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

[RandySavage]

"(or "Clicktorian" if you are referring to CAD degraded Victorian)

It's good to see that this is a recognized phenomenon among designers such as yourself.

As an aside: I've been summering in a small town (on the national historic registry) that was comprised, up until the last decade or so, mostly of 1880s-1920s structures - including many seaside "cottages", each being utterly cool and individual - each having a soul. The townscape was magic.

As is often the way of the world, the historic buildings sometimes weren't maintained, the town has no preservation laws (with teeth), and far too many have been razed and replaced over the last 15 years. Depressingly, the pace shows no sign of easing. The town's character is at a tipping point now, where growing number of new "Victorian" replacements are effectively erasing the magic/charm/soul of the townscape.

I'm early in the process of capturing about 25 of the razed Victorians in a series of illustrations, for posterity (all below were knocked down):

This is what I've been trying to get my head around: A lot of money has been put into the new replacement wannabe-Victorian buildings, but they don't have a fraction of the soul and beauty of the real Victorian ones. Why is that? What was so special about the earlier eras that cannot be replicated by most modern architects?

One of my chief conclusions (alongside modern materials, pre-fab, construction techs and other things like AC eliminating the need for sleeping porches) regarding this demise was the advent of CAD. It removes a lot of the humanity from the design process. It makes it easier, so the architect becomes more computer technician than artist. Humans are both symmetrical and asymmetrical. They are organic and buildings designed by actual humans, without the aid of computers, seem to reflect that. And, therefore, they innately, subconciosly appeal to us more. And even with all the ornament of Victorian buildings, a lot of the features and angles selected and tacked on in CAD for looks today, served an actual purpose back then.

This is an interesting image because it shows hand and CAD elevations side by side as it applies to Disney Victorian (Mystic Manor). Also interesting to note that it looks like they used the background of the famous Harper Goff Jungle Cruise illustration:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5507/9499942614_d39f197ae8_o.jpg

 

[Omnispace]

I agree about Disney design becoming ultimately self-referential. In some cases I think the approach is taken that if past designers "plussed" original architecture to create the Disney look then doing moreso is even better. Even Victorian architecture itself ultimately fell victim to overdesign.

As for Disneyland, I wish that a different approach would have been taken with the design of the "outside" areas -- less urban and more pastoral and park-like. The original parking lot was a non-designed area that allowed for the wonderful reveal of the park to happen. Now there is so much competing for one's attention that the entry experience is diminished.

 

[Omnispace]

Having designed in both CAD and by hand I have to say that they are very different approaches. Still, both are merely tools to achieving an end and true successful design results from combining an understanding of the subject with experience even before pen is put to paper.

 

[RandySavage]

What I'm interested in fully discovering is why - in 99% of cases - any recent architecture (residential, commercial, municipal) that attempts to recall the styles of yore, ends up looking and feeling soul-less and inferior by comparison to the older, "real" thing (IMO). Not to say all new buildings are terrible. Many range from decent to great in and of themselves. But almost none have that charm/character/soul/beauty of their older counterparts.

Recent (CAD) vs Classic (pre-CAD) in each comparison:

Federal

Victorian

Shingle-style

City Townhouses

Gothic Revival Dorms

Deco Skyscraper

I think why I am drawn to the great theme parks is because of the often-successful effort of mimicking these earlier, superior styles and techniques of building. Efforts to mimic them in the real world almost always descend into farce or post-modernism.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Great discussion.
The first thing to recognize is that the past had classically trained architects and designers that had to learn to literally draw and understand proportion. This is the first issue. Scale or the lack of it. Where is the call for that today? There isn't. Not that today's designers are dumb, they're not, it's just not a priority as it was.
When I used to lunch with the old Fox Art directors it was obvious by their critiques that they were architects that went into doing movies and not the reverse. If you compare today's monster mansions to those of the past, there was a certain humility of scale and proportion that the older buildings had that is lost in the ostentatious structures of today. So IMHO the designer is to blame for most of the atrocities. Look at this magazine called "Pencil Points ' and you'll see the lost art of the draftsman and many fine sketches, no longer a requirement, we can slide down to mouse jockey. I collected lots of these magazines with measured details, and refer to these proportions so as not to lose the character. Awesome work from back then.

http://www.period-homes.com/Previous-Issues-11/JanuaryBR11Details.html
http://www.ebay.com/itm/April-1933-Pencil-Points-Architectural-Magazine/231051185015?rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.m1851&_trkparms=aid=222002&algo=SIC.FIT&ao=1&asc=17848&meid=1360367401869637462&pid=100005&prg=8208&rk=3&rkt=5&sd=221283808856&

CAD is the "crayon" that replaced the 2H pencil. A useful, but blunt instrument that ignores nuance unless it is really harnessed. In the past, many of the elegant Ogee (mostly Ovid in shape) mouldings that were called for were simply interpreted by two 90 degree circles clumsily connected together. This destroyed the elegance of the whole thing. I've posted this book link before but it's worth repeating, this moulding book is a must for those doing victorian or any classical revival as it teaches you how to construct mouldings in a logical and pleasing way that respects both history and proportion in a way that beats merely copying something with no idea why you are doing it.

