WESTCOT Revisited at Yesterland.com

Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

Part 1 of a recap of the history of the DLR expansion. Interesting stuff.

<a href="http://www.yesterland.com/westcot1.html" target="_blank">http://www.yesterland.com/westcot1.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By FerretAfros

What I found most interesting in that article is that it said that the geodesic sphere in the center of the park was planned to be 300 feet in diameter. That's quite a lot, especially when you consider than Spaceship Earth at Epcot is only about 160 feet across (180 tall, since it's raised off the ground). I'm really glad that they didn't end up building that, because it would have been terribly out of scale with the resort. Even with the additions that they built in DCA, many of them can be seen from within DL (you can see TOT poking over Space Mountain from near the Matterhorn, the Golden Gate is visible from much of Main Street, and the Maliboomer is visible from near Big Thunder), so I can't imagine what another 100 ft in height would do to that.

As the focal point of the park, it would also be quite large. For a frame of reference, the WOC platform is about 320 ft at its widest point, so imagine that up in the air another 150+ ft. Whatever else they could have concievably wanted to put into that park would have been really difficult to do with that huge icon, especially since everything would be fairly close to it.

I vaguely remember hearing about the hotels within the park, which kind of seem like a neat idea. I guess it always came off to me like they were using space that could have been used as general park space, so I didn't like that they were taking that away for the hotels, but I kind of like the compromise they came up with for the GCH.

I think this article has the most I've read about the plans for the resort, and they seem pretty nice. I'm glad we ended up with DTD instead of a lake, since that would have just wasted a lot of space. DTD is more compact, but it's pretty elegant, so I think it's definatley a fair compromise. I have a hard time believing that they were going to have hotels named the Disneyland Hotel and the New Disneyland Hotel. That seems like it would be too confusing (people have enough issues with the three they have now), and would have gotten changed at some point in the process. It's interesting how many hotels they were planning on building, and I wonder where they were going to put them all, since space is an issue.

The one thing that it seems like they should have used from these plans is the extra parking structures. The one for the parks (and smaller ones for the hotels) in combination with the surface lots just doesn't seem to be working terribly well these days. I have faith that they will be able to work it out pretty quickly, but it would have been nice to not need to worry about it.

 

Originally Posted By xrayvision

I agree that we didn't need a lake for the shopping area. And, I also feel that adding an esplanade water feature (something similar to the globe water feature at TDS entrance or HKDL esplanade water feature) would be nice to break up the walkways with an added iconic element and gathering place. It seemed like such a water feature was included in earlier conceptual drawings of DLR's DTD (a much smaller rendition of the original Westcot geosphere centered inside a small fountain pool).

 

Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

Although Westcot was more ambitious that DCA I think what we ended up with is better than what was originally planned overall. I do wish, however, that Disney would get its act together with the resort hotel component of the development and consolidate all the various parking locations. I think the biggest disappointment is that the ugly towers of the Disneyland and PP Hotels are still there.

 

Originally Posted By xrayvision

Regarding the Westcot hotels, the article gave a good description and I had seen the concept drawings and heard a presentation. I was most looking forward to the Magic Kingdom hotel. I liked it's architecture, size, suggested amenities and rendered landscape. My least favorite of the conceptualized hotels was a Hotel del Coronado style hotel, which Disney already created at WDW (Grand Floridian). The Coranado look- alike could have fallen under the same criticism as DCA received..."as we already have the real thing in California, why do we need a fake version of it less than two hours away from the Real McCoy." The Grand California's artisan style hotel gave DLR an original hotel (with hints of features from national park hotels, CA architecture and Disney's own Fort Wilderness Lodge), yet without a complete mirroring of an already existing CA or Disney hotel.

As for Westcot, it seemed like the most exciting of the 3 Disney second gate parks conceptualized for Soutern California (although I do enjoy DCA). It was more fleshed out(as Long Beach's Disney Sea looked different from current TDS with a lot of red strings attached) and Epcot's World Expo theme with a future themed showcase had already been proven successful as a second gate for Disney.

 

Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

Here's part two:

<a href="http://www.yesterland.com/westcot2.html" target="_blank">http://www.yesterland.com/westcot2.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By ni_teach

What could have been.......

 

Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

I think the turn of events that led to the demise of Westcot and the ultimate scaling back DLR is the most interesting aspect of this whole story.

 

Originally Posted By Sport Goofy

The overall plan for Westcot always looked pretty miserable to me -- too many massive buildings that make this place look more like some sort of mall or indoor museum than a Disney park. I don't think it would have done any better than DCA -- and it sucked up all the real estate so there would have been nothing for them to do about it if things didn't go well.

 

Originally Posted By FerretAfros

I'm actually kind of glad that they didn't build Westcot. Looking at the plans, they wouldn't really have any backstage room in the new park, and the DL backstage area would be much smaller. There would be a lot of space used for things that really don't seem that important, like the shopping center lake.

