Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport Terminal 2 and Supporting Facilities

I served as Architect in Charge for the overall project and contributed as one of the scheme design contributors. My role included architectural control across the terminal design, with deeper implementation responsibility for all commercial areas during the construction documentation stage.

I also worked on passenger-facing facility systems, including check-in islands, counters, security check partitions and railing systems. These elements required coordination between passenger movement, operational requirements, human scale, material durability, visual quality, manufacturer samples and site implementation.

This role gave me a close view of how large public environments are experienced through both spatial systems and small physical touchpoints. Counters, partitions, patterns, materials and boundary systems became part of how passengers read the terminal and move through it.

Airport commercial areas do not work like conventional shopping centres. In a typical shopping centre, movement can be exploratory and repeated. In an airport terminal, passenger movement is directional, time-limited and shaped by check-in, security, immigration, boarding and operational procedures.

This creates a specific challenge. Commercial space must be visible and accessible, but it cannot interrupt the transport function. Service facilities must be easy to find and use, but they also need to meet security, operational and maintenance requirements.

Passenger attention is limited, so spatial cues, material boundaries and service touchpoints need to work together. The design challenge was to support movement while improving the visibility, usability and quality of the passenger-facing environment.

The passenger-facing facility systems were central to the terminal experience. Check-in islands, counters, security check channels and partition systems shaped how passengers approached services, understood boundaries, queued, interacted with staff and continued their journey.

The counter system covered multiple functions, including check-in counters, security check counters, immigration inspection counters, service counters, inquiry counters and boarding counters. These counters needed to align with the interior language of Terminal 2 while meeting practical requirements for human scale, durability and ease of use.

Security check channels were designed as integrated facility units. A typical unit combined baggage inspection benches, verification counters, cameras, screens, service interfaces, reserved high-voltage and low-voltage connections, and finished partitions into one coordinated system.

The terminal’s architectural language was shaped by the cloud concept, expressed through roof form, canopy rhythm, ceiling systems, light and material continuity. These elements supported the terminal identity while helping passengers read the scale and direction of the space.

The tensile membrane canopy became one of the first passenger touchpoints after arrival at the terminal frontage. The sequence continued through the departure hall ceiling and concluded again at the boarding bridge, where passengers moved from terminal interior to aircraft connection.

This section supports the HENEX lens through perception, affect and matter. The terminal is read not only through signs, but also through light, form, material, rhythm and spatial memory.

This project taught me that large public environments are understood through sequences of touchpoints rather than through one single architectural gesture. Canopy edges, check-in islands, queues, counters, partitions, commercial turns and boarding transitions all become part of how people read and remember a terminal.

It also made the connection between architecture and later HENEX work clearer. Public experience depends on visibility, touch, rhythm, material cues and service interfaces as much as it depends on form. This became an early bridge between built environment design and later work in UX, service design and public interface systems.

The project remains important because it shows how architectural design can move from scheme control to implementation quality while staying focused on passenger understanding, service use and spatial legibility.