I know this project is well underway ... I saw some initial early images of them beginning to chip away at the flying saucer roof several months back.

Just wondering how much progress has been made? Is any of the building still there or is it gone completely?

Can't seem to find any links with photos, etc .. anyone have any ?

Sad to see, of course .. but necessary for DL to move ahead with their JFK operation.

Most of it is gone from what I could see last weekend.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1): Most of it is gone from what I could see last weekend.

As it looked in November.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtJk3q1h7Q0

And last July.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvQ5czkwV18

Here's video from December -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqqLbH8OqCI

This site has dozens of photos of the demolition of T3 as well as other Pan Am memorabilia. It's sad to see such an iconic building being torn down.

http://www.facebook.com/PanAmWorldport

Quoting TPA0822 (Reply 4): This site has dozens of photos of the demolition of T3 as well as other Pan Am memorabilia. It's sad to see such an iconic building being torn down.

Except that it was a poorly designed building that was in disrepair and had fundamental mechanical flaws that would require basically rebuilding it to "preserve" it.

Architecture is not a piece of sculpture. It is supposed to be functional. And land is precious.

Worldport, DFW and other such designs were based on convenience/laziness where one need not walk but a few steps to get from plane to taxi. But as modern airports, they are poor connecting hubs, lack centralized shopping and eating opportunities, and feel cramped by design.

What a shame....so much history being destroyed....That building was a classic and it's a shame Delta didn't take the high road and find a way to incorporate that structure into it's terminal plans....

The parking lot on the rooftop of the place was one of the best observation decks ever....I remember back in the '70's spending countless hours up there...watching among other things, the Concorde and all of the classic PA stuff from that era...I'd love to be able to go back to those days...

Quoting ordpark (Reply 6): The parking lot on the rooftop of the place was one of the best observation decks ever....

me too and about the same time, between 73 and 75, as often as I could go there. Sad to see another Landmark building gone, but using the "Worldport" as a passenger was already a nightmare in the 70s and 80s.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5): lack centralized shopping and eating opportunities...

Heaven forbid we go without shopping and eating!

Quoting newhaven (Thread starter): but necessary for DL to move ahead with their JFK operation.

I disagree. It would only have taken a little imagination - and desire - to use the "saucer" as a valuable, efficient asset - perhaps as a terminal for DL's transcontinental flights, which it keeps saying it is trying to differentiate from its competitors. Instead, the ony "imagination" the DL planners could muster was the idea of tacking about another half-mile of hallway to an already-lackluster concourse at T4.

Quoting ordpark (Reply 6): What a shame....so much history being destroyed....That building was a classic and it's a shame Delta didn't take the high road and find a way to incorporate that structure into it's terminal plans....

Unfortunately, airlines are seldom run by "airline people" now; they are run by bean-counters, who have no concept of aviation history or heritage. Worse, most of the flying public doesn't care - until it s too late. Such concerns are cyclical; today the bean-counters won, someday the public will be saddened and up at arms over the loss of an icon. Remember historic Penn Station? It was torn down for something more "modern" - a decision now rued universally. I think there is a special place in hell for whoever made the final decision to destroy T3.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 8): Heaven forbid we go without shopping and eating!

  

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 8): Heaven forbid we go without shopping and eating!

With modern travel, lack of food served on aircraft, close connections, etc., I think having a choice of eating establishments is a reasonable expectation for the travelling public to have.

So sad to see this. Another icon in the dustbin  With a little bit of imagination this could have been reused and Incorporated ...

I just hope they won't get any similar ideas for the Saarinen building or - while we're at it - the Marine Air Terminal over at LGA. We've got enough bland and boring airport buildings, the interesting ones need protection.

The Marine Air Terminal is a bit away from the Action, it might even be a Landmark building, they would have to preserve the mural and a popular air cargo Magazine is chaperoning the building as well. he would raise quite some dust if anyone even thinks about demolishing that.

