washingtonian
Topic Author
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:56 pm

Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:22 pm

Why didn't the Port/Delta decide to stick with the T3 rotunda instead of T2? The number of gates is similar. The rotunda was never really in as bad shape as the rest of T3. Doing so would have had a few benefits: Shorter walk to T4, the Port could have then knocked down T2 and had lots of land at its disposal for a future terminal expansion from T1. The only major negative I could think of would be that they already have their RJ gates set up at T2.

Oh well, just a random thought of Saturday morning...

[Edited 2012-02-04 07:24:00]
 
EricR
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:40 pm

I thought one of the benefits of knocking down T3 was so that DL could use this space to park / pushback aircraft from both T2 & T4. However, if DL knocked down T2 instead, it would not be as operationally efficient to park aircraft (especially those coming from T4) and would require them to use JFK's crowded taxiways to re-position planes.
 
washingtonian
Topic Author
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:56 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:20 pm

Quoting EricR (Reply 1):

I thought one of the benefits of knocking down T3 was so that DL could use this space to park / pushback aircraft from both T2 & T4. However, if DL knocked down T2 instead, it would not be as operationally efficient to park aircraft (especially those coming from T4) and would require them to use JFK's crowded taxiways to re-position planes.

If they kept the rotunda, but knocked down the rest of T3, there would be plenty of space to park planes...
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:32 pm

It is old and needs work.

Look at what they are doing, a simple concourse extension and a walkway.

Simpler, cleaner job.
 
SA7700
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:38 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:42 pm

Hi Washingtonian,

It has been a while since I have used JFK, so I don't know a whole lot about the current developments over there. Included are a thread or two, which hopefully may be useful to you:

Delta Announces Details Of JFK Improvements

Update On Delta's JFK Terminal 2/3


Take care,

SA7700
When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:56 pm

As I've said before, keep the rotunda and tear down the 70's addition. Move all the RJ's from Term 2 to the rotunda where the passengers will be able to board w/o getting wet in the rain. The space vacated by moving the RJ's can be expanded to add more mainline gates and still have room to park planes where the 70's addition is now.
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
gaystudpilot
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:55 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:15 pm

It would be great if the PANYNJ, planners, designers, and operators could come to an agreement to keep the rotunda vs an agreement to tear it down. The building is a part of aviation history and touches the emotions of a bygone era that so many of us hold close today. However, a solution to keep it does not appear to be cost effective and operationally viable in today's environment.



The rotunda faces several challenges.

1. The renovation needs are greater than most of us realize. I find it interesting that we've never seen an estimate to renovate it which could be telling. We do know that DL has sunk millions into making the facility workable in the current configuration. Also, next time you're in the rotunda look up. That's not art work suspended from the ceilings; it's a water diversion system designed to catch water from the leaking roof.



2. It's questionable how useful the design could be as a terminal today even with extensive renovations. Very little about the facilities work well today from an operator's and passenger's perspective. To what degree could it be re-designed without loosing its architectural uniqueness and historical aviation interest yet become an operationally viable airline terminal? Could it somehow be re-purposed and utilized while adding value to airport and airline operations and the customer experience? It would be interesting to see what ideas have been thrown around. Most have probably been contrived solutions not grounded in reality a la the "festival marketplace" urban renewal ideas of the 1980s.

3. The location of the rotunda does not provide enough flexibility to use the real estate between terminals 1 and 4 in the future. The current plan for terminal 2 is to remain in place with some renovations synced with the completion of the first phase expansion of terminal 4, concourse B and the demolition of terminal 2. We know that terminal 2 and terminal 4 are being pieced together with a long walkway and that the proximity of terminal 1 to terminal 2 leads to additional operational complexities. We also know that JFK is hemmed in from a real estate perspective. Removing the rotunda allows for more design options between terminals 1 and 4 in the future while helping DL operations in shorter term.



A lot of us would like to see something useful done with the space vs demolition. Sadly, the options appear to be few and we'll have to say goodbye.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:23 pm

"As I've said before, keep the rotunda and tear down the 70's addition. Move all the RJ's from Term 2 to the rotunda where the passengers will be able to board w/o getting wet in the rain. The space vacated by moving the RJ's can be expanded to add more mainline gates and still have room to park planes where the 70's addition is now."


This is actually a good idea.

Functionally, DL has let the rotunda become a mess. It is a cable and cement structure and is not at the end of its useful life.

What Delta did do by no maintaining it is create a leaky mess that you see in the photo above.

This of course is done intentionally for political reasons. The worse condition it is in, the less pushback they get to demolition.

Plus the preservationists are not helping themselves across the field. What has become of TWA? It should have been incorporated to T5. Instead, it is completely remodeled and sitting empty without a purpose.


