Originally Posted By gadzuux I always liked . . . these-eyes-that-seenalottaloveuh-but-there-never-gonnaseeanother-oneuhlikeyooooooooooou
Originally Posted By lookcloser15 "But if this ever changing world, in which we're livin'" I think it's "but IN this ever changin' world in which we live in", no?
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>Due to the (perhaps flawed) design decision of having DCA's entrance be on the north side of the park, the lighting is compromised, and therefore you need gimmicks like the big reflectors on the sun icon to make the lighting its best. WDI knew this and built GRR to face south. It's the icon of the park and it needed to be lit correctly.<<< If that's so, then it's the only signature icon in any Disney themepark that I know of where you have to travel all the way to the back of the park and then turn around to enjoy it's full, southern lit effect. I don't disagree with you, cheesybaby, that sun angles may have been a factor that led Disney to lay DCA out the way they did. And I don't disagree that it would have been preferable to be able to enter the park from the south, rather than from the north. But I don't think that sun angles should have taken precedence over over all the other layout issues that Disney had to contend with at DCA. Due to the land they had available for a second park (the parking lot of the older park), and its immediate adjacency to the original park, I think that Disney made the right decision to make the new park's entrance directly opposite to Disneyland's. It just works better that way, for ticketing purposes, for circulation purposes, and for aesthetic purposes. But because they held so dearly to the positioning of their elements relative to the sun angles, if indeed that is why they did it, I think they paid very dearly in other equally important, if not more important, ways. DCA is the only Disney theme park where it feels as if you are entering the "back" of the park and heading toward the "front" of the park, in terms of how you encounter the major "weenie" elements. Can you think of any other Disney park where your first view of the major signature element is at its "rear" end, literally??? (I'm sure Doobie won't allow me to call it the bear's A** end!!) Is there any other Disney park where the weakest elements are what you look at first when entering the gates, and you have to go past all the weak stuff before you even get a glimpse of the big attractions? Is the Sun Icon really a sufficient signature element for the whole first impression of the park? Was it so important to have it lit by natural sunlight that they had to add the bogus heliostats? Some of which aren't working already? Is this Sun Icon, plus the squished Golden Gate Bridge, really an acceptable alternative to simply placing the signature element in the back like they do in the other parks? If sun angles were so important, then why did they place all the Hyperion marquee elements and adjacent Hollywood structures in such a way so as to cast shadows on the fancy cloud backdrop for most of the day, thus totally ruining the effect? Do most of the park's guests, with their disposable box cameras, and their strollers full of babies, and their faces buried in guidemaps, trying to figure out which ride to go on next, really care that the Grizzly Peak is to the north of the sun? Do any of them complain that Main Street Train Station, as seen from Town Square, is in front of the sun? Yes, I agree, it's a negative effect, but I think that it's the lesser of the evils that they had to contend with, and I'd rather they sacrificed sun angles in favor of better layout and planning.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA When you see the entire lyric, you'll see that it is 'if' But if this ever changing world in which we live in (or we're livin') Makes you give in and cry, Say live and let die. [so if this world makes you cry]
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> DCA is the only Disney theme park where it feels as if you are entering the "back" of the park and heading toward the "front" of the park, in terms of how you encounter the major "weenie" elements. << In terms of discussions about the park's back and front side, and south-facing areas being better due to the angle of the sun (the real one), ironically enough, DCA's sun icon doesn't really have a presentable back side, and its back side is the one that faces south.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >I respect that. But you asked if I >could think of any negative aspects >whatsoever, and I did. Sorry for coming back so late... Cheeseybaby you have convinced me that lighting was one of the factors used in determining the positioning of GRR. You put up a very convincing argument. BUT - I trend to still agree with archtmig. From a purely aesthetic view, I would find it much more perferable to place the bear either facing the entrance, or perpendicular to the entrance. Right now, it just seems silly to have the bears back facing Disneyland and the entrance, and if lighting was the only reason they did that, that just seems even more silly. But about the coaster- Surely they would have realized that just as many people would want to take pictures of Paradise Pier as GRR. If lighting was the over riding design contention for DCA, why would they then choose to have Paradise Pier viewed from the north where it would continually be backlit? Now getting back to the negative reasons for putting GRR on the south side of the park- I don't think lighting should count since it's all aesthetics. Do you put GRR on the south side to hide the ugly power lines? Or do you put GRR on the north to give it better lighting? Were there any other negative aspects to putting GRR along katella?
