MrPromey
Well-Known Member
You’d probably be surprised to discover that most of the unhappy voices around here suffer from that very same affliction.
It may be the one thing that most of us who spend so much time around these forums have in common!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
EPCOT Journey of Water featuring Moana coming to Epcot
- Thread starter Rteetz
- Start date
You’d probably be surprised to discover that most of the unhappy voices around here suffer from that very same affliction.
It may be the one thing that most of us who spend so much time around these forums have in common!
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
In and of itself, a specially-designed festival space in the center of the park theoretically makes a lot of sense even if it had an expensive restaurant on top. I don't know whether the proposed building used space efficiently, but it reminded me of the redevelopment of an area in my home city of Melbourne, Australia called Federation Square. That involved a mix of restaurants, a gallery, and museum and was controversial as a lot of people found the architecture ugly & criticised all the space given to expensive restaurants, but it ultimately worked in large part because they built a lot of civic space into it and it became a place where people would sit and read, gather to watch sporting events on a big screen, etc.
At least from what the art suggested, they seemed to want to hold events under and around the festival center, with that design essentially creating an open-air ground level that could be used for a range of functions as well as the two upper levels. At least in theory, it's not quite the madness a lot of people make it out to be. I also didn't think it looked as bad as many on here seem to.
As for the Communicore buildings, I personally think they should have either knocked neither or both of them down. Leaving one is strange and ruins the symmetry of the center. Repurposing both would also obviously have been a good option. The way people talk about those buildings as great works of architecture, though, puts Zach's hyperbole to shame.
Last edited:
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
Of course their opinions matter. They're the ones who make tangibly manifest the vague visions and requirements of others. The designer works within the requirements to produce something mutually satisfying for both the designer (from an aesthetic perspective) and client (from a business perspective). Sure, this relationship can break down if one side is unwilling to budge, but I've not seen anyone directly say that this was the case on the micro level of World Celebration. There are obvious problems of massively compromised vision elsewhere in the park (e.g. Harmonious, wherein the original intent simply was not logistically realized), but absent someone flat-out saying so, why are we assuming that the designers of World Celebration are dissatisfied with the design just because some of the members of this forum are? I ask mostly because a simple reshuffling of elements would have allowed the symmetry of World Celebration to persist, so the asymmetry seems intentionally designed even if many are deeming it problematic and counter to the original design principles of EPCOT.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
A festival center by its name and nature suggests flexibility, a space that can be easily easily changed and reworked to fit each season’s offerings. The very thin, delicate structure shown in the art of the Festival Center is typically achieved with a post-tensioned concrete structure. This is a concrete slab with cable run through it that are tightened after it is poured and because of those cables is not very flexible. Any new work that cuts into the slab has to be every careful not to damage those cables. Any materials, scenic elements, props, theming, equipment, etc. is also limited by the size of the service elevator.
Federation Square works because it activates the pedestrian realm. It gives people places to sit and go. The Festival Center moves the program up and away from the main pedestrian level. The art only shows a big expanse of nothingness except the escalators and rectangular service core. Sure, the space could be filled with something else, but it would be the sort of temporary tacky junk and not something designed as part of the space. It also doesn’t make sense that they would want a big ground level flex space as that is exactly what was torn down.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
I do very much appreciate your insights on the structure as I am just really going off the concept art and don't have a training in architecture (though a little in architectural history).
In terms of flexibility, my impression was that the festival space would basically be a large flat, open area surrounded by glass that they could partition however they wanted. Essentially, an elevated conference center. Mind you, I don't know whether that's the case and the elevated aspect does make things more complicated which is obviously not the most efficient solution. There are a lot of museums and galleries, though, that have more than one floor and deal with all these logistics on a regular basis with exhibitions that are a lot more ambitious than what Disney puts on for their annual festivals. So, in principle, it doesn't seem like a crazy idea to me.
I do also take your point about Federation Square being at the pedestrian level, and it is true that the design simply worked from day one as it gave people natural and appealing places to sit, chat, read, etc. as they moved through the city. It was an interesting thing to watch in real time as it had been such a controversial project but then just clicked.
The reason I drew the analogy with the festival center is that my impression was that they were trying something similar in the sense that by moving the festival space up a level rather than just keeping it in the existing Communicore building they could create places to sit in the shade, maybe buy a drink, watch shows, etc. underneath as you wandered through Future World or whatever they're calling it now. Again, I have no idea if that would have been the outcome or if I am projecting. However, the idea of moving the festival center up a level and creating a new space underneath rather than making the existing Communicore building the festival center makes sense for me as an idea.