It is quite a shame what is happening with T3. I imagine that 40 years from now, that razing that rotunda will be looked upon in a similar light to Penn Station.

That was also demolished after years of neglect by the Pennsylvania RR. It was deemed grimey and outdated to modern railroad travel.

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


Rest assured, on the a.net of the future, no one will be talking about the architectual marvels of T1. T4. T5. or T8.

Nor will they be talking about the hub airports of the 80s and 90s either unless they use adjectives such as bland or uninspiring.
 
User avatar
b727fa
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:21 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:35 pm

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 5):

As I've said before, keep the rotunda and tear down the 70's addition. Move all the RJ's from Term 2 to the rotunda where the passengers will be able to board w/o getting wet in the rain. The space vacated by moving the RJ's can be expanded to add more mainline gates and still have room to park planes where the 70's addition is now.

It's an obvious, therefore ignored, option. T3, per se, is DCI, T4 is Delta ML. There are more than enough stands at the "saucer" for RJ's...even with jetways and it's a short(er) walk to T4. How DL thinks people will want to WALK from T2 to T4 is beyond me. Now they have this stupid idea that people want to walk from "D" at LGA to USAirways old bldg. How/Why do we keep doing this to ourselves?
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:58 pm

The facts are that you guys are looking at what's going on now for the near future and not what's going to happen (+/-) 10 years from now. The space left from the T3 demolition (glad to see it go btw) will not remain a parking lot...

Functionally, T3 is a mess. The money that would have to be sunk into that pit to bring it up to standards would have increased the project cost of this first phase by a little more than a quarter alone. This is coming from the Delta JFK Redevelopment Project Manager. Neither the port nor Delta was willing to pay for it and a compromise had to be made somewhere in the middle. Just because both have "about the same amount of gates" does not mean anything. Most of the mainline stands cannot park 75Ws side by side. To do this would require the REMOVAL and realigning of jetways. 2. A number of stands cannot legally park a 757 because the tail would be well outside the containment line. As it is because of the need to stagger wingtips, there are a couple gates were they have to stop at L1 vs L2. Pulling in at L2 would put the leading edge in the side of the building...this is just gate engineering. The roof would have to finally be addressed and that in itself would require the closure of sections of the terminal at a time to get the work done safely. Below wing, the baggage system is of a 40 year old design. If anyone's seen the old eastern bagroom under C in Atlanta would know what I'm talking about. The one in ATL took over a year to complete and is now set up as a pier system vice a single carousel belt. At that time, all bags had to be handled through the other bagrooms until it was complete. Delta does not have this luxury at JFK.

I guess I can go on and on and it wouldn't really matter because people will still be upset but just trying to lay out some facts and sanity here.

[Edited 2012-02-04 15:04:38]
What gets measured gets done.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2802
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:42 am

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7):
It is quite a shame what is happening with T3. I imagine that 40 years from now, that razing that rotunda will be looked upon in a similar light to Penn Station.

That was also demolished after years of neglect by the Pennsylvania RR. It was deemed grimey and outdated to modern railroad travel.

These are not comparable at all. For one thing, Penn Station was an architectural treasure - it was miles beyond the T3 rotunda. The rotunda is, literally, "just" a rotunda. Other than the history there, there's nothing all that special about it architecturally. It's a round building with a roof that overhangs to keep people dry when they go to their planes - that may make it distinctive, but it's not particularly significant architecturally, nor is it necessary in these days of covered jet bridges.

For another, Penn Station was demolished not because it was "grimey and outdated to modern railroad travel", but because it cost too much to maintain and was thought of as a wasteful monument to something that was viewed as increasingly utilitarian (rail travel had shifted by that time to be mostly commuter traffic). Emotionally that's a tough pill to swallow but you can understand it from a business standpoint, and at that time, this was still a privately owned train station. (The current Penn Station is owned by Amtrak.)

But this is not the same situation as the T3 rotunda, which is literally outdated. There's nothing the old Penn Station couldn't do, it just wasn't worth it for the railroad to keep paying to clean and maintain it. That's why it was such a travesty - money probably could have been found for that to preserve the station, through some private foundation or government/private partnership. But there's no amount of money that's going to solve the rotunda's unworkable design given current security and other requirements. It's the same as the Saarinen T5. Maybe you could keep it open as a museum, if you can find the money to fix it up, but you can't make it work as a terminal anymore.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
EricR
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:53 am

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 9):

The facts are that you guys are looking at what's going on now for the near future and not what's going to happen (+/-) 10 years from now. The space left from the T3 demolition (glad to see it go btw) will not remain a parking lot...

