lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
A literally smaller building isn’t thinking small?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Journey of Water featuring Moana coming to Epcot
- Thread starter Rteetz
- Start date
It seems not.
More space, more cover, more on offer, a 700 seat theatre for less money.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
Not having seen the alternative it's hard to say exactly, but the proposal sounds more or less a refreshed status quo solution save, perhaps, for the theatre. In that context, an alternative pitch to demolish the building and remake/open up the whole central spine area, including with Journey Into Water (which this thread is ostensibly about) and a new multi-storey festival center/roof-top restaurant with space for entertainment underneath as the focal point and big revenue generator, does sound more ambitious.
People here have talked about the possibility for rooftop bars, dark rides, etc. for that building, but it doesn't seem any of that was in what WDI pitched to management for keeping the building. This doesn't mean the proposal that won out was ultimately better, but if the teams pitching competing plans for refreshing Epcot were told to think big, I can understand why management would have looked at more meet and greets, food and beverage, a theatre, and exhibition space with the central spine remaining more or less the same as not quite fitting the brief. More space and more cover is a pitch, but it's not a particularly exciting one.
Last edited:
Phicinfan
Well-Known Member
See that to me is the issue. They are not allowed to think big. Quite frankly, if @marni1971 felt this was the better issue and all we were getting was more "space" and a big theater.....just sad. I get his issue with the plan now, I get the loss of another part of this once great park. First Horizons, I am betting we were close to losing WoL as well, and I wonder if we find out that the ONLY reason it still exists is what is going in there is a child version of what they had planned for Communicore.
Quite honestly. does Imagineers think big anymore? Are they even allowed to? All the adds we are getting lately are just reconstituted rides from elsewhere it seems(granted GotG may be somewhat different).
As much as I don't believe we will ever get a 5th gate in WDW, I think that will probably be the only time we would get some real Imagineering new ideas.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
There is nothing big about locking this part of the park into less capacity for at least another decade when it (and all of the other parks too) needs more capacity. It’s only big in terms of the amount of demolition and that’s why it won. If the allure was really the program then it could have been done bigger.
A festival center and another restaurant is absolutely more of the same and the very same that was no longer keeping the park afloat. And you keep way overselling the potential of a big span of concrete with a big flat, can’t really be touched, concrete roof to be an entertainment venue. And of course if the Table truly doesn’t survive then the ambition results in Journey of Water and some flat paths, not even the original hills.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
I'm more agnostic than enthusiastic about the proposal for the festival center and Journey Into Water. As @Phicinfan mentioned above, none of it seems wildly ambitious or original. I don't know the specifics of the proposed festival center's capacity and I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to the roof not being able to be touched, but I think I would honestly be frustrated if I told WDI to dream big about Epcot and was pitched more meet and greets, food and beverage, exhibition space, and a theatre for a big building in the center of the park that already had meet and greets, food and beverage, and a large exhibition space that is mostly sitting unused. The appeal of the pitch outlined by Marni seems more on the level of preserving or at least 'minimising the damage' to what's left of the original EPCOT Center and the risk is a park that continues to feel like it's on life support.
In terms of the capacity issue, if the proposal was along the lines of continuing to do what they were doing with the existing buildings but better, I can understand some skepticism that this time it would work and they wouldn't be faced with the same issue of mostly locked up and/or unused capacity within a decade. In that scenario, I would honestly prefer open spaces with gardens and water features to theoretical capacity that is either closed or used for things few people want to see.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The small size of the festival center can be seen in the concept art.
I’m referring to the actual second floor which would be the roof of this event space that you think is going to occupy the open ground floor. The way to achieve the slim look of the building is with a post-tensioned concrete slab, a concrete slab with steel cables in it that are tighter after the concrete is poured. Such structures provide economy of materials and depth but they are not flexible. Any sort of lighting or speakers for rotating entertainment offerings would have to be designed as part of the structure, you can’t just put it up there as needed for different events. That sleek look is also the result of a smooth finish which will reflect sound, and the hardscape will also reflect sound. The open space below the festival center would be a lousy venue for entertainment.
