Originally Posted By Brick-N-Mortar I was reading all the posts in the "Al Lutz and Other Rumors for DCA" thread and came to the quick conclusion that there are members here that have no love for DCA. The general feeling among the detractors is the park was the manifestation of a few key egos, poorly conceived, poorly executed and poorly presented. So what should be done about it? The park is not going to be torn down and replaced (IMHO) so the only option is to build on what's already there. I understand that WDI is working on some new changes so I'm not talking about what is already to come, but if you found yourself head of WDI and were given the creative license to do as you please, what would you do? Or, as a guest, what would you like to see and experience at the park? What sort of feelings do you want to have when you're there and what can be done to create those emotions for you? I'm a train person. I love steam railroading and have been fortunate enough to make a career out of it. I think it was a little short sited not to have a train at DCA, after all, the railroads opened up the west. A big part of the reason Sacramento is the capital is because it was the terminus of the Central Pacific. I think a railroad would mix well with all the areas in the park and provide the same service to weary guests the DL RR provides. So lets hear it, what sort of artistic changes, additions, policy changes, costume changes, etc would you make?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Wait! I want to say it first. Just bulldoze the whole frickin' place, and give us back the parking lot. DCA sucks! [I don't feel that way, I just wanted to get it out of the way]
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I think a good start would be to make some sort of berm around the park. In an ideal world, I would tear down the Paradise Pier Hotel, and build a water park in its place (I have no idea what it would be themed to though). The water park would basically be a giand man-made hill, with the park facing away from DCA. The back of the hill would be pretty much at the edge of the street, and be a very steep incline. I would theme it to the cliffs that are often associated with the California coastline. There could be shops and stuff in the lower parts of the hill, since they would not be seen from inside the park. The cliff would then work to block everything in that direction out, even though it is on the other side of the road from the park. (I think this has been done by Disney somewhere, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. The effect would be similar to seeing Tower of Terror from the World Showcase, but it appears to be an extension of the Morocco pavilion.) The water park would not have anything that sticks up over the hill, so it would appear to be a natural coast line. I don't know how to treat the other side of the PP area (or the area where the two parts meet), but it would be a similar idea somehow. Maybe build a hotel that goes over the road, and theme the back side of it to the cliff, so the cliff wraps around, and continues along the edge of the property, as well as housing some backstage facilities like the parade barns. I realize that this will never really happen, but it is the only solution that I can think of for the Paradise Pier area that cuts out the sightlines of the outide, but keeps with the theme of the area.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer I would get rid of most of the park.... I would keep Tower of Terror, the Hyperion, and Soarin'. Most of the rest of the park could be removed in stages. As for what I would keep, the Hyperion would be plussed, and a new lobby with restrooms and concessions would be built on the south end, where the outdoor queue is currently. The new building would also have escalators and additional elevators. This would allow special events and movies to be shown in the building, along with curent offerings. Much of the Hollywood area would be converted to new restaurants and bars, to help promote special events. The outdoor area of ToT would be plussed to be more like the Orlando version. The Paradise Pier area would be removed, including the water (it just eats up a lot of wasted space). I would place buildings hosting large, E ticket dark rides in the South-west corner. The facades on these building would help block out views from outside the park. I would redo the entire Soarin' queue, especially after the split. I hate that "dead" area where you wait for the ride to cycle thru, with nothing to look at. I would focus on adding unique (not clones) attractions designed for the entire family to enjoy together, instead of the current rides for just a certain segment being offered.
Originally Posted By woody I will start with Disneyland. What if Disneyland and DCA was one BIG THEME PARK? Re-theme DCA with lands and attactions that are complimentary to Disneyland. Spare no expense. Then give it a name that evokes that Disney magic. Dump the Disneyland Resort name.
Originally Posted By dr jones I would tend to agree with Darkbeer on what to keep and what to remove. One thing that is certain is the inside of DCA needs to be screened from outside visual intrusion. As to how they could PLUS the place.. Most certainly more big glorious originally themed dark rides. There is far to much squandered space in that place. HELLO IMAGINEERS, Why not try some actual IMAGINEering for a change!! When you enter DCA from DL you are sucked right out of any sort of "Disney" experience and dropped into dime-a-dozen carnival land. WDI is sitting on several acres of potential redemption, so think it through and make some good choices folks. (I don't hate DCA but the posibilities are....)
Originally Posted By Rivkah86 It's funny, I see Disneyland as more of an adventure than DCA. I mean, when I walk through DL choosing what I'm going to do next, it is presented as though each land is its own adventure. Now, in DCA, there are lands that fall extremely short of guest's expectations, and leave them wondering "huh? WHAT was THAT for?" It lacks a major point, a cohesive, relatable direction, and basic flow, and basically begs the question, "That's what they decided to do with a couple billion dollars? And they DIDN'T save a small country instead?" DCA's theme of the golden state of CA seems pointless. So first thing's first: Rename the park! Set a new direction for the poor thing. Give it a potential to live up to and possabilities for a successful future!
Originally Posted By ni_teach Fixing the DCA is a huge topic. You can easily say just get rid of the whole thing, but that is really unrealistic. The company has made a large investment of money and manpower and it would be difficult to just toss that all away. Also people are currently using the park, to shut it down for several years while replacing it would impact the visitor and employees alike. This means to me that you have to fix the DCA and keep it open at the same time. This is fairly much what they are doing now. Fixing areas around the park and keeping the rest of it open. The first decision to fix the DCA is do you keep the California theme or not? And if you do not keep it what do you change it to? Once you have decided to keep or change the theme then all the “fixing†of the park revolves around that. If you do change the theme it means that most of your money is going to go into cosmetic changes of the park to fit your new theme and NOT into new attractions. (Just something to think about). The other down side of changing the theme is the question would that confuse the regular visitor. If you start advertising a new theme, would people think that Disney had built a third park? Changing the theme might confuse more people and hurt the resort more than help it. Just some thought for the day….
