News New Haunted Mansion Grounds Expansion, Retail Shop Coming to Disneyland Resort in 2024

[TrainsOfDisney]

I think the real problem is the US corporation not wanting to put money into things.

Into the right things - they are putting plenty of money into several projects.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think current imagineering is fine because look at Japan, Paris, and the two parks in China. I think the real problem is the US corporation not wanting to put money into things.

There plenty of questionable design outside the US.

 

[DrStarlander]

I think current imagineering is fine because look at Japan, Paris, and the two parks in China. I think the real problem is the US corporation not wanting to put money into things.

I think the "we didn't have enough budget" excuse is letting them off the hook. The stuff I listed is incidental in cost. Buying 1800's style blackened iron hardware on Etsy instead of zinc hardware at Home Depot is a no-cost-add thing (well, maybe $100 total). Doing a stone wainscoting instead of fiber cement on the bottom three feet of the exterior is, yes, a cost-add but trivial (which is why so much suburban tract housing can afford to have stone wainscoting).

The dormers and cupola I mentioned to add interest to the roof are each the size of a large dog house, these are trivial items to fabricate and install.

Specifying wavy/obscuring glass in the lights and more flame-like (color, intensity) bulbs is all no-cost.

The issues with the Madame Leota project are not insufficient budget, it was insufficient talent. Had the same amount of budget been given to Joe Rohde, for example, the results would have been much different.

 

[mickEblu]

I think the "we didn't have enough budget" excuse is letting them off the hook. The stuff I listed is incidental in cost. Buying 1800's style blackened iron hardware on Etsy instead of zinc hardware at Home Depot is a no-cost-add thing (well, maybe $100 total). Doing a stone wainscoting instead of fiber cement on the bottom three feet of the exterior is, yes, a cost-add but trivial (which is why so much suburban tract housing can afford to have stone wainscoting).
View attachment 883260

The dormers and cupola I mentioned to add interest to the roof are each the size of a large dog house, these are trivial items to fabricate and install.

Specifying wavy/obscuring glass in the lights and more flame-like (color, intensity) bulbs is all no-cost.

The issues with the Madame Leota project are not insufficient budget, it was insufficient talent. Had the same amount of budget been given to Joe Rohde, for example, the results would have been much different.

This guy/ gal has receipts

Choosing a different script that’s not Pirates auctioning chickens at a town they just sacked would cost 0 more dollars.

 

[DrStarlander]

What's so galling about this project is how juicy it is. Any creative director in L.A. given the opportunity to work with the Haunted Mansion / Madame Leota property, or just a late-1800s mystical and spooky fortune-telling aesthetic in general, would jump at that with passion and ideas. It would be difficult to screw it up and deliver something so bland as what they did. People accused Disney of buying the building as a kit from Home Depot because that's how un-themed it is.

If Madame Leota has set up shop (literally) then they should do what was done in the 1800s, advertise, with period-style advertising out front. And the lights should be unique to her, and mystical, not what we all have on our houses from Home Depot.

So much potential wasted.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think the "we didn't have enough budget" excuse is letting them off the hook. The stuff I listed is incidental in cost. Buying 1800's style blackened iron hardware on Etsy instead of zinc hardware at Home Depot is a no-cost-add thing (well, maybe $100 total). Doing a stone wainscoting instead of fiber cement on the bottom three feet of the exterior is, yes, a cost-add but trivial (which is why so much suburban tract housing can afford to have stone wainscoting).
View attachment 883260

The dormers and cupola I mentioned to add interest to the roof are each the size of a large dog house, these are trivial items to fabricate and install.

Specifying wavy/obscuring glass in the lights and more flame-like (color, intensity) bulbs is all no-cost.

The issues with the Madame Leota project are not insufficient budget, it was insufficient talent. Had the same amount of budget been given to Joe Rohde, for example, the results would have been much different.

While the budgets at Disney are significant, you are over simplifying the extent to which changes can be made. Suburban housing is basically the last thing that should be pointed to as an example. They’re not know for great quality and many such as those pictured have issues with delamination of exterior finishes because they don’t have proper drainage and detailing. It also just looks bad. This project’s project in many ways is that it is too suburban. You cannot just buy things on Etsy and use them in a commercial project, especially mounting hardware.

