking and pedway routes. (fig. a) However, the placement of the foot routes is dependent on the kiosks and gates, not the other way around. That is important because there is a set limit to how many planes or boats can physically dock along the same terminal, and although for efficiency designers seem to place them close together in a straight line, it does seem to work better when designers move them at perpendicular or diagonal angles from each other, so that while exterior space has to grow, the interior spaces can ultimately take up less square footage. (fig. b + c)

26

KEY FINDINGS + PROGRAM ANALYSIS

EFFICIENT

INEFFICIENT

FIG. B

FIG. C

The above is typically unique to air and seaports, however; trains rely on track placement, which is much harder to finagle. In the case of train stations, it seems as though more space is allocated towards landings and platforms, with smaller terminal-to-concourse ration than airports typically have. Train stations seem to be longer and narrower buildings due to this fact; because they have to accomodate themselves to the tracks rather than to a given grand entry or concourse, they tend to be more stretched out and shorter (typically going no larger than 1-3 stories, although the Hauptbahnhof in Berlin is a unique exception to this rule, owing to Germany’s heavy reliance on maximizing the efficiency of it’s train systems, and decades of perfecting the train station). (fig. d)

FIG. D

27

KEY FINDINGS + PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Additionally, a much smaller portion of the train station program seems to be allocated towards security, though TSA and it’s international equivalents still have some presence.

This allows for more space to the dedicated to shops and marts along the concourses. It does seem from the case studies that a larger percentage of space goes towards utilities and non-accessible space in a train depot.

FIG. E

PORT

CITY

An important link that all three of these types of ports have is their reliance on cars, buses, taxis, Ubers— essentially, single-driver vehicles— to bring people to their doorstep.

With the possible exception of the more city-centered ports (Long Beach Aiport because of it’s residential proximity and the World Trade Center Hub because of New York’s unique nonreliance on driven vehicles), most of these ports seem to be isolated and segregated from their respective communities, owing perhaps to a desire to keep “travel” separate and elevated from city centers, either for security or expansion reasons. But it is a hard pattern to ignore once noticed: almost always without fail, major transit hubs are located far away from their city centers, and it takes either wasteful and unsustainable practices like vehicular traffic or rerouting major train, sub, and metro lines to “plug” the port into it’s context. The ports are almost always standalone; they need an external source to draw travelers in. (fig. e)

28

KEY FINDINGS + PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Additional program is added or removed at the discretion of the architect. As seen in the case of the Blue Streak station in Delft, some designers choose to combine the transit program with an office program that can be leased out to create additional revenue streams.

BIG’s air + port in Nuuk is another fantastic example of design multitasking, combining a seismic shift in Greenland’s air directory activity with foreseen cargo, shipping, cruising, flying, drilling, and mining needs to create a whopper of not just a cultural hub, but instead the beating heart of an entire continent, in what is quite possibly the most sustainable way ever. Sustainability in this sense means not only building with sustainable materials, but designing in a way that reduces or eliminates the energy load of traveling between points of interest or need.

Adding seemingly-unrelated program should not be a thing to be feared; rather, the best designers combine a multitude of given needs with a vision for shaping the future. Port and transit programs are a unique combination of programming elements; the basics tend to include large concourses, small (or large but hidden) utility and inaccessible spaces, and a mixture of kiosks, shops, or additional programs that can range from between 20-50% of the entire program. The key unifier in all of these is large walking areas.

29

CONCLUSION

In closing, we’ve seen from the ten case studies above that although creating hubs for mass transit often involves attempting to unify many disparate programmatic elements, when done properly can result groundbreaking fusions of technology, engineering, architecture, and culture. Mass transit doesn’t have to be soulless, or of an inhuman scale. Rather, the best examples we have succeed because the form follows the function and efficiencies; because they attempt to sustainably create pathways between program elements (i.e., path of least resistance theory); and because they create spaces that invite the thrill of travel.

