[HN Gopher] Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber ro...
___________________________________________________________________
Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy
Author : surprisetalk
Score : 392 points
Date : 2024-12-06 00:01 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (design-milk.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (design-milk.com)
| rediguanayum wrote:
| Gorgeous. Hopefully more airports will adopt similar wood themed,
| warm environments. Madrid International Airport is similar in
| tone: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/madrid-airport-
| interior.ht... which I very much like as well.
| vvillena wrote:
| The celining in Madrid airport is gorgeous, but it feels
| completely disconnected from the actual space below. The end
| result gives a feel similar to a convention center, where they
| built a big enclosed space, then fitted an airport terminal
| into it.
|
| Those pictures from the Portland terminal give a sensation of a
| much better integrated environment. It's the same vibe, but
| better executed.
| jayski wrote:
| I might end up visiting Portland just to see the airport.
| grigri907 wrote:
| It really is a pleasant place to be.
|
| There is a free theater with ~16 seats that shows 5-minute film
| shorts. And famously, any restaurant that has a brick and
| mortar in town can't charge prices higher in the airport.
|
| I've often thought it wouldn't be a terrible place to take a
| date, at least in the pre 9/11 security days when you could
| access the whole terminal.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Airports are starting to bring back the ability to walk
| around without a ticket!
|
| You obviously still have to go through security, but a ticket
| isn't required.
| vinay427 wrote:
| This reminds me of the fairly new Terminal 2 in Bengaluru,
| covered in (mostly?) bamboo and greenery:
| https://www.architecturaldigest.in/story/bengalurus-kempegow...
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Yes, the new terminal in Bengaluru is BEAUTIFUL! I was amazed
| walking through it with how lush it was. Really love that look
| and very fitting for the climate (more or less)
| rajnathani wrote:
| I came here to comment the same!
| ryeguy_24 wrote:
| Exactly. First thought in my head. It's beautiful and so
| calming.
| quercusa wrote:
| Portland has a history of impressive wooden buildings:
|
| https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/world-largest-log-cabin-por...
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| I wish we had more pretty architecture like this in the U.S. Our
| architecture is so utilitarian/corporate and built at the lowest
| price and just enough to meet building codes. I get why it is the
| way it is, but I can still wish.
| astrange wrote:
| Much of the issue is that city planners like it that way. The
| building codes require it, and when they don't, they'll have
| design review requirements where the planners will make you
| change it.
|
| There's a common modern look called a 5-over-1 which usually
| looks like a giant box made out of four different colored Lego
| sets. The random different colors are forced on them by
| planners who think it provides "articulation".
|
| The giant box look is because of double-stair requirements,
| which the US thinks provides fire safety but don't, and which
| force all big residential builds to be hotel-shaped. The PNW
| actually doesn't have these rules, although the rest of the
| country hasn't noticed yet.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| You can thank former Seattle CM Sally Clark almost
| singlehandedly for the articulation bullshit. And a lot of
| the dumb townhouse rules that made them all identical for a
| decade.
|
| And you know design review was created by an initiative on an
| off election? 15% of registered voters voted in favor.
|
| I think design review could be overturned constitutionally.
| But few people seem to focus on that issue for long enough to
| learn how to organize around it.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Design review has been suspended for three years in
| downtown Seattle:
| https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/09/25/seattle-downtown-
| desi...
| Schiendelman wrote:
| Yeah, but that just doesn't matter. Downtown Seattle is
| tiny, and it's an even smaller proportion of the space
| where we could be building housing across the city. Like
| 2%.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > The PNW actually doesn't have these rules, although the
| rest of the country hasn't noticed yet.
|
| For all our warts, I continue to believe the PNW is the best
| area of the country to live. I'm obviously biased. But I've
| lived a lot of places and I keep coming back here.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| It's horrible, absolutely terrible! No one would ever want
| to live there! Please, do not move there! /s
| wenc wrote:
| I mean to each their own.
|
| The PNW is good for certain types of people: those who love
| nature, are less urban, who are more introverted, less
| interested in high culture.
|
| I've also lived in many parts of the country and Canada,
| and the PNW has been the least favorite for me.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I think it's 4 over 1 here in the Seattle area. Concrete
| floor one with retail followed by 4 wooden floors of
| apartments, although that is changing to 5 over 2 in the last
| few years. Developers love them because they are easier to
| build and maximize sellable space.
| astrange wrote:
| The numbers actually aren't floors, they're sections of the
| building code. 1 is nonflammable materials like concrete
| and 5 is most flammable but cheapest. (Pretty sure everyone
| thinks it means # floors though.)
|
| 4 is mass timber, which is a newer very promising material.
| The article mentions the airport used it, but you can build
| towers from it quickly, safely, and less chance of hearing
| your neighbors through the wall.
|
| https://timberlab.com/projects/heartwood
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Oh, that makes sense. Ya, 5 over 1 makes sense in that
| context. They just happened to be height/floor limited as
| well compared to a pure concrete/steel construction.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| The International Departures hall at SFO is pretty nice though
| far more conventional steel and glass. I actually like it
| better than PDX, partly because they have the habit of showing
| excellent art at SFO.[0] That's true throughout the entire
| airport.
|
| [0] https://www.sfomuseum.org/
| csomar wrote:
| It's policy. Doha airport was designed by a company in St
| Louis. Doha airpot is a masterpiece and St Louis airport is a
| garage.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| We drove over to PDX a few weeks back not because we had any
| flights, just to check it out. It's gorgeous - I can't believe
| I'm saying that about an airport in the US - it's just an amazing
| space. In addition to the architecture there are huge video walls
| above the TSA entrance that have calming forest/coastal scenes.
| mofunnyman wrote:
| Certainly less miserable to look at inside than it was 20 years
| ago. Much better than the brutalist hell that is most of
| Portland.
| staplers wrote:
| PDX has ranked at or near the best airport in the country for
| decades. I imagine you watch a lot of fox news.
|
| source:
| https://www.oregonlive.com/news/g66l-2019/07/a6f7a0d4698366/...
| trallnag wrote:
| The environment certainly cares about whether you watch Fox
| News or not while polluting the earth flying around in a
| plane
| hipadev23 wrote:
| Brutalist hell? It's a vibrant city interlocked with greenery
| and flanked by Mt Hood
| astrange wrote:
| To be fair, I've been to Portland maybe 3-4 times including a
| few weeks ago, and this year was the first time I could
| actually see any of that because it wasn't raining.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| You should come visit during summer. June, July, August,
| and September are typically very sunny and dry, it's a
| wonderful time of year to be in Portland.
| ianburrell wrote:
| There are few Brutalist buildings around PSU.
|
| Downtown has a lot of bland fifty year old buildings. But I
| like them more than the complicated new ones. But downtown
| also still has a lot of old buildings.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Are we thinking of the same city? Maybe you're thinking of the
| one on the other coast? I'm not familiar with it, but the
| Portland in Oregon doesn't have much of anything brutalist
| about it.
| mulderc wrote:
| I flew out of PDX all the time around 20 years ago and it was
| by far the best US airport I went through back then. I'm not
| sure what you could mean by brutalist hell in terms of
| portland. There is a ton of green space throughout the city and
| little if any brutalist architecture.
| brailsafe wrote:
| It looks incredible and I'll take the first chance I get to go
| check it out, but the cynic in me bets that the international
| arrivals/layover/security check area is still just as dull and
| depressing as any other in the states. 2 people barely churning
| through a line of 150 stressed travellers that need to get to
| their next gate in 45 mins. I'd consider paying a fair bit more
| if I have it next time to not transit through if I can avoid it,
| always feels like hell. But that is admittedly very cynical and
| I'm sorry.