We are not talking about 10 years from now. Those long term plans will most likely change based on the competitive landscape 5 to 7 years from now. So instead of hypothesizing on plans that will most likely change to some unknown form 10 years in the future, we are discussing what we know for sure is going to happen - which is is the razing of T3 and the use of this land for parking.
 
nycdave
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:22 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:09 am

A few thoughts --

First off, as SpaceCadet said, it's not analogous to Penn Station in the slightest. Penn Station was a monumental work in fine working order, by the greatest -- or at least most famous -- architects of the Beaux Arts era. The railroad, in dire financial straits, saw a chance to knock down a large, expensive to maintain facility, and use the air rights to put up a tawdry skyscraper and a new Madison Square Garden for a few bucks. It actually spurred the entire historical preservation movement -- prior to that, there weren't any statutes on the books. Penn Central tried to do the same thing later on to Grand Central, was blocked by the city using the new laws, and wound up going all the way to the Supreme Court (which upheld them).

Anyhow, by contrast, T3 is, well... just a building, by comparison. The rotunda may have some emotional resonance and be evocative of the golden age of flying, but that's just about all that can be said. It broke no new architectural or engineering ground, the designers were of no particular fame or lasting influence, and the original structure was heavily modified when that whole expansion was built onto the back of it in the 1970's. By comparison, even T-6 was more important (both designed by I.M. Pei and introducing several innovative design solution that went on to be used heavily in buildings with glass curtain walls). So there goes that reason for keeping it.

Secondly, as has been noted, it is in rather horrible shape -- nothing that can't be repaired and rehabilitated, but I'm guessing the cost would be extremely prohibitive.

But if we were to restore it, what benefit would that hold? The design is simply INADEQUATE to modern needs. There's not enough check-in space, baggage claim/processing space, gate space, and certainly not enough space for sufficient TSA screening areas! Where, in the rotunda, would you propose to put all that stuff, even if you knocked down the 70's extension?

I'm not going to say it won't be sad to see it go - I loved the "flying saucer" roof, and it was something iconic. I would have loved to see it used as an entrance foyer/hall for a new terminal complex... but even if it were preserved that way (and indeed, I think that's all, like Saarinen's T5, it could be useful for operationally), it wouldn't allow for the solving of any of the aircraft movement and parking issues on that side of the complex.

There's no good place for the worldport, there's no good use for the worldport, and, unfortunately, there's not a strong enough case to justify spending the money to preserve it in the face of those two problems.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:13 am

Quoting EricR (Reply 11):
We are not talking about 10 years from now. Those long term plans will most likely change based on the competitive landscape 5 to 7 years from now. So instead of hypothesizing on plans that will most likely change to some unknown form 10 years in the future, we are discussing what we know for sure is going to happen - which is is the razing of T3 and the use of this land for parking.

Are you going to donate the money to make T3 workable? Forget everything I said about 10 years from now if that's how you want to do it we can just focus on the facts...

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 9):
Functionally, T3 is a mess. The money that would have to be sunk into that pit to bring it up to standards would have increased the project cost of this first phase by a little more than a quarter alone. This is coming from the Delta JFK Redevelopment Project Manager. Neither the port nor Delta was willing to pay for it and a compromise had to be made somewhere in the middle. Just because both have "about the same amount of gates" does not mean anything. Most of the mainline stands cannot park 75Ws side by side. To do this would require the REMOVAL and realigning of jetways. 2. A number of stands cannot legally park a 757 because the tail would be well outside the containment line. As it is because of the need to stagger wingtips, there are a couple gates were they have to stop at L1 vs L2. Pulling in at L2 would put the leading edge in the side of the building...this is just gate engineering. The roof would have to finally be addressed and that in itself would require the closure of sections of the terminal at a time to get the work done safely. Below wing, the baggage system is of a 40 year old design. If anyone's seen the old eastern bagroom under C in Atlanta would know what I'm talking about. The one in ATL took over a year to complete and is now set up as a pier system vice a single carousel belt. At that time, all bags had to be handled through the other bagrooms until it was complete. Delta does not have this luxury at JFK.
What gets measured gets done.
 
EricR
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:25 am

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 13):

Did you even read my post? What does my comment about T3 being razed and the area replaced by aircraft parking have anything to do with trying to make T3 workable? It is clear that T3 is not workable, hence the demolition of the site.

[Edited 2012-02-04 20:29:12]
 
FRAIAD
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:31 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:59 am

From my perspective - that is definitely influenced by some Pan Am sentimentality - it should be possible to incorporate the original rotunda building (without the crappy later additions) into a new terminal. Why not turn the rotunda into the check in area and then build a concourse parallel to the runway for gates area? I understand that PANYNJ/Delta do not have the money for it. But how can you demolish this landmark building? What would be the reaction if someone suggested to get rid of the TWA building to create additional parking space for aircraft (I know it is not actually doable)? Honestly, it is a scandal that none steps up and stops this from happening!
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:11 am

Quoting EricR (Reply 14):

Yes, I read your responce to my post. I didn't notice the one further up. I was responding to those that are suggesting that T3 should not be torn down which is the basis of the entire thread anyway. Aside from that ONE line about the 10 year thing, I gave a pretty long explanation as to why it wasn't kept but you didn't focus on that so I was confused as to what your point was in the first place.