We’ve seen that the architectural program for transit hubs usually involves the following: a) 40-60% // corridor, walkway, concourse b) 10-20% // kiosks, check-in at terminals c) 15-20% // lounge, concession d) 15-20% // utility e) 5-10% // other

With these factors in mind, the designer should also consider modifying or adjusting these percentages based on cultural context, scale in relation to the nearest city center, client intent, future expansion, and/or security concerns. This program is not set in stone, but from a quick survey appears to be representative of the majority of transit terminals seen in North America, Europe, and Asia.

30

BIBLIOGRAPHY *bibliography is organized alphabetically by case study.

Beijing New Airport // Bibliography

1. Hadid, Zaha. ”Beijing New Airport Terminal Building.” Zaha Hadid Architects. N.p., 5 Feb. 2015. Web. 29 July 2016. <www.zaha-hadid.com%2Farchitecture%2Fbeijing-newairport-terminal-building%2F>.

2. Hornsby, Adrian. “Implosions Into An Inner Void: Global Architecture Without A Place Or People To Call Its Own.” Hunch: The Berlage Institute Report 13 (2009): 26. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

3. Kelly, Emma. “Beijing’s New Hub.” Asian Aviation Magazine 13.6 (2015): 19. Business Source Elite. Web. 29 July 2016.

FGL Airport // Bibliography

4. Frearson, Amy. “AIR PORT by BIG and Tegnestuen Nuuk at the Danish Pavilion.”

Dezeen AIR PORT by BIG and Tegnestuen Nuuk at the Danish Pavilion Comments. N.p., 05 Sept. 2012. Web. 30 July 2016.

31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

5. Ingels, Bjarke. “Bjarke Ingels group.” BIG.DK. http://www.big.dk/#projects-fgl: n.p., 2011. Web. 30 July 2016.

6. Jordana, Sebastian. “BIG Wins Competition to Design Greenland’s New National Gallery.” ArchDaily. N.p., 11 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 July 2016.

7. Kucharek, Jan-Carlos. “Reason In Madness: Bjarke Ingels Is Famously Uninhibited

By Expectation Or Tradition, But If You Think His Buildings Are Barmy Just Check His Order Book.” RIBA Journal 123.3 (2016): 88. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals.

Web. 30 July 2016.

Long Beach Airport // Bibliography

8. Amelar, Sarah. “Let’s Fly Away, Long Beach, California: HOK’s New Passenger Concourses Recall The Relaxed Atmosphere Of Early Air Travel.” Architectural Record 202.8 (2014): 114-117. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

9. Sablan, Kevin. “Long Beach Airport named one of world’s most beautiful.” Orange County Register, The (Santa Ana, CA) 16 May 2014: Newspaper Source. Web. 29 July 2016.

32

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport // Bibliography

10. ”An Organic Form, Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China : Studio Fuksas.” Architecture & Design 31.10 (2014): 24-32. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

11. El-Khoury, Rodolphe. “Point Of Entry: Bao’an International Airport’s Terminal 3, By Studio Fuksas, Has Landed In Shenzhen, In The Latest Testament To China’s Love For Show-Stopping Architecture.” Azure 30.230 (2014): 76-81. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

12. Pearson, Clifford A. “Lights, Camera, Architecture!: Treating An Enormous Airport As A Cinematic Experience, A Rome-Based Firm Designs A Series Of Architectural Scenes In Which Light And Space Play Leading Roles [Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport Terminal 3].” Architectural Record 202.3 (2014): 84-93. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

13. Webb, Michael. “Shenzhen Airplay: Studio Fuksas Provided Shenzen With A Welcoming Airport Terminal Clad In Honeycomb.” Mark: Another Architecture 49 (2014): 120-129.

Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

33

BIBLIOGRAPHY

King Street Station // Bibliography

14. Cochran, Samuel. “Splendor Restored.” Architectural Digest 71.4 (2014): 190.

Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 July 2016.

15. Hartman, Hattie. “Blue Streak: A Transit Hub Creates A Center For Both The Local Government And The People Of The City.” Architectural Record 204.3 (2016): 84-89.

Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

16. McDonald, Martha. “On The Right Track: Project, Restoration Of King Street Station, Seattle, WA; Owner, Department Of Transportation, City Of Seattle; Architect, ZGF Architects, Seattle, WA.” Clem Labine’s Traditional Building 26.4 (2013): 18-21. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

17. Pearson, Clifford A. “Track Star, Seattle: ZGF’s Renovation Of King Street Station Revives A Faded Landmark While Positioning The City For An Integrated Transit Future.”

Architectural Record 202.8 (2014): 118-120. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals.

Web. 29 July 2016.

34

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Delft Blue Station // Bibliography

18. ”Delft Blue Station.” Domus (00125377) 907 (2007): 5. Art & Architecture Complete.

Web. 29 July 2016.

19. ”Mecanoo Architecten Win City Hall And Station Competition In Delft.” A + U: Architecture & Urbanism 445.(2007): 5. Art & Architecture Complete. Web. 29 July 2016.

Torino Porta Susa // Bibliography

20. Cohn, David. “Crystal Palace, Turin, Italy: A Sleek New Train Station By Silvio D’ascia Architecture Helps To Rejoin Two Long-Severed Neighborhoods.” Architectural Record 202.8 (2014): 109-113. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

21. Foppiano, Anna. “Torino Porta Susa = New H-S Station: Torino Porta Susa.” Abitare 453 (2005): 202-205. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

22. ”Grandi Eventi, Grandi Opere = Major Events, Major Works [Porta Susa Station, Turin].” Domus 850 (2002): 26. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

35

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wilhelm-Leuschner-Platz // Bibliography

23. Lovell, Sophie. “All Change: We’re In Transport Hubs Of Delight - A Startling S-Bahn Stop In Leipzig; Arresting Bus Stops In Rural Austria And A Striking Marina On Portugal’s Douro River.” Wallpaper 183 (2014): 100-105. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals.

Web. 29 July 2016.

24. Pepchinski, Mary. “Wilhelm-Leuschner-Platz.” Architectural Record 203.11 (2015): 176. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 29 July 2016.

25. Schneider, Andrew, et al. “Urban Transformations: Three Design Teams Illuminate Three Very Different City Programs -- Both Artistic And Pragmatic -- Balancing Daylight, Craft, And Man-Made Lighting Techniques To Enhance The Built Environment And Engender Public Awareness, Well-Being, And Pride.” Architectural Record 203.11 (2015): 171. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

World Trade Center Transit Hub // Bibliography

26. Jacobs, Karrie. “Calatrava’s WTC Transit Hub Takes Flight.” Architect (Washington, D.C.) 105.4 (2016): 59. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.27.

Lamster, Mark. “Hope Rises From Ground Zero.” Architectural Review 230.1376 (2011): 30-31. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

36

BIBLIOGRAPHY

27. Lamster, Mark. “Hope Rises From Ground Zero.” Architectural Review 230.1376 (2011): 30-31. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

28. Stathaki, Ellie. “Station Masters : In New York, London And Budapest, We Pull In At The Hottest New Hubs.” Wallpaper 207 (2016): 45. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

29. Tangel, Andrew, and Keiko Morris. “World Trade Center Station Embodies Resolve.”

Wall Street Journal - Online Edition 13 Feb. 2016: 1. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 29 July 2016.

Porto Cruise Terminal // Bibliography

30. Cohn, David. “High-Water Mark: A Cruise-Ship Terminal’s Exuberant Form Connects Passengers And Is A Destination In Its Own Right.” Architectural Record 204.3 (2016): 74-79. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

31. Cohen, David. “The Unraveling [Guggenheim Museum, New York And Ship Terminal, Porto, Portugal].” Frank Lloyd Wright Quarterly 27.2 (2016): 26-27. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

32. ”Porto Cruise Terminal [Oporto, Portugal]: Luís Pedro Silva, Arquitecto, Lda.” Space 578 (2016): 82-89. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals. Web. 29 July 2016.

38