Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks

[Slowjack]

So I was thinking of mentioning Santiago Calatrava and his buildings that are similarly organic in form...

I should probably let this go but in my opinion Calatrava is a prime example of what's wrong with modern architecture. His structures are very much not organic in form. He builds things that have very difficult engineering requirements--a tower that twists instead of rising up straight, a bridge with all the support on one side--for no good reason, not even aesthetics, just so he can say he did it. And he includes impractical flourishes, like a glass-bottomed bridge in an area that sees frequent ice. An organic form would tend towards simplicity, not complexity. Calatrava is more interested in figuratively signing his work than in the value of his designs to builders or users.

I think of Disney futurism aiming in another direction. Think of Spaceship Earth--an engineering marvel, and yet it looks like simplicity itself. The shape is certainly impractical, but the impracticality is hidden, and serves a purpose, to make a powerful statement with most basic of forms.

 

[doppelv]

See, I do not like these sort of intentional self references that so many today consider to be necessary in order for a space to be considered "Disney". If anything I would argue that the one big characteristic behind Disney's building program is functionalism, the Burbank studio was built to make animated films, Disneyland was build to create experiences while also handling the crowds of people, EPCOT was intended to improve the city. Likewise I think a transit center should first aim to be very good at moving people around.

I think that the Disney trend of building functional spaces can be attributed to the time frame in which these buildings were constructed. Throughout the 30's to the 70's, functionalism was a very dominant architectural force. The international style in particular emphasized the power of function and the rejection of individual styles and cultures.

At the architecture school I graduated from, modern and international styles were lauded and praised beyond measure, which I personally did not believe was merited. Disney's architecture fell right into that, the current TTC is not culturally or geographically distinctive. It could very well be plopped in Minneapolis and still feel basically like a bus station. Granted, that is its function, so in that way it is a success.

As a designer, that's not the way I would envision the entrance to a grand experience like Walt Disney World. Being on the shores of the Seven Seas Lagoon, shouldn't the TTC be more interesting, more fantastical? I think a new look would be just what the doctor ordered for, what is essentially scene one.

I'd like to see more of a grand entrance, a true staging area for the adventures ahead. Hopefully, someday, the TTC can be as important as it once was, and not just a transit station, but a welcome complex.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I should probably let this go but in my opinion Calatrava is a prime example of what's wrong with modern architecture. His structures are very much not organic in form. He builds things that have very difficult engineering requirements--a tower that twists instead of rising up straight, a bridge with all the support on one side--for no good reason, not even aesthetics, just so he can say he did it. And he includes impractical flourishes, like a glass-bottomed bridge in an area that sees frequent ice. An organic form would tend towards simplicity, not complexity. Calatrava is more interested in figuratively signing his work than in the value of his designs to builders or users.

I think of Disney futurism aiming in another direction. Think of Spaceship Earth--an engineering marvel, and yet it looks like simplicity itself. The shape is certainly impractical, but the impracticality is hidden, and serves a purpose, to make a powerful statement with most basic of forms.

Well, you make many good points and his work may be inefficient and even ornamentally indulgent, but so is Frank Geary's twisted steel. I happen to see most of Calatrava's work as elegant and as an architectural "sleight of hand". Frank Lloyd Wright built many functionally irresponsible designs as well, but still inspired us. I'm not hung up on any particular designer either and your points are well made.

Consider this. They are all excessive and Elizabethan. Even the Swan and Dolphin. But in a way, isn't "the impractical" and outrageous what people pay to see? Look at Bilbao? They make a pilgrimage not because it is a good responsible building, but because it is a "sculpture" that sometimes punishes the function (Especially the EMP in Seattle). The one issue I have with a LEEDs certified transit hub is that it is potentially no more interesting than any other public space. What I do like about Calatrava's work is that it's a "wow" and usually iconic on some way. I'm not suggesting that he be hired, but I do like something that is memorable. The Contemporary Hotel is that way too. the modular rooms idea was a disaster, but so what, the monorail goes through it! The Eiffel Tower is nothing more than an excess in itself, an engineering feat proving that something could be done. But it's still there because it is iconic and made a statement. So I do think Calatrava uses elegant forms (although functionally useless) but the function is to inspire with something seemingly impossible. Is he like others, designing for the sake of design or his own ego? Probably. Walt built a Matterhorn because he could too.