[Edited 2012-02-04 23:15:23]
What gets measured gets done.
 
idlewildchild
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:38 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:51 am

As my handle indicates, JFK is not just a love of mine but a childhood home where I spent weekends spotting in the early 60s through the early 70s when I landed an airline job. If I were to be really honest about what I'd love to see at JFK? A HUGE terminal in the center of the building with CDG style T1 or ATL styled or MCO styled trains that take folks out to gates based on the different alliance. Knock it all down, except the TWA building (it's a landmark, can't be touched) and turn it into the greatest airport in the world. Even rethink potential runways, I think it calls for a 5th. Consider taking a bit more of Jamaica Bay if necessary too. I know it's a dream that, especially because of today's economic reality and people's lack of imagination, won't happen... but like the boy I was in the early 60s, it's worth dreaming about.

I miss the original International Arrivals Building where one could peer down into the customs hall and watch the flight board posted inside, excited to see your relatives and friends come through customs - they would look up and wave! Truly grand! And of course the observation deck where you could run from one side to the other to follow the arrivals and departures. I'm so grateful I was there for the golden age.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:49 pm

"These are not comparable at all. For one thing, Penn Station was an architectural treasure - it was miles beyond the T3 rotunda. The rotunda is, literally, "just" a rotunda. "

There were people like you in the late 50s saying the same thing about Penn Station.

Almost immediately after it was razed, we as a society were sorry we listened to those people.

As for a "just a rotunda" mention, tell me this:

Is there another building like it anywhere in the world?

Is there another building with an umbrella roof that was designed as the first covered boarding?


The answer is no. And that makes this structure unique because once it's gone, there will not be another structure like that on this planet.

Now, is that worth preserving? Good question and good debate.

But don't for one second say the building doesn't have the historic significance of Penn Station. To say so would be to blind yourself by looking at current motivating conditions, not historical significance (Which will be an issue once it's gone...I promise!)
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4923
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:07 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
Is there another building with an umbrella roof that was designed as the first covered boarding?

It is an overhang. Nothing more, nothing less. The only difference between the terminal's overhang and other building's overhangs it is protected people when they were walking into a plane, instead of a building. It is not a unique architectural feature and not one worthy of preservation.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
The answer is no. And that makes this structure unique because once it's gone, there will not be another structure like that on this planet.

So now we must preserve every unique structure in the country? People preserve buildings for historical/cultural significance, not uniqueness. Nothing is preventing anyone from designing another circular building with a large overhang.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
But don't for one second say the building doesn't have the historic significance of Penn Station. To say so would be to blind yourself by looking at current motivating conditions, not historical significance (Which will be an issue once it's gone...I promise!)

It doesn't. I bet that half of the people who walk through the terminal today don't even know that Pan Am once owned it. And of the other half I bet of the other half most don't care because they never flew Pan Am and they have no attachment to an airline that died 20 years ago and had its heyday 50-60 years ago. People cared about about Penn Station because it was considered a landmark and a beautiful building, not because people used it for 50 years to take the railroad to far off destinations.

[Edited 2012-02-05 07:08:01]
 
washingtonian
Topic Author
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:56 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:09 pm

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 5):
As I've said before, keep the rotunda and tear down the 70's addition.

That's what I said in the original post.

Quoting gaystudpilot (Reply 6):
3. The location of the rotunda does not provide enough flexibility to use the real estate between terminals 1 and 4 in the future

If they kept just the rotunda and knocked down T2, they would have room to start building a new wing of T1 where T2 is currently.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 9):
unctionally, T3 is a mess. The money that would have to be sunk into that pit to bring it up to standards would have increased the project cost of this first phase by a little more than a quarter alone.

Fair enough. Even just the Rotunda? My whole point wasn't about preservation or anything. I just meant that from the Port's perspective, keeping the Rotunda (for now) and removing T2 and the T3 1970s extensions would give them the maximum amount of free cement space to plan future projects.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 9):
If anyone's seen the old eastern bagroom under C in Atlanta would know what I'm talking about.

Is it still around?
 
delimit
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:08 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:10 pm

Yes, however we now have architectural preservation societies. Have they been actively protesting this? Because they certainly did when the Port debated demolishing T6.

I think their silence on this plan is noteworthy.

