Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:47 pm

Quoting PITingres (Reply 95):
Being designed by a great architect doesn't prevent a building from being ugly.

Ugly is a matter of personal taste. It was designed to look like a bird in flight by Mr. Saarinen and as I recall it was the largest concrete roof without interior supports ever built--at least up until that time. It certainly has architectural significance. But its use as a premium terminal for the "have" and not for "have nots?" Not logical. I would like to see it used as a formal entrance to those terminals that are closest to it with nice restaurants and a museum section covering the time from when it was IDW until now.

I am not sure how may of you are old enough to remember when they tried to demolish Grand Central Terminal. The late incredible woman, Jacqueline Kennedy, led the fight to keep this beautiful and historic building. And she did it.
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
 
ocracoke
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:15 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:05 pm

I realize this thread has to do with JFK T3, but since we are so off topic anyways, talking about airport architecture in general, here are a couple of pictures of PLN, which proves that not all new airport terminals are boring warehouse boxes.

http://i1068.photobucket.com/albums/u453/pungo1/DSC_1073.jpg


http://i1068.photobucket.com/albums/u453/pungo1/DSC_1079.jpg
 
AwysBSB
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:58 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:05 pm

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 89):
Um, the TWA Flight Center was designed by one of the 20th centuries greatest architects which was the reason it was preserved. The vast majority of people would disagree with you on calling it ugly, depressing and uninteresting. You want an ugly, depressing and uninteresting terminal look no farther than T1, T4, the new T5 and T8 at JFK. Each of JFK's old terminals had it's own unique design, history and feel. The same cannot be said about any of its new terminals. All of the new terminals designed in the United States have the same, boring, overused warehouse look.

Most of the terminals are more than that, they are featureless. That is quite sad in the US, since that is the country where commercial aviation has mostly developed in the history of the world.
It is hard for some of our folks understand, but no matter if Saarinen building or T3 saucer does not drive people's airport choice, those buildings need to stay for people's awareness of history.
Pan Am was an empire-shaped airline whose monopoly was hardly overcame. Nowadays, we are not far from seeing the monopoly era back, since the US market lost almost the half of its legacy carriers in a decade. I wonder who are the people that think any memory or awareness related to that has to be knocked down.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 94):
Nicely-put. For perspective, Saarinen also designed the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, the CBS Building ("Blackrock") in NY, the main Terminal at Dulles Airport in DC (a brilliant concept for the operations of the time and still a gorgeous and functional building), The University of Chicago Law School facility (including the unique glass box containing the library and faculty offices), a theatre at Lincoln Center, etc.

In spite to what some folks think, those (sexy) buildings are worthy even if they are not as popular as the Eiffel Tower.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 100):

Ugly is a matter of personal taste. It was designed to look like a bird in flight by Mr. Saarinen and as I recall it was the largest concrete roof without interior supports ever built--at least up until that time. It certainly has architectural significance. But its use as a premium terminal for the "have" and not for "have nots?" Not logical. I would like to see it used as a formal entrance to those terminals that are closest to it with nice restaurants and a museum section covering the time from when it was IDW until now.

Not actually the Saarinen and the saucer buildings would be classicist places if they were premium terminals, since their public areas could have cafés for anybody have a special dinner or a special time at JFK. Of course that would not be something for every day. Special places ask for special times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 100):
I am not sure how may of you are old enough to remember when they tried to demolish Grand Central Terminal. The late incredible woman, Jacqueline Kennedy, led the fight to keep this beautiful and historic building. And she did it.

How nonsense was she! Now everyone has to pay for the keep of the Grand Central Terminal. If it was knocked down, a new state-of-the-art building would be there and it would be so cheap to keep that it could even have dancing waters and other funny entertaining indoor things   

Now seriously, not just train stations (or opera houses) that can have a historic atmosphere, since main airports could have their few worthiest old terminals properly operated in separate of their state-of-the-art terminals.

[Edited 2013-07-01 13:17:11]
 
richierich
Moderator
Posts: 3630
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:40 pm



The saucer was more or less intact, although there was some equipment on the roof toward the T4 side...sorry about the quality. This photo was taken on an iPhone from a moving AirTrain on a rainy day (July 01, 2013).
None shall pass!!!!
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:39 am

Quoting AwysBSB (Reply 102):
I wonder who are the people that think any memory or awareness related to that has to be knocked down.

