Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

[sn26567]

Nothing in English yet.

Now there is, on Luchtzak: https://www.aviation24.be/airports/brussel ... s-airport/

[RoMax]

BAC tried for many years to find suitable aviation-related companies for Gateway and they were not found, Deloitte was a great solution. This the same with the new building for KPMG and others that will move in. Look at AMS and others that embraced the hugely successful and profitable airport city concept like, terminals surrounded by offices, when planned properly that's not a problem for expansion.

The satellite...as much as I love the building, it didn't and never again will fit in BRU's airside plans. There is a reason why airports don't built them anymore, they are not efficient, they cannot be expanded and research even shows that pax have difficulties orienting themselves and there is no efficient way of putting retail etc.
In addition it is too far away from where BRU has concentrated its terminal operations, would be difficult to continue using the satellite in the current system and lay-out.

[Established02]

No matter how much I like the satellite and no matter how much nostalgea it has

[Inquirer]

If I am allowed to speak on behalf of all those skeptical for a minute,
I don't think they have a problem with BAC trying to maximize its profits by diversifying their revenue sources and expanding their services/product portfolio beyond just the traditional airport activities and clients; the key element of dissent is that they are wasting very scarce premium located land at the very cramped front of the airport for all that!
Its a historical misfortune that BRU has only a very small "façade" on its access road which make that they have to construct all terminals perpendicular on this façade and thus leading you very far out,
but its a deliberate choice to use more than half of that limited façade not for airport activities, but rather other businesses.
Call me naïve, but I'd expect the planning layout of an airport like BRU to be fairly simple: to the right of the circular access road, a maximized airport access for passenger convenience, to its left a maximized parking/hotel offer inside the circle to minimize walking distances: all the other real estate should be located farther out, yet instead it seems they are doing exactly the opposite?
I understand that in the distant future, a completely new check-in and terminal may be erected there where the old DHL buildings are/were and then that would become the new façade of BRU (also solving the main problem by no longer being located in the very small loop of the circular road), but for as long as that terminal isn't there yet, the fact remains the core airport activities are appearing increasingly squeezed into a remote corner of the airport, with the best locations at the airport entrance given to other venues: its very weird how BRU managed to waste half its airport's surface (basically everything south of the Pier B) in the past and even more so how they further lock themselves into this situation by building full every possible access point to exploit that currently wasted terrain again in future?
Seems to me they lack a modular long term vision, and are too focused on improving their already not badly looking balance sheet even further, short to medium term only.
Also I read this new building is going to offer some 28,000 square meters of office and conference space and come with its own parking of nearly 360 cars. That's just 1 single parking space per 80 square meters of commercialized business... I'll leave it to others to judge if that will be enough, but personally I fear this new project simply ads to the parking and accessibility problem, which is already very pressing right now.

[sn26567]

Also I read this new building is going to offer some 28,000 square meters of office and conference space and come with its own parking of nearly 360 cars.

This is really the core of the problem. Some days, I would even say many days, the parking lots are more than full and here KPMG will build 360 parking spaces that have nothing to do with the airport, but close to the terminal, while air travellers will have to look at remote parking lots because the close-in spaces are all chock-full.

[Atlantis]

Is this It, atlantis?

http://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/luchtvaar ... 1436850341

KPMG to move to a brand new office, congress and hotel building set to be built next to the old terminal, currently itself being renovated for its direct competitor Deloitte.

IMHO, I can understand the logic behind the desire to move to the airport, but this also brings along a high risk of even more congestion on the already very cramped access road to the airport and even more parking space problems. All those non-aviation related projects inside the very small loop of roads around the airport risk becoming what Uplace is to the Ring (also a loop road designed too small in fact).

It was this project indeed Inquirer.

[Established02]

Let's hope there is still some space left for Pricewaterhouse Coopers to move in as well.

[sn26567]

Let's hope there is still some space left for Pricewaterhouse Coopers to move in as well.

That's a good one, Established02.

Just to be sure, I asked Arnaud Feist (CEO Brussels Airport) about the justification for such a good location to be devoted to non-aviation activities, and his answer is as follows: "The location has been carefully considered and is not needed for aviation activities. A combination of both aviation and non-aviation activities is an added value for the airport."

