Slightly related to a comment in the article about airport interiors being so big: Why is it that almost _all_ airports have those huge ceilings?
Is it just for aesthetics? Personally it feels really uncomfortable and just wasteful. I can't help but think you could make airports a hell of a lot smaller and make it a better experience overall.
An interesting contrast is Narita's low-cost-carrier terminal 3. It has normal ceilings, and the only thing really airport-y about it is that there's a security checkpoint. It's basically a bus terminal, if buses had wings. Plus it has a normal food court (instead of all the overpriced BS you find in other places). An airport for the masses
Building an airport is a huge and costly undertaking — so much so that it represents more than just a building. The airport will be the first thing people see when arriving in a place, and the last thing they see when they leave. It’s a landmark. It tries to reflect the way the city sees itself, and how it wants to portray itself to the rest of the world.
It’s important to build something that gives you an experience. There are very few places left that put effort into architecture to make you feel something, and an airport project is big enough to make it worth it. And there really is a sense of wonder in the act of flying itself.
There are plenty of smaller airports that focus on being functional, and most of them feel like little more than glorified bus stations.
And if nothing else, a nice airport makes people feel good about flying, so they do it more often. It is a business at the end of the day.
When I go into an airport terminal with lower ceilings (e.g. parts of Melbourne Airport) I feel _noticeably_ more cramped and claustrophobic. It really does make the experience feel worse for me.
I'm not entirely sure why it makes me feel that way.
Melbourne airport is the one that instantly popped in to my mind as it's the airport I've spent most time in.
And yeah, there are a couple of noticeably lower ceilings in there.
But, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that tests have shown people become much more agitated in crowded places with regular (is it 8' / 2400mm?) ceilings. I can't imagine that scenario would make me feel at ease.
You might want to check with your fellow travelers -- the terminals I've spent a lot of time in with low ceilings have all been terrible experiences. Also, no one builds shopping malls with low ceilings. NYC's Penn Station is an excellent example of the worst railway station possible. And so on.
Summary: prevents claustrophobia/overheating, allows high signs to be seen from far away, possibly structurally sounder for a wide room to be higher, aesthetics.
Is it just for aesthetics? Personally it feels really uncomfortable and just wasteful. I can't help but think you could make airports a hell of a lot smaller and make it a better experience overall.
An interesting contrast is Narita's low-cost-carrier terminal 3. It has normal ceilings, and the only thing really airport-y about it is that there's a security checkpoint. It's basically a bus terminal, if buses had wings. Plus it has a normal food court (instead of all the overpriced BS you find in other places). An airport for the masses