psa188
Topic Author
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:02 pm

NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:38 pm

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
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4016
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:55 pm

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.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:06 pm

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.
 
eastern747
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:34 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:42 pm

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
 
beeweel15
Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:10 pm

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.
 
apodino
Posts: 3030
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:18 pm

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)
 
beeweel15
Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:22 pm

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.
 
eastern747
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:34 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:49 pm

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.
 
desertjets
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:05 pm

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
 
richierich
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:26 pm

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!!!!
 
beeweel15
Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:39 pm

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.
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:39 pm

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
 
beeweel15
Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:49 pm

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.
 
psa188
Topic Author
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:02 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:12 pm

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.
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:21 pm

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
 
GSPSPOT
Posts: 2246
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:44 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:30 pm

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!
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:39 pm

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
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:05 pm

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.
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:16 pm

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
 
N62NA
Posts: 4011
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:22 pm

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!  
 
tharanga
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:29 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:26 pm

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.
 
csavel
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:38 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:50 am

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.
 
ridgid727
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:58 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:32 pm

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 avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4016
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:10 pm

"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.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7719
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:20 pm

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.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8538
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:28 pm

An architectural masterpiece indeed, sad it will be gone shortly.

But the bridge and stairs to AirTrain is an architectural nightmare that literally raped the clean and clear shape of Pei's building so it may be better that way. I am sure that the architects who designed that AirTrain nightmare did not feel too well, but PANYNJ called the shots, so what could they do?
powered by Eierlikör
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:32 pm

Bummer, although I thnk the eventual demolition of the DL Worldport is much worse.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
richierich
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:28 pm

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 15):
I'm not architectural or historic preservation sage, but that picture of the NA ticket counter brought tears to my eyes...

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 ticket counters there, it was different. B6 is not National and vice versa. I'm not trying to be insensitive, I never flew on National and I am sure they were a great carrier, but this is about the building and not the airline. National was not the only long-term tenant of the terminal, obviously.
I said something like on a similar thread once: it is not the concrete, steel and glass building that we all lament and are sad for, it's the memories that we are afraid of losing. Keep them alive, I say, but you don't need that building to do that!

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 26):
Bummer, although I thnk the eventual demolition of the DL Worldport is much worse.

From a historical standpoint, so do I! Pan Am was a far more important airline to the US and to JFK than National ever was (again, I hope not to offend National fans on this site by saying that!) As a side note, before being known as the Worldport, Terminal 3 was of course the Pan Am Terminal in old JFK parlance...Pan Am purchased National Airlines in 1980! (I am assuming all Pan Am/National operations at JFK were then operated out of the Worldport and the Sundrome lost its first major tenant.)
But, as with T6, the Worldport has also outlived its usefulness as an airport terminal and it is time to refresh the area and make it workable again. JFK Airport deserves to be a world class gateway to the United States.
I hope ABC takes all the video it needs for their new Pan Am show!

Quoting travelin man (Reply 17):
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".

Agreed. It was functional (most of the time) more than aesthetically pleasing, and even though I think it looked far better in 2005 than in 1995 or so, the building was no longer viable as a modern airport terminal.
None shall pass!!!!
 
apodino
Posts: 3030
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:29 pm

Quoting csavel (Reply 21):
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.


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 a dump.

LAX is another airport that suffers because of this. Imagine if they were able to tear down the roads leading in and extend the terminals into an ATL style airport? I believe LA wanted to do just that, and some idiots opposed it.

You know whats funny about this whole thing. The Sunport was used by TWA in there last days. The reason the terminals in MCI were built the way they were was because MCI catered to TWA's wishes with the design, thinking it would be a short walk from the car to the plane, despite what they originally wanted to do. The reason being was that TWA was going to turn MCI into a huge hub. Well the design was obsolete as soon as it opened and the airport didn't want to cater to TWA's wishes to renovate it, so they set up the STL hub as a result. It's kind of funny how an airport caters to one airlines wishes, and then as a result it doesn't fit that airlines needs and they end up moving shop anyways.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13223
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:43 pm

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 modern needs and conveniences. These airport structures are in stark contrast to great rail stations like Grand Central Terminal in NY and Union Station in DC which are nearing 100 years old and are still functional.

T-5, T-3 and T-6 are not great structures like Grand Central. The historic protection that preserved T-5 was created after the demolition of Pennsylvania station in Manhattan which was the most Grand of the great US railroad stations. Pennsylvania station was demolished for the ugly Madison Square Garden Arena, and those ugly office buildings that surround the arena. Pennsylvania station should have been preserved, it would be a true asset to NYC such as Grand Central terminal. T-3, T-5 and T-6 while having sentimental value are not the same as "the late great Pennsylvania station".

