PDA

View Full Version : JFK Int'l Airport - International Arrivals Building, Terminal 4 - by S.O.M



Edward
January 23rd, 2002, 01:17 PM
From New York Times

January 23, 2002

A Dutch Touch in Flying (Right Down to the Flies)

By JOHN KIFNER

VICTOR VAN DER CHIJS began his first board meeting at the new International Arrivals Building at Kennedy Airport promptly at 9 a.m. on Sept. 11. The meeting ended at 9:10.

"It was incredible," he remembered. "My reaction was disbelief — `this cannot be true.' "

As he stared at the smoke pouring from the ruined skyline of Lower Manhattan, a mechanical voice oddly repeated every 15 minutes over the public address system: "Terminal 4 J.F.K. is a nonsmoking area."

The building had been open for only four months and there were still no television sets anywhere, so workers turned to a radio to find out what was happening.

"It changed my world quite a bit," said Mr. van der Chijs (it rhymes with wise), whose formal title is president and chief executive of Schiphol USA, making him, among other things, the boss of the new $1.4 billion terminal, which is the cornerstone of a $10.3 billion revitalization program under way at the airport. It is the first air terminal in the United States to be built, developed and managed by a private corporation, a subsidiary of Schiphol Group, the operator of the Amsterdam airport, and the only terminal in the United States that is operated by an entity other than an airline or a government agency.

A tall, slim man of 42 — he keeps trim running and bicycle racing — attired in an elegant double breasted gray pinstripe suit, Mr. van der Chijs studied law in his native Amsterdam (he conducts business in Dutch on a tiny cellphone), and was a banker in Hong Kong before joining Schiphol, which has an international business in airport management and real estate. The new terminal is the company's beachhead in America, but he finds himself in a somewhat different world than he had imagined.

First, of course, business fell off drastically. The terminal is designed to handle six million passengers a year, but in the immediate aftermath of the attack, business dropped to about 25 percent of normal. It has been slowly building back up, he said, to about three-quarters of the usual volume. "We are hurting," he said.

Then there is the issue of security and new federally mandated baggage inspections that many people fear will make air travel even more of a nightmare. No one, however, wants to get on a plane with someone wearing exploding sneakers.

In terms of security, the new Terminal 4 is pretty much state of the art. It already has three of the big CTX baggage-screening machines, which cost $1 million each and are the size of a small car, with built-in explosive-sniffing technology — machines that are to be required in all airports by Dec. 31. (There may be quite a scramble, Mr. van der Chijs observed, because factories are now able to turn out only about 85 a year.) There is also a computerized system that connects each piece of checked luggage with a passenger's boarding pass. If a passenger does not get on the airplane, the baggage can be quickly located and removed. No passenger, he said proudly, has to wait more than 15 minutes to get through security checks, while in some airports there have been lines lasting for two or three hours. But Terminal 4 does not yet have Mr. van der Chijs's favorite device, iris-identifying equipment that is used in some places in Europe, which uses a person's eyeball to verify identity.

It does, however, have illuminated signs picturing things passengers are not allowed to carry on: golf clubs, pool cues, hockey sticks, ski poles and corkscrews.

"This terminal is probably safer than a city," said Mr. van der Chijs, who likes to think of airports as small cities in themselves.

Of course, the new terminal was designed long before Sept. 11 made fear such a part of flying. A lot of what went into building Terminal 4 came from lessons learned at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, a famously passenger-friendly agglomeration of shops, restaurants, bars and hotels.

"We want to look at it through the eyes of the passenger," Mr. van der Chijs said. "There should be lots of daylight, an open feeling. We have a lot of art. We use our airport knowledge. The airport should be a pleasant place to stay. Especially now, when people may be staying longer."

So there are glass walls, flooding the building with sunlight. There are wide aisles around the counters of the 40 airlines, from Aer Lingus to World, using the terminal. The concourse with shops and restaurants is before the security checks, so it is open to friends and relatives accompanying passengers, encouraging them to linger. The artwork includes Alexander Calder's "Flight" mobile from the old International Arrivals Building, (whose last remnants are still being gobbled up by backhoes outside the windows) and ceramic bas-relief sculptures above the immigration booths depicting New York City street scenes, including Black Israelites haranguing people in Times Square.

"Let me show you something else we learned from Schiphol," said Mr. van der Chijs, an impish bad-boy grin breaking his strait-laced demeanor, leading a visitor into the men's room.

On each of the urinals, a black fly had been stenciled several inches above the drain.

"This saves you a lot of cleaning," he said happily. "The male nature is to want to aim at something."

NY4Life
January 29th, 2004, 10:57 PM
http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/jfk/images/new6.jpg

Anyone have updates on this project?
For those of you who are clueless, the above project is the new mega-Terminal 8 at JFK International.

NY4Life
January 29th, 2004, 11:03 PM
TERMINAL 8

http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/jfk/images/new1.jpg
Concourse - Gates & Waiting Areas


http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/jfk/images/new5.jpg
Departure Level - Ticket Purchase

http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/jfk/images/new4.jpg

http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/jfk/images/new3.jpg

Current Construction:
http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/jfk/images/new2.jpg

STT757
January 29th, 2004, 11:29 PM
The AA terminal project at JFK is going to eventually replace their current two terminals (8 & 9) with a single large terminal, the project was launched in '99 and was originaly scheduled for completion in '06.

It was originaly envisioned as a 55 gate terminal, however due to economic conditions and AA trying to preserve it's cash position (it barely avoided bankruptcy a couple months ago) they are "slowing" construction and scaling the project back.

It will have fewer gates (39 instead of the originally envisioned 55) and it's completion will not come untill '08, however the mid-field concourse should be open by late '06.

AA is getting hit hard by low cost carriers at JFK like Jetblue, they have pulled down alot of their shorter Domestic flying. Their future plans for JFK are for Trans-Cons and International flying, the Domestic stuff (minus LAX, SFO etc) will be at LGA.

AA is at the same time building a BEHEAMOUTH terminal in Miami, which is where they are concentrating their current resources.

I believe most major work at JFK has actually been suspended for the time being, it should resume within a year or so.

The airline industry was alot different in '99 when AA launched the JFK project, they have had to alter their plans to meet the current market.

NY4Life
January 30th, 2004, 12:54 PM
What about the Terminal 5/6 project? I've seen renderings of it and was wondering if they are really going to do this new mega terminal. Wow! :shock: JFK International is really spicing things up and creating a "capital of the world" type airport equipped with a light rail system that connects the terminals to local transit centers, two up-to-date terminals (Terminal 1 & 4) and two new mega terminals on the way.[/img]

STT757
January 31st, 2004, 01:30 AM
The new Terminal for Jetblue that will replace T-6 and include T-5 will be 23 gates, not HUGE but decent size compared to other terminals.

T-4 at JFK for instance only has 16 gates!..

For a comparison..

JFK has 9 terminals, EWR has three.

Yet EWR has more gates with three terminals than JFK's 9.

lofter1
July 27th, 2005, 07:47 PM
American Airlines Unveils $1.1 Billion Terminal At JFK Airport
July 27, 2005

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=52391

More space is on the horizon for travelers flying out of JFK Airport.

American Airlines unveiled a new $1.1 billion passenger terminal Wednesday. The airline says it should be up and running next month.

The terminal has more ticket windows, and more screening lines to help speed passengers through baggage claims and security check points.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says travelers who use the new terminal should feel safe.

“They certainly have purchased the ultimate in state-of -the-art technology, and they understand that we live in a world, sadly, where security is in everybody's interest," said Bloomberg.

"When you check your luggage here, we'll actually have inline screening systems that will screen baggage as it's checked. So from a security standpoint, when the facility opens it will be state-of-the-art," said American Airlines Chairman and CEO Gerard Arpey.

When phase two of the project is completed in about two years, American Airlines says the ticket agents and security staff will be able to process 1,800 passenger an hour.

The terminal will also feature self serve ticket kiosks, as well as shops and restaurants, and 800 feet of curb space to keep traffic moving during passenger pick-ups and drop-offs.

http://www.dmjmhn.aecom.com/media/4384.jpg

http://www.dmjmharris.com/media/4259.jpg

more info at DMJM:
http://www.dmjmhn.aecom.com/MarketsAndServices/40/28/index.jsp

and at DMJMHarris:
http://www.dmjmharris.com/MarketsAndServices/39/99/index.jsp

BrooklynRider
July 27th, 2005, 11:32 PM
JFK is head and shoulders above both Newark and LaGuardia. It is not "your father's JFK". NOw, if they could only get us there quickly and on a direct route...

pianoman11686
July 27th, 2005, 11:50 PM
Is there an underground walkway to the concourse in the rear?

Alonzo-ny
July 27th, 2005, 11:58 PM
That could have been more impressive, just average

pianoman11686
July 23rd, 2006, 12:51 AM
Demolishing a Celebrated Wall of Glass

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/23/nyregion/thecity/glas600.jpg
The stained-glass facade of American Airlines Terminal 8 will soon be reduced to souvenir key chains.

By RUTH FORD

Published: July 23, 2006

When American Airlines Terminal 8 opened in 1960 at what was then New York International Airport at Idlewild, its most striking feature was the great stained-glass facade. The structure, made of red, sapphire and white glass tiles, wasn’t just public art; it also allowed light into the terminal, while keeping those inside from broiling in the south-facing building.

But next May, the 317-foot-by-23-foot translucent wall will come down. American Airlines is razing Terminal 8 as part of a $1.1 billion expansion that will create one terminal to serve all its customers at John F. Kennedy International Airport. “The cathedral,” as the abstract mosaic has sometimes been called, will vanish.

The airline had hoped to salvage the window, designed by the artist Robert Sowers, but was put off by the expense. “It would cost $1 million just to take it down,” said Steven Silver, who manages real estate at American. So when the terminal is demolished, the only act of preservation will be to use some of the glass to make key chains for airline employees.

Martin Rambusch, a fourth-generation fabricator of stained glass, whose grandfather helped assemble the window’s 30,000 tiles, said the plan to scrap it was “very disappointing.” The facade was once the largest stained-glass installation in the world, he said, adding that it was surpassed only in 1979 by Lovers Lane United Methodist Church in Dallas, three of whose four walls are stained glass.

A different fate is planned for two interior murals by the Brazilian artist Hector Carybé, which depict scenes of American frontier life and the art and music of Latin America. They are being sold, the proceeds to pay for a mural in the new terminal by a Haitian artist, Jean-Claude Leganeur.

