SDav10495
Member
You bring up something I've always found interesting...and frustrating. What WED created in 1982 with EPCOT Center, no matter what you think about its "message" or its "spirit" or its entertainment value, was (I believe) a beautiful, historic, and legitimate architectural statement. It was a prime example of modernist architecture and planning that actually stood for something. It was all designed with that idea in mind--they weren't building a mere theme park, but a (I'll say the word again) legitimate showcase of modernism and futurism. Every aspect of the park's layout and construction had an idea behind it, the same as any other legitimate piece of architecture today...not to mention some of EPCOT's buildings were technologically ingenious in and of themselves (see Spaceship Earth or Universe of Energy) and were not merely pretty warehouses containing "amusement rides". The fact that all of this was created by one entity--WED Enterprises--meant that the entire park was architecturally unified in a way you won't often see out in the "real world", and this, I believe, made the whole park a one-of-a-kind architectural gem. It was, in case I didn't drive my point home, legitimate. Architecturally, it wasn't "just a theme park".
Fast forward to 25 years later, when such an achievement should be recognized by now in the architectural community. EPCOT Center's architecture and design deserve comprehensive books written about them--about their beauty, about their boldness, about how the entire park is unique in the world. There should be architecture buffs visiting the park just to appreciate the pavilions and layout.
But that isn't the case--and a lot of that is because of the visual blights that have been fouling up and holding back the park for the past decade. Let's even forget about the entertainment within the park and whether or not it flies in the face of EPCOT Center's "message"--let's just stick to visuals. In Disney's relentless effort to brand EPCOT (sorry, Epcot), they've tarted up and visually dumbed down what used to be more than "just a theme park", at least architecturally. Irrelevant marquees and whirly-gigs attack the senses in the old Communicore Plaza. Ridiculous signs clutter up the front of Imagination. A hideous and--perhaps worse--supremely boring canopy hides the sleek World of Motion (does GM realize that the old building would only make Test Track look cooler?). The wand rising over Spaceship Earth is only the most visible and offensive of these blights, and it confirmed to the architectural community that Epcot is "just a Disney park" whose truly significant additions to the world of architecture don't deserve appreciation.
If Spaceship Earth doesn't seem to have "achieved the status or magnitude" of other landmarks, it's because Disney hasn't let it. In trying to update the buildings of Epcot, Disney actually set them back years and years. (The only recent example I can see to the contrary is the beautiful facade of Mission: Space--it just doesn't need anything else, much like its 1982 counterparts the way they first appeared.) The fact that Spaceship Earth is in a place built for entertainment is irrelevant...it, and the park it represents, is a marvel, a legitimate marvel. If it's not a architectural icon, I don't know what qualifies. Let's not forget, the Eiffel Tower--an undisputed icon--was built to amaze the visitors at a world's fair. Hmm, sound familiar? :animwink:
My main point is just that you shouldn't add hyper-marketed "fun and magic" to something just because it's in a place known as "Disney World". Since 1955 the architecture of the Disney parks has been ridiculed for being false and irrelevant. With EPCOT Center, Disney had something on their hands that could have refuted that argument--a park that was full to the brim of Disney creativity and imagination for the new century, with no castle in sight. But sometime in the last decade Disney began submitting to that same "just a theme park" school of thought, and in the process they shot themselves in the foot...architecturally speaking. Here was a company that had tremendous potential to spearhead some real imaginative architectural projects, but instead decided to label themselves the way everyone else labeled them and reverted to infantile Mickey hands and shiny things. It's not out of architectural snobbery but out of deep respect for Disney's potential when I say it's truly, truly beneath them.
Gah, I could go on and on about that...one of these days I'll try to develop and organize that idea a little better, perhaps in an essay. But you get my drift, I hope. Here's hoping that with the newly "naked" Spaceship Earth, Disney will have a chance to prove their aesthetic clout once more and become a leader in creative architecture.
