Fernandina Beach Airport Welcome Center concept takes off

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
June 22, 2016 11:29 a.m.

Conceptual rendering of proposed Fernandina Beach Airport Welcome Center approved by City Commission at June 21 meeting.
Conceptual rendering of proposed Fernandina Beach Airport Welcome Center approved by City Commission at June 21 meeting.

It’s a bird … it’s a plane … it’s the new airport welcome center! The Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) enthusiastically and unanimously approved a design concept for the new municipal airport welcome center during their June 21, 2016 Regular Meeting. With the FBCC approval, final design will begin in earnest to be followed by about a year of construction. The project will be completed in 2018, the year that 8 Flags Aviation, the new fixed base operator, takes over airport operations. The total cost of the project is estimated at $2-2.5M, with funding coming from a variety of sources, including grants, 8 Flags Aviation, and the airport enterprise fund. No money from the city’s general fund will be spent on this project.

Ground level views of airport welcome center concept showing observation and meeting room (to) and
Ground level views of airport welcome center concept showing observation and meeting room (top) and airplan shaded parking area (bottom).  Quonset hut meeting space on both renderings.

In presenting this item for FBCC consideration, Andrew Holesko, Passero Associates project manager for the airport, acknowledged the work of committee members in developing a concept that would be unique to this airport. He credited architect Chris Nardone with the conceptual drawings, while cautioning commissioners and the audience that the committee had developed a concept, which could be tweaked and changed as it morphed into actual construction drawings.

Andrew Holesko
Andrew Holesko

Holesko said that the impetus for the building originated with FDOT’s requirement that all airports contain an “essential facility” that can withstand a Category IV storm. An “essential facility” is one that can be used for emergency preparedness, operations and communications, including airport / aviation operations. It is not intended or designed to operate as a complete, formal Emergency-Operations-Center (EOC). Fernandina Beach is the only general aviation airport in Northeast Florida currently without such a structure.

The building itself pays homage to the F4U Corsair, which flew out of the Fernandina Beach Airport when it was first built for the Navy in the 1940’s.

In crafting the conceptual plan, committee members tried to accommodate a variety of uses that extended beyond airport operations to bring non-aviation visitors to the site as well. The 2-story structure will house the fixed base operations on the ground floor, provide space for a city presence, and provide public meeting rooms and areas, at least one of which could host as many as 200 people. Additionally, incorporated into the formal plan for the space: is an airplane shade place under one of the “wings;” educational features to help children and youth learn more about flying, and static exhibits featuring historical displays and city promotion.

Interior view showing cockpit/skylight
Interior view showing cockpit/skylight

DSCN7185City commissioners reacted enthusiastically to the concept, stressing to the audience several times that no city general fund money would be used for the project. Vice Mayor Robin Lentz liked the idea of being able to attract non-aviation visitors to the site. She suggested that the second floor meeting room and observation deck might provide a good venue for special events and even weddings. She also liked the areas designed as educational spaces for children and older students. Lentz also said that the building reminded her of the Air Museum in Pensacola.

Commissioner Tim Poynter said, “It’s refreshing to look at something unique and out of the box.” Commissioner Len Kreger also liked the uniqueness of the design.

Mayor Miller said that he liked the concept of providing a “corridor for visitors” and the wing structure. Miller had a question about the wing structure and its ability to survive a big wind. Holesko said that the question had come up before the committee as well. “In all honesty,” Holesko said, “we are going to make this wing so it doesn’t fly. It will be anchored.”

Commissioner Roy Smith
Commissioner Roy Smith

Commissioner Roy Smith asked if by abandoning the proposed design and going to a more conventional design the city could get more building for its money. Holesko said, “Yes, there is no question that the proposed roof structure is more expensive than a conventional roof structure, and if you change it back to a traditional roof structure, the cost would go down. And you could build more building. I don’t know what that amount is.”

Smith suggested that the money saved could go toward building the proposed add-ons such as the Quonset hut. Holesko said that by lowering the roof, the building would lose the second floor meeting space and observation area. “The roof line as proposed is what allows the building to have a second story. But we absolutely could do that,” Holesko said.

