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

[Eddie Sotto]

TDS has great themed lands, but in general, the CM's in each land are still Japanese and don't always "fit" what we expect of the land the way we do in World Showcase for example. The Italian section of the park is great, except that very few Italians are there. The same with the New York section, etc. I like the World Showcase because each country is filled with actual people from each country, and that authenticity IMO is one of the very few criticisms I have of TDS.

Awesome point you make. This is the hidden "wow" of World Showcase. I like it for that reason too. Those pavilions don't cut it when they have a tiny sample of culture and a few facades. Authenticity is the glue and the CM's have it. Their presence makes the whole thing work as it acts as an endorsement of each land. You can really sense the difference a seamless experience makes when the cast completes the picture painted and does not break the spell, but in fact, conjures it.

 

[wedenterprises]

Great story.

TDS set out as it's goal to top DLP and in the level of detail I think it clearly does. The volcano at night is the perfect "castle". The Elevated train ride from DLP's 1920's Main Street surfaced there too! OLC/WDI went beyond with that park and I doubt any will ever reach it's benchmark of detail and quality. They also did the "Hotel inside the park" trick right and DLP blew the scale. So there are lots of great elements and iconography at TDS.

The thing that stood out to me was that it felt emotionally vacant at times. The only way I can explain it is to say that it felt like I was on this amazing backlot of a movie studio, but had not seen the movies that were shot there. I didn't relate to the spaces aspirationally. Being more full scale with wide walkways took some of the charm away as well, but that is true of TDL too. The SS Columbia is a stunning icon with no payoff, stuff like that bothers me. So I loved the escape that some of the placemaking delivered, but didn't care about the stories (exception would be the Vulcanian Caldera, 20K etc. but the ride was dull). The difference in a MK is that the environments in many ways are 3D versions or an extension of a story you already care about. TDS had some of that, but to me was not as magical or lacked heart. Kind of a love child of World Showcase and the MK. All told, stunningly beautiful and a new level of wow. I only visited once, but that was my impression.

I doubt most would agree with me, most Imagineers love it with few if any crits, but that's my take on a beautiful place. "A plus", but something was missing in the soul department.

I agree 100%. I had some issues with the "charm" or lack thereof, and mostly didn't really see the "point". I felt like the whole "ports of the world" majesty that was built up kind of fell flat. It became a justification for varying and seemingly random themes. I mean I get it, but I guess I wanted more. How about arriving at each "port" by ship? What if you entered the park and immediately had to choose one of the ports to sail to first? I think the magic and adventure of the sea, exploration, travel - all those amazing themes - was lost. TDS does a great job of putting you in amazing worlds, but it doesn't do a good job of literally transporting you to them, which to me, seems to be the exact reason why sea travel is awesome in the first place? :shrug:

the best mode of transportation is a train. hmm.

also -

The detail is beautiful yet over-stimulating. Especially the New York area. I actually wonder if it's too much theming? It is too "real"?

Is there an uncanny valley when it comes to theme park design?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The detail is beautiful yet over-stimulating. Especially the New York area. I actually wonder if it's too much theming? It is too "real"?

Is there an uncanny valley when it comes to theme park design?

There is never too much theming, only theming that contradicts or distracts from the magic you;re trying to create.

Great theming can be insanely lush, but when the colors compete or all of the signage reads at the same intensity, it rings hollow. The audience does not know what you're trying to say as they are overwhelmed by everything but the feeling. In theme parks you create a sense of place and then within it you dial things back to the point where the elements that are important or are the attractions, stand out the most. Great design happens when you are not conscious of it. People know instinctively what they should do and what looks like the must see. What I've seen happen is that all the signage for example is done to the same extreme level of filagree and ornament (out of context on ten designers desks) when in life it's not like that. The Drug Store window sign should not by nature be as ornamental as the Fine Jewelry Shop. They have different moods and styles, and some are more subtle. So when it is all over done, it all cancels itself out as they all "scream" for you to be wowed by them. That's not theming, that's contrivance. I'm not saying TDS is that way, but trying to address a common issue in many parks.

