Ornament is not theming. The Contemporary has a unique form derived from its concept. It's not a mix-and-match box that can have any "theme" glued onto it wherever. The thing about "simple" designs is that the good ones really aren't all that simple.
I don’t fault people if they like what’s being offered. I had some very enjoyable vacations staying at one of the All Stars. This resort looks 10xs better than that place. I wasn’t dumb or lazy, the All Stars just fit my needs and budget at the time. Not everyone puts 100% dedication to theme as their top priority too. I’d still love to see these Holiday Inns people here talk about. I’ve stayed at a few in my day and they are a far, far cry from anything in this art.Chapek doesn't care about anything but moving merchandise, higher revenue, and higher guest spending each quarter. Most people are too lazy and dumb when it comes to WDW, and think what's there is the greatest thing since sliced bread because that's what the TV ads and social media posts tell them. It's all about giving Johnny and Susie their "MAGICAL!!!" WDW vacation, because that's what the parents think they're supposed to do (again, thanks to marketing and PR).
If Disney doesn't do anything but copy "industry standards", those guests today will know nothing different. They won't realize that Disney used to immerse them from the moment they walked into the resort lobby until the time they checked out (and really, with DME it's from the time they land until the time they arrive back at the airport). They think, "well, I like what my local Holiday Inn offers, so if Disney does the same thing, I'm happy". Guest satisfaction achieved without taking a single step towards what the company used to offer. It's Disney regressing to the mean, moving to be just another of the most common denominator instead of being the least common denominator that it used to be. It used to be an experience (and almost literally a magical experience back in the 80's and 90's) to stay at a Disney resort. With what they're building recently, it looks and feels more like what you can get anywhere. Sure, the CBR refresh was good and fit the vibe of the resort, but that's a refresh of an existing, long-standing property. New builds likely won't have that "character" any time soon, if ever. And that saddens me.
Blame technology, blame a declining culture, blame a declining educational system... it doesn't really matter. Nothing about any of this will change without a wholesale directional shift at the top of the company, and swift kick in the collective societal backside. It is what it is, but that won't stop me from calling them out when they make a bone-headed move, and I'll also praise them when they do something right (And I did so with their CBR refresh, as noted above). But the bone-headed moves seem to be far outnumbering the good things by a hefty margin under Chappie. And don't anyone think I'm just hammering Iger and Chapek - Eisner shoulders a lot of burden on this, because it was on his watch that a lot of these things started. But Eisner also did a lot of good in his first 10 years at the helm for the parks, whereas the Bob's don't have any goodwill built up to draw upon.
Would I stay at Riviera? Possibly, but that's because I'd like to stay at every DVC resort at least once.Would I add on points there? Not a chance. DVC point costs have outstripped even the government-manipulated rate of inflation by 200% since Iger took over - $98/point in 2005 would be $126 today, a $28/point increase, and current pricing is $185/point, or $59/point higher than that.
I don’t see how people don’t get CR. It still works for me today.The Contemporary was built in 1971, in a modern, brutalist style. Brutalism was at it's height from the mid 50's to the mid 70's so it was very much in vogue and "contemporary" and very unique and unlike most any other hotel built at the time. Brutalist architecture up to that point, particularly in America, was used far more in institutional and governmental buildings, and far more rarely in commercial or residential construction. The form notwithstanding, the manner of construction was quite modern and fitting with the theme of "contemporary" both due to the beton brut concrete as well as the modular nature of the structure. When one begins consideration of how the programmatic layout and the building section interplay and inform one another, an even deeper level of appreciation for the design can be found.
If we are speaking of how conceptual art may have been received, I would bet the conceptual art would be leaps and bounds better than anything we have seen from DIS in at least two decades (EDIT: A few exceptions exist I admit). Hand drawn renders by extremely talented visual illustrators will always, always trump computer generated images.
And just to drive the point home...
I will take the above over any of the renders of any of the hotels on the slate.
The Contemporary is an interesting case. I happen to like it for various reasons, but I could see that if we discount the monorail passing through the building (which is perhaps so iconic that it probably can't be discounted), the Contemporary reminds me of an Embassy Suites with the interior atrium look with exposed elevators. There are probably better examples but it's as close as the examples others are choosing to compare Riviera to.
You know Animal Kingdom Lodge opened in 2001, right? And Aulani in 2011? I'd put both on par with the Polynesian.
I agree that both those resorts are great! My intent was not to criticize those by my praise and admiration for the modular construction technique used for the Polynesian and the Contemporary. Apologies for the miscommunication.
As far as resorts at WDW go they haven’t hit a home run since AKL in 2001. That’s 17 years ago. Part of that long time gap is they really haven’t added many new resorts since then. Mostly just DVC additions to existing resorts (including this one). The new River Country resort will be a major test.
There’s no free happy hour with snacks in the evenings at CR so nowhere near as good as Embassy Suites
I’d put both far and away above the Polynesian. But that’s just me.
Embassy Suites began in 1984. Hyatt Regency Atlanta’s opening in 1967 is what really kicked off the atrium hotel craze. Even then, The Contemporary is not just sort of grabbing features of Portman’s work. Becket emphasizes the horizontal more than the vertical and baths the Grand Canyon Concourse in natural light through the giant windows on the north and south sides.