While Terminal 8 is not a designated landmark, the idea of turning the glass mural into key chains has upset some. “It’s disrespectful and distasteful,” said Harriet Senie, a professor of art history at City College and the City University of New York Graduate Center. “It’s almost like a cannibalization.”

Recently, some American Airlines employees at Terminal 8 weighed in on the mural’s fate. “I assumed they would be saving the window,” said John Corrado, a pilot with the airline for 28 years. “It is part of the New York landscape.”

The plan to turn shards of glass into key chains seems “tacky,” he added.

“They should preserve it,” said Craig Kozan, a supervisor, who said the artwork reminded him of a calmer time in air travel.

But John Farrell, another pilot, said: “In this age, you can’t afford too much sentimentality. There are razor-thin margins in this business, and I don’t think anybody ever buys a ticket because American Airlines has a very nice stained window. ”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

ManhattanKnight
July 23rd, 2006, 01:05 AM
Is there an underground walkway to the concourse in the rear?

Yes, but it involves escalator/elevator rides down and back up to reach the outer concourse. I've been using Terminal 9 since last year. The main (ticketing) hall is enormous.

lofter1
July 23rd, 2006, 02:15 AM
Demolishing a Celebrated Wall of Glass

Very sad indeed.

Another sure sign of US Corporations' fall from their once-exalted perch (Cathedrals of Commerce) to the mundane world of bean counters, number crunchers and efficient functionaries (few of whom have retirement plans worth a pile of doo).

macreator
July 23rd, 2006, 02:46 AM
While I'm a bit disappointed with the fact that the glass wall will not be saved in some fashion (I was hoping for a few sections of it to be placed in the new terminal), I am just so thrilled that this otherwise awful and utterly obsolete terminal will finally be demolished.

Now we just need to either raze the former Pan Am terminal (now operated by Delta) or at least gut the place and renovate and we'll have a spiffy set of terminals at JFK.

The international arrivals portal at Delta is enough to make a first time tourist to the US think that America is a third world nation (although I suppose the recent weeklong blackout in Queens could do the same). I doubt the terminal has been renovated since it was built.

ablarc
July 23rd, 2006, 02:50 AM
Now we just need to either raze the former Pan Am terminal (now operated by Delta) or at least gut the place and renovate...
That was once the cat's meow. Even had air curtains.

ZippyTheChimp
July 23rd, 2006, 10:34 AM
^
And Pan Am was the cat's meow.

http://www.panamair.org/memorabilia/707menu.htm

Jim856796
September 26th, 2007, 06:37 PM
terminal 9 was demolished during 2005 or early 2006. I cheched the GlobExplorer Image atlas and it's not there anymore. Terminal 8 should be under demolition right about now. Or has it already completed its destruction?

ManhattanKnight
September 26th, 2007, 06:44 PM
^Check again. The new Terminal 9, which opened only a few months ago, is one of the largest at JFK (it's cavernous, actually). Parts of the old T9 remained in use while the new terminal was being built. Almost all of AA's domestic and international flights now use the new terminal instead of the original AA terminal (Terminal 8). In this photo, taken while T9 was still under construction but nothing remained of the old T9, the large, gray-roofed structures on the on the left are parts of T9; T8 is on the right. There is an underground passage connecting the two main parts of the new terminal.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/6931/t9dt2.jpg

Jim856796
September 28th, 2007, 08:46 AM
^Check again. The new Terminal 9, which opened only a few months ago, is one of the largest at JFK (it's cavernous, actually). Parts of the old T9 remained in use while the new terminal was being built. Almost all of AA's domestic and international flights now use the new terminal instead of the original AA terminal (Terminal 8). In this photo, taken while T9 was still under construction but nothing remained of the old T9, the large, gray-roofed structures on the on the left are parts of T9; T8 is on the right. There is an underground passage connecting the two main parts of the new terminal.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/6931/t9dt2.jpg

!. When was this aerial photo taken? If so, is it outdated?
2. Why is the old Terminal 8 not under demolition?
3. I thought the new Mega Terminal was not supposed to open until every portion of it is completed.
4. When was the old Terminal 9 destroyed?

ZippyTheChimp
August 12th, 2010, 01:14 AM
08.11.2010


JFK Burns Out On Jet Age Terminals


SOM will expand Terminal 4 for Delta,
tearing down the iconic if unloved midcentury Terminal 3

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/image/JFK_Terminal4_Gate.jpg
SOM is designing an expanded Terminal 4 at JFK, which will include nine new gates for Delta Airlines.


JFK airport is entering a new jet age—one without many of the iconic terminals that defined the previous one and established the cool, hyper-modern look of flying for generations of travelers. To that end, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced an agreement today with Delta Airlines for a $1.2 billion expansion of Terminal 4 that will lead to the subsequent demolition of Terminal 3, the former Pan Am Worldport.

Designed by Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, the 1960 Terminal 3 is famous for its flying saucer–like shape and rooftop parking, and for receiving the Beatles for their historic arrival in America, though a 1972 expansion has marred its original character and led to numerous complaints about it being the worst of JFK’s eight terminals. The Port Authority and Delta insist the building is beyond repair, arguing that its replacement with taxiways and plane parking will improve efficiency at JFK, by some measures the most congested airport in the world.


http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/flypanam/ngy8BmQwBKBY9y8TmrelYg1OUnCcYUhYYPHH8LjXahKdw7FEWS 2B1KWHDXlc/worldport.jpg.scaled.1000.jpg
The original Terminal 3 was considered revolutionary when it opened, but it soon became outmoded
due to larger planes and a later expansion that destroyed much of its charm.


“There are always people who want to preserve our heritage and I sympathize with that,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said at a City Hall press conference, where the new plans were unveiled today. “But you can’t preserve everything. You have to strike the right balance and make room for new airports, new parks, new development.”

Even if there were room for Terminal 3, Delta CEO Richard Anderson said the Worldport would not be worth keeping. “The terminal is fully depreciated,” he said. “It’s not an asset you can recover at this point. We put a lot of money into it to keep it going, and we will for three more years, but we can’t put anything more into it.”



http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/JFK_Terminal4_Today.jpg
Top to Bottom: Terminals 2, 3, and 4 today.


http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/JFK_Terminal4_Tomorrow.jpg
When the project is finished, Terminal 4's Concourse B will expand by 9 gates, a
connector will extend to Terminal 2, and Terminal 3 will be replaced by plane parking and taxiways.


Terminal 3 will not be demolished until 2013, when the expansion of Terminal 4 is due to be completed. That project is being designed by SOM, who designed the rest of Terminal 4, and will include nine new gates for Delta, for a total of 25, 16 of which will be used by Delta for its international flights. A connection will be built with Terminal 2, which will continue to serve Delta’s domestic passengers, and security and baggage handling facilities will be expanded to accommodate the additional passengers. Otherwise the terminal will look much as it did when it opened in 2001.

Port Authority executive director Chris Ward said there will be no interruption in service due to the project, nor would the expanded terminal cause additional delays at the busy airport. “If anything, it will improve it, providing Delta with a more efficient operation,” Ward said. This is because the elimination of Terminal 3 will allow for double taxiways for both Terminal 2 and 4, and parking for planes so they may move between the gates, runway, and hangar more readily.



http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/JFK_Terminal4_Walkway.jpg
A new connector between Delta's Terminal 2 and the expanded Terminal 4.


The announcement has still given preservationists some pause. “Perhaps the Port Authority should have some preservation plan of action,” said Nina Rappaport, chair of Docomomo-New York/Tristate. “And not just for airports but all their properties. Because transportation involves so much modern technology and architecture, perhaps they need to look more closely at preservation.” As for the Port Authority and Delta’s contention that it would be a hindrance, financially and functionally, to keep even part of the building, she replied: “It just takes foresight.”

Rappaport said her larger concern remains the preservation of I.M. Pei’s Terminal 6, which is slated for demolition next year to make way for another expansion of JetBlue’s facilities. Susan Baer, who was named the Port Authority’s director of aviation last fall, said that neither has been deemed worthy of retaining. “In the environmental review, all our experts said that Terminal 6 could come down but that we should save Saarinen, the significant one,” Baer said. She added that the $20 million renovation of Terminal 5 is nearly complete, though a Port Authority spokesperson said an opening date has not yet been set.



http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/JFK_Terminal4_Security.jpg
Security facilities will be expanded to cope with more passengers as well as new measures implimented since the terminal opened in 2001.


John Morris Dixon, the former editor of Progressive Architecture, said he remembers Pan Am’s Terminal 3 fondly, from when he wrote about it for the magazine when it first opened. “You had this great statement, this canopy, with the planes nuzzling in beneath it,” he said. “But it was outdated almost immediately” due to the trend toward ever larger planes. He agrees that the 1972 addition has made the terminal “miserable,” akin to what Robert Moses did to Penn Station, and noted that mounting a case for its salvation will be difficult.

“It’s such a great idea, and so unique,” Dixon said. “I don’t know if there’s another circular terminal like it. But I just think it’s damned anyway. I don’t know if any amount of preservation lobbying would make a difference, and I don’t know what the argument would be. What are they going to do with another structure there with no assigned use? They’ve already got that with TWA.”

Matt Chaban

Copyright © 2003-2010 | The Architect's Newspaper, LLC

ttk
August 12th, 2010, 03:57 PM
In light of Hizzoner's obdurate refusal to allow even a hearing about protecting the old Huntington Hartford gallery before it was slashed and bludgeoned into its present ridiculous form, for the Mayor to say “There are always people who want to preserve our heritage and I sympathize with that” is little more than self-aggrandizing empty posturing.

But on the merits of saving the Worldport, all I can say is that preservationists should concentrate on saving the front part of I.M. Pei's Sundrome instead.

Merry
August 19th, 2010, 08:11 AM
The Future Future of JFK Terminal 4

by Matt Chaban

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/4902336979_27f825b3fd_b.jpg (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/4902336979_27f825b3fd_b.jpg)
JFK Terminal 4, with 30 additional gates, as planned for some time in the future. (CLICK TO ZOOM)

If this rendering of Terminal 4 at JFK looks familiar, good. That means you’re reading, as it, or something very much like it, was in our story last week about the Port Authority and Delta’s plans for expanding the terminal. What is different, though, if you look closely, is the number of gates. This rendering was released by Delta last week, though it initially confounded us because the talk had been of nine new gates, not the 30 we counted when we compared it to the terminal’s current layout, which you can see and compare after the jump. It turns out, the wrong rendering had been released, and this is in fact the ultimate plans for the future development of Terminal 4, with 10 new gates on Concourse A (right) and 11 more added to Delta’s nine on Concourse B (left). That makes for a total of 46 gates—larger than some mid-sized airports—up from a current 16. No wonder they have to tear down Terminal 3 to make room for more plane parking. But not before Hal Hayes has something to say about it.

http://archpaper.com/uploads/JFK_Terminal4_Today.jpg
Terminal 4 today, with 16 gates.

