PHOTOS - Disney reveals new lobby design and Trader Sam's lounge for the Polynesian

[LapsedWDWFan]

I actually took th. time to look this up. In the 2010 Florida building codes, section 502.1.1.1 table 2 states that skylights need to have an SHGC (Solar Heat Gain Coefficient) of less than .19. That is the measure of how much solar energy penetrates the fixture. The higher the number, the more energy gets through. I then looked up the recommended SHGC for a greenhouse figuring that would be about what you would need to keep plants alive. That value .60 or higher, three times more than building codes allow. That should confirm what @tikiman is saying.

Edit: Additionally section 502.2.5.1.1 specifies that "The skylight area shall not exceed 3 percent of the gross roof area." So that could factor in as well.

 

[jakeman]

I actually took th. time to look this up. In the 2010 Florida building codes, section 502.1.1.1 table 2 states that skylights need to have an SHGC (Solar Heat Gain Coefficient) of less than .19. That is the measure of how much solar energy penetrates the fixture. The higher the number, the more energy gets through. I then looked up the recommended SHGC for a greenhouse figuring that would be about what you would need to keep plants alive. That value .60 or higher, three times more than building codes allow. That should confirm what @tikiman is saying.

Edit: Additionally section 502.2.5.1.1 specifies that "The skylight area shall not exceed 3 percent of the gross roof area." So that could factor in as well.

Um...we've already decided that @tikiman is not giving us the correct facts to support our pre-formed opinions and have dealt with him appropriately.

So you can just take your "facts" and "supporting documentation" somewhere else.

 

[ABQ]

Now I'm waiting for someone to chime in on how SHGC and UV are not the same thing. Yeah yeah and so what, I doubt the folks who said the skylights were our of code was a physicist.

 

[Bocabear]

Most of the plants used in the Lobby were types that can tolerate lower light levels...Lower canopy rain forest.
I remember at one point they used to have shade netting on the skylights there too to diffuse the light...and again, there are other hotels in the area with skylights and trees and plants...So while that could be a factor on paper, I don't believe it is the reason for the change....And yes the building codes have definitely changed, but from the art, they are still keeping the skylights...Just opening up the floor space... I wish Tikiman could share the rest of the puzzle pieces...but I understand him not wanting to share what he is not supposed to.

 

[Cesar R M]

Wow, I really enjoyed this thread.....until recently.

I hope @tikiman will return to the conversation.

@tikiman, I value your information. Please come back and ignore the debbie downers.

I second.

Kinda sad to see one of the most reliable (along spirited and Lee ?) leakers being chased away.

 

[kkocka]

Don't worry, Tikiman is still reading this. Anyway, I'm still eager to hear more about Trader Sam's Grog Grotto, personally. This lobby talk has branched off quite a bit. I think we can all sum up the topic as "we don't want the water feature to leave" but we're powerless and have to face the unfortunate truth.

In the end, we'll all find out what the actual plans are because we'll see the results. Rumors and discussion and hoping for breaking news will only do so good - just gotta be patient.

 

[flynnibus]

I actually took th. time to look this up. In the 2010 Florida building codes, section 502.1.1.1 table 2 states that skylights need to have an SHGC (Solar Heat Gain Coefficient) of less than .19. That is the measure of how much solar energy penetrates the fixture. The higher the number, the more energy gets through. I then looked up the recommended SHGC for a greenhouse figuring that would be about what you would need to keep plants alive. That value .60 or higher, three times more than building codes allow. That should confirm what @tikiman is saying.

And if you go back and look at my earlier post you will see I referenced the insulating factors (the same info without citing the values)

SHGC is about energy efficiency (mainly due to solar HEAT) - not Blocking UV. The claim was the plants could not live due to the uv blocking required by building code. Which is bs. Building code does require higher insulating factors now than 40 years ago - but requiring uv block to levels that plants can't live is wrong.

The information you cited is as I did... Supports the probability Someone is getting half truths and misapplying them. I'm not saying it's tiki man but likely those talking to him.

