Possible Attraction in France pavilion (Epcot) Update - new Attraction Greenlit

[marni1971]

Disney's feasibility/approval process happens fairly early in the design process. It is after Blue Sky and Concept Design, leaving Schematic Design, Design Development and Construction Documentation to occur afterwards. While something like the Rattouille attraction would have most of its design intent already settled, you cannot simply grab blueprints for a building in France and hand them to a contractor in Florida. There are lots of technical details that will have to be reviewed and redesigned by architects and engineers licensed in Florida. Every little thing has to reviewed to ensure that it is in compliance with the EPCOT Building Code. The back wall of the showbuilding in France may not meet EPCOT's wind load requirements. Walls designed to be built with standard European metric material dimensions may have to be redesigned for American imperial dimensions. Doors checked for egress size and accessibility. The slope of roofs. Electrical wiring needs to be designed for American loads. HVAC needs to be designed for Florida's very different climate. Lots of little things that all go into something that looks the same.

A great example of this is the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror at Disney's California Adventure and Walt Disney Studios Park. If you look at construction photos of the two, you will see that, despite having the same outward appearance, they are completely different structural systems.

In short.... Floridian code calls for steel frame. French code calls for concrete walls.

A small but also huge difference.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Does this mean that Frozen land is off the table or is this an additional proposed land?

In addition to Frozen land at Disney Sea.

 

[Hula Popper]

Once that is done, the PotC ride in the MK can be repurposed.

Quoi!?!?!

just remove the Jack Sparrow elements from that ride and restore it as "classic" POTC. There's plenty of variation between the classic version of MK's POTC and Shanghai's ride that would allow them to co-exist at WDW, especially at totally different parks.

Oui, Oui!!

 

[lazyboy97o]

In short.... Floridian code calls for steel frame. French code calls for concrete walls.

A small but also huge difference.

That may be a little too short. Florida does not specifically call for steel and bar the use of concrete. There are a number of factor that make steel a better choice for Florida.

 

[AC21075]

I have no problem with the plan, except no reason to get rid of MK's POTC -- just remove the Jack Sparrow elements from that ride and restore it as "classic" POTC. There's plenty of variation between the classic version of MK's POTC and Shanghai's ride that would allow them to co-exist at WDW, especially at totally different parks.

I think an Indy themed land would be better than Pirates given the choice, but I'd have no problem with going with Pirates for this sort of endeavor. It would basically be like copying Treasure Cove from Shanghai.

How about we split the difference? I think the Shanghai Pirates ride concept would easily lend itself to an Indiana Jones adventure (Lost City of Atlantis, anyone?).

UPDATE: And of course, I just saw that you posted that idea on another thread...

 

[marni1971]

That may be a little too short. Florida does not specifically call for steel and bar the use of concrete. There are a number of factor that make steel a better choice for Florida.

Oh definitely not specifically. Just pointing out the WDSP ToT looks virtually identical to the others but was built from one continuous concrete pour as opposed to what had already been planned, designed and built elsewhere.

 

[Princess Leia]

In short.... Floridian code calls for steel frame. French code calls for concrete walls.

A small but also huge difference.

That may be a little too short. Florida does not specifically call for steel and bar the use of concrete. There are a number of factor that make steel a better choice for Florida.

Oh definitely not specifically. Just pointing out the WDSP ToT looks virtually identical to the others but was built from one continuous concrete pour as opposed to what had already been planned, designed and built elsewhere.

Speaking as someone who isn't really knowledgeable in the architecture business, could someone explain the differences between the two methods? Pros, cons, and costs?

Thanks!

 

[marni1971]

Speaking as someone who isn't really knowledgeable in the architecture business, could someone explain the differences between the two methods? Pros, cons, and costs?

Thanks!

I'm a layman as well but I believe the steel is stipulated to be hurricane / earthquake proof. Why concrete is chosen for Paris I don't know but DLP is full of it.

 

[Bocabear]

Down here in South Florida a lot of the newer construction public buildings like Schools and such are done with concrete panels because specifically they are much better for hurricanes...much stronger than traditional methods and an easier and faster build time... concrete slabs go up, then the steel framework is built on the inside...

 

[FerretAfros]

Speaking as someone who isn't really knowledgeable in the architecture business, could someone explain the differences between the two methods? Pros, cons, and costs?

Thanks!