Hayes was the lead planner at SOM when it created the current Terminal 4 a decade-and-a-half ago, and then he filled a similar role at HOK when it developed a prior plan for Delta at JFK. Now on his own, the architect takes issue with the preservationists we spoke to last week—to his mind, Terminal 3 is easily the most important of all at JFK, even compared to Saarinen’s Terminal 5, which he said is formally but not functionally groundbreaking. As for the threatened Terminal 6 (http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=4626) by I.M. Pei, Hayes said Terminal 3 is “superior to Pei, especially in terms of aviation architecture. Pei’s is a pretty corporate box, but it could be anywhere.” Terminal 3, however, had an unparalleled design that allowed for passenger loading and maintenance to take place all under its unique canopy. “This is really the place that established the paradigm for airport architecture, and these terminals were treated like international headquarters, intended to be corporate icons,” Hayes said of JFK.

http://archpaper.com/uploads/JFK_Terminal4_Tomorrow.jpg
Terminal 4 in 2015, after Delta has added nine new gates and Terminal 3 has been torn down to make way for parking and taxiways.

Hayes said the biggest problem is that Terminal 3 “suffers from a no-name architect,” otherwise it might have a better shot at preservation—something he insists would be far easier than the Port Authority, Delta, or even some preservationists will allow. He proposes demolishing the ’70s addition, running the connector Delta is planning between terminals 2 and 4 through the old Terminal 3, and turning it into a grand mall of some sort, with the shops and eateries that are now familiar to any airport. As for the Port Authority’s insistence that there is no room for even remnants of the building, Hayes disagrees. “They can leave it pretty much where it is and not impact the new terminals or the parking one iota,” Hayes said. He should know, as this is precisely what his previous plans called for.

UPDATE: It was just announced (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/email/headlines/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&div=-333956256&newsId=20100817005082) that AECOM has won the $11 million contract to oversee construction on the terminal project. Is there anything they can do (http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=4637)?

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/8487

LightningEagle
July 24th, 2011, 04:21 PM
Demolition of terminal 6 has began.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ED26GFjCHU

futurecity
July 24th, 2011, 08:40 PM
I think the new T4 is fine and an improvement over T3 for Delta, but I don't like this bridge to T2 idea. JFK has such a shitty layout though, and is crap compared to the new designs. Should have bulldozed it all back when they had the chance and built a couple of mega terminals + a proper rail link, not a half-baked 2 seat ride. NYC really has a long way to go to catch up to the airport system infrastructure of its peer cities around the world.

If JFK could expand a new terminal could be built to serve a new runway away from the central core, perhaps. If they don't expand one of their airports, they are stuck and will start to lose out economically. It's only a matter of time before expansion talks will start and the fight will begin.

BBMW
July 27th, 2011, 01:02 PM
I always thought they should demo Ts 2 and 3, and bridge T1 and T4 into one large terminal.

macreator
July 27th, 2011, 08:56 PM
It's bad enough that that bridge has the most absurd path, but the fact that it seems to have barely any ceiling height is ridiculous. On a project of this scale, couldn't we have gotten higher ceilings on the ped bridge or at least a skylight?

BBMW
July 28th, 2011, 06:22 PM
What are the plans to replace it?


Demolition of terminal 6 has began.

Merry
February 21st, 2013, 07:18 AM
Grrrrrr.


JFK's Once Futuristic Pan Am Terminal Is In Danger of Getting Torn Down

by Kate Flynn


http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2013/02/20/130215_blog_photo_worldport-old/largest.jpg

The original architects of the Pan Am Worldport might have hoped that the building would fit in perfectly with the landscape of the new millennium.

The terminal at New York’s JFK Airport was built in 1960 by Ives, Turano & Gardner Associated Architects in the shape of a futuristic flying saucer. It made its mark on American cultural history by sending off the Beatles after their first U.S. tour and appearing in at least one vintage James Bond adventure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieff3w5P0Ko). Pan Am shuttered its ticket windows in 1991, but the Worldport still serves as a reminder that air travel was once seen as an exotic luxury, rather than a nuisance-riddled necessity.

Although the Worldport is iconic, its current tenant, Delta Airlines, is planning to dismantle the structure, now known as Terminal 3, in 2015 to make way for a $1.2 billion expansion of neighboring Terminal 4. The original Worldport space will eventually be used as a parking lot for aircraft.

Recently, an online campaign to preserve the terminal has been gaining traction, spearheaded by aviation enthusiast Kalev Savi and partner Anthony Stramaglia. Save The Pan Am Worldport (http://www.savetheworldport.org/) aims to keep this iconic piece of aviation architecture from being demolished, and to see it refurbished and repurposed for new generations of jet-setters.

"You just don’t see buildings like that anymore constructed at airports," says Stramaglia. "Now a terminal is more like a warehouse than a showpiece. This building is more of an art form."

http://blog.preservationnation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/130215_blog_photo_worldport-now.jpg
Delta Air Lines is the current tenant of the Worldport at JFK, now known as Terminal 3.

Savi and Stramaglia started an online petition (https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/save-the-pan-am-delta-terminal-3-at-jfk-airport) a little over a year ago that has garnered 1,818 signatures so far. Their current project is to get the Worldport approved for New York Landmark Status, with the eventual hope that it will be recognized with a spot on the National Register of Historic Places.

Other terminals and structures at JFK have been recognized for their historic significance over the years, including the TWA Flight Center, a swooping dome that was completed in 1962 and designed by renowned Finnish American architect Eero Saarinen and added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2005. (It was also added to the 11 Most Endangered Historic Places list (http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/11-most-endangered/locations/twa-terminal-at-jfk-international-airport.html#.UR5PrmctDcs) in 2003.)

"In some people’s mind, that was the building worth saving," Savi says. "This criticism that there’s no famous architect associated with [the Worldport] I find to be a moot point."
The New York Port Authority and Delta Airlines have said that the Worldport is beyond repair, and upkeep and maintenance have become impractical and costly. "It’s not an asset you can recover at this point," Delta CEO Richard Anderson was quoted as saying in The Architect’s Newspaper in 2010.

http://blog.preservationnation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/130215_blog_photo_worldport-under.jpg
The underside of the Worldport in 2011.

Other complaints about the space include its small, cramped feel with the addition of baggage screening and TSA security checkpoints, which the architects didn’t have to consider in their original plans. It underwent a renovation in 1971 to accommodate the Boeing 747, but the interior space is still lagging behind modern airport standards. So far, the New York Port Authority and Delta haven’t responded to the campaign.

Savi and Stramaglia think that the structure could be preserved with some outside-the-box thinking, and they argue that, in an age of generic cookie-cutter airports, Delta could make a branding statement by repurposing the building, or even housing an aviation history museum inside the terminal. They also posit that tearing the terminal down and paving it over is twice as expensive as the cost of repair and refurbishment.

Save The Pan Am Worldport shows no signs of slowing down, and Savi and Stramaglia are hoping that they’ll be able to win some immunity from demolition for the flying saucer portion of the terminal before 2015. "It should be something that the public can enjoy, that can help them remember significant events from the past," Savi says. "It should be something that people want to go to."

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2013/02/jfks-once-futuristic-pan-am-terminal-danger-getting-torn-down/4753/

futurecity
February 21st, 2013, 07:08 PM
I'm not interested in keeping this building. There is nothing of interest architecturally IMO. The airport is currently half 3rd world, half decent. Terminal 2, 3 and 7 are all in need of replacement to meet modern standards for passenger experience and functionality. . Thankfully the new Terminal 4 project is nearly completed and this ugly saucer can be destroyed.

DUMBRo
February 22nd, 2013, 08:51 AM
The saucer is awesome. It sould be protected and fully restored. The crappy addition to T3 should absolutely be demolished. So the connector would have to swing through some classic midcentury modern. How horrible.

Tectonic
February 22nd, 2013, 09:13 AM
The saucer is awesome. It sould be protected and fully restored. The crappy addition to T3 should absolutely be demolished. So the connector would have to swing through some classic midcentury modern. How horrible.

I was thinking the same thing. Why not include it in the connector, which looks like it will be long and exhausting and way. I requested access from Delta to shoot the building but they turned me down. Sucks.

Merry
February 22nd, 2013, 10:52 AM
The saucer is awesome. It sould be protected and fully restored.

Agreed.

futurecity
February 23rd, 2013, 02:52 AM
I was thinking the same thing. Why not include it in the connector, which looks like it will be long and exhausting and way. I requested access from Delta to shoot the building but they turned me down. Sucks.

The connector has been cancelled removing any logical incentive to connect the saucer with the two terminals. The plan is to use buses to and fro between the terminals now. The walkway idea is over and done with. I must say it was a stupid idea, the walk would have been too long and there are few connecting passengers between these terminals. Buses just make more sense.

As for keeping the saucer and demolishing the rest, there is no use for it alone and it wold be a white elephant wasting money and taking up valuable airport real estate (airside operations or future landside development). It would be like the current old terminal 5 that is sitting empty. There are few transfer passengers from 2 to 3, so the idea of using it as some kind of lounge between terminals wouldn't make much sense. As it wouldn't be a sterile international-international connection, the idea that passengers transfering to/from domestic flights would hang around the saucer doesn't seem logical when they would most likely be anxious to get to their gates as quickly as possible.

Derek2k3
February 23rd, 2013, 07:34 PM
Seems JFK is looking to get rid of whatever architectural integrity it has left. I really hate the Port Authority...almost more than the MTA.


All slated to or have already been removed:

http://archpaper.com/uploads/Pei_JFK_Terminal_Column.jpg


http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/jfk_terminal_6_01.jpg


http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/idlewild_jfk_airport-1961_america-airlines-interior-small.jpg


http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/idlewild_jfk_airport-1961_american-airlines-terminal.jpg



Miami International Airport saves iconic JFK murals (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/baskas/2009-06-11-carybe-murals_N.htm)

http://i.usatoday.net/travel/_photos/2009/06/11/airport-topper.jpg



http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/idlewild_jfk_airport-1961_pan-american-terminal-night.jpg

More vintage images of JFK:
Time Capsule: Idlewild Airport, 1961
http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/time-capsule-idlewild-airport-1961



Trashing our icons as other cities leap-frog us....