 

[wedenterprises]

This is really interesting...

The American Waterfront area is what comes to mind when I bring this up, by the way. That was the one part of that park that, to me, was overwhelmingly detailed, overwhelmingly real, overwhelmingly beautiful and thus the most interesting to try and dissect or "solve".

One thing that I didn't like about that area was the wide-openness of it. I didn't feel like I was being led on a journey A-to-B. I didn't know where to start. It was a giant open playground where I was free to explore, yet I felt lost. There is that doubt of "which way should I go? Am I going the right way? Am I going the interesting way?" It's a lot to take in while you are admiring all the rich detail!

I love how DL/MK are a series of "street" from the hub, you feel led. You know where to go. Even Toontown which is fairly wide open, at least corals you into a cul-de-sac of sorts.

DHS suffers from this too, everything beyond star tours is like a maze to me.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

This is really interesting...

The American Waterfront area is what comes to mind when I bring this up, by the way. That was the one part of that park that, to me, was overwhelmingly detailed, overwhelmingly real, overwhelmingly beautiful and thus the most interesting to try and dissect or "solve".

One thing that I didn't like about that area was the wide-openness of it. I didn't feel like I was being led on a journey A-to-B. I didn't know where to start. It was a giant open playground where I was free to explore, yet I felt lost. There is that doubt of "which way should I go? Am I going the right way? Am I going the interesting way?" It's a lot to take in while you are admiring all the rich detail!

I love how DL/MK are a series of "street" from the hub, you feel led. You know where to go. Even Toontown which is fairly wide open, at least corals you into a cul-de-sac of sorts.

DHS suffers from this too, everything beyond star tours is like a maze to me.

I don't know that being a bit "lost" in the land is a bad thing. AK around the multisided Tree can be disorienting so that's not a good lost. What you are describing may be the aspect that there was not a "focus" to the land, nothing draws you so it all draws you. That breeds frustration in some people, excitement in others. That goes back to my earlier comment about prioritized design. You tell me.

A good example of the right level of "lost" and subtle focus is NOS at DL. Pirates is the focus and the layout draws you into to a series of curved streets with nodes to get "lost" in that all reconnect back to the main streets. It is the kind of place that you always know the way out, but is rich enough to be immersed or "lost" in the courtyards. I do love that. Enrich the sense of escape. Eventually all spaces lead back to the familiar. The color palette of NOS was originally very resrtained so it was in balance with some signs being exclamation points. Very tasteful, historically accurate in detail and my favorite land of all. In the MK you are never so lost that you can't find an iconic reference point, but you are "lost" enough that you can dive into that world without having the spell broken by another land. The layout usually allows you to "lose yourself" in the streets (strategically blocking sightlines) and is different than designing something overdone or conflicted. Which do you feel?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Personal Appearance in Anaheim

By the way..

I will be making a personal appearance at the Disneyana Fan Club deal (used to be NFFC) in Anaheim Friday July 15th. The last time I spoke there was 20 years ago and it was showing slides of DLP before it was complete. This time I am transferring lots of unseen home videos of the park under construction, and other "making of" tidbits. (Ride the train a month before opening, visit the shops as the trains are built, go to the parties and see our offices and models, see the site as French mud and watch our Range Rover sink in it and much more). I'm having so much fun just unearthing them! Hopefully, it will be a funny "scrapbook discussion" of the Making of DLP, the people who were part of it, and mainly Main Street (that was the area I worked on). Hope you can make it and say hello.

http://disneyanadispatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/experiential-designer-mixed-media.html

 

[wedenterprises]

I don't know that being a bit "lost" in the land is a bad thing. AK around the multisided Tree can be disorienting so that's not a good lost. What you are describing may be the aspect that there was not a "focus" to the land, nothing draws you so it all draws you. That breeds frustration in some people, excitement in others. That goes back to my earlier comment about prioritized design. You tell me.

