|Quoting Reply 25):|
While the original cantilever "saucer" is architecturally interesting, the rest of the PanAm "worldport" is an uninspiring design that has not held up well over time.
|Quoting bkflyguy (Reply 107):|
Let's also keep in mind that the "World Port" design was obsolete almost as soon as it opened. The purpose of the saucer was to allow planes to park underneath it and shield passengers from the elements as they de-planed. Then this thing called the jetway was invented and there was simply no need for the overhang -- at least as far as its originally intended purpose.
However, it is also worth pointing out that the Worldport extension of 1971 answered those early faults. (It's the extension to the "flying saucer" that rebranded "Pan Am Terminal" to "Pan Am Worldport".) The 1971 Worldport extension was an ingenious architectural answer, lauded in its time, even featured in Architectural Record
. It did 4 things for the original Pan Am terminal:
1) It doubled the number of gates for Pan Am, and did so within a tight site.
2) It provided those extra gates with room for the new 747s, tailor made for them in fact.
3) ) it incorporated the latest rage in terminal design, "drive to the gate", in a novel way never attempted before. Compare this to other Drive to the Gate concepts of the era at MCI
, and terminal B at BOS
4) It managed all of this without damaging the landside view of the architectural iconic Rotunda building. Even with the Pan Am terminal just over decade old, architects of the 1970s realized the iconic architecture embodied within the Pan Am terminal, and worked around
And that design worked until the flood of new passengers after Deregulation, hub-and-spoke took precedence, and then of course higher security post-9/11. Drive to the Gate is now long obsolete for a bunch of reasons. But architects and planners rise to a challenge of adapting old structures to new needs. Part of the job.
|Quoting Revelation (Reply 133):|
Forgive me if I point out that you can disagree without throwing around baseless personal insults such as "many of you are corporate hacks and armchair CEOs devoid of history".
I confess that I didn't think "corporate hack" was that much of a pejorative, but I guess it touched some nerves. Guess we could all tone down the emotion:
|Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 53):|
Or prove me wrong because personally I think you are way over your head.
|Quoting Prost (Reply 68):|
Or if he's in Seattle, there's always this:
|Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 74):|
American democracy is coming down upon us and the demolition of T3 is a GREAT example!! (sarcasm)
...so let's all be careful with the pot/kettle/black thing, myself included.
|Quoting Polot (Reply 60):|
The petitioners isn't enough, 4,000 people is a long way from a majority.
Then you don't understand the purpose of a petition. A petition brings forward that a sizable number of people (presumed usually to be a sample of an even larger population) consider an idea worthy of further discussion. Majority doesn't have to rule all the time. (Thank goodness, or we'd have a lot of other human rights problems, but that's a different topic.) You think every concept that gains 10,000 signatures represents a majority for the White House? No, but it means that enough people think it important, and that's the threshold that gets a response from the White House. The White House does not wait to respond until a majority, 157,000,001, express an interest. Just an example.