News Big changes coming to EPCOT's Future World?

[michmousefan]

So, Rat, GOTG, Frozen, and Soarin, get logos. I get TT not having its logo shown right now. But what about M:S, Imagination, Nemo, and SSE. Ashamed of those?

They should be VERY ashamed of Imagination in its current form. Is there a less-compelling attraction in Epcot right now?

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

They should be VERY ashamed of Imagination in its current form. Is there a less-compelling attraction in Epcot right now?

Maybe not less but I don’t think Mexico or the Nemo ride are any better.

If they would just plus the existing ride (take out Nigel, put in Dreamfinder) - it could be pretty good as is.

 

[UNCgolf]

They should be VERY ashamed of Imagination in its current form. Is there a less-compelling attraction in Epcot right now?

Nemo is pretty close, but that space was never really intended to function as a standalone attraction anyways.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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?

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.

 

[gerarar]

 

[Ragerunner]

It’s a flex space. Think of it as a small convention hall.

 

[James Alucobond]

It’s a flex space. Think of it as a small convention hall.

Yes, but, like, either have something in there or don’t have it open to the public.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

It’s a flex space. Think of it as a small convention hall.

It’s a public space at a theme park, not a convention hall.

 

[Virtual Toad]

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.

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.

 

[bpiper]

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.

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.

 

[Virtual Toad]

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.

I agree that "on the cheap" seems to be a large part of the trend (compare the Polyday Inn to Animal Kingdom Lodge, for instance), but Disney and WDI have not been exactly fiscally responsible-- or wise-- when it comes to their recent spending decisions. The amount of money spent on the hub redo boggles the mind in terms of the lackluster result. Not tearing down Communicore West, doing a simpler reskin, and spending a portion of that budget on updating/restoring Imagination would have checked all the boxes for the redo and potentially delivered much more for less. The hub redo and Communicore Hall not only look cheap but they also cost a ton of money which makes the failure even more conspicuous.

 

[JohnD]

Yes, but, like, either have something in there or don’t have it open to the public.

Agreed. I thought the point of ending F&G early was that they were going to have, for lack of a better term, a mini-festival surrounding the opening of Communicore Hall. Did Figment specifically have to be inside as shown in the concept art? No. But fill it up, put some exhibits in there. Anything. Make it worth visiting. Instead we get an empty warehouse with chairs and tables slapped around.

 

[V_L_Raptor]

It’s a flex space. Think of it as a small convention hall.

There are better developed convention halls out there. This mess doesn’t even meet that standard.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

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.

Josh D’Amaro is in charge of the parks. Start by asking him.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Agreed. I thought the point of ending F&G early was that they were going to have, for lack of a better term, a mini-festival surrounding the opening of Communicore Hall. Did Figment specifically have to be inside as shown in the concept art? No. But fill it up, put some exhibits in there. Anything. Make it worth visiting. Instead we get an empty warehouse with chairs and tables slapped around.

one of the artists from the art festival could be there right now!

And does anyone disagree that one of the performance artists like Trevor Carlton would be better than the encanto show?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

They should be VERY ashamed of Imagination in its current form. Is there a less-compelling attraction in Epcot right now?

There isn't an attraction in Epcot right now that is better than the the original attraction it replaced. None. The only one that is arguable is Soarin (if you consider it a replacement for Food Rocks - which it really isn't). Every other ride/attraction has gotten worse with each subsequent renovation.

 

[MisterPenguin]

There isn't an attraction in Epcot right now that is better than the the original attraction it replaced. None. The only one that is arguable is Soarin (if you consider it a replacement for Food Rocks - which it really isn't). Every other ride/attraction has gotten worse with each subsequent renovation.

My opinion is that Cosmic Rewind is vastly superior to what it replaced, and the version before that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

Disney’s track has been make it as expensive as possible.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

My opinion is that Cosmic Rewind is vastly superior to what it replaced, and the version before that.

Yes and no. Both versions of Universe of Energy were very impressive attractions when they opened, were 100% on theme, and were pretty much the definition of Epcot.

Cosmic Rewind is fun, but it’s not on theme and is somewhat lacking outside of the physical thrills, which are fun.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

My opinion is that Cosmic Rewind is vastly superior to what it replaced, and the version before that.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But in my opinion, nothing compared to that original entry into the primeval world with all of the animatronics and the smells and the humidity - as a seven year old in 1983, it was incredible. And it enhanced the themeing of Future World because it was on-topic and not just an IP placement.