A good example of the right level of "lost" and subtle focus is NOS at DL. Pirates is the focus and the layout draws you into to a series of curved streets with nodes to get "lost" in that all reconnect back to the main streets. It is the kind of place that you always know the way out, but is rich enough to be immersed or "lost" in the courtyards. I do love that. Enrich the sense of escape. Eventually all spaces lead back to the familiar. The color palette of NOS was originally very resrtained so it was in balance with some signs being exclamation points. Very tasteful, historically accurate in detail and my favorite land of all. In the MK you are never so lost that you can't find an iconic reference point, but you are "lost" enough that you can dive into that world without having the spell broken by another land. The layout usually allows you to "lose yourself" in the streets (strategically blocking sightlines) and is different than designing something overdone or conflicted. Which do you feel?

Ahhhh this is so interesting I love it :ROFLOL:

Personally, I love the area around the AK tree. You enter that area knowing it is an adventure, the point of it is to get "lost" and discover all the little treats that are hidden along the way. You choose to get "lost". It's an attraction unto itself, IMO. Whereas a land shouldn't make you feel like that.

American Waterfront's focus for me was heading to the ToT. But I needed a map. I also realized there was more than one way to get there. I suppose that's where I was faced with the anxiety of "which way to go?". It's subtle, but it makes a difference. I wasn't led, I had to find my own way and in that sense I wasn't being told a specific story, I was "alone" to do it myself when I didn't want that feeling.

NOS is amazing, and I agree, the horseshoe layout that leads back to where you started is really brilliant. It takes you into a world but you never feel "lost" or confused.

Same with MK, I love it. If Space Mountain was located where Toontown is (let's say for example Indy Cars weren't there), I'd feel so conflicted. Do I go through Tomorrowland and experience that story or do I go straight past the tea cups and do the shortcut? That's sort of how I felt in American Waterfront.

EDIT::: I just realized, Eddie, that perhaps you meant the main walkway around the AK tree (to Asia/Africa)? I was referring to the more specific paths in and around the tree itself.

2nd EDIT::: okay let's see if I know how to upload pictures.

[/URL]

So my idea may or may not work for various reasons but essentially I see it like in the image posted. Visually block two of the passageways in American Waterfront, but still leave a form of passage for those who maybe know the area better or for those who want to take a more direct route. I think this helps direct you to the ToT, and also give the entrance to the land much more storytelling opportunity with a sense of arrival and a more pronounced "beginning".

The orange arrow from the train depot would be a great place for washrooms, telephones etc. reminds me of the area between adventureland and frontierland in MK. Not a main throughway but still gives access. It also makes the street with the train depot a little more interesting, imo.

The other visual block (the top one) doesn't have to be too strong, but enough to naturally draw people to the left, towards ToT.

critique?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Ahhhh this is so interesting I love it :ROFLOL:


So my idea may or may not work for various reasons but essentially I see it like in the image posted. Visually block two of the passageways in American Waterfront, but still leave a form of passage for those who maybe know the area better or for those who want to take a more direct route. I think this helps direct you to the ToT, and also give the entrance to the land much more storytelling opportunity with a sense of arrival and a more pronounced "beginning".

The orange arrow from the train depot would be a great place for washrooms, telephones etc. reminds me of the area between adventureland and frontierland in MK. Not a main throughway but still gives access. It also makes the street with the train depot a little more interesting, imo.

The other visual block (the top one) doesn't have to be too strong, but enough to naturally draw people to the left, towards ToT.

critique?

