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

flynnibus

Premium Member
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.

I'm saying a city needs a reason to exist and reasons to be there (vs elsewhere). Just saying 'lets build a city!' isn't a reason that will be self-sustaining. The fuel of the economy of the city is the live and die of a city. You can't hinder that too much or the city has no more reason to exist. You can't just 'wish' one to work or build one that the reason it's there is 'its pretty!'.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
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.)
No abstraction, the biggest flaw with your idea is the massive amounts of physical area you are calling into play. You're addressing the aesthetics of railroad tracks and highways that cut through places, but you're missing why they are so destructive. A few hundred feet add up very quickly in an urban environment. You're focusing on aesthetics and green space, but there are ways besides open space to achieve these goals.
 

trs518

Active Member
I think that they could still recognize Walt's dream by focusing on Walt Disney World as a whole.

  1. Turn the guest transportation system into a test system for the future.
  2. Use the latest technology for building resorts and theme park attractions.
  3. Use the Reedy Creek Fire Department and Medical Services to find better ways to respond to emergencies.
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
I'm saying a city needs a reason to exist and reasons to be there (vs elsewhere). Just saying 'lets build a city!' isn't a reason that will be self-sustaining. The fuel of the economy of the city is the live and die of a city. You can't hinder that too much or the city has no more reason to exist. You can't just 'wish' one to work or build one that the reason it's there is 'its pretty!'.

I think the gist of the conversation is predicated on the idea that somebody could plop down $20 billion to build a city, or I guess really a town with potential for massive growth within guidelines. Prince Charles did Poundbury, but what if Apple decided to build a Progress City-style development project with an urban center and suburbans areas? I bet the houses would sell out pretty quickly, in addition to businesses wanting to setup shop.
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
No abstraction, the biggest flaw with your idea is the massive amounts of physical area you are calling into play. You're addressing the aesthetics of railroad tracks and highways that cut through places, but you're missing why they are so destructive. A few hundred feet add up very quickly in an urban environment. You're focusing on aesthetics and green space, but there are ways besides open space to achieve these goals.

Take a look at Central Park on Google Maps. It's pretty big. Now, imagine "uncoiling" Central Park into radial 300 foot Green Belts that circle the center of a city the size of New York. For one thing, it would be easy to find transportation as greenery = park = electric trams.

I would agree that such a thing couldn't easily be built in an existing city, but this is because streets have fixed widths and there are expensive buildings in the way. When starting from scratch, you could build almost anything.

Plus, embankments for elevated transportation are cheaper than building massive metal structures which are necessary in limited-space retrofit situations. Long-term, my solution is both practical and green, (not talking about retrofits per se). Look at Apple's new headquarters, they got a lot of green space, and they could have built a skyscraper, which would have used much less land, but they didn't because they realize that greenery is an important part of architecture beyond aesthetics, i.e. creativity/productivity, the environment.

screen-shot-2011-08-13-at-12-17-25-pm.png


screen-shot-2011-08-13-at-12-11-41-pm.png
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
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.

The Contemporary really was revolutionary, or at least a breathtaking novelty, i.e. having a monorail fly through the center of the hotel. And it pay-offs every year for the company as it still is a special novelty, as well as providing easy access to the parks for the guests. Guests might not gasp in wonder at the monorail each time it glides into the hotel, but it certainly does still make a positive impression.

The modular rooms really didn't work as well as they had hoped, during construction of the Contemporary, and it actually would have been cheaper to have electricians, plumbers, etc . . . do the finishing work, rather than the laborious process of installing the modular room units. But at the time, the decision to try something new made sense. Outside of some specialized construction projects, the idea of modular construction didn't pan out.

In terms of building a Progress City, you sort of need a benevolent dictator, or at least a CEO with absolute power and the guts to stick to a holistic vision. Lasseter stuck to his guns when it came to Carsland, and it was wildly successful, mostly IMHO, because everything that was put into the land had a purpose, was appropriately themed, and the easy way out was not taken. I'm sure somebody could have argued that because Carsland is near Hollywood land, they should make Monument Valley just a gigantic printed landscape backdrop, with a small amount of rockwork.

