A Night at the TWA Hotel

January 24, 2021

THANKS TO SOME terrific rates offered to airline workers in these times of low occupancy, I’ve been staying regularly at the TWA Hotel at New York’s Kennedy Airport. It’s become my go-to layover when I’ve got an early-morning sign-in or a night to kill between trips.

The 512-room property, set between terminals 4 and 5, incorporates the famous “Flight Center” — Eero Saarinen’s swooping, soaring, masterpiece TWA terminal completed in 1962. The most architecturally significant airport terminal ever built, the Flight Center was also the first one designed expressly for jet airliners. After the takeover of TWA by American Airlines in 2001, its fate was bounced around between preservationists and Port Authority bureaucrats, its survival in doubt until it was saved from the wrecking ball thanks mainly to the efforts of New York City’s Municipal Arts Society. The initial plan was for the terminal to serve as a lobby and ticketing plaza for JetBlue, whose Terminal 5 sits directly behind it. This fell through, however, and the terminal sat in a state of semi-dereliction until the hotel plan came together.

When it opened in 2017, the travel blogs went giddy, binging on terms like “retro,” and “throwback,” with the obligatory references to “Mad Men” and so forth. This made me nervous. Aware that such endeavors have a tendency to go aesthetically awry, I was worried the renovators had spoiled the place.

I’m happy to report this is not the case. They understood what made the terminal special, and have kept it that way. The building’s beauty rests in its continuity. “All one thing,” is how Saarinen, a Finn whose other projects included the Gateway Arch in St. Louis and the terminal at Washington-Dulles, once said of it. It’s a fluid, unified sculpture of a space, at once futuristic and organic; a carved-out atrium reminiscent of the caves of Turkish Cappadocia, overhung by three cantilevered ceilings that rise from a central spine like huge wings. And, bless their hearts, they’ve left it alone. It speaks for itself, free of any architectural gimmickry.

The hotel is not exactly “inside” the terminal, as some have stated. The Flight Center is too small a structure for that. It’s merely the check-in lobby and central atrium. Which, essentially, is what it’s always been. Now, however, the two long pedestrian tunnels, through which passengers once walked to the boarding gates, connect instead to a pair of multi-story hotel blocks. Along the lobby’s left side, at the long counter where in 1962 you would have received your boarding pass for Rome or Paris or Athens, guests pick up their keys and head to rooms in either the “Saarinen” or “Hughes” wing — the latter in honor of Howard Hughes, who controlled TWA from 1939 until the 1960s. Along the right side is a 24-hour bistro for pizza and panini, and, on the floor above, a very expensive sit-down place called the Paris Cafe. On the rooftop level of the Hughes wing is an all-season infinity pool overlooking the runways — it’s small, but the view makes up for it. In the warmer months, a bar with open-air tables serves drinks and sandwiches.

Out back, photographed and Instagrammed no fewer than eighty billion times, is a brilliantly restored Lockheed Constellation, wings and all, with an onboard cocktail bar. Few people would notice or care, but in fact this is a touch anachronistic: the Connie was a propeller-driven plane and mostly obsolete by the early 60s. A 707 would have been better. But we shouldn’t quibble. It’s a beautiful installation and it does the job it’s supposed to, taking us back to another age and time — even if not quite the correct one.

Mixed in with all of this are several displays featuring 60s-era ephemera, period photographs, vintage TWA uniforms and so forth. Indeed the entire place has the feel of a museum, which I suppose it is.

On the negative side, the front desk is understaffed, with check-in times often hitting twenty minutes or more. The tilework is grubby and could use a power wash, and, for some confounding reason there’s no luggage ramp between the upper and lower levels of the lobby. The levels are staggered only slightly, but guests have no choice but to carry their bags up and down the stairs.