It's hard to imagine, but I understand your intent. The TOT is so tall that I'd imagine most guests see that and weave their way toward it no matter where they are. Rather than messing with the arch, I'd do something (at the lower end of your blue arch line) as a destination so they continue across the street, they would see a secondary weenie and head down the street toward TOT. Maybe create more intimacy as you show with the smaller street as another way to get there. By having the "weenie" directly in your path at the outset, you are faced with a primary and secondary route, they are not evenly weighted. By following the primary you see more of the land, the secondary route along the water is more of a shortcut.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Landmark and Lotteworld

In the past I've brought up Landmark Entertainment group (formerly Gary Goddard Productions) as my employer in theme park design prior to WED.

Buried in this Micechat update is one of their projects, LotteWorld. I think it is worth a look as the level of theming, especially the forced perspective Castles and Cities used as coaster environments are quite amazing (Atlantis Coaster). Is the park a "train wreck" at times, yes. It's overdone with iron rides and asian signage complexity, but the quality in the design in some areas goes beyond what Universal or even Disney would do. Given that we've referred to them (Ward Kimball did) as the "Poor man's WED", I thought you'd appreciate seeing some of their work.

http://micechat.com/blogs/weekend-u...otteworld;-dunedin-fl;-aussie-movieworld.html

 

[wdwmagic]

By the way..

I will be making a personal appearance at the Disneyana Fan Club deal (used to be NFFC) in Anaheim Friday July 15th. The last time I spoke there was 20 years ago and it was showing slides of DLP before it was complete. This time I am transferring lots of unseen home videos of the park under construction, and other "making of" tidbits. (Ride the train a month before opening, visit the shops as the trains are built, go to the parties and see our offices and models, see the site as French mud and watch our Range Rover sink in it and much more). I'm having so much fun just unearthing them! Hopefully, it will be a funny "scrapbook discussion" of the Making of DLP, the people who were part of it, and mainly Main Street (that was the area I worked on). Hope you can make it and say hello.

http://disneyanadispatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/experiential-designer-mixed-media.html

Eddie, any chance of those videos showing up online for those of us who wont be there?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, any chance of those videos showing up online for those of us who wont be there?

I hear you but, sad to day, probably not. Once something is online it's out there and you cannot control it. Even with "no download" settings you can still copy things. I like being below the radar and want to keep the talk "insider" and special for those who show up. At least that's how i'm seeing it, but maybe no one will show up! If it goes well, maybe someone will ask me to do something in Florida?

 

[AEfx]

...they would see a secondary weenie and head down the street toward TOT. Maybe create more intimacy as you show with the smaller street as another way to get there. By having the "weenie" directly in your path at the outset, you are faced with a primary and secondary route, they are not evenly weighted. By following the primary you see more of the land, the secondary route along the water is more of a shortcut.

That actually makes me think of your comment a bit above about Disneyland.

One of the things that I really enjoy about Disneyland is that the park is filled with those little spots. You pointed out one of the particularly great ones over in New Orleans. They are really all over the park, though, some more obvious than others.

I think my favorite application is in Fantasyland. What's funny is that I think a lot of it is by accident. When I was a kid, way before the Internet, my favorite book was "The Disneyland Story" by Randy Bright. It's one of the rarer park books out there and one of my favorite possessions. (I'm shocked I still have it in nearly perfect condition because I toted it around as a kid a lot, almost any long car ride and I'd have it - though a few years ago I had a librarian friend seal up the slip cover for me to keep it that way.)

Anyway, so unlike many I was fully aware of the differences between WDW and Disneyland, particularly Fantasyland. I even used to get the guidebooks for it, even though I didn't go until I was 30. I was always so jealous growing up about the rides we didn't have, and even though I only went a few times as a kid to WDW it was "real" to me, but Disneyland was almost mythical until I finally went last year.

Besides the many additional attractions, I know that their Fantasyland's design is mainly, well, an "accident". Or more a product of "how do we fit this new thing in this existing space". But man, it is so effective. It feels like you are exploring a land, I didn't know what was around the corner. I knew the map in my head, studied it since I was a kid, but totally blanked out once I walked into it.

