But not all were impressed. Emmanuel Daniel — the founder of financial consultancy company The Asian Banker — had some harsh words for T4, stating how its designers “betrayed Singapore and Singaporeans.”
In an extensive blog post, Daniel backs up his statements with in-depth explanations of how millions of dollars have apparently been wasted into a lackluster customer experience at the terminal, which he describes as a “very transactional idea of what an airport should be”.
Regardless if you’ve been awed or thumbed your nose at T4, Daniel’s full blog post is a must-read for all those interested in design, engineering, and architecture. Check out some choice highlights from his post below.
On the absence of a common concourse
“I am sure that the security people would argue against a common concourse, but the argument can go either way and nobody is the wiser. 40 years of running a common concourse across three terminals without incident suddenly not a valid idea? The designers of Terminal 4 did not think of it as a signature feature. A common concourse takes the stress out for transiting passengers, while creating a marketplace communal atmosphere, increasing retail exposure, and freeing up real estate for other uses and it is here that leadership and a sense of ownership would have made a huge difference.
In all likelihood, it was the software engineers who took over in Terminal 4, separating the arrivals and departures so that they could implement their security and tracking toys, even if it makes the airport more impersonal and diluting it to look and feel like all other airports around the world. For the loss of this one feature, I wished there was a strong leader at Singapore Changi Airport who had a mental picture of what he had inherited that is uniquely Singaporean instead of succumbing to the process engineers. The combined concourse was the one feature that every time I landed, I knew I was in Singapore and not anywhere else.”
On its small elevators
“Even simple things like the size of elevators is bizarre. In Terminal 3 the elevators can take up to four or five baggage trollies each, and there are several in each elevator shaft, while the ones in Terminal 4 can hardly fit in two trollies.
What’s going on here? Did we appoint a farmer from a third world country to design the elevators? Not even China could be accused of this kind of design flaw today. Even if Terminal 4 is being designed for “transactors”, meaning people who use the airport only for travel, the size of the elevators is frankly embarrassing.”
On the apparent mistake of letting engineers design the airport
“If anything, these nerds rushed all the way just to arrive at what Incheon Airport in Seoul is today. All the unique features of Singapore Changi Airport, achieved over 40 years, thrown out of the window just to look like Incheon.
They made the designers design huge signs at the immigration entrance in Terminal 4 saying that you can use these channels if your machine readable passports are preregistered by finger print. Well, what’s so special about that? That experiment was already a success in Terminal 3 and Hong Kong, Taipei and Dubai airports do this without fanfare.
Millions of dollars wasted in redesign to communicate a message that is already a given in many airports around the world today. Money that could have been used to create a different check-in experience, such as clustering the checking counter in circles so that they feel more cosy and less intimidating. This is what happens when you allow engineers power over the customer. The software engineers thought that this was about them, when the genius of technology is precisely that it is invisible.
Instead, the automated check in and immigration machines are spread too far apart so that if a user is in trouble, he will feel intimidated. The excuse that the engineers give that Terminal 4 is a “showcase for new technology” is a complete nonsense for doing what needs to be done while any technology is still current. Technology changes all the time. Before you implement new technology across terminals, the next one comes on the heels within 18 months.”
On how “cantankerous” Singaporeans need to voice out
“The people of Singapore are a cantankerous, complaining, indulgent and never satisfied lot. From this demanding lot came the genius of other national assets like Singapore Airlines that has carried its DNA and stood the test of time. No the people did not create it, but they certainly shaped it because the people who created it told themselves that this cantankerous lot matter.
What needs to be done now is for someone to come out to explain what is happening here and take ownership and even the people’s feedback. Out of this process, some of the community elements that can be built into the superstructure are even very simple – like a tree-lined jogging and bicycle tracks parks connecting the terminals and humanising them, putting people back into the picture.
There is so much energy and genius in the people of Singapore that is not reflected in Terminal 4.”