That’s not much different than what is coming, except smaller and less flexible.
So it’s better to just have little capacity that few will see because it is locked up in reservations, high prices and up charges?
Phicinfan
Well-Known Member
First I am not so sure what you are arguing for or against, but why are we believing this concept art as much when we know we never really get what concept art shows? Secondly, the festival center is no more, so not really sure what you are arguing for or against?
Where did @Sir_Cliff say that? He is merely saying greater capacity may be afforded with open space than a limiting area of a theater and more shopping and meet & greets.
I am also shocked ANYONE here is really fighting FOR more meet & greets and shopping. I get many here sad due to the space COULD have been used for a ride - the space was available. But as has been called out that wasn't an option.
so to be clear here, everyone is fighting this current idea for ... meet & greets, shopping and a theater.
I also have to ask, what has WDW have against theaters now? MK theater cancelled, and this one walked away from for open space and a interactive water area?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I’m arguing against the idea that @Sir_Cliff has put forward several times that the open ground floor is going to be some sort of engaging event space.
Published art isn’t that radically different.
The Festival Center is the big grand ambitious gesture designed by a starchitect that sold the whole project. It is why demolition commenced. Without out it the huge expense of tearing out CommuniCore West will be just for a field and nothing else and leaves the argument that the work is ambitious to solely rest on the idea that the Journey of Water is itself ambitious.
Open space is not considered capacity in the design of a theme park.
The space being there in a flexible building means there is always potential. You’re also way over emphasizing the meet and greets, which would still get shoved in somewhere.
Phicinfan
Well-Known Member
Well it wasn't built to see, nor is it going to be built, so how much longer do you need to beat a dead horse?
Bwahahahaha no seriously?
Yes, I believe you are correct, the main change here was for the new table festival center. As for the rest, we don't know that yet, to date I don't believe anyone has even stated what for sure is coming next. I have heard of fountains, statue to walt and at one time a wishing tree idea? Open area for folks to eat and potentially enjoy food(where are all of you who were upset with removal of tables and benches????). To point though I don't believe we have seen the final concept though(I could be wrong there..). Journey of water is an add that COULD be a nice feature if done well.
??? Depends on what they do with that open space isn't it?
No here we call it what it is, there was NO potential for rides or changes. At best per Martin we were getting food, M&G and maybe a theater. You all can say there was potential, but we have a well believed insider that stated clearly the BEST option for that building was M&G, food, shopping and a theater. How exactly is that over emphasizing it?
When will folks finally get they had no intentions for grander ideas for Communicore? It is gone now anyway.
The Great Gonzo
Well-Known Member
Maybe it won't be that bad because it's just lightly themed to Moana. It's not like they will have her face plastered on the rocks.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
As an aside, if they want to add a theater - and I'm all for adding more shows - there's a unused ones sitting in the old WoL pavilion. (I think both the Cranium Command and Making of Me spaces are still intact, no?)
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Nothing I said required the building to be built much less be seen in person. I also didn’t bring it up, it was used to defend the decision to demolish. If you’re going to call it beating a dead horse then it seems only fair to similarly tell people to ignore it as a justification for all of the demolition.
The statue and tree are going in the center area. Not exactly much in the way of being an experience much less requiring demolition of the building.
No, it doesn’t depend. Walkways aren’t part of the attraction capacity which ultimately defines operations. Even the original plan was a lot of walks, they were just hilly. Cramming people into a space and only having hours long lines for a few things kills satisfaction, the very problem Evolving Epcot is supposed to address.
Where have I said anything about rides? Exhibition space and a theater were part of the plan. Both spaces that would be able to host a variety of content. That is your area of potential and it is no different than a “festival center” that would host exhibits and groups watching some form of presentation. But you say we should not discuss the festival center, so the BEST option is now walkways and landscaping.
Last edited:
Open walkways and landscaping provide so much shelter from rain and storms that buildings don’t. Oh wait…
pdude81
Well-Known Member
Don't forget the sun
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
I think @Phicinfan has already made the points better than I could, but that's very obviously not what I said at all.