For the Saarinen TWA terminal a solution was found, not the best but at last....and finally, at least they kept GCT, Penn Station nowadays is nothing but a big subway Station.

I know the arguments, but the same, still a shame to see it go. Same with the Queen's Building and Terminal 2 at Heathrow.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5): Except that it was a poorly designed building that was in disrepair and had fundamental mechanical flaws that would require basically rebuilding it to "preserve" it.

In the end, this is what matters. It would have literally meant dismantling the structure and rebuilding it from the ground up.

Airports today are designed strictly for function not beauty. Localities do not want to foot the bill for frills, big name architects and the "ooh-ah" factor of terminals like the TWA one at JFK or IAD. Airlines want it cheap, functional, easily changeable as traffic increases and taking up as small a footprint as possible because they pay rent based on the square footage.

JFK had a terminal city where each airline showcased their company.

It was built around the time of the 1964 NY worlds fair and was fashioned the same way. A circle of buildings surrounding 3 huge chapels and a fountain.

Few airports in the world were that beautiful.

EPCOT center in Florida was also modeled on a similar concept.

Fast Forward...

The whole idea is very dated. There are no worlds fairs like that in the Western World today. You see Expos in the Middle East and Asia.

Today, product (and corporate) placement is done through technology and changes often. Not with expensive buildings that can not be changed easily. More with less...yada yada


As the airlines that built the terminals at JFK morphed or died with deregulation...so did their terminals.

I was in the TWA Terminal recently...it is in much better condition now then when TWA was operating it in the late 90s. Totally redone and restored.

The old AA Terminal 8 with its stained glass featured leaky ceiling, worn carpet, escalators that never worked, and very low ceilings in the baggage claim area.

The old United Terminal (then AA Terminal 9) had more rats than people in it.

National Airlines Sundrome (Terminal 6) was in decent shape after B6 poured money into it. But the whole middle section had no windows. You couldn't see the plane you were boarding!!

Terminal 2 looks like a high school built in the 60s. Smells like it too.

No one even mentions the Eastern Terminal. There are few photos.




While I'm sad to see the Worldport go, it was increasingly a JC Penny in a Target world.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 15): Airports today are designed strictly for function not beauty.

I don't think that's fair. Terminal 1 at ORD may not be grand and imposing, but it's a timeless piece of architecture and I enjoy every opportunity I have to walk through it. They've even made that tunnel interesting! The new TBIT at LAX? Same story.

On this side of the pond, the trend continues with e.g. this:

View Large View Medium Photo © Radial360 - Roma Spotters Club

View Large View Medium Photo © Harri Koskinen

Quoting jc2354 (Reply 14): Same with the Queen's Building and Terminal 2 at Heathrow.

Worked there for years, T2 was horrid, Queens building was something else.

Quoting TPA0822 (Reply 4): It's sad to see such an iconic building being torn down.

You have your opinion, but the travelers and employees who had to deal with that house of horrors for decades largely do not agree with you. I think it was about 25 years overdue and am thrilled the blight on the world of travel is gone.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5): Quoting TPA0822 (Reply 4):This site has dozens of photos of the demolition of T3 as well as other Pan Am memorabilia. It's sad to see such an iconic building being torn down. Except that it was a poorly designed building that was in disrepair and had fundamental mechanical flaws that would require basically rebuilding it to "preserve" it. Architecture is not a piece of sculpture. It is supposed to be functional. And land is precious. Worldport, DFW and other such designs were based on convenience/laziness where one need not walk but a few steps to get from plane to taxi. But as modern airports, they are poor connecting hubs, lack centralized shopping and eating opportunities, and feel cramped by design.

ikramerica is spot on. It was a terrible and confusing facility that was completely outdated and in desperate need of replacement. It was built for a different era and wasn't great then (though it was novel) and was absolutely horrible in the guise of a contemporary international hub. It is a long overdue demise. Good riddance.

Quoting ordpark (Reply 6): What a shame....so much history being destroyed....That building was a classic and it's a shame Delta didn't take the high road and find a way to incorporate that structure into it's terminal plans....