Adding items to a roof in particularly is going to be labor intensive in terms of design and installation. Even though fake dormers may not be that heavy, they are sizable enough that you’d still need to engineering documentation demonstrating that the roof is capable of supporting the weight. The roof is mostly steel studs, so there are probably not any good places to properly anchor a scenic dormer. You’d also have to take apart a good chunk of the roof in order to properly tie so that water is moving around it and not going pool and/or working its way in to the building.

 

[DrStarlander]

While the budgets at Disney are significant, you are over simplifying the extent to which changes can be made. Suburban housing is basically the last thing that should be pointed to as an example. They’re not know for great quality and many such as those pictured have issues with delamination of exterior finishes because they don’t have proper drainage and detailing. It also just looks bad. This project’s project in many ways is that it is too suburban. You cannot just buy things on Etsy and use them in a commercial project, especially mounting hardware.

Adding items to a roof in particularly is going to be labor intensive in terms of design and installation. Even though fake dormers may not be that heavy, they are sizable enough that you’d still need to engineering documentation demonstrating that the roof is capable of supporting the weight. The roof is mostly steel studs, so there are probably not any good places to properly anchor a scenic dormer. You’d also have to take apart a good chunk of the roof in order to properly tie so that water is moving around it and not going pool and/or working its way in to the building.

I feel like you are describing unremarkable aspects of construction as if they are exotic and high-risk ("...to properly tie so that water is moving around it and not going pool and/or working its way in to the building"). Do you mean...reinstall the roof? I'm confident the roofers got this.

I think Disney can handle adding a cupola and dormer windows to a 1.5 story building. I don't know what you mean by labor intensive, but yes, professional tradespeople need to work on it. In the realm of what Disney builds, this stuff is trivial.

The stone, as seen directly across the walkway at Fowler's Harbor, is something nobody complains about and undoubtedly adds charm. I think you're taking my image of the suburban houses too literally, aesthetically.

As for the eyebolt from Etsy. I assume what you're referring to is how a data sheet may be required, yet I find it difficult to believe an iron hook for hanging dried flowers would present a problem, especially given the undocumented antiques and found-items routinely hung all over the parks.

But no matter, if necessary they could probably fabricate the hooks in-house, or through a vendor, and it's still not a heavy lift -- meanwhile the zinc hardware is unconscionable.

 

[Adventureland Veranda]

Disney, please hire the worst roofers available. The leaky roof will get us a new gift shop!*


*Probably a shed from Lowe's, oh well I tried

 

[mickEblu]

Disney, please hire the worst roofers available. The leaky roof will get us a new gift shop!*


*Probably a shed from Lowe's, oh well I tried

Hey, baby steps.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I feel like you are describing unremarkable aspects of construction as if they are exotic and high-risk ("...to properly tie so that water is moving around it and not going pool and/or working its way in to the building"). Do you mean...reinstall the roof? I'm confident the roofers got this.

I think Disney can handle adding a cupola and dormer windows to a 1.5 story building. I don't know what you mean by labor intensive, but yes, professional tradespeople need to work on it. In the realm of what Disney builds, this stuff is trivial.
View attachment 883299

The stone, as seen directly across the walkway at Fowler's Harbor, is something nobody complains about and undoubtedly adds charm. I think you're taking my image of the suburban houses too literally, aesthetically.
View attachment 883301

As for the eyebolt from Etsy. I assume what you're referring to is how a data sheet may be required, yet I find it difficult to believe an iron hook for hanging dried flowers would present a problem, especially given the undocumented antiques and found-items routinely hung all over the parks.
View attachment 883292View attachment 883293
But no matter, if necessary they could probably fabricate the hooks in-house, or through a vendor, and it's still not a heavy lift -- meanwhile the zinc hardware is unconscionable.

You say I’m describing things as exotic and then understate what is involved. It would be the roofers. Adding scenic dormers would involve an architect and likely two different structural engineers (one for the building itself and another for the scenic elements). Risk and complexity is relative to scope of a project. Water intrusion is one of the biggest causes of action against architects and contractors, so yes, the risk is higher than you present, and quite high given the small scope of work.

The ugly castle addition in Hong Kong is more a dimensional scenic flat. It’s very thin and largely situated behind the original castle. Minimizing how much the messed with the original structure was a decision that was made.

My comment on the stone was not about aesthetics but [again] about your claims of ease and low cost. You pointed to cheap materials as an example. Fowler’s Harbor is much more expensive sculpted and painted scenic plaster. Doing it properly again means ripping open the building envelope and changing the water proofing strategy.

There is a whole process by which acquired props are prepared for use as scenic elements in a big park such as Disney and Universal. Theme appropriate hardware can be acquired, it’s just not through the specific path you keep identifying.

This project is a great example of how much bad design can hinder. It’s not just some questionable finish choices that can be redone or swapped out. The cost of seemingly easy fixes is disproportionately greater now than if they had been done in the first place.

 

[DrStarlander]

You say I’m describing things as exotic and then understate what is involved. It would be the roofers. Adding scenic dormers would involve an architect and likely two different structural engineers (one for the building itself and another for the scenic elements). Risk and complexity is relative to scope of a project. Water intrusion is one of the biggest causes of action against architects and contractors, so yes, the risk is higher than you present, and quite high given the small scope of work.

The ugly castle addition in Hong Kong is more a dimensional scenic flat. It’s very thin and largely situated behind the original castle. Minimizing how much the messed with the original structure was a decision that was made.

My comment on the stone was not about aesthetics but [again] about your claims of ease and low cost. You pointed to cheap materials as an example. Fowler’s Harbor is much more expensive sculpted and painted scenic plaster. Doing it properly again means ripping open the building envelope and changing the water proofing strategy.

There is a whole process by which acquired props are prepared for use as scenic elements in a big park such as Disney and Universal. Theme appropriate hardware can be acquired, it’s just not through the specific path you keep identifying.

This project is a great example of how much bad design can hinder. It’s not just some questionable finish choices that can be redone or swapped out. The cost of seemingly easy fixes is disproportionately greater now than if they had been done in the first place.

I'm going to continue to refute your claims that this would be a significant project for The Walt Disney Co. You are approaching this perhaps thinking that I think the guy behind the churro cart would be doing this. Yes, I'm talking about an architect, themed environmental designer, lighting designer, plans with detail drawings, engineers, general contractor, appropriate subs (framers, siders, roofers, painters, electrical...), scenic fabrication shop for the dormer/cupola units, in-house talent like scenic painters and set-dressers, site foreman, permits, inspections. All of it. And it's trivial compared to projects going on around the Disney Parks empire.

(When they start reworking all the buildings in DinoLand U.S.A are you going to come on this forum and explain to all of us just how impossible it will be?)

Your suggestion that adding a cupola and dormer windows and stone veneer to the Madame Leota gift shop is more challenging or fraught with risk than what they did at the Hong Kong castle is the most ridiculous claim I think I've ever seen on this forum, and there have been a few contenders. I've seen enough of your comments before to know you're smarter than that.

You keep describing water intrusion risk as if this project is somehow unique from every commercial structure designed and built or remodeled in the modern world (let alone at Disney Parks over the past 70 years). Rest assured, the professionals would have it covered. Everyone would follow the IBC, they know what to do.

As far as sourcing props for the Disney Parks. The below paragraph is from the Los Angeles Times's article and interview with Kim Irvine about this project:

---The gardens are a mix of original and found objects. Irvine stopped to point out some Imagineering crafted grates, which hide utilities with astrological flourishes, and said she scoured antique shops from “Pasadena to Temecula” looking for items that would fit. She’s happy to share where she collected a piece. A pair of sleeping lions, for instance, Irvine found in the back pages of a catalog for a Chicago statue company, and two iron griffins were hiding in the corner of an Alhambra marble shop. Irvine says she isn’t bothered when fans discover where an item was procured. “It would be impossible for us to make everything,” she said.--

Are you trying to convince people that a senior executive for Walt Disney Imagineering, with 40 years experience designing and set-decorating at Disneyland, can acquire a dusty prop in an antique store in Temecula but can't order a prop -- specifically an iron hook for hanging dried flowers -- from an active business, with a business license and business insurance, and probably documentation as to the source of the raw materials and fabrication process, if asked, selling on Etsy? Why would you bother to argue that?