To me, Spaceship Earth as a building is very inefficient to it's design situation (containing a ride), however it is iconic, and as a "wow" it does that job well yet the ride makes huge sacrifices to exist within that building type. I think had the ride been in a box (or snaked down the leg in and out of one) it could have been better.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think that the Disney trend of building functional spaces can be attributed to the time frame in which these buildings were constructed. Throughout the 30's to the 70's, functionalism was a very dominant architectural force. The international style in particular emphasized the power of function and the rejection of individual styles and cultures.

At the architecture school I graduated from, modern and international styles were lauded and praised beyond measure, which I personally did not believe was merited. Disney's architecture fell right into that, the current TTC is not culturally or geographically distinctive. It could very well be plopped in Minneapolis and still feel basically like a bus station. Granted, that is its function, so in that way it is a success.

Even Disneyland falls into that realm of being functional and yet, because its function include the experiential aspects, the facades take on styles and forms that would not be considered as being part of the International Style. The Transportation and Ticket Center has aged poorly, but the Contemporary Resort's main tower has become an icon of Walt Disney World, its name the result of years of indecision regarding the name for the hotel with the theme of being contemporary. I believe it is entirely possible to be both functional and contemporary without being modern.

The one issue I have with a LEEDs certified transit hub is that it is potentially no more interesting than any other public space.

Does not any project have the possibility of turning out poorly? "The EPCOT Film" opens with the narrator quoting James W. Rouse on his opinion that "that the greatest piece of urban design in the United States today is Disneyland." Part of the quote includes this sentence, "It took an area of activity—the amusement park—and lifted it to a standard so high in its performance, in its respect for people, in its functioning for people, that it really does become a brand new thing." Why not seek to do that with the Transportation and Ticket Center? The "Wow! factor" is not decor built around the Disney characters or that it looks like steam locomotives will pull in at any moment or that it reminds you of a park, but that this transit center, in its intuitive functionality and elegant design, is so much better than the typical public space. Be to other transit centers what the iPhone has been to other smartphones.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Even Disneyland falls into that realm of being functional and yet, because its function include the experiential aspects, the facades take on styles and forms that would not be considered as being part of the International Style. The Transportation and Ticket Center has aged poorly, but the Contemporary Resort's main tower has become an icon of Walt Disney World, its name the result of years of indecision regarding the name for the hotel with the theme of being contemporary. I believe it is entirely possible to be both functional and contemporary without being modern.


Does not any project have the possibility of turning out poorly? "The EPCOT Film" opens with the narrator quoting James W. Rouse on his opinion that "that the greatest piece of urban design in the United States today is Disneyland." Part of the quote includes this sentence, "It took an area of activity—the amusement park—and lifted it to a standard so high in its performance, in its respect for people, in its functioning for people, that it really does become a brand new thing." Why not seek to do that with the Transportation and Ticket Center? The "Wow! factor" is not decor built around the Disney characters or that it looks like steam locomotives will pull in at any moment or that it reminds you of a park, but that this transit center, in its intuitive functionality and elegant design, is so much better than the typical public space. Be to other transit centers what the iPhone has been to other smartphones.

Could not agree more, all I was saying is that you don't lean on LEEDS as the "tentpole" of what makes it good. That is the unspoken ethic you just expect from all of WDW. It has to be a "wow" emotionally and visually. I had a client once who wanted to do a "green" EPCOT like city thinking people would show up just for that. I thought that it had to be much more more than health food, it had to be spicy.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Could not agree more, all I was saying is that you don't lean on LEEDS as the "tentpole" of what makes it good. That is the unspoken ethic you just expect from all of WDW. It has to be a "wow" emotionally and visually. I had a client once who wanted to do a "green" EPCOT like city thinking people would show up just for that. I thought that it had to be much more more than health food, it had to be spicy.

I agree completely.

Speaking of transit centers, do you know who designed Gare de Marne-la-Vallée – Chessy? I found it to be that sort of dark, uninteresting public space that made for a rather bleak cap to my day at Disneyland Paris.

