Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 78

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

  1. #31
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DUMBRo View Post
    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.

  2. #32
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DUMBRo View Post
    The saucer is awesome. It sould be protected and fully restored.
    Agreed.

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tectonic View Post
    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.
    Last edited by futurecity; February 23rd, 2013 at 02:01 AM.

  4. #34

    Default

    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:














    Miami International Airport saves iconic JFK murals








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



    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.
    Last edited by Derek2k3; February 23rd, 2013 at 06:42 PM.

  5. #35
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek2k3 View Post
    Seems JFK is looking to get rid of whatever architectural integrity it has left.

    Sad, but true. I LOVE ^ this photo.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek2k3 View Post
    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!

  7. #37

  8. #38

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    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!

  9. #39
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,673

    Default

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

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    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.
    Last edited by futurecity; February 28th, 2013 at 12:20 AM.

  11. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tectonic View Post
    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.
    Last edited by futurecity; February 27th, 2013 at 11:59 PM.

  12. #42
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    On the Rails in North NJ
    Posts
    2,585

    Default

    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...

  13. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
    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.
    Last edited by futurecity; February 27th, 2013 at 11:31 PM.

  14. #44
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    On the Rails in North NJ
    Posts
    2,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by futurecity View Post
    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.

  15. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
    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.
    Last edited by futurecity; February 28th, 2013 at 12:37 AM.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. JFK Airport Terminal 5 - by Eero Saarinen | Renovation & Expansion - by gensler
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: April 16th, 2015, 01:43 AM
  2. Replies: 140
    Last Post: July 20th, 2013, 05:57 PM
  3. West Midtown Ferry Terminal on Pier 79
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: November 12th, 2005, 01:23 AM
  4. A triplex in Trump International for sale
    By noharmony in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 18th, 2005, 08:49 AM
  5. Future of Flushing Airport Site
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 13th, 2004, 08:15 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software