Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<I do, but I think what they were trying to achieve with the original DCA was much more ambitious than what's they did with the redo.>> Not to re-open a can of worms, but do you really believe that Disney was trying something "ambitious" with DCA 1.0? I know the marketing for the park claimed that it was something new - not like other Disney parks - that it was "hip and edgy", but I just don't see that as being what they originally were hoping to achieve with Disneyland's second gate. I think that was what they had to say to sell the place, given how cheaply done the original version of the park was. If the Imagineer's were actually given a proper budget to begin with, I'm pretty sure DCA would have ended up a lot closer to the more traditionally themed parks, with layers and layers of details, we expect from Disney. I mean, this was at the same time that Disney was building Tokyo Disney Seas, so it's not like the company just suddenly forgot how to design a theme park with layers of details. I think we only got the "hip and edgy" marketing because they couldn't afford to build what they originally wanted.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Not to re-open a can of worms, but do you really believe that Disney was trying something "ambitious" with DCA 1.0?>> Originally - yes. The brief was "let's push the envelope" and some of the initial ideas that gained traction were very off-the-wall - particularly for HPB. PP was a lot grander in the first renderings and the rides were predominantly bespoke. I'd love to see a book about the making of that park - an honest assessment from that infamous Aspen retreat to what became the "finished product". Ultimately as budgets got cut it just ended up being DCA 0.1.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Not to re-open a can of worms, but do you really believe that Disney was trying something "ambitious" with DCA 1.0?" Absolutely.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<The brief was "let's push the envelope" and some of the initial ideas that gained traction were very off-the-wall - particularly for HPB.>> Interesting? But "push the envelope" how? What was the goal to make a different kind of theme park? To make something "not-like-Disneyland"? To build a place that appeals to rich corporate types that vacation at places like the old Disney Institute? What were they trying to originally achieve with their park about California? To me, pushing the theme park envelope was the original EPCOT Center. There was something that wasn't the same as the Magic Kingdom, yet still had the style we'd come to expect from Disney. At the end of the day, what opened as DCA 1.0, or 0.1 as you put it - LOL, felt a lot like Epcot-lite. It was like they were trying for that World Showcase feel of shopping and dining without the actual high-quality theming, and without any Future World to anchor the place with great attractions.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "To me, pushing the theme park envelope was the original EPCOT Center." The original vision for DCA was a lot more like EPCOT than it is today. What we have now is a lovely place, but one that is more like a textbook "Disney" Imagineered park rather than something cutting edge. What makes it work now is that it really does have something for everyone, and I enjoyed my last visit more than DL. The first iteration of DCA was flawed, but was headed in the right direction. After it sputtered on opening Disney panicked and ditched much of the stuff that made the park interesting and unique and went for the tried and true with the remodel. It's working, and that's great, but I really do wish the money had been spent on reinforcing the original concept.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "It was like they were trying for that World Showcase feel of shopping and dining without the actual high-quality theming, and without any Future World to anchor the place with great attractions." It's been said several times now that the budget was slashed. Had they invested more at opening Disney could have achieved exactly what you're talking about - with a few strong E tickets and strong thematic design elements to flesh things out. Ahhh... but it's too late now.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<It's been said several times now that the budget was slashed. Had they invested more at opening Disney could have achieved exactly what you're talking about>> True - but I wouldn't exactly call that "pushing the envelope" in theme park design. Maybe as far as it went in Anaheim, but we'd had that for years already in Florida with EPCOT. And frankly, if that's the type of experience they were trying to achieve, why didn't they stick with the WestCOT concept? Why go for a California-themed World Showcase-lite when you could have have had the whole shebang?
Originally Posted By sjhym333 And has Disney learned from that? Not really. While I appreciate the need to have a workable budget, it is time for Disney to loosen the budget a little to be able to build things right the first time.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "True - but I wouldn't exactly call that "pushing the envelope" in theme park design. Maybe as far as it went in Anaheim, but we'd had that for years already in Florida with EPCOT." I don't think it was anyone's expectation that Disney create the next generation of theme parks in Anaheim. Had they simply infused the place with more thought, a little more money (okay, a lot more money), and created a showplace on a scale that rivaled DL we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And frankly, if that's the type of experience they were trying to achieve, why didn't they stick with the WestCOT concept? Why go for a California-themed World Showcase-lite when you could have have had the whole shebang?>> Why do another Epcot when there already is one in Florida. Don't people already complain about the various parks being clones of each other? I think the California theme would have been excellent if it had been developed properly. I also think they should have taken more time to "tweak" some of the early restaurants and attractions before panicking and closing them altogether ( I realize 9/11 had something to do with the atmosphere of panic). By closing so many things at once the park seemed to be semi-abandoned from the start. Not the image you want a new park to have!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Why do another Epcot when there already is one in Florida." I remember when Westcot was first proposed when Disney was weighing it against DisneySea in Long Beach. I kept thinking they should just ditch Long Beach and build DisneySea in Anaheim. While Westcot as proposed would have been visually stunning, the content struck me as somewhat pointless since EPCOT would clearly be superior. I think what we've ended up with today is far more entertaining, and despite being far more modest than Westcot, DCA makes a nice complement for DL. It's funny to imagine that Disney once considered building a boat ride in Anaheim featuring AA scenes of Leonardo da Vinci working on the Mona Lisa, the burning of Rome, and Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel. I'm having a real hard time imagining the die-hard DLR AP fans lining up in droves for that one.
Originally Posted By Manfried Westcot, an uninspired concept if there ever was one. And then Disney went even more uninspired with DCA.