Air Travel then and now: Pan Am’s Worldport vs Emirates’ new A380 Hub (http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/worldport)

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_memwf5aQuj1ripdaqo1_r1_500.jpg

Dubai’s Emirates Airline has drawn close comparisons to the once supreme Pan American World Airways. Emirates’ luxurious aircraft, global route network, trend setting innovations and glamours cabin crew have many calling the airline the new Pan Am. Early next year when Emirates opens its new “A380 Hub” it will have one more strong comparison to add to the list.

In 1960 Pan Am gave a home to the jet age when it opened the Pan Am Terminal later named Worldport at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. The state-of-the-art terminal was designed for the new 130 seater Pan Am Jet Clippers - The Boeing 707. For several years the 8 gate terminal held the title of the world’s largest and most advanced.

In 2013 Emirates will give the super jumbo its first official home when it opens the “A380 Hub” at Dubai International Airport. Designed to accommodate 20 of the 517 seater Airbus A380s at one time, the new hub can handle up to 15 million travelers per year. With 500,000 m2 on eleven levels the hub will feature dinning outlets such as Giraffe café, Paul, Carluccios, Shake Shack, Costa Metropolitan and a Moet & Chandon Champagne Bar. It will also be home to the biggest business class lounge in the world and a first class lounge with exclusive new facilities like a cigar bar and duty free shopping area. Both lounges offer direct access to the aircraft which means premium customers could be able to complete an entire air journey from check-in, duty free shopping, to arrival without ever seeing their fellow economy passengers flying on the lower deck. Also featured under the massive roof will be a dedicated hotel floor that will provided a 170-room four-star and 32-room five-star hotel. The hub is a concourse of the four-year-old Terminal 3, which by itself is already the wold’s largest terminal and the third largest building in the world by floor space.

Merry
February 24th, 2013, 01:47 AM
Seems JFK is looking to get rid of whatever architectural integrity it has left.

http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/idlewild_jfk_airport-1961_american-airlines-terminal.jpg


Sad, but true. I LOVE ^ this photo.

Stroika
February 24th, 2013, 11:20 AM
In 2013 Emirates will give the super jumbo its first official home when it opens the “A380 Hub” at Dubai International Airport. Designed to accommodate 20 of the 517 seater Airbus A380s at one time, the new hub can handle up to 15 million travelers per year. With 500,000 m2 on eleven levels the hub will feature dinning outlets such as Giraffe café, Paul, Carluccios, Shake Shack, Costa Metropolitan and a Moet & Chandon Champagne Bar. It will also be home to the biggest business class lounge in the world and a first class lounge with exclusive new facilities like a cigar bar and duty free shopping area. Both lounges offer direct access to the aircraft which means premium customers could be able to complete an entire air journey from check-in, duty free shopping, to arrival without ever seeing their fellow economy passengers flying on the lower deck.

Have to slightly disagree with you, Derek - though the fact that I'm doing so makes me question my own conclusions :)

I'm currently living abroad and am absolutely embarrassed by the state of the US's "gateway airports." Ironically, our worst airports (like our worst roads) are located in the biggest cities that most foreign visitors come to - New York, New Jersey and Chicago foremost among them. The buildings at JFK, Newark, Laguardia, O'Hare and other airports are simply no longer very functional for modern international air travel. I don't think there is much that can be done to salvage them - their layouts are inefficient and awkward, their infrastructure old and crumbling. If we want to have any claim to having First World airports (and most foreigners today would say the US does not), we need to get rid of these decaying structures and build new ones.

Perhaps because I'm so put off by most (non-starchitect) contemporary commercial and public-works architecture, which for me was enabled by the International Style and other strands of Modernism, I'm not sad to see the JFK buildings lost. Unlike pre-war architecture (and the only example of this at a Tri-State airport that I can think of is the shuttle terminal at Laguardia, which actually has been nicely rehabbed - but is an outlier since it's serving a limited number of people taking very small planes to Boston, DC, and Chicago), 1960s airport terminals (for me) have little charm and too many maintenance / rehabilitation needs to justify sinking lots of money into preserving them when spending potentially less money can yield a more functional, more modern facility.

PS I can't even imagine the US morally accepting the idea of competing with Dubai, Singapore, Qatar, etc. today in the realm of airports - in the current, left-leaning political environment, the perks they offer to business-class customers would probably result in an OWS siege of the airport. Just read the write-up of the Dubai airport! Even I, who think that to compete economically for investment we should have top-notch accommodations and facilities for business travelers, find it offensive that business travelers can make their entire trip without having to see the "masses" in Dubai. No way would our class-war-loving present-day US society allow that to happen!

Tectonic
February 25th, 2013, 05:26 PM
London: http://www.archdaily.com/335764/zaha-hadid-to-develop-plans-for-new-london-airport/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

BBMW
February 27th, 2013, 01:05 PM
For a lot of reason, NYC needs a new, from scratch airport. However, short of a man made island in the harbor someplace, JFK is the only chunk of land available in NYC to build it on.

As it stands, JFK is a terrible design for a modern airport, even ignoring the passenger amenities issues.


Have to slightly disagree with you, Derek - though the fact that I'm doing so makes me question my own conclusions :)

I'm currently living abroad and am absolutely embarrassed by the state of the US's "gateway airports." Ironically, our worst airports (like our worst roads) are located in the biggest cities that most foreign visitors come to - New York, New Jersey and Chicago foremost among them. The buildings at JFK, Newark, Laguardia, O'Hare and other airports are simply no longer very functional for modern international air travel. I don't think there is much that can be done to salvage them - their layouts are inefficient and awkward, their infrastructure old and crumbling. If we want to have any claim to having First World airports (and most foreigners today would say the US does not), we need to get rid of these decaying structures and build new ones.

Perhaps because I'm so put off by most (non-starchitect) contemporary commercial and public-works architecture, which for me was enabled by the International Style and other strands of Modernism, I'm not sad to see the JFK buildings lost. Unlike pre-war architecture (and the only example of this at a Tri-State airport that I can think of is the shuttle terminal at Laguardia, which actually has been nicely rehabbed - but is an outlier since it's serving a limited number of people taking very small planes to Boston, DC, and Chicago), 1960s airport terminals (for me) have little charm and too many maintenance / rehabilitation needs to justify sinking lots of money into preserving them when spending potentially less money can yield a more functional, more modern facility.

PS I can't even imagine the US morally accepting the idea of competing with Dubai, Singapore, Qatar, etc. today in the realm of airports - in the current, left-leaning political environment, the perks they offer to business-class customers would probably result in an OWS siege of the airport. Just read the write-up of the Dubai airport! Even I, who think that to compete economically for investment we should have top-notch accommodations and facilities for business travelers, find it offensive that business travelers can make their entire trip without having to see the "masses" in Dubai. No way would our class-war-loving present-day US society allow that to happen!

Tectonic
February 27th, 2013, 03:19 PM
La Guardia is worst and I don't see it happening. This country does not seem to want to invest in Brand New infrastructure.

futurecity
February 28th, 2013, 12:01 AM
Have to slightly disagree with you, Derek - though the fact that I'm doing so makes me question my own conclusions :)

I'm currently living abroad and am absolutely embarrassed by the state of the US's "gateway airports." Ironically, our worst airports (like our worst roads) are located in the biggest cities that most foreign visitors come to - New York, New Jersey and Chicago foremost among them. The buildings at JFK, Newark, Laguardia, O'Hare and other airports are simply no longer very functional for modern international air travel. I don't think there is much that can be done to salvage them - their layouts are inefficient and awkward, their infrastructure old and crumbling. If we want to have any claim to having First World airports (and most foreigners today would say the US does not), we need to get rid of these decaying structures and build new ones.

Perhaps because I'm so put off by most (non-starchitect) contemporary commercial and public-works architecture, which for me was enabled by the International Style and other strands of Modernism, I'm not sad to see the JFK buildings lost. Unlike pre-war architecture (and the only example of this at a Tri-State airport that I can think of is the shuttle terminal at Laguardia, which actually has been nicely rehabbed - but is an outlier since it's serving a limited number of people taking very small planes to Boston, DC, and Chicago), 1960s airport terminals (for me) have little charm and too many maintenance / rehabilitation needs to justify sinking lots of money into preserving them when spending potentially less money can yield a more functional, more modern facility.

PS I can't even imagine the US morally accepting the idea of competing with Dubai, Singapore, Qatar, etc. today in the realm of airports - in the current, left-leaning political environment, the perks they offer to business-class customers would probably result in an OWS siege of the airport. Just read the write-up of the Dubai airport! Even I, who think that to compete economically for investment we should have top-notch accommodations and facilities for business travelers, find it offensive that business travelers can make their entire trip without having to see the "masses" in Dubai. No way would our class-war-loving present-day US society allow that to happen!

I agree with you, but it is unfair to compare many of these palatial mega-hubs to US airports, especially those in small and rich ME nations, China or Asian city-states where the airport is used as a city marketing tool and a major prestige investment. Remember also that many of these mega hubs in Asia and Europe are massive international transfer points that compete with each other to attract as much transfer traffic as possible, which is rather unlike most US airports that are primarily domestic. They are often the only hub in their respective country and often state backed thus the political incentive is there to invest enormous sums. Such hubs are also more profitable than domestic based hubs which is an added incentive to attract people from competing hubs.

Dubai and other ME hubs are perhaps endowed with the best location for such a hub for this century, and they are making the most of it. You can't get any better than the confluence of the 3 most populated continents. Given such a lucrative location, it is not surprising that they invest tons of money to attract passengers away from rival hubs.

On the other hand, hubs like NYC handle relatively few international-international connections, meaning less incentive to develop fancy amenities to compete with rival hubs for the lucrative traffic. Also, NYC is not exactly located in the best location for such transfers nor has it the best immigration laws to enable them. Also, NYC does not need to have a fancy airport to attract business, etc, because people will come to NYC no matter what given its status as the financial and cultural capital of the USA.

That doesn't excuse the lack of investment in design in US airports, but it explains why there is not as much financial or political inventive to build beautiful airport terminals full of fancy amenities.

futurecity
February 28th, 2013, 12:06 AM
For a lot of reason, NYC needs a new, from scratch airport. However, short of a man made island in the harbor someplace, JFK is the only chunk of land available in NYC to build it on.

As it stands, JFK is a terrible design for a modern airport, even ignoring the passenger amenities issues.


La Guardia is worst and I don't see it happening. This country does not seem to want to invest in Brand New infrastructure.

