New Hilton Hotel construction seen in Epcot

[jt04]

OK I'll bite. What is the "real problem"? Go ahead, let it out WDW74, it will be good for you.

*deafening crickets* :dazzle:

 

[jt04]

Yes and no, like WDW1974 said Bonnet Creek ultimately is under RCID control.
I know, and I know WDW1974 also says nice things but the things talked about are correct. I`m not taking sides, but if 74 wants to talk about the negative things it's up to them - surely this is not a reason to gode them? I could talk negative `till I`m blue in the face but I don`t. Most of the time.

Are we even sure that the new hotel will be visible?

I have my doubts it will except with great effort.

I read on this forum complaints about how ToT is visible from Epcot and after great effort I found it is in a couple spots and I couldn't believe people even noticed it. Very obscure and it's right next door.

 

[marni1971]

Are we even sure that the new hotel will be visible?

From Showcase? I don`t know. It`s certainly possible. Kind of OT I approached a stay at the CBR last summer with an open mind, but the scale of the Bonnet Creek buildings was very off putting from west of Barefoot Bay - I won`t say ugly, just more the fact it isn`t Disney, it wasn`t there before, and now it is. And it ain`t Caribbean. It didn`t ruin the stay, but Aruba and Jamaicas skyline is changed forever to something very out of place with the resorts theming. I dare say POP has the same. From Epcot they will obviously be much smaller, if visible at all. But if they are able to line up behind Italy, then I fear that poor pavilion will forever loose its perspective of design. All the showcases only work visually from afar with a clean sky behind them.

Yes, the TOT is plainly visible from Showcase (c'mon, it is) yet as mentioned elsewhere IMHO it fits very well as a backdrop to Morocco. The Swan and Dolphin.... well, that depends on your personal point of view of them. And like Bonnet Creek they arn`t Disney (but unlike Bonnet Creek they are on property) and so the new Hilton issue is really 18 years old.

If I wanted to moan it would be about Soarin's show building and how it spoils the carefully planned design of the Canadian pavilion. But I won`t.

 

[jt04]

From Showcase? I don`t know. It`s certainly possible. Kind of OT I approached a stay at the CBR last summer with an open mind, but the scale of the Bonnet Creek buildings was very off putting from west of Barefoot Bay - I won`t say ugly, just more the fact it isn`t Disney, it wasn`t there before, and now it is. And it ain`t Caribbean. It didn`t ruin the stay, but Aruba and Jamaicas skyline is changed forever to something very out of place with the resorts theming. I dare say POP has the same. From Epcot they will obviously be much smaller, if visible at all. But if they are able to line up behind Italy, then I fear that poor pavilion will forever loose its perspective of design. All the showcases only work visually from afar with a clean sky behind them.

Yes, the TOT is plainly visible from Showcase (c'mon, it is) yet as mentioned elsewhere IMHO it fits very well as a backdrop to Morocco. The Swan and Dolphin.... well, that depends on your personal point of view of them. And like Bonnet Creek they arn`t Disney (but unlike Bonnet Creek they are on property) and so the new Hilton issue is really 18 years old.

If I wanted to moan it would be about Soarin's show building and how it spoils the carefully planned design of the Canadian pavilion. But I won`t.

One of my favorite ReDis rumors was that the Soarin' building would be "skyscaped" which I believed because I hate how it looks from WS. Now that is a legitimate problem with the sightlines. That really should be something they deal with whether with "skyscaping" or adding a ride to Canada that will cover it. See I stated the problem and offered a solution. Actually two solutions. Not that it will matter but who knows?

 

[kcnole]

This isn't being developed by Disney and exists on land that has never belonged to Disney. (The original owner refused to sell way back when). So is there anything Disney can really do to stop someone from building on their own land?

 

[marni1971]

You wouldn`t have thought so, the land is outside of RCID - but all access is via property, and RCID controlled highway so far as permits and transportation goes. I`d imagine RCID could make it very hard to get materials to site if they wanted to. As soon as you pass the traffic signal at Buena Vista and BC you`re on property.

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

This isn't being developed by Disney and exists on land that has never belonged to Disney. (The original owner refused to sell way back when). So is there anything Disney can really do to stop someone from building on their own land?

Reedy Creek Improvement District could, if they can reasonably justify it.

 

[unkadug]

You wouldn`t have thought so, the land is outside of RCID - but all access is via property, and RCID controlled highway so far as permits and transportation goes. I`d imagine RCID could make it very hard to get materials to site if they wanted to. As soon as you pass the traffic signal at Buena Vista and BC you`re on property.

Legally they have to allow access.

 

[Brian Noble]

Yes and no, like WDW1974 said Bonnet Creek ultimately is under RCID control.

No, it is not. It is not part of RCID. And, RCID can't embargo the Bonnet Creek parcel because...

Legally they have to allow access.

This is correct. The Bonnet Creek parcel is landlocked by Disney on three sides, and I-4 on the fourth---landlocked parcels must have access provided to them. While RCID does retain control over land in its borders, it cannot legally revoke access to the landlocked parcel. MousePlanet has a good explanation as to why:

While Disney does not own the Bonnet Creek Resort, the only way into and out of the resort is through Disney property. The access road to the property connects to Buena Vista Drive east of the Caribbean Beach Resort. Because the property is landlocked, the Reedy Creek Improvement District, Disney's governmental arm, which is responsible for public facilities on the property, must provide access and signage. However, since they're a governmental entity, they're not allowed to show favoritism toward one constituent over another. They have to provide equal access and equal signage. While they did make the Bonnet Creek signage a different color than the Disney signage, that's about the only differentiation that they could have made without jeopardizing their standing as a governmental body.

That over-simplifies things a bit, but you get the idea. Disney gets a lot of benefits from having its own quasi-government, but there are restrictions that come along with such status as well.

 

[PolyneisanAlex]

True!...But it doesn't have a glaring red HILTON sign on it.:zipit:

Thats The Huntigton Hiltion Its on Long island strange how i knew that:lol:

 

[WDW1974]

OK I'll bite. What is the "real problem"? Go ahead, let it out WDW74, it will be good for you.

Jay Rasulo. And the puppet execs he has installed at almost every Disney resort that owe their careers to him and are going to do nothing but agree with the mandates from above, no matter how bad those decisions are and how much they negatively impact guests, fans, cast, and shareholders alike.

That's the real problem.

A fish rots from the head down.

JR has no love for the parks. This is widely known inside Disney. He never spends ANY time in them when there isn't media around or an important announcement being made. Imagine working a job where you had to sell (fill in this blank with any item you don't particularly like). Now imagine that product having an amazing creative legacy that you really don't care about very much except for finding new ways to exploit the past to make money in the present so you (personally) can live well in the future.

That's Jay Rasulo.

He has created a toxic environment behind him from Anaheim to Orlando, from Glendale to Paris.

So while the problem isn't all him ... it starts there ... and he is a cancer that needs to be removed because well ... it spreads.

Does that help?

 

[WDW1974]

You wouldn`t have thought so, the land is outside of RCID - but all access is via property, and RCID controlled highway so far as permits and transportation goes. I`d imagine RCID could make it very hard to get materials to site if they wanted to. As soon as you pass the traffic signal at Buena Vista and BC you`re on property.

Well, there are legal reasons why RCID has to provide access etc ... but RCID could make life very difficult for those developers if they chose to.

Theoretically, the property owners like Hilton can do whatever they want within the laws of the state of Florida ... but the reality is they have to make the Mouse happy.

I was told that the Fairfield/Wyndham timeshare resort had to get special agreement from The Mouse to add two floors to the buildings it was planning there ... that source worked directly for the developer, so I doubt he had any reason to be untruthful.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Jay Rasulo. And the puppet execs he has installed at almost every Disney resort that owe their careers to him and are going to do nothing but agree with the mandates from above, no matter how bad those decisions are and how much they negatively impact guests, fans, cast, and shareholders alike.

