EPCOT Is the End of Innoventions Near?

[Timothy_Q]

It's actually often cheaper to demolish and rebuild than it is to renovate an existing building. It depends on how extensive the planned changes are.

Of course, in this case, they aren't even rebuilding a new structure (at least not of the same size), so I'm sure it was much cheaper.

Which is why I'm so confused why they didn't go with the cheapest plan of all then?

Demo both sides of CC.

It's cheaper AND would look more cohesive

 

[lazyboy97o]

Which is why I'm so confused why they didn't go with the cheapest plan of all then?

Demo both sides of CC.

It's cheaper AND would look more cohesive

There are no hard and fast rules of whether or not it is cheaper to reuse or build new. The East building already has the infrastructure for dining and shopping and keeping them as is doesn’t trigger the same sort of code updates as would changing the use of the space.

 

[Timothy_Q]

There are no hard and fast rules of whether or not it is cheaper to reuse or build new. The East building already has the infrastructure for dining and shopping and keeping them as is doesn’t trigger the same sort of code updates as would changing the use of the space.

Martin already said demoing both sides was the cheapest option

 

[sedati]

I joined you. LOL... One my friends stated this... the 1982 rides worked in EPCOT, but would have been out of place in the Magic Kingdom. The current rides would not.

I don't know about that. I feel Carousel of Progress and If You Had Wings were the seeds of what EPCOT did on a larger scale.

 

[DanielBB8]

They should have reused the buildings for attractions instead of food and fair space. Start with the real problem, which was always lack of attractions. Then work down to landscaping, gardens and fountains. Instead, they limited the space to be food, alcohol, gardens, and fountains. I would rather be inside due to the horrid Orlando humidity. I also dislike the long walks to attractions. Disney wanted Epcot to look pretty, but they limited the park use and didn’t address its actual problems.

 

[Stripes]

I was asked to get the pencils out. This is an rough example of what the real prize was like:

View attachment 410250

So is the side of Innoventions that is staying receiving the aesthetic overhaul envisioned in this plan?

 

[DisneyDreamerxyz]

They should have reused the buildings for attractions instead of food and fair space. Start with the real problem, which was always lack of attractions. Then work down to landscaping, gardens and fountains. Instead, they limited the space to be food, alcohol, gardens, and fountains. I would rather be inside due to the horrid Orlando humidity. I also dislike the long walks to attractions. Disney wanted Epcot to look pretty, but they limited the park use and didn’t address its actual problems.

but they are not trying to rework Future World, they are getting rid of Future World. This area will become "World Celebration" uniting it more with World Showcase.

 

[lazyboy97o]

but they are not trying to rework Future World, they are getting rid of Future World. This area will become "World Celebration" uniting it more with World Showcase.

How is it more united with World Showcase? Because drinking is a focus there?

 

[DisneyDreamerxyz]

How is it more united with World Showcase? Because drinking is a focus there?

pretty much. I mean they're adding the festival center right to the heart of what (was) future world.

 

[DanielBB8]

but they are not trying to rework Future World, they are getting rid of Future World. This area will become "World Celebration" uniting it more with World Showcase.

I don’t want them to continue to support Future World either. I want Epcot to evolve into a traditional theme park. Changing it into World Celebration makes sense, but do it with attractions instead of food, drink, and festivals.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

I don’t want them to continue to support Future World either. I want Epcot to evolve into a traditional theme park. Changing it into World Celebration makes sense, but do it with attractions instead of food, drink, and festivals.

It can’t be just rides too. You need variety. This isn’t Six Flags. Plus a lot of the guest might like the different festivals and want less rides. What you like could be totally opposite of what is important to them. I like a nice variety.

 

[DanielBB8]

It can’t be just rides too. You need variety. This isn’t Six Flags. Plus a lot of the guest might like the different festivals and want less rides. What you like could be totally opposite of what is important to them. I like a nice variety.

Every minor Disney park has less than 10 rides.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

Every minor Disney park has less than 10 rides.

Minor park? At WDW or worldwide?

 

[gustaftp]

keeping the buildings was likely more expensive than demolishing them and building something new. So even on that level it didn't make sense.