It's sad to see one of the last vestiges of Pan Am go, but honestly folks, stop with the archicyural preservation angle. It's just not that significant a building.
 
washingtonian
Topic Author
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:56 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:10 pm

Here's another question for everyone: Around what year did the Worldport become obsolete? Ditto for the original IAB at JFK? Was it in the late 70s? Or 80s? Or early 90s?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4923
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:18 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 21):
Yes, however we now have architectural preservation societies. Have they been actively protesting this? Because they certainly did when the Port debated demolishing T6.

I think their silence on this plan is noteworthy.

It's sad to see one of the last vestiges of Pan Am go, but honestly folks, stop with the archicyural preservation angle. It's just not that significant a building.

  
People here (and other aviation enthusiast) are taking their thoughts/feelings/and nostalgia for an airline and attributing it to a building, rather than thinking of the building in isolation. That is what you need to do when deciding if a building is worthy of preservation, if you can't let go of an airline start a museum rather than desperately hanging on to an old, dingy, outdated terminal.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:06 pm

"People here (and other aviation enthusiast) are taking their thoughts/feelings/and nostalgia for an airline and attributing it to a building, rather than thinking of the building in isolation. That is what you need to do when deciding if a building is worthy of preservation, if you can't let go of an airline start a museum rather than desperately hanging on to an old, dingy, outdated terminal."

But who cares about Pan Am?

That is the view YOU are imposing on this thread.

I am a New Yorker. And that building is unique to NYC and to the world.

Doesn't matter if Pan Am used it or not.

It was a unique design 60 years ago and is a unique design now.



"Here's another question for everyone: Around what year did the Worldport become obsolete? Ditto for the original IAB at JFK? Was it in the late 70s? Or 80s? Or early 90s?"

When security became an issue. The terminal had no space for metal detectors. They stationed them at the door so you literally waited in the street. They were one of the first buildings to scan all checked luggage because you could not get to the ticket counter to check a bag without going through security. The bag scanners were huge!

Post 9/11, Delta made a security area by dividing the concourses on each side in half and moved the ticket counters pre security. This led to tight, cramped conditions pre and post security at that point.

That was when the 1970s addition became obsolete.

The rotunda is just a rotunda. Not anymore obsolete than any rotunda at any airport. The rotunda can stand without the 70s addition and be incorporated into that walkway they are building if they chose too

This led to a tight security area
 
User avatar
727tiger
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:22 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:03 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
Is there another building with an umbrella roof that was designed as the first covered boarding?

Well, there is the Tempelhof roof overhang that predated the JFK PanAm Worldport by a few decades:

http://blog.goethe.de/meet-the-germa...-and-the-Need-for-Imagination.html

I love the rotunda, don't get me wrong, but I think its days are numbered.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:47 pm

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 20):

The physical space is still there. ASA restarted the carousel mid 2006 after it sat un-used for close to 15 years. When Delta took over all ground OPS in mid-late 2007 they started several major projetcs. Installing jetways on C/D, extending and expanding the north end of the passenger boarding area on C, renovating ramp level offices on the north end of C (ASA's currrent admin/pilot and F/A lounge), renovating the ramp level space on the north end of D to run a larger transfer bag point, installing an underground bag conveyor connecting the B and C bagrooms and rennovating the old Eastern C bagroom.
What gets measured gets done.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:23 pm

Another photo:



And under construction (September 1959 I believe), with Aeroflot Tu-114 on its first visit to the U.S. It brought Soviet premier Khrushchev for a U.N. meeting. There were no stairs tall enough to reach the Tu-114's doors so they had to rig up a special extension.

 
beeweel15
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:40 pm

Quoting FRAIAD (Reply 15):
if someone suggested to get rid of the TWA building to create additional parking space for aircraft (I know it is not actually doable)

Well it could be done for a car park as it is not doing anything right now it just sits there gathering dust.

Quoting poLOT (Reply 23):
if you can't let go of an airline start a museum rather than desperately hanging on to an old, dingy, outdated terminal.

I have let go of Pan Am but the building herald in the dawn of the jet age and if Delta had any type of imagination they would incorporate the rotunda into the new plans. The current things they doing now at T4 might look good on paper but in reality they will regret what they did cause it will cost them tons of money and have passengers avoiding in droves. So pre pare for your 3 hour connection times with DL when you can do your connection in less then two with AA across the street.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:03 am

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 28):
The current things they doing now at T4 might look good on paper but in reality they will regret what they did cause it will cost them tons of money and have passengers avoiding in droves.

Right. Like how they're "avoiding in droves" now when the current facilities are far sub-par and inferior to AA's current terminal   Let's get real for just a minute...

As far as costing them "tons of money". You're the one saying that so do you mind explaining what you mean because that just seems so vague to me and more to do with saying something because you can with zero facts or even a little logic behind it.