There were also a pair of people movers, but neither really seemed to cover that much ground, especially considering the length of the moving walkways to get to them. There was one that stretched from the current DTD Monorail station to the M&F tram dropoff by the main entrance, but the moving walkways to get there stretched from the M&F tram stop all the way to the Monorail station. It was just a weird balance. The one on the other side had a similar issue, though not nearly as big of a difference in the lengths of the two. The Harbor Blvd dropoff area seems tiny in comparison with what we ended up with, which I think would have been a big mistake. What we got was ugly, but it's functional, and there are enough places for all the various busses and shuttles that go there.

Also, the main entrance plaza and walkways leading up to it seem very small for the number of people that need to use that space. Granted, the one that we ended up with is probably a little too big, that's the better side to error on. Especially with the ticket booths so close to the central planter/fountain, there doesn't seem like there would have been much room for the guests to actually walk around.

Westcot may have been a better park than how DCA turned out, but I am glad that they designed the entire resort the way they did. Not only is it functional in its current layout, but it also allows more flexibility for the future with new hotel developments and more foot traffic.

And did anybody else notice that the area directly north of the Festival Arena in Frontierland was included in the onstage area of DL in several drawings and models? Interesting...

 

Originally Posted By Manfried

Geez, I wonder what they spent on all the models and development only to throw it all away and come up with Disney's California Adventure.
Obviously both were "brilliant" (he said as sarcastically as possible) business decisions.
And Marty Sklar supported it? Hmmm. Makes me rethink my perception of Mr. Sklar a bit.

 

Originally Posted By 2001DLFan

^^^^
I've been rethinking my perception of Sklar for years.

 

Originally Posted By mousermerf

^^^ Rethought it ages ago when this info first came out.

 

Originally Posted By trekkeruss

<<I wonder what they spent on all the models and development only to throw it all away and come up with Disney's California Adventure.>>

Nothing is ever truly thrown away. Stuff that was slated for WESTCOT, Long Beach, Disney's America...many of the ideas get reused. Attractions at DCA, DLP, and TDS can all be attributed to ideas that were created for the abandoned resort projects.

 

Originally Posted By 9oldmen

A certain amount of money is always budgeted for the "Blue Sky" phase of development. Thousands of ideas for attractions, hotels, or even entire parks are planned out, but never built fully, ending up in the "Disney that never was" category. It happens with movies as well(i.e., "Don Quixote", "Chanticleer", or resurrected projects like the short "Destino".)
The money spent on planning and designing stuff is considerable, but is surely only a fraction of what the actual construction costs would be.

 

Originally Posted By mousermerf

Just to note - they have to be fairly certain what a ride will entail before they make a model.

Blue Sky is moreso ideas/concepts and sometimes concept art (often concept art is ordered afterward to "Sell" the idea.)

Very few models are made unless a design is fairly concrete, and that's because the particular designer is works in that fashion - the vast majority do not.

 

Originally Posted By oc_dean

>>
11
NEW! Manfried
Fri 12/18/2009 6:11p
And Marty Sklar supported it? Hmmm. Makes me rethink my perception of Mr. Sklar a bit.
12
NEW! 2001DLFan
Fri 12/18/2009 10:04p ^^^^
I've been rethinking my perception of Sklar for years.
13
NEW! mousermerf
Sat 12/19/2009 2:52p ^^^ Rethought it ages ago when this info first came out.
<<

Was confirmed for me, when he supported the changes to 'it's a small world'.

 

Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt

I don't think it would have done any better than DCA -- and it sucked up all the real estate so there would have been nothing for them to do about it if things didn't go well."

I have always said that. I think the expansion as described in the links would have been a huge boondoggle. Apparently Disney and other interests (the City of Anaheim, local citizens, state government, etc) thought so too. I mean how would that place have ever made money? They were crazy to think that a miniature EPCOT next to DL would draw 10 million visitors a year.

 

Originally Posted By 2001DLFan

<<mousermerf: Just to note - they have to be fairly certain what a ride will entail before they make a model.

Blue Sky is moreso ideas/concepts and sometimes concept art (often concept art is ordered afterward to "Sell" the idea.)

Very few models are made unless a design is fairly concrete, and that's because the particular designer is works in that fashion - the vast majority do not.>>

The budgets allowed for any particular concept really depends on what, where and to whom management wants to provide funding to. When politics get into the mix, some purely blue-sky (and sometimes even weak) concepts can get full financial support, while other post blue-sky (sometimes outstanding) projects can receive little or no financial support.

 

Originally Posted By davewasbaloo

Well, as much as I enjoy DCA, if this had been build with the same care and attention as Epcot, TDs or DAK, I would never give WDW any of my money. There would be no question of us going to DL with regularity. I used to always think the Westcot option was amazing, and still do.

However, I really do suspect that the budget AP crowd would have the same disdain for it as DCA if not more so. Sadly AA theatre shows do not play well in California for a sustained period. Which is a real shame.

It would have been a nail in the coffin for Disney. But personally, I think I would have loved it.