That's the real problem.

A fish rots from the head down.

JR has no love for the parks. This is widely known inside Disney. He never spends ANY time in them when there isn't media around or an important announcement being made. Imagine working a job where you had to sell (fill in this blank with any item you don't particularly like). Now imagine that product having an amazing creative legacy that you really don't care about very much except for finding new ways to exploit the past to make money in the present so you (personally) can live well in the future.

That's Jay Rasulo.

He has created a toxic environment behind him from Anaheim to Orlando, from Glendale to Paris.

So while the problem isn't all him ... it starts there ... and he is a cancer that needs to be removed because well ... it spreads.

Does that help?

SO...How do we get him out?

 

[WDW1974]

SO...How do we get him out?

There are spirits working on it from different places ... :wave:

I can tell you that having your parent company's stock get downgraded two days before Christmas by a top analyst based largely on domestic theme park worries isn't a way to stay endeared to Bob Iger.

So ... who know what could happen if Wall Street has more P&R concerns?

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

There are spirits working on it from different places ... :wave:

AHA! Methinks the air just got clearer.


Thank you.

 

[jt04]

Jay Rasulo. And the puppet execs he has installed at almost every Disney resort that owe their careers to him and are going to do nothing but agree with the mandates from above, no matter how bad those decisions are and how much they negatively impact guests, fans, cast, and shareholders alike.

That's the real problem.

A fish rots from the head down.

JR has no love for the parks. This is widely known inside Disney. He never spends ANY time in them when there isn't media around or an important announcement being made. Imagine working a job where you had to sell (fill in this blank with any item you don't particularly like). Now imagine that product having an amazing creative legacy that you really don't care about very much except for finding new ways to exploit the past to make money in the present so you (personally) can live well in the future.

That's Jay Rasulo.

He has created a toxic environment behind him from Anaheim to Orlando, from Glendale to Paris.

So while the problem isn't all him ... it starts there ... and he is a cancer that needs to be removed because well ... it spreads.

Does that help?

Absolutely.

 

[Pongo]

One might point out that things like this were once huge no-nos with Disney.

You only saw what WED/WDI wanted you to see and visual intrusions were almost non-existant or kept to a minimum.

Sure you saw the Contemporary, but it was off behind Tomorrowland and was designed to blend in. Much the same as the Poly and Asian (if built) would have with Adventureland.

All of that went to hell when the Swan and Dolphin were built where the are located. They totally threw off the scale of World Showcase, and while they may be beautiful resorts they have no business being where they are.

But once they were built, the 'tude at Disney seemed to be one of 'aw, who cares?' ... and hence you now have ToT sticking up behind Japan and Morocco and the huge hanger buildings for Soarin sticking up and ruining the scale of Canada and UK.

Heck, you also see off-property timeshares, gas station and 7-11 signs and traffic lights while ostensibly being in far off Africa at DAK Lodge.

So it isn't that the rules no longer apply, so much as they threw the rulebook out.

I think I disagree with this. Most of it at least.

It couldn't have been too big of a no-no in the past if they built a 189-foot-tall structure in the center of a park that could be seen from anywhere else in the park. A European castle does not fit in with the American frontier. Not at all. I don't care if it's meant to be the center of the park to act as a banner and/or lighthouse for the directionally challenged. Nowhere in the American southwest will I find a castle.

When Walt created the Matterhorn, he themed it beautifully with the surrounding landscape of Fantasyland. With the redo of Fantasyland in the 80s it looks even better -- like a real Swiss village. In that respect I agree with you. They used to be a lot better at integrating large structures into the surrounding atmosphere and theming. HOWEVER, when you're across the park and see a giant snow-capped mountain sticking up over the New Orleans street, the realism is lost.

