Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 78

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

  1. #61
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Another point of view (New York Observer 1/25/2012):

    Inside the Worst Airport in the World, JFK’s Terminal 3

  2. #62

    Default

    Nothing lasts forever. JFK, in total, is a bad design for a major airport.

  3. #63

    Default

    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.

  4. #64

    Default

    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.

  5. #65

    Default

    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

  6. #66
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    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


    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 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/dai...an-am-terminal

  7. #67

    Default

    So basically no one knows if this thing will be torn down yet.

  8. #68
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Grrrrrr .


    Farewell, Worldport

    by Hana R. Alberts


    [Photo via Twitter/jonbruner.]

    JFK—Preservationists were fighting with all their might 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.) Onto the next one.

    http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/0...turns_more.php

  9. #69
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,673

    Default

    Terminal 2 needs to go too.

  10. #70

  11. #71

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tectonic View Post
    Terminal 2 needs to go too.

  12. #72
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,673

    Default

    In a Perfect world, JFK should have three or four large terminals.

  13. #73

    Default

    ^
    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.

  14. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tectonic View Post
    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.

  15. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    ^
    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"

Page 5 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, 02:43 AM
  2. Replies: 140
    Last Post: July 20th, 2013, 06:57 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, 02:23 AM
  4. A triplex in Trump International for sale
    By noharmony in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 18th, 2005, 09:49 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, 09:15 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