And greenhouses are primarily for the environment - which is controlled activity in a building like this

 

[monothingie]

And if you go back and look at my earlier post you will see I referenced the insulating factors (the same info without citing the values)

SHGC is about energy efficiency (mainly due to solar HEAT) - not Blocking UV. The claim was the plants could not live due to the uv blocking required by building code. Which is bs. Building code does require higher insulating factors now than 40 years ago - but requiring uv block to levels that plants can't live is wrong.

The information you cited is as I did... Supports the probability Someone is getting half truths and misapplying them. I'm not saying it's tiki man but likely those talking to him.

And greenhouses are primarily for the environment - which is controlled activity in a building like this

You are saying that @tikiman is getting half truths or mis-truths, but that assumes that you are in full possession of the truth. How is it that you know better? If you want to disagree over the details that's your prerogative, but @tikiman has a proven track record.

 

[flynnibus]

You are saying that @tikiman is getting half truths or mis-truths, but that assumes that you are in full possession of the truth. How is it that you know better?

Because the full truth on the subject of building code requirements is publicly available information. You don't need to be an 'insider' or have friends to know how to read code and statutes. Your blind faith shows the same issue I think is plaguing the information. You're believing it solely based on the source vs scrutinizing if it stands on its own regardless of source. In addition, even if you don't want to bore yourself with building codes, you could just take a look around and notice that plants indoors...even tropical ones.. are design features used all over still. So when someone tells you "they had to remove the plants because the building code requirements wouldn't allow them to grow" - don't you go 'hrmm.. how does anyone else do it?'

And BTW... the 3% number refers to skylights, not glass or other roofing materials. It's specific to skylights, not transparent roof structures.

 

[xdan0920]

This whole thread got out of hand. No one is happy about the central feature coming out, and it's leading to emotional responses.

Let me see if I can't simplify it up....

The water feature can't be kept as is. There is no fixing it, because fixing it would mean exposing HazMat, and once it's exposed, code dictates you need to remediate. When remediation is impossible, or close to it, then the whole thing needs to come out. Am I close here? It seems to be the most likely/obvious explanation.

Secondarily, Disney could rebuild a large central water feature, sure. But they are choosing not to, wether that is simply a design choice, or being dictated by budget, that's more inside info then I have access to. I suspect it's budget related though.

 

[monothingie]

This whole thread got out of hand. No one is happy about the central feature coming out, and it's leading to emotional responses.

Let me see if I can't simplify it up....

The water feature can't be kept as is. There is no fixing it, because fixing it would mean exposing HazMat, and once it's exposed, code dictates you need to remediate. When remediation is impossible, or close to it, then the whole thing needs to come out. Am I close here? It seems to be the most likely/obvious explanation.

Secondarily, Disney could rebuild a large central water feature, sure. But they are choosing not to, wether that is simply a design choice, or being dictated by budget, that's more inside info then I have access to. I suspect it's budget related though.

Very nicely summarized. Clearly @tikiman knows more than what is going on, but as he has stated he can't divulge that information. For example, (and I do not know that this is the case) if there were a hazmat condition. There are lots of facets to this project that we will probably never know for sure. Maybe once completed @tikiman could share some of the things he was asked not to, but that's his call. But as he's stated he's provided as much info as he can, if that amounts to a half-truth or mis-truth, then that can be someones interpretation that I would disagree with.

 

[flynnibus]

Just finished sklar's book today on the plane and it goes over principles that apply here.

Sklar goes over how the attitude in Disney creative was not 'no' to something... But 'yes if...'. Enabling, not dismissive. When tasked to build things they had never done... The answer wasn't "we can't" but rather "we'll figure it out"

That's what lead to quotes like "it's fun to do the impossible"

Things like "building code would kill the plants" are not reasons.. They are EXCUSES. And quite frankly crappy ones.

When your kid says they didn't clean their room because they got home late... That is an excuse, not a justification that cleaning their room is not possible.

The things thrown out so far as to why they won't have a water feature anymore are excuses - not insurmountable hurdles. They could but they don't want to. If that is because of creative reasons... Or because they are unwilling to tackle the difficult anymore... Obviously Disney is not going to say.

All I know is this company was built by tackling the impossible and exceeding expectations.