"Imagination"? Really? This is about maximizing your dollar on top of producing the most efficent and cost effective product.
What gets measured gets done.
 
PITrules
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 11:27 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:37 am

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
As for a "just a rotunda" mention, tell me this:

Is there another building like it anywhere in the world?

Is there another building with an umbrella roof that was designed as the first covered boarding?


The answer is no

Actually it's "yes"; as already mentioned there was Templehof, which came long before JFK's T3 and offered the first covered boarding terminal.

As far as a rotunda shaped terminal, when this topic comes up (seemingly every month) everyone forgets the one at ORD. While it is smaller than the one at JFK, the ceiling is very similar, and it is in much better condition. There is nothing unique about JFK's T3. At some point ORD's terminal complex will need to be rebuilt - will there be the same outcry when its rotunda disappears?

Probably not, which only confirms for many that this is more about Pan Am memories than the building itself.
FLYi
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:42 am

Quoting FRAIAD (Reply 15):

Nothing illegal. It is not on the historical landmark register. Should it be? Who knows...apparently there aren't enough people out there that care enough to make that happen.
What gets measured gets done.
 
gaystudpilot
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:55 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:49 am

Quoting FRAIAD (Reply 15):
From my perspective - that is definitely influenced by some Pan Am sentimentality - it should be possible to incorporate the original rotunda building (without the crappy later additions) into a new terminal. Why not turn the rotunda into the check in area and then build a concourse parallel to the runway for gates area? I understand that PANYNJ/Delta do not have the money for it. But how can you demolish this landmark building? What would be the reaction if someone suggested to get rid of the TWA building to create additional parking space for aircraft (I know it is not actually doable)? Honestly, it is a scandal that none steps up and stops this from happening!

I'm all for preservation when it makes sense. I just haven't seen a sound argument for it here and for future use of a renovated rotunda. It's interesting that no one has mentioned the dismantling of the 1960 Robert Sowers glass wall by American Airlines. Perhaps someone will pay to dismantle and relocate the Pan Am rotunda. (doubtful)

Quoting idlewildchild (Reply 17):
but like the boy I was in the early 60s, it's worth dreaming about.

Never, ever stop dreaming.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 28):
...if Delta had any type of imagination...

Delta has little imagination. The DL brand is centered around two driving elements: UTILITARIAN EFFICIENCY and MASS CHIC. Everything they do fits into one or both of these elements. Sadly, they have an under-leveraged customer-facing workforce that could take them so much further.
 
cloudboy
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:29 pm

Creative versus technical, I guess.

Actually, there is quite a lot of interest in the Worldport architecturally. While I agree that there does not seem to be as much of an outcry over the loss of this building versus Saarinen's TWA terminal, it is signifigant none the less. I wish there was more, but I sense most people dont know it is slated for destruction.

Even putting aside the signifgance of being Pan-Am's home terminal (we make other buildings signifigant for that), architecturally it is one of the more significant buildings in the country. It was really one of the first terminal buildings specifically designed for the jet age, and while many of the ideas turned out to be less than perfect, it did really attempt to design a modern terminal building. The large overhang was a revolutionary idea - it's not that it is round so much as that it is suspended. It makes an interesting prototype to some of Calatrava's works. Terminal 3 represents the real jet-age esthetic of mid-century modern architecture. It really stands out when you compare it to TWA's terminal. Both were early 60's designs, both were significant attempts to create an image for the airlines they served, yet both had remarkably different looks.

Whether or not you like it, it is significant. I wish there was a way to marry the desires of th current frequent flyer with the significance of the original building, and there probably is, but not at the cost that Delta is willing to pay. It hurts me that we have now come to a point where it has to be battle to the death between the two interests.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
GSPSPOT
Posts: 2238
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:12 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7):
Functionally, DL has let the rotunda become a mess. It is a cable and cement structure and is not at the end of its useful life.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7):
Plus the preservationists are not helping themselves across the field. What has become of TWA? It should have been incorporated to T5. Instead, it is completely remodeled and sitting empty without a purpose.


It is quite a shame what is happening with T3. I imagine that 40 years from now, that razing that rotunda will be looked upon in a similar light to Penn Station.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 7):
Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Oh, so very true! I thought B4 had the old TWA terminal renovated for their use (I don't keep close tabs on goings-on at JFK -sorry!)??
Finally made it to an airline mecca!
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:12 pm

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 20):
That's what I said in the original post.

I wasn't referring to what YOU said...I was referring to what I'VE said in threads prior to this one, hence the phrase 'As I've said before..." Perhaps you read those prior threads and were unconsciously channeling ME! But, as they say, Great minds think alike!
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
jc2354
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 9:56 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:05 am

Why not just jack it up, and move it to an area where it could be incorporated to the new design?

