Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Pixar made Cars and Planes, Its too bad they didn't make Boats.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
When are we going to get the Galaxy's Edge we were promised?
Schmidt
Well-Known Member
Once again, it’s what you imply.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Yes, there is plenty of land on the side of MK for this to be built without removing anything, but removing the river is not just about finding a place for the new attraction, it's about optimizing the use of the space. Most of the WDW announcements at D23 were about optimizing the parks not about expanding them.
John park hopper
Well-Known Member
I find it hard to believe it is cheaper to rip RoA and TSI out than build on new land. Guess Disney doesn't care about guests seeing construction walls for a few years
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
That’s what is extra frustrating about this era. It would have been much cheaper to give Epcot a great refresh and keep the existing buildings, fountain of nations, etc.
They spend crazy amounts of money to rip the soul out of the park.
They actually did the same thing with DHS but the whole studio thing wasn’t something anyone was overly attached to - even though it was a fun idea when it opened.
Last edited:
danlb_2000
Premium Member
It probably comes down to capitol expenses vs operational expenses. Replacing the river may cost more in capitol expenditures but in the long run it reduces operational expenses.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
I also would not be surprised if it actually is significantly easier and quicker to build on the lower RoA loop than it is to build farther north, especially since they seem to be incorporating some of the existing elevation changes into the design.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Your update is better, but still not really accurate. You’re trying to spread what is really only a portion of the design process (the very public portion) out across the phases and also cutting one out entirely. You’re not alone in this which is why there is so often a disconnect between work that has been seen and the timelines involved.
I cannot provide the link, but a good reference is the concept booklet for the Switzerland Pavilion that made its way online to unnamed places about a decade ago. While how much of a design is documented in each phase has increased in the 30 years since it was put together (something that has occurred across the board and is not just limited to Disney or themed entertainment) it still shows what to many looks like a lot of detail. Toward the end there is a page titled Project Schedule which discusses next steps and has good, very brief descriptions of the phases of design.
First, the phases of design can be split into two groups that don’t have common names but could best be understood as Ideation and Production. These two larger phases are separated by the generally definitive green light. Ideation would include Blue Sky Design, Concept Design and Disney also often denotes Feasibility as its own phase. This is all work being done with the primary objective of getting the green light to develop the experience. Starting with Schematic Design the larger goal shifts to being the delivery of a built experience. Since it was stated that all of the announced projects are to be built then they should be at least starting the Schematic Design phase. (Must reiterate that this is the general case, some projects get the commitment and announcement early while some projects die late in development.)
Go look at those concept plans and you’ll see clear building layouts that are pretty well coordinated with the elevations and concept art. The different spaces are known and laid out. Capacity (the program) is a target developed at the beginning and the spaces designed to meet those goals. It’ll have been at least reviewed by architects and engineers to ensure basic code compliance and highlight potential risks with the design. The tools used today also means that you’ll already have 3D digital models that can be rendered.
Another, more recent, piece of documentation that can be referenced is the Eastern Gateway project at Disneyland. Other planning permission submittals would also be good to reference. Planning permission (which is not building permission) is typically sought after Schematic Design. In more traditional building this can often be the first phase of design because you can get a sense of cost and scale with minimal design work, basing estimated primarily on the program (the different uses of the space). The licensed design professions (architect, engineers, landscape architect, etc) are fully on board (legal requirements makes changing them difficult and part of why this is a change in how the project is viewed) leading their areas of design, so the plans should be more firmly established than they would have been before. This is the time to get planning permission, which focuses more on things like aesthetics, because the next phases should be less about the form and more about the details.
Design Development and Detailed Design overlap but represent a split between the show design (think theming but also other system related specifically to the show) and the underlying facility design handled by the licensed design professions. For show design, Detailed Design would be the last phase of design where important conceptual details are worked out before the designs are handed off to fabricators and vendors to start producing shop drawings that will need to be coordinated with the facility design in the next phase. For the facility, Design Development is the layering in of more detailed information. This isn’t things like detailed ornament that people often talk about but the details of how all of the different parts go together.
