Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)

[The MaD Hatter]

I'm constantly debating with myself if my current love of Epcot is based on the current state of the park or nostalgic memories of how it used to be. Although I do think there are still many good things about the park, I usually determine the latter explains why it's my favorite park. I always wonder if I would still like Epcot as much if I only ever experienced the current version.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

A little off topic, but I was reading on Blue Sky Disney about the Christmas decorations which will be coming to BVS and Carsland:

http://www.blueskydisney.com/2012/09/know-flakes.html

BVS will be themed with idealized 1920's/30's-style Christmas decorations. The Christmas Tree will be put in front of Elias and Company, and this store will be made up to look like an old time Macy's store during Christmas, along with a Santa Claus meet and greet and a lot of decorations.

Couldn't help but think about the window display in the movie Christmas Story, and the Santa Claus scene as well. I walked through a lot of the stores on BVS, but they all kinda of look the same, though very nice a clean/spartan sort of way. Think that holiday decorations could really liven up the place. Wish that Elias & Company had a large window out front for a mega-sized Christmas display, but at least the store has a big over-hang that they could put props on top of.

Carsland will get a lot of decorations as well, in addition to special lighting on the Cadillac Mountain Range. Wonder if they could project a snow fall on the mountains, and if it would look good.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Thanks for all your EPCOT insights and experiences, it's fun for all of us the hear about the impact the place has had on many of you.

As many of you might remember, there was quite a bit of build up to the project, given the "Walt's last dream" type of marketing. It was not pitched as something fun as much as it was "important" to see. Like it was the "game changer" (had that term existed) of parks. So we had all seen it being produced on stages in dips and drabs. I watched others build it as I was working on the outside, and my expectations were very high as the Imagineers I knew of were extremely bullish on it. The buzz was big.

I went a year or so after opening and I remember being underwhelmed by the content (looked backward too much) but overwhelmed and impressed by the scope and beauty. It was a sincere effort and you did feel that. It just felt very uneven to me. Energy blew me away as a means of presentation, but the content didn't. Land was dull and the Kabaret that everyone had raved about was Bear Band with veggies. Imagination was cute and the music was nice, but fell short of expectation given the topic. WS felt incomplete because it was, France being my favorite as the film emotionally moved me. AA was very well done, the AA's were great.
It all felt Disney and that was a big rush, but they was a certain emptiness about it all. I was looking for the magic and it felt like they were preaching more than inspiring back then. Horizons was the missing piece as to the content mission and it helped, but that did not exist the first year, so there was this history lesson and lots of corporate bliss. I wished that Horizons content had been in SSE. Cronkite and the "Tomorrow's Child" thing became the version that stuck with me as time went on, but it's hard to do a show in that ball. I wanted to love EPCOT, but the expectation was just too high. It really grew on me over the years when I learned how to "use it". For me, EPCOT became a mixed use dining and roaming experience (WS), versus a linear, purpose driven set of attractions. I guess I just wanted Progress City.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I went a year or so after opening and I remember being underwhelmed by the content (looked backward too much) but overwhelmed and impressed by the scope and beauty.

. . .

For me, EPCOT became a mixed use dining and roaming experience (WS), versus a linear, purpose driven set of attractions. I guess I just wanted Progress City.

It's really interesting getting an imagineer's perspective pre and post Epcot opening.

Compared to today's newer attractions/lands such as Transformers, Potterland, even Carsland, Epcot was (is) about optimism and a sense of history and the flow of time, versus hedonistic "escapism", i.e. walking around Radiator Springs and forgetting about the outside world. I think that it is hard to market such an optimism today, and that is part of the reason why Epcot is going with the retro t-shirt which sort of celebrate Epcot's unique vibe without looking dated.

I gotta say that I love the Rosie the Riveter and Depression scene in American Adventure. Makes me wonder what Disney's America would have been like as it seems Disney can make relatively dry historical events/people come alive.

In terms of Progress City, if it was built, I wonder what it would look like today? Would it be just a fancy well designed gated community with a small downtown, or would new sponsors like Google and Apple use it as a proving grounds for new technology?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

In terms of Progress City, if it was built, I wonder what it would look like today? Would it be just a fancy well designed gated community with a small downtown, or would new sponsors like Google and Apple use it as a proving grounds for new technology?

My hope in writing the article that spawned this thread (http://imagineeringdisney.blogspot.com) was that it was exactly that, more of a proving ground for those who want to test the future, versus Brazilia or a rigid urban experiment that would date itself. Walt admitted that he was open to suggestion ("We're just getting started") in his final film and needed American industry to step up to take EPCOT to that higher level. He seemed to feel that he could solve the basics like the infrastructure aspects by creating a canvas to build layers onto. I think they would have changed the design to suit something revolutionary that came along. Look at how much risk they took on with US Steel to try and do modular rooms, or pneumatic garbage?

What if gov would have dumped the whole "green jobs" stimulus pot into building "Progress City" as a contest for the best and brightest with Disney and a bunch of other green companies. It worked for Space X..Then you can train people to work in those invented industries right there in town. Too bad they didn't drop 20 billion into that and you'd have inventors running to compete to get their projects into the place. Kickstarter..the CITY of the FUTURE. It could be a big.org on Disney property and Disney can lease the land to the org. to make it's money. Not to mention those who would stay on property to visit it.

 

[ChrisFL]

I didn't see this article posted here, but its quite interesting

http://www.mouseplanet.com/10081/Building_Epcot_Center_1982

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

He seemed to feel that he could solve the basics like the infrastructure aspects by creating a canvas to build layers onto. I think they would have changed the design to suit something revolutionary that came along. Look at how much risk they took on with US Steel to try and do modular rooms, or pneumatic garbage?

What if gov would have dumped the whole "green jobs" stimulus pot into building "Progress City" as a contest for the best and brightest with Disney and a bunch of other green companies. It worked for Space X..Then you can train people to work in those invented industries right there in town. Too bad they didn't drop 20 billion into that and you'd have inventors running to compete to get their projects into the place. Kickstarter..the CITY of the FUTURE. It could be a big.org on Disney property and Disney can lease the land to the org. to make it's money. Not to mention those who would stay on property to visit it.

I agree, somebody should front the $20 Billion for a city on the scale of the Apollo program, in terms of innovation.

Without a doubt, Walt's vision of Epcot would have solved, or at least greatly diminished, a lot of the problems with urban centers by planning everything out ahead of time, instead of trying to go back into an established city and adding a futuristic transportation system. Here's what I got from Walt's idea:

1. Aesthetics sensibilities and preventive safety features built into the city.

For example, the suburban areas would have had greenbelts where kids could walk from home to school without crossing a road, (hence the radial design and “petals” of greenbelts.) Plus, Walt envisioned underground freeways to allow the delivery of items shipped by truck to the downtown, without interfering with other traffic, aesthetically or logistically. For anyone who has ever gotten stuck behind of a delivery truck, separating commercial and private traffic is a great idea.

2. Mass transportation a la People Movers and Monorails. The technology already exists, the big issue (money wise) is building the tracks. More often, cities today are looking at light rail, yet light rail interferes with pedestrian traffic being built into the median of roadways.

I think current light rail trains are too big for short distance transportation, i.e. why have an aisle in the middle of the train? I say make smaller trains, the size of WDW trams, which are elevated on earthen mounds on medians, and which cross over intersections on bridges as needed, and which make stops every 10 minutes or so. This would require planning out much larger boulevards for this system, more than a typical roadway, but would allow people to board an electric tram vehicle which, unlike light rail, wouldn't be slowed down or interrupt normal car traffic.

A whole lot more aesthetically pleasing than monster cement pylons and other structures, as earth is (pun intended) dirt cheap. They could have a side which opens up and then closes at the station, and be relatively water proof. If electric batteries improve, they wouldn't even need a rail (maybe an LPS guided system), and would recharge at the station.

Combine trams . . .

with the earthen mound elevated track of Casey Jr. (though obviously the "hills" would have to be elevated 15 ft or whatever is needed for clearance on roadways.

