beckett rankine unveils floating airport in the thames estuary beckett rankine unveils floating airport in the thames estuary
dec 20, 2012

beckett rankine unveils floating airport in the thames estuary

plans revealed for a new 40 billion dollar floating airport

 

 

being one of the largest and busiest cities in the world, the reality of having to efficiently transfer an increasing number of air-bound travelers per year is becoming an ever-present reality that london’s airports are not going to be able to deal with in the near future. several plans have already been considered, from expanding the stansted airport to norman foster’s ‘london britannia airport’ revealed last september. one trend is becoming clear however, the creation of airports on man-made islands floating on a body of water to alleviate precious space on-land. the latest 40 billion dollar proposal will feature a four-runway air hub in the middle of the thames estuary built on the goodwin sands, a safe location on national waters that would be 40 minutes away from london through an underground railway system and will connect to other nearby european cities in the future. beckett rankine, the construction company undertaking the engineering of the ‘goodwin airport’, states that the plan is actually quite environmentally friendly and feasible as no homes will be demolished, flights can operate 24-hours around the clock as there are no residential areas nearby, and the expected economic growth will open new job opportunities for the area.

 

 

 

 

public lobby with connection to underground high-speed rail line

 

 

terminal interior

 

 

railway connection to the mainland

 

 

location 1.8 kilometers off the coast

  • This is ridiculous. Great sic-fi, but it is never, never going to happen.

    Geem says:
  • Not another ‘sustainable’ project. What about the good old environmental impact?
    How does the word ‘sustainable’ apply to an airport?
    Its an enormous airport with exhaust fumes, the creation of noise, fuel dumping at times, it also creates mounds of trash and consumes an enormous amount of electrical energy.
    Sustainable? By whom or by what? I think not.

    Ron Smith says:
  • only 40 BILLIONS?!?!?!
    ahahah!
    too cheap!

    ANTc says:
  • It’s not floating! There are sand banks there. Some minimal fact checking please.

    Charlie says:
  • Ron Smith has a point in that all airports have a large environmental impact however appropriate design can limit the adverse effects. When an airport operates close to its maximum capacity, as Heathrow does, then departing aircraft have to queue on the taxiways with their engines running sometimes for up to 3/4 of an hour. Similarly arriving aircraft circle round and round over London in holding stacks burning fuel. If an airport operates with spare capacity the fuel burn of the aircraft can be minimised.
    In the case of the Goodwin sands proposal I think they are suggesting that locating it offshore means that it has less impact on people’s homes which makes it more sustainable than an onshore one. Incidentally the proposal is not only not floating (that is the Gensler one) its also not in the Thames Estuary!

    Yola Dragon says:
  • i am predicting a lot of off runway sea landings, its beautiful but not very practical

    pearl says:
  • Why would it cause landings in the sea. Landbased airports don’t have aircraft landing in nearby high streets so why would this one have planes landing in the nearby sea????? That would be plane stupid (spelling mistake intentional)

    Steve says:
  • dude, its happened, it can happen. im studying to be an aircraft engineer, i know a thing or two.

    pearl says:
  • especially since off runway would mean in the sea

    pearl says:

have something to add? share your thoughts in our comments section below.

comments policy
LOG IN
designboom's comment policy guidelines
generally speaking, if we publish something, it's because we're genuinely interested in the subject. we hope you'll share this interest and if you know even more about it, please share! our goal in the discussion threads is to have good conversation and we prefer constructive opinions. we and our readers have fun with entertaining ones. designboom welcomes alerts about typos, incorrect names, and the like.
the correction is at the discretion of the post editor and may not happen immediately.

what if you disagree with what we or another commenter has to say?
let's hear it! but please understand that offensive, inappropriate, or just plain annoying comments may be deleted or shortened.

- please do not make racist, sexist, anti-semitic, homophobic or otherwise offensive comments.
- please don't personally insult the writers or your fellow commenters.
- please avoid using offensive words, replacing a few letters with asterisks is not a valid workaround.
- please don't include your website or e-mail address in your comments for the purpose of self-promotion.
- please respect jury verdicts and do not discuss offensively on the competition results
(there is only one fist prize, and designboom usually asks renown professionals to help us to promote talent.
in addition to the awarded designs, we do feel that almost all deserve our attention, that is why we publish
the best 100-200 entries too.)

a link is allowed in comments as long as they add value in the form of information, images, humor, etc. (links to the front page of your personal blog or website are not okay). unwelcome links (to commercial products or services of others, offensive material etc. ) will be redacted. and, ... yes, spam gets banned. no, we do not post fake comments.

architecture news