I think, literally, you are the only one in the world thinking this. It's cheaper and more efficient to tear down T-3, it's that simple. DL (or any airline) doesn't "fear the past," the CEOs aren't jealous of PanAm, no one is going out of their way to pay more and/or have a less efficient design because of some unexplained hatred for T-3, there isn't some construction lobby DL/the Port Authority has some shady back door deals with, etc

I don't know what is up with some of the crazy arguments, some people are way over thinking this. I don't need an MBA to figure out what is going on here, $$$ and efficiency/customer satisfaction which leads to $$$ is driving this
 
tothestars
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:52 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:48 pm

This photo was posted on the "Save the Pan Am Worldport," facebook page a few days ago.
This photo was posted on the "Save the Pan Am Worldport" facebook page a few days ago.


[Edited 2013-07-02 05:49:37]

[Edited 2013-07-02 05:50:35]
TWA-Airline To the Stars
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:17 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 104):
I think, literally, you are the only one in the world thinking this. It's cheaper and more efficient to tear down T-3, it's that simple.

Actually, no. For every 4000 signatures on a petition, there are many more who are sensitive and supportive of preservation of historic structures. I find it very surprising the lack of support for aviation heritage on this discussion forum, well, not really any more, since many of you are corporate hacks and armchair CEOs devoid of history. In my sphere, people such as yourself, completely unappreciative of heritage, are abnormal.

I'm going to have to find the article I read the other day about the airline lobby actively encouraging rapid demolition of T-3 before things "get out of control" with the preservationists, which was getting very close. Exactly opposite of what you claim. OK, here it is. Local newspaper.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201..._urged_by_airport_lobby_group.html

It is cheaper to tear down and rebuild something simpler. But not always smartest.

-Rampart
 
bkflyguy
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:25 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:03 pm

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.

My personal preference is for a clean and spacious terminal, which T3 was not. I do think the saucer is cool and if it could have been restored economically and put to use, that would be great. But, seeing as how I suffer with $10+ tolls on port authority crossings, I'm certainly not willing to pay more for the pleasure of looking at it.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3710
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:15 pm

Quoting bkflyguy (Reply 107):
My personal preference is for a clean and spacious terminal, which T3 was not. I do think the saucer is cool and if it could have been restored economically and put to use, that would be great. But, seeing as how I suffer with $10+ tolls on port authority crossings, I'm certainly not willing to pay more for the pleasure of looking at it.

You must hate Delta's new T4 concourse; it is the opposite of "spacious"...
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
AwysBSB
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:58 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:44 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 104):

Besides the undervaluation of the Worldport's rotunda, there is nobody actually defending DL. We are just watching some miserable people leading "shady back door deals" and making the whole airline behave arrogantly. How can any of us support that? We are not here to hide the truth or to follow any corporatism.
The sad images (of the demolition) above somehow reflects what the wrong decision makers are currently doing to several divisions of DL.
 
AwysBSB
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:58 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:53 pm

Quoting rampart (Reply 106):
lobby actively encouraging rapid demolition of T-3 before things "get out of control" with the preservationists, which was getting very close. Exactly opposite of what you claim. OK, here it is. Local newspaper.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201....html

  
The names found are Joseph Sitt and Stuart Applebaum, both ones with no curriculum in aviation. Why are people here supporting them? We are A.netters in order to support the best for aviation, instead of the opposite.
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:55 pm

Quoting rampart (Reply 106):
I find it very surprising the lack of support for aviation heritage on this discussion forum, well, not really any more, since many of you are corporate hacks and armchair CEOs devoid of history. In my sphere, people such as yourself, completely unappreciative of heritage, are abnormal.

Perhaps the folks here are just pragmatists and know that, as much as they might support historic preservation, airports are unique and they must be allowed to change over time. Urban spaces are not building anymore of them, so existing airports must be allowed to demolish the obsolete to make way for increased capacity. If the PanAm and TWA terminals from the 60's are preserved but not used today, which of today's terminals will be preserved but not used 50 years from now? And so on, and so on....
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6073
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:24 pm

The TWA Center, preservationists and JetBlue did this.