The terminals at JFK are not worthy of preservation like Grand Central, at least not with public funds. Grand Central Terminal and Union Station in DC are still being used as they were designed, T-5 while preserved has no logical usage as a structure.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
jmbweeboy
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:38 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:06 pm

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 it is now and what was still there from my younger days when my Dad would take me there on Sunday afternoons to watch planes land and take off.

Everyone should be reminded that a sub-tenant of this building from the date it was constructed until 1972/73 when they were merged into American Airlines was Trans Caribbean Airways. I recall my first flight on them departing from that terminal in 1970 on a DC-8-61 that departed around 1am in the morning for San Juan. I recall walking up through one of the glass tubes that led out to the concourse and seeing the brightly colored in blue and orange TCA DC-8-61 looking so impressive. Also recall so well the "stewardesses" who were working that flight walking by me so very stylish and elegant in their uniforms that looked "Dutch" reflecting their ties to Aruba but also very Spanish with the wide brimmed hats atop them.

Also recall well a tour I was given when National first started flying their 747s between Miami and JFK, again at that terminal.

During my visit to JFK 4 weeks ago, I flew in and out of terminal 5 Jet Blue. And while it was "ok" inside, I thought the front exterior looked like some old dark and dreary Army quanset hut one might have found years ago in Korea. Now that building will be much more visible because of terminal 6 going bye-bye ? Shame.

Good memories from Terminal 6, I will surely miss!

JMBWEEBOY
 
masseybrown
Posts: 4444
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:12 pm

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 handling systems, etc. A new building is probably cheaper.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7719
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:33 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 29):
The terminals at JFK are not worthy of preservation like Grand Central, at least not with public funds. Grand Central Terminal and Union Station in DC are still being used as they were designed, T-5 while preserved has no logical usage as a structure.

! Is the Great Wall still used for its original purpose? What about the pyramids in Egypt?
 
ckfred
Posts: 4734
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:56 pm

Quoting apodino (Reply 5):

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),
Quoting apodino (Reply 28):
You know whats funny about this whole thing. The Sunport was used by TWA in there last days. The reason the terminals in MCI were built the way they were was because MCI catered to TWA's wishes with the design, thinking it would be a short walk from the car to the plane, despite what they originally wanted to do. The reason being was that TWA was going to turn MCI into a huge hub. Well the design was obsolete as soon as it opened and the airport didn't want to cater to TWA's wishes to renovate it, so they set up the STL hub as a result.

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-point flying. If anything, if two airlines tended to feed each other, at an airport, they often wound up near each other. Back when MCI opened, Braniff and Frontier tended to feed each other. So, they wound up in the same terminal.

Then, there was the concept of parking close to the door. At ORD, before the parking garage was built, it could be a very long walk to the terminal, especially if you wound up parking over towards Terminal 3, and you were meeting a flight from Europe that was going into the old international terminal (now Terminal 1).

Finally, both of these airports were designed before the need for security. A curved terminal doesn't lend itself well to the creation of checkpoints. Although, with multiple checkpoints, security does tend to be easier to clear than at airports with one main checkpoint, such at ATL.

Quoting desertjets (Reply 8):
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.

Say what you want about Terminals 2 and 3 at ORD, being the International Style blocks of steel and glass, but they were simple to build, and they were simple to expand. Extending T-3, when Delta built Concourse L was very simple, as was expanding the space in Terminals 2 and 3. The front curtain walls were removed. The floors and ceiling/roof over ticketing was extended outward. Then, new curtain walls were installed. Voila, more space without chaning the look of the terminals.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:09 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 29):
Pennsylvania station should have been preserved,
Quoting STT757 (Reply 29):
Grand Central Terminal and Union Station in DC are still being used as they were designed,

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 Metlife building.

The terminals at JFK have outlived their useful life and need desperately to be updated and rebuilt for today's flying public. The biggest thing is security and the shopping mall that usually accompany the airport to generate revenue. That is the bottom line for most of the airports.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:14 pm

Quoting apodino (Reply 28):
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 a dump.

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.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
ckfred
Posts: 4734
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:47 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 35):
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.

But, if you were to depart out of the CTB, you wouldn't almost puke. You would puke.
 
richierich
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:53 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 34):
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 Metlife building

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. Instead of places like Boston, Buffalo and Chicago, the desination board may read Stamford, Poughkeepsie and Southeast, but it is still a viable train station. Sure there have been some changes over the years but essentially a passenger entering from 42nd Street largely has the same experience today as they would have had 100 years ago.

