News Big changes coming to EPCOT's Future World?

ToTBellHop

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
Okay, who ordered New Epcot from Wish?
1718718308198.jpeg
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Virtual Toad said:
Thanks for the perspective. Barbara's career and experience are impressively notable, and she was certainly brought in at a challenging time for Imagineering. It's difficult from the outside to know to what degree an Imagineering president's involvement touches on the realms of design versus project management. One would think it would be a little bit of both. Her experience as a licensed architect would lead to speculation that she at least had a hand in steering the look of projects in the pipeline, but as you rightly point out, the reality is always more nuanced.

When I speculate about Gensler's connection, it comes from a curiosity about the cross-pollination of Imagineering execs moving to/from Gensler to Disney and vice versa. Even if the firm had no official ties to WDI projects, it seems to the casual observer that the real-world design trends Gensler represents seem to mirror WDI's move away from exclusively (or at least primarily) fantastical design into projects rooted more in the architecture of the real world. I've been pondering why this is, and who actually designed and approved the plans for things like the hub, Poly DVC and Ft. Wilderness cabins. Who at Disney (Chapek? Someone else?) steered creative decision-making in this direction? Did WDI design the hub redo and Communicore Hall in-house from the ground up, down to every detail, or were outside consultants brought in? I ask because the project's results are decidedly evocative of a downtown development/urban core redesign, and there are multiple firms doing exactly the kind of work the finished hub and Comminicore Hall bring to mind.

So, is there a concrete tie to outside influences, is it a matter of upper Disney management showing a personal preference for the style of architecture such as those from Gensler and other real-world firms, or is Disney simply hopping onto the trend because that's the type of architecture many of today's architects are comfortable with and capable of?

BTW, WDI is certainly still capable of the fantastical. It seems evident or at least plausible the team that designed the Moana walk-through is different from other groups that worked on the hub. So where did the more bland, real-world architectural influence come from, and why is WDW the destination for so many of these types of projects?
Click to expand...
The head of a large design organization is not initiating projects. They will review and give input but they are not, and should not, be involved in the day-to-day of actual design work.

Starchitects have distorted the popular perception of how architects operate. The vast majority of architects are not Howard Roark relentlessly pursuing their individual vision. They do what the client wants. Large corporate clients are going to have their demands and expect them to be met. You don’t hire a Gensler for the unique vision of a particular architect.

I find your comments about real world architecture and urban design to be odd. The very first Disney land ever experienced by anyone is the very real world based Main Street, USA, one that had a far historically accurate muted, earth toned color palette with exciting experiences like the piano shop and bank. Most of the widely considered best Disney themed spaces are rooted in the real world, from World Showcase to Wilderness Lodge to New Orleans Square. Even Pandora used things like adaptions of vernacular design elements to create a lived in space. What really defines these spaces and experiences is their connection to the idea of place. The problem with a lot of Disney’s recent work isn’t that it is based on the real world but that it lacks a sense of place.

Placelessness is a real problem with a lot of contemporary American architecture. It is not though something that Bouza brought to Disney. Projects like Destini Tower, Riviera, Reflects and even the Polynesian DVC Tower predate her joining the company. The reason Disney has moved towards this type of design is the same reason that, despite saying they’re all about story, the project with the best story isn’t what will be approved; it must first align with a current franchise that meets certain box office, merchandise and streaming metrics. The parks division is bloated, untrusting, untrusted and incredibly risk averse. It’s really easy to get surveys approving of the same bland stuff people watch every night on HGTV.

Future World though was always different. Its concept of place was more original and not referential. The CommuniCore was not some strong aesthetic statement, it was an organizational statement. It was more utilitarian, in service to the pavilions that existed as objects in space. The new neighborhoods lack a clear underlying premise and therefore CommuniCore Hall lacks an underlying purpose. The new CommuniCore Hall is a decorated shed intended to fit programmatic requirements that are completely detached from any sort of underlying idea (theme). The new central plaza is desperately in search of an idea and without one it instead turns to piling on references that ultimately make no sense.
 
Virtual Toad

Virtual Toad

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
The head of a large design organization is not initiating projects. They will review and give input but they are not, and should not, be involved in the day-to-day of actual design work.

Starchitects have distorted the popular perception of how architects operate. The vast majority of architects are not Howard Roark relentlessly pursuing their individual vision. They do what the client wants. Large corporate clients are going to have their demands and expect them to be met. You don’t hire a Gensler for the unique vision of a particular architect.

I find your comments about real world architecture and urban design to be odd. The very first Disney land ever experienced by anyone is the very real world based Main Street, USA, one that had a far historically accurate muted, earth toned color palette with exciting experiences like the piano shop and bank. Most of the widely considered best Disney themed spaces are rooted in the real world, from World Showcase to Wilderness Lodge to New Orleans Square. Even Pandora used things like adaptions of vernacular design elements to create a lived in space. What really defines these spaces and experiences is their connection to the idea of place. The problem with a lot of Disney’s recent work isn’t that it is based on the real world but that it lacks a sense of place.