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm going to continue to refute your claims that this would be a significant project for The Walt Disney Co. You are approaching this perhaps thinking that I think the guy behind the churro cart would be doing this. Yes, I'm talking about an architect, themed environmental designer, lighting designer, plans with detail drawings, engineers, general contractor, appropriate subs (framers, siders, roofers, painters, electrical...), scenic fabrication shop for the dormer/cupola units, in-house talent like scenic painters and set-dressers, site foreman, permits, inspections. All of it. And it's trivial compared to projects going on around the Disney Parks empire.

(When they start reworking all the buildings in DinoLand U.S.A are you going to come on this forum and explain to all of us just how impossible it will be?)

Your suggestion that adding a cupola and dormer windows and stone veneer to the Madame Leota gift shop is more challenging or fraught with risk than what they did at the Hong Kong castle is the most ridiculous claim I think I've ever seen on this forum, and there have been a few contenders. I've seen enough of your comments before to know you're smarter than that.

You keep describing water intrusion risk as if this project is somehow unique from every commercial structure designed and built or remodeled in the modern world (let alone at Disney Parks over the past 70 years). Rest assured, the professionals would have it covered. Everyone would follow the IBC, they know what to do.

As far as sourcing props for the Disney Parks. The below paragraph is from the Los Angeles Times's article and interview with Kim Irvine about this project:

---The gardens are a mix of original and found objects. Irvine stopped to point out some Imagineering crafted grates, which hide utilities with astrological flourishes, and said she scoured antique shops from “Pasadena to Temecula” looking for items that would fit. She’s happy to share where she collected a piece. A pair of sleeping lions, for instance, Irvine found in the back pages of a catalog for a Chicago statue company, and two iron griffins were hiding in the corner of an Alhambra marble shop. Irvine says she isn’t bothered when fans discover where an item was procured. “It would be impossible for us to make everything,” she said.--

Are you trying to convince people that a senior executive for Walt Disney Imagineering, with 40 years experience designing and set-decorating at Disneyland, can acquire a dusty prop in an antique store in Temecula but can't order a prop -- specifically an iron hook for hanging dried flowers -- from an active business, with a business license and business insurance, and probably documentation as to the source of the raw materials and fabrication process, if asked, selling on Etsy? Why would you bother to argue that?

I don't think anyone is saying its impossible. But if I understand what the poster is saying, its not just as simple as slapping a dormer (decorative or otherwise) or whatever to the building and you're done. Without a complete structural review and potential redesign, something that Disney isn't likely to take lightly, its not something that is an "easy fix" as you seem to be indicating.

So yes it can be done likely at great time and expense, but the question is is it worth it to Disney when it would be likely cheaper and faster to just tear it down and start over.

 

[mickEblu]

I don't think anyone is saying its impossible. But if I understand what the poster is saying, its not just as simple as slapping a dormer (decorative or otherwise) or whatever to the building and you're done. Without a complete structural review and potential redesign, something that Disney isn't likely to take lightly, its not something that is an "easy fix" as you seem to be indicating.

So yes it can be done likely at great time and expense, but the question is is it worth it to Disney when it would be likely cheaper and faster to just tear it down and start over.

While it may just be easier or cheaper at this point to tear Madam Leota’s down, the poster he was responding to habitually gets excited to to flex their construction knowledge/ background and gets lost in the weeds. This whole back n forth stemmed from Dr. Starlander saying that the issues with the shop aren’t solely due to budget and we can’t completely give imagineering a pass. And gave examples why we shouldn’t give a pass such as some of the cheap looking fixtures/ details where much better alternatives could have been procured inexpensively.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't think anyone is saying its impossible. But if I understand what the poster is saying, its not just as simple as slapping a dormer (decorative or otherwise) or whatever to the building and you're done. Without a complete structural review and potential redesign, something that Disney isn't likely to take lightly, its not something that is an "easy fix" as you seem to be indicating.