Airports are different. T6 is not Grand Central in terms of either historic or aesthetic value. As explained elsewhere in this thread, the airport terminal was barely acceptable at its purpose during the last 20 or so years it was being used. For the passenger, sure the landside building might have worked because it had ticket counters, kiosks, the ubiquitous Hudson News and an escalator/elevator to security and the gates. What the average passenger wouldnt have noticed is that about a fifth of the floor space was taken up by the TSA and their super-sized scanning machines, below average airport office space behind the scenes, ancient baggage belt and handling facilities, and woefully inadequate basic services such as restroom facilities. Throw in the simple fact that the building was unable to cool down in the summer (thanks to the vast expanse of glass) and was expensive to keep warm in the winter (thanks to the lofty ceiling), and it is/was not an efficient building. Modern airport terminals are built to a cost, and some are definitely more pleasing to the architectural eye than others, but in general the desires of the passengers and airlines alike are taken under great consideration.
None shall pass!!!!
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:59 pm

Quoting ckfred (Reply 36):

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.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
Flighty
Posts: 7719
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:31 pm

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 31):
. A new building is probably cheaper.

A new building is nearly always cheaper. It's not the only consideration though.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 34):
The biggest thing is security and the shopping mall that usually accompany the airport to generate revenue. That is the bottom line for most of the airports.

Nobody is questioning that facilities should be maintained and updated /expanded. But they should not be cavalier about just demo'ing nice architectural elements. Like the Chrysler building in Manhattan, things like TWA terminal need protection. Of course it is cheaper to blow these things up and build a Wal Mart. But NYC is better than that.
 
N62NA
Posts: 4011
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:03 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 34):
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 Metlife building.

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 building" comment is a bit unclear to me, as I am quite familiar with the layout of GCT.
 
PI767
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:50 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:09 pm

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.departedflights.com/JFK91.html

http://www.departedflights.com/JFK95.html

Where exactly IS this terminal located?

I don't see any terminal marked as "Terminal 6."

Has anyone used it in recent years?

Thanks in advance!

PI767
"Piedmont. The Model of What a Good Airline Should Be."
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13223
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:16 pm

It's the former TWA domestic terminal.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 34):
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 Metlife building.

No it's not, I think your confusing Penn station and Grand Central.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Yflyer
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:05 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:22 pm

Quoting PI767 (Reply 41):
Where exactly IS this terminal located?

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 site of the airside portion of the old TWA (international) terminal, which would make the one next to it T6. Obviously they got renumbered at some point.
 
ridgid727
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:58 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:24 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 35):
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.

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 than the terminal set up at Long Beach.

[Edited 2011-10-07 16:29:16]
 
PI767
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:50 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:34 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 42):
It's the former TWA domestic terminal.

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 National Sundome?
"Piedmont. The Model of What a Good Airline Should Be."
 
psa188
Topic Author
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:02 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:21 am

Quoting PI767 (Reply 45):
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 National Sundome?

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 original 1962-built Saarinen terminal was busting at the seams during the afternoon peak. TWA used the ex-Sundrome as its domestic terminal until the late 1990s, when they started cutting back on flights to JFK. I don't recall when exactly when TWA left, but UA and HP was using some gates in the late 1990s. B6 started up flights in what was now called Terminal 6 in 2000, and the B6 operation grew rapidly until it was clear they needed a new, modern facility, hence the new Terminal 5 which was covered in the Jan / Feb 2009 issue of Airliners.
 
Jackbr
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:14 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:37 am

What happened to the old 1960s United terminal, and the Eastern/Braniff/Northwest terminal?
 
psa188
Topic Author
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:02 pm

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:33 am

Quoting Jackbr (Reply 47):
What happened to the old 1960s United terminal, and the Eastern/Braniff/Northwest terminal?


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 or T1 expansion in future

T9 United/Delta
Demolished 2001
Replaced by new T8 2004

[Edited 2011-10-07 20:34:02]
 
N62NA
Posts: 4011
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: NY Times On The Demolition Of NA Sundrome

Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:38 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 42):
Quoting brilondon (Reply 34):
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 Metlife building.

No it's not, I think your confusing Penn station and Grand Central.

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 only a commuter railway station.

I still don't get the earlier comment about the "real station" being "under the MetLife" building though.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ANA787, Apprentice, atal17, Bing [Bot], Boof02671, CONTACREW, DarkSnowyNight, elron, Flaps, FlyBTV, flyiguy, FWAERJ, JRL3289, julio777, maxpower1954, msycajun, n7371f, sas767, SooLineRob, TailDragging, usxguy, VS4ever, W3C [Validator] and 223 guests