Expensive Sculpture Extends On 3 Sides Of Suv Terminal

[brahmburgers]

The SUV terminal architecture is grossly wasteful of resources. Architects should have some awareness of the energy impacts of materials. Every ounce of steel and concrete had to come from somewhere, and had lots of fossil fuels and heat involved in its process and delivery.

The front overhang is as gargantuan as it is impractical. Because it has no columns, it needed massive amounts of steel to implement. If columns had been used, it would not have needed such immense amounts of steel to support. A few columns could have saved billions of baht's worth of steel. As it is, if the rain is falling at an angle, the overhang roof won't block it.

The side canopies are an even greater waste of steel and other materials. On either side of the terminal are gargantuan overhangs that serve no practical purpose. Their only purpose is as giant sculptures. They don't keep rain out. Would the Thai people really have wanted to spend billions of extra baht of their taxpayer money to build such immense non-functional sculptures? Tens of thousands of low-income housing units that could have been built if such resources had been allocated elsewhere.

The piers and beams used to support the avenues that lead to and from the terminal are also vastly overbuilt. The horizontal beams are roughly 2.5 meters wide by 3 meters high. Roughly 90% of the structure is needed to support its own weight, which leaves about 10% to support the avenues. Again, a few well place support columns could have considerably lessened the amount of steel and concrete used. I wonder if the design description specified "use as much materials as you possibly can - in order to impress onlookers by sheer massiveness - with no considerations for practicality, expense or resource use."

Was there a competitive bidding process for the design of the airport terminal? It's as though the decision was made (by Thai officials) to award the most waste of resources, and the most impractical design - as the winner.

I don't expect current Thai city planners to be much aware of (or give a hoot about) environmental considerations of large-scale construction projects - but it might be something that future Thai planners might want to find out about.

[flightcrew1]

I had to go back and look at the date this was posted to make sure it was not 2 years old since it's been 2 years since the airport opened.

Did you just see the terminal?

[jdinasia]

I am not understanding this rant at all ....

There are things to whine about regarding Suwannaphoom but the architecture and design are not those things.

I suggest our OP go back and look at some of the studies and bidding etc etc but honestly I suf=ggest he just not whine about it.

[technocracy]

I just read it and thought <deleted> . . . and ignored it.

It's blatantly obviously even to a blind man that Suv was built to a budget to make sure the pockets of those in power benefited the most. As for if they could of done it cheaper . .. well of course they could but that wasn't the point!

Flying in from on Friday after a month in the UK and a few days in Singapore I flew into suv from Changi and it was akin to leaving the Ritz and arriving at a Travel Inn. Sure it looks ok from the outside but that's it. It has certainly improved from when it first opened but that ain't saying much - they couldn't even do the basics such as getting baggage through and had about one toilet per 10,000 people.

It still is the coldest place on the planet - the aircon must be set to about -10C - it really is rediculously cold and I was unfortunate enough to use an overnight room in the place and they are even colder (the AC in the rooms is centrally controlled so you have no choice but freeze).

[jdinasia]

Hmmm I like the place and I like AC

I have never had a problem finding a toilet AFTER getting past screening etc ... and I am almost always traveling with a dog and never have any issues at all!

Some people love to complain I guess!

[tw25rw]

They're about to start doubling the airport terminal area and I doubt they're going to build with old tires and straw bales to suit a foreign discussion forum user.

[brahmburgers]

what would it matter when I first observed the place. The fact remains it's vastly overbuilt - apparently for the following reasons:

>>>> more materials = more expense= fatter kickbacks

>>>> massiveness for the sake of massiveness - is apparently massively impressive

Environmentalists, like myself, take notice of such things that are extraordinarily wasteful of resources. In a country like Thailand, where hundreds of thousands of parents don't send their kids to grammar school because they can't afford the new shoes/books/clothes that are required - it's sobering that its gov't can spend tens of billions of baht on acres of steel roofs that don't even keep the rain out.

The T.Visa folks who call me whiner are the types who whine incessently when the hours for their local beer joint are curtailed, but don't give a hoot about the gargantuan waste of resources that go in to constructing acres of non-functional overhangs at an airport. suit yourself. Granted nothing's going to change by a lone voice barking in the wind, but it needs mentioning - if only for the possibility the next line of Thai mega-projects might have a modicum of environmental considerations in their planning stages.

