Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome  
User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 518 posts, RR: 17
Posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8764 times:

JFK's Terminal 6, the former National Sundrome that was used by TWA and then JetBlue, is being demolished at JFK. The airside areas are already gone and the headhouse is slated to be gone by the end of the month. Today's NY Times has a good article on the terminal, with photos/slide show, including a shot of the NA ticket counters in the 1970s.

Article:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...r-at-kennedy-airport/?ref=nyregion

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3468 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8706 times:

Ironically, this is the one original terminal at JFK (at least the headhouse portion) that still functioned well simply because it was a big, open rectangle.

I don't understand why B6 couldn't build a concourse behind it and use it as an arrivals hall/baggage claim for T5i.

That said, I do not think it is historic and worthy of preservation . . . but I think it's unique and still totally functional.

It seems a waste to tear it down and build a Walmart warehouse-esque extension to T5 (which is what T5 looks like airside) in its place.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21525 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8637 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 1):
Ironically, this is the one original terminal at JFK (at least the headhouse portion) that still functioned well simply because it was a big, open rectangle.

This is because I M Pei, despite his relative fame, is still one of the more underrated "super" architects of our time. He always, always thought about the client FIRST, then adapted his artistic vision to it. When you do this, a design has a much longer useful life. And you end up with far more varied and interesting designs than someone like Gehry, who forces his will on any function (and rarely succeeds), or even Meier, who's designs work well enough, but are not very varied, and honestly, does everyone equally need a piano curve in their space?

Sadly, too many young architects are inspired by the bling of the likes of Gehry rather than the substance of people like Pei.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineEASTERN747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 544 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8515 times:

There is book here in Chicago called, "Lost Chicago" detailing all the magnificent buildings torn down to make room for something more, like a parking lot!! It's very sad! I don't understand why the land side building needs to be torn down.(?) What am I missing......Ok, if the gate area needs to be reworked, due to aircraft sizes etc., so be it. But what is wrong with the main terminal itself? It has a style that is always a classic. Thank God the old TWA terminal was saved, somewhat! Thoughts

User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1753 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8444 times:

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 3):
But what is wrong with the main terminal itself? It has a style that is always a classic

It show that there is no vision today and imagination on making something old new again and incorporating it in a new design. Both the T3 and T6 could have been modified to handle the ever expanding capacity at JFK but Port Authority will spend twice as much money to level the building and put something new.


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4272 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8410 times:

I was reading a wiki article on JFK and the original plan was for a central terminal to house everyone and a 56 gate terminal. Apparently the airlines Vetoed this idea, and the result is what JFK became. I often wonder if the airport had been built today, if this still would have been true, or if they would have gone to a central terminal type design. I am guessing the latter based on what the trend has been in recent years.

It does seem like historically that when Airlines have tried to dictate terminal design and the airport caters to them, the result usually doesn't seem to work out quite the way it was designed. Examples include MCI and DFW as a whole, (Moreso MCI than DFW, since DFW has adapted and MCI became obsolete as soon as it was built), the new terminal A in BOS, the automated baggage system at DEN, the hub terminals in PIT and CVG (Way too big for what they ultimately were used for). Although there have been some successes in that regard (DTW McNamara Terminal, JFK T5 and T8 are the noteable ones), it seems like that airports and airport terminals function best when they are constructed with all the users in mind and not just one or two dominant carriers. Perfect Examples are DEN, LAS, IND, MCO, TPA, and even ATL (Though I don't like the fact that DL is allowed to pour money into the facility, I think it would be best if they saved the money and returned it to shareholders and let the Airport Authority renovate it)


User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1753 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8293 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 5):
I was reading a wiki article on JFK and the original plan was for a central terminal to house everyone and a 56 gate terminal. Apparently the airlines Vetoed this idea, and the result is what JFK became.

That article is misleading. Firstly there was the IAB building which was there first in the 40's & 50's. In the 60's as airlines grew they built their own terminals at JFK. In the mid to late 80's there was a plan for central terminal that was supposed to link the existing terminlas at the time. The airlines vetoed it because they wanted to have their own identities at JFK and there was also logistics problems with the design also cause passengers and baggage once checked it at the central terminal was to go via tunnel out ward to each terminal and it would have been very time consuming.


User currently onlineEASTERN747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 544 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8219 times:

In thinking about this more, I may have an explaination. Take a perfectly good building that can be upgraded and make modern updates....Cost? low to medium.... Now take a perfectly useable building, tear it down and rebuild...result?
lots of dollars!!!! Gee whiz, who gets the money? Buildiers, construction unions, the city thru fees etc. I think it's all about money $$$$$$$$ bottom line. Nobody cares about history, architecture, etc. thoughts.


User currently offlinedesertjets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7780 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8170 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
This is because I M Pei, despite his relative fame, is still one of the more underrated "super" architects of our time. He always, always thought about the client FIRST, then adapted his artistic vision to it. When you do this, a design has a much longer useful life. And you end up with far more varied and interesting designs than someone like Gehry, who forces his will on any function (and rarely succeeds), or even Meier, who's designs work well enough, but are not very varied, and honestly, does everyone equally need a piano curve in their space?

Largely from what I understand the Gehry-esque designs are also just simply difficult to build. Few contractors have the skill, knowledge or ability to pull off what is designed. The end result being that it leaks like a sieve and requires tons of maintenance to keep it working as a proper building.


now while I like the TWA flight center and seeing classic photos of it from the 60s is always a treat. But I was always struck by the thought that it was pretty much functionally obsolete by the time the jumbo jets arrived. That as an airline terminal it was simply unable to handle the traffic volumes faced as it ended the 2nd decade of its existence. The National Sundrome really reflects the need of form to more closely follow function. And while it doesn't look like a big box store with jetways attached, the photos in the NYTimes piece really help highlight its quiet elegance. Sadly I suspect the building itself was functionally and mechanically obsolete.

It just seems to me that unless you pour in tons of money you won't get much design elegance in an airport terminal. IND's midfield terminal and DTW's north terminal reflect that (as do their price tags).



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlinerichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4260 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8083 times:

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 7):
In thinking about this more, I may have an explaination. Take a perfectly good building that can be upgraded and make modern updates....Cost? low to medium.... Now take a perfectly useable building, tear it down and rebuild...result?
lots of dollars!!!! Gee whiz, who gets the money? Buildiers, construction unions, the city thru fees etc. I think it's all about money $$$$$$$$ bottom line. Nobody cares about history, architecture, etc. thoughts.

That's a very simplified view not taking into account dozens of other factors.

I completely understand nostalgia and not wanting to forget the past but the reality is the 'Sundrome' takes up valuable real estate - even though JFK is not as confined as LGA, terminal space is valuable. There really is not room for two empty "museum" buildings in the middle of a bustling airport complex, the fact that the Saarinen building was saved is still a topic for debate for some.

I think Jetblue did a reasonable job keeping of T6 going for many years but the building was worn out and being used far beyond its design capacity. The basic facilities were, honestly, not always adequate, for example security and enhanced screening were not even a thought in the 1960s when Pei put pen to paper. And I can only guess but the cost to heat and cool the terminal were apparently not considerations back in the 1960s either. The 'openness' of the original design had been compromised well before B6 took over and besides a slight 'coolness' factor, the terminal didn't have much going for it in the last few years of its use. The T5 Saarinen building also suffered from many of the same issues as far as design capacity, but it aged far better, in my opinion.

There are lots of other reasons too, and yes, money is at the root of a lot of them. But I've not heard one good reason why it should be saved - after all, Saarinen's T5 was saved and that just sits folornly empty at the moment, almost 10 years after the last passenger passed through its doors. I'm sure it costs the Port Authority a good amount of money to provide even basic maintenance and security to the facility. Other than to look at, I am not sure what purpose it serves.

At the end of the day, there really are no compelling reasons to save the T6 structure, airside or landside. I've used this terminal many times over the years and came to like certain things about it and thoroughly dislike other parts of the building. The restrooms were, for example, small and cramped, and often very busy. It was easier to wait and use the aircraft lav sometimes. I used to like the circular boarding areas but these too would get overcrowded and busy when more than two or three flights were boarding at the same time. And let's not even mention what happened during bad weather delays...



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1753 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8032 times:

Quoting richierich (Reply 9):
Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 7):
In thinking about this more, I may have an explaination. Take a perfectly good building that can be upgraded and make modern updates....Cost? low to medium.... Now take a perfectly useable building, tear it down and rebuild...result?
lots of dollars!!!! Gee whiz, who gets the money? Buildiers, construction unions, the city thru fees etc. I think it's all about money $$$$$$$$ bottom line. Nobody cares about history, architecture, etc. thoughts.

That's a very simplified view not taking into account dozens of other factors.

It might be a simple view but after working at JFK for many years I can tell you that T6 could have been updated especially the landside part to compliment B6 operations at T5. As for the old TW building B6 if they hand any imagination could have incorporated the TWA building into the new T5. Right now nothing is being done with it and it is just there gathering dust.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8033 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 1):
That said, I do not think it is historic and worthy of preservation . . . but I think it's unique and still totally functional.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the building was unique. It was functional, true. As someone who occasionally works in the preservation of truly historic properties, I had to make a distinction a long time ago about what people perceive as something we should keep just because it's old and what needs to be saved because it is truly a cultural/historic icon. T5 fit the latter.