DSCN7165Poynter said, “There’s no question that you could build a cheaper building with much less design. You could do Quonset huts, tie them together, and it would be a whole lot less expensive. It’s my understanding that the city is not going to be out of pocket for any of this. Our new FBO [8 Flags Aviation] is going to be making up any difference. I think it’s refreshing that we are looking at something that’s unique and out of the box. I’m 100 percent in favor of doing something like this to make [our airport] stand out.”

Smith continued, asking where the money for the auxiliary Quonset hut meeting space would come from. Kreger replied that it would come from the airport enterprise fund, which consists of airport user fees, not general fund dollars.

Mayor Johnny Miller
Mayor Johnny Miller

Before calling for a vote, Miller said that he thought the plan was “a cool concept,” likening it to what the city has tried to do at the riverfront with the Shrimping Museum and hopefully along 8th Street: provide a corridor for visitors to further explore the city. He suggested that there would be a lot of public feedback on the concept. “There’s going to be a lot of ‘love it’, ‘hate it,’” he said, “because the design is ‘out there.’” Holesko agreed. “By approving this tonight,” Miller continued, “it doesn’t mean that we are going to break ground tomorrow. There is still time for the public to weigh in. We can always go back. If there is a loud outcry. I don’t think that will happen, but you never know.”

Poynter addressed Miller, “You made a comment about if we get feedback from the community, we can still change this. It’s always tough to design by committee. It’s even tougher to design by emails. I think what we are talking about here is moving forward with this concept, not like next month [saying] we don’t want to do this. That would keep pushing us further and further into getting nothing done.”

Back row: Brian Echard, new FBO operator; Chris Nardone, project architect. Center: Andrew Holesko; Bottom: City Clerk Caroline Best.
(l-r) Brian Echard, new FBO operator;  Andrew Holesko,  City Clerk Caroline Best.

Miller agreed. Holesko stressed that Passero understands that they have a lot more work to do on the concept presented. “If we find out that there is a way of modifying that wing or meeting room and saving $25K, we’re going to do it. But we are going to try to keep the general concept of what you see here. We can come give you updates at whatever intervals you request.”

Miller said that since no one has ever done this concept before, “When you fly into Fernandina, you will obviously know you are someplace different.”

Kreger moved to approve the concept and Lentz seconded his motion, which passed on a unanimous vote.

*****

airport4

The Welcome Center Committee was charged “to provide a preliminary visual reference of the size, basic operations and general appearance of the proposed Welcome Center. This task will result in a more formal plan for the specific building location, size, interior plan, exterior elevations, utilities, ground access and parking, security systems budget and financial plan.” There were 6 members of the committee representing the city, airport operations and tenants: Chair Marshall McCrary (Community Development Director), Bobby Kozakoff (Airport Operations), Airport Advisory Committee Chair Sam Lane, 8 Flags Aviation President Brian Echard, Tom Piscitello (airport tenant), and Parks and Recreation Department Director Nan Voit.

Suanne Thamm 4Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.

8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Steven Crounse
Steven Crounse (@guest_47411)
7 years ago

The first time you look at the design, It’s unsettling, because like Commissioner Poynter points out “It’s out of the Box” thinking. The more I looked at it, and thought about it. The more it appealed to me. As they explained, Modifications will be made, as these Drawings are a “concept”. For sure, this design will be an Aviation Land Mark., From the Air it will look like, Mr Hughes Spruce Goose. You will know your landing on Amelia Island. Should Garner, many, architectural design awards.

Mac Morriss
Mac Morriss(@macmorrisshotmail-com)
7 years ago

Looks great! As was stated, people will know where they are when they fly over. This building is supposed to be able to withstand a Category IV hurricane. The wings and the skylight are vulnerable areas. The skylight as designed is almost impossible to safely secure against flying debris. And those wings, vulnerable at multiple points to be torn off. We all know: Loose The Roof-Loose The Structure.