I agree NYC has a problem with its airports, especially in capacity. Who knows what they will do, but if they don't do anything many studies have shown that economic growth will eventually be hurt by the airports being constrained. IMO, they should level JFK and add more runways while realigning the terminals, moving cargo off site, or find adjacent land off-airports (demolish nearby residential areas) for new terminals. I say this because JFK can not expand new runways outside its boundaries as of now (although anything can happen). An island airport would be perfect but would require massive federal investment and would be ridiculously expensive. There is sadly no good location for a new mega airport on a greenfield site within a reasonable distance from NYC thanks to suburban sprawl everywhere and protected lands.

As for LGA, I believe they are working currently on the new Central Terminal rebuilding project last time I heard.. Sadly, LGA constrains JFK and any expansion at JFK in terms of new runways would also probably affect LGA's capacity.

Nexis4Jersey
February 28th, 2013, 12:21 AM
The Regional Travel needs to be put on High Speed & Intercity Railways , which would open up slots for cross-country and International flights. The Amtrak plan reducing travel times down to 96minutes from New York City to Boston or DC , and 34minutes to Center City Philly , 50mins to Albany , 3hrs to Buffalo , 3hrs to Maine , 3hrs to Vermont , 5hrs to Montreal.... With Travel times like that you can shift Air Passengers over to Rail without ease. Of course the cost is the problem , it will cost about 150 billion to Upgrade the Current NEC/NE Division which is about 1,136 miles and add another 1,686 miles. But all these improvements are well worth it , we cannot expand EWR , JFK , LGA , PHL or BOS so the future is Rail. In Upstate NY and in the smaller secondary cities , Flights are being dumped and those areas are being cut off from the rest of the Region and larger Airports , so they need Rail aswell. Rail is also for the most part unaffected by rising Fuel costs and has the best fuel mileage out of all modes of Transportation...

futurecity
February 28th, 2013, 12:25 AM
The Regional Travel needs to be put on High Speed & Intercity Railways , which would open up slots for cross-country and International flights. The Amtrak plan reducing travel times down to 96minutes from New York City to Boston or DC , and 34minutes to Center City Philly , 50mins to Albany , 3hrs to Buffalo , 3hrs to Maine , 3hrs to Vermont , 5hrs to Montreal.... With Travel times like that you can shift Air Passengers over to Rail without ease. Of course the cost is the problem , it will cost about 150 billion to Upgrade the Current NEC/NE Division which is about 1,136 miles and add another 1,686 miles. But all these improvements are well worth it , we cannot expand EWR , JFK , LGA , PHL or BOS so the future is Rail. In Upstate NY and in the smaller secondary cities , Flights are being dumped and those areas are being cut off from the rest of the Region and larger Airports , so they need Rail aswell. Rail is also for the most part unaffected by rising Fuel costs and has the best fuel mileage out of all modes of Transportation...

The recent RPA study on airports showed that HSR would have little impact on airport demand at JFK, although LGA was freed up more by the elimination of the short haul flights. They concluded that HSR was only a part of the solution, but airport expansion is still vital for the economy's growth and HSR will not solve the problem alone. I think this is because at JFK the transfer passengers are still going to be required to arrive by air in order to fill up international flights. Much of the growth will be long haul flights to emerging market cities, not short haul hops. However, in order to make those flights work transfer flights from various points will still be required to fill up slots. I don't see how they would connect the HSR system to the airport terminal at JFK and they probably won't.

In London, they are going to be building HSR lines, but that still has not stopped the clamor for more airport capacity.

Also, it is not set in stone that we can't expand the airports. All it requires it is the political will and some economic stagnation blamed on airport overcrowding and every civic leader and business person will be very open to solutions on airports. JFK's layout could be radically altered, same with EWR. JFK's footprint is huge and more runways can be fitted in there if the terminal layout is completely re-arranged.

Nexis4Jersey
February 28th, 2013, 12:29 AM
The recent RPA study on airports showed that HSR would have little impact on airport demand at JFK, although LGA was freed up more by the elimination of the short haul flights. They concluded that HSR was only a part of the solution, but airport expansion is still vital for the economy's growth and HSR will not solve the problem alone. I think this is because at JFK the transfer passengers are still going to be required to arrive by air in order to fill up international flights. I don't see how they would connect the HSR system to the airport terminal at JFK.

Well Its better then doing nothing , the Short Haul flights are best replaced by HSR , so the RPA conflicts with itself. Theres no reason to take a Plane from Boston or Albany to NYC or Philly or DC to Philly , HSR can fill that gap. It works well in Europe and Asian , there's no reason It can't work in this region. Connecting Transit is decent at most stations.

futurecity
February 28th, 2013, 12:36 AM
Well Its better then doing nothing , the Short Haul flights are best replaced by HSR , so the RPA conflicts with itself. Theres no reason to take a Plane from Boston or Albany to NYC or Philly or DC to Philly , HSR can fill that gap. It works well in Europe and Asian , there's no reason It can't work in this region. Connecting Transit is decent at most stations.

The RPA didn't conflict with itself. It agreed with you but from its figures it wasn't enough to preclude runway expansion alone. So I want to see it happen to I doubt it would be the end of the story on airports. Also, given that international flights from JFK and EWR will need some feed from smaller cities, I don't see how HSR would eliminate most of those regional flights given the fact that it is unlikely that the HSR system will be linked into the airport terminal building for easy rail to plane transfers like we see in Europe.

Oh, and Europe has HSR of course, but they are still interesting in building runways and new airports in the mega hub cities. Frankfurt just opened a new runway and a new terminal is on the way. London is eager to build either a 3rd runway at heathrow or an entirely new airport probably off-shore, despite their HSR projects. They recognize the massive economic impact of airports to their national eeconomy and how valuable more connections to more emerging markets can be, yet they have obviously concluded that even a new HSR will not open enough slots at their current airports to preclude any further airport expansion.

Therefore we can conclude that even if a true HSR existed up and down the NEC, NYC may very well still need more airport capacity especially for long haul flights to grow its economic links with the emerging markets given that the region is projected to grow in population and air traffic demand. Since JFK itself is primarily O/D and medium-long haul orientated, HSR is not expected to free many slots there. Laguardia itself may because of its market, but the fact that the perimeter rule is in place there will reduce the ability to use those new slots profitably.

Nexis4Jersey
February 28th, 2013, 02:44 AM
The RPA didn't conflict with itself. It agreed with you but from its figures it wasn't enough to preclude runway expansion alone. So I want to see it happen to I doubt it would be the end of the story on airports. Also, given that international flights from JFK and EWR will need some feed from smaller cities, I don't see how HSR would eliminate most of those regional flights given the fact that it is unlikely that the HSR system will be linked into the airport terminal building for easy rail to plane transfers like we see in Europe.

Oh, and Europe has HSR of course, but they are still interesting in building runways and new airports in the mega hub cities. Frankfurt just opened a new runway and a new terminal is on the way. London is eager to build either a 3rd runway at heathrow or an entirely new airport probably off-shore, despite their HSR projects. They recognize the massive economic impact of airports to their national eeconomy and how valuable more connections to more emerging markets can be, yet they have obviously concluded that even a new HSR will not open enough slots at their current airports to preclude any further airport expansion.

Therefore we can conclude that even if a true HSR existed up and down the NEC, NYC may very well still need more airport capacity especially for long haul flights to grow its economic links with the emerging markets given that the region is projected to grow in population and air traffic demand. Since JFK itself is primarily O/D and medium-long haul orientated, HSR is not expected to free many slots there. Laguardia itself may because of its market, but the fact that the perimeter rule is in place there will reduce the ability to use those new slots profitably.

The Market Share seems to be switching to Rail , we could be beef up Regional Airports and send some International flights thier to Mac Arthur or Srewart...

http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf

BBMW
February 28th, 2013, 03:01 PM
MacArthur it way to small to handle international flights. And the area around it is completely developed, so expanding it would be hugely problematic. And Stewart is just too far out.


The Market Share seems to be switching to Rail , we could be beef up Regional Airports and send some International flights thier to Mac Arthur or Srewart...

http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf

BBMW
February 28th, 2013, 03:09 PM
Both LGA and JFK should have all their runways configured to lie on the 13-31 orientation, that would untangle them a bit. EWR would still be a problem.

JFK could easily add 1 runway on that axis, and add another without too much problem (it would require a fairly narrow landfill into Jamaica bay.) That would double the number of operations it could do an hour. The area between the current 4-22 runways could be used for remote concourses with peoplemovers connecting to the existing terminals. This could add 50 gates or more. All this could be done without lowering JFK's existing capacity during construction. More could be done, especially with the terminal capacity, buy nuking it flat, and starting from scratch, but that can't happen.

If LGA was converted from two crossing runways to two parallel runways, it would probably add 50% to it's capacity. And the land taken up by the land side of the 4-22 runway could be used for a new terminal. They should also get around to extending the subway to LGA.

The wildcard is EWR. That fact that it's main runways are on a completely different orientation throws a monkey wrench in to the approach patterns, and they really can't be changed.


I agree NYC has a problem with its airports, especially in capacity. Who knows what they will do, but if they don't do anything many studies have shown that economic growth will eventually be hurt by the airports being constrained. IMO, they should level JFK and add more runways while realigning the terminals, moving cargo off site, or find adjacent land off-airports (demolish nearby residential areas) for new terminals. I say this because JFK can not expand new runways outside its boundaries as of now (although anything can happen). An island airport would be perfect but would require massive federal investment and would be ridiculously expensive. There is sadly no good location for a new mega airport on a greenfield site within a reasonable distance from NYC thanks to suburban sprawl everywhere and protected lands.

As for LGA, I believe they are working currently on the new Central Terminal rebuilding project last time I heard.. Sadly, LGA constrains JFK and any expansion at JFK in terms of new runways would also probably affect LGA's capacity.

ramvid01
February 28th, 2013, 03:54 PM
They could never have parrallel runways. If the crosswinds were too strong on a certain day all flights would have to be grounded.

futurecity
February 28th, 2013, 08:02 PM
Both LGA and JFK should have all their runways configured to lie on the 13-31 orientation, that would untangle them a bit. EWR would still be a problem.

JFK could easily add 1 runway on that axis, and add another without too much problem (it would require a fairly narrow landfill into Jamaica bay.) That would double the number of operations it could do an hour. The area between the current 4-22 runways could be used for remote concourses with peoplemovers connecting to the existing terminals. This could add 50 gates or more. All this could be done without lowering JFK's existing capacity during construction. More could be done, especially with the terminal capacity, buy nuking it flat, and starting from scratch, but that can't happen.