The rooms themselves have the same time capsule vibe, outfitted with Saarinen-designed furniture and other period touches. Things wobble just a bit along the fine line between nostalgia and kitsch — the martini glasses and the Western Electric rotary phones — but the feel overall is elegant and smart. The travel posters are wonderful, and I love the cordless phone chargers (every hotel needs these).

What’s sorely lacking, however, is some counter and closet space. The standard rooms have barely enough space for a roll-aboard bag, and no closet whatsoever. The four-point peg-and-hanger contraption in the alcove is useless; I was forced to hang my coat and shirt over the floor lamp. There’s plenty of open wall that could be outfitted with additional hangers or storage nooks, making the lack of them all the more frustrating.

The bathrooms, on the other hand, are oddly enormous, with wide vanities and walk-in showers that could fit an entire 747 crew. Why they opted for oversized bathrooms while skimping on the rest I’ll never understand. Above the mini-fridge is an equally wasteful serving ensemble with two each of martini and champagne glasses, the point of which, other than to use up precious square footage, escapes me. Here, the hotel becomes a little too full of itself, sacrificing practicality in order to make some pretentious aesthetic statement.

There’s also a peculiar “no wake-up calls” policy. People have flights to catch, do they not? And if you’re like me, a backup to your mobile phone alarm is important.

All criticism aside, there’s that phrase: I love what they’ve done with the place.

In 1996, Saarinen’s building was still a functioning airline terminal. As a young pilot for TWA Express, I was one of the employees who worked there. Into its fourth decade and home to a financially struggling carrier, it was neglected and forlorn. I remember sitting in the space now occupied by the Paris Cafe, eating shitty cafeteria food while clutches of sparrows swooped from the yellowed overhangs to snatch up crumbs. The red-carpeted tunnel that now leads to the Hughes wing once took me to the TWA Express operations room, where five-gallon buckets were spaced along the floor to collect rainwater that dripped from holes in the ceiling.

To see it today is heartening. It almost feels miraculous. Watching people mill around the lobby — businesspeople, a family of four, a Singapore Airlines crew taking selfies — I wonder how many of them have an idea what this place even is, or was. I imagine to most folks, not being airport buffs or historians, it’s just a cool hotel with a funky old lobby.

For it have become a trendy hotel — rather than a museum, or even a working terminal again — is maybe not the ideal outcome, but it’s a welcome alternative to demolition — as befell two other iconic JFK structures: I.M. Pei’s National Airlines “Sundrome,” which was cleared away so that jetBlue could expand its hideous Terminal 5, and the former Pan Am “Worldport,” a.k.a Terminal 3, torn down in 2013. The Flight Center narrowly escaped a similar fate. Fortunately it lives on, a place both old and new, restored with commitment and care.

Not every iconic airport building deserves to stay standing forever — Terminal 3 for example, was beyond rehabilitation and overdue for the wrecking ball. What I wish, though, if we’re not preserving these structures, is that we put a little more imagination and vision into the ones that take their place.

In this regard, JFK sets a best and worst example. It kept Saarninen standing, but has otherwise has lost most of its character through a long series of tear-downs and replacements. Worst of the new terminals is without a doubt JetBlue’s aforementioned, wildly overrated Terminal 5. Let’s dip into my book for a description

“‘T5’ as the carrier likes to call it — is a $743 million, 72-acre structure that opened in 2008 to considerable promotion and fanfare. Inside, the fast-food outlets and shops conspire to make yet another airport look and feel like yet another mall. But it’s T5’s exterior that’s the real tragedy. Although the street-side facade is at worst cheerless, the tarmac-side is truly abominable — a wide, low-slung, industrial-brutalist expanse of concrete. Once again it looks like a shopping mall. To be more specific, it looks like the back of a shopping mall. All that’s missing are some pallets and dumpsters. The facility’s only visual statement is one of not caring, a presentation of architectural nothingness, absolutely empty of inspiration — precisely what an airport terminal should not be. Is this the best we can do?”

T5 sits directly between Saarinen and the spot where Pei’s Sundrome stood. There’s something troublingly ironic about that.


