San Diego International Airport - Lindbergh Field
Idea 20090331
Idea 20090313
Idea 20090312
Idea 20090308
UT Graphic 8 March 2009
I’ve been following the airport debate since I moved to San Diego in 1992 to attend UCSD’s first
year of classes at the newly established School of Architecture. The school had many charrettes,
design sessions involving professionals from the community, teachers and students. One of the
outcomes of a charrette was to move the airport terminals and gates to the North side as is being
proposed by “Destination Lindbergh.” I was skeptical about the proposal at the time and continue
to be so. It seems like a lot of money for not much more in return than the airport already offers.
I like the small town feeling of our airport. I like that San Diego has a provincial feeling. It’s
separate and different than our neighbors to the north. This is OK. The only time I feel like the
airport is crowded is around the holidays. I’d rather have a little inconvenience a couple times a
year than to spend billions of dollars to give a bit more elbow room in the terminals during the
busiest times of the year. And I’m not thrilled about my ticket prices going up.
This isn’t to say there are issues to be resolved, but let's not go overboard for a grand conceptual
idea.
When the graphic of the proposed plan for Destination Lindbergh was published in the San Diego
Union-Tribune, I thought that there must be alternatives that don’t require throwing away the
existing terminals and all of the money that has gone into building them. And in this age of reduce,
reuse and recycle to do so would be bad for the environment. Planes already spew out a lot of
carbon, why would we want to demolish and completely rebuild the terminals? Construction is one
of the most resource intensive activities.
My first reaction to the proposal---Idea 20090308---was to say, if you’re going to spend billions of
dollars, why not leave the terminals where there are and instead of building a tunnel under the
runway for a people mover, spend a few more dollars and make the tunnel for vehicles? I don’t
really want to take a long ride in a people after I’ve cleared security to then get to the gates.
As this isn’t so realistic, I started on another idea and then another. As I read news articles,
listened to talk radio shows offering divergent views and read the SDIA master plan I would come up
with another idea in an attempt at reconciliation. After Idea 20090313 I thought it best to stop
ideating until the full Destination Lindbergh report was released.
Idea 20090331 is my most recent attempt of opposite idea reconciliation. It may not be the
solution, but maybe it will help to continue the discussion and the iteration of ideas.
year of classes at the newly established School of Architecture. The school had many charrettes,
design sessions involving professionals from the community, teachers and students. One of the
outcomes of a charrette was to move the airport terminals and gates to the North side as is being
proposed by “Destination Lindbergh.” I was skeptical about the proposal at the time and continue
to be so. It seems like a lot of money for not much more in return than the airport already offers.
I like the small town feeling of our airport. I like that San Diego has a provincial feeling. It’s
separate and different than our neighbors to the north. This is OK. The only time I feel like the
airport is crowded is around the holidays. I’d rather have a little inconvenience a couple times a
year than to spend billions of dollars to give a bit more elbow room in the terminals during the
busiest times of the year. And I’m not thrilled about my ticket prices going up.
This isn’t to say there are issues to be resolved, but let's not go overboard for a grand conceptual
idea.
When the graphic of the proposed plan for Destination Lindbergh was published in the San Diego
Union-Tribune, I thought that there must be alternatives that don’t require throwing away the
existing terminals and all of the money that has gone into building them. And in this age of reduce,
reuse and recycle to do so would be bad for the environment. Planes already spew out a lot of
carbon, why would we want to demolish and completely rebuild the terminals? Construction is one
of the most resource intensive activities.
My first reaction to the proposal---Idea 20090308---was to say, if you’re going to spend billions of
dollars, why not leave the terminals where there are and instead of building a tunnel under the
runway for a people mover, spend a few more dollars and make the tunnel for vehicles? I don’t
really want to take a long ride in a people after I’ve cleared security to then get to the gates.
As this isn’t so realistic, I started on another idea and then another. As I read news articles,
listened to talk radio shows offering divergent views and read the SDIA master plan I would come up
with another idea in an attempt at reconciliation. After Idea 20090313 I thought it best to stop
ideating until the full Destination Lindbergh report was released.
Idea 20090331 is my most recent attempt of opposite idea reconciliation. It may not be the
solution, but maybe it will help to continue the discussion and the iteration of ideas.
What to do with the airport? Let's talk
-Marc Fredrickson
- Husband and Father
North Park Resident
Architect
Video Game Maker
Virtual Object Entrepreneur
Click on images to see a larger version and to see
potential phasing
potential phasing
Architect@MarcFredrickson.com