| trevoragilbert wrote:
| I can't speak to international arrivals (though I can to the
| rest of the airport, it's gorgeous), but while PDX is
| international it only has 5 direct international flights other
| than Canada. Hardly going to be the focus of the airport.
| brailsafe wrote:
| I suppose with such a large investment though, they'd want to
| plan for that possibly changing eventually, no? I'd be flying
| from/to Canada anyway, but if it was a viable and better
| option compared to others like SF, they'd get my business
| instead, not that there's much business to give
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| At 2.5M people, Portland, Oregon metro probably cannot
| support many international routes (except Vancouver). And
| it has very few businesses that would necessitate
| international business travel.
|
| Maybe a flight to Japan, London, mainland Europe, and
| Mexico.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| PDX is probably the last remaining major west coast
| airport that isn't going to be physically constrained, if
| anybody wants to start a new hub.
| bear141 wrote:
| There is a Delta direct to Amsterdam just because of Nike
| and Adidas.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| 100% agree, the international arrivals area is dreary and
| depressing. And slow. Get off the plane, go directly to a
| shuttle bus, drive around a while, then go in and wait in what
| was clearly never really intended to be an arrivals area.
|
| I gather than there are so few international arrivals that it
| will likely never be upgraded, but I sure would love to see the
| fancy face scanning electronic passport reader kiosks like
| other places have. And in a place that is reachable in the main
| terminal, without the shuttle bus experience.
| jeffbee wrote:
| It's a miracle that Portland has direct international service
| at all. They probably had to bodge on the customs area after
| the place was built to pick up that route to Vancouver. Also
| good to keep in mind that a lot of older airports seem
| kludged together because they were. Fifty years ago
| passengers were screened at the gate. Then they invented
| central screening. Then they invented TSA and stopped letting
| non-passengers into the terminals.
| cozzyd wrote:
| Vancouver has preclearance no?
| jeffbee wrote:
| I don't know what it was like in the 60's though.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'm very happy they have a direct route to LHR. I wish BA
| was more pleasant to fly, but at least they're using 787s
| for the route.
|
| > they invented TSA and stopped letting non-passengers into
| the terminals
|
| I'd like them to uninvent that. I so fondly remember when
| family could take you to the gate, and meet you when you
| came home. Now that planes have impenetrable doors, I don't
| think we need to keep up the absurd level of "security"
| jdenning wrote:
| I really wish we could get rid of the TSA, but I don't
| think it'll ever happen. It's not about security, the
| whole thing is a jobs program (and always was IMO).
| fakedang wrote:
| I think studies have shown that the TSA sucks at threat
| detection, but is a significant factor in threat aversion
| in the first place.
|
| It sucks but in the current world we live in, the
| alternative is travel bans placed against many countries
| a fraction of whose citizens have a propensity for
| terrorism. That would include a bunch of American allies
| and even the US, incidentally.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > I'd consider paying a fair bit more if I have it next time to
| not transit through if I can avoid it, always feels like hell.
| But that is admittedly very cynical and I'm sorry.
|
| Surprised no one has pointed this out to you: Get Global Entry
| (it also comes with TSA Pre). You'll get to go in the fast TSA
| lines (no taking belt/shoes off). And international arrivals is
| a breeze. In fact, since I've got it, I've not had to wait in
| line even _once_ at the immigration.
|
| To give you an idea, I flew into Seattle this year. Went into
| the Global Entry area. Straight to a kiosk (no line at all).
| The kiosk took my picture, and figured out who I was and that
| was it. No customs declaration even (which was weird, what if I
| _do_ have something to declare?).
|
| So: No line. Kiosk takes a picture. Never took my passport out
| to show to anyone. Good to go.
|
| In the old days, you'd have the kiosk scan your passport. And
| it'd ask if you're bringing in over $800 in goods (just yes/no
| - no need to itemize). But still, no line.
|
| I don't know what they charge now, but it was $100 and lasts 5
| years.
|
| If you live close to the Canadian/Mexican border, consider
| getting NEXUS, which gives you the fast lane when driving to
| these countries. It's only $50, and it includes Global Entry
| and TSA Pre. Fantastic deal. The down side is the interview
| locations are only near the border.
| evv wrote:
| If you prefer a video or want to see some of the construction
| techniques, the B1M recently did a video on Portland's new
| airport:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRAkjoUdN_I
|
| Pretty impressive how they pulled it off while minimizing impact
| on airport operations.
| wrp wrote:
| I traveled to Asia for many years out of PDX. Now I have to go
| through SEA, SFO, or LAX, all of which are a very inferior
| experience. What happened with PDX? I miss the PDX-NRT run.
| jzymbaluk wrote:
| really cool! I've been interested in mass timber as a building
| material for a couple of years now, it has a lot of potential as
| a replacement for steel and concrete, with the benefits of being
| carbon-negative and completely renewable. The world's tallest
| "plyscraper" is currently (as of 2022) the Ascent MKE building in
| Milwaukee Wisconsin at 284 feet tall and 25 stories[1]
|
| [1] https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/delivering-
| mission/apply/w...
| UltraSane wrote:
| It took six years to source all the wood needed.
|
| Here is an interesting video about its construction
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRAkjoUdN_I
| internet_points wrote:
| Less time than most major building projects tend to get delayed
| =P
| nxobject wrote:
| I was proud to be part of the mock passenger test days! The only
| time I've ever bought pen-knives through TSA (only to have to
| pick up a new fake participant script and return.)
| blitzar wrote:
| How are their body cavity searches?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I've seen the pictures, and it's _amazing_. PDX was already
| considered a pretty decent airport before, I can 't wait the
| renovated terminal in person.
| im_down_w_otp wrote:
| I just flew through there and saw the renovation for the first
| time, and it is an absolutely _stunning_ transformation. Just
| incredible. I loved it. The whole thing. From the ceiling to the
| ticketing islands to the reworked security to the amphitheater
| style seating areas at the terminal exit where friends & family
| can await your arrival.
|
| It feels spacious, natural, functional, and hospitable.
| georgeburdell wrote:
| Please tell me they kept a patch of the iconic carpet around
| cpitman wrote:
| That went away years ago
| andrewf wrote:
| They recreated some.
| https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2024/04/pdxs-beloved-
| tea...
|
| There's looottts of the 2015 carpet as well.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I saw some up on that upper level near the top of the stadium
| seating.
| danielodievich wrote:
| A small sliver of it is on my table as a coaster. Love that
| quirky design, blue green color.
| psc wrote:
| Such a notable carpet it even has its own wiki article! https
| ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_International_Airport...
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Sorry, but that's some ugly carpet. Doesn't mesh with the
| absolutely gorgeous wood design.