Originally Posted By barboy What's all this indirect talk about demolishing Grizzly Peak. Grizzly peak is a wonderful sight--- some of Disney's finest work ever. Conversely, Paradise Pier is a complete embarrassment and needs to be demolished and replaced with some kind of big budget, totally new E thrill ride based on surfing. Disney executed something novel and ambitious at EPCOT( Mission:Space) so why not something about southern cal's surfing.
Originally Posted By dr jones Does anyone think it's odd to have a theme park based around the culture and sights of California when the park is in California and not all that far from alot of the actual things it depicts? I guess if people come from far away, they can't be expected to drive all over California to see all this stuff. But if the majority of the visitors are locals, it seems kinda silly. I do love TOT,SOARIN'and SREAMIN' though.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Dr Jones, most of us been saying that since the press release came out for this poorly executed park . The funny thing is I'm a local and then I'm not. I was born and raised in Cali, but haven't lived there for 7 years on now so now I am basically just a visitor there. It doesn't work for me on either level. Since I still consider myself a Californian, yeah, it doesn't do it for me AT ALL. I don't like the fact of seeing a place that represents Hollywood and San Francisco when you lived in the real thing a few hours away. As a local, it just isn't 'exciting' the way you enter a world of animals or the future or movies or the sea. It's just 'blah' no matter how beautiful and great the actual state is. Now, as a visitor, when I come and visit California to see family and friends as I did last month (and a few of you LPer's ), I don't think I thought ONCE of visiting a seaside carnival or really care about factory tours to say the least and stuff that I would like to visit like parts of L.A., beaches and maybe the mountains isn't represented in DCA, at least not in a well executed and exciting way. That's what the basic tourist wants and thinks of when they think of California and DCA doesn't capture of any of those things well. That's just one of the many problems of DCA, it doesn't capture the 'beauty' of Califonia the same way DL captures the beauty of New Orleans or TDS captures the beauty of Venice or AK captures the beauty of Africa or Epcot captures the beauty of China and these are all just one land or section out of their theme parks. In DCA, the entire theme is *CALIFORNIA* and the only thing to *me* that captures that, 'it's great to be in California' magic is GRR. The rest is just common theme park stuff with superficial and weakly themed California layovers. NO ONE with a straight face can look at the San Franciso area and says it captures the spirit of that city. I lived there for a few years and it certainly doesn't do it for me. Same for the HBL. Yeah, its nice, but it doesn't make you feel like you are in Hollywood (and yes, I know its a backlot which is even MORE confusing now for most, but I been in a few Hollywood backlots and frankly, it doesn't look like any of those either.....except Universal Studios lol). DCA simply UNDERWELMS and ironically, the subject its trying to capture, actually makes the place feel less interesting than it really is. Just like how when you see a movie about an historical figure or about a real life setting, if the movie did its job, its makes you want to learn MORE about that historical figure its telling about or makes you want to book a ticket to see that place in person. That's what a good story teller has the gift of doing. But, with DCA, it doesn't make me want to experience the real California as I assumed it was meant to. Considering the fact the thing is IN California already should be easy enough to do, but maybe that's the problem with the whole thing, I don't know. But I think it's viewed as just a basic theme park that happens to have California theming around it and nothing more to most people and that's one of the many reasons its a failure in my eyes. (Wow, my first full on DCA rant in MONTHS.....oh, it felt sooo good. Daddy's home!!!!! )
Originally Posted By Mr X It's a lame, stupid park. Nuff said. SURE, I had a good time there... But, I also have fun at 6-Flags, coaster parks too. Sorry, but I can't be bothered with a long explaination tonight...WD pretty much covered it anyway. DCA sucks!
Originally Posted By dr jones WorldDisney, I can relate, I have lived in San Francisco for 10 yrs and uh... needless to say I'm not buying it. My participation in these discussion boards is recent so I apologize for beating a dead horse so to speak. It was cool to find a place to talk about Disney with like minded folks. There are obviously a million different ways of going about fixing DCA. A lot of great ideas have raised on these boards, it's too bad the people at WDI don't pop in take some notes once in a while. I really hope any future plans for DCA are not met with the same tight purse strings and shortsightedness as before. Walt Disney had to beg borrow and steal to complete Disneyland, and it was still not fully what he envisioned. But he spared no expense to make the place as magical as resources and technology would allow, and it holds up today 50 yrs. later. It's sad that the company bearing his name has lost sight of that.
Originally Posted By 9oldmen >>Walt Disney had to beg borrow and steal to complete Disneyland,<< This is very true, although I have a slight issue with the "steal" part. He acquired the funding with what I think were honest means, and did a much more efficient job of using his limited resources than the recent managment did with what they had. In fact, "stealing" is one thing I wouldn't put past Eisner, Pressler, et al..uh oh! Did I just say that?!
Originally Posted By dr jones 9oldmen, I didn't mean the "steal" part literaly, I was just trying to emphasize Walt's determination to see his vision through no matter what. And I agree with you about more recent "leaders".
Originally Posted By ArchtMig Walt borrowed against his own personal life insurance policy to help fund the Disneyland construction. That alone shows how deeply personal the project was to him and how committed he was to it. Of course, Eisner, Pressler and their ilk were really just employees of the corporation, rather than founder / owners as Walt was. But still, do you ever see folks like Eisner or Pressler making a similar personal sacrifice / gamble on something like that? Even in whatever his future endevours are, I don't expect Eisner to sink any of his personal fortune into anything that has a chance of going belly up, but rather, he'll figure out creative ways of financing his schemes with other people's (i.e., "investors"... i.e., "suckers") money. That's the difference.
