Originally Posted By gmaletic Back when Disneyland first opened, there were no paths between the various lands...you always had to go back to the hub. This situation obviously makes for more walking, but it does strengthen the separate identities of the various lands, which sometimes have gotten a bit muddled in the intervening years. Obviously, they abandoned this concept for a reason, most likely crowd flow and congestion. But should Disney go back to this sort of configuration, at least for new parks where they could try and design around it? Would the benefits overcome the drawbacks? Just curious.
Originally Posted By Nobody "Would the benefits overcome the drawbacks?" No, I don't think so. I see your point about the continuity issues, but the connecting paths were indeed put in for the reasons you mention. I think if new (Disneyland) parks should keep the hub / spoke setup, but make the outer connecting paths as discreet (and discrete) as possible.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<"Would the benefits overcome the drawbacks?">> I don't think so either. Animal Kingdom has that type of design, with only the path between Africa and Asia connecting any lands outside of the hub. I love Animal Kingdom, and the layout possibly works in a park based on discovery. But frankly, it is kind of a pain in the butt getting around that park.
Originally Posted By chickendumpling I vote *NO* on eliminating paths. I love the paths at Disneyland. They are actually one of my favorite things. Yea, I'm easy to please. But I have found the paths to be really useful. There have been lots of times when its been really crowded and I've been able to pop thru one of the less used paths and *bam* I'm where I wanna be in no time. Great way to *impress* friends. Juvenile pleasures aside, I think the paths are smart to have because they really do help with congestion/flow issues and they still keep the lands separate but create a more cohesive feel overall. I would be extremely frustrated if there were no paths. Extremely. It would seriously decrease my enjoyment of the park. Honestly, sometimes when it is really crowded I just take one of the lesser used paths just to take a breather from the crowds. I'd be totally bummed if there were no connecting paths.
Originally Posted By jdub I also love those paths. The nice thing for people who prefer the "hub" method of getting around is that there IS a choice! I usually use whatever way is expedient at the time, but sometimes those paths just make for a nice, less-traveled, calmer stroll.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Are you sure about that Gmaletic? I seem to remember back in the early days walking through Adventureland from the hub and continuing on through to Frontierland. I also thought you could always pass through from Fantasyland to Tomorrowland. But maybe I have a faulty memory.
Originally Posted By gmaletic JohnS1- If my assertion is true, I'm pretty sure that it was only true for the first couple of years Disneyland was open. That being said, I can't personally vouch for the fact that there weren't connecting paths between the lands, but I do remember reading something to that effect once before, and if you look at an early Disneyland map (and the model that's actually at Disneyland of the opening day layout), there don't -appear- to be any connecting paths.
Originally Posted By PirateJohn Let's not forget something very important, too -- it's hard enough getting around during the parades and fireworks, and getting out of Frontierland after Fantasmic -- imagine how much worse it would be if everybody had to be bottlenecked through the hub.
Originally Posted By Ellya I actually wish there was one more path! I think a route from Critter Country around the back side of Rivers of America to Thunder Mountain would be a great help.
Originally Posted By CMM1 Up until the time they removed the Nature's Wonderland area of Frontierland, there was no "back door" to Fantasyland. After they built BTMRR, then they put in the trail that led to Fanstasyland. Ever since the building of the Matterhorn there has been a path between Fantasyland and Tomorrowland. The path from Adventureland to Frontierland was there from the beginnning - in fact, there was a bridge that went over a watercourse connecting the Jungle Cruise rivers to the Rivers of America (although JC boats could not be seen).
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "The path from Adventureland to Frontierland was there from the beginnning - in fact, there was a bridge that went over a watercourse connecting the Jungle Cruise rivers to the Rivers of America (although JC boats could not be seen)." Yes - that's what I thought - I can distinctly remember that bridge and the transition between jungle terrain and wild west (there being no New Orleans Square back then).
Originally Posted By SIR at X-S Tech I'll just be happy if they build more parks based on the hub design, instead of more DCA's.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss ^^ And I'll be happy if they stop building more parks, and upgrade the one's they already have.
Originally Posted By gmaletic SIR--is there any non-Magic Kingdom Disney park that's based on a hub design? None that I can think of.
Originally Posted By SIR at X-S Tech DCA does have a bit of a hub, but several of the "districts" aren't attached to it. And it's far from Central.
Originally Posted By Clotho I actually feel that the transitions between the lands are about as unmnuddied as could be. When I was in Magic Kingdom last year, I was dismayed by the muddied transitions,a nd was reminded what a great job they do at Disneyland to separate the lands and help the flow feel seamless.
Originally Posted By gmaletic Interesting...I feel the exact opposite. At Disneyland, much of the traffic on the west side of the park flows through a point where you are equidistant from the Golden Horseshoe Review, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Tarzan's Treehouse. Just what land are you supposed to be in at that point? What about the Haunted Mansion and Splash Mountain...those are supposed to be in different lands, right? I don't think most people realize that, and how could you blame them? Finally, Tomorrowland and Fantasyland are pretty fuzzy--which land is the Matterhorn in, and why?--and it will get fuzzier once the submarines turn into "Finding Nemo" (which land will that ride be in? Either makes sense.) In contrast, WDW doesn't have Critter Country (a fairly useless distinction from Frontierland), it's just all Frontierland. Big Thunder is next to Splash Mountain, next to Tom Sawyer, and next to the Country Bear Jamboree, and it works fine. Adventureland is completely sealed off visually from Frontierland. And the transition between Fantasyland and Tomorrowland is pretty distinct with the long walk down the Grand Prix Raceway (or whatever it's called now) providing a fairly lengthy transition space, with little visual intrusion between the two.
Originally Posted By gmaletic Clotho--maybe we're working off of different aesthetics. You say that you want the transition between lands to be seamless. I want them to be anything but seamless. I want it to feel like you're walking into a distinctly new place when you go from land to land. Ideally, there shouldn't be any areas where you say to yourself, "what land am I in?"