Related Stories:


Back to the Ask the Pilot Home Page Visit the Blog Archive Back to Top!

Leave a Comment

Maximum 1500 characters. Watch your spelling and grammar. Poorly written posts will be deleted!

14 Responses to “A Night at the TWA Hotel”
You are viewing newest comments first. Click to reverse order
  1. PSimpson says:

    Just got back from a 2 night stay at the TWA hotel. We had to go to JFK to do our Global Entry interviews (no appointments available at Logan) so we figured we’d stay at the hotel.

    Tl;dr – it’s quite pricey ($250/night), the rooms are small but comfortable, and the food, though pricey and somewhat skimpy in quantity, is good. The 60s music is omnipresent and a bit too loud. There’s a gift shop.

    The Saarinen Flight Center is breathtaking. It was worth saving. And the restoration was done well. As you walk through it, there are all sorts of little details that make you smile or think. Original drawings, a mockup of Saarinen’s office, some neat old cars. They did a nice job, and they do seem to be working hard to keep the place up. I also appreciated the trust shown by not putting everything behind plexiglass, which seems to help make a more intimate connection between the guest and the artifacts (though they are glued down).

    The rooms are on the cozy side, but comfortable, the showers are hot and the beds are soft. Think “dorm room”. The soundproofing is excellent, as far as external noiss goes, but room to room could have used a bit more insulation.

    The rooftop pool, on a sunny, breezy, 65 degree March day, was comfortaby warm, as long as you didn’t expose too much flesh. We stayed in for an hour, watching the takeoffs and landings over the infinity edge. Thick terrycloth robes are availble at the front desk.

    And the flip message boards are mesmerising.

  2. Jeff says:


    I couldn’t agree more about the rooms. By the way, there is a ramp for luggage between the street level and upper lobby, it’s just well hidden – go to the left of the check-in desk, all the way against the wall (there’s one on the other side next to the food court).

    Speaking of check-in, you can do self check-in via the iPads (no need to wait for a staff member). It’s less romantic, but much faster.

  3. Thanks for the review! My first trip to New York was on TWA in 1965, and I well remember my amazement at the TWA Terminal at Idlewild Airport, with its arched walkways in the tunnels that connected the boarding gates and the ticketing lobby.

    However, I disagree with your assessment of the Constellation display as inappropriate. To me, it’s perfect! I flew into New York on a Super Constellation from Los Angeles on a 12-hour redeye that stopped once in Kansas City. I chose it rather than a 707 flight because there was, at that time, a significant surcharge for jet fares and I was on a tight budget. I didn’t sleep well because of the noise, and I wasn’t looking forward to my return flight.

    My return reservation, though, was changed to a one-stop 707 at no extra charge. It turned out that the inbound flight was one of the last transcontinental prop aircraft flights on TWA. That flight was much more pleasant.

    However, I still get nostalgic when I think of the triple tail on that Connie…

  4. Mike says:

    Great review Patrick – and a place I’d love to visit when/if we’re ever allowed to travel again.

    The building is gorgeous and that photo at the top of the stairway is modernist architecture at its finest. Thank goodness it has been preserved in all of its mid-20th Century stark glory and not cheapened with advertising stands or later subdivisions and the like (looking at you London Stanstead).

    One personal quibble – is it really ‘the most architecturally significant airport terminal ever built’? Prettiest? It’s definitely one of the best; but surely Berlin Tempelhof is more significant because it pretty much invented the modern airport from acres of glass through to separate levels for arrivals and departures. It’s also, in its own way – a very handsome building, and thank goodness it too has been preserved. Something I don’t think anyone will be considering for Heathrow Terminal 4!

  5. Tom Henderson says:

    Great writing. Wonderful descriptions. You are a gifted writer, Sir. If you are as good at piloting an airplane as you are with the printed word, I’d happily fly as your passenger any day of the week.