They did take the high road for their operation and customers as it was entirely obvious that that facility was in complete disrepair, and would have cost more to modernize than to replace and would still have been an inferior facility when they were done. Commercial buildings must be first and foremost functional; the Worldport was anything but.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 7): Sad to see another Landmark building gone, but using the "Worldport" as a passenger was already a nightmare in the 70s and 80s.

I don't agree with you that it's sad it's gone, but definitely agree that it was a nightmare.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 8): Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5):lack centralized shopping and eating opportunities... Heaven forbid we go without shopping and eating!

So you don't think it's important to be able to buy food or items for your trip before a long international flight? The majority of frequent international travelers will not agree with you.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 9): Quoting newhaven (Thread starter): but necessary for DL to move ahead with their JFK operation. I disagree. It would only have taken a little imagination - and desire - to use the "saucer" as a valuable, efficient asset - perhaps as a terminal for DL's transcontinental flights, which it keeps saying it is trying to differentiate from its competitors. Instead, the ony "imagination" the DL planners could muster was the idea of tacking about another half-mile of hallway to an already-lackluster concourse at T4.

It would have taken far more than "a little imagination." A key point you and your compatriots keep missing is that product differentiation with the Worldport is a BAD THING. It had been rightly maligned for decades by knowledgeable travelers and loathed by the people who actually have to use the facility. Travelers DON'T CARE if it's an old Pan Am building if it's a routine nightmare to negotiate.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 9): Worse, most of the flying public doesn't care - until it s too late.

You're right, they don't. And except for a very few they won't. More importantly they shouldn't. It was a building in dire need of replacement.

Quoting Prost (Reply 10): Quoting clickhappy (Reply 8): Heaven forbid we go without shopping and eating! With modern travel, lack of food served on aircraft, close connections, etc., I think having a choice of eating establishments is a reasonable expectation for the travelling public to have.

Prost fully grasps the reality of the situation as do most people who travel frequently.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 11): So sad to see this. Another icon in the dustbin With a little bit of imagination this could have been reused and Incorporated ...

I keep reading about how "a little bit of imagination" could have saved this relic. It would have resulted in a worse facility and a prolonged construction phase, with much greater operational impact to do so.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 15): Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5): Except that it was a poorly designed building that was in disrepair and had fundamental mechanical flaws that would require basically rebuilding it to "preserve" it. In the end, this is what matters. It would have literally meant dismantling the structure and rebuilding it from the ground up.

Exactly correct DTWPurseyBoy, and well said.

Quoting aloges (Reply 17): I don't think that's fair. Terminal 1 at ORD may not be grand and imposing, but it's a timeless piece of architecture and I enjoy every opportunity I have to walk through it. They've even made that tunnel interesting! The new TBIT at LAX? Same story.

Those have both beauty and function however. T3 (and T5 for that matter) was small and too cramped to be used as a modern day terminal with modern day security needs and passenger expectations. Just as importantly, their designs also made it next to impossible to expand the terminal without ruining it's look.

Compare that IAD's main terminal (built around the same time as T3)- it has large usable space that could easily be enlarged by expanding out like what was done in the mid 90s. That is of course why most modern day terminals go for rectangular shapes, with the architectural detail being in things like the roof, walls, or support columns. Not circles or other designs with weird footprints.

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 18): I keep reading about how "a little bit of imagination" could have saved this relic. It would have resulted in a worse facility and a prolonged construction phase, with much greater operational impact to do so.

Your comments show you have no imagination on the whole project. DL could have save tons of money just by saving the saucer and replacing the back end. But they chose to wreck T4 completely.

