Originally Posted By bobbelee9 The shapes of the Swan and Dolphin aren't the problem, it's the vomitous colors.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <What connection does the Swan and Dolphin skyline have to do with a bunch of suits and DCA in Anaheim?> Both are on Disney's properties, and both are considered 'visual intrusions.' <You probably don't like the Tower of Terror outline peeking up behind Morocco either.> Nope. sure don't. <Don't forget Soarin' behind Canada too.> Think that looks crappy too.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I dunno whether Jim (the 32nd best-looking Jim in all of Merced, CA.) is happy or not. But I do believe he is right. Visual intrusions were always a huge no-no in Disney park design. You only saw what the designers wanted you to see, much like a movie. I can pretty safely say that giant hotels with whimsical (some might say tacky) swans and dolphins weren't supposed to spring up (and screw up) the scale of World Showcase. The fact that ToT and Soarin later did more damage doesn't change the facts.
Originally Posted By kennect Spirit, I understand what you are saying along with other Disney fans dissapoinment with such but it isn't the end of the world....I don't even know why I bothered to post such...As I said, some folks will never be happy...It wouldn't matter what Disney did in Fl. there would still be some people that aren't going to be happy regardless....I personally kind of like the way they managed to tie Epcot, the surrounding hotels, and the studio park all together if you get what I mean....There are no horrible views there that include power lines, insterstates, etc....Those things would be a major flaw if on view but that isn't the case here....
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>And those hotels were planned and built with Disney's blessing.<<< That's not exactly what I heard. I recall hearing something about a contract dispute, and the resulting judgement allowed Marriot and Westin to build in a "prime" location, rather than be stuck on hotel drive like the others. And Disney was NOT happy about it. That's what I heard, anyway.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <And, it's already been talked about. <---leaves.> Yeah, hey for gosh sakes, let's not repeat ourselves around here.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy I'm not happy with all that has transpired at WDW. For that matter, there were some projects at Disneyland that Walt personally did that affected me the same way. (Yes! There! I said it!) Most things work though. Any time I start to feel less than happy with a place like WDW I make a daytrip up to International Drive and SandLake Road. I come back feeling a whole lot better. I stand by the title of this section. Bonnet Creek will get a free view of SSE. But the interesting thing is that guests from within Epcot will not be able to see Bonnet Creek in reverse, like they can the Swan and Dolphin)
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Visual intrusions were always a huge no-no in Disney park design. You only saw what the designers wanted you to see, much like a movie.>> On one hand I agree that visual intrusions should be avoided, but on the other hand, there been visual intrusions since, oh, say when Walt approved the Matterhorn. His team questioned that one, but he said it was OK... and it was. I imagine if Walt was the one who plopped the Swolphin in the same place, more people would be OK with it too.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I imagine if Walt was the one who plopped the Swolphin in the same place, more people would be OK with it too." I rather doubt that -- it's not like Walt never did things that the public didn't like. It's just that when he did those things, they tended to go away. I don't think the visual intrusions at Epcot will be leaving any time soon. In fact, it sounds like we're just going to keep getting more and more. It's a shame that todays Imagineers and WDW Management don't have the same sense of "taste" that the original Imagineers had.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The Matterhorn. When on the ride, as it was originally built, it offered a quick 3 second view of the outside world. When seen from the other parts of Disneyland, yes, it showed from Main Street U.S.A. but it's part of the same park. The Matterhorn is hardly a visual intrusion in the way that the Dolphin and Swan are. Peeking out over World Showcase, and yes, mar the horizon line. That's the same World Showcase horizon line that the Imagineers bragged about -- the Eiffel Tower was designed to look a certain distance away etc. The buildings in Morocco create a 'forced perspective' situation. Then, giant pastel colored birds and fish poke out -- so now, forced perspective just gets chucked out the window. Disney HAD to build hotels close to a property? If that is indeed the case, decent design could have created a more sprawling type of resort -- not all hotels have to be multi-storied. Prior to DCA, the Imagineers created all these rules about theme park design -- creating a berm, using a 'weenie' to attract people to different sections of the park, and visual intrustions. In other words, keeping the outside world out. Then, when people visited DCA and said 'Hey, you can see the Anaheim Convention Center, and The Inn at the Park, and when I'm on 'California Screamin' I can look over and see Katella Drive.' The answer? 