Originally Posted By cheesybaby ArchtMig - I agree with almost all of your points. I'm not saying they should have built DCA the way they did, I'm saying they had serious limitations and made choices about how to address them. <<I think that Disney made the right decision to make the new park's entrance directly opposite to Disneyland's.>> So do I. It is VERY cool to have the two entrances across from each other. <<If sun angles were so important, then why did they place all the Hyperion marquee elements and adjacent Hollywood structures in such a way so as to cast shadows on the fancy cloud backdrop for most of the day, thus totally ruining the effect?>> I agree 100%. I wince everytime I see those shadows on the Hyperion wall. How they went to such lengths with GRR and then just screwed up in other areas amazes me. <<But because they held so dearly to the positioning of their elements relative to the sun angles, if indeed that is why they did it, I think they paid very dearly in other equally important, if not more important, ways.>> I agree. The layout of the park does seem odd in key ways. But look at your first phrase: "because they held so dearly to the positioning of their elements...". What else could they have done? Would you have preferred that ALL the icons in the park look as crappy as the Hyperion wall shade problem? <<Do most of the park's guests ... really care that the Grizzly Peak is to the north of the sun?>> No. They just care that GRR looks cool, and it would not look nearly as cool if it faced north. They don't KNOW that, but it's true. <<it's the only signature icon in any Disney themepark that I know of where you have to travel all the way to the back of the park and then turn around to enjoy it's full, southern lit effect.>> I agree. Look, all your points illustrate the unique characteristics of DCA in my view. The site for DCA had MANY basic layout problems, some of which can never be overcome. WDI knew they had the following limitations, among others: 1) It makes the most sense to put the entrance on the north. Doing this causes lighting problems and forces people to walk south of an icon before seeing the icon. Either that or all the icons look crappy. If we put the entrance at the north, all our icons get screwed up, but we have to put the entrance on the north. 2) Visible intrusions/Power lines. Either we spend major bucks to put them underground, or they are visible. Include with this the Hilton, convention center, and the PP Hotel. 3) Capacity. A park built in the parking lot will not have as large a capacity as DL, so we can't make it desirable to 100% of DL visitors. If 100% of DL visitors want to go to DCA, they'd have to close the doors everyday and have a lot of unhappy people who wanted to be customers. These are just some of the KEY problems. So the question for Disney was the following: do we build a second gate for Anaheim KNOWING that we will have these basic layout/design/logistics problems, or do we just not build a park at all? You could make a case that they should have just not built anything. They made the decision to build the park. I happen to like DCA very much, but I have to acknowledge that these limitations were pretty serious, and they jump out at me every time I visit the park, and they'll always be there, so they always will. Jim in Pasadena - I have the Paul McCartney greatest hits CD. It has the lyrics printed in the booklet. We can all cringe together - the published, written lyrics are "but in this ever-changing world in which we live in." On behalf of writers (and people who just happen to use the English language) everywhere - Sigh.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby tangaroa - Like I said to Archt, we are on the same side of the argument here. I'm not trying to argue, but I have to point out something in your response: <<Now getting back to the negative reasons for putting GRR on the south side of the park- I don't think lighting should count since it's all aesthetics.>> "all aesthetics." YES it is all aesthetics, but aren't aesthetics a huge part of a theme park? I don't understand how you dismiss aesthetics. What is the difference between Six Flags and DL if not aesthetics? If you don't care about aesthetics, why are you so passionate about the Disney parks?
Originally Posted By tangaroa Forgive me- I haven't had breakfast yet: I meant it was just an opinion as to which would be better. Hiding the ugly power lines or creating good lighting. Assuming that everything else about GRR (the ride, and theme, the story.. all that good stuff) would stay the same. It's all aesthetics. There isn't any real operational need to have GRR where it is, other than making the park feel bigger because it has a giant mountain in the middle.