So yes it can be done likely at great time and expense, but the question is is it worth it to Disney when it would be likely cheaper and faster to just tear it down and start over.

It’s more that scale, scope and complexity are relative. It’s sort of like an old car being in a relatively minor collision but written off as totaled. It’s not that fixing it is really hard but that it’s not considered worth the cost. This would be a small set of changes either a disproportionally high cost, even given Disney’s already high project costs.

 

[Disney Irish]

While it may just be easier or cheaper at this point to tear Madam Leota’s down, the poster he was responding to habitually gets excited to to flex their construction knowledge/ background and gets lost in the weeds. This whole back n forth stemmed from Dr. Starlander saying that the issues with the shop aren’t solely due to budget and we can’t completely give imagineering a pass. And gave examples why we shouldn’t give a pass such as some of the cheap looking fixtures/ details where much better alternatives could have been procured inexpensively.

I don't think anyone is giving WDI a pass, as I believe almost everyone has said it was a bad design. Even I've said it was a bad design, even if I've come to accept it with this project at this point after having seen it in person.

And yes I'm aware of how in the weeds that things can get especially about the regulations and requirements surrounding construction projects, I've gone a few rounds with them as well. But I appreciate the knowledge brought which is why I don't mind it for the most part.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm going to continue to refute your claims that this would be a significant project for The Walt Disney Co. You are approaching this perhaps thinking that I think the guy behind the churro cart would be doing this. Yes, I'm talking about an architect, themed environmental designer, lighting designer, plans with detail drawings, engineers, general contractor, appropriate subs (framers, siders, roofers, painters, electrical...), scenic fabrication shop for the dormer/cupola units, in-house talent like scenic painters and set-dressers, site foreman, permits, inspections. All of it. And it's trivial compared to projects going on around the Disney Parks empire.

(When they start reworking all the buildings in DinoLand U.S.A are you going to come on this forum and explain to all of us just how impossible it will be?)

Your suggestion that adding a cupola and dormer windows and stone veneer to the Madame Leota gift shop is more challenging or fraught with risk than what they did at the Hong Kong castle is the most ridiculous claim I think I've ever seen on this forum, and there have been a few contenders. I've seen enough of your comments before to know you're smarter than that.

Again, it is relative. It is amount of work related to output. Tropical Americas is a project that whose cost is measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The castle at Hong Kong Disneyland is closer in scope to your suggests, but also had a lot behind it and tied into a larger set of investments. My point isn’t that it cannot be done, but that you are significantly downplaying the cost and effort involved, that it is disproportionate to the result.

You keep describing water intrusion risk as if this project is somehow unique from every commercial structure designed and built or remodeled in the modern world (let alone at Disney Parks over the past 70 years). Rest assured, the professionals would have it covered. Everyone would follow the IBC, they know what to do.

If it was easy as following the IBC then there wouldn’t be so much litigation in the AEC industry. Most of the IBC and its derivatives like the California Building Stabdards Code are largely performance codes that require certain outcome, and not prescriptive codes that requires certain means. The IBC tells tou things like you have to have a weather barrier with a certain minimum permeability but it doesn’t tell you how to integrate it flashing. But again, it’s not that people wouldn’t know what to do, but it is more work than you keep claiming.

Are you trying to convince people that a senior executive for Walt Disney Imagineering, with 40 years experience designing and set-decorating at Disneyland, can acquire a dusty prop in an antique store in Temecula but can't order a prop -- specifically an iron hook for hanging dried flowers -- from an active business, with a business license and business insurance, and probably documentation as to the source of the raw materials and fabrication process, if asked, selling on Etsy? Why would you bother to argue that?

The process as presented by Disney is significantly glossed over. Props aren’t just purchased and then installed. They do get modified and reinforced. A hook is not a prop, it is an attachment method and an overhead one at that which comes with its own set of internal safety requirements that have grown significantly over the years. Again though, it’s not that it cannot be done, it has been done, it just isn’t done in the way you claim with the ease you claim.

 

[mickEblu]

I don't think anyone is giving WDI a pass, as I believe almost everyone has said it was a bad design. Even I've said it was a bad design, even if I've come to accept it with this project at this point after having seen it in person.

