Originally Posted By dshyates This one sorta looks like the grand FL. <a href="http://www.hoteldel.com/" target="_blank">http://www.hoteldel.com/</a>
Originally Posted By ArchtMig ^^^ That's intentional. Disney used the Hotel Del Coronado as inspiration when they designed the Grand Floridian. As to Victorian theming, it was definately in vogue when the seaside resorts were at their heyday, and I'm thinking nearer the turn of the century than the '20s. I thought it was a mistake to put a seaside amusement pier into a park about California in the first place. I always thought they were more of an east coast thing... Coney Island, etc. I was surprised to learn that there were as many of them here as there were. But I would venture to guess that if you polled the average person across the country and asked them what comes to mind when they think "California", very very few of them would attribute "seaside amusement pier" to California. Eisner had a bug up his behind about including an amusement pier area into one of his theme parks. The concept was originally supposed to go into Disney's America. When that went bust, the next unlucky development that was doomed to get it was Anaheim's second gate. No matter if the concept was suited to a park about California or not. Too bad that the concept had to have so much valuable land devoted to it. But back to Victorian theming. It definitely was a prevalent style for the east coast amusement piers, so it's a natural choice to retheme an area that really ought not to be in a park devoted to California anyway. Regardless, I'm sure it will be a huge, huge improvement over what's there now. DCA is so disheveled and bastardized thematically, anyway... who cares what they theme the pier to, as long as it's period looking, and pretty?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I thought it was a mistake to put a seaside amusement pier into a park about California in the first place. I always thought they were more of an east coast thing... >> Having lived on the east coast for most of my life, I have to say that I have seen more seaside amusement piers or the remnants of historic amusement piers here in So. Cal than I have seen during a lifetime of travels on the east coast. I guess people think the east coast is populated with a string of "Coney Islands" from Maine to Florida? Sorry, but that is a big misconception, and most of the east coast amusement "piers" may have had a pier extending in the water but all of the amusements were located ashore. California has a good history of amusement piers where the bulk of the activities actually extended above the water.
Originally Posted By Momtoo2 There actually is a lot of "Victorian" era seaside communities along California's coastline. Maybe not with amusement rides on the piers but there is San Francisco, Eureka, Florence...lot's of little towns on the Northern California coastline where logging was/ is prevalent. We have vacationed twice up there and the houses are so beautiful when the are restored. Whatever the do along the Pier area will be an improvement over the midway (let's go to the local fair) area.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I thought it was a mistake to put a seaside amusement pier into a park about California in the first place. I always thought they were more of an east coast thing... Coney Island, etc." There was a time when there were dozens of seaside piers in California. So, it makes perfect a perfect sense that a company which has built its reputation on nostalgia included such an area in a park themed to this state. "DCA is so disheveled and bastardized thematically, anyway... who cares what they theme the pier to, as long as it's period looking, and pretty?" But isn't the whole idea here to IMPROVE the park's themeing and storytelling?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "There actually is a lot of "Victorian" era seaside communities along California's coastline. Maybe not with amusement rides on the piers but there is San Francisco, Eureka, Florence...lot's of little towns on the Northern California coastline where logging was/ is prevalent. We have vacationed twice up there and the houses are so beautiful when the are restored." That's true, but PP isn't themed to any of those towns. It's themed to a California oceanside amusement zone. Generally speaking, those places did not feature Victorian architecture.