Here is a before pic:



Now here is an after pic of what they should have done:



Note the yellow line is where the new connector should have been but it is now twice as long just to reach T2. Where T2 is could park 9 B747-400 aircraft easily. As for T4 several simple modifications to the terminal could have been done but was not. Instead they chose to extend the B Concourse down to the main taxi way and is a twice as long a walk to get to those gates from check in and customs. The one good thing about T4 was the concessions area where people could relax and get something to eat and wait for their relatives or see them off is gone and is now behind security. DL has wrecked the terminal.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 19): I don't agree with you that it's sad it's gone

Us Europeans have more sense for Landmark buildings. I once heard a speech of an American at a Group Meeting. he just returned from Brussales and ranted about all These old buildings there, they should tear them down, he claimed.

OK, we would not agree with that but true, Airports should be functional. However, even functional architecture can be beautiful and there are many examples around the world. Worse, arriving at any international US Airport remains a nightmare, but that has nothing to do with the architecture.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 21):

Something wrong with the site I think, you are not quoting my post.  

Maybe they could have saved the "saucer" (but at what cost)?. However, I will never forget the days when SA parked at JFK T3. Those facilities were virtually the pits and some African airports (like JNB) put it to shame.

T3 was dirty, unkempt and when it rained the floors were dotted with buckets to catch water from various roof leaks. As I have said before, I have seen better facilities in Africa (which is BTW where I was born and lived all my life). In the end T3 simply had to go/be replaced.

Regards,

SA7700

[Edited 2014-02-01 11:23:44]

Quoting Prost (Reply 10): With modern travel, lack of food served on aircraft, close connections, etc., I think having a choice of eating establishments is a reasonable expectation for the travelling public to have.

I agree with you on shopping, and who really needs all the crap they sell, but a few decent restaurants with real food - especially for the inevitable delays is important.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 19): Quoting ordpark (Reply 6): What a shame....so much history being destroyed....That building was a classic and it's a shame Delta didn't take the high road and find a way to incorporate that structure into it's terminal plans.... They did take the high road for their operation and customers as it was entirely obvious that that facility was in complete disrepair, and would have cost more to modernize than to replace and would still have been an inferior facility when they were done. Commercial buildings must be first and foremost functional; the Worldport was anything but.

Totally agree. If you ran an airline and had an old, not terribly great falling apart building would you rather demolish it and start from scratch, or keep it and see customers go to competitors, or spend more to try to jerry-rig an artistic facade on a new building?

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 21): Your comments show you have no imagination on the whole project. DL could have save tons of money just by saving the saucer and replacing the back end. But they chose to wreck T4 completely.

That doesn't fix the problem, in fact that makes it worse! You are packing more gates into the terminal with less space in the concourse- which means you are shifting more passengers, amenities, and security into the already too small saucer.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 16): Today, product (and corporate) placement is done through technology and changes often. Not with expensive buildings that can not be changed easily. More with less...yada yada

Some one should tell Apple before they spend all that money building Foster's Saucer.

Does the JFK Jitney still go around the entire construction site?

The Worldport was an iconic building built for a different period of time. The sad truth is that it just was not functional in modern times. It served its purpose but it is time to move on. JFK needs modern facilities. It is a modern airport and not an aviation museum. The Worldport will live on through photographs and memories.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 21): Note the yellow line is where the new connector should have been but it is now twice as long just to reach T2.

As has been pointed out several times in the previous edition of this exhausting thread, that connector is no longer planned.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 15): It would have literally meant dismantling the structure and rebuilding it from the ground up.

You obviously have never been in - or near - the business of reconstructing and utilizing outstanding older structures. I am; I utilize classic and iconic older buildings around the world, usually as high-end hotels, and there is no need to rebuild anything "from the ground up". Keeping and restoring the "saucer" (not the trailer-park-looking addition; that was the decrepit part of the terminal everyone complains about) could have resulted in an outstanding benefit for Delta, for the people of New York, and for anyone who respects and enjoys aviation history.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 15): Airlines want it cheap, functional, easily changeable

Whatever they paid for the hallway they built at T4, they definitely got "cheap". And your definition of "functional" may differ from the passenger who has to endure the half-mile trek down the crowded hallway to get to his gate at the end of the facility.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 19): It was a terrible and confusing facility that was completely outdated and in desperate need of replacement.