If LGA was converted from two crossing runways to two parallel runways, it would probably add 50% to it's capacity. And the land taken up by the land side of the 4-22 runway could be used for a new terminal. They should also get around to extending the subway to LGA.

The wildcard is EWR. That fact that it's main runways are on a completely different orientation throws a monkey wrench in to the approach patterns, and they really can't be changed.

I doubt LGA would ever be allowed to expand due to proximity to high density populated areas.

The RPA study showed that adding one additional 31-13 runway would reduce LGA capacity by a large amount. NextGen advanced navigation procedures would also be require to avoid conflicts.

Since you won't ever add another runway in Jamaica Bay unless congress acted to remove its protection, completely redoing the layout of the airport by changing terminal configuration in order to allow more runways on the airport footprint seems a more realistic solution and perhaps its is the only real solution that is doable. I can envisage removing all the terminals on the left side of the airport, putting another 31-13 runway in there, and rebuilding the terminal space elsewhere. perhaps cargo could move out to stewart.

futurecity
February 28th, 2013, 08:10 PM
They could never have parrallel runways. If the crosswinds were too strong on a certain day all flights would have to be grounded.

Correct, they would need the cross runways no matter. But, it is not true they could not add another two parallel runways in the 13-31 direction if they were allowed fill the bay if they kept the 4-22's for crosswind days.

BBMW
March 1st, 2013, 02:06 AM
There are a number of major airports that operate without crosswind runways. ATL and LAX come immediately to mind. I don't know if NY weather conditions uniquely require crosswind runways, or if they are a vestige of earlier aircraft that can't buck the crosswinds as well as newer aircraft can. Also at least with JFK, additional 13-31s could be added without closing the 4-22s. Keeping the 4-22s would just not free up ground for more gate capacity.


Correct, they would need the cross runways no matter. But, it is not true they could not add another two parallel runways in the 13-31 direction if they were allowed fill the bay if they kept the 4-22's for crosswind days.

BBMW
March 1st, 2013, 02:41 AM
Are you talking about additional 13-31 at JFK or LGA? I didn't pick this up in a quick go over of the report. However aligning both airports solely on 13-31 would probably untangle the traffic problem quite a bit. EWR would remain a problem, but not having to provide for the 4 approach to LGA would open up things for JFK.

Also, the part of Jamaica Bay that would need to be landfilled for a southern addtional 13-31 it apparently a dead zone (as per the report.) A landfill there could probable be sold to the feds. It would not have to be very far out into the bay (maybe 300 yards)


I doubt LGA would ever be allowed to expand due to proximity to high density populated areas.

The RPA study showed that adding one additional 31-13 runway would reduce LGA capacity by a large amount. NextGen advanced navigation procedures would also be require to avoid conflicts.

Since you won't ever add another runway in Jamaica Bay unless congress acted to remove its protection, completely redoing the layout of the airport by changing terminal configuration in order to allow more runways on the airport footprint seems a more realistic solution and perhaps its is the only real solution that is doable. I can envisage removing all the terminals on the left side of the airport, putting another 31-13 runway in there, and rebuilding the terminal space elsewhere. perhaps cargo could move out to stewart.

futurecity
March 1st, 2013, 02:12 PM
Are you talking about additional 13-31 at JFK or LGA? I didn't pick this up in a quick go over of the report. However aligning both airports solely on 13-31 would probably untangle the traffic problem quite a bit. EWR would remain a problem, but not having to provide for the 4 approach to LGA would open up things for JFK.

Also, the part of Jamaica Bay that would need to be landfilled for a southern addtional 13-31 it apparently a dead zone (as per the report.) A landfill there could probable be sold to the feds. It would not have to be very far out into the bay (maybe 300 yards)

JFK. Page 150 of the report explains this, about how 1 additional runway would cause a reduction at LGA and that two runways would be needed to make up for this deficit

http://www.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Upgrading-to-World-Class.pdf

BBMW
March 1st, 2013, 04:16 PM
I see that. They don't say why (at least there), but I assume that it would impinge on the runway 4 approach at LGA (see page 66). I'd get rid of the 4-22 runway at LGA and put two runways their on 13-31 orientation. That would deal with that conflict.

What I'd use for JFK is their option 7. As I stated above, this would provide two pairs of closely spaced runways. Even without the Nextgen air traffic control system, this would greatly increase capacity at JFK. Right now, if operating on the 13-31s One runway, usually 13R-31L is designated for departure and the other one for arrival. Alternately they could use both runways in mixed mode, but the departure holds waiting for the landing aircraft mean that this doesn't really increase capacity. If there were two runways on each side, the inner runway would be designated for departure, and the outer runway for arrival. They would not interfere with each other. The separation between the two outer runways on each side means that they could have simultaneous arrivals in IFR conditions.



JFK. Page 150 of the report explains this, about how 1 additional runway would cause a reduction at LGA and that two runways would be needed to make up for this deficit

http://www.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Upgrading-to-World-Class.pdf

futurecity
March 2nd, 2013, 03:45 AM
I see that. They don't say why (at least there), but I assume that it would impinge on the runway 4 approach at LGA (see page 66). I'd get rid of the 4-22 runway at LGA and put two runways their on 13-31 orientation. That would deal with that conflict.

What I'd use for JFK is their option 7. As I stated above, this would provide two pairs of closely spaced runways. Even without the Nextgen air traffic control system, this would greatly increase capacity at JFK. Right now, if operating on the 13-31s One runway, usually 13R-31L is designated for departure and the other one for arrival. Alternately they could use both runways in mixed mode, but the departure holds waiting for the landing aircraft mean that this doesn't really increase capacity. If there were two runways on each side, the inner runway would be designated for departure, and the outer runway for arrival. They would not interfere with each other. The separation between the two outer runways on each side means that they could have simultaneous arrivals in IFR conditions.

I agree that option 7 would be the best option if they somehow won the fight to add fill to the bay.

BBMW
March 2nd, 2013, 12:55 PM
^
Option 7 is and extension to option 6 (adding a 13-31 to the north) . They could start with that, while they push to get the south 13-31 approved. That alone would add a lot of capacity, allowing two parallel approach streams with one dedicated departure runway. It would be a little awkward, because the current southern 13-31 is JFK's longest runway, so it more appropriate for primary departure, and some aircraft probably need that length to get off the ground (think a fully laden 747 or A380.) With a three runway setup, the near north 13-31 (which at that point would be 13C-31C) would, from a ground traffic flow standpoint, the proper designated departure runway. But it would be 4000' shorter.

Merry
June 19th, 2013, 10:22 PM
It's Terminal, but Backers Hope to Keep Worldport at JFK Alive

Former Pan Am Building Is Added to Endangered List

By LANA BORTOLOT

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/Pan%20Am%20Worldport%20JFK.jpg
http://www.savetheworldport.org/index.html

Advocates for the now-vacant Worldport terminal at Kennedy Airport hope their preservation efforts will gain momentum with the bittersweet designation of the former Pan Am building as one of America's 11 most-endangered historic places.

Construction workers put up a fence at the former Worldport terminal at Kennedy Airport on Tuesday.

The annual list, compiled by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and slated for release Wednesday, selects architectural and cultural heritage sites in danger of destruction or damage. The flying-saucer shaped Worldport, long-slated for demolition to make room for more operating space at the airport, was cited for its symbolic jet-age architecture.

Constructed in 1960 by Pan American World Airways, the building was known for its large elliptical roof canopy, measuring 450 by 350 feet, which allowed aircraft to taxi under it, providing protective covering for passengers between the plane and the terminal. It was famously featured as a backdrop for the Beatles as they departed on a Pan Am Boeing 707 after their 1964 U.S. tour, and epitomized the glamour of jet travel in movies such as "Come Fly With Me" and the 1962 "That Touch of Mink," starring Cary Grant and Doris Day.

Delta Air Lines assumed the building and other Pan Am assets when the carrier collapsed in 1991. Renamed Terminal 3, it was in use until May 23, when Delta opened the adjacent $1.4 billion Terminal 4 the next day.

"This is the last moment of [modernist buildings] being unloved; the tide is turning," said Roberta Lane, the National Trust's New York-based senior field officer. "It's painful to think we might lose this on the cusp of this time when people are starting to get it." The Worldport is the only site in the tristate area on the group's latest endangered list.

Past efforts to protect the building were unsuccessful. Though determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places in 1988, it was never so designated. By the time the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, requested a 2001 review of the building, it had lost much of its panache, especially in the shadow of the more illustrious TWA terminal designed by Eero Saarinen.

"They almost ridiculed the architecture, saying it wasn't interesting and it's not what it used to be," said Anthony Stramaglia, an organizer, along with Kalev Savi and Lisa Turano Wojcik, of a group called Save the Worldport. Ms. Wojcik's father, Emanuel Turano, was one of the building's principal designers.

The trio has petitioned Delta, the Port Authority and the National Parks Service to stay demolition of the site. They hope that what National Trust designation did for the TWA Flight Center—named an endangered site in 2004 and listed on the National Register the next year—will also help the Worldport. The TWA building underwent a $20 million restoration and is slated to become a boutique hotel under proposals being solicited by the Port Authority.

"We're hoping the announcement will carry us a little further," Mr. Stramaglia said. "I think if there's more public awareness, there would be more backlash about this. It just hasn't hit home. It's an airport—it's nothing [people] think of every day."

Architectural writer John Morris Dixon, who sits on the board of the local chapter of Docomomo, an organization dedicated to preserving modernist architecture, said that while the canopy was dramatic and romantic, "It was somewhat dated when people started using jet ways. It was a fascinating idea, but no one ever really copied that one."

Delta spokeswoman Leslie Scott said the Worldport could no longer serve either the airline or its passengers.

"Space-wise, it really wasn't designed for today's air travel," she said. "You had a small lobby and the queue for security was in a tight space. Terminal 4 is by far a better customer experience by leaps and abounds." She added, "The path we're going down is exactly what we announced. Space at JFK is restricted, and that space is valuable to us operationally."

Though the Port Authority also restored the Marine Air Terminal at La Guardia and Building 51 at Newark Liberty—a National Historic Landmark that is now used for administration—it is unable to justify adaptive reuse for the Worldport.

"The old Pan Am Worldport terminal at JFK served this region for more than a half century, but is obsolete for 21st century aviation purposes," a Port Authority spokesman said. "JFK is a land-constrained airport and the space where the Worldport is located cannot be set aside for preservation because it is needed for other aviation uses that will lead to job creation and economic growth."

