Originally Posted By jonvn In the Northridge quake, there was some pretty serious looking cracks in the towers. I guess it was ok, and not structural, because they still operate, but that earthquake was 60 miles away. If an earthquake happened in the area, I wonder how well they'd stand up to a strong shake.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Maybe not very well. But would that be because they are unstable or because that's what happens to buildings during major temblors?
Originally Posted By jonvn What year were they constructed? I think in the 60s, so they can't be up to the current earthquake codes. Certainly if they were built prior to 1971, they are likely way behind on current construction standards (unless they have been retrofitted). For that reason alone, I would rather stay at the GCH or Paradise Pier hotel because they are much newer buildings.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan I believe that they had eliminated the outside access before final construction, so there is no way to take advantage of that. The totally ugly stairway access to the theater is one of the other main issues. I think the concept you were referring to had the Hyperion getting an extensive overhaul that would have included a MAJESTIC lobby (chandeliers, grand staircase, the whole nine yards) and complete El Capitan level interior. I think that all they are planning on is just enclosing the stairway. So, while they can claim the theater is being upgraded, will it actually be a significant enhancement or just a haphazard ‘improvement’.
Originally Posted By bean I need to apologize for my typing, sometimes I am doing more than one thing and I tend to think faster than I type. By the time I notice the errors, I have clicked the send button. I just noticed the amount of errors in my last few posts.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>Well, the main towers of the DL Hotel haven't been touched since they were built, so it would stand to reason that alot of refurb needs to be done. Sure, they have re-painted the building, but strip off the paint and I can guarantee that there are tons of structural cracks and whatnot.<<< Wow. A guarantee, no less. Perhaps caltrans can hire you to just look at all the overpasses and deduce which ones are about to fall down, too. Just by looking at their exterior surfaces. And guaranteeing your official diagnosis. >>>Well yes, but as far as you know they are structurally sound and aren't about to tumble down, are they?<<< I would guess they're structurally sound. But then again, the guy did guarantee "tons" of "structural" cracks and "whatnot", didn't he? >>>In the Northridge quake, there was some pretty serious looking cracks in the towers.<<< After Northridge, there was some pretty serious looking cracks in a lot of buildings. That doesn't necessarily mean that the underlying structure was compromised. Just that stuff on the exterior needed to be patched. Which happened... all over Southern California. >>>I guess it was ok, and not structural, because they still operate, but that earthquake was 60 miles away. If an earthquake happened in the area, I wonder how well they'd stand up to a strong shake.<<< Probably fairly well. >>>Maybe not very well.<<< No really. Most likely fairly well. >>>But would that be because they are unstable or because that's what happens to buildings during major temblors?<<< Actually, the factors involved in any one particular seismic event are so varied that it's irresponsible to make blanket statements. During Northridge, there were houses red tagged right next door to houses that went mostly unscathed, in brand new tracts where the structures and materials were essentially identical. >>>What year were they constructed? I think in the 60s, so they can't be up to the current earthquake codes. Certainly if they were built prior to 1971, they are likely way behind on current construction standards (unless they have been retrofitted).<<< In the great San Francisco quake of 1906, there were a surprising number of buildings that actually survived the quake, only to be consumed hours or days later by the subsequent fire. And those were structures built with essentially no real building codes at all. Out of masonry. This we do know... a fairly modern steel framed building is more likely going to better ride out a quake than not. >>>... I would rather stay at the GCH or Paradise Pier hotel because they are much newer buildings.<<< I would rather stay at the GCH because it is pretty, and posh. Not because it is new. I would rather not stay at the Paradise Pier hotel at all, but given a free stay there, I'd be happy to. I would not at all for a minute hesitate to stay at the Disneyland Hotel over fear of structural collapse due to an earthquake.
Originally Posted By pwrof3 >>Wow. A guarantee, no less. Perhaps caltrans can hire you to just look at all the overpasses and deduce which ones are about to fall down, too. Just by looking at their exterior surfaces. And guaranteeing your official diagnosis.>> Well, I did just have my house completely stripped down to the original outside walls in order to put up texture coating.The walls are original from 1947. Paint and plaster can hide a lot of cracks and damages that are never even visible or thought about. So, taking my experience from that, it would be safe to assume that the DL Hotel towers have seen their share of cracking over the years.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>Well, I did just have my house completely stripped down to the original outside walls in order to put up texture coating. The walls are original from 1947. Paint and plaster can hide a lot of cracks and damages that are never even visible or thought about. So, taking my experience from that, it would be safe to assume that the DL Hotel towers have seen their share of cracking over the years. <<< And that makes you an expert in all such matters? Your 1947 house was framed in wood. The DL hotel towers have steel frame skeletons. Not exactly a direct comparison. A more accurate comparison would be to witness the work that is going on right now at the LAX "Theme Building", the futuristic spiderlike flying saucer thing that you see whenever TV shows or movies show a shot of LAX. The exterior stucco cladding is spalling off in huge chunks. Water has intruded and slowly rusted away the connecting elements holding the stucco skin in place. The whole structure is wrapped in scaffolding now, and they are peeling off most of the remaining stucco, and replastering the whole thing. But the structural steel legs are unaffected. The underlying structure is still viable, and sound. That's more like what is happening with the DL hotel towers. Only they're going to strip them down to bare structure for cosmetic reasons. Nothing more.