Originally Posted By damon63 >Maybe not from the Matterhorn, but from inside DCA, yes it would.< Not unless it stretched along the back of the park from Harbor to Disneyland Drive.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >Not unless it stretched along the back >of the park from Harbor to Disneyland >Drive. Why would it have to do that? The powerlines and hotels are mostly visible from the Farm and from the east side of the park. Right behind screamin there isn't much to block out. The three big offenders (Hilton, Westcoast, and Convention Center) are all on the east side of the park closer to harbor.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>What else could they have done? Would you have preferred that ALL the icons in the park look as crappy as the Hyperion wall shade problem?<<< Cheesybaby, I just don't feel that it's that big a deal. Especially with icons that are supposed to mimic natural structures. Real mountains aren't only viewed from the south looking north. The north faces of the castle, train station, and the Matterhorn all are viewed and enjoyed regardless of their orientation. First of all, I would not have been as literal with the bear's head to begin with, but as a signature icon, I would have no problem having this one element placed in the back. There are plenty of things left over that they could have given a south orientation to for lighting purposes. >>>Capacity. A park built in the parking lot will not have as large a capacity as DL, so we can't make it desirable to 100% of DL visitors.<<< Their intention was never to try to match the capacity of Disneyland. Actually, at full build out, DCA could meet or exceed Disneyland's acreage, but still could not match Disneyland's capacity because so many of DCA's attractions are real low capacity. And so much of DCA's acreage is given over to non-attraction uses such as Pacific Wharf, and Bountiful Valley Farm. >>>You could make a case that they should have just not built anything. They made the decision to build the park.<<< They only had one single goal in building a second park. They built it to try to get multi-day vacation visitors to fill their hotels and eat their food and go home loaded with souvenirs. They knew they needed more than one park to accomplish this. They already had Disneyland, and hotels. What they didn't have was the percentage of multi-day visitors that they really wanted. Hence the second park, and they thought that a park based on California would be a tourist magnet. I don't think that theme is as powerful a magnet as they assumed it would be. And, it's basically a turn-off to many who actually live here. They failed to realize that as long as they had a second park... a good one... one that had wide ranging appeal... then they would have attracted more vacation action. Theme would have been irrelevant. Creativity and uniqueness would have been the appealing factor, leading to interest in the park, good word of mouth, etc. Plus, they would have had a strong local repeat interest as well, so they would have come out on top on both counts. As it stands now, they are underperforming across the board. >>>I happen to like DCA very much, but I have to acknowledge that these limitations were pretty serious, and they jump out at me every time I visit the park, and they'll always be there, so they always will.<<< I'm glad you like it as much as you do. I only happen to like certain localized parts of it, but it's hard for me to enjoy them as much as I would if they were part of a park with an interesting theme and a better thought out execution. Example: I have a difficult time enjoying Condor Flats as much as it deserves because all it takes is one glance at the Grand Californian, and the whole effect is ruined. And that has nothing to do with power lines, the Convention Center, or sun angles.
Originally Posted By lookcloser15 "[so if this world makes you cry]" Context....what a concept! I shall now sing the song properly. Now, doesn't Bowie sing "I'll reject your breasts" in Fame?
Originally Posted By damon63 Why would it have to do that? The powerlines and hotels are mostly visible from the Farm and from the east side of the park. Right behind screamin there isn't much to block out. Because the powerlines, Convention Center and the Hilton are visible from Hollywood near the Hyperion, and you can pretty much see all of the traffic on Katella when you dine on the upstairs floor of the Winery. My point is that no matter what you do you would see out of the park to some degree. The power lines are a problem, however I don't think building Grizzly Mountain at the rear of the park is the best solution.
Originally Posted By jonvn I don't think any kind of perimeter construction would be a good answer. If it can be landscaped away, that'd be the best thing. Most of it can be landscaped away, too. But if they just built all along the perimeter a bunch of big buildings, it would have made the park look closed in. There's just not a lot that could have been done.
Originally Posted By jonvn When you can select exactly which "impossible" things you want to do, then it's easy to come across as a wizard. When presented with a real, physical limitation or problem it's not quite the same.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>But if they just built all along the perimeter a bunch of big buildings, it would have made the park look closed in.<<< Not any more so than it does if you go all the way to the back of the park and then look back towards the front. >>>There's just not a lot that could have been done.<<< Sure there was, if they really wanted to, but they did not make it a priority. Earlier generations of Imagineers, and more importantly, top executives, would have indeed made it a priority. >>>I love to do the impossible.<<< So did Walt Disney! That was his mantra. The mantra of the current management is to make as much money as possible, but not always to do that via creativity, ingenuity, and uniqueness, if they can achieve the same results with much less expense and effort. I think it takes more than just the Disney name to make for a true Disney Experience. I think the public at large can sense it, too. I think it takes the old Disney intensity in terms of industry leading, not industry comparable, quality. I just learned from post #134 that you can see the traffic on Katella from the upper floor of the winery. I had not yet had the opportunity to go up there, but if that's the case, I think that's just plain awful. Why spend $43 for an experience like that when you can go to your local Sizzler and just ask for a window seat. >>>If it can be landscaped away, that'd be the best thing. Most of it can be landscaped away, too.<<< If they planted a row of giant redwoods, closely spaced together, all along the Katella perimeter, and they waited for 20 years for them to grow big enough, then yes, I think that would help a great deal.
Originally Posted By ZeusKitty A nice big row of palms would probably be much better in this area. I also must comment on Condor Flats. In order to keep the theme of the area, you would really have to have a large expanse of desert where the GC is now. Something like this is not possible. When I look in that direction, I see a plane parked on the ground, a road going off to the left, and a billboard. I don't even notice the GC until I start walking down that road toward GRR. If the GC wasen't there then something else would. Again, spoiling the effect. When you have different themed areas so close to each other, sometimes it's hard to keep one area from overflowing into the other. In an area like this, you just don't have the luxury of having one building with two facades. It just wouldn't work. To me this just creates a flow from one area to the next, with a nice transition. Look around the sides of the walkways. The cactus eventually turns to evergreens and streams. This is a pretty good transition to me. Just my observations...