That was the backside-addition, that never should have been built that way, and rightfully should have been gone. The "saucer" is the issue here, and it was perfectly capable of being saved and used profitably - and with a class and flair that no other operating JFK terminal would have.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 16): No one even mentions the Eastern Terminal.

It was by far my favorite.  

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 31): That was the backside-addition, that never should have been built that way, and rightfully should have been gone. The "saucer" is the issue here, and it was perfectly capable of being saved and used profitably - and with a class and flair that no other operating JFK terminal would have.

Really? so please give up the number.....how much would it have cost to fix T3?

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 31): who has to endure the half-mile trek down the crowded hallway to get to his gate at the end of the facility.

Walking.....crazy idea. We need to stop doing that.

honestly all i can do is shake my head.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 33): Really? so please give up the number.....how much would it have cost to fix T3?

The cost of demolishing it, plus the cost of building a brand new facility on the same site. So DL opted to only do half that spend - the first part.

By most reasonable estimates, T3 would have needed to be completely razed; building it out to meet current demand levels, operational needs, and customer experience standards would have required a complete do-over.

Put another way, building T3 out to meet what DL's needs are would have been the equivalent of trying to build-out and upgrade the just-scrapped Pacific Princess to match the Oasis-class cruise ships at RCCL. Better to just start over.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 34): The cost of demolishing it, plus the cost of building a brand new facility on the same site. So DL opted to only do half that spend - the first part.

No... you are ignoring the obvious... again. The cost of demolishing half of it - the infuriating backyard terminal addition the everyone detested - and the cost of restoring the original "saucer" building. Based on my experience (and, unfortunately, I have not been given privy to DL's costs of all they have been doing - and, is suspect, neither have you), the cost of restoring the original T3 to its potential would be less than or equal to the cost f the "new" hallway extension at T4. While some additions there would have still been needs, T3 would have become useful, efficient, and dramatic - and served its purpose well.

Actually, I have always considered T2 to be the worst terminal I have used at JFK, and its proximity to T1 is an accident waiting to happen,

Quoting newhaven (Thread starter): Sad to see, of course

Not me. That piece of crap had its day but the last time I went through it, it was old, decrepit, and in need of being shut down.

Quoting jc2354 (Reply 14): I know the arguments, but the same, still a shame to see it go. Same with the Queen's Building and Terminal 2 at Heathrow.

No T2 was a dark hole of a terminal. The waiting area was cramped, and I loathed having to use it. The Queens building was not part of the terminal but I have enjoyed many a day spotting from the observation deck.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 35): No... you are ignoring the obvious... again. The cost of demolishing half of it - the infuriating backyard terminal addition the everyone detested - and the cost of restoring the original "saucer" building.

But is the cost of demolition the big cost here? As I am *not* in the business I don't know, but I would think demolishing isn't going to cost as much as building. Plus, and again, I am not an expert, is it possible that the non functional half building was built that way because it was just too darn hard to integrate the 50s classic oval into a larger terminal? Perhaps starchitects said, well we can integrate the oval but it will cost $$$$$ and there will be some bottlenecks at security or we can build from scetch and it will cost $$$ and fewer bottlenecks. Also, would *all* of the terminal have to be brought up to some firecode that the late T3 was grandfatherd into? I think the only reason jetBlue didn't destrOy the TWA flight center is because that was an official landmark and would have been almost impossible to tear down. And how successful was that integration? Basically it sits there like some wierd piece of armor in front of the jb terminal and nobody can figure out what to do about it.

Finally, and personally, while the Pan AM saucer evokes the glory days of jet aviation, as a structure itself, even the oval, isn't such an extraordinary building. If it was a high school in Cedarhurst, nobody would lament its demise. The Saarinen terminal, however, would probably be lamented no matter what it was.

And frankly, why isn't anyone in the NYC aviation community lamenting the demise of LGA's old control tower - the greatest piece of googie architecture in the north east?

