Any architect who proposes a new airport that:
Points directly across the center of a capital city,
Your own diagram shows flight paths deviating rapidly from the centre-line, so what makes you think this airport (or any other) would be different?
Also, your reference to the KE STN incident 'occuring over Westminster' is a total red herring, as this occured within 3 miles of the airport, as indeed most incidents do.
Has no taxiways - can you see any taxiways?,***
I wouldn't expect it to, it is an early concept sketch. Look at many maps which feature airports - some just have a plane symbol, some have runways, it is rare to find maps with taxiways, even those generate by the airport itself (for usage by passengers). Taxiways are a detail which are relevant to the aviators, something for later.
Has a terminal building at the end of the runway, which is inherently dangerous.
I contacted Foster + Partners for more details, and would like to get their explanation of this. However, it is a cargo terminal, not for passengers. There are buildings within a very short distance of the runways at many airports - although I don't know why they have been placed there in what is obviously a new scheme. However, my concern is more that we have terminal + cargo, little evidence of parking structures, or of plans to include revenue generators like airport hotels and offices. However, these are still details further down the line - given that much of this facility is going to be on reclaimed land, the cost will be high, so maybe that is why they aren't features, or maybe the 'airport / cargo city' will include some commercial (non-cargo) facilities.
Is built next to an oil and gas terminal, which is inherently dangerous,
Which is perpendicular to the runways. Are there any documented cases of aircraft even going into terminals, let alone buildings behind them, or separated by a concrete barrier? Maybe a Q400 in HKT? DFW microburst - but tanks still much more vulnerable there than on this site / doppler radar prevents microbursts from being issue today???
(SS, before you get on your horse, I will play my hand - like Nick Thomas, I trained as an architect, but went into the field of websites, seeking 'Ryanair' turnarounds! I run two transport related websites, so my interest is in the impact the new airport will have on route networks, and naturally in the design of the building itself and its surface access. I therefoe comment on operational matters as an outsider)
Is built on a cache of unexploded bombs, which is inherently dangerous
And which can be exploded! Why hasn't this been done before? Costs too much. Why would this be done BEFORE laying a new airport on top of it? Costs too much not to!
Such an architect is either brain-dead, or very badly advised. Perhaps Lummox Foster could tell us how many pilots, controllers and airport managers were on his design team. I can predict the answer - none. And only a brain-dead architect would do such a thing.
I wouldn't mind you having a go at architects and planners if you were either a) amusing or b) accurate. The reality is actually that the mindset to practice in either professions is very similar, especially as both rely on extensive usage of maps and other geographical data, and both are frequently hassled by the beancounters to get the maximum output from their machines.
Now when it comes to Foster, you really have picked the wrong fight! Not only has he designed THREE world class airport terminals (Stansted pre-mall, HKG & BJS3), but as it happens, he IS both an architect AND a pilot of jets and helicopters! This is all openly documented fact - you can debate the architectural or operational merits of any of his buildings, but they are all there to see. You on the other hand have taken a Google map (which anyone who knows anything about cartography will tell you are some of the most dumbed down maps going, most speficically because they lack contours), and drawn a box on it with 6 lines for runways. Have you considered what going so far east does for surface access? Depth of the sea? And presumably, your fantasy island is so far east that it enters Dutch waters, and therefore IS part of the Schengen zone which you keep on saying the UK is part of!