If Steve Jobs was still alive, he had the clout, (and Apple had the cash), to pull off a Progress City style project. Not sure who could do it today, of even if they would want to.

What about a Facebook City? A small town built around the idea of social relationships? What would it have? Parks and cafes everywhere?

The thing is that the people who could do such a project, i.e. billionaires, would be doing it as a legacy project, as opposed to making money (though such a project probably be extremely profitable), and as billionaires, they wouldn't need the extra income and hassels.
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
A little off topic, but just noticed that the signage for the Mermaid ride is kind of . . . gruesome. They've got Ariel tacked up on the front of a shipwreck, almost in a crucified manner as the wooden masts of the shipwreck look almost like a cross. Plus, this was how Ariel's mom died . . . she got smashed between a ship and some rocks on the coast! I get it from an artistic viewpoint, I guess, if you want to equate Ariel with wooden women nailed on the front of ships, but you can bet that little girls will wonder if Ariel is stuck or hurt, given how she looks.

Ariel, the young mermaid sitting on a rock looking at Eric's ship is Ariel's story, this monstrosity reduces Ariel to a generic mermaid, a smiling unaware bimbo tacked on the front of a shipwreck, oblivious to the world around her because she is reduced to an inanimate object.

I bet if you took a picture of Ariel face on, you could get a shot that looks like she is up on the cross. Somebody tell me I'm crazy, but this is just an awful artistic choice, I'd bet real money that the sign is removed and replaced with something less . . . offensive. Wonder if they'll realize that the thing on the balcony is a trellis which had vines on it in the film.


0927ZY_8109DR-640x497.jpg
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I think the gist of the conversation is predicated on the idea that somebody could plop down $20 billion to build a city, or I guess really a town with potential for massive growth within guidelines. Prince Charles did Poundbury, but what if Apple decided to build a Progress City-style development project with an urban center and suburbans areas? I bet the houses would sell out pretty quickly, in addition to businesses wanting to setup shop.

What you describe is basically the suburbs and mixed commercial development being done a lot in this country. People who want houses.. need jobs. Businesses can setup as services to sell to the population that are drawn in.. and that's a job base.. but you still need something besides services and retail as the economic base. You need industry or commerce.. that is not something you can 'buy' into a sustainable existence.

My county is the #1 richest per capita county in the country. But things are volatile because there is little actual economic 'fuel' in the county. Everyone lives here, but works elsewhere. There is almost no industry or commercial base here besides services/retail. Because of that, the tax base is weak. Even tho we have insane numbers of college grads, and the average income here is skyhigh, the government can not just will a commercial or economic base to exist.

You can't buy critical mass - and you can't buy the natural intersections of commerce or industry. Tons of things you can do to influence - but ultimately if it doesn't make sense for the industry.. you can't sustain it and make it blossom, no matter how much money you throw at it.

A simple example.. Disney trying to make a production studio work in Florida. Ultimately it just didn't make business sense to do it, so no matter how much of a front Disney would put up.. ultimately it was subsidizing the idea instead of the idea paying off and leading to the seed developing.

I think the EPCOT concept had similar flaws. How do you get that self-sustaining chain reaction going where the industry makes sense.. which draws in the population. EPCOT was described as basically a collaboration site.. where industry would come together and try things. That sounds an aweful lot like research - and research is something you pay to do, almost never something that pays for itself. Something that isn't cash positive is not something that will grow on its own and isn't sustainable in the long run.

You wouldn't want EPCOT to have to be like a museum.. that relies on donors every day of every year to keep the lights on.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
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.