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 31): You obviously have never been in - or near - the business of reconstructing and utilizing outstanding older structures

Actually, I have. I renovated two Edwardian brownstones in Washington, DC with great car and love. I even kept the original gas lighting, pocket doors that worked and stripped tons of paint from spindles, stairways and doors. I stripped and polished well over a hundred original brass locks, knobs and key plates (they were my winter project while watching TV or a movie. I should have bought stock in Wenol.) The results were well worth the effort. But these were private residences. During the same period of time in DC buildings were being stripped of their interiors, the old facades removed and "repurposed" into a structure that worked for the current environment. Having worked in both Terminal 2 and 3 I can honestly say both were (and are) beyond redemption. At Kennedy the greatest travesty was the destruction of the three beautiful chapels and fountain. Terminal 2 was a dump as far back as the early 80's and not much has changed since then. I sincerely hope it is on the chopping block because it has all the architectural interest of a psychiatric hospital. The moving sidewalks in the new DL terminal at JFK help with the long distances between gates and frankly most of us could use the exercise. I run up and down it a lot and while it is not the most aesthetically pleasing structure it does the job it was intended to do.

I have heard architects say that one of the biggest mistakes Pan Am made is one of our favorites--placing the garage on the roof. As anyone who has dealt with structures knows flat roof = water damage. And over the years water found its way into the lowest reaches of the complex compromising structures no where near the garage (like the saucer) by rusting rebar, cracking concrete during freeze cycles and other natural acts. It was just worn out.

[Edited 2014-02-02 06:34:07]

[Edited 2014-02-02 06:34:28]

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 23): Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 21):

Quoting Polot (Reply 26): Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 21):

Quoting luckyone (Reply 30): Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 21):

IF you all look closely at the pictures you see the original pic and a Proposed solution to the situation in the second pic. Also look closely to the two pictures you will see the modifications to T4 main building with check-in and arrival areas which was not done. The main building in the second pic is extended west& east doubling its size. The B concourse was extended to where the A340-600 is parked which results in the loss of only two hardstand parking areas. The yellow connector in the second pic was to connect pax with in the security area to get to T3. They are getting ready to build a new connector to T2 which is a longer walk to keep pax inside the security area. The new concourse on T3 should have been built like in the pic and the sauce should have been used as the First Class & Business Class area for DL pax. The second pic shows how 9 747-400 sized aircraft could have been parked if T2 was taken down. This would have costed DL much less money if done. From what I hear they want to arrive aircraft offload pax and bags only then move a/c to a remote parking area service it and bring back to get load bags and pax then depart. Now who ever came up with that idea should be fired especially if you have a 3 hour ground time it would be delay central and worse than it is now.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 38): The moving sidewalks in the new DL terminal at JFK help with the long distances between gates and frankly most of us could use the exercise. I run up and down it a lot and while it is not the most aesthetically pleasing structure it does the job it was intended to do.

I agree it is not the most aesthetically pleasing structure. In addition:

1. While this would have added to the cost, the original concourse and extension seems too narrow. With the completion of T4B, future extension of T4A and generally growth in traffic I believe we will be hearing about an overcrowded T4 sooner rather than later

2. While this would have added to the cost, the ceilings are too low and not enough natural light comes in. Something along the lines of UA's ORD terminal with lofty, arched glass ceilings (obviously excluding the Sky Club area) would have been nice. The concourse looks and feels like little effort went into making the complex inviting, sort of like a 1980s mall out in the burbs

3. It would have been great if the original portion of T3, the rotunda, could have been saved, renovated, and re-developed into a useful passenger space between T1 and T4. With that said, my sense is it was about more than just the cost of redeveloping T3 and how the space may be needed in the future. While we know in the short term that the former T3 space will be used for hard stand parking, what we don't know is the eventual fate of T2 and the development of space between T1 and T4.

