braniff
Topic Author
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 3:28 pm

Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:37 am

Back in October, someone posted a message asking what the Pan Am Worldport terminal looked like in the 70's, but that thread has been closed and archived.

There's a Facebook page called "Save the Pan Am Worldport" that is advocating for preservation and restoration of the original "flying-saucer" terminal.

There's a few photos there from the 70's both interior and exterior, mostly of the saucer building.
Believe it!
 
Rockinflyer
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:32 pm

Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:48 am

I'll have a look at the facebook page. I'd love to see it restored to original luster and glory!!!! Maybe call it the Deltaport?
AA,AC,AF,BA,BN,BW,CO,DL,FL,F9,HA,KL,NA,PA,RW,TW,UA,WA,WN
 
braniff
Topic Author
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 3:28 pm

Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:46 am

As would I.

Delta let it get so run down over the years, presumably because they keep thinking they're gonna get rid of it, but years later it's still there. It's not especially flattering of Delta or JFK, and most travelers can't wait for it to go.

But the saucer is definitely an icon. If they're gonna bulldoze T3, they should at least keep the saucer and use it to their advantage (kind of like what B6 was gonna do with the Saarinen TWA T5, but decided not to.)

Gut it, renovate it and use it for shopping, eateries, pubs, and what have you. It's not a huge place, but there's plenty of room once you remove the security crap, check-in desks, gates, kiosks, etc. It would be a cool place to hang out while going between T2 and T4.

With the 1972 expansion section gone, there would still be room for hardstands and better flow, and the view from the saucer would be like it was back in the '60's.
Believe it!
 
delta2ual
Posts: 558
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:18 pm

Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:02 pm

Thanks! I had asked if anyone had any pics. I will go check it out!
From the world's largest airline-to the world's largest airline. Delta2ual
 
william
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:10 pm

Problem, they saved TWA's terminal and how is that going?...........Yeah, thats what I thought, do not save Worldport unless one have a concise plan what to do with it.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:28 pm

In terms of iconic, the PanAm Worldport is nothing compared to TWA Terminal at JFK. It is not worth preserving at all.

JFK has very limited space and is filled to the brim on a daily basis (sans the small space of the deprecated T6). It simply can't afford to waste valuable space preserving every single old building.
 
Delta763
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 6:24 pm

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:45 pm

As much as I am a Pan Am fanboy, I concede that it doesn't make sense to keep the terminal. It was built to meet needs defined in the 1950's. They would just about have to gut it and rebuild it anyway to make it useful as a terminal today. If they kept it as it is, it would just be in the way.

Same goes for the old TWA terminal, really. You see how much use it's getting today. It's just an obstruction everyone has to build around, unless they can convert it to some sort of museum or something, which they likely won't do. JetBlue and Delta are in the flying business, not the history business.
 
braniff
Topic Author
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 3:28 pm

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:02 pm

Quoting william (Reply 4):
do not save Worldport unless one have a concise plan what to do with it.

I think that's the idea. There's no point in saving another building no one plans to use. As much as I loved T6 and hated to see it go, the way it was situated ate up a huge chunk of space. That said, T6 was probably the more useful of the two since its boxy layout was more functional. But T6 is gone.

Quoting Delta763 (Reply 6):
They would just about have to gut it and rebuild it anyway to make it useful as a terminal today. If they kept it as it is, it would just be in the way.

Trying to re-use it as a terminal would be pointless. I think most of the suggestions revolve around re-purposing it for retail and entertainment space that would make it earn its keep and pay off the cost of restoration, unlike the TWA building that's sitting there pretty but empty.

The Worldport addition is mostly what's in the way. The saucer intrudes very little on flows and the hardstands they're planning for the reclaimed space. The T2-T4 connector in the mockup photos is really silly IMO. Keeping the saucer in between doesn't change the overall layout much.
Believe it!
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:11 pm

Quoting Delta763 (Reply 6):
Same goes for the old TWA terminal, really. You see how much use it's getting today. It's just an obstruction everyone has to build around, unless they can convert it to some sort of museum or something, which they likely won't do. JetBlue and Delta are in the flying business, not the history business.

TWA is an architectural landmark. It's one of the most important buildings in the USA. So, that is its function.
 
Curiousflyer
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:19 am

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:16 pm

I agree TWA is more impressive than Worldport. Maybe keep the saucer if it does not prevent DL from building a good facility, so badly needed.

As for TWA, shame, someone should invest in that space. At the very least make it a 5 star boutique hotel for connections, there will be takers in JFK, it has the high end customers passing through.
 
Delta763
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 6:24 pm

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:38 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):
TWA is an architectural landmark. It's one of the most important buildings in the USA. So, that is its function.

A true modern architect would never say that.  

The fact that its been reduced to something pretty but superfluous to me is a worse insult to its modernist aesthetic than tearing it down would be.

"Nothing useless can be truly beautiful"

[Edited 2011-12-02 14:40:30]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14007
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:56 pm

Quoting braniff (Reply 2):
Gut it, renovate it and use it for shopping, eateries, pubs, and what have you. It's not a huge place, but there's plenty of room once you remove the security crap, check-in desks, gates, kiosks, etc. It would be a cool place to hang out while going between T2 and T4.

