Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Again it is a very difficult transition to go from Victorian to the future." Sure it is, but then I wonder did the designers even bother transitioning. Just let WB be Victorian and TL be the future. The way it's done at TDL only draws more attention to the how they failed the design challenge.
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ I can get that. It was an incredibly young and inexperienced team on TDL and they were following the DL/MK blueprints to the letter. They definitely struggled with the unique spaces - dominated by WB.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Good heavens... What's the first building? It looks like a fancy Walmart or Target big box store!> I agree. Whatever the history is, it just looks pretty bad.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I've heard that in the early 80's the core group of Imagineers were all on various Epcot projects, and TDL was basically just a couple people trying to cherry pick things out of MK and DL to plop into the park with as little new stuff as possible. Is that true? It sure would explain some of the more "distinctive" areas of TDL
Originally Posted By leemac <<I've heard that in the early 80's the core group of Imagineers were all on various Epcot projects, and TDL was basically just a couple people trying to cherry pick things out of MK and DL to plop into the park with as little new stuff as possible. >> Yup - entirely true. In fact the vast majority of the imagineers on TDL weren't even creative - the current head of delivery Craig Russell was one. All of the efforts of WDI were focused squarely on Epcot. TDL was just an annoyance that no-one wanted to work on - ironic that it is now the most successful park in the world.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros That's really interesting! The park ended up with some charming areas in it (the area near the Chinese restaurant in Adventureland stands out), but it would be interesting to think what if they had created it more or less from scratch. Obviously it would have been tough to anticipate what would have worked well and what wouldn't in a brand new market, but considering how well TDS has done it's a fun exercise in imagination. At times, the starkness of TDL is even more bold when contrasted with all the detail that they have next door
Originally Posted By Dabob2 TDS, for all its good points, has always just had too much of a "copy of a copy" vibe for me in its basic bones.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Wasn't much of the content driven by OLC's desire to create an "American experience" rather than than something unique and different?
Originally Posted By leemac <<the area near the Chinese restaurant in Adventureland stands out>> Funnily enough that area was entirely barren until '92 when that dining complex opened. Even Swiss Family Treehouse didn't open until '93.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Wasn't much of the content driven by OLC's desire to create an "American experience" rather than than something unique and different?>> Nope. OLC just handed over the entire site's development to WDA. OLC was just a land company back then with limited operational experience. There just wasn't enough creative available to build unique experiences for TDL - everyone was sucked into the Epcot vortex. Even the original attractions - Meet the World and The Eternal Sea - were originally going to be featured at Epcot.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Funnily enough that area was entirely barren until '92 when that dining complex opened.<< I'm actually not entirely surprised to hear that. It has a more modern design aesthetic than much of the park, and completely sidesteps the stark industrial feel that so many other areas have. It also seemed like they had taken a lot of inspiration from Typhoon Lagoon, with how everything appears to be post-storm Was that whole area just more trees and stuff? It seems like Adventureland would feel pretty sparse without it, and everything would be on the back 'wall' of the land with nothing to balance it out >>Even Swiss Family Treehouse didn't open until '93.<< I'm actually shocked to hear this! As much as I enjoy it, the film was hardly part of Disney's A-list by the early 90's. I had just assumed that it was built at the same time as the rest of the park. I guess there's not a huge footprint there for another attraction, but it still feels like a strange choice for 1993. I guess that might explain why the transition from there to Westernland felt a little wonky to me, since it was heavily modified after the park opened It's just crazy to think that TDL got the treehouse after it got Splash Mountain! On a related note, the whole Critter Country complex is a fun-but-odd amalgam of small walkways and things stacked on top of each other. For being such a large park, it's amazing that area feels so cramped and awkward (pulling Splash back about 50-100' probably could have helped resolve that) but I guess it was the best they could do for an add-on to the existing area
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Heck, TDL didn't only get the treehouse after they got Splash, but they got it after DLP opened! Craziness, I tell you! : )
Originally Posted By leemac <<Was that whole area just more trees and stuff?>> I think it was mainly landscape and the small creek that run around the hub. TDL opened with a few missing signature attractions like Big Thunder ('87) and there was nothing between Meet the World and Space Mountain. Showbase ('88 I think).
Originally Posted By leemac <<On a related note, the whole Critter Country complex is a fun-but-odd amalgam of small walkways and things stacked on top of each other.>> Critter Country is a work of masterplanning genius. It is the first time ever that a land was conceived and built on multi-levels. That footprint is about the most efficient use of space anywhere in the Disney universe. There was nowhere else to put Splash so it had to fit. They couldn't shift anything else around. The Fantasyland changes for Queen of Hearts and Hunny Hunt were more flexible as interior structures could be shifted.
Originally Posted By monorailblue Further to the conversation about changing topics, I'm here to report that a tread was opened under "Disneyland General" about buying Christmas Legos from Toys-R-Us. Feel free to stop by with any questions or comments about Sleeping Beauty Castle Saftey Rail Avenue (which, apparently, won't be temporary like Afternoon Avenue).
Originally Posted By monorailblue <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article3359215.html">http://www.sacbee.com/news/loc...215.html</a> I thought this article was interesting. If a pool with less than 200,000 gallons in it can lose thousands of gallons a day, it isn't so far fetched to think that Disneyland's huge bodies of water could do the same. It is definitely plausible.
Originally Posted By berol The outdoor pool at Hearst Castle closed for repairs cuz it was losing 3-5,000 gallons per day.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I've wondered about WOC before. I would guess that a large portion of the water used in the show evaporates or falls on the ground nearby without returning to the lagoon, since it turns into a fine mist as it falls. I wonder how much water they lose each time they do the show...