  6. Cameron Beck says:

    Hi Patrick: Such an interesting piece! You’ve provided a glimpse into something that most of us will likely NOT see: the hotel.

    Five months after Saarinen’s Dulles terminal opened, I somehow persuaded my mother to take me out to it. Up until that point she had not shown any interest in airport terminals.

    I was fourteen, plane crazy (I’d get my PPL four years later) and in awe of Saarinen’s building. The beautiful swooping simplicity of it. My mother was similarly impressed.

    The only thing I didn’t like were the mobile lounges which struck me as clunky. Writing this, I went to Wikipedia to make sure I didn’t embarrass myself with the wrong term for the vehicles. I was surprised to see the number of airports that use them.

    The TWA terminal at JFK. I’ve only seen it from the rear. A rear view is rarely flattering for anything. I remember sitting on a taxiway, eager to get airborne for a flight lesson, bouncing around in the exhaust of a Gulfstream. Looking at her underside, engines and landing gear, I remember thinking how ugly this graceful plane appeared.

    So it was with me for the TWA Flight Center. I’ve only seen it from the rear. Far from giving a sense of flight, it looked more like a frog about to jump. But that was my limited view. I’m grateful to you for providing the grand view. Thanks! cb

  7. Michael Mitchell says:

    Great article! I had to cancel plans to stay as part of a trip to Cape Cod due to COVID, but will reschedule as soon as possible. I actually connected through here on a fam trip for travel agents to a Pars reservation system seminar in the Bahamas in 1988. A truly classic piece of historic architecture! Thanks so much–can’t wait to have the experience.

  8. Jeffrey Baldwin says:

    Are you sure it’s roll-aboard and not rollerboard?

  9. Jay J Becker says:

    Thanks so much for this. I was a Customs Agent at JFK for eight years during the 80’s to early 90’s and TWA was my favorite building. When I retired, I worked at Traveler’s Aid as a volunteer, and spent most of those six years in T-5. What I did like about it was that the bathrooms were nice and clean, and it had the food court which did look hideous and had the problem of not enough chairs, and filthy tables which were never cleaned. From time to time I had trouble with security to get through to the food court, as they weren’t too good about letting employees get ahead of passenger lines, or letting Traveler’s Aid people use the employee screening area. The walk from the Air Train was tedious, and it was not so reliable schedule wise. That train with only two cars became extremely crowded sometimes, and you had to climb over people’s luggage to get in or out. No plan was made to expand the train. The Port Authority lacks imagination, but is very good at raising tolls. The airport still holds great excitement for me when I go there, but I now go when I am a traveling passenger. You mentioned Terminal 3: That Pan Am building was a beauty in its early days but was so neglected that the best thing was to try and avoid it. Delta didn’t improve it, and it seemed alot like Terminal 2 which seems to need help. You do a great service by publishing this material, and it is quite enjoyable. Thanks so much.

  10. Michael Kennedy says:

    Just wait until the Northeast Express Regional Hotel opens up in Augusta, ME, featuring the Eric Lis and Scott Carey wings!

  11. Michael Castens says:

    The description of JFK T5 reminds me of Heathrow T5, which is another horrible shopping mall with no architectural merit.

  12. Franklyn Dunne says:

    Well you have made me both curious and cautious at the same time. Fine writing.

  13. Lloyd Alter says:

    I loved the rooms, I wrote my review from the long wide desk that faced the windows, the wood, the phone! I was there the week it opened so I didn’t find anything needing a wash. So beautifully restored, such amazing concrete.

  14. Avron says:

    Great description and pix, Patrick. Spent some time as a kid in the Saarinen building when it was full-blown TWA as well as later when it began to deteriorate, can really relate to your perspective here (both on the past and present of the structure). Also with you on merciless hatred of T5, and on JFK’s architectural malaise since the heyday in the ’50s and ’60s.

    Now if we could only get the Concorde back in some form.