Originally Posted By jonvn Because of the 1906 earthquake, much of SF was actually built in the period of 1906-1915. It's not pretty. These buildings are short, small, dumpy, and old. Dirty, lots of them. Main Street really does not reflet that the buildings were put up in 1910. It reflects a street at 1910, with buildings that were made maybe 25 to 30 years earlier.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I always thought they were more of an east coast thing... " I grew up going to them. They were a big part of life in SoCal. There were a few to go to. I have been to the east coast. They are not as numerous, which is not an odd thing, considering that their beaches are not as usable during most of the year as the ones in California. I don't mind the victorian architeture so much, but this style seems to be used an awful lot. "Eisner had a bug up his behind about including an amusement pier area into one of his theme parks." Plans for this sort of area date back to the 1970s. It pre-dates Disney's America, and it even pre-dates the Burbank mall concept where I had first heard of this idea.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < I guess people think the east coast is populated with a string of "Coney Islands" from Maine to Florida? Sorry, but that is a big misconception, and most of the east coast amusement "piers" may have had a pier extending in the water but all of the amusements were located ashore. California has a good history of amusement piers where the bulk of the activities actually extended above the water.> Actually, Coney Island's amusements are not on piers either. That goes for today, and during Coney Island's early 20th C heyday. Many of them are situated just off the boardwalk, but not on piers.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>[ME] "I thought it was a mistake to put a seaside amusement pier into a park about California in the first place. I always thought they were more of an east coast thing... Coney Island, etc."<<< [HANS] There was a time when there were dozens of seaside piers in California. So, it makes perfect a perfect sense that a company which has built its reputation on nostalgia included such an area in a park themed to this state.<<< Didn't I already own up to that by stating the following which you so conveniently chose not to quote or credit?: >"I was surprised to learn that there were as many of them here as there were."< That was the very next line I wrote right after the part you chose to quote. Do you know where I first learned that California once had a plethora of these amusement piers??? From King Triton's Carousel. In Paradise Pier. At DCA. Besides, my statement wasn't that there never was any of these types of installations here in California, it was that I bet that most people would not associate them with this state if asked. So what is your point then? Or are you just trying to be arbitrarily argumentative as usual? >>> [ME] "DCA is so disheveled and bastardized thematically, anyway... who cares what they theme the pier to, as long as it's period looking, and pretty?" [HANS] But isn't the whole idea here to IMPROVE the park's themeing and storytelling?<<< Isn't that what I just said in the line you quoted?? Especially if taken in context with the part I wrote immediately preceding, which you again somehow chose not to factor into your argument, which stated: >"Regardless, I'm sure it will be a huge, huge improvement over what's there now."< The whole darn point of my post was that if we're stuck with Paradise Pier in the first place, then giving it a Victorian thematic makeover is appropriate, and welcome, and can't happen soon enough in my opinion. Choose whatever justification you prefer in endorsing the decision to go Victorian - whether it be that there were all those piers back in the day in California, or there is a connection to that type of installation featuring Victorian architecture on the east coast, or that there were lots of Victorian styled hamlets/hotels/bath houses or whatnot on our coast... it matters not. What matters is that Paradise Pier will finally own up to what its creators claimed it was when they debuted it, but didn't actually build it to be that way, which was that it was a "re-creation" of the Seaside amusement piers of California's bygone days. Which certainly is NOT what the very modern and contemporary styled present day Paradise Pier is. So aren't we saying the same thing then, Hans??? I welcome your debating me if your opinion differs from mine or if you feel that my statements are factually in error. But please stop taking my stuff out of context or ignoring certain statements I make when arguing with other statements I make just to make a debate. You've done this in the past. Which is why I bring it up now. Especially since we are essentially both arguing over the same side of the coin.
Originally Posted By Sweeper I'm glad you enjoyed the post cards Jim. I would assume the Grand Floridian is a rework of the Hotel del Coronado, the Hotel Redondo, and many others from that time period. Actualy the GF looks a lot like the old Cliff House in San Francisco. <a href="http://www.rosieswarehouse.co.uk/images/CliffHouseSF1902.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.rosieswarehouse.co. uk/images/CliffHouseSF1902.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "So what is your point then?" My point was clearly stated. "Or are you just trying to be arbitrarily argumentative as usual?" No.