If anyone thinks the plans outlined here do either of those things.. Let's hear it. I don't think they do... Especially relative to what it replaces

 

[asianway]

Just finished sklar's book today on the plane and it goes over principles that apply here.

Sklar goes over how the attitude in Disney creative was not 'no' to something... But 'yes if...'. Enabling, not dismissive. When tasked to build things they had never done... The answer wasn't "we can't" but rather "we'll figure it out"

That's what lead to quotes like "it's fun to do the impossible"

Things like "building code would kill the plants" are not reasons.. They are EXCUSES. And quite frankly crappy ones.

When your kid says they didn't clean their room because they got home late... That is an excuse, not a justification that cleaning their room is not possible.

The things thrown out so far as to why they won't have a water feature anymore are excuses - not insurmountable hurdles. They could but they don't want to. If that is because of creative reasons... Or because they are unwilling to tackle the difficult anymore... Obviously Disney is not going to say.

All I know is this company was built by tackling the impossible and exceeding expectations.

If anyone thinks the plans outlined here do either of those things.. Let's hear it. I don't think they do... Especially relative to what it replaces

Whatever the reason kleyla floated the same thing. Before he went private

 

[lazyboy97o]

What would be great is if Disney was somehow able to control the local governing authority that writes the building codes.

 

[seascape]

What would be great is if Disney was somehow able to control the local governing authority that writes the building codes.

Almost all building codes are set by the state. The local codes a have to follow state law. Does Disney get to inspect and speed up the permit process yes. That is what the state gave them. Very stupid and that will never happen again. The good news though is they have to follow the building codes that passed after the hurricanes.

 

[dstrawn9889]

it would be stupid of them to not build to code, since they work on buildings once every 40 years or so.... do you think that SSE not built to code would'nt act as a giant sail in high winds?

 

[Master Yoda]

Almost all building codes are set by the state. The local codes a have to follow state law. Does Disney get to inspect and speed up the permit process yes. That is what the state gave them. Very stupid and that will never happen again. The good news though is they have to follow the building codes that passed after the hurricanes.

The power the state gave them is not all that unique. It might have been in the 60's, but it is not that uncommon now.

The Readers Digest version is their professional engineers can approve a product or constructive method will meet FBC without going through the lengthy approval process that say a window or door manufacture would have to go through. This is due to them building rather unique, one of a kind buildings that have a number of components and construction methods that do not match what you typically see in everyday construction.

JEA in north Florida has a similar arrangement with the city of Jacksonville.

Disney has always had to meet or exceed the current building code. In the 60's each county had their own code. There has been a unified Florida building code since 2002.

 

[seascape]

it would be stupid of them to not build to code, since they work on buildings once every 40 years or so.... do you think that SSE not built to code would'nt act as a giant sail in high winds?

I think most building at Disney and Universal are built beyond code. The reason I wrote what I did was because it was insinuated that because they can inspect and enforce the codes they have an advantage and they do in some ways but not over the codes only the time involved.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think most building at Disney and Universal are built beyond code. The reason I wrote what I did was because it was insinuated that because they can inspect and enforce the codes they have an advantage and they do in some ways but not over the codes only the time involved.

Reedy Creek Improvement District employees the code officials. This gives Disney an advantage because they can work directly with them to find appropriate solutions. This is a huge advantage and one that has long been criticized.

 

[note2001]

Just returned from our trip, I could not bring myself to go over to our usual Ohana's breakfast as I just didn't want to see the work screens up. I did note as I browsed about for diner reservations on the MDE site that the restaurant was full at dinner though. I think I'm the only one the construction kept away, and it remains popular

Side note - Disney seems to be keeping their resort construction crews plenty busy these days. Saw work being done/walls up in the GF (All guest room floors on the right of the lobby as you enter are screened in), WL, waterfall fountain is being refurbished with some way to go, to be followed by the pool...) and this. Have to wonder what other projects are going on around the other resorts.

The smell. I am so going to miss that smell. It was a "My vacation has started" smell!

The mind has a way of mimicking sounds, smells and even tastes when we are in a situation similar to something we had experienced them in before. Just reading your post brought that familiar poly lobby smell to mind. I think your vacations will start off with the same smell (in mind) although not the same view.