A lot of people keep saying this, but in my experience of studying adaptive reuse of historic properties, it is rare that tearing down and rebuilding is less expensive than repurposing cared-for and flexible spaces. There's a reason why when someone wants to tear something down to build new, they often have their hands out for tax-increment financing: unless taxpayer money is thrown at such a project, it usually isn't economically feasible to demolish and build anew unless a building is practically caving in.

WOL was studied for demolition, had a leaking roof, and far more unique of a design that undoubtedly cost more to maintain than than Communicore did. Instead, Disney decided to keep WOL.

As Martin and others have pointed out, the Comminicore buildings are large, flexible use buildings specifically designed to accommodate changing needs. They were built with modern construction methods and techniques, and were maintained. I think the scenario of being told not to feel constrained to existing buildings is more likely. There's no way it was less expensive to tear down and build something new. It just isn't plausible.

 

[CJR]

The cheapest was the clear everything plan.

Was this the art from two years ago? I wonder if the reaction persuaded them to go up a notch.

 

[DanielBB8]

Minor park? At WDW or worldwide?

Obviously WDW and you know it.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

A lot of people keep saying this, but in my experience of studying adaptive reuse of historic properties, it is rare that tearing down and rebuilding is less expensive than repurposing cared-for and flexible spaces. There's a reason why when someone wants to tear something down to build new, they often have their hands out for tax-increment financing: unless taxpayer money is thrown at such a project, it usually isn't economically feasible to demolish and build anew unless a building is practically caving in.

WOL was studied for demolition, had a leaking roof, and far more unique of a design that undoubtedly cost more to maintain than than Communicore did. Instead, Disney decided to keep WOL.

As Martin and others have pointed out, the Comminicore buildings are large, flexible use buildings specifically designed to accommodate changing needs. They were built with modern construction methods and techniques, and were maintained. I think the scenario of being told not to feel constrained to existing buildings is more likely. There's no way it was less expensive to tear down and build something new. It just isn't plausible.

I guess we just don't know how it all looked when they crunched the numbers on these buildings. Well, I suppose Marni does! He did mention the money pit that retrofitting the Universe of Energy building for the Guardians queue ended up becoming, so that is at least a hint toward what can happen when you start poking around these older buildings.

Presumably, they could just move some walls around inside the old Communicore building and continue to use it for meet and greets and exhibition space and that would have been cheaper. That's allowing the existing buildings to dictate their plans for the park rather than figuring out what they want to do and then executing that plan. If they want to lean in to the festivals with a dedicated festival center, I'd much rather they build a new, open, and more attractive structure for it than shoehorn it into what honestly looks like a 1980s convention center.

More than demolishing one half of Communicore, it's leaving the other side that seems lazy to me. It seems they more or less want to keep and renovate the facilities that are already there which makes some sense. I think it will look strange, though, seems to go against their apparent desire to open up the area.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

Obviously WDW and you know it.

I would consider Epcot, DHS and DAK major theme parks and not minor. That’s why I asking.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I guess we just don't know how it all looked when they crunched the numbers on these buildings. Well, I suppose Marni does! He did mention the money pit that retrofitting the Universe of Energy building for the Guardians queue ended up becoming, so that is at least a hint toward what can happen when you start poking around these older buildings.

Presumably, they could just move some walls around inside the old Communicore building and continue to use it for meet and greets and exhibition space and that would have been cheaper. That's allowing the existing buildings to dictate their plans for the park rather than figuring out what they want to do and then executing that plan. If they want to lean in to the festivals with a dedicated festival center, I'd much rather they build a new, open, and more attractive structure for it than shoehorn it into what honestly looks like a 1980s convention center.

More than demolishing one half of Communicore, it's leaving the other side that seems lazy to me. It seems they more or less want to keep and renovate the facilities that are already there which makes some sense. I think it will look strange, though, seems to go against their apparent desire to open up the area.

What they’re building isn’t something that stretches the usefulness of the Communicore building. A convention center type space is perfect for a rotating set of exhibits for various festivals. The real loss is of the spatial organization of the front part of the park. The Communicore buildings were space making objects and one is now being replaced by an object in space, a problematic trend with much of Disney’s additions.

 

[DanielBB8]

I would consider Epcot, DHS and DAK major theme parks and not minor. That’s why I asking.

Yet you clearly identified each. Even Disney did not call them equivalent to Magic Kingdom. Only with the addition of attractions to make them better would you one day not call them minor.