3. Communication. Fiber optics and high-speed internet already exist, but a real Progress City would presumably plan out how this technology is integrated and offered, with room for expansion.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Without a doubt, Walt's vision of Epcot would have solved, or at least greatly diminished, a lot of the problems with urban centers by planning everything out ahead of time, instead of trying to go back into an established city and adding a futuristic transportation system.

This though begs the very real question, can one really plan a city? Yes, there are great urban plans, but a lot of the best built on something that already existed and in many ways grew without a plan. The general plan of EPCOT was not all that new. It shares a lot in common with Ebenezer Howard's Garden City idea which dates to the end of the 19th century and was the basis of places such as Radburn, New Jersey. Even Celebration is based in the latest ideas of urban planning for its time, New Urbanism.

2. Mass transportation a la People Movers and Monorails. The technology already exists, the big issue (money wise) is building the tracks. More often, cities today are looking at light rail, yet light rail interferes with pedestrian traffic being built into the median of roadways.

I think current light rail trains are too big for short distance transportation, i.e. why have an aisle in the middle of the train? I say make smaller trains, the size of WDW trams, which are elevated on earthen mounds on medians, and which cross over intersections on bridges as needed, and which make stops every 10 minutes or so. This would require planning out much larger boulevards for this system, more than a typical roadway, but would allow people to board an electric tram vehicle which, unlike light rail, wouldn't be slowed down or interrupt normal car traffic.

The reason light rail seeks to be integrated into the street is because the desire is not to create a strong edge. You don't want to create the possibility of a "wrong side of the tracks" the way railroads and later highways split apart cities. What you are essentially proposing is narrow gauge heavy rail.

3. Communication. Fiber optics and high-speed internet already exist, but a real Progress City would presumably plan out how this technology is integrated and offered, with room for expansion.

But how do you plan this out when you do not know what is next? This was tried at the Magic Kingdom and EPCOT Center with the central show computers, but they are now a liability as its easier to just have the computer right there at the attraction.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Wow. Great responses. All good points, but they are the details..

I think the one thing that had me entranced by the notion of a "Progress City" when I was young was the fact that it was coming from Disney. Yes, there was a Peoplemover and all of these elements, but overall, it was a city coming from the creative arena, where imagination won out and technology served ideas, and all of it had an air of fun and urban kindness. Walt's city would have amazed and had a friendly benevolence. Some saw that approach as control, but I saw it as the solution. That issue will always exist.

Someone said once that "Art without industry is stupidity, but Industry without art is brutality".

We have lots of brutal cities where art is a token in the public park. I liked the idea of of a team of Imagineers driving urban design better than architects that just want to be published doing a self tribute. Look at WDW Swan and Dolphin. Ego versus harmony. Plans and buildings versus human Experiences. What if a city was conceived more cinematically while still leading technically? I just want to see one even if it does not work! I believed in the team producing Progress City more than the plans they were toying with, as I knew what the emotional result would be because I loved what Disney felt like. What if the same folks who built rotating theaters thought of a new one for my town? Sure, let them try! Business plan second, people and "wow" first! Paris is a great and harmonious example of Art driving design with a romantic emotional theme (and does not look like it was built on a budget) and it's still Number one in the world. The French prized Art and had a vision.

 

[flynnibus]

but isn't the reason so many cities get so brutal is because of practicality? Things are done as a means to an end. The success of the city as a 'engine' comes from it's ability to deliver on that 'end'. If the city fails to deliver on that, the city falters and dies.

If you build for art first - its not self-sustaining. I question if such things can be done on such all encompassing scales and still be agile enough to allow industry (the cardio system of a city) to push forward hard and fast enough to make the city viable.

I'm not saying turn away from art - but cities formed because the environment was conducive to commerce or industry.. and that demand is what built the city and sustains it. I question how far that can be contrived with art before all the incentives that built the city are overwelmed by cost or pace.. and make the project undesirable to the very entities that the city needs to survive.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think a big part of the reason cities have lost art and livelihood is because we have removed ourselves from the city. Even people who live in the centers so often still conduct their business elsewhere. We're spread out instead of localized and thus the art of the local is never generated.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

This though begs the very real question, can one really plan a city?

