In the conclusion, the author responds a number of questions. Can we challenge the way we have written the history of airports and the form in which we understand them today and perhaps tomorrow? Can we prove that the landside–airside boundary is the single most important feature that shapes an airport? The answer to the second question is: yes, it is, today. The catch of this simple answer is that the landside–airside boundary is not necessarily an essential part of the airport. It is a socio-technical construct, though, that we have complicated until there is no other way to think of an airport today, except in terms of the boundary itself. To the first question, the author argues that it is much harder to provide a convincing answer. Marquez maintains that airport planning and design have moved along a straight line for more than a century. This pattern of linearity has been supported by what planners call “standard airport design,” and it basically consists in learning from what is established as modestly successful (airport typology) and in introducing small, superficial changes to the selected scheme (finger, satellite, pier, unit, etc.). In the end, Marquez proposes to interpret the landside–airside boundary as a research tool, or a lens, that in hindsight provides a different perspective of airport history.
- Fuller, G., & Harley, R. (2004). Anatomy of an airport. In Aviapolis: A book about airports. London, UK: Black Dog.Google Scholar
- Nye, D. (1994). American technological sublime. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Sayles, J. (Director). (2009). Limbo, a condition of unknowable outcome [Film]. New York, NY: Green/Renzi.Google Scholar
- Stover, D. (2003, March). Airport of the future: Science Newsfront. Popular Science.Google Scholar