If efforts fail to prevent the terminal's destruction, preservationists hope for restoration of a Worldport relic—the Zodiac Screen of bronze sculptures by Milton Hebald. The bas-relief work, once one of the largest sculptural pieces in the world, is now in Port Authority storage.

Alex Herrera, a technical director at the New York Landmarks Conservancy, who has worked on the TWA restoration, says that while it might be too late to save the Worldport building, displaying the bronzes would provide a fitting memory.

"The screen and the TWA terminal would be the two iconic relics of the airport in its early heyday," he said. "I think those two items will be real contributions to the airport, which needs something in terms of an aesthetic or visual uplift."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324021104578553741733765844.html?m od=WSJ_NY_RealEstate_LEADNewsCollection

mariab
June 21st, 2013, 12:25 AM
According to this article, it's definite.


More Than Just ‘Endangered,’ a J.F.K. Terminal Is to Be Demolished
Building Blocks (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/category/building-blocks/) June 20, 2013, 2:44 pm

By DAVID W. DUNLAP (http://wirednewyork.com/author/david-w-dunlap/)http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/19/blogs/20130620WorldportEmbed1/20130620WorldportEmbed1-blog480.jpgDavid W. Dunlap/The New York Times Terminal 3 at Kennedy International Airport, which is to be torn down, was once known as the Worldport. But it has also been likened to a flying saucer.


The roof of the Pan Am Worldport was cantilevered to protect passengers from rain and snow.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/20/blogs/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-IX5F/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-IX5F-blog480.jpgTippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton

Workers are now preparing the 53-year-old terminal for demolition.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/20/blogs/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-H0M0/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-H0M0-blog480.jpgDavid W. Dunlap/The New York Times


It is still possible, in certain light, to conjure the glamour of international jet travel in the 1960s.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/20/blogs/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-81CV/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-81CV-blog480.jpgAnthony Stramaglia/Save the Worldport


Today, views of the terminal are blocked by the AirTrain viaduct and station.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/20/blogs/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-2J8N/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-2J8N-blog480.jpgDavid W. Dunlap/The New York Times


The cables used to support the cantilevered roof almost look like small suspension bridges.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/20/blogs/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-BRQV/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-BRQV-blog480.jpgDavid W. Dunlap/The New York Times


The Port Authority has preserved and restored Eero Saarinen's T.W.A. Flight Center.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/20/blogs/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-TFR3/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-TFR3-blog480.jpgDavid W. Dunlap/The New York Times


But the National Airlines Sundrome, by I. M. Pei & Partners, was demolished in 2011.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/20/blogs/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-T81A/20130620WorldportSlide-slide-T81A-blog480.jpgDavid W. Dunlap/The New York Times



Now departing from Kennedy International Airport: the Pan Am flying saucer.
With its elliptical four-acre parasol roof — cantilevered so far out that it almost seemed to be floating over the tarmac — Terminal 3 has long been a distinctive remnant of early jet travel and an emblem of Pan American World Airways, once considered the most glamorous American carrier (when “glamour” and “airline” could occupy the same sentence without irony). Pan Am called it the Worldport. Almost everyone else thought of it as a flying saucer.

By extending the roof 114 feet out from the terminal, through a cable system that made the top of the building look like an ensemble of small suspension bridges, Pan Am’s architects sought to protect passengers from the rain and snow. “It will eliminate the huddled dash through bad weather by extending the roof like a huge oblong umbrella (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/716511-airline-planning-umbrella-ramp.html) over the aircraft parking space,” Richard Witkin wrote in The New York Times in 1957 as he described the plan.

Pan Am went under in 1991. Delta Air Lines then began using the Worldport. Last month, Delta decamped to greatly expanded space in Terminal 4 and closed Terminal 3 for good, after 53 years of service.
Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the National Trust for Historic Preservation placed the terminal on its annual roster of America’s 11 Most Endangered Places (http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/11-most-endangered/?utm_source=variable&utm_medium=PressRelease&utm_campaign=11Most), released Wednesday, saying that the building “symbolizes America’s entry into the Jet Age (http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/11-most-endangered/locations/worldport-terminal.html#.UcIDZhZYDeM).”
While the trust has no regulatory or legal power to impede demolition, its national imprimatur is often used by local preservationists to bolster their attempts at persuasion.
In the case of Terminal 3, however, “endangered” may be an understatement. “Doomed” is more like it.

Despite the existence of an impassioned grass-roots Save the Worldport (http://www.savetheworldport.org/) campaign and an online petition (https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/save-the-pan-am-delta-terminal-3-at-jfk-airport) that has attracted more than 3,000 supporters, there seems to be no cosmic scale on which the structure’s fate rests, capable of tipping one way or another.
Delta has every intention of demolishing Terminal 3. Workers are already removing asbestos and lead paint to prepare it for wrecking crews.

By 2015, the airline plans to have turned the site into a parking zone for aircraft that cannot be accommodated or are not needed at the gates of Terminals 2 and 4, both of which are used by Delta. As it is, idle aircraft must be towed across the airport, said Leslie P. Scott, a spokeswoman for Delta. “This aircraft parking will drive a lot of operational efficiencies for us,” she said. “Planes will get to the gates quicker.”
The National Trust’s suggestion to incorporate the terminal into a connecting passageway between Terminals 2 and 4 has been rendered moot by Delta’s abandonment of the connector plan, Ms. Scott said.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns and runs Kennedy, could conceivably interfere with Delta’s plans. But it is a very willing partner in the redevelopment.
“The old Pan Am Worldport terminal at J.F.K. served this region for more than a half century, but is obsolete for 21st-century aviation purposes,” said Ron Marsico, a spokesman for the authority. “Unfortunately, J.F.K. is a land-constrained airport, and the space where Worldport is located cannot be set aside for preservation because it is needed for other aviation uses that will lead to job creation and economic growth.”
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/19/blogs/20130620WorldportEmbed3/20130620WorldportEmbed3-blog480.jpgAnthony Stramaglia/Save the Worldport
In fact, the authority was persuaded more than a decade ago — sometimes kicking, if not screaming — to preserve and restore Eero Saarinen’s T.W.A. Flight Center, which is a landmark in every sense (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/20/nyregion/twa-s-hub-is-declared-a-landmark.html), including officially. Today, its low-slung, bird-winged profile is easily the most memorable work of architecture in the airport complex. However, it has not returned to full-time use (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/nyregion/16blocks.html?_r=0). Mr. Marsico said the authority was negotiating with a hotelier.
The former National Airlines Sundrome, by I. M. Pei & Partners, was torn down in 2011 (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/a-modern-masterpiece-no-longer-used-will-soon-disappear-at-kennedy-airport/). Protests were lodged, but no serious preservation effort was made. The building may have been too austere to engender the kind of affectionate embrace that Kalev Savi, Anthony Stramaglia and Lisa Turano Wojcik have thrown around Worldport in their Quixotic campaign to save it.
Mr. Savi’s mother worked for Pan Am, as he did part-time when he was in college. Mr. Stramaglia flew Pan Am frequently as a youth. And Ms. Wojcik’s father, Emanuel N. Turano of Ives, Turano & Gardner, was one of the architects of the Worldport, along with Walter Prokosch of Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton.
They professed encouragement on Wednesday.
“A year or so ago, Anthony and I felt like we were the only two people in the world who seemed to care that the flying saucer building was going to be demolished,” Mr. Savi wrote in an e-mail. “This announcement of having made the most endangered 11 sites in America list for 2013 is validation by the U.S.A.’s leading historical preservation society that the claims we have been making are true.”
Mr. Stramaglia said he hoped to inspire interest in a building that was designed to be a showcase. “Public apathy toward mundane things like air terminals these days, especially in today’s world,” he wrote, “make a trip to the airport more like a trip to the dentist.”
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/19/blogs/20130620WorldportEmbed4/20130620WorldportEmbed4-blog480.jpgDavid W. Dunlap/The New York Times

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/more-than-just-endangered-a-j-f-k-terminal-is-to-be-demolished/?hp&_r=0

Merry
June 21st, 2013, 11:57 PM
^ Very sad :mad:.


Photos: A Look Back At JFK's Soon-To-Be Extinct Terminal 3

By Jen Carlson

http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/51c49ba8e0fbc074fed8c3b2/mobile/panam0613.jpg
The Flying Saucer(via Save Pan Am Worldport (https://www.facebook.com/PanAmWorldport))

http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/51c49ba8e0fbc074fed8c3b2/square/panam0613.jpg http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/51c49ba8e0fbc074fed8c3b2/square/3panam0613.jpg http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/51c49ba8e0fbc074fed8c3b2/square/panambond.jpg http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/51c49ba8e0fbc074fed8c3b2/square/4panam06.jpg http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/51c49ba8e0fbc074fed8c3b2/square/2panam0613.jpg http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/51c49ba8e0fbc074fed8c3b2/square/panamlounge.jpg http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/51c49ba8e0fbc074fed8c3b2/square/panam0613a.jpg http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/51c49ba8e0fbc074fed8c3b2/square/panamlife.jpg http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/51c49ba8e0fbc074fed8c3b2/square/NYTPANAM.jpg

Pan Am's (and later Delta's) flying saucer building, aka Terminal 3 or the Worldport Terminal at JFK Airport, has long been on the chopping block, set to meet its end in 2015. But despite its almost certain demise, the National Trust for Historic Preservation named it one of the 11 most endangered historic places (http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/11-most-endangered/locations/worldport-terminal.html), giving some hope that it may stick around. The NY Times countered this with, basically, an obituary (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/more-than-just-endangered-a-j-f-k-terminal-is-to-be-demolished/?smid=tw-nytmetro). But the NTHS says there is an alternative to demolishing the building, including a plan to demolish the south concourse instead and use building as a connecting facility between Terminals Two and Four—it could be a terminal, or it could house restaurants, a museum, etc.

While we don't need to engrave the tombstone yet, it couldn't hurt to look back at The Worldport Terminal's glory days, which started when it opened in 1960—on June 3rd of that year, The NY Times wrote, "Idlewild Skyline Gets An Addition; New Pan Am Terminal Looks Like Parasol to Motorists Approaching Airport." They called it a "showpiece."

http://gothamist.com/2013/06/21/a_look_back_at_pan_ams_soon-to-be_e.php#photo-1

Merry
June 22nd, 2013, 12:02 AM
Another point of view (New York Observer 1/25/2012):

Inside the Worst Airport in the World, JFK’s Terminal 3 (http://observer.com/2012/01/inside-the-world-airport-in-the-world-jfks-terminal-3/)

BBMW
June 23rd, 2013, 01:24 PM
Nothing lasts forever. JFK, in total, is a bad design for a major airport.