This discussion is predicated on the idea that somebody could plop down $20 billion to build a city, not just a gated community from scratch.

What you are essentially proposing is narrow gauge heavy rail.

No. My idea wouldn't necessarily involve a rail at all (could be LPS guided trams with rechargeable batteries), the core idea, earthen berms/terraces, is that these being made mostly out of dirt, and cheap retaining walls if necessary, would be much cheaper to build than custom made monorail tracks. A city planned with a radial design could have a circular park which incorporates an elevated electric tram, in addition to "spokes" of green belt which would allow access to a large number of places in the city.

The city wouldn't be cut in half, like with railroads, as the elevated tram would use a modest number of metal/concrete bridges to span intersections. Pedestrian walkways could be planned when the berms are constructed.

And if there is a fire, passengers could simply exit the trams and walk down the side of the berm/terrace. Instead of seeing ugly steel structures retrofitted into a city, people would see grass, shrub, tree covered hills in certain parts of the city. Park and transportation system in one.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

but isn't the reason so many cities get so brutal is because of practicality? Things are done as a means to an end. The success of the city as a 'engine' comes from it's ability to deliver on that 'end'. If the city fails to deliver on that, the city falters and dies.

If you build for art first - its not self-sustaining.

If this were true, then cities would be just rows of cinder block factories. Cities also want to attract professionals and residents, and so city councils fund urban renewal projects. Many cities depend on tourism as a source of income as well.

Also, a city planned out in advance, would save money in terms of burying utilities underground (little storm damage), and having an affordable and easy to maintain public transit system. Are you assuming that a city which grows like a weed is more efficient than a planned city? It's all about long term savings, and a beautiful city with parks can boost productivity.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Walt's city would have amazed and had a friendly benevolence. Some saw that approach as control, but I saw it as the solution.

I've heard people refer to WDW, and Disney in general as a benevolent dictatorship. The legislative control that Walt & Co. got for Reedy Creek was going to be used for the city, not just amusement parks. Certainly, if such a Progress City is built, it will require some special legislation.

I think the one thing that had me entranced by the notion of a "Progress City" when I was young was the fact that it was coming from Disney.

The company has recently done cruise ships and a resort in Hawaii, while reaping the profits of using the Disney brand name, which is associated with top-quality products. Eventually, I would guess that Disney, or somebody else, would get into the planned community world, but take a step beyond golf courses and rows of identical houses, and stuff like Celebration. I.e. develop a highly efficient and functional community for working professionals. This might involve luxury transportation, such as a private People Mover to some downtown area, in addition to high tech features like a supermarket where you can order online and the food is delivered to your refrigerator, or something like that, in addition to a special theme.

What if a city was conceived more cinematically while still leading technically? I just want to see one even if it does not work!

I think a cinematically themed city could be made to work, and even better than your typical city. They recently added some light posts, fences and themed landscaping to Dumbo Circusland and folks are going nuts saying how much better it looked than what was there. If somebody did a similar project on a park, or even city wide scale, it would help revitalize the area where it was put as folks will always choose to live in nice areas over run-down areas, if given the choice.

Look at the elevated park they are building in New York using old elevated train tracks. Kind of sad because if they built green belts into the city, they wouldn't need to do desperate things for some greenery.

 

[Ralphlaw]

The reality is that very few cities are actually "planned" in any detail. Most cities simply rise up over decades or centuries. "Planning" a city means that someone has to be confident that residents and/or business people and/or tourists will come. There has to be something there to make it economically worthwhile in the first place. Does it have a natural harbor? Do highways or railroads intersect there? Is there some valuable ore in the ground? Is it in the center of valuable farmland? Few people are willing to risk vast fortunes to build a city where they want it unless such a natural valuable thing is there or is on the way. Orlando land values were incredibly modest until it was announced that WDW was going to be built. Orlando was already a city at that point, but even after 1971, no one planned in detail how it would grow because no one could predict where and how fast and how much it would happen.