 

[flavious27]

In the thread from which this discussion originated, I had suggested an emphasis on sustainable and environmentally friendly design and construction. The company has a history of supporting environmentalism and that tradition carries through today with things like Disneynature, the Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund and various other projects. Why not have something like a LEED Platinum transit center? Let Walt Disney World once again be a model for communities of the world. We've been talking about interactive queues, well the queues for the monorails, ferries, trams and buses could all teach people about the design and environmentally friendly nature of the various transportation forms.

Well a building that has a large roof covered with enough solar cells to completely power it and other parts of the transportation system would fit that requirement.

See, I do not like these sort of intentional self references that so many today consider to be necessary in order for a space to be considered "Disney". If anything I would argue that the one big characteristic behind Disney's building program is functionalism, the Burbank studio was built to make animated films, Disneyland was build to create experiences while also handling the crowds of people, EPCOT was intended to improve the city. Likewise I think a transit center should first aim to be very good at moving people around.

If that was the case, would any union then fit the bill for being a disney building because they were built to be very good at moving people around?

Buildings on disney property either have architectural elements that incorporate a disney logo or trademark, a color scheme that is playful and whimsy, or will have sculptures that evoke disney. The burbank studio has two story tall sculptures of snow white's dwarfs "holding" up the roof. The garage at dl assigns characters' names to each floor.

And placing a sculpture similar to this:

Adds the disney touch to a building, along with having a color scheme that people associate with disney and also having other elements that show the transportation provided by this building.

 

[flavious27]

I should probably let this go but in my opinion Calatrava is a prime example of what's wrong with modern architecture. His structures are very much not organic in form. He builds things that have very difficult engineering requirements--a tower that twists instead of rising up straight, a bridge with all the support on one side--for no good reason, not even aesthetics, just so he can say he did it. And he includes impractical flourishes, like a glass-bottomed bridge in an area that sees frequent ice. An organic form would tend towards simplicity, not complexity. Calatrava is more interested in figuratively signing his work than in the value of his designs to builders or users.

I think of Disney futurism aiming in another direction. Think of Spaceship Earth--an engineering marvel, and yet it looks like simplicity itself. The shape is certainly impractical, but the impracticality is hidden, and serves a purpose, to make a powerful statement with most basic of forms.

The organic nature is that buildings are not confined, that they flow.

It would be hard to compare his architecture style to that used at epcot, because they are different. His style is more abstract while not trying to fit into what what looks futuristic. EPCOT's style is the same as what you see in star trek the next generation, it tries to predict what would look futuristic at that time. It is not necessarily contemporary at the time but when you see it, you know it was built or designed in the time from the late 70's to late 80's.

 

[flavious27]

I'd like to see more of a grand entrance, a true staging area for the adventures ahead. Hopefully, someday, the TTC can be as important as it once was, and not just a transit station, but a welcome complex.

Well I think that it matters what the expansion of the park its transportation system will be like to dictate what the MK TTC's role will be. I see a more centralized TTC being built to work functionally better with an expanded monorail system. I do see that TTC being a welcome complex that would be the hub of activity for all incoming guests. The first place that guests arrive at would be this new TTC, they drop off their luggage here and pick a park to go to while everything is done in the background. This is already done for DCL, no one is lugging their luggage to their rooms.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The first exterior design we did for "Mission:Space" was Calatrava inspired. A giant wall of glass, very curved and very wispy potato chip like roof. What we ended up with is far more exotic.

 

[fyn]

The first exterior design we did for "Mission:Space" was Calatrava inspired. A giant wall of glass, very curved and very wispy potato chip like roof. What we ended up with is far more exotic.

Eddie, I noticed on my last trip that the spinning, artificial gravity platform in the M:S queue (from Horizons) had some details on it that I'd never noticed before. Specifically - some of the storage drawers in the "rooms" were labeled "EVA". I thought this was interesting, because HP - M:S's sponsor - makes a data storage product called "Enterprise Virtual Array", commonly referred to as an EVA.

Coincidence, or by-design?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I think that the Disney trend of building functional spaces can be attributed to the time frame in which these buildings were constructed. Throughout the 30's to the 70's, functionalism was a very dominant architectural force. The international style in particular emphasized the power of function and the rejection of individual styles and cultures.