The new plan for T5 should have and could have incorporated the TWA building as a check in area. If the PANYNJ were a stronger landlord, they would have had this incorporated properly. However, the PA was and is a landlord with an agenda. They wanted to buldoze the TWA Center, not save it.

A coherent develepment plan on the T5 site that used the historic part of T5, not preserved it as a closed ornament, would have been enough to fuel the fire to get the saucer saved and actually used as gate space.

Instead, the PA is happy to let the TWA Flight Center sit empty and use it to fuel the fire that the saucer should be demolished.

And the Preservationists, for all there fury to save and preserve these buildings, should have used their efforts and monies to actually make the TWA building a useful part of a 21st Century airport. They can look in the mirror very closely and examine why T3 is being razed
 
justplanenutz
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:48 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:41 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 112):
The new plan for T5 should have and could have incorporated the TWA building as a check in area

While I agree with the sentiment, I suspect that was much easier said than done. The single level roadway, narrow connector tubes and who knows what else inside could not likely be incorporated into a modern terminal. Look at the historic portion of DCA. Will it ever be used for air travel again? Not likely, and yet a large portion of today's flights are bused to hardstands for lack of an RJ terminal.
 
anonms
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:42 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:26 pm

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 113):
While I agree with the sentiment, I suspect that was much easier said than done. The single level roadway, narrow connector tubes and who knows what else inside could not likely be incorporated into a modern terminal.

There was probably also limited to how much reconfiguration could be done to the TWA building, which would limited to what extent it could be adapted for use.
This is my signature.
 
questions
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:58 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 108):
You must hate Delta's new T4 concourse; it is the opposite of "spacious"...

What? Is it over-crowded already??
 
m11stephen
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:16 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:56 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 112):
The new plan for T5 should have and could have incorporated the TWA building as a check in area. If the PANYNJ were a stronger landlord, they would have had this incorporated properly. However, the PA was and is a landlord with an agenda. They wanted to buldoze the TWA Center, not save it.

Supposedly the interior of the TWA flight center didn't meet ADA requirements... TWA's satellites contained 20 gates (those were demolished) and JetBlue's new terminal contains 26 gates yet the new terminal is roughly ten times the size of the old one... That alone shows how much air travel has changed from the 60s and 70s. Allegedly TWA was even having issues with how small the terminal was by the mid-70s.
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
 
bkflyguy
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:25 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:20 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 108):
You must hate Delta's new T4 concourse; it is the opposite of "spacious"...

Actually, I haven't had the opportunity to go yet....but in the past, I always thought that the concourse needed to be widened. The headhouse on the other hand, has always IMO, been fantastic from a spaciousness point of view.
 
User avatar
DL_Mech
Posts: 2537
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:40 pm

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 117):
Supposedly the interior of the TWA flight center didn't meet ADA requirements... TWA's satellites contained 20 gates (those were demolished) and JetBlue's new terminal contains 26 gates yet the new terminal is roughly ten times the size of the old one... That alone shows how much air travel has changed from the 60s and 70s. Allegedly TWA was even having issues with how small the terminal was by the mid-70s.


Just imagine the pax of four or five 747s in this area:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRUJTheYTCc&t=3m10s
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:18 am

Quoting questions (Reply 115):
What? Is it over-crowded already??
Quoting bkflyguy (Reply 117):
Actually, I haven't had the opportunity to go yet....but in the past, I always thought that the concourse needed to be widened. The headhouse on the other hand, has always IMO, been fantastic from a spaciousness point of view.

I had connections twice in T4 in the past two weeks. It is perfectly fine. Wider than ATL in the older part of the concourse. Wider than that in the new part. The moving sidewalks work perfectly fine and the entire distance is no longer than an ATL concourse.

In fact the thing that struck me most was how unnoticeable all of the supposed "faults" are with the facility. The headhouse mall is quite nice and getting nicer with new concessions. The TSA are is huge and efficient. I flew through CBP. I mean, you'd almost think that the critics hadn't been there and seen it for themselves yet!

Hmmm.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:28 am

Quoting rampart (Reply 106):
Actually, no. For every 4000 signatures on a petition, there are many more who are sensitive and supportive of preservation of historic structures. I find it very surprising the lack of support for aviation heritage on this discussion forum, well, not really any more, since many of you are corporate hacks and armchair CEOs devoid of history. In my sphere, people such as yourself, completely unappreciative of heritage, are abnormal.

Oh brother. If you read my replies, I said I'm sad to see T-3 go and would rather have seen it stay (said that about 5 times in this and other threads.) It's the building my dad sat on top of when he was younger after a dozen years trying to be an airline pilot, and would be over a dozen years before he became one. Yeah, that's not the most sentimental thing ever, but I do care.

What I am saying is it's pretty ridiculous seeing some of the arguments thrown around... it came down to money and efficiency, not some crazy tin foil hat reasons we're seeing. Back door deals with construction companies... what are they, being black mailed or something? Good grief

And to be called a corporate drone just because I'm not picking up torches and pitch forks is ridiculous too. There aren't 2 black and white sides to this debate, the corporate drones that hate aviation history and freedom and fill in the blank vs the underdog fighting for justice freedom loving conservationists.

That's what I'm talking about, the ridiculousness. I'm sure 90% of a.net is sad to see T-3 go, appreciate its history, etc. However, they may, for various reasons, see that tearing it down may be the best choice or not a choice at all except for DL's/the Port Authorities. Read my replies fully
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:54 am

Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 111):
If the PanAm and TWA terminals from the 60's are preserved but not used today, which of today's terminals will be preserved but not used 50 years from now? And so on, and so on....

I maintain that the TWA terminal could have been better incorporated into the new terminal, but wasn't, and clever architects could do the same for the Worldport now. There are many, many examples of re-use or continued use of historic transportation buildings for modern purposes, most are train stations but the continued use of the Marine Air Terminal at LGA and the refurbishment of the Yamasaki-designed main terminal at STL are notable. Even the Love Field remodel tries to retain the historic (though modest by comparison) features of the 1950s/1960s terminal. Both STL and DAL structures were suffering from neglect or poor redesign, and it might have been argued that it would have been simpler to tear down and build anew on adjacent sites, but that wasn't taken.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 112):
The new plan for T5 should have and could have incorporated the TWA building as a check in area.

   This. Or a baggage claim. I believe it's parallel to the lower level of T5.

-Rampart
 
wjcandee
Posts: 9188
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:08 am

Love Field isn't a good example of anything because the whole point is that the city wants to LIMIT traffic there; they used the existing structure as a false basis to control how many flights could come and go. They actually had a nice modern terminal that was built for that short-lived premium airline, and it was insisted that as part of the Love Field "plan", it had to be torn down. Just a bunch of nonsense all around.

I remember when Dallas was a truly-rational, businesslike place. It's Texas. No whining. Loved that.

Sigh.
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:15 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 120):
There aren't 2 black and white sides to this debate, the corporate drones that hate aviation history and freedom and fill in the blank vs the underdog fighting for justice freedom loving conservationists.

Yet, from the arguments against preservation you and others profess, I'd assume that it is black and white: no compromise. Tear it down. Compromise -- gray area -- would involve some sort of creative re-use of Worldport. Foil hats and pitchforks, give me a break! As ridiculous as anything said here.

Further, I do not understand the hostility here toward one vocal and passionate individual who, on top of promoting a now-minority argument is understandably defensive. Why is it a minority argument? I don't know, but there's been a marked decrease in preservation-favoring individuals on these topics on A.net, and it may have something to do with the hostility and ridicule that gets thrown around. It's a futile audience. Yet, I still felt compelled to comment.

As for your appreciation of aviation history and nostalgia, I'll take your word for it and appreciate your sentiment. Forgive me if I, and a few others remaining here (but are much more numerous on other forums), completely disagree with your ultimate recommendation.