There is a lot to be said for the potential for innovation when you kick out everyone who knows what you can't do :) In that same grain, I think that type of 'go for it' innovation would require the ability to stop, remove, and reboot when necessary. Something that would require people to relinquish ownership to the planners/central org. And who pays for these things? As sad as it sounds.. its like 'whats the business model?'

I doubt many of the planned communities/concepts tried in the past thought they were making subpar choices at the time.. they thought they had the right choices. But without absolute control and absolute resources.. I still have a hard time seeing the concepts becoming self-sustaining and growing on their own.
 

michmousefan

Well-Known Member
I think that they could still recognize Walt's dream by focusing on Walt Disney World as a whole.

  1. Turn the guest transportation system into a test system for the future.
  2. Use the latest technology for building resorts and theme park attractions.
  3. Use the Reedy Creek Fire Department and Medical Services to find better ways to respond to emergencies.

I really like the concept of an "Urban Planning Institute" at WDW, where units like RCFD, Imagineering, Transportation and others could create a series of best practices for cities and towns of all sizes to follow as towns reinvent themselves, in ways both large and small.

Greenville, Kansas (http://www.greensburgks.org/) — the town that was basically wiped out by a tornado in 2007 and is completely rebuilding with LEED-certified buildings and a wind farm just outside of town — would be one example of a place that could benefit from such an institute.

However, for something like this it would require Disney to step up their commitment to innovation in these areas and... well, we know how the last "Institute" turned out.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
A little off topic, but just noticed that the signage for the Mermaid ride is kind of . . . gruesome. They've got Ariel tacked up on the front of a shipwreck, almost in a crucified manner as the wooden masts of the shipwreck look almost like a cross. Plus, this was how Ariel's mom died . . . she got smashed between a ship and some rocks on the coast! I get it from an artistic viewpoint, I guess, if you want to equate Ariel with wooden women nailed on the front of ships, but you can bet that little girls will wonder if Ariel is stuck or hurt, given how she looks.

Ariel, the young mermaid sitting on a rock looking at Eric's ship is Ariel's story, this monstrosity reduces Ariel to a generic mermaid, a smiling unaware bimbo tacked on the front of a shipwreck, oblivious to the world around her because she is reduced to an inanimate object.

I bet if you took a picture of Ariel face on, you could get a shot that looks like she is up on the cross. Somebody tell me I'm crazy, but this is just an awful artistic choice, I'd bet real money that the sign is removed and replaced with something less . . . offensive. Wonder if they'll realize that the thing on the balcony is a trellis which had vines on it in the film.


0927ZY_8109DR-640x497.jpg

I think what they were going for here is a ship's figurehead. They would traditionally carve an image as the ornament on the bow of the ship to insure a safe journey. Kind of a good luck charm to guide the way. http://www.schoonerman.com/figureheads.htm
Some of the ones I have seen have their hands at their sides and are part human and part ornament, like a Caryatyd. They are obviously ornamental. It was not meant to represent a real person but they are portrayed armless and other awkward positions so I see your point. What they could have done to avoid confusion is carved a cruder, Aerial or mermaid inspired figurehead that matched the carving of the rest of the ship instead of confusing people with something that looks so cartoony and literal. Confusing.
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
I think what they were going for here is a ship's figurehead. They would traditionally carve an image as the ornament on the bow of the ship to insure a safe journey. Kind of a good luck charm to guide the way. http://www.schoonerman.com/figureheads.htm
Some of the ones I have seen have their hands at their sides and are part human and part ornament, like a Caryatyd. They are obviously ornamental. It was not meant to represent a real person but they are portrayed armless and other awkward positions so I see your point. What they could have done to avoid confusion is carved a cruder, Aerial or mermaid inspired figurehead that matched the carving of the rest of the ship instead of confusing people with something that looks so cartoony and literal. Confusing.

Thanks for the analysis.

Some prior concept work depicted a very generic Mermaid figurehead, which was obviously not Ariel, and was weathered and wooden looking. Looked like a great way to get guests thinking about tales of Mermaids. I'm thinking they thought that parents/kids would wonder if the more classical figurehead was supposed to be Ariel, or they thought the ride's entrance need more of a connection to the film, so they made the figurehead Ariel.