At the architecture school I graduated from, modern and international styles were lauded and praised beyond measure, which I personally did not believe was merited. Disney's architecture fell right into that, the current TTC is not culturally or geographically distinctive. It could very well be plopped in Minneapolis and still feel basically like a bus station. Granted, that is its function, so in that way it is a success.

As a designer, that's not the way I would envision the entrance to a grand experience like Walt Disney World. Being on the shores of the Seven Seas Lagoon, shouldn't the TTC be more interesting, more fantastical? I think a new look would be just what the doctor ordered for, what is essentially scene one.

I'd like to see more of a grand entrance, a true staging area for the adventures ahead. Hopefully, someday, the TTC can be as important as it once was, and not just a transit station, but a welcome complex.

I too view this progression as a "Scene", but am not sure it is Scene One, unless entering the property is the Teaser. In any event, you want to build to something and not be overshadowing the real payoffs. It would be great to "wow" them, but leave something off the table to anticipate. The TTC is a great transition from the view out the window of the car to terra firma and your real first step onto the property.

Here's another TTC type experience to reference that I've brought up in the past. Knott's Berry Farm used to have live chickens running around the cars in their dusty dirt parking lot and I remember my mom pulling under a tree to find us a place. The cars were all slightly haphazard as there were no lines in the dirt. Your first step out of the car was truly unique and there were smells of Eucalyptus that came with it and the dust settling around your car. What a beautiful statement that made about really being in another world, a "farm" where it's rules dictated behavior. It did not top the Farm itself but set it up in a powerful way. There were real Cable Cars from San Francisco (in the paved areas) that were the trams that picked you up and took you into the park. You met the conductor and were already on a ride! This told you that there were historic and old fashioned things on this farm, it wasn't animals per se. So much great story and all in the parking lot. http://www.image-archeology.com/The_Cable_Cars_Knott's_Berry_Farm_Buena_Park_California_W-21.jpg

My first boss paved the whole thing and had the chickens removed, tore up the trolley rails and sold the scrap.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, I noticed on my last trip that the spinning, artificial gravity platform in the M:S queue (from Horizons) had some details on it that I'd never noticed before. Specifically - some of the storage drawers in the "rooms" were labeled "EVA". I thought this was interesting, because HP - M:S's sponsor - makes a data storage product called "Enterprise Virtual Array", commonly referred to as an EVA.

Coincidence, or by-design?

Although I left the company before M:S was completed, I believe the spinning ring you are talking about was actually a leftover set from the movie "Mission to Mars", so it may have been created as a graphic for the film. Not to say you are wrong either, but I had not heard that HP had any input into those existing sets. Good eye!

 

[flavious27]

Eddie, I noticed on my last trip that the spinning, artificial gravity platform in the M:S queue (from Horizons) had some details on it that I'd never noticed before. Specifically - some of the storage drawers in the "rooms" were labeled "EVA". I thought this was interesting, because HP - M:S's sponsor - makes a data storage product called "Enterprise Virtual Array", commonly referred to as an EVA.

Coincidence, or by-design?

compaq was the first sponsor, any naming would have came from them.

 

[Malvito]

Eddie, I noticed on my last trip that the spinning, artificial gravity platform in the M:S queue (from Horizons) had some details on it that I'd never noticed before. Specifically - some of the storage drawers in the "rooms" were labeled "EVA". I thought this was interesting, because HP - M:S's sponsor - makes a data storage product called "Enterprise Virtual Array", commonly referred to as an EVA.

Coincidence, or by-design?

EVA is also common NASAspeak for Extra Vehicular Activity (i.e. any mission outside the space vehicle ... they look really cool on the news). Not having seen the storage drawers in question, I am in no position to say that one interpretation is any more likely than the other, but I would think that a possible interpretation of the EVA monogram.

 

[Slowjack]

What I do like about Calatrava's work is that it's a "wow" and usually iconic on some way. I'm not suggesting that he be hired, but I do like something that is memorable. The Contemporary Hotel is that way too. the modular rooms idea was a disaster, but so what, the monorail goes through it! The Eiffel Tower is nothing more than an excess in itself, an engineering feat proving that something could be done. But it's still there because it is iconic and made a statement.

