Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airport Plans That Never Were-SAN  
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3629 times:

I am looking for Airport plans that reached the design stage, but for whatever reason, never made it to fruition.

What's got me started on this is San Diego.
Remembering back, when it was just one terminal building with just the two concourses.....there was the very real plan of extending to the West.

Now, this is where it gets interesting, in the early 1970s, SAN needed to add 15 gates.
The original design if my memory is correct, was (instead of the traditional linear pier built) a group of 3 small satellite buildings with 3 gates each.

I have searched the web high and low and have found nothing.

Does anyone remember this? Why was it changed? I have never seen any actual renderings of what this might even look like, which makes me all the more curious!

What do you know!?

And I'll also open this up to other airports that had unusual designs planned, but for whatever reason, went with something else.


Delete this User
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5559 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3585 times:

Stirling, you got me. I remember nothing about such a design for the original South-side expansion of what is now called T1. I do know that the original T1 opened on 3-5-1967 as a single-story building (well, the rotundas were single story anyway, with no jetways) and went thru a lot of improvements before T2 (now known as T2 East) finally was opened 12+ years later.

I'll see if I can find anything about the "satellite" design but that doesn't sound at all familiar to me.

Happy Holidays to All.

bb


User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1610 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3545 times:

Quoting Stirling (Thread starter):
Remembering back, when it was just one terminal building with just the two concourses.....there was the very real plan of extending to the West.

Now, this is where it gets interesting, in the early 1970s, SAN needed to add 15 gates.
The original design if my memory is correct, was (instead of the traditional linear pier built) a group of 3 small satellite buildings with 3 gates each.

Yes, you are correct. There were three 250 foot "square shaped modules" planned west of the original Terminal-1. If you can somehow get a hold of a NOV 1, 1968 edition of the Lindbergh Field Flight Schedule published by the Port of San Diego, you would see the concept. I probably have the only copy in existence, however. Looks like it was prepared by Frank L. Hope & Associates. Each square module had 5 gates and there was a three story restaurant between two of them. They were placed in a semi-circle around a parking lot. Looks like a nice concept.



Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3398 times:

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 2):
I probably have the only copy in existence, however. Looks like it was prepared by Frank L. Hope & Associates.

Are you able to scan that?
I would love to see ANYTHING on this design.

The question still begging.....why the design change? The only reason I can think of would be in the connectivity with the existing terminal..(?)

I am thinking the oil crisis of the early 70's had *something* to do with the design change, but haven't been able to wrap my brain around it fully.
From what I can gather, 1972 voters approved the 15 gate expansion, the oil crisis hit in 1973, terminal didn't open until 1979, with 3 fewer gates.
Maybe the decrease in gates, made the 3 modules would not have been cost-effective with just 4 gates each.
And then there is possible airline involvement. Did any of the tenant airlines throw a stink over the design?

Anyway, thanks Mr. Coronado for the confirmation!
However, I feel the only way to truly research the plan is to travel to San Diego and spend some time in the library, and the old Port Authority headquarters, as I can't imagine information as such what I want would have been transferred over to the new San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA).

Hey Boeing7E7....you don't have anything to the subject?



Delete this User
User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1610 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3276 times:

Quoting Stirling (Reply 3):
Are you able to scan that?
I would love to see ANYTHING on this design.

I wish I did have a scanner. Hang tight, I'll try to figure something out.



Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineLindy Field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3129 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi All,

Interesting thread. I'd never heard of this original proposal for the West Terminals. Coronado, if you're able to scan the schedule, please do! I don't have the Nov. 1968 SAN schedule but I do have scanned copies of a few others from the late 1960s. I've temporarily posted a few pages from the February 1968 schedule to my user profile for your enjoyment. The articles are especially interesting, concerning the completion of the PSA hangar and the problems of dealing with jumbo aircraft like United's DC-8-60 series.

Regards,

Edward


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5559 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

Hey folks, I found it, scanned it, and have my fingers, toes, and eyes crossed that it somehow is readable...

Big version: Width: 2592 Height: 3216 File size: 1693kb


(What an amazing memory you have, Coronado!)

Happy Holidays to All.

bb


User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1610 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3141 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 6):
Hey folks, I found it, scanned it, and have my fingers, toes, and eyes crossed that it somehow is readable...

That's the one. Thanks for being on top of it, SANFan!



Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

Hey SanFan! That is fantastic!

I guess the reason it didn't fly was because of its design bias to Widebodies...part of the text describes the ability to board at the 26 foot high level! Did they see the A380 coming or what!?

So with the oil crisis, and smaller aircraft, the radical design was considered too much....it is all making sense now!

Thanks to you guys for answering a big question I've had for some time....For a while I thought I'd imagined the entire thing!!!!



Delete this User
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5559 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2997 times:

Glad I could help (and DO it!)

What a kick: this expansion envisioned "flexible sleeves for boarding a/c directly from the 2nd level"; of course at this point in time (late 1968), jetways hadn't been seen (in SAN anyway) and didn't appear 'til years later when the rotundas were double-decked and those "flexible sleeves" finally came to Lindbergh! And you're right Stirling, they were actually going to be ready for boarding those futuristic Super-Jumbos from the 3rd floor!

In retrospect, it also appears that once the 3rd module had been built, any further expansion to the West would have been very difficult. Instead, what they ended up with, the current T2 East with its original 11 gates, was relatively easily expanded once again (T2 West) and will hopefully be further expanded (SOON!) yet again with the build-out of T2 West-West!

Neat stuff! Happy Holidays to All.
(Keep it rollin', Chargers!!!  praise  )

bb


User currently offlineLindy Field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3129 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2983 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SANfan,

Thanks a lot for scanning that and sharing it with us. Is there any chance we could convince you to scan and share the cover and any additional pages of interest?

I'd be happy to do the same with the 12/68, 12/70, and 12/79 issues of the SAN schedule which I have at hand.

Happy Holidays,

Edward


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2813 times:

Quoting Stirling (Reply 3):
Hey Boeing7E7....you don't have anything to the subject?

Before my time. My baby was what is now T2W. Seems ages ago now. That idea (you mention) would have been a pre-deregulation idea and would have built the airport into a corner. T2W is designed as the cornerstone for terminal replacement starting at the west and working east, assuming the new objective is making do - terminals have about a 50 year life span so Terminal 1 is coming due, Terminal 2E's pier is at the wrong angle and needs to go as well. MCRD would have been a better option 20 years ago to support the 64 gates a single runway can handle and proper road access due to land and dual taxiway accomodation (as a single runway airport), but that opportunity passed when about 2/3's of the place went historical registered. To much procrastination out there on this. Now they have a problem. A very big problem.

If one is to assume aircraft size increase as a result of SAN not moving to accomodate growth, the airport will need about 10,000' of linear space to accomodate about 18 787-3 size gates, about 18 757 gates and another 28 for 737s. To put this into some visual perspective, T2W (the existing gates plus an extension west as they are now pursuing) was initially conceived to support 18-20 737's (the existing can support 10 737's with some gate moving). If you assume this terminal is 20 gates, the other 44 gates take up about 7,700' and you have about 6,000' linearly to the east to work with due to a protected species area at the east end of the airfield and accomodate dual taxiways which are needed .

[Edited 2007-01-05 12:31:35]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Models Of A/c That Never Were? posted Fri Mar 17 2006 16:31:17 by CalAir
Experimental C/s That Never Were...... posted Mon Apr 12 2004 02:50:26 by UK_Dispatcher
Plane Designs That (thankfully) Never Were... posted Tue May 22 2001 09:33:04 by DesertJets
Dubai Moves Forward New Airport Plans posted Wed May 3 2006 09:40:08 by Fly-K
Northwest: Old Rules And A Future That Never Came posted Mon Oct 24 2005 00:12:49 by Matt D
Christchurch Airport Plans NZ$220M Upgrade posted Sun Aug 7 2005 05:11:37 by VirginFlyer
Are There Any Airlines That Never Got Accident? posted Sun May 1 2005 23:04:31 by Palladium
A340 And A330 Orders That Never Materialised. Why? posted Wed Feb 16 2005 14:39:25 by Juventus
...that Never Crashed –––> Until First Crash posted Sat Aug 21 2004 21:16:28 by OB1783P
Is CO The Only US Carrier That Never Flew BOS-Eur? posted Wed Jul 7 2004 17:36:50 by Zrs70