Stroika
June 23rd, 2013, 08:15 PM
I'm a little sad to see this go ... but really only a little. It's an obsolete, small, dilapidated structure.

I'd much rather see pre-war buildings (or, heck, even just 100+-year-old buildings) in the city preserved than useless 50-year-old old airport terminals that earn JFK the distinction of having some of the world's worst terminals.

mariab
June 27th, 2013, 05:21 PM
As much as I would love for them to be able to both keep and utilize this structure, within the confines of JFK property it just doesn't seem feasable. As busy as air travel has been getting the past few decades I'm surprised they've kept it this long.

BBMW
June 27th, 2013, 06:33 PM
The should tear down 2 and 3, and build an extension to T4 than links into T1 with addtional finger piers. Basically making it one large terminal.

BTW, I'm amazed they're keeping T2, which is a bigger dump than T3

Merry
July 11th, 2013, 06:31 AM
Can J.F.K.’ s Pan Am Terminal, a U.F.O.-Like Monument to America’s Jet Age Innocence, Be Saved from the Wrecking Ball?

By Paul Goldberger

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/07/jfk-pan-am-terminal/.i.0.worldport-jfk-pan-am-airport-terminal.jpeg
Dmitri Kessel/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images.
The Worldport at J.F.K. International Airport.

If you saw that blessedly short-lived television series called Pan Am (http://www.vanityfair.com/archive/pan-am) a couple of years ago, you probably think, as I do, that the best thing about it was the Pan Am terminal at J.F.K., a cheerful, round structure with a gigantic overhanging concrete roof that seemed to emerge out of the naïve notion that flying could be fun: airport as midcentury modern circus. The building was certainly more exuberant, not to say more convincing, than any character in the show.

It wasn’t a stage set. Well, it was, but it was based on something very real: the structure built by Pan Am in 1960 to accommodate the new Boeing 707 jets that were just then coming into service. Pan Am called the terminal, which many people have likened to a flying saucer, the Worldport, a name that itself conjures up a certain innocent gusto. If the design, by the firm of Tippets Abbott McCarthy and Stratton, wasn’t as sophisticated as Eero Saarinen’s TWA Terminal a few hundred yards away—surely one of the great buildings of its era, transportation hub or otherwise—the Pan Am terminal was the second-best piece of architecture at JFK, and in some ways it captured the feeling of the moment more directly. This new jet stuff was going to be great. Who needed long, dreary concourses? Much more fun to arrange the planes in a circle, their noses poking under a huge concrete umbrella roof, and let all the passengers hang around the middle like it was all a big party.

The party, such as it was, ended a very long time ago, but the building hung on, looking increasingly the worse for wear with every passing year. Since Pan Am went bankrupt, in 1991, the terminal has been used by Delta, which briefly renamed it the Delta Flight Center, though it’s more often referred to simply as Terminal 3. Delta recently moved its operations next door to the equally blandly named Terminal 4, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which controls the airport, has announced its intention to demolish the Worldport—not to build a new terminal, which might be understandable, but to allow for more room for aircraft parking.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation just put the Pan Am terminal on its annual list of the “Eleven Most Endangered Historic Places” in the United States, and so the battle is on. There is already a “Save the Worldport” committee fighting the fight on Facebook and Twitter, which is where the historic-preservation movement seems, these days, to get most of its traction. While the National Trust has given a degree of gravitas to this effort, it’s appealing that the effort was started not by the usual suspects from the architecture and preservation community, but by a former Pan Am reservationist, Kalev Savi, who was later joined by Anthony Stramaglia, a computer specialist with an interest in aviation history, and Lisa Turano Wojcik, the daughter of one of the architects, Emanuel Turano. This is a kind of people’s preservation campaign as much as it is one run by architecture insiders.

A little more background here. It’s indisputable that the Worldport never worked very well. It was much too small, among its other functional flaws, and for all the engineering daring of its spectacular cantilevered concrete roof, it really did have a certain naïve quality. And try expanding a round building. A few years after the building was finished, Pan Am brought the architects back to design an addition roughly twice as big as the original building, which turned out to be one of the worst—maybe the very worst—airport buildings since the dawn of jet travel. I don’t know whether Juan Trippe, Pan Am’s legendary founder, told the architects that they hadn’t been serious enough in the original building, but the addition looks like it was designed to crush every bit of the exuberance that makes the 1960 structure so enticing. It is heavy and clunky and sprawling, where the original building was light and airy and compact. Inside, the addition feels like an overblown subway station, except that some subway stations are nicer. The arrivals level is particularly harsh. You think you’ve landed in Eastern Europe, not New York.

I can’t imagine anyone wanting to save this part of the building. But you could tear it down and leave the original section standing, which would still leave roughly two-thirds of the site to be used for the aircraft parking lot that the Port Authority seems to crave. Still, it will be a tough sell, if only because the building has been altered so badly over the years, and it’s the awful part that most people think of when they hear Terminal 3, not the little gem that cowers beside it. So the associations most people have with this building are mostly lousy.

And historic preservation at J.F.K. has a mixed track record at best. While the Port Authority did agree to save the TWA Terminal—it would have been unconscionable not to—that building still lacks a workable plan for a new use, years after it ceased being used as a terminal. Like the Worldport, TWA is unworkable as a modern airport terminal. Both buildings are tiny by today’s standards, and there’s no place for security equipment except in the middle of the space, where it obliterates any sense of the architecture. But their small size also means that they don’t take up all that much real estate, and they ought to be usable as something other than as places where people get on and off airplanes—as restaurants and shops, say, or as a museum.

Last year, the Port Authority tore down the third-best piece of architecture at J.F.K., the terminal I.M. Pei designed for National Airlines in 1970. It was called the Sundrome, and in its early years, before modifications, it was an elegant masterwork of concrete and glass. It too had been vacant since its most recent tenant, Jet Blue, decamped for a new terminal in 2008. But for all its architectural quality, the Pei building had none of the sexiness of the Worldport. And National Airlines, which, ironically, was taken over by Pan Am in 1980, never had the allure of the latter company—in its day the most glamorous airline that ever was. The Worldport was its home base, a relic of a time when the United States set the tone.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/07/jfk-pan-am-terminal

mariab
July 15th, 2013, 08:33 PM
So basically no one knows if this thing will be torn down yet.

Merry
August 3rd, 2013, 08:28 AM
Grrrrrr :mad:.


Farewell, Worldport

by Hana R. Alberts

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/Worldport%20Demolition-thumb.jpg (http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/Worldport%20Demolition.jpg)
[Photo via Twitter/jonbruner (https://twitter.com/JonBruner/status/362913965778542593/photo/1/large?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=JonBruner&utm_content=362913965778542593).]

JFK—Preservationists were fighting with all their might (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/06/19/preservation_watch.php) to save the Pan Am Worldport, formerly Delta's much-maligned erstwhile Terminal 3. But it looks like it was too little, too late, as demolition appears to have begun. (This, apparently, is its SOM-designed replacement (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2010/08/12/delta_shows_off_whats_replacing_doomed_classic_ter minal.php).) Onto the next one (http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/07/02/10_historic_sites_facing_preservation_battles_righ t_now.php).

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/08/02/farewell_worldport_the_ghostpirate_broker_returns_ more.php

Tectonic
August 3rd, 2013, 04:59 PM
Terminal 2 needs to go too.

mariab
August 4th, 2013, 01:45 PM
:(Bye.

BBMW
August 4th, 2013, 03:03 PM
I agree. And they should merge terminals 1 and 4, into a single large terminal, using the space where terminals 2 and 3 where to add significant capacity.


Terminal 2 needs to go too.

Tectonic
August 7th, 2013, 01:24 PM
In a Perfect world, JFK should have three or four large terminals.

BBMW
August 7th, 2013, 01:53 PM
^
Probably even less. I'd do one landside interface building (with check in, ground transportation, baggage claim, etc) which would have the large international concourse, and then multiple remote concourses for domestic gates (somewhat similar to Atlanta.)

If you look at JFKs terminal block, how much of it is taking up by having to have roadways and parking garages to support all of the individual terminal. It's a very inefficient use of limited land.

LemSkroob
August 8th, 2013, 11:15 AM
In a Perfect world, JFK should have three or four large terminals.

It is well on its way to that.

JFK was once, what, 9 fully operational terminals?

Recently, we've seen 8+9 become 8. 5+6 became 5. 3+4 is now just 4.

We're already down to just 6 terminals.

And T2 is not long for this world, so then we are down to just five. Either its flights just get absorbed into T4 like with T3, or it gets torn down and made into a new concourse for T1.

My guess is It becomes an extension of T1. T1 is international only. It was designed for 747 gates. Most airlines that use T1 now all operate A380s into it (AirFrance, Luftansa, KoreanAir, etc) and the apron and holdrooms are way undersized.

the land that T2 sits could easily become an A380 concourse.

LemSkroob
August 8th, 2013, 11:21 AM
^
Probably even less. I'd do one landside interface building (with check in, ground transportation, baggage claim, etc) which would have the large international concourse, and then multiple remote concourses for domestic gates (somewhat similar to Atlanta.)

If you look at JFKs terminal block, how much of it is taking up by having to have roadways and parking garages to support all of the individual terminal. It's a very inefficient use of limited land.

There is one barrier to that idea. Unlike most airports, where the airport owns and operates all the terminals, at JFK, the port authority allows the airlines to fully own, build, and operate the terminals as they see fit, i think for the first 20 years after a buildout.

If you then go and merge everyone into one landside building, that means all the major airlines will have to come to an agreement (JB, Delta, United, BA, AF, etc), which is harder to do than just having the airport agency say "we're going to do this like this now"

BBMW
August 8th, 2013, 11:24 AM
I know this, and it is a mistake. And I know it isn't going to get corrected.


There is one barrier to that idea. Unlike most airports, where the airport owns and operates all the terminals, at JFK, the port authority allows the airlines to fully own, build, and operate the terminals as they see fit, i think for the first 20 years after a buildout.

If you then go and merge everyone into one landside building, that means all the major airlines will have to come to an agreement (JB, Delta, United, BA, AF, etc), which is harder to do than just having the airport agency say "we're going to do this like this now"

Merry
November 9th, 2013, 01:25 AM
:(

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/Linkage%20PM%2011-6.jpg

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/11/07/extell_loses_court_battle_sexy_apartment_listings_ more.php

mariab
November 9th, 2013, 03:17 PM
Poop. Too bad 'Mad Men' didn't film an episode in there.