I guess the distinction I'm making is between ornamentation for beauty's sake, and complexity for complexity's sake. Obviously some of this comes down to personal aesthetic preferences. When I watched a documentary on the "Twisting Torso," for example, I was struck that, of all the people who were impressed to be working on the building, or eager to live in it, or have it in their city, none of them talked about the building being beautiful or attractive. They just thought it was an engineering marvel, and were so pleased to be associated with a building by a world-famous architect. Its visual appeal lies entirely in the knowledge that it was so damn difficult to build. You look at it and think, wow, it looks like it should just fall over. Disney buildings tend to use engineering complexity in the service of some other goal.

I would offer someone like I.M. Pei as a counter example. The glass pyramid at the Louvre is undeniably bold, and not everyone appreciates its juxtaposition with the original buildings, but its simplicity and translucence are the very opposite of Calatrava's.

Or you mention Frank Lloyd Wright. Probably not the right aesthetic for Disney, but again, although Wright offered a lot of innovation in construction technique, and employed a lot of clever engineering, first and foremost his buildings were beautiful, and in a non-pretentious way that everybody can understand.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I guess the distinction I'm making is between ornamentation for beauty's sake, and complexity for complexity's sake. Obviously some of this comes down to personal aesthetic preferences. When I watched a documentary on the "Twisting Torso," for example, I was struck that, of all the people who were impressed to be working on the building, or eager to live in it, or have it in their city, none of them talked about the building being beautiful or attractive. They just thought it was an engineering marvel, and were so pleased to be associated with a building by a world-famous architect. Its visual appeal lies entirely in the knowledge that it was so damn difficult to build. You look at it and think, wow, it looks like it should just fall over. Disney buildings tend to use engineering complexity in the service of some other goal.

I would offer someone like I.M. Pei as a counter example. The glass pyramid at the Louvre is undeniably bold, and not everyone appreciates its juxtaposition with the original buildings, but its simplicity and translucence are the very opposite of Calatrava's.

Or you mention Frank Lloyd Wright. Probably not the right aesthetic for Disney, but again, although Wright offered a lot of innovation in construction technique, and employed a lot of clever engineering, first and foremost his buildings were beautiful, and in a non-pretentious way that everybody can understand.

You have good taste. I.M Pei does great work, but for me can he can sometimes be a bit sterile like Richard Meier. I like the Pyramid, especially at night and it's even better from within and below. Disney of course is "theater" so things are pushed out a bit more like expo architecture, so more than anything else you are creating emotive experiences. I see how you view SC as egotistically doing backflips for attention with no real essence to his work. The first thing I saw from SC was this kinetic moving building, and to me it was "Tomorrowland", looked like Kuwaiti palm fronds, and was the best thing I saw at the fair. http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/index.php/Kuwait_Pavilion_Expo'92 http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/FA001318.html Anyway, I guess I liked the "wow" factor of the piece. The other designer that to me, knows drama (even if he borrows alot) is Philippe Starck. Zaha Hadid has done some nice spaces too.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If that was the case, would any union then fit the bill for being a disney building because they were built to be very good at moving people around?

I am not sure what you are asking?

Buildings on disney property either have architectural elements that incorporate a disney logo or trademark, a color scheme that is playful and whimsy, or will have sculptures that evoke disney. The burbank studio has two story tall sculptures of snow white's dwarfs "holding" up the roof. The garage at dl assigns characters' names to each floor.

That is a purely recent phenomena. Team Disney - The Michael D. Eisner Building, the one with the Dwarfs, opened in 1986 and was designed by Michael Graves, the same architect of the Swan and Dolphin, as part of Michael Eisner's "starchitecture" building program and stands in stark contrast to the Walt-era studio buildings. The "Hat Building", built to house Feature Animation after the success of the Disney Renaissance, is despised by many animators and in the process of being replaced with a less "Disney" and more functional facility.

The Disneyland Parking Lot featured characters as lot divisions for decades, but the park opened with rather minimal appearances by the characters. While not owned by Disney until the 1980s, the Disneyland Hotel spent much of that time lacking "Disney" elements.

The original signs to Walt Disney World were typical brown road signs. The Transportation and Ticket Center's colors and characters are all additions. Lake Buena Vista and The Golf Resort featured contemporary 1970s architecture, the colors of the Marketplace once being much more earth toned and sedate.

And placing a sculpture similar to this:

Adds the disney touch to a building, along with having a color scheme that people associate with disney and also having other elements that show the transportation provided by this building.