[Conti764]

If I am allowed to speak on behalf of all those skeptical for a minute,
I don't think they have a problem with BAC trying to maximize its profits by diversifying their revenue sources and expanding their services/product portfolio beyond just the traditional airport activities and clients; the key element of dissent is that they are wasting very scarce premium located land at the very cramped front of the airport for all that!
Its a historical misfortune that BRU has only a very small "façade" on its access road which make that they have to construct all terminals perpendicular on this façade and thus leading you very far out,
but its a deliberate choice to use more than half of that limited façade not for airport activities, but rather other businesses.
Call me naïve, but I'd expect the planning layout of an airport like BRU to be fairly simple: to the right of the circular access road, a maximized airport access for passenger convenience, to its left a maximized parking/hotel offer inside the circle to minimize walking distances: all the other real estate should be located farther out, yet instead it seems they are doing exactly the opposite?
I understand that in the distant future, a completely new check-in and terminal may be erected there where the old DHL buildings are/were and then that would become the new façade of BRU (also solving the main problem by no longer being located in the very small loop of the circular road), but for as long as that terminal isn't there yet, the fact remains the core airport activities are appearing increasingly squeezed into a remote corner of the airport, with the best locations at the airport entrance given to other venues: its very weird how BRU managed to waste half its airport's surface (basically everything south of the Pier B) in the past and even more so how they further lock themselves into this situation by building full every possible access point to exploit that currently wasted terrain again in future?
Seems to me they lack a modular long term vision, and are too focused on improving their already not badly looking balance sheet even further, short to medium term only.
Also I read this new building is going to offer some 28,000 square meters of office and conference space and come with its own parking of nearly 360 cars. That's just 1 single parking space per 80 square meters of commercialized business... I'll leave it to others to judge if that will be enough, but personally I fear this new project simply ads to the parking and accessibility problem, which is already very pressing right now.

I have read your long answer completely, so forgive I am only replying with a short answer

Where these buildings are to rise, I doubt BRU could effeciently expand... There is not much room in that particular corner... Any expansion in the (near) future will be at the opposite end (AP-W, new terminal,...) which makes the location of Gateway and Passport a bit more logical...

Secondly, regarding parking issues... If BRU would build commercial activities behind the parking buildings, I guess they will also anticipate on new parking buildongs as well...

[Conti764]

Let's hope there is still some space left for Pricewaterhouse Coopers to move in as well.

Well, KPMG is only taking up half of the new building but I doubt PWC wants to be in the same building as their competitors

[Inquirer]

If I am allowed to speak on behalf of all those skeptical for a minute,
I don't think they have a problem with BAC trying to maximize its profits by diversifying their revenue sources and expanding their services/product portfolio beyond just the traditional airport activities and clients; the key element of dissent is that they are wasting very scarce premium located land at the very cramped front of the airport for all that!
Its a historical misfortune that BRU has only a very small "façade" on its access road which make that they have to construct all terminals perpendicular on this façade and thus leading you very far out,
but its a deliberate choice to use more than half of that limited façade not for airport activities, but rather other businesses.
Call me naïve, but I'd expect the planning layout of an airport like BRU to be fairly simple: to the right of the circular access road, a maximized airport access for passenger convenience, to its left a maximized parking/hotel offer inside the circle to minimize walking distances: all the other real estate should be located farther out, yet instead it seems they are doing exactly the opposite?
I understand that in the distant future, a completely new check-in and terminal may be erected there where the old DHL buildings are/were and then that would become the new façade of BRU (also solving the main problem by no longer being located in the very small loop of the circular road), but for as long as that terminal isn't there yet, the fact remains the core airport activities are appearing increasingly squeezed into a remote corner of the airport, with the best locations at the airport entrance given to other venues: its very weird how BRU managed to waste half its airport's surface (basically everything south of the Pier B) in the past and even more so how they further lock themselves into this situation by building full every possible access point to exploit that currently wasted terrain again in future?
Seems to me they lack a modular long term vision, and are too focused on improving their already not badly looking balance sheet even further, short to medium term only.
Also I read this new building is going to offer some 28,000 square meters of office and conference space and come with its own parking of nearly 360 cars. That's just 1 single parking space per 80 square meters of commercialized business... I'll leave it to others to judge if that will be enough, but personally I fear this new project simply ads to the parking and accessibility problem, which is already very pressing right now.

I have read your long answer completely, so forgive I am only replying with a short answer

Where these buildings are to rise, I doubt BRU could effeciently expand... There is not much room in that particular corner... Any expansion in the (near) future will be at the opposite end (AP-W, new terminal,...) which makes the location of Gateway and Passport a bit more logical...