There are any number of reasons to choose one over the other, but in most cases either could work just fine. As a rule of thumb, steel will be faster during construction but concrete will have a longer lifespan

Steel allows the structure to flex, which can be good for horizontal loads like wind or seismic. Because steel framing is fabricated off-site, assembly is very fast and essentially works like a giant Erector Set, and has a somewhat-limited number of ways to connect things. Due to the iron content steel is susceptible to rusting, and requires occasional maintenance to ensure it remains in good condition. Steel is a pre-determined ratio of metals that will be the same everywhere (with standard variations for strength, etc). Steel structures have a somewhat limited lifespan due to the flexure (similar to bending a paperclip back and forth until it breaks), but when they fail it tends to be a permanent deformation of the element rather than a catastrophic failure (the structure may not be usable, but it would be easy to evacuate)

Concrete is brittle (which is why it's reinforced with steel) but can be formed into any shape imaginable and has greater fire-resistance and thermal properties. Cast-in-place concrete requires time to cure (typically 7 days minimum) which can make it a slow process, but precast elements can help with schedule concerns. Concrete uses Portland cement as the 'glue' to hold everything together, but the exact mix will depend on the local materials (with variations for strength, etc). Concrete is very low maintenance, though moisture infiltration can lead to problems if it reaches the reinforcing steel. Concrete structures tend to last longer than steel, but when they fail it is often sudden and very dramatic (little warning before a structure becomes unusable/unsafe)

Cost can also be a major deciding factor, but material unit costs fluctuate so frequently that it's hard to predict savings for a particular project. There are plenty of stories of massive buildings (like a high-rise hotel or a hospital) that were completely designed twice prior to getting bids, once for steel and once for concrete, and the eventual construction cost savings was enough to cover the additional design cost

In addition to the material cost, the local labor pool may be more advantageous to one over the other, especially if a lot of local contractors are busy with other projects of a certain type. Material costs also vary widely depending on location and the proximity to steel foundries, gypsum mines, gravel pits, etc. What is cheaper in steel in one place might be cheaper in concrete in another, and vice versa

Short version: In most cases, either steel or concrete can be used just fine from a design/engineering perspective, but there are a variety of outside factors that can steer a project in either direction.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Speaking as someone who isn't really knowledgeable in the architecture business, could someone explain the differences between the two methods? Pros, cons, and costs?

Thanks!

I don't think there really is a good short answer. It's the sort of thing entire careers are built around. As @FerretAfros started to outline, there are many, many variables.

Here's a crazy fact that relates to Epcot and these materials. The curvy swirls in front of Mission: SPACE are mostly made out of solid, poured-in-place concrete.

I'm a layman as well but I believe the steel is stipulated to be hurricane / earthquake proof. Why concrete is chosen for Paris I don't know but DLP is full of it.

This is what I was sort of getting at previously. The Florida Building Code and EPCOT Building Code are not going to stipulate a specific material in something like the structure. Instead there are a number of performance requirements that must be met by the assembly. In terms of everything, EPCOT must be more stringent than Florida as the most restrictive applicable code is the one that applies in all circumstances.

Down here in South Florida a lot of the newer construction public buildings like Schools and such are done with concrete panels because specifically they are much better for hurricanes...much stronger than traditional methods and an easier and faster build time... concrete slabs go up, then the steel framework is built on the inside...

Broward and Miami-Dade Counties are unique. They constitute the High Velocity Wind Zone. Structures in the zone must meet higher wind loads and building products must meet additional, unique testing/performance requirements. Things have to be "Miami-Dade approved."

 

[Bartattack]

I'm curious if they will use the original WDS name "Ratatouille: Kitchen Calamity" (before they changed it to 'Ratatouille: l'aventure totalement toquée de Rémy')

 

[aladdin2007]

I'm curious if they will use the original WDS name "Ratatouille: Kitchen Calamity" (before they changed it to 'Ratatouille: l'aventure totalement toquée de Rémy')

I cant imagine them using kitchen calamity here, but stranger things have happened. They will probably keep it real simple like they have been doing as of late, which to me is boring, looking at you frozen ever after, ick. would have preferred olaf's adventures over that.

 

[larryz]

vin incroyable

Oh. OK, then. Or should I say "C'est bon."

 

[larryz]

That wedding scene. Kid with 80s hair and loud blue tuxedo with tails. So dated. Substitute a new wedding scene with same narration. New viewers won't know the difference.

Whoever did the work on the new Soarin' film can just clip in some CGI...

 

[Kman101]

Ratatouille: The Ride - Remy's Kitchen Calamity

Disney and their long-winded names

Just kidding but I'd laugh if that happened

 

[roj2323]

Lets see how they Value Engineer this one.

 

[jhendrix]

Ratatouille: Mission Bake-Off

 

[disneyC97]

Disney Pixar Ratatouille: An Adventure in Paris presented by...

 

[uncle jimmy]

Ratatouille: Drive-Thru

 

[RSoxNo1]

Just in from Tokyo for Beauty & the Beast. Maybe worth reconsidering for France or MK (First choice...):

Can someone explain to me where in Tokyo Disneyland I'm looking at here. Is this taking over the Speedway?