-Rampart
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:38 am

Quoting rampart (Reply 123):
Yet, from the arguments against preservation you and others profess, I'd assume that it is black and white: no compromise. Tear it down. Compromise -- gray area -- would involve some sort of creative re-use of Worldport

Well, I see what you are saying, but I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. It is black and white as far as tear it down vs renovate it... those are really the two options (leaving it as it is isn't a realistic option.) What I meant is it's not black and white in regards to people's feelings. There may be those that completely don't care and want it torn down, some that kinda like it and see it as DL's and the Port Authority's business to do with it as they wish (me,) some that really like it but see the need for it to be torn down, some that kinda like it and want it preserved, some that really like it and want it preserved, etc. Some are making it sound like those that are opposed to restoration are all corporate hacks that hate aviation history or some rubbish

Quoting rampart (Reply 123):
Foil hats and pitchforks, give me a break! As ridiculous as anything said here.

Read some of the replies! Someone is actually convinced that it's a back door shady deal with some construction lobby or whatever. Another (or maybe the same poster) said that DL is upset or threatened by how glamorous aviation used to be so they're tearing it down. Call me crazy, but I thought it was common sense that like 99% of business decisions, it came down to "preserving T-3 is too expensive or uneconomical." Businesses aren't charities, and ones that act like emotional basket cases don't survive very long

Quoting rampart (Reply 123):
Why is it a minority argument? I don't know, but there's been a marked decrease in preservation-favoring individuals on these topics on A.net, and it may have something to do with the hostility and ridicule that gets thrown around. It's a futile audience. Yet, I still felt compelled to comment.

Probably some of the crazy talk and insults. People get angry when they are called corporate hacks that have no passion for aviation history. Don't mistake a few posters getting blasted for being ridiculous as a crusade against preservationists... like I said, I think most of us are sad to see it go

Quoting rampart (Reply 123):
As for your appreciation of aviation history and nostalgia, I'll take your word for it and appreciate your sentiment. Forgive me if I, and a few others remaining here (but are much more numerous on other forums), completely disagree with your ultimate recommendation.

And I respect your opinion. My criticism (and many others) go towards the unrealistic preservationists vs the majority of normal preservationists. For me, it comes down to it being a cool, historic building, but I don't think it's worth preserving. I can, in my mind, set a threshold, just as you do and come to a different conclusion. A close, related subject is wishing airlines would keep one of each old plane... it makes me so sad to see an L1011 get crushed to bits, or a DC-8 or whatever. But I know all historic things can't be preserved, sadly. Hope that clear things up
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:40 am

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 122):
Love Field isn't a good example of anything because the whole point is that the city wants to LIMIT traffic there; they used the existing structure as a false basis to control how many flights could come and go. They actually had a nice modern terminal that was built for that short-lived premium airline, and it was insisted that as part of the Love Field "plan", it had to be torn down.

That is a fair point, and I generally agree with you. Outside of the ulterior motives of planning at Love Field, I was mainly commenting on the architectural design approach for the land-side terminal facilities, and somewhere within the airport management there was approval to preserve portions of that architecture. If only Braniff's "Terminal of the Future" (East Concourse) could have been frozen in time. The concourse shell was nondescript, but the interiors... oh, man!

-Rampart
 
User avatar
PA110
Posts: 1986
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 1:30 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:48 am

As someone with a soft spot for Pan Am and all the nostalgia, I'm not really disturbed with the demolition of T3. I passed through that terminal god knows how many times. It was a dump, even back in the 70's & 80's. The only redeeming feature was the rooftop parking lot and observation area. Pan Am's NY legacy will forever be preserved at LGA's Marine Air Terminal. A far more significant loss to the architectural heritage of JFK is the demolition of National Airlines Sundrome. It was a truly beautiful building, bathed in light even on the dullest gray day.
Look, it's been swell, but the swelling's gone down.
 
m11stephen
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:16 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:31 am

This discussion has me curious... If Pan Am was still around today what would be their current terminal situation at JFK? Would they even want to preserve the flying saucer or would they see no value in it and tear it down? People have also said that the terminal was already looking pretty run down and dumpy in the mid to late 80s but Pan Am had no cash so they were unable to do anything about it. Is this true at all?
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
 
richierich
Moderator
Posts: 3630
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:42 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 112):
The new plan for T5 should have and could have incorporated the TWA building as a check in area.
Quoting rampart (Reply 121):
This. Or a baggage claim. I believe it's parallel to the lower level of T5.