Eye-sores that take you out of the theming are nothing new for the Walt Disney Company. They go back all the way to the early days of Disneyland with hotels and electric wires. This is the same problem that WDW is having with the Bonnet Creek property. They don't have control over it, and if the hotel becomes visible, they'll have to act accordingly, and they will.

They managed to make the eye pass over the Tower of Terror pretty successfully. They can hide the Bonnet Creek Hilton.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I think I disagree with this. Most of it at least.

It couldn't have been too big of a no-no in the past if they built a 189-foot-tall structure in the center of a park that could be seen from anywhere else in the park. A European castle does not fit in with the American frontier. Not at all. I don't care if it's meant to be the center of the park to act as a banner and/or lighthouse for the directionally challenged. Nowhere in the American southwest will I find a castle.

When Walt created the Matterhorn, he themed it beautifully with the surrounding landscape of Fantasyland. With the redo of Fantasyland in the 80s it looks even better -- like a real Swiss village. In that respect I agree with you. They used to be a lot better at integrating large structures into the surrounding atmosphere and theming. HOWEVER, when you're across the park and see a giant snow-capped mountain sticking up over the New Orleans street, the realism is lost.

Eye-sores that take you out of the theming are nothing new for the Walt Disney Company. They go back all the way to the early days of Disneyland with hotels and electric wires. This is the same problem that WDW is having with the Bonnet Creek property. They don't have control over it, and if the hotel becomes visible, they'll have to act accordingly, and they will.

They managed to make the eye pass over the Tower of Terror pretty successfully. They can hide the Bonnet Creek Hilton.

Sorry, gonna have to disagree here.

All of the examples you cited show the "magic" overlapping. Unfavorable, but it's not going to kill the Disney experience. You know that all of that is part of the magic and the experience.

A huge glaring neon sign against the quant vista of a Italian Villa? That's a bit different. That's the real world leaking in, and I don't think that is right AT ALL.


Like you said, hopefully they can hide it.

 

[Pongo]

Sorry, gonna have to disagree here.

All of the examples you cited show the "magic" overlapping. Unfavorable, but it's not going to kill the Disney experience. You know that all of that is part of the magic and the experience.

I just don't see any difference between Cinderella Castle in Frontierland or the Matterhorn in New Orleans Square and an airplane hangar in Canada or a very elaborately and intentionally themed "hotel" to look like the rest of Morocco. In fact, the ToT is probably the best representation of overlapping magic.

I'm not saying I disagree with you about overlapping magic, I'm just saying that if we're going to talk bad about the Soarin' hangar, we might as well talk bad about Cinderella Castle. Just my opinion :shrug:

(But for the record, I agree that it's part of the magic... ALL of it, including look-away-gray painted airplane hangars.)

A huge glaring neon sign against the quant vista of a Italian Villa? That's a bit different. That's the real world leaking in, and I don't think that is right AT ALL.

Like you said, hopefully they can hide it.

Oh, on that note I COMPLETELY agree. I just have faith that WDW won't let the hotel go noticed.

That is IF it ends up visible at all.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I just don't see any difference between Cinderella Castle in Frontierland or the Matterhorn in New Orleans Square and an airplane hangar in Canada or a very elaborately and intentionally themed "hotel" to look like the rest of Morocco. In fact, the ToT is probably the best representation of overlapping magic.

I'm not saying I disagree with you about overlapping magic, I'm just saying that if we're going to talk bad about the Soarin' hangar, we might as well talk bad about Cinderella Castle. Just my opinion :shrug:

(But for the record, I agree that it's part of the magic... ALL of it, including look-away-gray painted airplane hangars.)



Oh, on that note I COMPLETELY agree. I just have faith that WDW won't let the hotel go noticed.

That is IF it ends up visible at all.

I dunno, big difference between Cindy's Castle and a ugly Hangar.:lol::lol: I guess it's all a matter of opinion.


Honestly, I don't think it will be visible...Hope not...:lookaroun