IF the SUV airport planners were asked to award a contract for a garden wheelbarrow, they'd pick a 22 wheel machine with 8 tungsten containers supported by six tons of stainless steel wires and struts going every which way - and the contraption wouldn't even haul a spadeful of dirt.

[bendix]

In a country like Thailand, where hundreds of thousands of parents don't send their kids to grammar school because they can't afford the new shoes/books/clothes that are required

huh?

[technocracy]

Hmmm I like the place and I like AC

I have never had a problem finding a toilet AFTER getting past screening etc ... and I am almost always traveling with a dog and never have any issues at all!

Some people love to complain I guess!

The AC is a personal thing but I just find it WAY to cold - as for the Overnight rooms why in gods name they installed AC without room thermostats is another question. On AC usage another thing I don't understand is why airlines seem to think that on flights departing from SE Asia they need to turn the cabin aircon to the sub-artic setting also.

As for the toilets - like I said that was when it first opened there is plenty now.

I aren't complaining just stating my opinion - and in my opinion the difference between Changi and Suv IS night and day.

Changi is welcoming with comfortable temperature, superb facilities, minimal walking between gates and great public transport to town (inc decent taxis). On the other hand Suv is a concrete, steel and glass monstrosity that is freezing cold with minimal facilities, HUGE walks to gates and has absolutely shocking public transport links to Bangkok. Then there is the King Power duty free monopoly . . . in KL or Changi you can browse designer shops and have wide selection - in Suv you can look at the same stuff in every shop just laid out differently! To top it all Suv can't even handle the amount of people that need to use it . . .

With the 2 best airports in the world at Changi and KL right on the doorstep I just don't understand why they didn't just blatantly copy one of them and give it a Thai atmosphere. No shame in copying the best.

All said and done I just don't like the place, just as I don't like Heathrow or Jo'burg Airports. But I like Changi, KL and Manchester along with other airports. I did also like Don Muang it had an atmosphere that Suv will never have.

[onzestan]

Environmentalists, like myself,

Do environmentalists need chainsaws nowadays? I wonder what for?

cheers

onzestan

[mizzi39]

OMG! What a wasteful rant!

[flightcrew1]

Environmentalists, like myself,

Do environmentalists need chainsaws nowadays? I wonder what for?

cheers

onzestan

aha! Exactly! That made me laugh! Good catch as I had no idea it was "him" that was bringing in the chainsaw

and as jdinasia said: Go back and read the studies and investigate the bidding process and such.

[tw25rw]

The airport should still be serving Thailand for generations to come so it shouldn't matter too much that it wasn't built as cheaply and honestly as possible.

Personally, I don't see the big deal about the airport or understand why it attracts so much criticism. It's just another big city airport

[brahmburgers]

In a country like Thailand, where hundreds of thousands of parents don't send their kids to grammar school because they can't afford the new shoes/books/clothes that are required

huh?

Perhaps I mingle with the natives more than you, but I've seen first hand how many families on the fringes of Thai society - simply can't afford to send their little kids to school. The obligatory expenses for all new items each year is too much for their budgets. Thais will never get the wisdom of 'hand-me-down' as it pertains to clothes and/or schoolbooks.

Environmentalists, like myself,

Do environmentalists need chainsaws nowadays? I wonder what for?

onzestan

sometimes a tree or a large branch falls, and a chainsaw is handy to buck it up. Same if a large tree threatens a house, and/or it's diseased.

OMG! What a wasteful rant!

sorry you're bored. Who's holding your head to the computer screen and forcing you to read it? Go back to watching golf on TV, or slurping beer, or whatever it is you do to add pizzazz to your life.

[jdinasia]

Poor Brahm ....

I LIKE Swampy --- they were going for an image and they got it. They didn't build it for you or for me except in that they want people to arrive and be impressed. In the long run they are looking at increased $$ into the country from a new airport.

If it really bothers you, you could give up your internet and donate the savings to grammar school uniforms!

[tw25rw]

A lot of people in wealthy countries don't get the best education either. It's just tough and you have to take what is available for you.

[glyph]

I had no idea that the OP was either a licensed architect, or a mechanical engineer.

[PhilHarries]

Although I agree that the entire design of Suvarnabhumi has less to do with practicality and far more to do with national pride (face, ego - call it what you like) it is just another mega project in that respect. Some mega projects are huge because they have to be to overcome geographical difficulties in order to serve their purpose. But some are nothing more than governmental ego trips with every nation wanting the biggest and/or best whatever it is they're building. Just look at the billions China spent on the Olympics, nothing to do with practicality nor sporting necessity, everything just had to be big (I still think the bird's nest stadium looks like nothing more than a tangled heap of scrap iron but that's my personal view) and to hel_l with the cost.