Last edited:
ChrisFL
Premium Member
They don't use CAD? What do they use? pencils and paper again?
mergatroid
Well-Known Member
Somebody else was saying the same about Guardians of the Galaxy movie the other day, it's like there's a desperation for everything to fail. Ironically the same poster was complaining that Galaxy's Edge didn't go with the original characters and location from over 40 years ago.
That's how it seems to go on here at times "I don't like Guardians and nobody will in 5 years" then "Why didn't they use the original Star Wars from over 40 years ago, I love that"
Again it's all subjective and I've not even seen Moana yet, but sometimes I kind of accept that things many like will entertain others and that's the way it goes.
Last edited:
hpyhnt 1000
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. I have nothing against a rooftop or elevated bar. Adapting the previous Communicore complex to house an expo area, new ride, and a rooftop bar area (whether on the existing rooftop or via a new addition to the complex) would have been great! It's what should have been done but wasn't because... well, we're not really sure why apart from someone's vanity apparently needed to be placated.
Agree that having a dedicated festival area at the center of the park makes complete sense, certainly more than hiding it away in the far corner in an abandoned pavilion! And putting a restaurant or bar on the roof is a great idea, too. But I think it's also clear there were other, better ways to accomplish those outcomes than the one they went with. Pick anything from costs to usable floor space to construction timeline to guest access; by nearly any metric the bar on stilts ends up being the lesser option, and that makes no sense to me.
As for the Communicore buildings themselves, I'd say their beauty came from their adaptability. You could expand them, alter or add to their facades, divide them or leave them open - and all of that was by design so they could become whatever you needed them to be in service of their next usage. While the old buildings certainly wouldn't win any architectural awards for their exterior appearance, I doubt whatever replaces the SW quadrant will come close to matching their flexibility; at least the Moana splash area is easy to rebuild on in the future.
JenniferS
When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
Maybe it was just me, but the much ballyhooed symmetry of Epcot was only ever evident to me on the park maps or app. I certainly never “felt” it, boots on the ground.
I was always discombobulated coming out of SSE, as I never knew which side of the park we were entering when we exited the post-show. Will definitely be more apparent in the future, I guess.
I was always discombobulated coming out of SSE, as I never knew which side of the park we were entering when we exited the post-show. Will definitely be more apparent in the future, I guess.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
BIM, building information modeling. To simplify, CAD is dumb and BIM is smart. While CAD software has been expanded to include some smart features and 3D tools, it is largely a facsimile of paper and pencil. Lines are just lines, they don’t know that they are supposed to be a thing that is part of something. BIM uses 3D models to generate the drawings that compose the “blueprints” but there is information associated with what you see, it knows there are walls, floors, roofs, doors, light fixtures, and so on and so forth. Since it’s a 3D model it can also be rendered and is then publicized as “concept art” that isn’t actually conceptual.
If you remember back to New Fantasyland there were videos showing off how they were using 3D models for coordination, that was BIM. This document also shows some of the differences:
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Having some sort of central festival center (especially as part of the old Communicore buildings) would have been even better if it allowed them to tear up the World Showplace and actually use that place to build a new country or even add a major ride to the UK.
There was no indication they were planning to do that, though.
There was no indication they were planning to do that, though.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
I'd also accept it in Adventureland.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Just like the Poly... got it.The Moana theme won't be in your face. It is secondary to the main theme of the water cycle and conservation done in an engaging way for families. Sounds very EPCOT Center edutainment to me.
In fact I believe the IP utilization will be so carefully utilized that Moana could show up in another park in a more dedicated attraction.Just my opinion.
And then something else might be added to the JoW or no IP at all.
I think we are just seeing pieces of a puzzle because the big picture of Epcot's future is still being crafted.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
That would work but probably at the expense of a classic since it is bigger than Carpets.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
My vote would be an Aquatopia type attraction for Moana replacing the Swiss Family Tree House.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Just giving the customer what they want. But I do think Journey will be far more subtle.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
I’d hate to lose a walkthrough when both DAK and DHS could use it as an addition. Too much removal-and-replacing already occurs at WDW.
There is an expansion pad for Adventureland but I want something major there, personally. It could fit a mountain.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Where? The parade area?
JenniferS
When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
Hands off my Treehouse, please. That’s my retirement dream.