4. Delta is not a very splashy company. Their motto seems to be "basic, cheap, and good enough." Just look at the chosen models and materials in their premium BusinessElite cabins. Base models, inexpensive materials. In their minds, "the customer would not pay for anything more", a somewhat misguided and short-sighted philosophy. Does it have to be Rolls Royce? No. Then does it have to be Chevy? No. However, given Delta's mindset it is no surprise that we should not expect a terminal with WOW factor... just "basic, cheap, and good enough."

5. I agree that we all need more exercise. One observation on my last visit to T4 a couple of months ago: four people riding in the golf cart-like people mover, the one usually reserved for seniors and people with physical disabilities. They rode the length of the concourse to an area near baggage claim. All four hopped off and walked towards baggage claim. Not one was a senior and by the way they jumped off and quickly walked to baggage claim none appeared physically disabled. During the time the cart meandered through the concourse, slowing down and stopping to avoid people, I walked along side of it, using the moving sidewalks where available, and arrived at the same time.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 39): The new concourse on T3 should have been built like in the pic and the sauce should have been used as the First Class & Business Class area for DL pax.

So you'd intentionally ask your highest-yield customers to check-in, drop their bags, and go through screening at T4, then make the long hike over to T3?

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 39): This would have costed DL much less money if done.

How do you know what it would have cost?

It is very interesting reading through some of the comments here. Many echo the post-war sentiment across the UK and Europe, where 'functional' brutalist architecture and urban planning swept through cities and cleansed them of hundreds of old and historic buildings. Whilst I rather like brutalism it is clear that the destruction which often facilitated is now considered a mistake, which has helped form a better understanding of how historically significant architecture can be preserved but, at the same time, be incorporated into redevelopment which keeps the structure fit for purpose and current.

It really is not hard to see how such an approach could have been used with the Worldport, to create an iconic gateway. The biggest irony is that, if you really want to increase the functionality and use of space at JFK, then knocking the entire airport down and redesigning it holistically would be a far better place to start.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5): Architecture is not a piece of sculpture. It is supposed to be functional.

Simply because form follows function does not mean that functional architecture is not sculpture. Quite the opposite in fact.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 31): You obviously have never been in - or near - the business of reconstructing and utilizing outstanding older structures. I am; I utilize classic and iconic older buildings around the world, usually as high-end hotels, and there is no need to rebuild anything "from the ground up". Keeping and restoring the "saucer" (not the trailer-park-looking addition; that was the decrepit part of the terminal everyone complains about) could have resulted in an outstanding benefit for Delta, for the people of New York, and for anyone who respects and enjoys aviation history.

  

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 38): As anyone who has dealt with structures knows flat roof = water damage.

No, if correctly installed and maintained then a flat roof is as good as any.


Dan  

[Edited 2014-02-02 12:13:46]

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 41): Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 39): The new concourse on T3 should have been built like in the pic and the sauce should have been used as the First Class & Business Class area for DL pax. So you'd intentionally ask your highest-yield customers to check-in, drop their bags, and go through screening at T4, then make the long hike over to T3?

Yes and after fixing it up they would have their own TSA check Point in that structure. Emirates and Lufthansa have set ups like that at FRA and DXB where their high yield pax have their own check-in area separate from everyone else.

Quoting deltacto (Reply 28): Does the JFK Jitney still go around the entire construction site?

I flew out of JFK about two weeks ago and had to transfer from T2 to T4. It now takes a shorter, direct route from gate C60 at T2 to a new transportation lobby at ground level next to gate B18 at T4. It actually goes thru what used to be the lower underground roadway to arrivals/baggage claim at the front of T3.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 38): I renovated two Edwardian brownstones in Washington, DC with great car and love.

I appreciate that - and I respect you for that. As you must have realized, utilizing and restoring those structures were far superior alternatives to destroying them an "putting in a parking lot". Our disagreement seems to be whether or not a corporation, like Delta, should use the same mindset.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 38): have heard architects say that one of the biggest mistakes Pan Am made is one of our favorites--placing the garage on the roof. As anyone who has dealt with structures knows flat roof = water damage.