'Yeah, we meant to do that. We wanted to bring in the real California.' I just don't buy it. The truth is that it was either too expensive or just easier to plop DCA where it is, and worry about the fall-out later. And frankly, the management team that built Disney's California Adventure probably didn't think anyone would notice or care. And based on this thread, that's obviously true.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Who cares if the people at Bonnet Creek can see SSE? I've stayed at the Marriot on International Drive several times, and you can clearly see SSE poking out above the trees. You know exactly where it is. You can also see TOT and the Miss Tilly from Typhoon Lagoon. However, the people in the parks have no idea that you can see those from such a distance. As long as you can't see the hotel from within the park, I'm fine with it. You can see the top of the Tree of Life in the parking lot at a Raddison (maybe a Ramada? I don't really remember what it was) near by, so does that mean that they built the parking lot too tall? Seeing the park from the outside doesn't really ruin the magic. For me, at least, it builds up the anticipation. Seeing the outside from the park, however, does take away from the magic a little.
Originally Posted By Brian Noble Bonnet Creek is owned by Wyndham (nee Fairfield), and is a mixed-use property. The towers that are completed/under construction are timeshares. There are also some conventional hotels planned, but I don't believe those have broken ground yet. The land it is on is not owned by Disney (nor is it part of RCID), but the parcel is bordered by Disney on three sides, and I-4 on the fourth. Legend has it that the owner at the time the shadow companies were buying up swampland suspected that something was up, and refused to sell at any price---if that story is true, the owner at the time was pretty shrewd. As it is landlocked, Disney is required to provide road access to the parcel, as I understand the legalities. So, while it is not on Disney property, you have to pass through the WDW gates to get to it. You can see the location here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageisneyLandByCompany.png" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I mageisneyLandByCompany.png</a> I purchased some Wyndham points a couple of months ago for access to Bonnet Creek. The developer price is comparable to DVC (actually, slightly more expensive). And, it's been selling like hotcakes. The good news is that Fairfield foolishly never built Right of First Refusal into their covenants, as Disney did with DVC. The resale market has no floor, and resale points deeds at Wyndham properties can often be had for less than a dime on the dollar. That's how I bought mine.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> Who cares if the people at Bonnet Creek can see SSE? << I don't mind that they can see it. My post has to do with the fact that they actually CAN, and from a closer and higher-up vantage point than people in DisneyWorld generally get. And Disney hasn't got anything to do with it. Interesting.
Originally Posted By Brian Noble If you really want to have some fun, ask a question on, say, the DISboards DVC forum about Bonnet Creek, and watch the sparks fly. TWDC even went so far as placing a huge DVC billboard right across from the entrance to Bonnet Creek, though I'm not sure if it is still there.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Oh well. I LIKE the way the Swan and the Dolphin look. I think the Michael Graves designs are far more interesting and pleasant to look at than about 99% of the hotels out there (including many Disney ones). As far as intruding on Epcot’s "skyline"... they are a far better looking intrusion of the “real world†than those god-awful looking fireworks barges in the Showplace Lagoon. I’ve never quite understood the purist’s demanding total isolation from the world anyway. For the Magic Kingdom, yes. The place is a fantasyland and you don’t want the real world poking in. But Epcot (and DCA) are all about the real world. You are taking a standard Walt created for a fantasy park and trying to apply it to everything. That’s the problem I have with the "purists". They take a design standard that Walt had for ONE place at ONE specific time and declare that they are sacred principles governing all future Disney development. Poppycock. << And those hotels were planned and built with Disney's blessing.>> I believe that is correct. The attached link has a very informative history on the design and development of the Swan and Dolphin hotels http://www.mouseplanet.com/articles.php?art=ww060726ws
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo If memory serves, it was Eisner that gave the designs the green light.