I agree that this Ariel figurehead is very "life-like", and was actually added after they did the cement work for the ship and has "grim" on it, but obviously isn't made to look like wood. I don't get the feeling that Eric, or somebody, made a ship's figurehead in Ariel's honor, or maybe a certain curious mermaid they had seen who was Ariel, but that the figurehead has sort of magically transformed into Ariel or something as it doesn't look like a piece of art, but like Ariel down to every little detail.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Take a look at Central Park on Google Maps. It's pretty big. Now, imagine "uncoiling" Central Park into radial 300 foot Green Belts that circle the center of a city the size of New York. For one thing, it would be easy to find transportation as greenery = park = electric trams.

I would agree that such a thing couldn't easily be built in an existing city, but this is because streets have fixed widths and there are expensive buildings in the way. When starting from scratch, you could build almost anything.

Plus, embankments for elevated transportation are cheaper than building massive metal structures which are necessary in limited-space retrofit situations. Long-term, my solution is both practical and green, (not talking about retrofits per se). Look at Apple's new headquarters, they got a lot of green space, and they could have built a skyscraper, which would have used much less land, but they didn't because they realize that greenery is an important part of architecture beyond aesthetics, i.e. creativity/productivity, the environment.
I understand the concept of a greenbelt and green space. But green space is not really a big issue anymore in American cities. Simply wrapping a project in green space does not make it better. Olmsted advocated and designed his parks with grade separated parkways, just what you're suggesting except for carriages. The interstates were also designed with green space along the roads, and this includes belt interstates. But they were destructive to the urban environment well before the expanded into their green space. Its also not the specific vehicle that causes the issue. It's the barrier that is created. This is why light rail is so desired as it fits into an urban area or green space, not cut it apart.

I also do not see how digging up some other place, transporting that earth and then building it up makes for an inherently greener or more cost effective solution. The soil will need compacting to hold the weight of the vehicles.
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
I understand the concept of a greenbelt and green space. But green space is not really a big issue anymore in American cities. Simply wrapping a project in green space does not make it better.

??? Many new urban designs incorporate greenery for obvious benefits. Trees "catch" air pollutants, provide shade (important with increasing skin cancer rates), trap carbon, and when looking at feeding a growing world's population, I could see future parks as part orchards, perhaps containing fruit trees harvested by robots. Adding trees and plant life will be an important part of the type of project we are discussing.

The interstates were also designed with green space along the roads, and this includes belt interstates. But they were destructive to the urban environment well before the expanded into their green space. Its also not the specific vehicle that causes the issue. It's the barrier that is created. This is why light rail is so desired as it fits into an urban area or green space, not cut it apart.

I think light rail is desirable because it is cheaper than other forms of transportation. Monorails don't exactly "cut apart" land on the property in Orlando, I would say even less so than light rails, but they are expensive.

I also do not see how digging up some other place, transporting that earth and then building it up makes for an inherently greener or more cost effective solution. The soil will need compacting to hold the weight of the vehicles.

If you're building a city, you're going to be excavating in a lot of places. Heck, you could even do what they did in MK and build a first floor below street level for utilities and basements, and then build up. Plenty of dirt for embankments. And yes, given than the embankments would be nothing but walls and dirt, that would be a whole lot cheaper than a large steel construction.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
??? Many new urban designs incorporate greenery for obvious benefits. Trees "catch" air pollutants, provide shade (important with increasing skin cancer rates), trap carbon, and when looking at feeding a growing world's population, I could see future parks as part orchards, perhaps containing fruit trees harvested by robots. Adding trees and plant life will be an important part of the type of project we are discussing.
Greenery is not equivalent to green spaces and parks. Even if there was no transit, a big hill covered in plants running through a city would still have a deleterious effect on the urban fabric. It doesn't matter what it is for or how it is composed; the problem is the spreading out of the urban environment.