I cannot disagree. But surely you know the roof-top parking was located solely on the atrocious "add-on" to the original "saucer"; those were connected by a rather narrow hallway, which meant the parking was actually some distance from the original structure (and the saucer's extended roof meant there was no way the lot could be anywhere near the supporting beams of that building). I remember dodging buckets on the floor of that addition many times during rains in New York... but all that is irrelevant to the integrity of the iconic, original building.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 42): It is very interesting reading through some of the comments here. Many echo the post-war sentiment across the UK and Europe, where 'functional' brutalist architecture and urban planning swept through cities and cleansed them of hundreds of old and historic buildings. Whilst I rather like brutalism it is clear that the destruction which often facilitated is now considered a mistake, which has helped form a better understanding of how historically significant architecture can be preserved but, at the same time, be incorporated into redevelopment which keeps the structure fit for purpose and current. It really is not hard to see how such an approach could have been used with the Worldport, to create an iconic gateway.

America is still a relatively young society, and young societies, as a rule, have must less respect for their history and culture than older, wiser groups. Alas, you are right... someday, we will rue the destruction of such an iconic-yet-still-usable building. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised to see - in the not too distant future - someone wanting to build a "replica" of the original - that is our Disneyland mentality here!

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 42): Simply because form follows function does not mean that functional architecture is not sculpture. Quite the opposite in fact.

  

The only thing more hilarious than all the keyboard CEOs on this forum are the keyboard Architects and Engineers.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 39): IF you all look closely at the pictures you see the original pic and a Proposed solution to the situation in the second pic. Also look closely to the two pictures you will see the modifications to T4 main building with check-in and arrival areas which was not done. The main building in the second pic is extended west& east doubling its size. The B concourse was extended to where the A340-600 is parked which results in the loss of only two hardstand parking areas. The yellow connector in the second pic was to connect pax with in the security area to get to T3. They are getting ready to build a new connector to T2 which is a longer walk to keep pax inside the security area. The new concourse on T3 should have been built like in the pic and the sauce should have been used as the First Class & Business Class area for DL pax. The second pic shows how 9 747-400 sized aircraft could have been parked if T2 was taken down. This would have costed DL much less money if done. From what I hear they want to arrive aircraft offload pax and bags only then move a/c to a remote parking area service it and bring back to get load bags and pax then depart. Now who ever came up with that idea should be fired especially if you have a 3 hour ground time it would be delay central and worse than it is now.

IF you took the time to read you would know that (again) the plans for a physical bridge between T4 and T2 have been cancelled, axed, nixed, aka not.gonna.happen. Most likely because T2 will not be there to connect to in a few years, also hinted at in Delta's press releases.

http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1882

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-expansion-announces-third-386342/

Phase I is the extension in operation today.

Phase II is the extension for RJs.

Phase III is to CLOSE T2. It's unlikely they'll spend the cash to connect to a building they don't plan to keep. Especially when most people would prefer to take the bus, even if time-wise it's a wash.

In none of the several press releases has Delta stated it will build the now cancelled bridge walkway.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 47): Phase III is to CLOSE T2. It's unlikely they'll spend the cash to connect to a building they don't plan to keep. Especially when most people would prefer to take the bus, even if time-wise it's a wash.

According to the Flightglobal article you referenced, "and one day we want to build the third phase of this facility."

"One day." I thought the PANYNJ had funding and a timeline for construction.

Phase three will be the T4A extension. How many gates will Delta have in T4A?

Also for connecting passengers the trek from T4A to T4B will be a long one without an underground connector.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 47): Especially when most people would prefer to take the bus, even if time-wise it's a wash.

Define "most people". I haven't found anyone - and I travel through JFK at least once a month - who prefers the bus. There is no way to avoid the rain, cold, sleet, and snow... and in summer, the heat. If everyone "preferred to take the bus", airports would all use busses. They don't - for a reason.