As for an airport it is difficult to build one with big capacity in terms of passengers without it being physically big including the support infrastructure. The alternative is to have several smaller terminals like LHR which also has it's drawbacks.

I neither like nor particularly dislike Suvarnabhumi it is merely an airport, a portal through which I must pass entering and leaving Thailand. It functions reasonably well, it has facilities that could be better, it has facilities that I can, and do, live without no different to any other airport in the world. I do not go to airports for fun or to be amazed, astounded or entertained. I go there to travel and personally would prefer to roll up 10 minutes before departure and step straight from the taxi onto the plane. However I have to accept this is a little impractical unless I shell out for my own Lear jet but I'm still a few quid short.

[glyph]

Perhaps you'd be happier if the terminal cieling height was a practical 2m, and everything was painted white...just like home.

[lomatopo]

I'm guessing the OP just went to SBIA for the first time and was unimpressed?

I happen to think it is a world-class facility; beautiful and functional. I've had ~ 60 arrivals/deprtures including flying out the first day of operation.

Murphy/Jahn (American/German firm; did the new MUC terminal among others) were the architects. Here is a list of consultants:

TAMS Consultants / Earth Tech (Special Systems); John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. (Design Engineers Structural Concrete); Martin/Martin Inc. (Steel Superstructure); Werner Sobek Ingenieure GmbH (Steel Work / Façade); Flack + Kurtz Consulting Engineers (MEP); Transsolar Energietechnik GmbH (Climate and Environmental Consultant); AIK Expeditions Lumiere (Lighting Designer); BNP Associates, Inc. (Baggage Consultant)

[brahmburgers]

I had no idea that the OP was either a licensed architect, or a mechanical engineer.

I am an architect and was a licensed general building contractor in California for a number of years. But credentials wouldn't make much difference. Even a tramp from Bura Bori Island could observe the structures at SUV and surmise that the gargantuan cantilever in front and the two immense steel structures on either side are overbuilt and serve no practical purpose other than expensive sculptures. They're essentially vast roofs which don't effectively shade from the sun, nor keep out the rain.

[geriatrickid]

I think the observations made about the airport are valid in the context of today. Maybe the planners were anticipating future needs 10 years from now as PAX volume grows. Maybe it's too big now, but in a 5-10 years it might be adequate. So rather than have to keep expanding, it's worth it to build with the future in mind.

Let's face it, if they really want to be environmentally conscious and tourist friendly they need to finish the light rail link asap.

[bendix]

Just as a side issue, why do people always cite KLIA and SIngapore as model airports? I recently went through KLIA and it has always struck me as average at best. Underwhelming even. Get off the plane, and onto that dam_n train thing and then a march through wilderness areas to a scowling muslim at immigration.

The design is hardly worldclass - people complain about swampy's austerity, but isnt KLIA the same?

And don't get me started on its distance from the city - 53 freaking KM. Sure you can use the KLIA express, but then yuo have to get a taxi at the other end.

From touchdown to hotel? A minimum of 90 minutes everytime.

Singapore is better - much better - but the design is horrible. Low ceilings and carpeting that makes it look like the 1980s lounge of my old granma's living room.

[tw25rw]

Singapore is better - much better - but the design is horrible. Low ceilings and carpeting that makes it look like the 1980s lounge of my old granma's living room.

Changi was impressive in it's day, but that was about 1981.. The new terminal 3 looks impressive though. The beauty of Changi is that it is run by Singaporeans, hence it is efficient and comfortable, whereas BKK is run by Thais...

[orang37]

While I personally agree with the OP that Swampyboomboom is over-built, I don't have any problems with any country's decision to build a vast international airport for their capital city that is a national palladium of technology, shows "national face, etc." It's Thai's country, it's their airport, not mine.

While it gives me pause to know the architect (Jahn) was famous for the roof-collapse of his first major international project (Winkler building, St. Louis, Missouri, USA ?), evidently that wasn't his fault, and he did go on to fame and fortune : he's one of the world's most prolific architects.

I do find the OP's demeaning ad hominem attacks on people who responded critically to his statements absurd, suggestive to me that whether or not his critics are drinking beer, he is certainly swilling his own ego with gusto.