It goes almost without saying (I think it's mostly common knowledge even to those who haven't been there) that the exteriors of the Fantasyland attractions themselves are exquisite. Yes, a few switchbacks here and there, but you don't notice because you are too busy looking at the details of the actual castle in Snow White, or the actual Toad Hall. Not tin bunkers like our Fantasyland really was underneeth, even as "plussed" as it was until till now. I mean, it got better over the years at the MK (more planters, etc.), but when you look back at pictures from the 80's and such you realize just how "empty" it really is in comparison.

That's why I am so excited about our Fantasyland, because it sounds like we are finally getting that placemaking that the flagship resort deserves. I'm glad I waited until relatively recently to really see Disneyland because once I did my envy was only subsided by the announcement of the FLE. It's nearly perfect - two new attractions (yes, as SWSA is going way, and is my #1 favorite ride I mourn it - though I think Disneyland's is far better and it survives), plus a bunch of well-themed places for the most popular characters to live.

That's the key word. They finally will have homes. I'll be honest, I set foot in ol' Birthdayland probably ten times in my life. And when I recently calculated it, remarkably for the long periods I didn't go, I've spent a total of about 3 months of my life vacationing at Disney, in addition to living in Orlando briefly. A very good portion of that time (probably 1/3 was largely spent in the Magic Kingdom). I just had no reason to go there - a bunch of tents, Mickey and Minnie's house (last few times I did see it things were broken all over - like chunks out of furniture, etc. and it was a mess), and lines of kids. No real food, nothing to do for me as an adult solo or mostly traveling with other adults. 8 of the 10 times was because kids were there.

Now? You bet I'll be checking all the nooks and crannies out now. These are going to be THEMED meet and greets, not temporary or semi-temporary "stands". I want more of them. Build some in every land. Not awkwardly placed in Town Square or lines spilling out into walkways from places like Adventureland that were never meant to have lines which attract people trying to walk through which makes the line longer...

People complain about Meet & Greets, but I'm happy the ones that survived did. They are loved by most families (and even foggies like me occasionally), are obviously in demand, and the more THEMED designated places for them, all the better. In New Hampshire is a little theme park (and yes, it is a theme park) called "Storyland". It was only a couple hours away as a kid and we went at least once a year (it's been open since the year before Disneyland, in fact, so my parents grew up going there, too).

And, in some ways, their "Meet and Greets" at this little theme park are better than what we (and even what the Princesses previously had) in the MK. Cinderella there...she lives in the Castle, and you take the pumpkin coach up to the castle, walk in and see her. You meet the Little Old Woman Who Lives In A Shoe...in the Shoe. You walk around the little neighborhood. At MK, it's either been in a bunch of temporary looking circus tents (by their very nature, a circus tent is generally perceived as a temporary object, 'tis why it's a tent, LOL) or right in the middle of the way tearing focus off everything else.

Wow, from adding a weenie to ToT to Disneyland's New Orleans Square to FLE to a rant on Meet & Greets. I've been up too many hours...but, as I hesitate before I click submit, I do think it makes a bit of sense. Or at least will to the fellow audience members of this thread.

 

[CountryBearFan]

Eddie, if you don't mind me asking the following personal question...

What are your opinions on the following individuals?
-Meg Crofton
-Jay Rasulo
-Phil Holmes
-Al Weiss
-Erin Wallace

Since those people are very heavily maligned by fans, I was just curious to know what your views on them are.

 

[wedenterprises]

It's hard to imagine, but I understand your intent. The TOT is so tall that I'd imagine most guests see that and weave their way toward it no matter where they are. Rather than messing with the arch, I'd do something (at the lower end of your blue arch line) as a destination so they continue across the street, they would see a secondary weenie and head down the street toward TOT. Maybe create more intimacy as you show with the smaller street as another way to get there. By having the "weenie" directly in your path at the outset, you are faced with a primary and secondary route, they are not evenly weighted. By following the primary you see more of the land, the secondary route along the water is more of a shortcut.

The ToT is placed in an interesting spot. It's not in plain view at the end of the street, it's a little bit over (south I believe). I assume it's because of the sight lines from around the rest of the park.

My ideas were based on entering the land from the main gate, so in order to pull you down that main route, I would definitely place something at the end of the street. I believe what you see is the ToT queue?

When you enter American Waterfront from Cape Cod, it's great, and imo the land works with the open space, but when you enter from the main gate, it's a bit more intense and confusing.

This is the view down that street - the ToT here would be amazing, but also probably pretty imposing as it's a short street and the ToT is quite massive.
http://www.laughingplace.com/files/DSTour07/P01-2.jpg

 

[Eddie Sotto]

That actually makes me think of your comment a bit above about Disneyland.

One of the things that I really enjoy about Disneyland is that the park is filled with those little spots. You pointed out one of the particularly great ones over in New Orleans. They are really all over the park, though, some more obvious than others.

I think my favorite application is in Fantasyland. What's funny is that I think a lot of it is by accident. When I was a kid, way before the Internet, my favorite book was "The Disneyland Story" by Randy Bright. It's one of the rarer park books out there and one of my favorite possessions. (I'm shocked I still have it in nearly perfect condition because I toted it around as a kid a lot, almost any long car ride and I'd have it - though a few years ago I had a librarian friend seal up the slip cover for me to keep it that way.)

Anyway, so unlike many I was fully aware of the differences between WDW and Disneyland, particularly Fantasyland. I even used to get the guidebooks for it, even though I didn't go until I was 30. I was always so jealous growing up about the rides we didn't have, and even though I only went a few times as a kid to WDW it was "real" to me, but Disneyland was almost mythical until I finally went last year.

Besides the many additional attractions, I know that their Fantasyland's design is mainly, well, an "accident". Or more a product of "how do we fit this new thing in this existing space". But man, it is so effective. It feels like you are exploring a land, I didn't know what was around the corner. I knew the map in my head, studied it since I was a kid, but totally blanked out once I walked into it.

It goes almost without saying (I think it's mostly common knowledge even to those who haven't been there) that the exteriors of the Fantasyland attractions themselves are exquisite. Yes, a few switchbacks here and there, but you don't notice because you are too busy looking at the details of the actual castle in Snow White, or the actual Toad Hall. Not tin bunkers like our Fantasyland really was underneeth, even as "plussed" as it was until till now. I mean, it got better over the years at the MK (more planters, etc.), but when you look back at pictures from the 80's and such you realize just how "empty" it really is in comparison.

That's why I am so excited about our Fantasyland, because it sounds like we are finally getting that placemaking that the flagship resort deserves. I'm glad I waited until relatively recently to really see Disneyland because once I did my envy was only subsided by the announcement of the FLE. It's nearly perfect - two new attractions (yes, as SWSA is going way, and is my #1 favorite ride I mourn it - though I think Disneyland's is far better and it survives), plus a bunch of well-themed places for the most popular characters to live.

That's the key word. They finally will have homes. I'll be honest, I set foot in ol' Birthdayland probably ten times in my life. And when I recently calculated it, remarkably for the long periods I didn't go, I've spent a total of about 3 months of my life vacationing at Disney, in addition to living in Orlando briefly. A very good portion of that time (probably 1/3 was largely spent in the Magic Kingdom). I just had no reason to go there - a bunch of tents, Mickey and Minnie's house (last few times I did see it things were broken all over - like chunks out of furniture, etc. and it was a mess), and lines of kids. No real food, nothing to do for me as an adult solo or mostly traveling with other adults. 8 of the 10 times was because kids were there.

Now? You bet I'll be checking all the nooks and crannies out now. These are going to be THEMED meet and greets, not temporary or semi-temporary "stands". I want more of them. Build some in every land. Not awkwardly placed in Town Square or lines spilling out into walkways from places like Adventureland that were never meant to have lines which attract people trying to walk through which makes the line longer...

People complain about Meet & Greets, but I'm happy the ones that survived did. They are loved by most families (and even foggies like me occasionally), are obviously in demand, and the more THEMED designated places for them, all the better. In New Hampshire is a little theme park (and yes, it is a theme park) called "Storyland". It was only a couple hours away as a kid and we went at least once a year (it's been open since the year before Disneyland, in fact, so my parents grew up going there, too).

And, in some ways, their "Meet and Greets" at this little theme park are better than what we (and even what the Princesses previously had) in the MK. Cinderella there...she lives in the Castle, and you take the pumpkin coach up to the castle, walk in and see her. You meet the Little Old Woman Who Lives In A Shoe...in the Shoe. You walk around the little neighborhood. At MK, it's either been in a bunch of temporary looking circus tents (by their very nature, a circus tent is generally perceived as a temporary object, 'tis why it's a tent, LOL) or right in the middle of the way tearing focus off everything else.

Wow, from adding a weenie to ToT to Disneyland's New Orleans Square to FLE to a rant on Meet & Greets. I've been up too many hours...but, as I hesitate before I click submit, I do think it makes a bit of sense. Or at least will to the fellow audience members of this thread.

Great commentary. The original Ryman rendering of DL had much more of a rural neighborhood feel.

 

[trs518]

I don't know that being a bit "lost" in the land is a bad thing. AK around the multisided Tree can be disorienting so that's not a good lost. What you are describing may be the aspect that there was not a "focus" to the land, nothing draws you so it all draws you. That breeds frustration in some people, excitement in others. That goes back to my earlier comment about prioritized design. You tell me.

A good example of the right level of "lost" and subtle focus is NOS at DL. Pirates is the focus and the layout draws you into to a series of curved streets with nodes to get "lost" in that all reconnect back to the main streets. It is the kind of place that you always know the way out, but is rich enough to be immersed or "lost" in the courtyards. I do love that. Enrich the sense of escape. Eventually all spaces lead back to the familiar. The color palette of NOS was originally very resrtained so it was in balance with some signs being exclamation points. Very tasteful, historically accurate in detail and my favorite land of all. In the MK you are never so lost that you can't find an iconic reference point, but you are "lost" enough that you can dive into that world without having the spell broken by another land. The layout usually allows you to "lose yourself" in the streets (strategically blocking sightlines) and is different than designing something overdone or conflicted. Which do you feel?

Do they curve the streets to limit the field of view, much like they do on movie sets? I know that Main Street is always straight because it leads to the castle. Off the top of my head, I don't remember any streets that are straight in the Magic Kingdom.

Edit...I guess I should have read the rest of your post "The layout usually allows you to "lose yourself" in the streets (strategically blocking sightlines)".

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, if you don't mind me asking the following personal question...

What are your opinions on the following individuals?
-Meg Crofton
-Jay Rasulo
-Phil Holmes
-Al Weiss
-Erin Wallace

Since those people are very heavily maligned by fans, I was just curious to know what your views on them are.

I never worked with any of them except Jay Rasulo. I got along well with Jay as he has a NYC type "street smart" personality that I enjoyed. You have to understand his "no nonsense" Bronxish way of making his point and I did and gave it back as I'm pretty direct myself. We laughed alot. He was always looking to reinvent the way the parks worked creatively and wanted to see the "next level" of whatever we were up to. That upset things when he came in and dissed something. I think that translated to a perception that he had a disdain for all things traditionally Disney, but in my experience, Jay was driven by, not so much a disdain for the parks, but a impatience for all things mediocre and "been there", and he just wanted something beyond the typical. I thought he just wanted the WOW. I liked management with an attitude to try things so we were fine. I left in 1999 so I can't defend or explain anything since then.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Do they curve the streets to limit the field of view, much like they do on movie sets? I know that Main Street is always straight because it leads to the castle. Off the top of my head, I don't remember any streets that are straight in the Magic Kingdom.