Originally Posted By aracuanbird It is amazing to me how many people assume that the natural expansion of the Disneyland property "needed" to be a second theme park. I think this nutty idea that Tony Baxter purportedly devised as a DCA retrofit is a superior salve to the notion of tossing a billion dollars into an ailing park. Why? Because the resort with a second park is far-more limited in its experience options. Disneyland has the market nailed when it comes to grand tehmed attractions set on a beautiful and (arguably) well-operated site. What does DCA bring to the table? At best, more of the same. At worst, more of the same, but at an inferior quality. Contrast what DCA is to what Sea World did with Discovery Cove, or what a Typhoon Lagoon on steroids could be. Imagine that plot of land with an ungated World Showcase, full of dining and show opportunities, with integrated lodging & DCA. Consider the attractions that could have been built here that would have served the local market and vastly-enhanced DtD. A high quality children's museum, a venue for artists-in-residence or a home for a respected art studio like Chihuly's. This DCA site could have been so many great, interesting, inovative things. Instead, Burbank-Glendale-Anaheim went for the obvious. And it has been a shaky result.
Originally Posted By aracuanbird ...And as for the placement of the DCA gate being the obvious, most logical decision, that makes me laugh. All I have to do is compare these paired-gate arrangements (DCA-Disneyland, WDSP-DLP) and their meager success with the gangbusters business that the Tokyo Resorts enjoy. The lesson there--for me, at least--is that it comes down to what you're offering and how you sell it. Guests will jump a few hurdles to get something they want. But tehy won't blindly "funnel" into your crappy theme park just because the gate is facing your nice theme park.
Originally Posted By aracuanbird ...And finally-finally--if the resort planners had been so sensitive to this idea that movemnet through the resort had to be this easy-going thing, with paired gates and symmetry between these entries, why in the heck did they throw it out when it came to laying out DCA. Compare the convoluted spider-web flow through that park to the easy hub-and-spoke of Disneyland and it is night and day. Disneyland's layout accomodated not just flow but expansion. I hate to predict failure, and I really hope I am wrong, but I can just imagine the trainwreck that this DCA expansion will result in.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I just noticed the amount of errors in my last few posts." Oh gee, don't even worry about it. All I ever do is wince after reading some of the stuff I post here because it never seems to look bad in the entry box, but once it's up, you see what a disaster it is. "That doesn't necessarily mean that the underlying structure was compromised. " Yes, that's true. If the place was structurally unsound, it simply wouldn't be open. "In the great San Francisco quake of 1906, there were a surprising number of buildings that actually survived the quake, only to be consumed hours or days later by the subsequent fire." It's an interesting thing about that. They think now that a major coverup was done by the city to hide earthquake damage. People at the time knew about fires destroying a city, but earthquakes were darned scary. They have gone back and looked at some of the photos taken after the earthquake and before the fire, and they can see where a lot of damaged buildings were retouched in the photos. Since most stuff was burnt away, it's not ever going to be possible to know the full extent of the destruction. But it is interesting to note that after the earthquake, everything they rebuilt was done out of brick instead of wood. They really were more worried about the fire more than an earthquake, given how brick buildings do in earthquakes.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It is amazing to me how many people assume that the natural expansion of the Disneyland property "needed" to be a second theme park. " Only because the place wasn't going to last without it. "What does DCA bring to the table? " A second gate, and reason for people to stay longer and give Disney more money.
Originally Posted By rocket jet Putting in an extension of Downtown Disney instead of a second gate wouldn't have guaranteed anything. Second gates are a tried-and-true way of insuring that your first gate remains successful in the longterm. That outdoor mall between Disneyland and DCA was just a little bonus.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "What year were they constructed?" I believe that the last one (the Bonita tower) was built in the late 70's or early 80's. The Marina tower went up in the early 70's. I don't think those buildings are old enough to be on the verge of tumbling down in a moderately strong earthquake.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yeah, they are as safe as most any other building. There was a lot of change in building codes after 1971. After every big earthquake, they figure out ways buildings fell down, and make new rules to cover those situations, which is great, until the next unknown comes along. But it does work really well. I mean, we get 5.0 scale earthquakes here and almost nothing happens. In other countries, they get them, and thousands die.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>I mean, we get 5.0 scale earthquakes here and almost nothing happens. In other countries, they get them, and thousands die.<<< Right. Because earthquakes don't kill people... stuff falling on people kills people. In Northridge, the biggest killer was a seemingly innocuous wood framed apartment building that had a weak ground floor, which pancaked under the weight of the two floors above it. In the third world, the cheapest local materials and methods are used to build dwellings and other types of buildings, and that usually means brick, stone, and mud. Look at the rubble that results from those realtively minor 5.0 temblors, and you don't see any steel reinforcing bar poking up through. Because they don't use it. They just slap heavy unreinforced mud or masonry together and it all comes down and kills thousands of people in seconds.
Originally Posted By jonvn "the biggest killer was a seemingly innocuous wood framed apartment building that had a weak ground floor" I lived right across the street from some of those apartments that collapsed for over a year. At Reseda and Lassen. Eek. Very scary. I spent a lot of time in the Northridge Fashion Center, too. Thank god that quake did not happen a few hours later, hundreds would have been killed in that mall.
Originally Posted By pwrof3 Earlier in this thread someone was complaining about the position of the Grizzly mountain. what's sad is that a lot of guests don't even see the mountain until they happen to look up at some point in the day. Most guests, after seeing the mountain, ask "Why is there a giant wolf?" The whole thing was horribly constructed- the snout is too long which is why it is mistaken for a wolf.
Originally Posted By Schmitty Good Vibes >>>They think now that a major coverup was done by the city to hide earthquake damage.<<< I know that this is a fact. To what extent I can't say. It's family history ; - ) I wouldn't hesitate to stay at the Disneyland Hotel if that was your preference. How many hours will you be in the tower? 30? out of how many hours in a year? 8,760? And how often do major earthquakes occur? That is, how many years between major quakes? (Insert favorite comment about traffic deaths here.) ArchtMig's posts are pretty spot on about how well the structure would probably do.
