The stores at the top of the Canadian pavilion have been closed for some time now while stores in other countries have been expanding. My original thought was: Canadian goods just aren't unique enough to be hot sellers; now I'm thinking it's a matter of design.
Imagine you're a first time visitor to EPCOT. You walk by China and see a crowd of people watching the acrobats. Awesome, aren't they? Then you notice the temple and the people filing in. It's a movie. You enjoy the film and exit into the tempting store. After dropping a few bucks (at least) you walk by the restaurant and make a note to come back and eat - and ask for a window seat!
Now imagine that you walk by Canada. You see a set of steep steps, and a winding path to a lovely garden. Which do you take? The path of course. Then you see the restaurant and make a note to come back for lunch. You stroll down the tempting boardwalk by the waterfall and end up at the mine. It's a movie. You watch and head back down the trail and get a couple seats for lunch. Then you pass the garden and hear music and see guys in kilts. You listen, then you walk off toward the United Kingdom. At no time do you hike up the steps - to where the stores at the top used to be.
The Italian and German stores are right on the street. The French design is similar to the Chinese. To get to and from the Mexican ride and restaurant you have to pass the stores. The Norway ride dumps you into a store. Could the demise of the stores in Canada - not including the Trading Post on the main level - have been inevitable due to the design of the pavilion? Did they originally think that people would hike the stairs, shop in the stores, head down to the film, and then walk past the waterfall to the garden? Or that they would leave the film and hike up the stairs and past the stores, even though the easier exit and the restaurant lay along the flat trail?
Imagine you're a first time visitor to EPCOT. You walk by China and see a crowd of people watching the acrobats. Awesome, aren't they? Then you notice the temple and the people filing in. It's a movie. You enjoy the film and exit into the tempting store. After dropping a few bucks (at least) you walk by the restaurant and make a note to come back and eat - and ask for a window seat!
Now imagine that you walk by Canada. You see a set of steep steps, and a winding path to a lovely garden. Which do you take? The path of course. Then you see the restaurant and make a note to come back for lunch. You stroll down the tempting boardwalk by the waterfall and end up at the mine. It's a movie. You watch and head back down the trail and get a couple seats for lunch. Then you pass the garden and hear music and see guys in kilts. You listen, then you walk off toward the United Kingdom. At no time do you hike up the steps - to where the stores at the top used to be.
The Italian and German stores are right on the street. The French design is similar to the Chinese. To get to and from the Mexican ride and restaurant you have to pass the stores. The Norway ride dumps you into a store. Could the demise of the stores in Canada - not including the Trading Post on the main level - have been inevitable due to the design of the pavilion? Did they originally think that people would hike the stairs, shop in the stores, head down to the film, and then walk past the waterfall to the garden? Or that they would leave the film and hike up the stairs and past the stores, even though the easier exit and the restaurant lay along the flat trail?
. The paviliaon just does not seem to have a good traffic flow and most of it seems hidden away. I don't know how they could make it better without re-doing alot of it
