Originally Posted By Dabob Larry: "Give me another word for scrutiny." Curly: (thinks)... "Scrutiny!"
Originally Posted By ZeusKitty Wouldn't they have had to bury the lines all along Ketella, and not just behind DCA. Seems to me to be a pretty large "city-wide" task for a new park on a budget. It's not like they could have buried them at Harbor, and brought them up again at West. I believe you really need to look at the "Big Picture" here. It should be the power company's responsibility to bury those lines along the entire route they follow, not Disney's. At the very least, the city, or even the county, should make a point to force the upgrades. It's not ALWAYS Disney's fault things are the way they are. Just some food for thought...
Originally Posted By jonvn Over time I think the power lines will not be viewable. They can only really be seen in a couple of spots as it is. But when they are seen, it's not good. I think the worst is by the entrance to the Hyperion. Couple other spots along the southern border of the park. It probably won't be hard to fix, but it will take some time.
Originally Posted By Britain I don't think these visual intrusion problems would exist at all if they put more time and care (and that costs money) into the placement of buildings in the park. You always see photos of Imagineers showing off that CAVE virtual reality wall with a computer mock up of Paradise Pier to "get the most visually pleasing results," yada, yada, yada. But I ask myself, did any of these computer models include the surrounding buildings? Or did they simply include DCA's new buildings? If it were up to me, they should have put Grizzly Peak in the back of the park, stretch it out, so that it would form a fine backdrop to DCA. They could have even turned the Grand Californian into a splended entrance/main street to the park, leading straight to the mountain. (I do like the way Downtown Disney currently occupies the lower level of the Grand Californian, but this would have been cool too, so let me play Monday Morning Quarterback.) Now, if you say "if the GC were in the center of DCA, then while in Paradise Pier, we'd be able to look back towards Disneyland, and maybe see the Matterhorn or the Indy show building." I say, visual intrusion of other Disney structures is more forgivable than visual intrusion of Anahiem buildings. ...Or is that just what the city council of Anahiem wanted...? Dum-Dum-DUM!
Originally Posted By Disneyspns i really don't undertsand what all this problem with power lines is all about. You can't compare WDW with Disneyland resort. WDW has over 45 square miles of land that could be used as barriers. Tokyo Disneyalnd also has a whole harbor to help as a barrier and Paris Disneyland has acres and acres of open land. How can you even compare sight lines with any of these places when Disneyland resort is completely surround by power lines hotels and freeways. Even if the parkinglot had been ugged to lower DCA and then create berms the power lines would still be visible. the areas where the power lines are most visble are in Warf area which will eventually be covered when the next phase of Timon lot is constructed and near the Hyperion which really does not look like an intrusion but as part of the detailed Backlot look. Some of you need to know that all these problems were looked and some decisions were made to let them be visible. This park was not meant to be looked at as a fantasy park like Disneyland but a small representation of California. The last time i went to the beach or drove to san frncisco i saw many powerlines and they never destroyed the look or feel of the area.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher It's very apparent from LP's message board that all of us who share an interest in Disney and its parks have surprisingly divergent -- and sometimes quite unpredictable -- likes and dislikes. Were we all DisCo. employees, the personal satisfaction or disatisfaction that each of us have with various Disney issues would undoubtedly affect our yay-or-nay decisionmaking, and would cause a pro-or-con reaction not necessarily having anything to do with how many dollars sat in our project's budget. That's why people here, and within the DisCo. in particular, can perceive the following photos (at the mouseinfo.com link below) of chain-link fencing in DCA in any number of ways. In regards to the middle picture showing the fence nearest the Grand Californian Hotel, I'm not sure what's going on there, and hopefully the green tarp (which makes what's shown in the top shot less visible) indicates the gate is temporary. But the picture on the bottom shows a sign that suggests the plain chain-link fence is part of the theme and must have been used purposefully (and therefore is permanent?). <a href="http://www.mouseinfo.com/showupdate.php?id=20502&page=3" target="_blank">http://www.mouseinfo.com/showu pdate.php?id=20502&page=3</a> This makes me think of Frank Gehry, the famous architect of the now-rising Walt Disney Concert Hall in L.A., whose design for his own house in a rather **affluent** part of Santa Monica included such fencing as part of its design. While chain-link is definitely cheaper than wrought iron, brick or stone, there's no question someone like Gehry used it for reasons that had nothing to do with money alone. In a similar vein, I've read of how the homes of very wealthy people in Beverly Hills have been known to reflect surprisingly questionable taste, both inside and out (and, believe it or not, some of them were built decades ago by developers who, even though they catered to the upper crust, didn't even bother to put their project's houses' power lines underground!). With all this in mind, the perceptions of some of DisCo's top people may make them truly baffled that a percentage of the public thinks DCA is anything but great.
Originally Posted By Nobody "But the picture on the bottom shows a sign that suggests the plain chain-link fence is part of the theme and must have been used purposefully (and therefore is permanent?)." I believe that is exactly the case (as opposed to a Gehry-esq design choice). ;-) Now for the half-empty / half-full chicken-and-egg discussion: Do you think the designers in selected an air field theme in anticipation of using inexpensive building materials? OR Do you think that the material savings are just a happy by-product of the already chosen theme? My guess (hope) would be option 2.
Originally Posted By Santa Monica Why don't they just string some light bulbs across the power lines to blend in with the hanging lights in paradise pier?
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA or just make them into one of those parachute drop rides like Knott's used to have. Or have a bungee jump attraction...
Originally Posted By ArchtMig The power lines weren't undergrounded because Disney or whomever had to pay the bill to underground them, didn't want to pay the bill to underground them, so they chose the less expensive alternative of moving them to the perimeter, and leaving them suspended above ground. This was not a code or ordinance issue, as there is absolutely no code or ordinance anywhere that gives preference to overground, rather than underground, electrical service. That's why almost all new commercial and residential developments are required to have underground electrical service, because that's how it's done these days. Older neighborhoods are undergoing the undergrounding of their electrical service, which is happening in many, many places, except in the poorest of areas. It's a very expensive thing to do. The power lines and surrounding buildings could have absolutely been dealt with better than they were, but that was not a priority. I think the whole place was very badly laid out. As was mentioned in another post, I would have placed Grizzly Peak in the back, alongside Katella. This, plus putting Condor Flats and the Soarin' building alongside there as well, would have effectively masked out the offending structures. I would have placed Hollywood where Condor Flats and Grizzly Peak are now. Then I would have themed the back side of the Grand Californian hotel to the facades of Hollywood so that it actually harmonized in with, and enhanced, it's surroundings. As it stands now, it sticks out like a sore thumb against Condor Flats, and yes, along Grizzly Peak. Craftsman Style architecture and 4 stories of repetitive balconied hotel rooms does NOT blend in with the Sierra feeling of the Grizzly area. Look up the Awahnee Lodge and study what style is more appropriate instead of Craftsman Style. Or try to envision the facades of the Hollywood district and imagine how easy it would have been to have all those hotel rooms behind them. I'll tell you why they laid DCA out the way they did, though. It's because they wanted Hollywood and Paradise Pier to be adjacent to all the future expansion land of the Timon parking lot, because those were the two areas they would be most interested in expanding. Paradise Pier because it's cheap to expand by just purchasing more off the shelf iron. And Hollywood because the people that call the shots at DCA are creatively bankrupt, and it's just easier to copy more attractions from Disney MGM (Tower of Terror, Rock n Roller Coaster, Millionaire), and maybe even Disney Studios Paris (Armageddon) than it is to actually think of new concepts for something new.
Originally Posted By damon63 >As was mentioned in another post, I would have placed Grizzly Peak in the back, alongside Katella.< So that the hotels and powerlines could form a backdrop for the mountain? I can't see how that would have been better.
Originally Posted By Britain No, the mountain itself would form a berm of sorts, blocking out all views of powerlines and convention centers. Now, obviously, the Grizzly River Run would have to have been different. More of a laterally moving arrangment instead of a radial arrangment, so that every time the rafts were outdoors, they'd be looking out to the north. (Sort of like the old artwork of a World Showcase version of the Matterhorn rather than the "holes on all sides" version of the Matterhorn at Disneyland.)
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>So that the hotels and powerlines could form a backdrop for the mountain? I can't see how that would have been better.<<< No, because the mountain itself is the biggest and tallest feature in the whole park, and would have effectively screened out the hotels and power lines from the rest of the park. Bulking out the back side of the park with a mountainous structure, and/or the tall buildings currently occupying the Disneyland side of the park, would have been the most logical way to keep the outside out. Instead, they positioned the shortest structures in the park (the Wharf and the east end of the Pier) alongside Katella, effectively making it impossible to screen out the outside structures.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>Now, obviously, the Grizzly River Run would have to have been different. More of a laterally moving arrangment instead of a radial arrangment, so that every time the rafts were outdoors, they'd be looking out to the north.<<< Yes, that's true, but I also think some of the radial arrangement could have been kept, because the rafts run in deep channels which effectively block the riders' views of the outside. In other words, the closer you are to the edge, the shorter that edge can be and still block your views of what's beyond. I've been musing about what might have been regarding the mountainous backdrop. If it were up to me, I would have tried to develop a theme where scaled down reproductions of the Halfdome and El Capitan of Yosemite (classic California natural landmarks!) would form the signature element of the mountain, rather than a Grizzly Bear head. This would have been the "wienie" to draw you towards the back of the park. At the front of the area, you would walk through a canyon pass leading you into the Yosemite area. This Yosemite area would essentially be the Grizzly area we have now, but it would be totally surrounded by rockwork, and would not be spoiled by adjacent views of carnival rides or huge hotels. Rather than weaving around the giant bear head, the rafts would weave around, through, and beneath the Halfdome and El Capitan peaks, on it's way down to the valley floor. I would have much prefered the Yosemite features over the bear head. For a park that is supposed to replicate, celebrate, and honor the wondors of California, as well as "celebrate reality", where Disneyland embraces fantasy, I can not understand why they created a bogus, illogical bear headed mountain that in no way would have looked that literal in the real, natural world.
Originally Posted By Britain Do you think that in the back of their heads, they were hoping for a low, non-mountinous horizon to imply the seashore beyond Paradise Pier? If so, they still left expansion room... Do you think they have any thoughts for a Sea (DisneySea, that is) themed attraction to rise up high in the background and finally block the offensive sights? I don't think Mysterious Island would work (volcanos off the coast of Long Beach aren't that common) but, perhaps a giant King Triton's Castle would be appropriate! But, having two of those attractions already in Paradise Pier (King Triton's Carousel and Jumping Jellyfish) makes me think that the facade from TDS's Mermaid Lagoon would be an excellent steal, but inside should be something new... How about that never realized Little Mermaid dark ride?
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>Do you think they have any thoughts for a Sea (DisneySea, that is) themed attraction to rise up high in the background and finally block the offensive sights?<<< Good thoughts, but there is no room at all for that over there. The best they could do at this point is to put up a tall flat framework similar to what they are doing surrounding Mulholland Madness, but much, much bigger. It could be themed to look like distant mountains, or maybe some sort of mural like the "postcard" entrance walls.
Originally Posted By JohnS3 "The power lines weren't undergrounded because Disney or whomever had to pay the bill to underground them, didn't want to pay the bill to underground them..." Yoiks! So when did the word "underground" become a verb? This is very unsettling!
