SFO's Terminal 1 has been racking up accolades for its design, and honestly? It deserves them. The soaring ceilings, the natural light, the clean lines — it's the kind of space that makes you momentarily forget you're about to pay $19 for a turkey wrap. Some are calling it the most beautiful airport terminal in the world, and having walked through it, that's not pure hyperbole.

But here at The Dissent, we like to appreciate nice things and ask what they cost.

The Terminal 1 renovation project, known as the Harvey Milk Terminal 1, came with a price tag north of $2.4 billion. That's billion with a B. And while SFO is quick to point out that airport capital projects are funded by airline revenue bonds and federal grants — not your property taxes — let's not pretend that cost doesn't trickle down. Airlines pass facility charges to passengers. Every ticket out of SFO carries the weight of that gorgeous terrazzo flooring.

To be fair, infrastructure investment isn't inherently wasteful. Airports are economic engines, and a world-class city arguably needs a world-class terminal. The old Terminal 1 was a dated, cramped embarrassment that didn't exactly scream "innovation capital of the world." The redesign by Gensler incorporated seismic upgrades, energy-efficient systems, and dramatically improved passenger flow. These are real, functional improvements — not just aesthetic vanity.

The real question is whether San Francisco can apply this same competence to, say, building housing, fixing Muni, or completing any project that doesn't involve a federal funding spigot and airline-backed bonds. When the incentive structures are right and actual stakeholders (airlines) are holding decision-makers accountable, it turns out the city can deliver something spectacular on a reasonable timeline.

So enjoy the terminal. Snap your photos. Just remember: the government builds beautifully when someone else is watching the checkbook. Maybe we should try that model more often.