Or

Dismantle the rotunda, and rebuild it elsewhere? Maybe move it to an area of the airport and where it could be a Pan Am museum, include a restaurant, bar, shopping, and an observation area?

A bit simplistic, but it is another option.

Jack
If not now, then when?
 
GSPSPOT
Posts: 2238
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:40 am

Quoting jc2354 (Reply 36):
Why not just jack it up, and move it to an area where it could be incorporated to the new design?

Or

Dismantle the rotunda, and rebuild it elsewhere? Maybe move it to an area of the airport and where it could be a Pan Am museum, include a restaurant, bar, shopping, and an observation area?

A bit simplistic, but it is another option.

GREAT ideas! Not sure how practical/cost effective they'd be though. Sad that truly iconic architecture becomes a slave to the almighty $$.
Finally made it to an airline mecca!
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:21 am

Quoting jc2354 (Reply 36):
Dismantle the rotunda, and rebuild it elsewhere? Maybe move it to an area of the airport and where it could be a Pan Am museum, include a restaurant, bar, shopping, and an observation area?

Like covering the TWA building? jk
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
ghifty
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:49 am

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 28):
Well it could be done for a car park as it is not doing anything right now it just sits there gathering dust.

From Wikipedia, "The City of New York designated both the interiors and the exteriors of the Saarinen terminal a historic landmark in 1994[4] and in 2005 the National Park Service listed the Trans World Flight Center on the National Register of Historic Places.[5]" Not to mention, the Flight Center was made by Saarinen who was/is a significant figure in architecture.

The Worldport, as much as I love it, is not on the same scale as the Saarinen Terminal. It's just a rotunda.. with an umbrella that, ironically, leaks. I can imagine in the original days, the Worldport would have been relatively efficient and open-air, but now with all the check-ins, security lines, etc. it's just a mess.

The land that T3 and T5 are situated on is very different. The Rotunda takes up space, as does the Saarinen Terminal, however, B6 chose to encompass the Saarinen terminal with a new roadway accessing their T5 additions.. Delta can't really do that with T3. Additionally, the way the two structures themselves are situated in relation to the other terminals is very different. B6's T5 extension encompasses the old T5.. DL's T3 satellite/extension can't do that because of T2's close proximity.
Fly Delta Jets
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6118
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:13 am

The whole thing is a piece of junk. While it sounds great in theory to preserve, restore, relocate... no one wants to pay for such and its likely not feasible.

Face it, the vast majority of people will applaud the day they have to use T3 no more.
 
beeweel15
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:12 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 39):
It's just a rotunda.. with an umbrella that, ironically, leaks.

Whats your point T4, T1, T8 all newer and have leaks. Even T7 has leaks.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 39):
B6 chose to encompass the Saarinen terminal with a new roadway accessing their T5 additions..

Sorry to say it is not encompassed with the new T5 it just stand there doing nothing. The new T5 was built around it.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Pries - ATR Team
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos Borda



Where that 707 is parked is now road way for arrivals at T5. If B6 was smart and truly incorporated it they would have been smart and truly use it as a center piece of the new terminal plus the best feature was lost when they did what they did the big bay window looking out to the ramp, behind the 707, was lost all you see now is T5 . One of the reasons why it is not really interesting anyone is that features looks at nothing

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 40):
Face it, the vast majority of people will applaud the day they have to use T3 no more.

People fail to realize the T2 is what should be raised and that space be used to park aircraft. From the beginning people have said this and many designs have been done incorporating just only the rotunda. the current design is terrible and there is no way pax would be happy for that extremely long walk to T2 and a 3+ hour transit for a DL flight at JFK
 
airbazar
Posts: 6936
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:47 pm

Quoting EricR (Reply 11):
We are not talking about 10 years from now. Those long term plans will most likely change based on the competitive landscape 5 to 7 years from now. So instead of hypothesizing on plans that will most likely change to some unknown form 10 years in the future, we are discussing what we know for sure is going to happen - which is is the razing of T3 and the use of this land for parking.

