It just feels like industrial scale gas-lighting, and no one in charge can admit it doesn't work afterwards because too much was spent on it.

Is stacking solar on the roof and AC's inside really so uneconomical?

I’m very familiar with this airport, and from my perspective the engineers behind the project did a very good job designing a building that can take best advantage of its location. See, the airport is located alongside the coast, and the sea breeze there can be pretty powerful.

Note that this is a new building (dedicated to arrivals), and is adjacent to the original building, which is still in use for departures. The old building is also mostly passively cooled, and the difference in perceived temperature between the two is striking. The old terminal behaves more like a concrete bunker and can get very stuffy. In contrast, this new arrival hall feels a bit like you’re on the deck of a ship at sea.

I have plenty of other issues about other elements of the new building, but that part works pretty well!

so it's not "cooled" at all

Giant fans are rather different than "natural ventilation" mentioned in the headline.

Who sets their air conditioning to 82F?

Doing this in a tropical country is penny-wise and pound foolish. As Lee Kuan Yew said, you need air conditioning to be able to think in a tropical country: https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/09/air-conditioning-on...

"Air conditioning was a most important invention for us, perhaps one of the signal inventions of history. It changed the nature of civilization by making development possible in the tropics. Without air conditioning you can work only in the cool early-morning hours or at dusk. The first thing I did upon becoming prime minister was to install air conditioners in buildings where the civil service worked. This was key to public efficiency."