B6 did make it fit their needs well over the years, but T6's time has come.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 4):
It show that there is no vision today and imagination on making something old new again and incorporating it in a new design.

Here in Seattle we have the Alaska Way Viaduct that has been screaming to be torn down for years. Just because it's old doesn't mean we should incorporate the existing design into the new one.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1753 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7992 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 11):
Here in Seattle we have the Alaska Way Viaduct that has been screaming to be torn down for years. Just because it's old doesn't mean we should incorporate the existing design into the new one.

Well a road and an air terminal are two different things. Here at JFK better things could have been done to maximize the space we have now.


User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 518 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7931 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 5):
I was reading a wiki article on JFK and the original plan was for a central terminal to house everyone and a 56 gate terminal.
Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 6):
That article is misleading. Firstly there was the IAB building which was there first in the 40's & 50's. In the 60's as airlines grew they built their own terminals at JFK.

The proposals for a single, central terminal at what was then called "Municipal Airport at Idlewild", go back to the mid-to late 1940s when the City was still in charge of the airport. An early proposal to the City from the architectural firm of Harrison & Abramozvitz incorporated such a concept; under full build-out, IDL was also going to have 12 runways. Obviously times change and after the Port Authority took control the "Terminal City" airport layout gradually took shape by the late 1950s. For more, try to find a copy of "Recapturing the Dream: A Design History of New York's JFK Airport" by Mark Blacklock.

Quoting richierich (Reply 9):
Saarinen's T5 was saved and that just sits folornly empty at the moment, almost 10 years after the last passenger passed through its doors.

The article says that the Saarinen building "is to be incorporated into a hotel and conference center planned on the site." Hopefully, this will happen soon, and maybe there will be some kind of historical display incorporated. After all, JFK needs to keep up with SFO, which has a aviation museum/library in its new International Terminal.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7899 times:

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 12):
Well a road and an air terminal are two different things. Here at JFK better things could have been done to maximize the space we have now.

Why? They both take up the same public real estate. The highway right of way is no different than the space allotted to an airline or port authority to build a terminal other than the infrastructure. The National Historic Preservation Act is pretty clear on what we have to save and the process to save them. I chose a highway, but there are lots of building examples, many of them in Manhattan.

And, what does building age have anything to do with maximizing space? A developer can tear down your 100 year old 2 story house and build a 10 story apartment building in that footprint.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3028 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7870 times:

I'm not architectural or historic preservation sage, but that picture of the NA ticket counter brought tears to my eyes...  


Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7849 times:

Quoting psa188 (Reply 13):

The proposals for a single, central terminal at what was then called "Municipal Airport at Idlewild", go back to the mid-to late 1940s when the City was still in charge of the airport.

I'd add that although I don't see the need to keep T6 from a unique architectural design view, functionally it was one of the first terminals in the country to manage for passenger congestion, which in 1970 was just beginning to be a major problem at airports. Pei went against the trend to place arriving and departing passenger traffic in the same location (i.e., at the front of the building), which was standard for that time. Instead he separated the main terminal from the airline gates with the raised walkway that went over the drop off area, that created some space behind the building for arrivals and leaving the front of the building exclusively for departures. Most, if not all airport terminals are now designed to separate arriving passengers from departing passenger.

psa, I bet we work on very similar projects.

edit: by the way, my first trip to NYC was through this terminal. In the dozens of times I've flown to NY only once did I go through a different terminal at JFK.

[Edited 2011-10-06 14:41:43]


The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinetravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3503 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7775 times:

I flew through terminal 6 quite a bit when United was a tenant, around the late 90s-2000-ish timeframe.

I was never impressed by it (especially airside). It had an almost concrete dungeon feel in the waiting areas for the planes. The check-in area was OK, but I never thought to myself "wow this place is amazing and should be saved".

I dunno, maybe that's why I'm not an architecture critic.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7742 times:

Quoting travelin man (Reply 17):
I dunno, maybe that's why I'm not an architecture critic.

In my opinion you did a decent job. Although in 2000/1 when B6 started using it, it was pretty dungy. My first trip through there was right after 9/11 and America West/US were starting to move out of the terminal. Anyway, B6 did fix it up a bit, but I, like you, always felt like I was in a concrete dungeon. I noticed the concrete more than the "open airy feel of the glass entryway".



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4468 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7722 times:

I'm more sad that this last trace of National Airlines is about to be gone.

On the other hand, Concourse F at MIA (formerly National's) still pretty much looks like it did during their heydey in the 1970s!  


User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1865 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7702 times:

After flying through there on B6 a handful of times, I'd say it was totally inadequate by the end. It doesn't surprise me at all that it was decided to tear it down, instead of refurbishing it somehow.

User currently offlinecsavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1362 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6745 times:

JFK has always suffered because of the idea of airlines building their own little terminals, even with Airtrain transferring is a pain. Might have been a good idea back in the 60s, but not now.It is great that they are moving to fewer larger terminals. It is not *that* architecturally distinguished, good riddance. Also to the old Pan Am worldport, which if it was a bus station in Binghampton, nobody would care.

But the old TWA terminal, now that *is* worth preserving and it is a good thing they did. Shame about the old LGA control tower, there could have been some way to preserve it - it was one of the best examples of Googie architecture in the NY area.



I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
User currently offlineRIDGID727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6539 times:

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 12):
Well a road and an air terminal are two different things. Here at JFK better things could have been done to maximize the space we have now.

Be it air terminals, roadways, bridges or whatever, the mindset this day and age is "disposible", and when a new architect thinker arrives on the scene, the mantra is dispose of the old, and build all new. Too bad the American political scene doesn't take that same stand.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3468 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6325 times:

"After flying through there on B6 a handful of times, I'd say it was totally inadequate by the end. It doesn't surprise me at all that it was decided to tear it down, instead of refurbishing it somehow."

All you guys are talking about the back though.

Many of us are talking about the rectangular building in front.

It wasn't in adequate . . . it was a big, open, glass rectangle. Again, I am not saying it should have been preserved. But I am saying that it was a perfectly adequate (and nice) building to be attached to a new set of gates. It seems a waste of money to demolish it.

Then again, B6 is the builder and they do not want it for their terminal. That has to be respected.

Just remember, like of hate T6, no one will be talking about the architectual significance of T5, T4, or T1 30 years from now. They are nice and will remain nice as long as they are modern. Besides that they are not unique from airline terminals around the world in anyway. That is the difference between 1960s JFK and 2000s JFK.


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8527 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6265 times:

It's not unique today, but it's noteworthy because it was such an early (and pioneering) example of its style - 1970, so designed in the 60s. It looks like the 1980s, but in reality, it is from the end of the true modernist era. It may not seem important, but it was. And its final use by B6 was quite nice. It was surprisingly decent in there.

25 PanHAM : An architectural masterpiece indeed, sad it will be gone shortly. But the bridge and stairs to AirTrain is an architectural nightmare that literally r
26 TOMMY767 : Bummer, although I thnk the eventual demolition of the DL Worldport is much worse.
27 richierich : It's a pretty cool photo, one I have never seen before. But you know what? It hasn't looked like that in 30 years. Even when Jetblue was using the ti
28 apodino : I think all three New York airports suffer because of this. Although at LGA the DL and US terminals are the two nicest there, while the CTB is still
29 STT757 : While T-5, T-3 and T-6 at JFK have historical importance, they have been functionally obsolete since the '80s. Their designs have not held up with mod
30 jmbweeboy : I am so sorry of hearing this terminal being torn down. Ironically, I just made my first visit to JFK in over 30 years about 4 weeks ago to see what i
31 MasseyBrown : T-6, in its most basic form, looks as if it should be usable. However, I bet it's full of asbestos, lead-based paint, obsolete electrical and air hand
32 Flighty : ! Is the Great Wall still used for its original purpose? What about the pyramids in Egypt?
33 ckfred : Both MCI and DFW were built back in the days of regulation, when airlines didn't have the huge hubs that they have today. There was far more point-to
34 brilondon : Not to make this a railway topic but Grand Central Terminal is only a commuter station now and the real railway station is in the basement of the Met
35 TOMMY767 : LGA is a hole. I think the DL terminal at LGA is a piece of garbage. Every time I show up there I literally almost puke.
36 ckfred : But, if you were to depart out of the CTB, you wouldn't almost puke. You would puke.
37 richierich : I'm not sure I follow...GCT may not be a train station with the grand old destinations of yesterday but it is still a functioning train station. Inst
38 TOMMY767 : I was at the CTB in August 2007 with a raging hangover and I did almost puke. Thank god I was in F on AA's LGA-MCO.
39 Flighty : A new building is nearly always cheaper. It's not the only consideration though. Nobody is questioning that facilities should be maintained and updat
40 N62NA : Can you explain this a bit more? I get the part about it being a commuter station now, but that "real railway station in the basement of the Metlife
41 Post contains links PI767 : I have a question....and pardon my ignorance. I am not familiar with JFK at all... Looking at these two diagrams from 1991 and 1995: http://www.depart
42 STT757 : It's the former TWA domestic terminal. No it's not, I think your confusing Penn station and Grand Central.
43 Yflyer : I believe it's the one labled "TWA Domestic Terminal" on the '91 map and "TWA Terminal 4B" on the '95 map. I know JetBlue's T5 is more or less on the
44 RIDGID727 : I agree, but have you ever been to Long Beach? Now that is the hole of all holes. Think of any Greyhound bus station, and it will probably be better
45 PI767 : So then, and again forgive my ignorance in the matter, TWA only had ONE terminal to begin with? The second "domestic" terminal was the former Nationa
46 psa188 : That's correct. National was the first tenant, with Trans Carib as a subtenant. After the NA/PA merger, the latter sold the terminal to TWA, whose or
47 Jackbr : What happened to the old 1960s United terminal, and the Eastern/Braniff/Northwest terminal?
48 psa188 : T1 Eastern (1958) Demolished 1997 Replaced by new T1 1998 T2 Northeast/Northwest/Braniff (1964) Still in use by Delta May be replaced by further T4 o
49 N62NA : Now I'm confused about what each of you wrote. So let's clear the record: Penn Station is a commuter AND national railway station. Grand Central is o
50 psa188 : I think the point was that the actual tracks are located under the Pan Am building, as opposed to the historic structure at 42nd/Park.
51 STT757 : Your comparing T-6 to the Pyramids?.. The tracks to Grand Central have always been under ground, they access Grand Central through the Park Ave tunne
52 jfk777 : Airports are not musems, IF Aero Saaren or I M Pei built a terminal in 1970 and its obsolete too bad, demolish it. JFK is not a collection of buildin
53 brilondon : I don't think that they were cavalier in demolishing the terminal, you just don't do that on a whim. I am not. There are no AMTRAK trains at GCT in N
54 United_fan : The pictures from 1972 (the year I was born ) are amazing,and invoke a better time to fly.
55 delta2ual : I know! Was that a lit route map on the left? Awesome! Dramatic much?
56 apodino : No, Actually Penn Station is the basement of Madison Square Garden, which is directly above the station facilities and the tracks. The MetLife buildi
57 Post contains links and images beeweel15 : The main point most people are missing is that parts of the terminals can be incorporated into something new. Example T3 many people want something n
58 spacecadet : You are most definitely confusing GCT and Penn Station, because GCT is in front of and below the Met Life building, not Penn Station. Either that, or
59 poLOT : The spacing between T3 and T4 isn't that much better, as you can see from the diagrams you posted, and your purposed T3 is actually moving gates clos
60 Flaps : Per the article: "Serenity, generosity, clarity, spaciousness, simplicity and dignity aren’t words that describe jet travel any longer. Little wonde
61 richierich : Nicely stated, perhaps, but I don't think T6 has been any of those things since perhaps the 1970s.
62 nycdave : Saying that they only have "sentimental" value is a gross oversimplification, akin to saying that the Pantheon in Rome is just a sentimental relic, a
63 STT757 : Amtrak served Grand Central until 1991. As for being in the basement of the Metlife building, it's not. The Metlife building might be over some of th
64 csavel : My ideal plan for LGA is to demolish the hotels, car rental places, and that sort of aviation trade school, build check-in and securith there, and the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Flying Cheap PBS Story On The Crash Of CO 3407 posted Wed Dec 29 2010 04:50:29 by BNE
TU-204 Production On The Brink Of Shutting Down posted Fri Oct 29 2010 02:26:16 by Soyuz
TVC High On The List Of America's Rip-Off Airports posted Fri Oct 22 2010 07:27:53 by KarlB737
A Little Competition On The Future Of Etihad posted Tue Jul 21 2009 23:18:30 by Kleinsim
Malev On The Verge Of Bankruptcy posted Mon Nov 17 2008 22:29:36 by KrisYYZ
Respect Holidays Goes Bust On The Back Of XL posted Mon Sep 22 2008 05:01:19 by FCAFLYBOY
FlightBlogger: "One Year On: The Story Of The 787" posted Tue May 6 2008 02:29:32 by 797charter
Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline? posted Thu Aug 30 2007 18:19:47 by CO777DAL
The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN... posted Tue Jul 3 2007 02:03:55 by AirRyan
Question On The Size Of The A380 posted Mon May 14 2007 07:01:20 by Kaitak744