Secondly, regarding parking issues... If BRU would build commercial activities behind the parking buildings, I guess they will also anticipate on new parking buildongs as well...

You'd hope they would, but sadly then they've not done it for their core business expansion over the past few years (actively pursuing ever more passengers WITHOUT adding sufficient additional parking) and from what we know now about this project, it doesn't look like its going to come with sufficient additional parking space either (1 parking per 80m2 doesn't sound enough to me).
Accessibility and lack of parking space seems to increasingly become the bottle neck for BRU.

[RoMax]

You'd hope they would, but sadly then they've not done it for their core business expansion over the past few years (actively pursuing ever more passengers WITHOUT adding sufficient additional parking) and from what we know now about this project, it doesn't look like its going to come with sufficient additional parking space either (1 parking per 80m2 doesn't sound enough to me).
Accessibility and lack of parking space seems to increasingly become the bottle neck for BRU.

BRU needs more parking yes, but that would be a weird and even inconvenient location for a large parking lot.

For the Passport building itself, it has to be considered that at such a location many more people will come by public transport. Is 360 enough? Sounds low for me as well, but why would they intentionally build a low amount of parking spaces when they expect much more cars, knowing that BRU already lacks sufficient space and the existing parking lots are not exactly intended for people working there.

[flightlover]

What will take the place of the 15000m2 not reserved for KPMG? A new hotel? Would be a nice location for a new Sheraton, no?
Maybe they even could make a passage from the terminal to allow for a comfortable long connection

In turn the old Sheraton building could make way for better public space or car parks. A win - win?

[Wohowbagger]

BRU needs nor parking yes, but that would be a weird and even inconvenient location for a large parking lot.

For the Passport building itself, it has to be considered that at such a location many more people will come by public transport. Is 360 enough? Sounds low for me as well, but why would they intentionally build a low amount of parking spaces when they expect much more cars, knowing that BRU already lacks sufficient space and the existing parking lots are not exactly intended for people working there.

What I can remember, when I was at KPMG in Diegem (av. Bourgetlaan), there were 150+ parking spaces. And on those days when I was present, about 85% was occupied.

But this is only the Diegem office, will the EU office move to BRU too?

So in the near future 2 of the Big Four will be @ BRU. What about PWC and Ernst&Young?

[Established02]

So in the near future 2 of the Big Four will be @ BRU. What about PWC and Ernst&Young?

The proximity of the airport does seem to be a key issue for the office location of each of these Four.

EY = De Kleetlaan 2, 1831 Machelen
PWC = Woluwelaan 18, 1932 Zaventem

[Inquirer]

Of course!
Location near an international airport is key for somebody active in international consultancy and/or auditing, so being situated AT the airport itself is the best of course.
You'd be surprised to see how many times we book meeting rooms at airports (or in hotels near to airports), so we can fly in, meet up and fly out in just a couple of hours, all without need for much ground transportation or actually visit the site itself.

[sn26567]

And that's why Brussels Airport should have used some of the space it is now generously giving away to outsiders in order to build its own conference centre, like in FRA, with catering, secretariat, office equipment, etc., instead of letting companies like Regus or hotels like Sheraton monopolise the organisation of meetings around the airport.

[Atlantis]

Also at the end of this year, the plan about the big real estate projects, will be finalized. But keep in mind that that project will be spread over a period of 15 years.

This about offices, hotel,logistic companies and a congress building will be build behind the parking towers and the Sheraton Hotel. This is the former Airport Village name.
Some of them will have direct connection with the terminal and also the "future T2 (Terminal 2)"

This at the same time when the tender will be released for the extension of Pier A West.

[teach]

Also at the end of this year, the plan about the big real estate projects, will be finalized. But keep in mind that that project will be spread over a period of 15 years.

This about offices, hotel,logistic companies and a congress building will be build behind the parking towers and the Sheraton Hotel. This is the former Airport Village name.
Some of them will have direct connection with the terminal and also the "future T2 (Terminal 2)"

This at the same time when the tender will be released for the extension of Pier A West.

One vital thing I'm still missing in all of this: PARKING spaces! Please tell me there are also concrete plans to add a new parking building, or to otherwise substantially increase the parking capacity of the airport.

[Atlantis]

There is a plan for a big parking place yes.