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| One of the host hotels for Dragon Con in Atlanta is the
| Marriott Marquis, which until several years ago had a very
| iconic carpet that has been since been replaced with
| something boring.
|
| Many people who spent many hours staring at the old carpet
| while in line for panels missed it very much and founded
| the Cult of the Carpet[0]. It has "priests" that wear robes
| with the pattern, you can buy bags and t-shirts with the
| pattern, etc. My favorite is the guy who painted his storm
| trooper armor with the pattern.
|
| [0] https://www.11alive.com/article/news/weird/dragon-con-
| cult-o...
| araes wrote:
| If you'd like to join the "Cult of Marriott Carpet",
| here's a handy link with tilable patterns (1, 4 (2x2), 9
| (3x3), 16 (4x4), 25 (5x5), 36 (6x6) premade), reference
| photos, and fabric sample tests of the pattern on 4
| fabrics for costumes (Cotton Poplin, Basic Cotton, Silk
| Crepe de Chine, Organic Cotton Sateen)
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| The carpeted walkways have it (it's new, but that same iconic
| design)
| sexy_seedbox wrote:
| Is it nicer than Singapore Changi /Jewel?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Probably not, but Portland OR is also a much smaller city.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| No, this is mostly the story of a small local airport that
| was dingy becoming more modern and airy. But it has nowhere
| near the traffic, amenities, or experience of Changi.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Given the smaller size and fact that you can smoke weed, it's
| better
| sexy_seedbox wrote:
| Death penalty if done in Singapore.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_with_the_Death_P
| e...
| refurb wrote:
| Not for smoking. Only for smuggling a shockingly low
| amount of 0.5 kg. Locals don't get too upset when poor
| foreigners get executed.
|
| If you're caught smoking (citizens can be tested at the
| airport and a positive result is a possession charge)
| you'll likely have to serve a 3-6 month detention at a
| drug treatment facility and so drug tests for the next
| 2-3 years.
|
| If clean, you'll be stuck with a criminal record for the
| rest of your life which will significantly minimize your
| career options.
|
| If busted again using, you'll get repeated higher and
| higher prison terms measured in years.
| NBJack wrote:
| Not sure why folks are down voting you; it's a legitimate
| fact.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Singapore
|
| https://www.cnb.gov.sg/educational-resources/myths-and-
| facts...
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| > It feels spacious, natural, functional, and hospitable.
|
| If we want to solve the climate crisis, this is everything an
| airport should not be.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Is there any room for ornamentation in your view then? I'm
| afraid that your cause is dead in the water with that
| perspective.
| mionhe wrote:
| How should it be? Are you thinking it would be outside in the
| elements? Or is there a building type/design that you're
| thinking of?
| sojournerc wrote:
| How does a cramped, artificial, non-functional airport solve
| the climate crisis?
| ddejohn wrote:
| Maybe by discouraging air travel? lol I dunno.. silly take
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Finally, someone who is not totally dull.
|
| Yes, by making prettier and bigger airports do you think
| that encourages or discourages air travel?
| signatoremo wrote:
| That is indeed silly. Why air travel and not say, video
| games, or fashion? Which one is sillier by your
| definition? And why are you here on HN when you can be
| somewhere else more productive? Lot of silly things human
| do, all affecting climate, why single out air travel?
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| > Why air travel
|
| Aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
| anon291 wrote:
| If we want to solve climate, we should invest in nuclear, but
| those who want to 'solve climate' don't seem to care, so here
| we are
| lurking_swe wrote:
| so do tell, which airport do you like? Or should we just ban
| all air travel? I don't think you'll get many people to agree
| to that so that idea is dead in the water.
|
| And apparently private jets are of no concern! The average
| private citizen must suffer! lol. I'd recommend banning
| private jets to start...that might actually make a decent
| dent in air travel emissions without punishing normal
| travelers.
|
| If you want to discourage air travel, tax the fuel
| appropriately. It's not a hard concept. For the people that
| are traveling, i don't see why it's a problem that their
| experience is nice.
| astrange wrote:
| It is indeed a very nice airport, but I think the secret is they
| copied Tokyo Haneda, which is just about as woody.
|
| (The international part anyway - the domestic terminal is
| plainer.)
| 9x39 wrote:
| Definitely my favorite local airport. It's beautiful and the flow
| of the airport has been much improved over the last few years,
| IMO.
|
| Highly recommend Screen Door for southern breakfast when stopping
| through.
| bhouston wrote:
| Reminds me of the TD Place Stadium wooden facade they build in
| Ottawa, Canada:
|
| https://springvalleycorp.ca/index.php/td-place-stadium/
|
| Is similarly curved, has exposed yellow wood, with the same
| spacious layering construction.
| teruakohatu wrote:
| It looks beautiful. It talks about it being structural. Is it
| really? It looks more like a suspended ceiling below steel
| girders.
|
| Our largest airport (AKL) is in the process of rebuilding both
| domestic and international terminals. They are trying for a
| timber ceiling [1] with rubber floors [1]. It seems a confused
| design.
|
| > A 'cost-effective'' mix of durable carpeted and rubber flooring
| was being used inside and tray profile steel on the exterior. [0]
|
| It can't be any worse than our current airport.
|
| [1]
| https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/companies/airlines/first...
| ajross wrote:
| It's the renovated interior of a pre-existing building, so
| yeah: not structural, at least no more than needed to hold up
| its own weight. But it really is very nice.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| They renovated the existing structure and expanded it as
| well, doubling the capacity of the airport. They did a lot of
| interesting work to make it earthquake proof. Check out the
| video, I'm pretty sure someone posted it in this discussion.
| stevesearer wrote:
| There does appear to be metal structure, but in this photo you
| can see the beams between the metal appear to be mass timber:
| https://design-milk.com/images/2024/12/ZGF-Portland-Airport-...
|
| This has more information about the structure including
| diagrams:
|
| https://www.zgf.com/work/5683-port-of-portland-pdx-airport-m...
| directevolve wrote:
| In Portland, we also have the world's tallest mass timber
| building, Carbon12. Mass timber is definitely structural here.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon12
| audunw wrote:
| Not the tallest in the world. It was surpassed by Mjostarnet
| in Norway and now Ascent in Milwaukee is the tallest.
|
| It's not even remotely close to the height of these new
| buildings. It's 26m, while the three tallest now are around
| 85m.
|
| Not to say it's not impressive anyway. I applaud all the
| progress that has been made in replacing concrete with wood
| in large buildings. We should build more buildings like that
| (as long as we source wood sustainably)
| directevolve wrote:
| Whoops, thanks for the correction on the height - tallest
| in the US, at least at the time it was built.
| wcfrobert wrote:
| It's a mix of steel and wood. Curved Glulam beams sits on top
| of massive steel trusses, which are mostly hidden from view.
| The steel trusses in turn sit on top of big Y columns. The roof
| is seismically isolated too.
| Extropy_ wrote:
| Anyone know why Douglas Fir wood is considered a sustainable
| building material? A quick Google search says that species takes
| 50-100 years to mature
| tills13 wrote:
| I believe in this case they aren't waiting for it to mature.
| They use what's called LVL (laminate veneer lumber) which is
| basically thin sheets of the wood glued together (think plywood
| but thicker) and then recut into dimensional sizes. The end
| product is both stronger and straighter than conventional
| lumber. And because you don't need a large cross section
| (almost literally any size will do), you can have a pretty
| short planting -> harvesting cycle.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| PDX is not using LVL, they're using glulam. That's 2x4 and
| 2x6 dimensional lumber glued together.
|
| https://www.apawood.org/pdx-gets-back-to-its-roots-with-
| engi...
| tills13 wrote:
| Cool -- good info, thank you.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| That just makes it slightly more expensive than a faster
| growing timber, most of the cost of timber production is
| labour, machinery depreciation, transport.
|
| Steel is 100% recyclable, indefinitely, and energy source
| agnostic.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| 50-70 years is the typical harvest time in Oregon. This works
| out fine because we have a large amount of forest, douglas fir
| is the most productive harvested timber by acre, and they do
| not harvest the whole forest at once. They typically harvest 1
| square mile sections at a time.
|
| Here are some pictures to give an idea of the logging pattern:
| https://imgur.com/a/grid-grid-logging-oregon-ewNJL2e
| int_19h wrote:
| Sure, and there are tree farms that have been around for longer
| than that.
| dcchambers wrote:
| Wow. Modern architecture doesn't often leave me at a loss for
| words but that is stunning.
| swayvil wrote:
| How do they dust it?
| tomcam wrote:
| Ex-Timberwolves
| cozzyd wrote:
| I flew into PDX last weekend and was very pleasantly surprised.
| Now if only they had managed to put the MAX terminal indoors...
| 0max wrote:
| Natural features and characteristics are becoming in-vogue with
| airport design. Cebu and Clark in the PH have a similar timber
| roof design, as did Bangalore Kempegowda when I flew out of it.
| omegaham wrote:
| I just flew through there, it's wonderful.
| xrd wrote:
| And, if you are lucky, you'll be able to hug a llama there.
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/11/03/nx...
| Animats wrote:
| It looks like someone really liked wood slat room dividers [1].
| Or maybe a lobbyist for the wood industry was involved.
|
| Wood slat partitions were seen in mid-century modern designs,
| when rooms became more open plan but some sense of division was
| needed. They were also used in the 1970s to make small cheap
| apartments look bigger.
|
| Still, it's good to see some US airports looking better. Most of
| the Asian countries have much nicer airports than the US.
|
| [1] https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/wood-slat-
| partitio...
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Timber is basically one of the founding industries of the PNW,
| so it's perfectly appropriate and local for PDX to use it.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Vancouver BC did a huge timber pavilion in Beijing around the
| 2008 Olympics. It was an interesting experience, I'm not sure
| what their goal was. I find Chinese airports to be really
| generic though, yes, they have high metallic ceilings, but they
| somehow still manage to be drab. Maybe Chengdu can do a bamboo
| airport or something.
| block_dagger wrote:
| Looks nice! Too bad it's at the center of some of the most
| polluting tech we have - jet travel.
| dexterdog wrote:
| Also too bad it's just interior design and not being used for
| anything structural.
| alwinaugustin wrote:
| This looks good. Bangalore airport in India also has kind of
| similar wooden design based on bamboo. check this out -
| https://youtu.be/epYGptLAaio
| ryeguy_24 wrote:
| I was just there and thinking the exact same thing. Looks
| identical. I am curious to know if the designer is the same.
| swalling wrote:
| The wood is pretty, but as someone who uses this terminal, the
| key improvement is that they raised the ceiling and significantly
| increased the amount of natural light. Here's a good photo of
| what it looked like before:
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portland_Internation...
|
| The major functional drawback is that wayfinding for both
| arrivals and departures is much worse. The overall flow of foot
| traffic is way more confusing than say, the newer terminals at
| SFO.
| tadfisher wrote:
| This is Phase 1. Phase 2 will replace the rest of the terminal
| structure (the part that was open during Phase 1 construction)
| and directly connect foot traffic to the gates. The long outer
| walkways are temporary and their walls will be removed.
| swalling wrote:
| Ah! I thought it was done, but that makes more sense now that
| I looked at https://www.pdxnext.com/Stories/Details/main-
| terminal-openin...
| Sparkyte wrote:
| It's a lot like Frieza or a battle with Gandondorf. We got
| more phases before it shows it's real form.
| MostlyStable wrote:
| That's good to hear. I had assumed there _must_ be more
| planned (partly because some parts are still boarded off)
| because the current walk distance from security to the gates
| is just awful; but it 's good to hear confirmation.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| I believe the other improvement people don't pay attention to
| is the new TSA scanners you don't have to take your laptop out.
| paranoidrobot wrote:
| Sounds like the same scanner tech that has been deployed at
| some Australian airports.
|
| Flying out of Melbourne 18 months ago and I'm getting ready
| to take my laptop and water bottle out. Nope, firmly told to
| keep it all in my bag. They still pulled me aside, but had a
| cool 3D model of the inside of my bag.
|
| Of course they ruin the efficiency advantage of that by then
| putting us through body scanners. If you're not in the ideal
| BMI range the thing needs to fail three times before they ask
| you to grope yourself and then do a swipe/scan of your hands.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Ahh is that why. I'm pretty heavy too and I've been groped
| way too much in Amsterdam too :(
| bloomingeek wrote:
| Hah! When flying back to the states through Heathrow,
| some years ago, the TSA gentleman frisked me so well I
| jokingly asked him if I owed him dinner. He very briefly
| cracked a smile, then told me to move along.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I got dinged by the hand wipes for "positive explosive
| residue". My only guess about that it could have been was I
| was still using the nicotine pouches at the time and they
| do have an interesting powder on them. They said it happens
| pretty often, but I was pretty wigged out and I'm usually a
| very calm traveler.
| WildGreenLeave wrote:
| Most people are within BMI range, I for one, actually enjoy
| the benefit. And as long as the majority of the people
| benefit from it I prefer it this way then the other way
| around.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| You're lucky you get to use those.
|
| In Holland they had those at Schiphol Airport and we were
| able to leave liquids in our bags and the 100ml limit was
| removed. But the EU ordered it to be reintroduced because
| they wanted the rules the same within Europe.
|
| Edit: This previously said we could no longer keep the
| laptops in our bags but this part was not affected, I've
| amended this post to avoid confusion.
| Underpass9041 wrote:
| A couple of days ago this was not the case, they use CT
| machines and did not require anything to be taken out of
| bags.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah it's a new EU law that takes effect soon. I'll look
| it up, one moment.
|
| Edit: Ok oops I was wrong, it was about liquids. This had
| been relaxed with the new scanners too but it had to be
| re-tightened on EU orders.
| https://www.trbusiness.com/regional-news/europe/dutch-
| airpor...
| vdsk wrote:
| CDG in Paris did not need me to take out the laptops, so
| I'm not sure it's the EU fault for Schiphol
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah I was confused, it was the new liquid rules that
| were a problem. Sorry.
|
| I'm glad the laptops can still stay. I don't travel with
| liquids so much (I just have toiletries at the places I
| go to already) but electronics I have a lot.
| vdsk wrote:
| Yeah, I saw your other comment just after posting. I
| didn't know there was a movement to increase the volume
| for liquids. Hope it gets done soon
| rsynnott wrote:
| > But the EU ordered it to be reintroduced because they
| wanted the rules the same within Europe.
|
| This is incorrect, though there was so much confusion
| around the reporting on this that it's not surprising that
| people got this impression. The EC allowed the scanners in
| the first place, but has reinstated the 100ml rule because
| they don't work properly. This is implied to be a software
| problem, and the reinstatement is implied to be temporary,
| but there's no timeline to lift the restriction again.
|
| Vaguely coherent, though still not great, explanation here:
| https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/08/23/100ml-limit-
| on...
| WildGreenLeave wrote:
| As you have figured out this change was _only_ about the
| liquids to adhere to EU standards, I of course dislike it
| as somewhat frequent flyer, but it makes sense to make a
| standard.
|
| Now if only I could leave my laptop in everywhere, that
| would be nice. I never fly without my laptop and it gets
| old quite fast somehow having to figure out if I should
| take it out (and spent 5 minutes putting it back in, which
| sucks if it was not required) or try to take it out when
| people are waiting on you. I just wished airports would put
| clear signs up what you have to take out so I can prepare
| before I get to the belt.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| > people don't pay attention
|
| Let's start from the fact that people never asked for TSA. It
| was imposed on them and never went away.
| argiopetech wrote:
| There's nothing more permanent than a temporary government
| measure...
| kube-system wrote:
| Almost nobody wanted TSA to be temporary. It was created
| permanently with near unanimous support, 2 months after
| airlines' own security had quite an infamous failure.
| argiopetech wrote:
| They're back to making me take my belt off, though. I had
| purchased a belt with a plastic buckle specifically for this
| purpose...
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| If you had TSA Precheck -- which if you fly more than a
| couple of times a year is well worth it IMO -- then you
| already didn't need to take your laptop out (or shoes off).
| (On the other hand I see no point in CLEAR over Precheck)
| kube-system wrote:
| The only point I see to CLEAR is to cut the line in
| airports where everyone has precheck.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| makes sense but so far I haven't experienced that --
| well, one time the precheck line was longer than the
| regular line (so I just went to the regular line)
|
| but maybe for travelers who regularly travel at super
| busy times (i.e., flying out of DC on a Friday evening)
| benefit from CLEAR
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| This varies from airport to airport in my experience. I've
| had precheck for almost a decade by now and have been
| through several precheck scanner lines where I've had to
| pull out laptops.
| samcheng wrote:
| Does any of the famous carpet still remain?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_International_Airport...
| fakedang wrote:
| The old carpet was replaced but the renovations are planning
| to lay out new carpeting with the original design, according
| to the Wiki article.
| NBJack wrote:
| Wow. That is an impressive rabbit hole to explore.
|
| > She also said that the Port of Portland "understand[s] that
| people have an emotional connection to the carpet".
|
| Not a phrase I expected to read today.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Pittsburgh Airport also has some fairly "famous" carpet. I
| wonder when they will rip that out. I have fond memories of
| it!
| araes wrote:
| > Features "mood-enhancing colors"
|
| We hate your "mood-enhancing" attempt and obsessively
| collect the old carpet so our living rooms can have actual
| mood enhancement from the carpet we actually liked. Such
| demand businesses "could request 1,000 square yards (840
| m2)" (out of approx 100,000 m2). Only four (4) were
| actually made available. [1] Still goes for decent ($200 /
| sq. ft.) prices online [2] and people still freak out when
| they spot it somewhere. [3]
|
| [1] https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/pdx-carpet/
|
| [2] https://www.ebay.com/itm/176478315730
|
| [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/10aikmb/old_
| schoo...
|
| > 2022, iconic carpet would be returning to the airport
| after the terminal was remodeled.
|
| Anyways, rabbit hole relevant. "For long you live and high
| you fly"
| Arrath wrote:
| I'm one of those people. My mom was an executive who
| traveled to DC practically weekly, so I have fond memories
| of going go PDX often go see her off and pick her up with
| my dad. That carpet features in those memories.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| It's new carpet but with that same design.
| dylan604 wrote:
| That wiki article reads much like a press release that I'm
| surprised that it has been allowed by the edit police
| ralfd wrote:
| The indoor trees are wild!
| xattt wrote:
| > ... wayfinding ... is much worse
|
| I assumed they would have detached any signange hanging from
| the ceiling before lifting it. The text would be too small to
| read otherwise.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Oh yeah that was a dark hole. Brr.
|
| Much better now.
| ciabattabread wrote:
| How much in additional HVAC costs result from having high
| ceilings though?
| CrazyStat wrote:
| Portland has pretty mild weather. Probably not much.
| lurking_swe wrote:
| society should have _some_ nice things, not everything needs
| to be cost optimized to the extreme with a microscope. :)
|
| On the bright side, they used timber for almost all of the
| construction here which is effectively a "carbon sink", which
| is unusual for an airport.
| obelos wrote:
| In addition to the great lighting, the new design also has much
| improved acoustics. The sound dampening is impressive. I can
| have conversations without straining to pick up words through
| the din of echoes, and the ambience has a nice warm sense of
| quiet.
| Anechoic wrote:
| FAA through the National Academies did a research study a few
| years ago [1] to provide guidance on improving the
| intelligibility of PA systems and also improving the overall
| acoustics of airport terminals. The idea is that this
| guidance would be used for terminal renovations and new
| construction. It looks like they may have put this to use! (I
| was on the team but not an author of the final report).
|
| https://crp.trb.org/acrpwebresource2/improving-
| intelligibili...
| Analemma_ wrote:
| I'm really glad that recognition of acoustics in airport
| design is gradually gaining steam. As a Seattle resident I'm
| pretty jealous of people who fly through SFO regularly,
| because that airport is a joy to wait in because of how quiet
| it is. Now apparently I get to be jealous of PDX as well.
| davepeck wrote:
| Beautiful.
|
| And: it's exciting to see more mass timber construction in the
| PNW. Closer to home for me is the University of Washington's
| Founder's Hall: https://www.archpaper.com/2022/10/lmn-architects-
| completes-u...
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| This is the first article I've read about it that doesn't mention
| the cost.
|
| $2.15 billion (yes, with a B).
| kjbreil wrote:
| This is just so fitting for Portland's airport; the entire
| article and the airport design are quintessentially Portland
| tcmart14 wrote:
| Flew out of there recently to a trip to Minnesota. I wasn't aware
| that they were redoing it, but when I walked in, I definitely
| enjoyed it. It really is a beautiful design.
| sverhagen wrote:
| It is stunning, indeed. Now, I was there a few days after this
| new area opened, to pick up some family, so I didn't go through
| the security check, but from a distance that part still looked
| like the same unwieldy bottleneck with the messy temporary-yet-
| permanent barrier belts. Some airports have already re-envisioned
| their security check, Amsterdam/Schiphol looks nice, I hope
| that's still in the works for Portland, instead of perpetuating
| this narrowing trap.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| correct, they're redoing a different part of the concourse now,
| and once it's all done the temporary stuff will go away.
|
| that's just what's required to rehab an airport while it is
| still in active use.
| postmeta wrote:
| Please bring back PDX-NRT or PDX-HND Japan direct flight! and
| while im begging, with a 787 or nicer plane
| MeteorMarc wrote:
| Glulam is new for me, online knew CLT:
| https://seagatemasstimber.com/what-are-the-key-differences-b...
| awinter-py wrote:
| glulam archipelago
| mkj wrote:
| The lessons learned page has some interesting details of the
| construction process. https://www.zgf.com/ideas/6785-lessons-
| learned-in-prefabrica...
| armanhq wrote:
| This feels like a space designed with humans in mind as opposed
| to a purely transitory space. It's stunning
| morsch wrote:
| I agree it looks nice, but dressing up an airport in sustainable
| materials won't materially change the fact that a flight Boston -
| NYC (one-way!) blasts through ~0.7t[1] of CO2eq of your yearly
| budget of 1-3t[2]. It won't change the fact, but I'm sure it'll
| make it easier to forget or ignore.
|
| [1]
| https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=75775...
|
| [2] e.g. https://ieep.eu/publications/carbon-inequality-
| in-2030-per-c...
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Not to mention, besides the wood material being, well, wood...
| it's a relatively small amount when you think about it, and the
| amount of processing involved which basically turn it into a
| different material altogether outweighs any sustainability.
| Plus, with all the glues / epoxies / whatever they use, that
| wood-based material isn't going to be degradable at all. It
| puts me in mind of "bamboo" products, which also relies on a
| lot of glues and processing to make it a wood analog.
| amelius wrote:
| Well the fact that it doesn't degrade means the carbon stays
| trapped.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| > Plus, with all the glues / epoxies / whatever they use,
| that wood-based material isn't going to be degradable at all.
|
| That's kinda the point though. You don't want it degrading in
| situ. That's why we treat wood.
|
| In a situation indoors like here it will suffer less but
| still.. I used to live in a wooden house and the maintenance
| was a PITA. Having to repaint every 5 years or so. And that
| was wood that was treated already.
| dig1 wrote:
| Sadly, it's true. In my opinion, this is the hypocrisy of the
| modern 'green' agenda - we endlessly discuss pollution, yet we
| cling to the comforts of modern life, many of which cause even
| greater harm.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Personally I'd love to take more trains instead of planes,
| and bike more instead of driving, but the system (at least in
| the US) just isn't set up for that.
|
| Train travel is expensive and sparse and slow, biking most
| places is uncomfortable and unsafe due to crappy
| infrastructure.