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Mouldings-Classical-America-Architecture/dp/0393732339

Lastly, the world has changed and structural materials and codes have ruined the delicate proportions of columns, window muntins, Door widths, even the minimum heights of railings. Standard sizes are not what they used to be and everything is thicker and clumsier. This too has a cumulative effect. On the good side, there are way more good sources now for cast and prefab mouldings and ornament, but still there are lots of junk too.

Look at how "applied" the tiny ornament looks on these DCA facades. Alot of effort went into this, but some things like depth are not picked up on an elevation. How the relative scale of the moldings does not always correspond well with the trim. Historically they did the research, but for some reason the execution was just not there. To me this misses on close inspection. The cornice above the window on the yellow facade just "floats" up there disconnected from the window! Corbels that do not touch the pieces they are there to support, flat details that do not project inward as they do forward, etc. Lots of little knitpicks (I know) but it adds up to a cumulative whole.

 

[trs518]

I think it also comes down to the construction material and craftsmanship. I think natural materials are more appealing than some of the plastic/man made materials used today. I also think that craftsmen can be to exact with their cuts and designs, that gives items a sterile feel.

When I built my son's crib I used shellac which has been around forever and is incredibly more touchable than poly.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I think it also comes down to the construction material and craftsmanship. I think natural materials are more appealing than some of the plastic/man made materials used today. I also think that craftsmen can be to exact with their cuts and designs, that gives items a sterile feel.

When I built my son's crib I used shellac which has been around forever and is incredibly more touchable than poly.

Good point. I think one reason so many commented on the DCA Little Mermaid building being like a Barnes and Noble was not so much the design, it was the scale and execution of blown stucco or plaster with the typical aluminum expansion joints on a modern grid. Guests sense stuff like that and can only express it by comparing it to something else that made them feel that way. Funny how something so subtle as a thin line can blow all the period stuff alongside it. Now shown clearly on a drawing, so you have to really meet on this stuff and ask alot of questions.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The Little Mermaid definitely feels like the BIM software, while impressive for its scheduling a visualization abilities, was in charge and controlled a lot of the design.

A big aspect I think that plays into the contemporary inability to capture style is need. Even within larger stylistic movements, there were environmental factors that influenced the design. Porches and awning weren't just cute, they had a highly functional purpose. Using brick and stone was plenty of times a status symbol, but it also has material properties and techniques of craftsmanship not present on a styrofoam siding. People can pick and choose so many with need or limitation and they try to have it all.

Material limitations also influenced the work. We can built a "Gothic" cathedral with new techniques and remove the need for flying buttresses but they're part of the style, not just a structural necessity of limited technology.

I do think Celebration, more so in its early years, did a good job of encouraging more appropriate uses of style.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Good points about need. Interesting. My gut says that you put the best details where they are touched and seen and cheat a bit more higher up. You can even use lesser materials but in a period way as even the White City Fair was made economically. It's real world details that distract and contradict the whole. The scale of everything is so monumental that the expectation is even raised to the point where the ride might have trouble living up to the grandeur.

 

[MinnieM123]

This thread about creativity, design, architecture, the "lost art of the draftsman" and CAD is fascinating. I have no experience in any of this, but I feel like I'm getting an education here from all of you. The photos that have been shared by Mr. Sotto, and Mr. R. Savage here on this thread today, really help to illustrate the points you're trying convey with those of us who do not have your background skills. In addition, you've taken the time to point out the positives and negatives of old versus new.

I appreciate the information as it relates to Disney, and design/architecture in general. It's fun to learn new things!

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'd love to be able to compare the original drafted drawings for Main Street, USA at Disneyland to the drawings for Hong Kong Disneyland.

Eddie, since you ended up having to turn to the Magic Kingdom for your Main Street, USA facades, how did you and your team approach that? Were you just reusing the originals, were they redrawn by hand, redrawn with CAD?

 

[RandySavage]

^ Eddie is really generous with his time and knowledge, and I also learn a lot on this thread. I think Lazyboy, Omnispace and trs all make good points about what has changed over the years, materials, form/function, CAD being the new pencil, etc.

I think Eddie is right in the core answer to my query:

The first thing to recognize is that the past had classically trained architects and designers that had to learn to literally draw and understand proportion

I spent a couple days in the New York Public Library archives going through loads of Pencil Points from the 1920s when I was trying to learn more about never-built skyscrapers of that period. The artistry was astounding, not just for skyscrapers but all sorts of architectural features.

This is a nice resource to see dozens of that period's arch. renderings in varying styles:
http://prior.lib.umassd.edu/digicoll/stickarch/aabn.cfm

 

[BalooChicago]

CAD is not the issue. CAD is a tool. Education is the issue. Most architecture programs do not teach traditional architecture. Most architects are not trained traditional proportions, and ornament is looked down upon. It's easy to try and copy an architectural style. It's hard to pull it off.