I completely disagree. I think character decor and garish colors is the easy and safe way, giving people what they have already seen and associate with Disney instead of taking a risk and creating something new. People say they want what they know, it is why sequels are so popular in Hollywood as they are almost guaranteed but very few are considered to be really good, much less better than the first. If you had to pick a hotel to visually represent Walt Disney World, would you really pick one of the Value Resorts?

compaq was the first sponsor, any naming would have came from them.

HP is only the sponsor because of the "merger" (reality was much more like an acquisition) with Compaq, that occurred two years before the attraction opened.

I would offer someone like I.M. Pei as a counter example. The glass pyramid at the Louvre is undeniably bold, and not everyone appreciates its juxtaposition with the original buildings, but its simplicity and translucence are the very opposite of Calatrava's.

I found the pyramid to be quite dominant and jarring in most photographs, but was surprised at how little it seemed to intrude upon the space when actually there.

 

[doppelv]

I completely disagree. I think character decor and garish colors is the easy and safe way, giving people what they have already seen and associate with Disney instead of taking a risk and creating something new. People say they want what they know, it is why sequels are so popular in Hollywood as they are almost guaranteed but very few are considered to be really good, much less better than the first. If you had to pick a hotel to visually represent Walt Disney World, would you really pick one of the Value Resorts?

I definitely agree with you here. Something like that really is taking it too far.

I also have to say, to answer your question, that I think the Grand Floridian would be the hotel I would pick to represent Walt Disney World. While I'd love to pick the Contemporary, and would love even more to pick the Poly, I think the Grand Floridian has taken its place as the flagship of the Disney World resorts.

However, theming really comes down to personal taste, just like architecture. One example that comes to mind is the Weisman Art Museum at my alma mater the University of Minnesota. It was the prototype that led to great buildings like the Guggenheim Bilbao and the Disney Concert Hall. I like it, I think its an interesting building and its place on the bluffs above the Mississippi River makes it a unique fit. However, many people on campus and in the Twin Cities area at large hate it, its not what they're used to and to them, it doesn't match their expectations of what good architectural design is. The same thing happens with just about any building. The Eiffel Tower was panned by many when it was originally built.

When it comes to a style to pick for any new construction anywhere, including Walt Disney World, it is up to the clients to decide what message they want to convey to the people using the space. If TDO someday decides that they want to, for example, reintroduce the TTC as a transit center for the future, then the styles you advocate would definitely be a huge success. If they want to create a sculptural WOW in that space, that acts as the introduction to an unforgettable adventure, then architecture along the lines of Calatrava or Hadid may fit the bill.

And possibly, just possibly, the story they decide to tell would be that of entering the world of Disney characters, in which case they may decide to go with the character infused toony post-modern aesthetic that we've seen. Ultimately it's their choice, and I would hope they would reconsider.

 

[Bolna]

Hello Mr. Sotto, I wanted to say thank you for Main Street at DLP! I just am back from a trip there (have been there a few times before), but thanks to this thread I did appreciate Main Street much more than before. I always thought it was very pretty, but this time I realised how incredibly beautiful it is and how much it has to offer! I really took the time to explore the shops and the arcades and search for the sound effects. I still haven't seen everything...

The thing that fascinated me the most were all the different rooms in Walt's (we had a wonderful lunch there). And in one of the previous posts, you mentioned something about art deco being in its early stages at the time period of Main Street. I guess that's the reason why the room in Walt's which has the discovery theme is decorated in art deco? I was at first surprised that it did look so different than the rest of the restaurant, more modern with the art deco ceiling painting and the chairs.

One thing I was wondering about however was: When designing these spaces, how much influence do the people have who will then be responsible for running the restaurant (or shop for that matter, you discussed that bit in the past already)? Having different chairs in all the rooms might make things rather difficult when they need to be replaced? Or at the Plaza Restaurant I noticed the tassles hanging down to the floor from the benches? These things make those places look much fuller themed, more immersive, than a normal pretty restaurant, but for me they it looks like they must make the running of the restaurant more difficult?

Oh, and finally, I read the story about the 20s themed Main Street on the Disney and more blog and from a German perspective I absolutely agree that this would have been a design which would have been much more relevant to many Europeans.