In my experience, city planning is akin to a trip to the casino; results are not certain. You can plan all you want, but the floods of people may or may not show up. Too much planning, and developers may be scared away because of too many restrictions. Too little, and you get a hodgepodge. I have also seen expensive elaborate plans put together for subdivisions and industrial parks, but no one came (at least not in the numbers that planners thought they would).

The moral of the story: Planning is a good idea if you know people will come, but it's expensive and pointless if/when they don't.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

The reality is that very few cities are actually "planned" in any detail. Most cities simply rise up over decades or centuries.

I wouldn't agree with that. Yes, most cities add on over the decades, but there are some basic rules that city growth follows, after all, cities aren't like a tree you plant and you stand back and watch it grow, every city in the US has building codes and zoning which regulate growth.

Plus, there is simply cultural inertia. Streets are laid out and built a certain way, but this doesn't mean that norms and laws can't be changed or improved upon.

A city with integrated transportation systems and set aside park areas need not be big, but could use a new paradigm as it grows.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The city wouldn't be cut in half, like with railroads, as the elevated tram would use a modest number of metal/concrete bridges to span intersections. Pedestrian walkways could be planned when the berms are constructed.

It isn't the rails, it is your earthen berm. You're creating a physical and visual separation in an environment where close proximity is essential.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

It isn't the rails, it is your earthen berm. You're creating a physical and visual separation in an environment where close proximity is essential.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, (a sort of abstract generalization applied to my concept?) but I'll try to answer.

Visually, the elevated terrace/earthen mound idea would put my electric tram no higher than today's elevated trains, though they would be inside of parks, and hence have trees on at least one side. The view would be great from the Tram, and you could see the tram from across the street.

In terms of physical separation, we're talking about a width of maybe 140 feet, with the tram track maybe 50-70 feet from the street. Not a monster big construction, yes, you'd have to walk maybe fifty feet into the park/station, and then take an elevator/stairs/escalator up, but this distance would not be onerous, much of the escalators and stairs could easily be built into the embankment, once again lowering construction costs.

Some subway stops are right off the curb in New York City, but I would not conclude that this close proximity is essential as many subways stops are in parks in New York, and you do have to walk 50+ feet to get to them and down into them!

Union Square, a stop I know well, being a prime example! With my elevated tram, you wouldn't have to walk as long as distance as Union Square, so an improvement there, (at least for one Tram line.)

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

They've already built stuff sort of similar to what I'm proposing, (and below is how they want to change one train embankment into a park, I would use multi-level terraces or gentle hills, as opposed to high walls):

I say built the embankment inside the park, and sections of the track away from stations could even be graceful hills which would be part of the park. Yes, you would need more space, but if you're building the park as well, or a city, you could plan for that space, and it would get double use.

My idea is add terraces, maybe even hills with some slope, and make them part of green belts through a city. A whole lot cheaper to build than big metal structures, which look horrible and fall apart much more quickly.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

but isn't the reason so many cities get so brutal is because of practicality? Things are done as a means to an end. The success of the city as a 'engine' comes from it's ability to deliver on that 'end'. If the city fails to deliver on that, the city falters and dies.

If you build for art first - its not self-sustaining. I question if such things can be done on such all encompassing scales and still be agile enough to allow industry (the cardio system of a city) to push forward hard and fast enough to make the city viable.

I'm not saying turn away from art - but cities formed because the environment was conducive to commerce or industry.. and that demand is what built the city and sustains it. I question how far that can be contrived with art before all the incentives that built the city are overwelmed by cost or pace.. and make the project undesirable to the very entities that the city needs to survive.

All true. Great works become art as they move us. All I'm really saying is that I like the products that came from imaginative people that did not know what they could not do versus planners. At WED we had both. Disney knew nothing of hotels and theme parks, but he applied his formula of warmth and optimism to those fields, applying the latest technologies in service of ideas. The Contemporary Hotel was way ahead of it's time with modular rooms and a monorail running through it. At that time there was nothing like it.

We are living in times that would probably extinguish the optimism of those early visions. It seems that people cannot come to any agreement anymore. Benevolent Dictatorships as Walt might have envisioned would not fly. That went out with King Solomon.