The program I went through the first project was to draw a doric order study, then study a building which used the doric order, then design a building which used the doric order, Ionic Order, rinse and repeat. Though my own design sense leans modern, I am a fully trained classicist. Most new classical work is awful, and is like nails on chalkboard to me, as I know how it should be.

 

[oswaldmickey]

<Side Note>
...In World News...I thought this would be interesting to share if it hadn't....

South Korea to build "Invisible Tower"



The transparency look will be ontained by using cameras that will take images on one side of the building and they´ll be projected on the other side of the building. If they pull this off it will be very cool.

Tower Infinity won't be the tallest skyscraper in the world, but it will have an innovative LED projector and camera system that will use real-time images to "cloak" the building.

Tower Infinity will reach 450 meters (1,476 feet) and have the third highest observation deck in the world with a view of planes flying in and out of Incheon.

The GDS website says the tower will set itself apart "by celebrating the global community rather than focusing on itself."

Link to full article: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/Blog/20...-will-be-an-anti-tower/9331379078874/?spt=sec

 

[Eddie Sotto]

<Side Note>
...In World News...I thought this would be interesting to share if it hadn't....

South Korea to build "Invisible Tower"



The transparency look will be ontained by using cameras that will take images on one side of the building and they´ll be projected on the other side of the building. If they pull this off it will be very cool.

Tower Infinity won't be the tallest skyscraper in the world, but it will have an innovative LED projector and camera system that will use real-time images to "cloak" the building.

Tower Infinity will reach 450 meters (1,476 feet) and have the third highest observation deck in the world with a view of planes flying in and out of Incheon.

The GDS website says the tower will set itself apart "by celebrating the global community rather than focusing on itself."

Link to full article: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/Blog/20...-will-be-an-anti-tower/9331379078874/?spt=sec

I'll believe it when I see it. If the building is backlit by the sun then you really have to alter the brightness to really high level to compensate for that. I have done jobs where LED screens have to match the suns brightness in real time and it's not easy, it's super bright. I doubt it can be projected. Look at the image they show at night. Are they serious that there are no backlit windows at night? No light leak at all? Lighting is an additive medium, not subtractive. the building will likely be silhouetted. The cost to actually be as "invisible" as they claim is insane. My guess is that it will be interesting although anything but invisible.

 

[tirian]

I'll believe it when I see it. If the building is backlit by the sun then you really have to alter the brightness to really high level to compensate for that. I have done jobs where LED screens have to match the suns brightness in real time and it's not easy, it's super bright. I doubt it can be projected. Look at the image they show at night. Are they serious that there are no backlit windows at night? No light leak at all? Lighting is an additive medium, not subtractive. the building will likely be silhouetted. The cost to actually be as "invisible" as they claim is insane. My guess is that it will be interesting although anything but invisible.

If you squint your eyes and turn your head the right way...

 

[trs518]

I really doubt that building will be LEED certified....

1. How will the lack of windows affect office works?
2. They specifically mention that an airport is nearby. How will they create a safe flight zone for airplanes and helicopters?
3. How much electricity will it take to generate this effect? If it's a significant amount, how will they generate enough revenue to do it?
4. How will they maintain the effect; present a good show?

 

[WDWDad13]

I really doubt that building will be LEED certified....

2. They specifically mention that an airport is nearby. How will they create a safe flight zone for airplanes and helicopters?

that was one of the first things I thought of as well...

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

As for Disneyland, I wish that a different approach would have been taken with the design of the "outside" areas -- less urban and more pastoral and park-like. The original parking lot was a non-designed area that allowed for the wonderful reveal of the park to happen. Now there is so much competing for one's attention that the entry experience is diminished.

While I certainly agree that the entrance to Main Street now feels less special and dramatic in its new surroundings, I now get that feeling of awe even stronger when I come in via tram or through Downtown Disney. I'm not sure why. Maybe the initial sights from either route (large fountain and World of Disney by the tram exit and the gardens or the Rainforest Cafe building) tell me I'm on the property before I even get the park. The lackluster piece is getting through security and seeing nothing special in the area between DL and DCA. That surprises me and seems to diminish that special feeling.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

What I'm interested in fully discovering is why - in 99% of cases - any recent architecture (residential, commercial, municipal) that attempts to recall the styles of yore, ends up looking and feeling soul-less and inferior by comparison to the older, "real" thing (IMO). Not to say all new buildings are terrible. Many range from decent to great in and of themselves. But almost none have that charm/character/soul/beauty of their older counterparts.

Recent (CAD) vs Classic (pre-CAD) in each comparison:

Federal

Victorian

Shingle-style

City Townhouses

Gothic Revival Dorms

Deco Skyscraper

I think why I am drawn to the great theme parks is because of the often-successful effort of mimicking these earlier, superior styles and techniques of building. Efforts to mimic them in the real world almost always descend into farce or post-modernism.

Great observations, Randy, and oh my gosh- you should be an Imagineer! I am not a professional at all in these areas of discussion and have little to add from that perspective. However, I think that weather plays an important difference with how we feel about older versus newer buildings of the same style. There's some beauty that's created by the work of God through sun and rain that new buildings by definition cannot capture. The patina of copper, the silvering of certain types of wood, the softening of stone.