Construction Documentation is not construction. It is the final phase when most (nothing is ever perfectly designed) unique details are worked out and coordinated. It’s all kinds of things people don’t think about but has to be known like waterproofing a unique roof condition or very unique structural forms, but also seemingly banal things like the location of power outlets are documented. These are the drawings that must be stamped by a licensed design professional and are what is submitted for permitting (building approval). Along with drawings, there’s also been a parallel effort to put together a huge written manual on how everything is to be prepared (the project manual composed of the project specifications).
Construction is sometimes considered a phase of design. Designs do change. Sometimes in response to shortcomings in the design, different field conditions or even just because. Fast-track project delivery, something Disney does often utilize to some degree, allows for construction to overlap with design. So while the larger project as a whole might be in one phase, specific aspects can be further ahead or trailing behind. Site work like the permits recently filed for the Magic Kingdom often run ahead because work can be done with varying levels of incomplete information. In this case, you don’t actually need to know anything about the attraction in order to build the lay down yards.
Art is created all throughout this process and can have a variety of purposes. It’s lot always just about creating and developing the idea. Some art is intentionally made for the purpose of marketing, which means a project can be further along in the process but still be fudged to obscure information that is not going to be released alongside the art. The tools used to create “blueprints” is no longer predominantly CAD but now BIM (building information modeling) meaning there is a 3D model of the actual technical drawings that can be rendered as art. The art for the recent hotel towers have all been so close to the final price because they were created directly from these digital models. Even early art that is released is now often drawn over some sort of digital asset, even if it is something simple like a massing model. Art can also be held onto and released well after it was created.
Figments Friend
Well-Known Member
Perfection.
Today’s ‘Disney’, in a nutshell.
-
Raineman
Well-Known Member
Who is downplaying new product or saying that they shouldn't happen because of $? History has shown that the finished product is not the same as what is announced prior to construction; at the very least it is different, and worst case is that it will be smaller in size/scale/theming/offerings. There is no reason to believe that this new Cars area will be any different. Anyone thinking that the artwork we've seen dozens of times in this thread will represent the finished product will be proven to be wrong, and the in-depth analysis of that artwork will be ultimately pointless.
FettFan
Well-Known Member
Pixar made Cars and Planes, Its too bad they didn't make Boats.
They didn’t make Planes. That was DisneyToon.
The same folks who made Bambi II: First Blood and Cinderella III: All the Time in the Ball.
Which sadly did not feature Cindy attempting to harness lightning from the castle’s clock tower with the help of an eccentric scientist.
Last edited:
Gusey
Well-Known Member
Yet, the same a share universe and the setting of Planes 2 is the setting for this new attraction, Piston Peak National Park
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Your story idea is better than anything Disney has put out in years
el_super
Well-Known Member
Sure. Thanks. Artwork is just a concept and doesn't always represent the finished product. That's always been the case. People should temper their expectations and not be disappointed if certain things don't pan out.
Still enough reason to be excited for the changes and potential of what can be though. I really do hope they find a way to add lots of shade, trees and water features and make that area of the park more hospitable.
FettFan
Well-Known Member
Again, the inclusion of Sarge the Willys Jeep and Skipper the F4U Corsair means that there was a World War II in the cars universe.
Meaning that there had to have been a Cars Holocaust and Cars concentration camps and …. WAIT….
Chef idea Mickey`=
Well-Known Member
The area from the indoor hallways connecting between frontierland to Adventureland to where the meet and greet is constitutes as a mini agrabah land. What's interesting is Disneyland Paris which I'm guessing inspired all this their Adventureland is entirely Agrabha themed for the rain but their spinner is placed next door at Disney Studios Paris. Whether it's smaller pathways that they couldn't put it in Adventureland there could might be the reason idk.
Chef idea Mickey`=
Well-Known Member
I think another iconic sightline that would be also removed is the one from TBA/Splash Mountain. It will look nice except if it was my guess I think we would not see the castle anymore because it be behind covered from the soaring mountain cliffs. If all you were to see is a piston peak as an eye soar that be odd of a bummer itself, especially when the castle and the River with Liberty Bell fit the Tiana location much more than what may becoming! Unless the castle would still be viewed with Piston Peak beside it.
wannabeBelle
Well-Known Member
That is perfectly fine especially if it is a great IP. On the other hand, an attraction doesnt have to have a compelling IP to grab my interest either. Just have a great story to tell and an interesting way of presenting it! Marie