Historic Landmark

[hwdelien]

Why has WDW not been declaired a National Historic Landmark? I've gone through the list from the National Register Information System from the National Park Service http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrloc1.htm who administers the list and looked at all of the listings for Orange County and it's not there. When I looked up the criteria to be nominated (from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Historic_Landmark) it certainly looks like it qualifies:

NHLs are designated by the United States Secretary of the Interior because they are:

• Sites where events of national historical significance occurred;
• Places where prominent persons lived or worked;
• Icons of ideals that shaped the nation;
• Outstanding examples of design or construction;
• Places characterizing a way of life; or
• Archeological sites able to yield information.

Any thoughts? It may simply be that WDW management doesn't want such a designation as it may impede their ability to do what they want with it, say for example they want to paint the castle pink and make it look like a big birthday cake -- Oh wait! they already did that .

 

[SirNim]

The unwritten rule is that landmarks are only declared with the current owner's consent. Disney has no incentive to provide that consent because, as you said, they would have bureaucratic hoops to jump through in order to modify and add to the parks. No active corporation or business, really, has any incentive to declare their assets as landmarks.

A similar situation has existed in the case of Walt's original family home in Chicago. Some there in the City wanted to designate the house a city landmark, but the current owner objected over these same concerns, so the board of selectmen voted against the designation.

 

[disneytopdog]

Dont you think Disneyland would deserve National Landmark status before Disneyworld

 

[fosse76]

You answered your own question.

NHLs are designated by the United States Secretary of the Interior because they are:

• Sites where events of national historical significance occurred; [NOTHING of Historical Significance has occured at WDW; its existence is not of historical significance]
• Places where prominent persons lived or worked; [No one of any historical importance has worked at WDW]
• Icons of ideals that shaped the nation; [Again, nothing of significance]
• Outstanding examples of design or construction; [Perhaps Spaceship Earth, other than that there is nothing that fits this criteria]
• Places characterizing a way of life; or [It's a theme park; doesn't fit this criteria either]
• Archeological sites able to yield information. [Obviously doesn't fit within this criteria]

Any thoughts? It may simply be that WDW management doesn't want such a designation as it may impede their ability to do what they want with it, say for example they want to paint the castle pink and make it look like a big birthday cake -- Oh wait! they already did that .

At most, I would think Disneyland would deserve the designation, as it really is the first "theme" park. But you guessed, such a designation would potentially impede improvements assuming they wanted to keep the status.

The unwritten rule is that landmarks are only declared with the current owner's consent. Disney has no incentive to provide that consent because, as you said, they would have bureaucratic hoops to jump through in order to modify and add to the parks. No active corporation or business, really, has any incentive to declare their assets as landmarks.

Not true. At least not on a local level. Oftentimes cities have designated locations as "historical" to prevent owners from tearing them down or modifying them. Sometimes owners will request the designation, and of course they can be denied as well as be approved. ****EDIT On the national level it IS written that the owners consent is required...if in writing to the agency.

A similar situation has existed in the case of Walt's original family home in Chicago. Some there in the City wanted to designate the house a city landmark, but the current owner objected over these same concerns, so the board of selectmen voted against the designation.

Actually, there was a backlash against the idea because of Walt Disney's perceived bigotry. The council that designates city landmarks decided against the landmark status. It's rejection had nothing to do with the owner, though I'm sure he was against it as well.

 

[yankspy]

Yep. I have to agree with Fosse76 here. Other than architecture it really does not qualify.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Hate to be a "me too" but going down the list of criteria, I reached the same conclusion as fosse76: That SSE might fit the design category, but that's about it.

Other than walking around before it was open, Walt didn't play much of a role at WDW, so prominent people living/working there seems out.

There's no way of life promoted there, unless consumerism counts.

"Icons of ideals that shaped the nation" seems about the only one that might have some room for argument. Like others have said, I think Disneyland is more appropriate, though.

 

[Pongo]

I agree about Disneyland. I would rather see it become a National Historic Landmark before anything in WDW does. But with all the talk of Spaceship Earth becoming one... I could see that happening. Not necessarily the attraction, but just the sphere itself...