I don’t disagree with any of this. By the way, this is the way to gripe
Back up your complaints with actual examples and facts. Too much time wasted in this thread on “that must be the main pool because why would they show a quiet pool in art”. Too much reaching for issues. There’s plenty in that art to question without creating an issue that doesn’t exist. Just my opinion. 
Its not difficult, they are just lazy.I don’t disagree with any of this. By the way, this is the way to gripe
I am not formally educated in architecture like you but I can say something just feels off to me with the tower in the 2nd art without being able to quantify exactly what. I think maybe the shutters and awnings over some of the windows. There’s some nods to French Riviera along the roofline and at ground level, but they don’t seem to mix well with the middle of the building if that makes sense. Maybe it will turn out to look better in real life...or even worse
I agree on the size of the building making it worse. Low rise buildings are less of a focal point. It’s a trade off for Disney. People want those rooftop lounges and views of fireworks but that comes at somewhat of a cost. Especially on a lake shared with lower buildings. Wilderness Lodge has 6 or 7 floors so it’s possible to go mid rise and keep in theme, but definitely more difficult.
Well not overly difficult but still more difficult than a 2 or 3 story building. I can’t disagree there is a level of laziness or at least complacency and the mini-towers are the new norm so it doesn’t look like this will change any time soon.
I agree about prefeering hand drawn renders over computer generated renders. The same goes for modern concept art for shows and attractions at both Walt Disney World and Disneyland which either uses computer generated images, stock character art, or just terrible concept out that look like it was photoshopped.The Contemporary was built in 1971, in a modern, brutalist style. Brutalism was at it's height from the mid 50's to the mid 70's so it was very much in vogue and "contemporary" and very unique and unlike most any other hotel built at the time. Brutalist architecture up to that point, particularly in America, was used far more in institutional and governmental buildings, and far more rarely in commercial or residential construction. The form notwithstanding, the manner of construction was quite modern and fitting with the theme of "contemporary" both due to the beton brut concrete as well as the modular nature of the structure. When one begins consideration of how the programmatic layout and the building section interplay and inform one another, an even deeper level of appreciation for the design can be found.
If we are speaking of how conceptual art may have been received, I would bet the conceptual art would be leaps and bounds better than anything we have seen from DIS in at least two decades (EDIT: A few exceptions exist I admit). Hand drawn renders by extremely talented visual illustrators will always, always trump computer generated images.
And just to drive the point home...
I will take the above over any of the renders of any of the hotels on the slate.
I agree about prefeering hand drawn renders over computer generated renders. The same goes for modern concept art for shows and attractions at both Walt Disney World and Disneyland which either uses computer generated images, stock character art, or just terrible concept out that look like it was photoshopped.
Just look at the concept art for Disneyland's 2017 update for Fantasmic.
https:///wp-content/uploads/2017/05/fan019840192312fi-550x309.jpg
And the concept art for the original show made for it's 1992 premiere.
For me, hotel architecture (exterior in particular) is of paramount importance because it was able to distinguish the entirety of WDW as something apart from today's norm (with Downtown Orlando, I-4 or the Lake Buena Vista Official Hotels offering perfect examples of the norm).
BLT tower was the beginning of the loss of this uniqueness, which is now accelerating to a nightmarish degree under Chapek & Iger. Some have noted, "I don't care what a building looks like, as long as the room's nice and it gives me a great view." Maybe if it were off in some distant corner of the World. But as it stands, these things going up in highly visible prime locations is like someone building a really badly-designed, ill-fitting condo in previously-pristine or historic place (e.g. Venice or Nantucket Town) affording themselves nice views of the beauty that was previously well-stewarded, while costing everyone else the same... and beginning a domino effect that leads to the end of the beauty that lured the development in the first place.
It could have been a win-win had there been executives and designers in place with a modicum of vision and knowledge. Footprint and floor-count don't necessitate a bland, every-day, degraded piece of architecture (although that's what we end up in 95% of cases around the world).
Here's a couple hotels from the actual Riviera that might be one of numerous archetypes that could have inspired Disney to build a resort themed to the Golden Age of European Travel:
While places like the Wilderness Lodge or Grand Floridian or Beach Club did an admirable (not perfect, but probably best-in-class) job of evoking that lost, romantic age of grand hotels, why could this Riviera, architecturally, not have strove for the same? Instead it is an ugly and inept looking building (went downhill from the first very bland rendering) - the shutters presence alone show the degree of cluelessness.
I'm not a big fan of the kitschy tower-portions of themed resorts in Macau (example below) and Vegas, but AT LEAST - at ground level - the designers and developers study and go for the architectural aspects that define a historic style (Beaux-Arts in this case). With Riviera, they couldn't have been cheaper or more lazy in this respect - like what you'd expect from an average (average = awful when compared traditional design standards) local condo development. I will take a pic of a nearby above-average condos that have much better application of traditional, historic elements than the "themed" Riviera.
Again, when a company tries to design something to evoke European resorts of old:
And former-themed-resort-hotel-leader-and-massively-profitable DisneyCo's effort at something similar:
Spot on. It's a fundamental misunderstanding (at best, complete ineptness at worst) of architectural elements and proportions. Or a total dismissal of anything design related in a quest for the acceptable ROI.
