Originally Posted By Manfried "And does anyone know what exactly the DisCo is going to do to the sides of Car Land that face the west and south?" I think its time to obsess over something else now.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///One question? Do people who drive around on Katella or Harbor pay money to Disney? No, so why should Disney pay for something for them to see?/// 1) a percentage of mortorists ARE patrons 2) a percentage of motorists are potential patrons but most importantly..... 3) Are you not embarrassed if you have tall weeds and/or brown grass growing in your front yard or a broken down car on blocks on an oil stained driveway? I would be. Those who pass by might not know you but they will likely assume that your house on the inside is an abosolute junk pile complete with mold and rat droppings. Many assume that how you keep the outside of a property is, for the most part, how you keep the inside. That is why "curb appeal" is so very important when marketing a residential property for sale.
Originally Posted By Manfried You know, long before it was a resort, right there visible from the parking lot (and still is from the tram) was the backside of several show buildings. Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean and Indiana Jones. Oh, and dare I mention the monorail shed that as I recall everyone can clearly see from the freeway. Disney never really tried to hide them. They did paint them green. And for the most part that's the way they are to this day. And I bet if you look there are a lot of objectionable things to see from the parking structure. But I'm being obvious so that I'm not being derogatory.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I tend to agree with you Manfried. My main interest is in how the backside will look from inside the park where the "show" is, not Katella Ave, which is essentially "backstage".
Originally Posted By Manfried On that part, Dr. Han, I agree with you. From inside the park it needs to be themed properly. That's what people pay to see and should be done right.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Well, things change. Backstage buildings become visual intrusions when the Disneyland parking lot becomes Downtown Disney. And for the record, I've always thought all the backstage views along the Disneyland Railroad were / are ugly and 'bad show.'
Originally Posted By gadzuux I walked the length of the resort's southern border last year, and remember thinking it looked pretty good. We had been taking an ART shuttle from our hotel up Harbor to the parks, and at the last minute jumped off at Harbor and Katella, and walked over to the Coco's at Katella and DL Drive for breakfast. The "seam" between disney property and the rest of Anaheim was well done, leafy and green, mostly obscuring the view from the street. Even the convention center on the opposite side meets the street in an agreeable and pedestrian friendly way. Perhaps looking into DL property from an elevated vantage point - such as a room inside the Hilton - would reveal more unpleasant views, but from street level it was very nice. The walk from Coco's to the resort - up DL drive - was also very pleasant, with wide swaths of trees and fussy landscaping and gently curving walkways separated from the roadway. I don't see a problem here.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Wow Jim. Good thing you didn't see it back in the fifties and sixties.> Well, my first visit to Disneyland was in 1969 -- so I just made it! People here always like to write 'well, have you seen pictures of Disneyland from opening day? You can see all kinds of visual intrusions from inside the park!' Of course. But the park was new and none of the 'rules' of theme park design (the rules that Disney put in place for itself in order to separate it from other amusement park) had been established. It's like watching a movie from the silent era -- and seeing a rocket ship scene that is a cardboard toy hung from a piano wire and a lit sparkler used as the exhaust fumes. The sets are a bit cheesy, the lighting is clunky and uneven. But it was the birth of movies. Early TV is fun to watch too. But the industry was new, and the learning curve was steep. My point is that times change. Special effects have gotten more advanced over the past 90 years. We have higher expectations when we go see a movie with special effects. Heck, I used to be able to spot a matte painting from the moment it came on the screen. It's not so easy anymore! In the same way, Theme Park Design has gotten more sophisticated and our expectations of what we 'see' increases. In 1955, Disneyland was a whole new type entertainment, and so people who visited, had their own experiences with which to compare. I've been visiting theme park, and mostly Disney Theme Parks, since I was 7 years old -- so over 40 years -- and based on my experience, I can see the difference between something schlocky (Magic Mountain) and something high-quality (Disneyland). I am also able to see differences in quality at Disneyland. The 'Indiana Jones' queue -- highly immersive and amazing. The 'California Screamin'' queue -- not so much. As I wrote before in this thread, times and situations change. The more people go to Disneyland and are 'wow-ed' by what they see, the more they expect on their next visit. I'm not exactly sure why that's a bad thing.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Third paragraph correction... <to separate it from other amusement park) had been established.> Had NOT been established...
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Jim I think you are right on point, however on the list of issues I think that in this case the "backstage" view of the mountain from Katella isn't that big of a deal. Certainly it would be better if the structure were decorated all the way around, but frankly I'd rather that Disney cut those costs and use the capital for something worthwhile inside the park. Looking at the pictures someone posted from the street I think the average visitor won't even notice, especially if it ends up being a flat wall with a simple paint job like that of other backstage buildings at the Resort. On another note, one of the things that is evident about this project, at least judging from online pictures, is that the power lines will not be completely obscured by the mountain range. Oh well.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <On another note, one of the things that is evident about this project, at least judging from online pictures, is that the power lines will not be completely obscured by the mountain range. Oh well.> Crazy, right? Just goes to show how tall those suckers really are. I'm intrigued that when EPCOT Center opened in 1982, track was added to allow guests to get from Transportation & Ticket Center to EPCOT Center using the monorail. In fact, the monorail takes a an extra bit of track route to move guests through Future World and to get a sneak peek of World Showcase. Now, flash forward to 2011, and I hear 'cost prohibitive' much more often on several different Disney projects -- the towers outside of DCA, and the monorail and the 'one million dollars per mile' cost being at the top of the list. Maybe it's another 'times change' type of thing.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Now, flash forward to 2011, and I hear 'cost prohibitive' much more often on several different Disney projects -- the towers outside of DCA, and the monorail and the 'one million dollars per mile' cost being at the top of the list." It makes you wonder how they were able to justify those expenditures back then, doesn't it? I guess we have to be honest and acknowledge that as wonderful as Disney parks may have been back then, they were probably a lot less profitable than they are today, and the overall success and health of the company is what has kept Disney intact for almost 100 years. There was a time, right before Eisner took over, that things were looking pretty bleak for the Walt Disney Co.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Now, flash forward to 2011, and I hear 'cost prohibitive' much more often on several different Disney projects -- the towers outside of DCA, and the monorail and the 'one million dollars per mile' cost being at the top of the list.>> I always wonder just what they mean by "cost prohibitive" - does that mean that building a new monorail would sink the company, or that profit margins just won't be as big this quarter? Is it really that they can't afford it, or that they don't want to take any hit to short-term profitability - even if it would help things out in the long-term?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I think the simple answer is that it means that it isn't what's best for the company, that is the people who have money invested in the business. The idea is to make the biggest profits by keeping capital expenditures within reason. For the most part Disney's theme parks aren't cheap to build or operate, and they've learned a terrible lesson with DCA that you can't produce a sub par experience to your core customer and expect great results. Still, even with the upgrades, you can see that almost everything they are doing is linked to some brand or fanchise, which helps to justify the expense for upper management. Unless a monorail movie, TV show or government grant is in the works you can pretty much forget about any new monorails being built at DL or WDW under the current management team
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>a monorail movie<< It could happen. They seem to have a one-track mind about turning rides into movie franchises. ba dum bump.
Originally Posted By Manfried People keep bringing up the Matterhorn, Space Mountain and Tower of Terror. Well of course they are fully themed nearly all the way around. Why? Because they are visible from nearly all the way around inside the parks. Note the phrase: Visible from inside the parks. If its not, to heck with it. Save the money for a new attraction.
Originally Posted By avatarmickey115 I think they should do exactly what they did for the Indy show building...just instead of jungle, make it.......rocky?