I think light rail is desirable because it is cheaper than other forms of transportation. Monorails don't exactly "cut apart" land on the property in Orlando, I would say even less so than light rails, but they are expensive.
The monorails do not cut apart because, excepting a few pylons, one can see and walk through their route. There is no barrier like your propose. This is also why elevated trains were built, even into farmland to encourage growth. While they have a blighting effect, an elevated train maintains close proximity for pedestrians that is removed by having something built onto ground, either level with the street or on an embankment.

If you're building a city, you're going to be excavating in a lot of places. Heck, you could even do what they did in MK and build a first floor below street level for utilities and basements, and then build up. Plenty of dirt for embankments. And yes, given than the embankments would be nothing but walls and dirt, that would be a whole lot cheaper than a large steel construction.
The utilidors have prevented larger landscaping in the Magic Kingdom. You'll need a larger structure for supporting larger landscapes. You're just moving the issue around.
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
Greenery is not equivalent to green spaces and parks. Even if there was no transit, a big hill covered in plants running through a city would still have a deleterious effect on the urban fabric. It doesn't matter what it is for or how it is composed; the problem is the spreading out of the urban environment.

You can argue semantics, but planting trees in a city has positive benefits, some of which I listed. I gotta say I have no idea what you are talking about concerning plants and trees having a "deleterious effect" on urban fabric, or some sort of problem of "spreading out" of the urban environment. Cities do well with parks, even if you need a little bit of space for them, who wants to live in a city that is nothing but a concrete jungle?
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
The utilidors have prevented larger landscaping in the Magic Kingdom. You'll need a larger structure for supporting larger landscapes. You're just moving the issue around.

I'm not talking about putting utilidors under the embankments, but under buildings. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say I'm "moving the issue" around?
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
Anyway, for those of us who want to discuss futuristic Progress City style urban planning, here's something interesting from Sweden, an urban area which utilizes space so that you have cycling paths and walk-ways in a high density city block.

nehed-lead01.jpg


newheden-ed02.jpg


Interesting concept, IMHO, I'm sure that creative types, like Eddie, could figure out how to make such a project even more beautiful, and/or how to incorporate such a design into a theme park resort.

I've always liked bucolic areas of WDW, like the Norway pavilion, and think it would be nice to have a hotel room in such an area, only the presence of thousands of other guests is intrusive in a way. Maybe such a design could be used to, in a way allow thousands of guests at a resort to experience a naturalistic setting without being continually aware of the fact they are in a hotel. I could see such a green space design being used for an Animal Kingdom type resort such that you mostly see hills and greenery, instead of just a massive hotel.

http://inhabitat.com/new-heden-by-kjellgren-kaminsky-architects/
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
You can argue semantics, but planting trees in a city has positive benefits, some of which I listed. I gotta say I have no idea what you are talking about concerning plants and trees having a "deleterious effect" on urban fabric, or some sort of problem of "spreading out" of the urban environment. Cities do well with parks, even if you need a little bit of space for them, who wants to live in a city that is nothing but a concrete jungle?
It's not the trees that have the deleterious effect, it's the berm. The berm. That is what breaks apart the urban fabric. It is a big obstacle for the purpose of separation. The berm is the problem regardless of what it holds or how it is made.

I'm not talking about putting utilidors under the embankments, but under buildings. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say I'm "moving the issue" around?
A utilidor under a building is called a basement. If you're just building basements then that isn't much of anything special. If they are going under the ground level, then they are something different, and those areas would be landscaped. To support that load, you need a structure. So instead of building the structure for the transit, you're building it to hold up the city.
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
The trailer for the Lone Ranger is up. The film looks pretty realistic, even gritty. I think it will be a big hit on the scale of the Pirate movies, IMHO. Will we get a Lone Ranger themed ride in DLR?

 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom