Journey of Water featuring Moana coming to Epcot

[lazyboy97o]

They knocked them down because they were useless.
Their time has passed.

Except they planned to build a less functional replacement…

 

[James Alucobond]

Except they planned to build a less functional replacement…

It no doubt has fewer functions, but that doesn't necessarily make it less functional from management's point of view. I'm sure they see it as making the remaining structure run more efficiently via reduced maintenance and using what space does remain more effectively to house what they actually want in the area.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It no doubt has fewer functions, but that doesn't necessarily make it less functional from management's point of view. I'm sure they see it as making the remaining structure run more efficiently via reduced maintenance and using what space does remain more effectively to house what they actually want in the area.

No, the festival center would be less functional due to its design.

 

[marni1971]

I'm sure everyone agrees that the negligence is deplorable. However, rehabilitation of existing structures isn't the only acceptable (or even correct) response to it. They obviously assessed how much space they had, how much they were spending on maintenance

They did. It was viable. Then Iger insisted on his more expensive folly.

 

[James Alucobond]

They did. It was viable. Then Iger insisted on his more expensive folly.

You certainly know more than I do about the inner workings of the company, but I have a hard time believing that Iger dreamed this design up independently. I have to imagine it was one of many options presented by the team working on EPCOT, and he and the management team simply insisted that they go this direction. If you tell me that Iger did in fact draft this design in CAD, I'll believe you, but it seems to me to still ultimately have been a design created at the discretion of Imagineering intended to fulfill vague requirements from the C suite. I would definitely believe that he picked it out of a lineup of designs and told them to forge ahead, but ultimately, Imagineering shouldn't have even put it out there as a suggestion if they didn't want to do it that way.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You certainly know more than I do about the inner workings of the company, but I have a hard time believing that Iger dreamed this design up independently. I have to imagine it was one of many options presented by the team working on EPCOT, and he and the management team simply insisted that they go this direction. If you tell me that Iger did in fact draft this design in CAD, I'll believe you, but it seems to me to still ultimately have been a design created at the discretion of Imagineering intended to fulfill vague requirements from the C suite. I would definitely believe that he picked it out of a lineup of designs and told them to forge ahead, but ultimately, Imagineering shouldn't have even put it out there as a suggestion if they didn't want to do it that way.

Walt Disney Imagineering isn’t going to just go hire a starchitect on their own. And they don’t use CAD anymore.

 

[marni1971]

You certainly know more than I do about the inner workings of the company, but I have a hard time believing that Iger dreamed this design up independently

He didn’t - but the bar on legs pitch was chosen from the alternatives offered. I know of at least 4 alternatives.

 

[James Alucobond]

Walt Disney Imagineering isn’t going to just go hire a starchitect on their own. And they don’t use CAD anymore.

I'm confused as to what this has to do with the content of the post. I'm simply saying that I doubt Iger actually designed this himself or that the architect of the Festival Pavilion did so in a vacuum. It was part of a larger plan that Iger then picked from among several pre-designed options. He didn't mandate exact placement or force the Imagineers to explore extreme asymmetry as an option.

He didn’t - but the bar on legs pitch was chosen from the alternatives offered. I know of at least 4 alternatives.

This definitely makes sense to me. But this would also make me less critical of Iger, not more. You never put anything in front of a client or leader if you don't want to design or build it because they'll invariably pick that option. I would hope all of the options were still things the team felt confident about.

 

[marni1971]

.This definitely makes sense to me. But this would also make me less critical of Iger, not more. You never put anything in front of a client or leader if you don't want to design or build it because they'll invariably pick that option. I would hope all of the options were still things the team felt confident about.

Which would make the leader and the designers as bad as each other.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm confused as to what this has to do with the content of the post. I'm simply saying that I doubt Iger actually designed this himself or that the architect of the Festival Pavilion did so in a vacuum. It was part of a larger plan that Iger then picked from among several pre-designed options. He didn't mandate exact placement or force the Imagineers to explore extreme asymmetry as an option.

You came up with a ridiculous premise that ignores the situation and then declared that since it was not true criticism is invalid.

 

[uncle jimmy]

Which would make the leader and the designers as bad as each other.

Have you heard what the plan for the area that the bar on stilts or table was suppose to go? Able to share?

 

[James Alucobond]

Which would make the leader and the designers as bad as each other.

That's assuming you think this is a massive mistake, which you and many others obviously do. I'm also dubious myself from the aerial artwork I've seen, but I'm willing to give it a chance upon seeing the overall effect from a human's actual viewing perspective.

You came up with a ridiculous premise that ignores the situation and then declared that since it was not true criticism is invalid.

The implication seemed to me to be that Iger overrode all of the designers' wishes and said he wanted a specific thing done, even if it made no sense. This would have been horribly problematic because he's completely unqualified to make specific architectural/design demands. Instead, he was given several options that I hope the design team thought were all viable, exciting options, your personal disagreement obviously notwithstanding. This tracks more with my personal experience with C-level involvement in projects of this nature.

I'm not trying to invalidate your criticism, I'm just curious if there's actual gross misuse of power on Iger's part or if this was simply business as usual.

 

[Turtlekrawl]

That's assuming you think this is a massive mistake, which you and many others obviously do. I'm also dubious myself from the aerial artwork I've seen, but I'm willing to give it a chance upon seeing the overall effect from a human's actual viewing perspective.

The implication seemed to me to be that Iger overrode all of the designers' wishes and said he wanted a specific thing done, even if it made no sense. This would have been horribly problematic because he's completely unqualified to make specific architectural/design demands. Instead, he was given several options that I hope the design team thought were all viable, exciting options, your personal disagreement obviously notwithstanding. This tracks more with my personal experience with C-level involvement in projects of this nature.

I'm not trying to invalidate your criticism, I'm just curious if there's actual gross misuse of power on Iger's part or if this was simply business as usual.

Business as usual may be the problem

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Walt Disney Imagineering isn’t going to just go hire a starchitect on their own. And they don’t use CAD anymore.

Who was the architect for the Festival Center? I can't seem to find that anywhere and kind of just assumed it was in-house.

 

[marni1971]

Have you heard what the plan for the area that the bar on stilts or table was suppose to go? Able to share?

Currently no. It was meant to be something different now I’m not so sure

 

[James Alucobond]

Business as usual may be the problem

I meant broadly, not systemically at Disney, which I'm sure has many of its own problems.

Presenting 5 options to a client or leader should not be something foreign to a design team, and one of the first rules of presenting optionality is to prune anything you don't actually believe in or want to work on, particularly when the decision maker isn't an expert. If Imagineering wasn't prepared to demolish the entirety of a CommuniCore building, they shouldn't have presented this option. If they didn't like the look of an asymmetrical World Celebration, they shouldn't have presented this option. If they weren't excited about an open-air walkthrough, they shouldn't have presented this option. There are many ways they could have re-oriented the elements in this design, but they consciously chose to do this and put it in front of someone with the power to make it happen. If they went into that situation thinking this was a throwaway concept, then they made a grave error. I'm instead hopeful that they understand how leadership decision-making works, knew this was a potential outcome, and are still confident in this design even if we aren't convinced at the moment.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The implication seemed to me to be that Iger overrode all of the designers' wishes and said he wanted a specific thing done, even if it made no sense. This would have been horribly problematic because he's completely unqualified to make specific architectural/design demands. Instead, he was given several options that I hope the design team thought were all viable, exciting options, your personal disagreement obviously notwithstanding. This tracks more with my personal experience with C-level involvement in projects of this nature.

I'm not trying to invalidate your criticism, I'm just curious if there's actual gross misuse of power on Iger's part or if this was simply business as usual.

You should read up on Disney history. Top level executives making even small decisions is not new, but deciding to tear down a building and do something else isn’t the sort of small decision you keep trying to frame it as being. Wanting something radically different as a mark isn’t either.

I meant broadly, not systemically at Disney, which I'm sure has many of its own problems.

Presenting 5 options to a client or leader should not be something foreign to a design team, and one of the first rules of presenting optionality is to prune anything you don't actually believe in or want to work on, particularly when the decision maker isn't an expert. If Imagineering wasn't prepared to demolish the entirety of a CommuniCore building, they shouldn't have presented this option. If they didn't like the look of an asymmetrical World Celebration, they shouldn't have presented this option. If they weren't excited about an open-air walkthrough, they shouldn't have presented this option. There are many ways they could have re-oriented the elements in this design, but they consciously chose to do this and put it in front of someone with the power to make it happen. If they went into that situation thinking this was a throwaway concept, then they made a grave error. I'm instead hopeful that they understand how leadership decision-making works, knew this was a potential outcome, and are still confident in this design even if we aren't convinced at the moment.

Again, the festival center is not an internal design. The Epcot project is not actually a single team. Tom Fitzgerald didn’t like what the Marvel team was doing in the park.

 

[FigmentFan82]

You should read up on Disney history. Top level executives making even small decisions is not new, but deciding to tear down a building and do something else isn’t the sort of small decision you keep trying to frame it as being. Wanting something radically different as a mark isn’t either.


Again, the festival center is not an internal design. The Epcot project is not actually a single team. Tom Fitzgerald didn’t like what the Marvel team was doing in the park.

The poster seems to genuinely want to engage in a meaningful discussion and get your point of view and expertise on the subject, yet you keep offering short responses. It would be great to hear a fuller response to his conversation

 

[DCBaker]

 

[Stupido]

Whether or not you agree with what's coming, it is nice to see construction actually taking off across the parks. Hopefully more people will find something to enjoy in these new areas as we get to see what they're actually going to look like.