Sounds great but not really practical in either case. The logistics involved (and probably cost too) would have made this very difficult.

And why should B6 - an airline that began in 2000 - be saddled with an anachronism of a building for their own new terminal? Talk about a competitive disadvantage! After all, they took over Pei's T6 because they had to, but plans were drawn up for a new JetBlue terminal in only their 3rd of 4th year of existence. Clearly they were trying to get away from the 1950s and 1960s designs as much as possible (for good reason)...
None shall pass!!!!
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6073
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:47 pm

Quoting PA110 (Reply 126):
Pan Am's NY legacy will forever be preserved at LGA's Marine Air Terminal.

In terms of Pan Am Legacy, the MAT has nothing on the Worldport. Nothing at all. Pan Am built themselves into the global powerhouse of the jetage out of the Worldport. I'm not saying that should keep it up, but the real Pan Am legacy in NYC is meeting the wrecking ball
 
luckyone
Posts: 3278
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:52 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 129):
I'm not saying that should keep it up, but the real Pan Am legacy in NYC is meeting the wrecking ball

For many of us the Pan Am legacy is an airline that was unable to stand on its own two feet without the benefit of limiting legislation. The Worldport, to me, stands as a testament to a time when appearances and superficiality was paramount. To a time when the consumer didn't have the same freedoms or choice we do now. To a time when all a businessman had to do was pick up a phone and he was handed a part of the world (something people still gripe about).
 
richierich
Moderator
Posts: 3630
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:17 pm

Quoting luckyone (Reply 130):
For many of us the Pan Am legacy is an airline that was unable to stand on its own two feet without the benefit of limiting legislation. The Worldport, to me, stands as a testament to a time when appearances and superficiality was paramount. To a time when the consumer didn't have the same freedoms or choice we do now. To a time when all a businessman had to do was pick up a phone and he was handed a part of the world (something people still gripe about).

Very well said.
I actually respect Pan Am (and TWA) as being great airlines but their time has come and gone. PA has been gone more than 20 years and it is not coming back. So many lament the "golden age" of flying back in the 1950s, 60s and 70s...but times have changed and we live in a different era now. In a few decades, it will be different all over again.

This would normally be where I get on my soapbox and discuss my thoughts of how the 'golden age' wasn't so amazing. Maybe one day people will look back on this chapter of air travel as being a "golden age" for mass accessibility and streamlined economy. Airlines and facilities have had to adapt, even if that means the changing the old way of doing business or older facilities becoming obsolete and needing to be replaced.
None shall pass!!!!
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6073
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Quoting luckyone (Reply 130):
For many of us the Pan Am legacy is an airline that was unable to stand on its own two feet without the benefit of limiting legislation. The Worldport, to me, stands as a testament to a time when appearances and superficiality was paramount. To a time when the consumer didn't have the same freedoms or choice we do now. To a time when all a businessman had to do was pick up a phone and he was handed a part of the world (something people still gripe about).

I'm a bit confused. Especially by the last part.

The government regulated and controlled the airline industry back then. Today, they had to spend billions of your tax dollars (a big piece of benefiting legislation) to bailout and save the banks that control every industry in this country or it all would have collapsed. Your freedom of airline choice would have disappeared when the cash in your local ATM ran out.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24789
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:27 pm

Quoting rampart (Reply 123):
Forgive me if I, and a few others remaining here (but are much more numerous on other forums), completely disagree with your ultimate recommendation.

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".

Quoting PA110 (Reply 126):
As someone with a soft spot for Pan Am and all the nostalgia, I'm not really disturbed with the demolition of T3. I passed through that terminal god knows how many times. It was a dump, even back in the 70's & 80's. The only redeeming feature was the rooftop parking lot and observation area. Pan Am's NY legacy will forever be preserved at LGA's Marine Air Terminal. A far more significant loss to the architectural heritage of JFK is the demolition of National Airlines Sundrome. It was a truly beautiful building, bathed in light even on the dullest gray day.

  

It too was damned by being stylish yet also functionally obsolete.

I wonder how the train stations that were preserved would manage with orders of magnitude growth in passengers at the same time dealing with requirements to Xray each and every passenger and bag?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:06 am

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, DFW, 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 it.

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 cokepopper (Reply 15):
Your feign outrage is just laughable.
Quoting bohica (Reply 16):
They are a bunch of hipocrites.
Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 53):
Or prove me wrong because personally I think you are way over your head.
Quoting N766UA (Reply 23):
Lowest standards ever, apparently.
Quoting cokepopper (Reply 67):
One can always chain themselves to the fence
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)
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 87):
Funniest post I've read all week in a very sad way.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 104):
I don't know what is up with some of the crazy arguments,
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 120):
some crazy tin foil hat reasons we're seeing.

...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.

-Rampart
 
m11stephen
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:16 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:43 am

Is it true that it wasn't possible to walk all the way around the Worldport extension because there was a TSA screening area blocking the corridor over by gates 4, 5, and 6?

The "drive to the gate" concept was a great idea but it was pretty much obsolete the second the FAA began to require all passengers to be screened. It was so obsolete that TWA abandoned it's MCI hub because the airport authority refused to rebuilt the terminal to properly accommodate upgraded security requirements.

There's no doubt about it, the Worldport is full of unique design elements and many historical moments however course has run it's time. Its time has come. In fact, given the appearance of the terminal, it certainly looks like its time had come about twenty years ago. Given the choice between having the Worldport or the TWA terminal preserved I'm certainly glad that the TWA terminal was the terminal saved. The terminal has been beautifully restored and I wait to (eventually) see it reopened.
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:03 am

Quoting rampart (Reply 134):
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.

I know how petitions and majorities work. I wasn't the one claiming "just the majority of people would be pleased to meet a preserved and restored JFK saucer."
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6073
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:05 pm

Quoting rampart (Reply 134):
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:

Thank you. Sometimes I think I am the only one on a.net to appreciate the WHOLE terminal.

The extension with the drive through roadway weaving its way under jetways leading to a rooftop deck...totally awesome! Like a kids micromachines setup! Sad to see it all go
 
AwysBSB
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:58 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Thu Jul 04, 2013 7:27 pm

jfklganyc,
Let me disagree, but you are part of the A.net majority. The point is that most people of this majority are not taking their time to answer provocations made by the few wrecking ballers in this thread.

What you saw there was just a little sample of how destructive can the human nature be.
I wonder what power of bomb could have made that destruction.

[Edited 2013-07-04 12:31:31]
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:01 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 137):
The extension with the drive through roadway weaving its way under jetways leading to a rooftop deck...totally awesome! Like a kids micromachines setup! Sad to see it all go

I just realized, looking at an old OAG terminal map, Berlin-Tegel's Terminal A is very similar in concept to the Worldport, drive to the gate, the access road passing under the front of the terminal. Each gate had its own security at Tegel, is this still the case now? I'm guessing not because my 2003 OAG says it takes 5 minutes to walk from one end of the terminal to the other. Pretty good modification for an "obsolete" terminal. Tegel was completed 3 or 4 years after the Pan Am Worldport extension. I bet Tegel was better maintained over the years.

-Rampart
 
TSS
Posts: 3671
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

RE: JFK's T3 Is Coming Down

Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:36 am

Quoting rampart (Reply 139):
I just realized, looking at an old OAG terminal map, Berlin-Tegel's Terminal A is very similar in concept to the Worldport, drive to the gate, the access road passing under the front of the terminal. Each gate had its own security at Tegel, is this still the case now? I'm guessing not because my 2003 OAG says it takes 5 minutes to walk from one end of the terminal to the other. Pretty good modification for an "obsolete" terminal. Tegel was completed 3 or 4 years after the Pan Am Worldport extension. I bet Tegel was better maintained over the years.

Berlin-Tegel's Terminal A might be similar to the much smaller Worldport in it's mission statement, but the actual terminal as built has more in common with KCI's various terminals than it does with the Worldport because it is a ring-shaped terminal with parking for cars in the center. Also, at least on current Google Maps photos, Berlin-Tegel's Terminal A appears to use a conventional roof that would be easy to maintain. Take a close look on Google Maps at the Worldport's roof with it's exposed structural members and just imagine how much fun it would be trying to track down and repair a leak up there.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos