Logan Airport Capital Projects

5F6D327D-26EF-4EC8-8F64-C02545ADA72B.jpeg

Terminal E’s new red addition as seen from the air! Of all the times Ive flown out of Logan, I’ve never flown over the airport, leaving from runway 33L like I did today! An amazing sight!
 
cubbe8 said:
Weren’t there supposed to be dual ones?
Click to expand...

They were in the initial renderings (still are in at least some of the ones on Massport's website, go figure) but they appear to have been deleted from the final product.
 
Maybe they're not done with installing the jet bridges on those 2 gates? Massport had touted that narrow-body planes would use the gates and that 7 narrow-body planes can fit at the 4 new gates.

It will be interesting to see if/when Massport pushes ahead with phase 2 of the terminal E expansion and if they make any additional changes.
 
mass88 said:
Maybe they're not done with installing the jet bridges on those 2 gates? Massport had touted that narrow-body planes would use the gates and that 7 narrow-body planes can fit at the 4 new gates.

It will be interesting to see if/when Massport pushes ahead with phase 2 of the terminal E expansion and if they make any additional changes.
Click to expand...

Per the pictures on Page 52 of this thread, it definitely looks like the gates were built with openings on the tarmac-facing (silver) sides, where the second jet bridges were shown in the renderings, but they've since been covered over. Makes me wonder if they VE'd out the second bridges at least temporarily, but if the structure for the doors for them is still there under the facade panels and could simply be retrofitted later.
 
Brattle Loop said:
Per the pictures on Page 52 of this thread, it definitely looks like the gates were built with openings on the tarmac-facing (silver) sides, where the second jet bridges were shown in the renderings, but they've since been covered over. Makes me wonder if they VE'd out the second bridges at least temporarily, but if the structure for the doors for them is still there under the facade panels and could simply be retrofitted later.
Click to expand...
Or they could have changed the design and the second one have not been installed yet.
 
cubbe8 said:
Or they could have changed the design and the second one have not been installed yet.
Click to expand...
Looks to me like they were VE'd for the time being, I think you can see the concrete podium for the jetbridge that's been VE'd. Hard to tell if it's that though
1669751144728.png
 
Chickenman said:
Looks to me like they were VE'd for the time being, I think you can see the concrete podium for the jetbridge that's been VE'd. Hard to tell if it's that though
Click to expand...

Definitely looks like the right place for it based on the renderings.
 
johhn14 said:
Can you educate this dummy on what “VE’d” means?
Click to expand...
Value Engineering. In essence, reduction of cost while minimizing the impact on performance/ function. Basically, in this example, a second jetbridge isn't key / essential to the functionality of the terminal for now, so it's been "provisioned for but not with."

On this forum it's typically been compromised architectural design in pursuit of greater financial performance. Other examples here would be the minimal headhouses and shelters as built for GLX, (compared to the original glassy ones) and the width of the associated community path, which don't impact the core goal of "get Green Line Service to Medford." See the ongoing commentary in the GLX thread. All of those were actually optional add-backs once the re-bid for GLX came back in the affordable range.
 
Last edited:
johhn14 said:
Can you educate this dummy on what “VE’d” means?
Click to expand...
Stlin said:
On this forum it's typically been compromised architectural design in pursuit of greater financial performance. Other examples here would be the minimal headhouses and shelters as built for GLX, (compared to the original glassy ones) and the width of the associated community path, which don't impact the core goal of "get Green Line Service to Medford." See the ongoing commentary in the GLX thread. All of those were actually optional add-backs once the re-bid for GLX came back in the affordable range.
Click to expand...

Building on what Stlin said, on this forum it's usually shorthand for "cut for cost reasons", frequently (but not always) meant as a mild pejorative.
 
Massport is surprisingly bad when it comes to sharing updates of their construction projects. They have the nice Logan Forward website, but it doesn't provide any sort of updates and constructions progress photos at all.
 
This terminal is the most excellently "un-Boston" development -- not in a way that "doesn't play well with its neighbors," but that adds to the collective aesthetic. I'm excited to be traveling through E soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top