It's not hypothesizing. It's already happening. Demolishing the rotunda was necessary for JFK's next phase of T4 expansion.
JFK T4 To Have 2 More Construction Phases (by ATLflyer Jan 13 2012 in Civil Aviation)
 
sspontak
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:42 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:04 pm

Here is a nice shot of the current T2 T3 Delta operation. Even though it is inefficient, I will miss the T2/T3 co-operation.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett - Photovation Images

Go Delta!
 
jfk777
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:41 pm

The Pan AM rotunda is old and probably in need of lots of $$$ to keep it going. The T3 sight at some point around 2020 will either get a new T3, an extension of T1 or T4. Its not going to stay vacant for a decade.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:19 pm

It doesn't make sense as to why they are knocking down the rotunda but keeping around T-3? Really, T-3? It's a barely funcitonal POS that can't even support regional ops for Delta. T-4 is nice but in it's current form it's at capacity. It's good that DL wants to expand T-4, but makes no sense as to why they want to demolish the rotunda.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 12):

The rotunda cannot be compared to Penn Station. The new penn station was constructed because the former was completely over crowded. And I work in 2 Penn Plaza (the building above Penn station) and it's actually a very nice (expensive) building. Penn Station in it's current form needs a revamp. There is always a ton of delays.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
nycdave
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:22 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:35 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):

Is there another building like it anywhere in the world?
Is there another building with an umbrella roof that was designed as the first covered boarding?

Yes - many drive-in restaurants of the 1950's and 60's
Yes - THF decades before

As I said, I *LIKE* the rotunda, and I'd *LIKE* to see it preserved and re-used... but I just don't see any sound argument for historical preservation, and I don't see any good financial/operational argument for incorporating it into a new complex. It's unfortunate, but those AREN'T the ways/reasons it could be saved.

Quoting poLOT (Reply 19):
So now we must preserve every unique structure in the country? People preserve buildings for historical/cultural significance, not uniqueness. Nothing is preventing anyone from designing another circular building with a large overhang.
Quoting cloudboy (Reply 33):
Whether or not you like it, it is significant.

I think I, and a lot of other posters here, have made very sound arguments as to why it ISN'T (it had no lasting impact on design/architecture). You make the best argument there is -- a certain level of cultural significance because of its iconic connection to the jet age and international travel. It just doesn't seem to be a strong enough one to get the preservationists up in arms like they were for the Saarinen building, or even T6 or the Robert Sowers glass mural from the old AA terminal (THAT was handled in an absolutely abhorrent, underhanded manner by AA, which kept on dragging out a decision and suggesting preservation/sale MIGHT be done, before finally just smashing it up and handing the bits out as souvenirs).

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 41):
Sorry to say it is not encompassed with the new T5 it just stand there doing nothing. The new T5 was built around it.

Acutally, that's what "encompassed" means  
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 45):
The rotunda cannot be compared to Penn Station. The new penn station was constructed because the former was completely over crowded. And I work in 2 Penn Plaza (the building above Penn station) and it's actually a very nice (expensive) building. Penn Station in it's current form needs a revamp. There is always a ton of delays.

Look, I know this is an aviation board, but as a huge rainfan and amateur NYC historian, I have to take exception. The original Penn Station was UNDER-utilized, not OVER-utilized, when PRR made plans to scrap it. Its heaviest volume of passengers came in the 1940's, and declined consistently thereafter. So that's just outright false. Just check out some pictures of the original structure -- it was much larger and more elegantly laid out than the current one, which IS over-capacity and a mess to navigate even in the best scenarios.

As for the delay issues, those are not due to the station (headhouse) design so much as the trackage, which is a separate issue. Delays going westbound (under the hudson) are notoriously backed up due to there only being two tracks under the hudson (which the THE tunnel Christie vetoed would have fixed)

My critique of the buildings had nothing to do with the cost of midtown real estate, or how well-appointed the interiors are. The fact remains, 2 Penn Plaza and MSG are completely unoriginal, uninspired, and unattractive buildings unloved by anyone for their design... which would be completely un-noteworthy, if they hadn't been replacing the largest, grandest, and most beautiful station in the world, and the apogee of beaux-arts architecture and the work of McMead, Kim, & White.
 
GSPSPOT
Posts: 2238
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:53 pm

I totally understand the dollars-and-cents reasons for demolition, my heart still DOESN'T understand how something with such history and of such iconic design, can just be swept away and forgotten so easily. This wasn't just some nondescript concourse.
Finally made it to an airline mecca!
 
nycdave
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:22 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:09 pm

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 47):
I totally understand the dollars-and-cents reasons for demolition, my heart still DOESN'T understand how something with such history and of such iconic design, can just be swept away and forgotten so easily. This wasn't just some nondescript concourse.

Agreed. Even though I've been defending the *reasoning* behind demolition, emotionally, it feels wrong. It's just that there aren't any really solid ways to argue for preservation, and without at least the patina of influence, historic events, design noteworthiness, etc., no plea for action is going to stick.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: Why Didn't Delta Stick With The Rotunda At JFK?

Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:14 pm

"The rotunda cannot be compared to Penn Station. The new penn station was constructed because the former was completely over crowded"

Um...you need to re read your history books with regards to this statement.

The new Penn Station (built in the 1960s) under MSG is much smaller than the original. The whole top was taken off and replaced by an arena and office building.