And the statement about all the kids who don't go to school because they can't afford the clothes in Thailand is a howler worthy of the Oprah Winfrey show in America.

I personally do not like SVBhumi for two reasons :

1. it's still full of the same unlicensed touts accosting travellers lke Don Meaung was (is ?). Wearing no identification, obnoxious posers, pestering scum, running petty scams. that to me is a national disgrace !

2. to me it is BUTT-UGLY : funereal, mortuary, necropolis : are some the terms I'd use to describe it. to me it does not reflect, embody, or promote, Thai (let alone Asian) cultural heritage and visual style : which can be so beautiful.

And. yes, I do believe that an airport could still be of the scale required for SVBhumi, facilitate the functional tasks demanded of handling passengers and baggage in great volume, and still have a very different aesthetic that would reflect the Thailand I know and love.

~o:37;

[technocracy]

Singapore is better - much better - but the design is horrible. Low ceilings and carpeting that makes it look like the 1980s lounge of my old granma's living room.

Changi was impressive in it's day, but that was about 1981.. The new terminal 3 looks impressive though. The beauty of Changi is that it is run by Singaporeans, hence it is efficient and comfortable, whereas BKK is run by Thais...

Changi is the definition of function over form.

The problem with Swampy in comfort terms is there is none!

In Swampy everything is made difficult as possible as an example - a basic necessity of an airport (particularly one that advertises itself as a hub) - flight transits. Do they have ALL the desks together .. . nope . . . is there a 700+m walk between them .. . yep . . . is there signposts at every or every other gate telling you which desk are where . . . . nope. If your lucky you find THE only signpost that is hidden behind a pillar and save yourself more unnescessary walking and wasting of time - something which is relatively important if you only have an hour or so between flights.

Oh and don't bother asking someone as they'll send you the wrong way . .. .

[brahmburgers]

And the statement about all the kids who don't go to school because they can't afford the clothes in Thailand is a howler worthy of the Oprah Winfrey show in America.

What part of 'kids who don't go to school because they can't afford the clothes' is such a howler?

Do you think it's not true? Ask some of the 'little people' (poor familes) in Thai villages whether that's true. Don't just ask people in the tourist industry, because they'll invariably tell you things that bolster Thailand's image.

I personally know of several families - just in my one tiny village in northernmost Thailand - who can't afford the required new clothes, new books, new shoes, new backpacks - for each of their kids - each new school year. If that's any indication of nationwide trends, the overall numbers are mind-numbing. Those are the types of numbers that the Thai gov't certainly wouldn't want publicized - even if it had them. Much of the people we're referring to are disenfranchised people at the fringes of 'society' - the types which gov't surveys rarely take in to account. Some don't even have proper ID cards, even though their families have been in Thailand for generations.

The current and past governments based in Bangkok have many many priorties higher than whether scruffy little kids can get to school. Indeed, most of what politicians do is to try and do as little as possible while still keeping their positions and privelege.

[jdinasia]

Why would you know any that can't afford school? You should be able to solve that by yourself!

Yes there are issues with the hilltribe people in your region but there's a school for them very close to you too!

(do you do ought else but complain about the place you choose to live?)

(The airport is still pretty nice! --- I thought I should say something to the subject!(

[brahmburgers]

I'm not the only one mentioning the sad state of affairs - where many Thai families cannot afford to send their kids to school.

Here are some excerpts from a Thai writer, who states it better than I. The full article is in today's Bkk Post at: http://bangkokpost.com/topstories/topstories.php?id=131857

'Educated' By Ms Sanitsuda Ekachai

"Although the constitution ensures every child's right to a free 12-year education, many are still falling through the cracks. And that starts early; only 88 per cent of primary school pupils make it to lower secondary and a mere 69 per cent to higher secondary."

"The network's in-depth study of 1,200 households in 50 communities reveals only 51 per cent of these needy children are enrolled in primary schools, and only 33 per cent of them finish it."

"To start with, free compulsory education is only free in the letter of the law; the state schools are poorly funded and are in dire need of extra cash. Parents still have to pay for books, stationary, sports and scout uniforms, computer classes and the so-called "donations". The Education Ministry pretends this is not happening while the parents turn their anger towards the schools, believing that the whole thing means corruption. For many poor children, it means having to forego schooling altogether or dropping out mid-way."

[tw25rw]

And not building an airport could have solved that problem forever?