So aesthetically pleasing on several points. At risk for total failure in a storm due to potential for loss of roof integrity.

$2.5 million is a lot to spend on a fun idea for it to be ruined in the first hard hurricane to hit it. This City needs more than a concept design for assurances. For such an important building it should be designed for Category V hurricanes. After all, we can’t control what the wind speed will be of the next Dora that hits our island. If spending that much money to meet minimum standards, why not a bit more and build to last?

Eric Bartelt
Eric Bartelt(@ericbarteltgmail-com)
7 years ago

Mayor Miller is right. Some will love the design, some won’t. The Commissioners seemed to love it, saying it will be unique, that it will attract comments and is “outside-the-box” thinking. All true, but “outside-the-box” thinking isn’t always good thinking. The case can also be made that the design is banal, theme-park architecture. A Disneyesque mashup of an airplane and a building that’s neither good airplane nor good building.

Typically, architects don’t try to replicate objects. That’s why the library building doesn’t look like a giant book, or a car dealership a giant car. That might actually be okay if the intent is to create a fun, kitschy statement. But the Airport Welcome Center is a serious building. It’s an ambassador for our city. It should be inspiring, iconic architecture, not a gimmick.

Instead of trying to create a fake airplane, why not design a building that evokes the exhilaration of flight? Expressing the concept of flight through architecture is a much more powerful idea than creating a pretend airplane.

Well-known examples of this are the TWA terminal at JFK and the Dulles International Airport terminal. They express the idea of flight through soaring,
inspiring architecture. With Denver’s Airport, the peaked tent structure of the terminal evokes, not flight, but something equally important to Denver, snow capped mountains. The building doesn’t try to literally copy the mountains, rather it’s a metaphorical reference to the mountains that encourages people to imagine a connection between the two.

From a practical standpoint, if the Welcome Center moves forward as shown, the architect is going to have to make a lot of decisions about how “real” to make the airplane. Will the plane’s skin, which is the building’s roof, be smooth metal like a real airplane or ordinary roofing materials? The devil is in the details and those details can get very expensive.

Jim Foley
Jim Foley (@guest_47415)
7 years ago

It appears to me the only part of the concept design that will withstand a CAT IV storm is the meeting room/Quonset Hut. It is not appropriate to spend any amount of money airport fund or otherwise on a design that will not withstand a storm. The proposed wings and overhang will do nothing but add to the debris field.

Mrs. D. Hunter
Mrs. D. Hunter (@guest_47433)
7 years ago

“The case can also be made that the design is banal, theme-park architecture. A Disneyesque mashup of an airplane and a building that’s neither good airplane nor good building.”

Thank you, Eric Bartelt, for sound and balanced commentary, and for taking the words right out of my mouth. I hope you’ll make your voice heard as the airport welcome center development continues to come under review.

Kris Stadelman
Kris Stadelman (@guest_47440)
7 years ago

OMG that’s horrible. Mr. Bartelt is correct. This sort of a “cute” look will get old fast. It will age badly and require a lot of extra maintenance. Since our busiest week centers around the Amelia Concours maybe we should make it into a big car.
I like to think that Amelia Island is a classy destination not an aging theme park.
We can do better.

Ed Boner
Ed Boner (@guest_47445)
7 years ago

My concern would be in cost to build, cost for additions over time and cost of repair. A low country look, similar to some of the nearby architecture would mimic the architecture and identity as well. While I respect the history of the airport, it may be too much to mimic a plane with the actual building.

Government buildings tend to be ridiculously expensive in the first place. Cat 5 rated structures go up in cost and buildings in areas like airports, tend to be more expensive. I would get input from the new FBO and consider the cost to modify or maintain the building, as changes are made over time.

I do think the corsair or a smaller scale replica near the entry to the welcome station is attractive…with integrated historic information as a part of the presentation would be nice…..but I think we might regret the cost, expense to maintain, cost of specialized roofing, windows, wasted space…all possible, if we design a “one of kind” building in the shape of a large plane.