Placelessness is a real problem with a lot of contemporary American architecture. It is not though something that Bouza brought to Disney. Projects like Destini Tower, Riviera, Reflects and even the Polynesian DVC Tower predate her joining the company. The reason Disney has moved towards this type of design is the same reason that, despite saying they’re all about story, the project with the best story isn’t what will be approved; it must first align with a current franchise that meets certain box office, merchandise and streaming metrics. The parks division is bloated, untrusting, untrusted and incredibly risk averse. It’s really easy to get surveys approving of the same bland stuff people watch every night on HGTV.

Future World though was always different. Its concept of place was more original and not referential. The CommuniCore was not some strong aesthetic statement, it was an organizational statement. It was more utilitarian, in service to the pavilions that existed as objects in space. The new neighborhoods lack a clear underlying premise and therefore CommuniCore Hall lacks an underlying purpose. The new CommuniCore Hall is a decorated shed intended to fit programmatic requirements that are completely detached from any sort of underlying idea (theme). The new central plaza is desperately in search of an idea and without one it instead turns to piling on references that ultimately make no sense.
Click to expand...
I agree with much of what you said; I think we also agree that projects such as the Wilderness Lodge and others (let's put Animal Kingdom Lodge in that category as well), while based on some sort of real-world inspiration, take that inspiration and turn it into something more.

The new hub and Comminucore Hall simply fail to achieve that level of excellence, that intangible but easily recognizable feeling of fantasy, escape, immersion, quality and detail the company promises and guests deserve. The WL, AKL, Pandora, Main Street USA, New Orleans Square, World Showcase and other projects are all romanticized and hyperrealized. That's the difference. Communicore Hall and the new hub only meet the very low bar of achieving what the guest can easily find elsewhere, be it a revitalized downtown core, a recreation center activity room, a hospital cafeteria, or a college campus student union. There is nothing about the end result that takes the ordinary and exceeds expectations. (The revitalized front entrance and LED light installation on Spaceship Earth are the exceptions of course as the wide consensus is that these were well executed.) It also fails badly on the utilitarian front, replacing wide vistas and orderly traffic flow with confusion and discord. The more historically recent additions of whirlygigs, pin trading and shade triangles may have added clutter but the original utilitarian intent of the space remained intact. Ironically, the discordant nature of the new hub matches the theme of the new (former) Future World perfectly in that it makes clear to the guest that there is no theme.

To be clear, I am not criticizing the architects who did the design work on behalf of the client, and I am not fixated on whether Barbara Bouza or Gensler did the work. The criticism lies with whoever approved the concepts in the first place. It's my fascination with the who and why that has me asking where the desire for that design influence came from, how decisions were made regarding the design, who approved it and why.

Someone keeps directing the modern design efforts of the company toward the bland and commonplace and that's what I am trying to understand.
 
Last edited:
bpiper

bpiper

Well-Known Member
Virtual Toad said:
I agree with much of what you said; I think we also agree that projects such as the Wilderness Lodge and others (let's put Animal Kingdom Lodge in that category as well), while based on some sort of real-world inspiration, take that inspiration and turn it into something more.

The new hub and Comminucore Hall simply fail to achieve that level of excellence, that intangible but easily recognizable feeling of fantasy, escape, immersion, quality and detail the company promises and guests deserve. The WL, AKL, Pandora, Main Street USA, New Orleans Square, World Showcase and other projects are all romanticized and hyperrealized. That's the difference. Communicore Hall and the new hub only meet the very low bar of achieving what the guest can easily find elsewhere, be it a revitalized downtown core, a recreation center activity room, a hospital cafeteria, or a college campus student union. There is nothing about the end result that takes the ordinary and exceeds expectations. (The revitalized front entrance and LED light installation on Spaceship Earth are the exceptions of course as the wide consensus is that these were well executed.) It also fails badly on the utilitarian front, replacing wide vistas and orderly traffic flow with confusion and discord. The more historically recent additions of whirlygigs, pin trading and shade triangles may have added clutter but the original utilitarian intent of the space remained intact. Ironically, the discordant nature of the new hub matches the theme of the new (former) Future World perfectly in that it makes clear to the guest that there is no theme.

To be clear, I am not criticizing the architects who did the design work on behalf of the client, and I am not fixated on whether Barbara Bouza or Gensler did the work. The criticism lies with whoever approved the concepts in the first place. It's my fascination with the who and why that has me asking where the desire for that design influence came from, how decisions were made regarding the design, who approved it and why.

Someone keeps directing the modern design efforts of the company toward the bland and commonplace and that's what I am trying to understand.
Click to expand...

I think the missing ingredient is $$$$.. Bland and commonplace is cheaper than theming and unique. It seems that Disney spending for the last 10 years has been on a track of, make it as cheaply as possible. The parks have been the ATM that made the money to cover the other divisions when they had hard times. It has also allowed Disney to make all of their acquisitions. With Disney+ sucking down huge amounts of cash to get started and Disney film hitting speed bumps, it was critical that parks spending be the minimum necessary to preserve cash to for the other divisions.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom