sonoma15
Well-Known Member
That is a benefit but I don't think anyone is saying it's currently bad. Either way we don't need to bring that kinda attitude from the other parts of the forums to here.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Nintendo partnering with Universal to make attractions.
- Thread starter Sped2424
- Start date
JackCH
Well-Known Member
It is currently bad.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
What do you mean? We’ve complained about this design decision for years now about Epic.
Disneyland was the progenitor and has over decades undone their spokes with radials. There’s long been complaints - one of the few consistent areas of support on the galaxy edge build was its circular connection to get around the River. In fact there’s still a lot of people lamenting Toontown doesn’t connect to SW:GE. The ultimate spoke is Main Street and there is extreme delight about the prospect of a true second entrance.
I have complaints on TDS FantasySprings and World Showcase and Islands of Adventure. A radial is the best design for guest experience, bar none. A circle is ‘ok’ for at least exploring things in a step wise fashion. Forced doubling back most certainly is the worst choice for guest experience, it never feels good.
JackCH
Well-Known Member
It's also a valid reason people are annoyed with Monsters Inc.
I'm honestly surprised Universal went with this layout.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Oh yes, I further forgot about sunset blvd. Another bad dead end and one everyone hopes we’ll see the animation courtyard eventually connect to.
Gusey
Well-Known Member
I wonder if the expansion pads in between the four lands are why they aren't connected? If they added a path connecting the backs of SNW and Dark Universe for example, you're enclosing the expansion pads and it will add an extra complication to building (middle of the park vs access from the side)
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
No, the placement of everything came about as a result of the concept.
Gusey
Well-Known Member
Concept? As in the chosen park layout?
Either way, if they decide after opening that guest flow is an issue, construction in the expansion pads could be used to create a way to connect the existing lands, via smaller portals
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Yes, the concept of the park as having isolated lands.
It would not be an easy undertaking to connect the lands. The layout of the northeast side of the park has a lot of stuff blocking connection. Even Dark Universe and Donkey Kong Country being connected would involve crossing two of the service roads that carry a lot of infrastructure.
sedati
Well-Known Member
I really wonder if the core of this park will feel like a theme park or just a nicer version of City Walk/ Disney Springs. I'd love to be able to ignore the hotel, but having to pass it repeatedly will be a negative.
Questions I expect to answer in the park:
"How do I get to Monsters Land?"
"Oh, see the giant Chinese restaurant, it's just to the left of that."
"Where's Harry Potter?"
"I think it's behind the big burger place."
"No, seriously."
"Yes, seriously."
DarkMetroid567
Well-Known Member
The entrance plaza to Wizarding Paris is seriously bizarre. I am shocked by how Disney Springs Celestial Park is looking right now and hoping vegetation fills in or it looks better in person. But Meteor, Blue Dragon, the kiosks, etc. are not looking too promising.
"How do I get to Adventureland?"
"Oh, see the big buffet? It's just to the right of that."
"Where's Avatar?"
"I think it's behind the pizza place."
"No, seriously."
"Yes, seriously."
Celestial Park, at least in concept, feels so disconnected from the rest of the park. I feel like this is kind of an issue with EU in general, actually, where everything (by design) feels completely isolated, like 4 mini-parks jammed together with a random shopping mall connecting them.
Maybe I'm wrong and it'll impressed in person, but I have no idea how Celestial Park is going to deliver on its theme, except *maybe* at night.
sedati
Well-Known Member
"How do I get to Adventureland?"
"Oh, see the big buffet? It's just to the right of that."
"Where's Avatar?"
"I think it's behind the pizza place."
"No, seriously."
"Yes, seriously."
Don't need to grasp and look how many straws I got.
Only the dragon portal seems to have any prominence on the main path. Even then it looks overshadowed by another massive restaurant. Mario is behind a kiosk and angled off the path whereas the gift shop is straight ahead when looking that way. Monsters has height, but is nestled between far larger structures. Potter is practically backstage. There are far too many kiosks that seem to obstruct the Mario and Monsters from the main pathways.
It's hard to tell as we're just looking at aerials, but the more I try to visualize the view from the actual pathways (especially once the greenery grows in) I feel the average guest might find themselves confused. Yes the portals act as beacons, but the placement makes them beacons flashing for attention between behemoths with irksome little distractions littered before them.
The Disney example you gave aren't comparable. Adventureland and Avatar are straight across prominent bridges with clear lines of sight. (But, as I argued on another thread, the placement of Dinosaur! has a similar problem- it's not in a clear line of sight and lies past a restaurant on a path that only seems inviting by how wide it is.)
Last edited:
sedati
Well-Known Member
It's not a flaw, it's the intended design (which is a flaw IMHO). The early concept was basically CityWalk with lands attached. Facial recognition would be used to prevent the public from getting on rides and entering lands, but the central park area was to be publicly accessible. I think the driving force behind this idea was to draw in people from the convention center nearby. The problem is how theme-park scaled items (the portals) are dwarfed by real-world scale items. Lighting at night might help, but the lights on the portals may be outshined by the giant neon dragons and burgers of the massive restaurants and any antics the guests of the hotel may be up to.
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
I thought the idea is that Celestial Park is intentionally only vaguely themed so as to be a stark contrast from the heavily themed lands.
I just hope they throw tons of vegetation and landscaping in. I'd rather it look more natural than "CityWalk". Plus, there isn't really any area of any Universal park that looks beautiful and natural outside of the one walkway in USF between Mel's and ET.
I just hope they throw tons of vegetation and landscaping in. I'd rather it look more natural than "CityWalk". Plus, there isn't really any area of any Universal park that looks beautiful and natural outside of the one walkway in USF between Mel's and ET.
DarkMetroid567
Well-Known Member
This is probably the excuse but not the original intention. The front of Celestial Park has at least been beefed up with interesting ideas, though.
IoA Jurassic and Lost Continent has some good parts. The view of Isla Nublar from USB’s entrance is gorgeous (but the Isla Nublar land itself is sterile). Other than that, yeah.
The vibe I get from Celestial Park is a cosmic interface to various worlds. The theming is all cosmic outer-spacey. It's a "land" unto itself with two rides, a signature restaurant, a signature hotel, and crowd-level entertainment (i.e., fountains and fireworks). It is, to me, as much as a fully themed land as is MK's hub.