| surfingdino wrote:
| I agree. Trains are often a more efficient, more
| comfortable, and greener way to travel. I would love to be
| able to take them more often on weekends here in the UK,
| but they are expensive to the point of costing more than
| air travel, which makes no sense.
| darkfloo wrote:
| Planes are cheaper as a function of the infrastructure
| needed to allow their use (? Feel free to correct me). As
| long as we allow airplanes companies to not pay for the
| long term externalities that they are creating planes
| will stay cheaper.
| olalonde wrote:
| Isn't clinging to the comforts of modern life worth heating
| the planet a bit? It doesn't seem like an unreasonable
| tradeoff to me.
| burkaman wrote:
| Yes it is, but we've already heated the planet a bit. What
| we're trying to do now is prevent heating the planet a lot,
| which will come with much greater consequences (mass
| migration to escape heat and rising seas, droughts,
| famines, "natural" disasters, etc.).
| returningfory2 wrote:
| We can have it both ways. In ~50 years in the US, 99% of cars
| will be electric and 99% of electricity generation will be
| carbon negative. We can keep our comforts of modern life,
| like cars, while not damaging the planet.
|
| I accept there is not a story for air travel, yet.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Air travel industry is investing into a biofuel future
| ianburrell wrote:
| Modern comforts like electricity, cars, heating, and cooling.
| Those are most of the CO2 that people produce.
|
| It is dumb to give up modern comforts when we know how to
| make them green by making electricity renewable and
| electrifying everything. Changing habits like reducing
| driving and increasing transit would help. Some things will
| be hard, like airplanes and concrete.
|
| I agree somewhat that there is lots of distractions. There is
| a lot of talk about plastic and recycling that really has
| little to do with climate change.
| Perz1val wrote:
| The carbon emission is not a problem, the imbalance is. When we
| burn fossil fuels, we use carbon that was stored by dead plants
| being buried. We take carbon from the ground and dump it in the
| atmosphere. Plants take carbon from the atmosphere. If were to
| bury the equivalent amount of wood, we would be equal. Buried
| wood is not useful, but building from it also locks the carbon
| somewhere else that isn't an atmosphere. So... there actually
| is a finite number of wooden airports that completely offsets
| airplane carbon emissions.
| closewith wrote:
| 1 kilo of wood sequesters (temporarily for the most part)
| about 2kg CO2 equivalent, so for the GP's example of a single
| seat one-way from Boston - NYC, you'd need to sequester 350kg
| of wood.
|
| To sequester the ~800 Mt of CO2 emitted by aviation annually,
| you'd need to sequester about 400 billion kilograms of wood.
| So a finite but absurd amount.
| LargeWu wrote:
| Not only that, you have to build new wooden airports every
| single year to keep up.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Or you transition the airline industry to biofuels that are
| inherently carbon neutral.
| pmayrgundter wrote:
| Interesting point!
|
| It looks like Skanska is GC for the Project, and cites it as
| a 9 acre (!) lumber roofing system[SK], and that it uses 3.5M
| board foot of Douglas Fir Project Lumber[PL].
|
| Douglas Fir is 3.2 pounds per board foot, or 1.45kg [DFM]. So
| 1.45 * 3.5M = 5Mkg of lumber for PDX airport.
|
| DF has an Embodied CO2 of 1.6kgCO2/kgLumber [DFC]. A little
| hard to believe? But maybe that's bc a lot of the mass of a
| tree is left in the ground. Worth following up.
|
| 1.6kgCO2/kgLumber * 5MkgLumber = 8MkgCO2 = 8KtCO2
| embodiment/sequestration from the PDX roof project. (tho
| there's a lot more to the project that probably goes in the
| other direction)
|
| Global CO2 emissions from commercial flights is
| ~60MtCO2/month [CF], so we need roughly 12,000 airports per
| month, 144,000/yr, to offset flight CO2 emissions.
|
| There's 9000 commercial airline airports [NA] (tho obv many
| smaller than PDX, but they would also represent less CO2 from
| their flights), so 144,000/9000 is a 16x annual airport
| rebuild rate we'd need to offset CO2 emissions from the
| flights they service.
|
| So yeah, this is absurd on the face of it.
|
| But, how much of the mass of an airport is the roof? If it's
| like 1/100th the total mass, and you start building airports
| with all wood (foundation, runways, etc) you'd get to 16%
| annual rebuild rate to offset flight emissions. Still too
| high to be plausible. But another 10x somehow and you get to
| ~1% range of annual airport rebuild rate to offset emissions.
|
| Then you'd have something.
|
| [SK] https://www.usa.skanska.com/what-we-
| deliver/projects/278172/...
|
| [PL] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnoseid/2024/08/19/portla
| nds-...
|
| [DFM] https://www.globalwood.org/tech/tech_wood_weights.htm
|
| [DFC] https://www.douglasfir.co.nz/net/environment/carbon-
| footprin...
|
| [CF] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1500409/global-
| aviation-...
|
| [NA] https://sentinel-aviation.com/blog/over-40000-airports-
| in-th...
| morsch wrote:
| > tho there's a lot more to the project that probably goes
| in the other direction
|
| I mean, this is obviously why this is just a fun math
| exercise and not much else. Building an airport, even if
| you build part of it out of wood, is not net carbon-
| negative.
| pmayrgundter wrote:
| Just finished the full edit.. check it out. If the full
| airport is made out of wood, seems like it's getting
| towards plausible, or at least not obviously wrong
|
| Most uncertainty is how much mass the ceiling is compared
| to rest of airport. Maybe it's more like 1/10th. Hmm
| morsch wrote:
| Apparently they used 4.4 million cubic yards of concrete
| during the construction of Denver airport around 1993.
|
| That's 3.364x10^6 m3, 1 m3 of concrete weighs 2.4 tonnes
| (I'm sure it varies), so roughly 8 million tonnes of
| concrete.
|
| https://www.concreteconstruction.net/_view-
| object?id=0000015...
|
| I'm not convinced the wood used in the Portland airport
| project is net negative in itself, once you factor in the
| emissions of harvesting, processing and transporting it.
| I.o.w. leaving the ugly old roof in place would probably
| have been better, in terms of CO2eq emitted.
| pmayrgundter wrote:
| I found a more authoritative reference, from the
| Institute of Structural Engineers, which appears to be a
| major international organization [ISE].
|
| The Embodied Carbon figure they use is 1.64kgCO2/kg
| timber as a rule of thumb [ISE-EC], and agrees with what
| I posted above
|
| For processing that yields built lumber, they account in
| stages, with % CO2 emissions added:
|
| A1) Raw Material Extraction, 20-25% A2) Transport to
| Facility, 8-10% A3) Manufacture, 5-10% A4) Transport to
| Site, 50-55% A5) Construction, 10-15%
|
| A1 to A3 reduce sequestration by 0.28, for a net of 1.36.
| They then say A4&5 account for 1.5x more emissions than
| A1-3, so .42kg total factor, for a net sequestration of
| 1.22kgCO2/kgBuiltLumber. They separate these as the
| transport is the largest variable between projects.
|
| These figures are from Austria to UK. From the reporting,
| the PDX project is using mostly local wood.
|
| So I think they're getting a net sequestration for the
| roof project.
|
| It's really interesting that building with wood has this
| major sequestration factor. It'd be really something if
| we could build our way out of the environmental crisis
| just by switching to wood! :)
|
| [ISE] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Struct
| ural_Engi...
|
| [ISE-EC] https://www.istructe.org/IStructE/media/Public/R
| esources/ARU..., p17: "The amount of carbon sequestered
| can be assumed as -1.64kgCOe per kg of timber when
| product-specific data is not available". I take the e to
| be emission, so a negative is a sequestration.
| morsch wrote:
| The e is short for equivalent.