Originally Posted By dshyates Hans, you are absolutely being right about the hayday of Californian piers. They were in the 20's and were Art Deco in style. The guys who originally designed the pier and used elements in its current form. This picture clearly shows Art Deco influance. <a href="http://www.themeparkreview.com/dlr2005/dlr52.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.themeparkreview.com /dlr2005/dlr52.jpg</a> That said I up in the air on how bad a victorian theme will bother me. Do I want an authentic Art Deco theme, A never happened lush victorian theme, or a combo of the 2. Hmmm. If I had my druthers I think I would go with a lush Art Deco theme. Disney has done Victorian to death, but how cool would the pier be all done in neon, instead of the individual bulb look of the victorian period. It could be very cool. But the fountian show in front of a bunch of neon reminds me of something I can't quite put my finger on.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>Hans, you are absolutely being right about the hayday of Californian piers. They were in the 20's and were Art Deco in style. The guys who originally designed the pier and used elements in its current form. This picture clearly shows Art Deco influance. <a href="http://www.themeparkreview.com" target="_blank">http://www.themeparkreview.com</a> /dlr2005/dlr52.jpg<<< That thing is about as deco as post-modernism is classical. Yeah, it is influenced by deco, in places, but it's primarily modern and contemporary in appearance, structure, and materials. It's not a re-creation of an era, it's a modern take on it. Which I guess wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if they had gone through and completely and densely themed the entire Paradise Pier to that level of detail. But you can't point to one single marquee or the one real building that they did (Arial's Grotto) which were slightly dressed up and call the whole place good, while everything else is so flat, unadorned, and lifeless. If they had developed all of Paradise Pier to the degree they did in this picture, and landscaped it too, perhaps it wouldn't have required a complete make-over.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>"So what is your point then?" My point was clearly stated. "Or are you just trying to be arbitrarily argumentative as usual?" No.<<< Then what did you add to the debate that I had not already stated? Or, if you prefer - what did I say that you disagree with?
Originally Posted By dshyates "But you can't point to one single marquee or the one real building that they did (Arial's Grotto) which were slightly dressed up and call the whole place good," Oh, absolutely, i wasn't pointing at the Screamin' sign and saying the place is well themed, just that they were aware of the Art Deco influence. That's all. Ariel's is as lame attempt at victoriam as this is Srt Deco. It is all a modern take on a theme.
Originally Posted By dshyates I was just thinking about the pier redo. While I know the California piers are from the art deco days, and that they aren't victorian at all. There are the victorian hotels. That said I have decided the only way to bring the pier up to the standards of the fanciful, disney magic required of an international destination resort is an over the top Victorian theme. Women in bustles with parisols and men in ascots and spats. It would be the pier the Hotel del never built. (dream that will never happen: I would love to see an actual woodie in Screamin's place with a smooth 18 mph quite lim lift. The cars would be hand oiled mahogany like the 20s coaster cars. Burgandy leather with brass studded seats. it would be like a fantastic ride in a 20s Rolls Royce, no better. Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang.)
Originally Posted By jonvn You know, the more I think of it, the more I find victorian a little weak in the creativity department. I'm sure it will be nice, but three are so many other styles that are worthwhile and usable that I think it is a shame that this one style is gone back to again and again. A victorian pier is just kind of odd. What they should do (since I am charge) is this: Make the pier art deco extreme. Make a San Francisco section in victorian style, and make a hollywood section in a sort of classical or gothic style. We have arts and crafts in the hotel already. I think this actually would give more variety to the place.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I'm sure it will be nice, but three are so many other styles that are worthwhile and usable that I think it is a shame that this one style is gone back to again and again. A victorian pier is just kind of odd." That's what I'm sayin'.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Or, if you prefer - what did I say that you disagree with? Well, for starters, I disagree that DCA is "disheveled and bastardized thematically". I know you have a issues with the place, and that's fine, but for the most part I don't find as distastful as you do. In addition, I disagree with comment regarding the Victorian theming... "who cares what they theme the pier to, as long as it's period looking, and pretty?"