Edit...I guess I should have read the rest of your post "The layout usually allows you to "lose yourself" in the streets (strategically blocking sightlines)".

Yes they do. Backlot streets do this quite a bit.

Here's a book on the best backlot streets ever. There are some images in this free preview download to give you the idea. Waterfront Street sets are curved for depth EXACTLY the way Main Street Center Streets are done at DL.. Take a look.
http://www.mgmbacklot.info/MGM_Preview.pdf

Great architecture asks questions. It wants you to be curious like "what's over there?".

 

[KevinYee]

My next question is, "how do you KNOW?"

When you say that good design can't overwhelm and distract (kind of like one of Marty's rules to tell only one story at a time), that makes perfect sense. But how would you know when looking at Lotte World's overcrowded signage that THIS one can stay and THAT one is too much? It is more of a gut-level thing? Do you consciously try to imagine seeing it for the first time? (Surely the latter is extremely hard to do?)

 

[Eddie Sotto]

My next question is, "how do you KNOW?"

When you say that good design can't overwhelm and distract (kind of like one of Marty's rules to tell only one story at a time), that makes perfect sense. But how would you know when looking at Lotte World's overcrowded signage that THIS one can stay and THAT one is too much? It is more of a gut-level thing? Do you consciously try to imagine seeing it for the first time? (Surely the latter is extremely hard to do?)

Great question, as usual. Here's an example.

One thing that leads to a successful project is a crystal clear understanding of what you are trying to deliver.

When we did MSUSA in Paris we knew that we did not want to see the Castle from the ticketing area as there was an entry portal centered under the train station (Ops requirement for 14M attendance levels). The Castle was supposed to be a revealed after experiencing Town Square and giving MS a chance to establish itself. (In DL TS is revealed at a 45 degree angle then the Castle is seen as you reach the street section and MS is experienced first). We knew the sequence of the scenes we wanted and what was to play out. The only reason there is a Town Square bandstand in Paris is to block out the Castle from a centered entry until you reach the "throat" of the street or from the Bandstand itself. Today taking a picture of the Castle from inside that location is very popular. So the priority of major elements and their very existence was premeditated in that case. We knew graphically in the way the street was massed what was most important. The signage came second.

http://www.photosmagiques.com/gallery/disneyland_park/main_street_usa/town_square.php

The way I work this stuff out is to squint my eyes at the color boards and develop a sense of overall contrast and obey that. This BTW is my acid test for readability for signage (text vs. background). So many signs fail this test. What passes the squint test tells you what is standing out too much or too little. If you have a super detailed environment, you try and keep a lid on it as not to tire out the guest so you find a medium level of contrast for everything and then punch up the areas you want them to find or see like the signage or a key facade.

Our eyes are basically only 1MP cameras that dart across many things and seldom light for long on any one element so we are making cumulative choices based on bites of visuals. (Source www.sleightsofmind.com)
Our brain reads contrasting elements first and that is how we discern things and it renders in the rest as to give the impression of detail. So when you are designing you kind of manage the field of view and what will grab the eye.

I don't know how other designers do this or if they consciously do it at all. It may be instinct. I know that composition in environments is something that has to be considered as that's to a great degree what storyboards do. You mentally visualize or "walk through" the experience as a guest does. Casino mogul Steve Wynn (even with his limited eyesight) does this extremely well in his mind. So to answer your question, I'm not sure how others "know", but I know how I "know" and it's mostly premeditated and has to do with being crystal clear in your head with what you intend to do and softly driving the guest toward it.

No one taught me any of this and I'm learning more about it all of the time, but this is how I approach this stuff, it's with a clear idea and a squint.