Even if they did this, I really doubt it'd get enough use to earn its keep. Unless you have a big-ass layover, why would one want to hang out there? One wants to get through security and hang out near their gate and get going ASAP.

DL and PANYNJ have made their desires crystal clear, and they do not include preserving any part of T3. I'm sure they're more concerned about if/when they can do the so-called Phase 2 of T4, which would really improve things in that part of JFK and allow for a lot of tenants to relocate to more efficient locations.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
beeweel15
Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:12 pm

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 9):
I agree TWA is more impressive than Worldport. Maybe keep the saucer if it does not prevent DL from building a good facility, so badly needed.

I agree and that is the point many folks are making just keep the front and get rid of the back. To many folks think that keeping the fron means keeping the whole terminal. T2 is the one that should be raised it serves no purpose.

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 9):
As for TWA, shame, someone should invest in that space. At the very least make it a 5 star boutique hotel for connections, there will be takers in JFK, it has the high end customers passing through.

Shamefull what JETblue did to the terminal. It is just there gathering dust. They should have better incorporated the terminal in their T5 design. If they did they would have had a tremendous terminal cause the rear of the TWA terminal has a huge bay window that faces the ramp.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tom Turner



As seen in the picture behind that window when TWA was in existence had a bar and viewing area. And If jetblue used the terminal better and took advantage of some of its features they would have had a nice experience for not only travelers but people who meet and greet people. The only terminals where ther is good food service outside of security is T8, T1 and T4 (soon to be destroyed by Delta when everything moved behind security) everybody else is behind security making it no fun to come to JFK and wait for folks.
 
cloudboy
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:24 am

Just because JetBlue or the Port Authority has not yet done anything with T5 does not mean nothing sensible could be done with it. and in fact they have finally done some restoration and recently had an open house. The World Port is not anywhere near as iconic as the Saarinen's TWA terminal, but it is still significant. I would love to see it restored and re-purposed.

However, I know realistically that the only thing that really gets a company or organization to act is some kind of short term gain or profit. And the WorldPort just wont make it. The worldport was architecturally impressiv4e due to it's volumes, and for the needs of an airline or aiport authority, the last thing they want is someone standing there in awe of the terminal. They want them either in the plane flying, or they want them in a restaurant eating, bar drinking, or store buying. An enjoyable flying experience is detrimental to short term profits. they need people to need to buy or consume stuff to make up for a poor experience.

What would work for the WorldPort would be if it were the home to an international airline, one that is really focused on the whole travel experience. There it becomes a giant lounge for all passengers, who are stuck in transit. But for an airline like Delta or for an operator like the Port Authority, I dont see it happening.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:46 am

I'll repeat what I've said a few times before...Keep just the saucer section and jettison the secondary hull....um, I mean the 70's Worldport addition. Transfer all the RJ's from T2 to the now saucer-only T-3. Plenty of room for the RJ's...and a covered ramp!!! Sweet!!!
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4952
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:49 am

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 14):
I'll repeat what I've said a few times before...Keep just the saucer section and jettison the secondary hull....um, I mean the 70's Worldport addition. Transfer all the RJ's from T2 to the now saucer-only T-3. Plenty of room for the RJ's...and a covered ramp!!! Sweet!!!

On the ramp maybe. I don't even want to imagine how packed the terminal would be.
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:00 am

Less people would be waiting for a 70-seat airliner than currently wait for a 200-seat airliner. Wouldn't it be LESS packed?

[Edited 2011-12-02 19:02:52]
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2807
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:43 am

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 12):
Shamefull what JETblue did to the terminal.

What, you mean preserving and restoring it?

A lot of us here just visited T5 a few weeks ago at the open house, and a lot of work has been done. Upholstery has been replaced, carpeting has been replaced, everything has been cleaned, the tubes are fully connected to the new T5. Work is going on.

I don't know what you expect; this is really an unnecessary vanity project. It will be a much nicer experience going into T5 once the work is done (assuming it ever gets done), but it's not like JetBlue needs this. T5 is perfectly functional as it is.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:08 am

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 12):

T3 is an eyesore and the armpits of DL's domestic system. The design as it stands is leaps and bounds behind what T2 is doing at the moment. If you could explain exactly why 2 serves no purpose then maybe ill understand you better but at this point it just sounds like a lot of noise to save a piece of aviation history.
What gets measured gets done.
 
beeweel15
Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: Effort To Save Pan Am's Worldport

Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:53 am

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 18):
Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 12):

T3 is an eyesore and the armpits of DL's domestic system. The design as it stands is leaps and bounds behind what T2 is doing at the moment. If you could explain exactly why 2 serves no purpose then maybe ill understand you better but at this point it just sounds like a lot of noise to save a piece of aviation history.

Again as my self and others here have said just keep the front of T3 and get rid of the back, T2 is to to far away from T4 especially for connecting pax will you walk that distance if you got park at the last gate on the T4 B concourse. Also T2 is to close to T1 and is dangerous for planes and personnel especially when the big jets have to make that sharp turn to T1.