|
| https://chancerylaneproject.org/glossary/carbon-dioxide-
| equi...
| pmayrgundter wrote:
| thanks. Also forgot to note size difference between those
| airports.. DEN is #4 in the US with 38M passenger
| boardings/year, PDX #33 with 8M. So maybe 4x larger
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airport
| s_i...
| pmayrgundter wrote:
| Based on the discussion in the descendent thread with
| morsch, it seems like the runways are the real story, at
| 1000x the mass of the airport roof.
|
| But concrete is not so CO2 intensive. Lumber has a +1.6
| sequestration factor of CO2 emitted vs built mass, compared
| with concrete at -0.8.
|
| So we'd need runways made mostly of wood, or combined with
| a Woodcrete that was net sequestering, and then maybe
| there's a way to make even our most CO2 intensive
| industries net neutral so long as we rebuild continuously.
|
| Also, since construction is about 40% of global CO2
| emissions, if it could become a net sequestration as a
| whole, maybe it could flip the sign to -40% and offset most
| of the rest of our industrial emissions.
|
| This also got me interested in what's a good number for
| rebuild rate.
|
| Found a study that concludes the "Apparent ecosystem carbon
| turnover time [T]" is 43+-7 years.
|
| So maybe we should be rebuilding our built environment at
| 2.3%, or probably higher since species have evolved to be
| more energy intensive, humans especially.
|
| [T] https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-
| 12-25...
| katangafor wrote:
| Does burying wood actually work? I'm assuming it's a little
| more complicated than literally burying it, cause wouldn't it
| decay and release carbon at some point anyway?
| devilbunny wrote:
| Without oxygen, any decay is going to be incredibly slow.
| They're still pulling usable timber from trees that sank in
| rivers after being cut in the southeastern US 200 years
| ago. It's not cheap, but if you want some real old-growth
| oak, it's a viable source. And that's not a completely
| anaerobic environment.
| williamdclt wrote:
| 200y is not really an incredibly long time at all
| devilbunny wrote:
| No, it's not, but that's without any noticeable decay. A
| tree that's been felled in that environment and left
| above ground will rot very quickly.
| Arrath wrote:
| As most of the heavy construction and earth moving
| equipment you'd use to bury the wood will be burning diesel
| and releasing carbon the entire time, you enter some new
| Tyranny of the Rocket/Wagon equation.
| ericd wrote:
| There's a simple way to think about this that doesn't require
| doing a ton of research and number crunching. Think about the
| volume of fuel in a single airplane, about 7,000 gallons for
| a 737, or about 100 55 gallon drums. It's nowhere near exact,
| but you can roughly equate that volume of fuel to the volume
| of volume of wood to compare carbon - I'm pretty sure this is
| being very generous to the energy density of the wood, but it
| gives you an upper limit on what the wood could be
| sequestering (I think in reality jet fuel is something like
| 2-3x as energy/carbon dense per m^3). Now think about how
| many planes take off every day from an airport, and the
| volume of n*100 drums.
|
| It's just nowhere near in reality, and we're not going to
| make a large dent via sequestration, the "finite" airports is
| functionally infinite for our purposes. We have to start
| making carbon neutral fuel.
|
| That said, manufacturing concrete is incredibly carbon
| intensive, so avoiding making the amount we would've needed
| for this building is a pretty good win.
| burkaman wrote:
| > If were to bury the equivalent amount of wood, we would be
| equal.
|
| Burying wood that would have taken decades to decay is not
| equal to instantly releasing the equivalent amount of carbon.
| I'm not sure it's physically possible to remove CO2 from the
| atmosphere at the same rate a plane emits it, which would be
| the only way to genuinely "offset" the emissions.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| It is however looking much nicer. For that reason alone I would
| love to see more projects like this.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| Sometimes, dressing up a problem can breed apathy and
| desensitize people to harsh realities.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| It boggles my mind why the US doesn't simply offer high-speed
| trains for easy distances like those.
|
| That whole Northeast is just screaming for it with easily
| managable distances. Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC.. All
| easily high-speed-trainable. Boston to Portland too, for that
| matter.
|
| Instead of spending 1 hour queueing at the airport, spend one
| hour on the train and you're there.
| exegete wrote:
| It's being planned, but projects like these are never
| certain: https://secretnyc.co/high-speed-train-nyc-to-boston/
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah that's true, even in the Netherlands our high-speed
| line between Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp was a
| nightmare. It cost billions, way more than budgeted, many
| of the bridges turned out to have construction faults
| (despite all the cost overruns) so the trains aren't able
| to actually go fast, and the high-speed trains were bought
| on a budget and had so many flaws that the Belgians refused
| to allow them. Now we're stuck with a non-highspeed train
| on the track that was supposed to be highspeed and cost a
| fortune to build.
|
| In other countries like Germany, France and Spain the high-
| speed network works like a dream though. Though the good
| stuff is all nationally focused.
| morsch wrote:
| I'm not surprised, building a new high-speed line between
| the largest cities in the Netherlands must be a
| nightmare, that's connecting and going through some of
| the most densely populated areas in Europe.
|
| The German railway network (including the high-speed part
| of it) has loads of issues, and it's hardly working like
| a dream. That said, the interconnect between large cities
| is pretty great _when it works_. For these intermediate
| distances (around 500 km) it 's about as fast as flying
| would be once you factor in getting to/from the airport
| (vs the more central train station), being there early
| etc; and much faster than driving by car.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| > I'm not surprised, building a new high-speed line
| between the largest cities in the Netherlands must be a
| nightmare, that's connecting and going through some of
| the most densely populated areas in Europe.
|
| Well, yes and no. Most of it goes through the 'green
| heart' of the most populated area. There's mostly farms
| there. The route also goes mostly along existing highways
| and train tracks so it was just a matter of widening the
| infrastructure zones that were already there. Holland is
| very planified so usually these things are already taken
| into consideration. We don't build housing right besides
| infrastructure anymore.
|
| However, the environmental red tape is pretty heavy these
| days. The whole country is at a standstill (house
| building, traffic, farming) due to limits of nitrogen
| deposits being exceeded.
|
| So I think it was more that than actual infringements on
| people's living space. Some tunnels and overpasses were
| made, yes. Those are the ones that are falling apart
| already after 10 years :')
| matthewowen wrote:
| My understanding is that the problems of NYC -> Boston high
| speed rail are purely political, and basically come down to
| CT resistance to change
|
| The current track alignment is not conducive to high speed
| travel, and CT as a state has no interest in supporting a
| new alignment that is conducive because they would likely
| get _negative_ value out of it: as it stands, Acela trains
| pretty much all stop in New Haven and Stamford: why
| wouldn't they?
|
| If you go with a high speed link that aims to speed up
| Boston <> New York travel, it's more likely that you have
| trains that skip those stops, because additional stops are
| much more expensive for HSR from a speeding up and slowing
| down perspective, from a percentage of time added to trip
| perspective, and for an inefficient alignment perspective.
|
| In my view this is kind of a microcosm of the political
| problems of the geographically small states of the north
| east: states like CT/RI/DE especially have very narrow and
| niche concerns but because of their geographical position
| have effective veto power over regionally important things
| like "how expensive are the tolls to drive between New York
| and DC?" and "can you have HSR between new york and
| boston?"
| ciabattabread wrote:
| It's not about skipping stops, it's about the amount of
| eminent domain you'd have to do to eliminate curves thru
| Connecticut's oldest and richest suburbs.
|
| Which is why proposals to route it via Long Island and
| building a 16-mile tunnel under Long Island Sound get
| consideration.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Flying has been the preferred travel mode of both the well-
| to-do and the aspirational for over half a century. Air
| travel only needs working airplanes, and a relatively simple
| airport at each end. So, in general, there's ample social
| pressure to get the job done quickly.