Originally Posted By TMI "I kept thinking they should just ditch Long Beach and build DisneySea in Anaheim" A big part of the vibe at Tokyo DisneySea is the fact that it is alongside the bay, giving the whole place an oceanic feel. There's even a sense that the S.S. Columbia could be navigated through the waterways of the park and out the floodgates straight out to sea. I think that's why they were stuck on the idea of making it oceanside in California, but that's just a guess on my part. It is certainly one of the cool factors in Tokyo that make the park so stunning.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Interesting? But "push the envelope" how? What was the goal to make a different kind of theme park? To make something "not-like-Disneyland"? To build a place that appeals to rich corporate types that vacation at places like the old Disney Institute? What were they trying to originally achieve with their park about California?>> There was definitely a conscious effort to create something very different to Disneyland - an anti-Disneyland I guess. Something that broke with the conventions of that park in design, backstory and execution. DCA deliberately set out to appeal to a different audience - however it definitely wasn't going after rich corporate type - it was meant to skew towards a younger adult demographic - not so many babyboomers (who make up the overwhelming majority of APers) and families. It obviously failed to find that different audience. I still think that TDA have now gone too far in the other direction and made DCA too much like DL 2.0 but guests are still turning up in their droves so what do I know.
Originally Posted By leemac <<And frankly, if that's the type of experience they were trying to achieve, why didn't they stick with the WestCOT concept? Why go for a California-themed World Showcase-lite when you could have have had the whole shebang?>> I'm still convinced that Port Disney/DisneySea at Long Beach was used as a blunt instrument to coral Anaheim into giving Disney a carte blanche to expand the resort. Disneyland got stuck with some assets that they didn't know what to do with when they picked up Wrather Corp - all they really wanted was the DL Hotel but they also got the Spruce Goose and Queen Mary. That period - from '89 to '91 saw a lot of development for WDW Co. but little out west so it was decided that perhaps a theme park would make sense to bolster those Long Beach attractions. I'm certain that it was only a half-hearted effort - Attractions felt compelled to try something but I'm certain it was to get the City of Anaheim to play ball with the threat to take expansion elsewhere. Disney Sea Long Beach was an odd project - some weird architecture and an uneasy combination of EPCOT and TDS - it didn't gel well at all. The collapse of WestCOT got blamed on EuroDisneyland's collapse in '92 but the real problem was that it was way too large - the compulsory purchase order list for neighboring properties was huge. Everything was just too big scale-wise for the DLR and the price tag was monstrous. The project was just exuberance and excess at every turn - I remember one ride being over 45 minutes long - just because they could. It make no fiscal sense at all. So instead of a $3bn park for the second gate we got a $680m one. The west coast version of Spaceship Earth had an estimated budget of more than Tim Delaney spent on Paradise Pier - and more than was dumped on BVS.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Why do another Epcot when there already is one in Florida. Don't people already complain about the various parks being clones of each other?>> WestCOT was being led by a lot of folks that had cut their teeth on EPCOT and loved the experience - they relished the opportunity to develop a west coast version. It wasn't a clone per se but it was a grandiose project. The company did release a PR booklet for WestCOT back in '91 - much like they did for Disney's America and the first version of DCA. It makes for interesting reading.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I think that's why they were stuck on the idea of making it oceanside in California, but that's just a guess on my part.>> That's a fair assessment - it make sense for the location. The biggest hurdle for Port Disney was that even at the height of the massive expansion of the resorts in the early '90s there was no appetite to begin a second resort location in SoCal - especially one just 25 miles from the Happiest Place on Earth. The real shame was that the land in Long Beach had a lot of potential and ultimately the Company just let the Spruce Goose exhibit and Queen Mary wither on the vine. The Queen Mary has gone through a lot of owners in its brief post-Disney life.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>The collapse of WestCOT got blamed on EuroDisneyland's collapse in '92 but the real problem was that it was way too large - the compulsory purchase order list for neighboring properties was huge.<<< Wasn't EuroDisneyland in general the reason why TWDC did so many cheap projects afterwards. Didn't Eisner fear another EDL fiasco?
Originally Posted By leemac <<Wasn't EuroDisneyland in general the reason why TWDC did so many cheap projects afterwards. Didn't Eisner fear another EDL fiasco?>> I think that just makes for cheap headlines IMHO. All too easy to say MDE became risk-adverse and that was that. EDL was a very different beast - it wasn't owned by TWDC outright and the bulk of the financing was achieved in the public markets. HKDL went down the same road and that was definitely a conscious effort to minimise initial risk and downside. However DAK and DCA were both developed and financed in-house - actually for very similar budgets. All of the business planners felt that both parks could be done "on the cheap" and folks would turn up. The world of project evaluation is driven entirely by IRRs and payback - the lower the investment, the higher the IRR and payback is how the mantra went. That method of capex evaluation was all the rage in the '90s as private equity exploded on to the scene and the likes of Jim Hunt (retired CFO WDP&R) loved it so used it as a blunt weapon to determine everything - and hence why decisions like DisneyQuest, Club Disney etc. got approved - it was all financial metrics and ultimately anyone can get numbers to say exactly what they want when there are subjective elements.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 All of that makes sense. But what about today? It seems that Disney is a little gun shy in investing in a large way in the Florida parks. Screamscape has a great picture today of the track layout of the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train from the sky. What I found interesting about that picture is that when you look at the expansion is seems rather small. I was actually surprised when I walked it the other day that it was much smaller than I thought. Again I thought it was very pretty, but what is currently open is a C-ticket ride, a restaurant, a small gift store and Gaston's tavern which is tiny inside. What about the Studios. A park that can really use some help. And DAK...will it actually get Avatar? Will it be more than just an attraction? What does corporate plan to do, if anything about investing in the Florida parks?