And yes I'm aware of how in the weeds that things can get especially about the regulations and requirements surrounding construction projects, I've gone a few rounds with them as well. But I appreciate the knowledge brought which is why I don't mind it for the most part.

I didn’t say he was giving WDI a pass. I said the conversation gets pulled into the weeds because he would rather tell you how much you don’t know about construction than focus on the intent or main point of one’s message which in this case I don’t think anyone including LazyBoy disagrees with. Imagineering dropped the ball on this project.

 

[Disney Irish]

I didn’t say he was giving WDI a pass. I said the conversation gets pulled into the weeds because he would rather tell you how much you don’t know about construction than focus on the intent or main point of one’s message which in this case I don’t think anyone including LazyBoy disagrees with. Imagineering dropped the ball on this project.

The intent of the message was pretty clear to me, "Hey Disney did a bad design and here is how I would fix it and I could do it better and cheaper" and then proceeded to tell us all how they would do it in multiple posts with screenshots and everything. So they wanted to flex their design and construction knowledge themselves. And that is all fine and good, but we know with Disney not everything is just as easy as what we posters think it should be. There are many many many layers of complexity that we never see, which is where I think getting into the weeds is sometimes needed.

 

[mickEblu]

The intent of the message was pretty clear to me, "Hey Disney did a bad design and here is how I would fix it and I could do it better and cheaper" and then proceeded to tell us all how they would do it in multiple posts with screenshots and everything. So they wanted to flex their design and construction knowledge themselves. And that is all fine and good, but we know with Disney not everything is just as easy as what we posters think it should be. There are many many many layers of complexity that we never see, which is where I think getting into the weeds is sometimes needed.

Actually I don’t think it’s clear to you. Here’s Dr Starlanders post (that wasn’t even for Lazyboy) where it’s clear the intent of this message is to highlight that the issue with Madame Leota’s is more about insufficient talent than budget:

I think the "we didn't have enough budget" excuse is letting them off the hook. The stuff I listed is incidental in cost. Buying 1800's style blackened iron hardware on Etsy instead of zinc hardware at Home Depot is a no-cost-add thing (well, maybe $100 total). Doing a stone wainscoting instead of fiber cement on the bottom three feet of the exterior is, yes, a cost-add but trivial (which is why so much suburban tract housing can afford to have stone wainscoting).
View attachment 883260

The dormers and cupola I mentioned to add interest to the roof are each the size of a large dog house, these are trivial items to fabricate and install.

Specifying wavy/obscuring glass in the lights and more flame-like (color, intensity) bulbs is all no-cost.

The issues with the Madame Leota project are not insufficient budget, it was insufficient talent. Had the same amount of budget been given to Joe Rohde, for example, the results would have been much different.

And here’s Lazyboys reply. Where he decides he’s just to going flex his construction knowledge and barely acknowledges the claim Dr. Starlander made.

While the budgets at Disney are significant, you are over simplifying the extent to which changes can be made. Suburban housing is basically the last thing that should be pointed to as an example. They’re not know for great quality and many such as those pictured have issues with delamination of exterior finishes because they don’t have proper drainage and detailing. It also just looks bad. This project’s project in many ways is that it is too suburban. You cannot just buy things on Etsy and use them in a commercial project, especially mounting hardware.

Adding items to a roof in particularly is going to be labor intensive in terms of design and installation. Even though fake dormers may not be that heavy, they are sizable enough that you’d still need to engineering documentation demonstrating that the roof is capable of supporting the weight. The roof is mostly steel studs, so there are probably not any good places to properly anchor a scenic dormer. You’d also have to take apart a good chunk of the roof in order to properly tie so that water is moving around it and not going pool and/or working its way in to the building.

 

[Disney Irish]

Actually I don’t think it’s clear to you. Here’s Dr Starlanders post (that wasn’t even for Lazyboy) where it’s clear the intent of this message is to highlight that the issue with Madame Leota’s is more about insufficient talent than budget:




And here’s Lazyboys reply. Where he decides he’s just to going flex his construction knowledge and barely acknowledges the claim Dr. Starlander made.

It is clear to me because I'm not going just based on that post you provided, but all the posts from that poster that started in this thread last Friday.