While I know you are saying that gardens, water features, etc. don't technically count as capacity so you're discounting them as a replacement, they are part of what is replacing the Communicore building. If they are nicely done I can at least walk through them and enjoy them, I personally prefer them to a closed building or one with nothing I want to see inside that doesn't even look all that aesthetically pleasing.
I think you are more interested in that aspect than I am, though I appreciate you explaining what you were referring to in regard to the roof. I mentioned it because they have portrayed that in the concept art, but if your interpretation is correct and it cannot be used in any serious way as an event space, that doesn't make much difference to me. Just having the open, sheltered space under the building is a feature. Could be a nice place to sit, have a drink, shelter from the rain, etc. and contributes to the more open feel they seem to be going for.
My point really wasn't to defend this building at all, though. I was just responding to the alternative outlined by Marni and explaining why I can understand them choosing the proposal they did.
Thank you!
That was my point, not that the festival center or Journey into Water was a work of genius. People have been dreaming up all sorts of fantastical uses for the buildings that were turned down all because of the ego of executives. Finding out the alternative to remake the building for the big relaunch of Epcot was just more meet and greets, food and beverage, exhibition space, and a theatre means the decision to go with the other proposal suddenly makes a lot more sense. I could see executives scratching their heads and asking whether this proposal would really make all that much difference, as well as fans laughing at how lame the newly announced meet and greets were at D23.
Even the flexibility that we are seeing cheered on as a reason for keeping the building came from the fact it was essentially a large, barely-used convention center. It seems this other proposal would have mostly kept it that way and it's reasonable to question how compelling that is as a theme park attraction.
Last edited:
Phicinfan
Well-Known Member
The whole discussion came up as Moana is an add, in an area that was detracted from. Then some raised we are adding a water feature instead of the potential use of Communicore - for rides or whatever. Then we got the information from Martin that the BEST plan for that space was shopping, food and a theater. Not rides, not open space for other items. So I again state your optimism for potential for that spot is sorely misplaced. They had no intentions of ever really using that space for the benefit of the people paying to get in. Unless that was going to be one incredible theater.
That is in the eye of the beholder. One thing I used to love about Epcot was walking around and enjoying the flowers and such. However, I will concede it is not an attraction. Although that depends on what the "tree" really is.
It wasn't just walkways. It was open space for tables, chairs to enjoy festivals and to possibly watch the fireworks and such. I believe there was one version of the artwork that showed a tea party?(not sure if that wasn't part of Mary Poppins expansion in England....). So again, until we see it, I don't feel you can properly judge it until we see what exactly it is.
Maybe you were not one touting rides, if so my bad. Exhibition space wasn't correct either though. Go back and see what Martin called out. So potential was store, food and theater. So I don't take it as a major loss. Sorry.
FigmentFan82
Well-Known Member
I can't wait to change my diaper in this thing!
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Le Corbusier pushed this idea 100 years ago. It’s been tried and it never really catches on because they’re not really welcoming spaces. It’s also something that would have been offered by CommuniCore West staying with the addition of air conditioning. What you and so many others seem to miss is that all of these things you say you don’t like or have no interest are/were the plan you find so interesting.
Would you argue that it in any way makes sense to demolish the Stitch theater building in Tomorrowland to make room for a smaller, single theater? Would you say such a plan makes sense as a way to add capacity?
A festival center should be flexible so that it’s offerings can change with each festival. So we’re right back to something somehow being bad because it is offered to more people and easier to accomplish but good because it is offered to fewer people and more difficult to accomplish.
Open space for tables… that’s still not a means of addressing attraction capacity. It doesn’t actually help with much of anything as people would have to bring food to these tables. Fireworks views would be lousy from that far back. But you’re also speaking about potential program that has not been shown.
It seems you need to reread. The Festival Center’s program was largely similar to CommiCore’s program, just smaller, less useful, less flexible and much much more expensive.