Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>I think you are talking about the entire resort complex, not just DCA.<<< No, I'm talking about DCA alone. Disneyland existed as a stand alone theme park for 45 years, Disneyland Hotel notwithstanding. Disneyland never had to contend with its hotel being a part of the theme. When DCA was announced, they made a big deal of how it would be "the first Disney theme park with a hotel inside the park." Like it was some sort of plus or something. Big deal. It was an intrusion on Day One, and it's only going to be an even worse intrusion once the expansion is built.
Originally Posted By bean that piece of property was and had always been designated for the hotel expansion. It was never considered for the park. part of that 2.5 acre hotel expansion was already parking area for the hotel. That parking area will now be underground.
Originally Posted By bean I do understand what you are saying though and maybe in the future future devlopment in the northern edge of the pier might be tall enough to block some of the visual intrution of the hotel when walking in the area.
Originally Posted By frailejon >>The Grand Californian's uniquely Californian craftsman style overlooking Condor Flats and Grizzly Peak works just fine in my opinion.<< I don't know if I can call it "uniquely Californian"; people seem to mention Frank Lloyd Wright a lot when they talk about the architecture and furnishings of the hotel, and he was born and raised in Wisconsin.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros However, later in his career, he moved to Arizona and produced many of his better known buildings while he was there, mostly for clients in California. The Hollywood area is full of his houses, and I believe he designed some non-house buildings in the SoCal area too. Part of what makes California so interesting (as highlighted in Golden Dreams) is that it's made up of people from all over, bringing in their different cultures and letting them mix. Not that I'm really defending it all that much, since he stopped making wooden buildings around the time he moved out west, and started making them out of stone and concrete. Also, the building really doesn't look that much like his style, but rather a more modern take on the traditional arts and crafts look, which he really didn't have anything to do with. People throw around his name because it makes them feel like they know something, when he really has no connection to anything related to the hotel.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Indeed, especially as the GCH owes far more to Greene and Greene and Macintosh.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt <I don't know if I can call it "uniquely Californian"< Well it sure doesn't look like Boston or Miami to me.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig There are exactly two houses in Hollywood, and one in Pasadena, the were done by Frank Lloyd Wright. That's it for Southern California. He also did a retail store in San Francisco, and the Marin County Civic Center. That's pretty much it for Wright in California. And none of the above were considered "craftsman" style. There may be some interior furnishings, etc., that are Wrightian, or inspired by Wright. But that's about it. Wright's final large commission was the Guggenheim Museum in New York. He passed away before it was finished being constructed.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>that piece of property was and had always been designated for the hotel expansion. It was never considered for the park.<<< Maybe that was the original master planned usage, but I do know that WDI made a concerted effort to have that area become park attraction expansion space. >>>I do understand what you are saying though and maybe in the future future devlopment in the northern edge of the pier might be tall enough to block some of the visual intrution of the hotel when walking in the area.<<< Yeah, I hope so. We'll see...
Originally Posted By frailejon >><I don't know if I can call it "uniquely Californian"< Well it sure doesn't look like Boston or Miami to me.<< It could be anywhere from California to Oregon to Washington state to Idaho or Montana to me.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby <<I do understand what you are saying though and maybe in the future future devlopment in the northern edge of the pier might be tall enough to block some of the visual intrution of the hotel when walking in the area.>> They will never really block the "visual intrusion" because they do not regard it as "intrusion" at all - what we call "intrusion" is for them the entire point. That is the only reason to build a hotel right next to the park - so it can be seen from the park and so they can sell expensive rooms which look directly into the park. Why would they minimize this?
Originally Posted By bean well i doubt that anything that large will ever be built to block the hotel completely. notice i said "when walking in that area" so basically the hotel will always be seen from several areas around the bay as a backdrop but could clearly be blocked when guests are walking in the northern area of the park. Something similiar has been in discussion in regards to the Paradise pier hotel. It will always be seen from other areas of the pier (well unless its torn down someday) but by building structures and adding landscaping the hotel could be mostly hidden from view when guests are experiencing the northern edge of the pier. TOT position was picked for similiar reasons. The tower sets a visual impact when seen from the parade corridor when walking east, it is also visible from the esplanade and entrance but is set back enough to not overwhelm the smaller soundstage buildings when walking on the main HPB walkay until you reach the end and get a full visual impact of the height of the structure.