|
| Vs. high-speed trains went out of fashion (in America) well
| before most people's memories. And their tracks have to be
| threaded, foot-by-foot, across a landscape which is
| overflowing with red tape and jurisdictions and NIMBY's and
| existing infrastructure. Said threading to be planned by yet
| more politicians and bureaucrats and planners, then done by
| America's low-functioning construction industry.
|
| Nations with good high-speed rail systems have quite
| different priorities and local governance structures than
| America.
| mavhc wrote:
| Plus you get to use the atmosphere as a free sewer, filling
| it with pollution without paying the actual cost to clean
| it up, which makes flying really cheap
| wkat4242 wrote:
| > Nations with good high-speed rail systems have quite
| different priorities and local governance structures than
| America.
|
| Hmm true but Europe has most of the same red-
| tape/NIMBY/environmental impact studies etc issues as
| America. Those are not unique.
|
| However considering climate impact it pays itself back.
| matthewowen wrote:
| Boston to Portland, OR? The city discussed in the article?
|
| It's 3000 miles! I would personally love to live in a world
| where you can go 200mph on a train and do it in 15 hours but
| I wouldn't call it easy.
| returningfory2 wrote:
| I'm guessing they meant Portland Maine, but yeah confusing
| given the article being discussed. :)
| gosub100 wrote:
| the same people telling me to save on _my_ carbon emission are
| the ones who are ok with free trade to have stuff made
| thousands of miles away (in jurisdictions with very lax
| environmental laws) that could be made right here and employ
| blue-collar workers. Those container ships arrive full and
| leave empty. What 's the CO2eq of that?
| burkaman wrote:
| Those are not the same people.
| ericmcer wrote:
| It is the same people unfortunately. People who want to
| reduce the global carbon footprint should be rejoicing
| about tariffs and returning manufacturing to America. The
| two party system forces people to hold conflicting values
| though. Both sides have belief systems that are full of
| inconsistencies.
| ianburrell wrote:
| Cargo ships are the most efficient form of transport. They
| use scale of big ships carrying lots of cargo.
|
| It takes about the same amount of CO2 to carry container
| across the Pacific as to truck it across the country.
| Producing it here or there doesn't make much difference. If
| anything, it is more efficient to produce in China cause they
| have higher percent of renewable electricity.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Yeah, take a look at this then...
|
| https://celebrityprivatejettracker.com/leaderboard/#gr
| tsudonym wrote:
| I'm extremely pro-rail but Portland is not the city to bash for
| short haul domestic flights.
|
| Amtrak Cascades is very popular for trips to Seattle.
| anon291 wrote:
| To put it in context: Cascades is popular because it
| magically takes the same amount of time (~3 hours), has no
| traffic, costs less than a tank of gas, and puts you into
| downtown seattle without having to park and potentially have
| your car stolen.
|
| That is to say.. people will take trains as long as they're
| truthfully better. We should work on making them better. Even
| the lovely people of Portland, as concerned as we are about
| the environment, don't take the train out of the goodness of
| their hearts.
| returningfory2 wrote:
| I think it's a little bit misleading to casually drop a "yearly
| budget" like this, as if this is something we're currently
| following. In the US the average car emits 4.6t of CO2 per year
| [1]. If you really think we need to be following this yearly
| budget the implications on our society (including basically a
| ban on most car trips being currently taken) are extremely
| drastic.
|
| [1] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-
| emissions-t....
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Beautiful. Also, what about fire hazard? Ctrl+F fire had zero
| matches.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Not familiar with the specific wood composite used in this
| construction, but generally wood composites fare really well in
| this regard. You can mix fire retardants into the adhesives and
| they char, which creates a sort of protective layer. They're
| not fireproof, but they're both hard to get going and they
| usually burn very slow once they do. Another good property is
| that they burn predictably, they don't have catastrophic
| failures, but gradual ones.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| Wood burns, but modern suppression systems increase the time to
| evacuate.
|
| Fires don't usually (hell, hardly ever) start with the
| structure wooden or otherwise, they start with the things
| inside a structure: wiring, upholstery, drapery, etc.
|
| By the time the fire gets large and hot enough to fuel itself
| on the structure all of the occupants are already dead due to
| carbon monoxide and/or hydrogen cyanide poisoning, so the
| flammability of the structure is almost irrelevant to
| occupants.
|
| Even in Type 1 (all concrete) and Type 2 (concrete and steel)
| structures, burning the structure's contents will kill every
| occupant the same as a building made wholly or partially from
| wood. That's why large steel reinforced concrete buildings have
| self-closing doors, smoke extraction systems, and areas of
| refuge: the building being on fire won't kill you, the smoke
| from the burning carpeting and paint will.
|
| With the Station Nightclub fire, it started at 11:07pm. The
| wooden structure was compromised to the point that the roof
| partially collapsed at 11:57pm. All occupants who had not
| escaped were dead well before the five-minute mark (11:12) when
| flames were seen exiting the doors and windows with NIST
| estimating that anyone still inside the structure 90 seconds
| after initial ignition was already dead.
|
| 50 minutes for the wood to burn, 90 seconds for the stuff
| inside to burn and kill you.
|
| All of that being said, wooden structures are more dangerous to
| firefighters due to the risk of collapse long into the fire as
| suppression and/or search and rescue operations are occurring.
| dataengineer56 wrote:
| Does Portland airport have the same issues with homeless people
| as other major US airports?
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Tons of US cities have issues with large homeless populations,
| but it being a problem for airports too is news to me.
| dataengineer56 wrote:
| O'Hare has a real problem, it was alarming to see when I was
| waiting at the baggage carousel.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| There are airports with homeless problems?? It's impossible to
| walk to my local airport (MSP), but you can take a train or bus
| there. I figured most airports were similar, but maybe I'm
| wrong.
|
| Mpls/St Paul has lots of homeless people, but I've never seen
| one at the airport and I'm there at least monthly.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I thought it said Poland at first lol.
|
| But this is nice. I like it. I wonder how well those trees do in
| such an indoor environment though.
| osmsucks wrote:
| I wonder if they used galvanized square steel and eco-friendly
| wood veneers.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| This encapsulates neoliberal environmentalism perfectly! Lets
| expand airport which greatly increase CO2 outflows and pretend we
| are "environmental" by building a roof made of trees.
|
| It would do more good to make flying less attractive (more
| difficult) and unpleasant. Airports should reflect the ugliness
| of what they do to the environment. It should feel,a and smell,
| worse than walking into a 70s porn theater.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| As any airport, it's still a horrible place that you can't even
| leave until you get to your destination.
|
| Think of it: the moment you get into your airport of departure,
| you become a hamster that enters a giant virtual tube that ends
| at the exit doors at your destination airport. You are not even
| allowed to go outside and breathe fresh air, like in hi-security
| prison. A prison with nice wooden ceilings though.
| int_19h wrote:
| You can leave and re-enter just fine, unless you're in an
| airport in a different country which requires you to have a
| visa to enter.
| tomrod wrote:
| This is a great design!
| h_tbob wrote:
| I do not want to criticize anybody. But I think this is a fire
| hazard and I would not recommend it in a place so close to jet
| fuel and jet engines.
| sameoldtune wrote:
| If a planes jet engine gets close enough to the roof of the
| airport to burn this treated lumber, there's bigger problems
| afoot.
| adolph wrote:
| The continued existence of airports terminals is weird. Its like
| a temple devoted to muda. They solve a synchronization problem by
| cacheing all the inputs for the flight manifest instead of making
| effort to pull all the inputs just in time.
| sam0x17 wrote:
| fire risk?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-06 23:01 UTC)