Space Mountain track replacement questions

[Mr.EPCOT]

Consensus doesn't make fact. Also, I think there is more than likely no consensus or majority on opinions of the buildings. There have been people on either side of the arguement in this thread alone.

Just because it is your opinion does not make it the majority. The same goes for me.

I'm just saying that I've seen more people say they don't think it is up to Disney standards and that it's nothing special than people that do. Of course there can be no facts in regards to something as such as aesthetics, but I would suspect if we were able to hear some thoughts from architectural professionals, they would lean towards saying that the new tower (and the convention center) don't do a very good job of standing out and complementing the A-frame. Admittedly, that is purely conjectural, from what little I know about the profession.

Just think about it, put yourself in the shoes of an average joe several decades from now, maybe has visited Walt Disney World once or twice in his lifetime, doesn't even know Disney boards like this exist, much less visit one. You're shown a picture of just this tower building (without the A-frame next to it) and you are asked what you identify with it, where it is. Do you think there's something that sticks out in your mind about it that leads you to associate with Walt Disney World, as the A-frame tower has for many years? Or are you going to say something to the effect of "Oh, well, that looks like it's on the beach in Miami or San Diego or something?"

That's a rather obtuse and beligerant example that only detracts from the validity of your arguement.

You and I both know that would be a bad decision as the company would never recoup the cost of filling the lagoon.

It is an extreme example of what the current business attitudes at Disney could theoretically lead to in the far future. I don't honestly expect that it will ever happen. The point I am trying to get across is that this could just potentially lead to more decisions that takes away from what makes Walt Disney World special and unique as a vacation destination.

You may not like it, but I bet there are several thousand people who are looking forward to this opportunity.

Like I've said before, I'm looking forward to purchasing into it myself, I don't have to look at the ugly thing while I'm staying inside of it. I don't have any problem with the idea of a new tower in that spot, but I am very much against something that looks so generic. The rooms all look great, the new Top of the World lounge looks like a very pleasant area, and the pool looks like a lot of fun. I just feel that the look of the building doesn't meet Disney standards, and I don't think I'm the only one.

 

[Master Yoda]

Man, i have seen that... one would think that individual footers would do much better then a slab that can crack, but what the hell do i know.

Like most things in engineering there is never just one answer that will always work. Money, loads, field conditions, ease of construction even ascetics can all guide you in one direction or another.

For the most part money is the biggest determining factor in most designs. Most customers want the least expensive solution to their problems. I have never been involved in designing a roller coaster but logic would dictate that you want to be able to use as few supports as possible. This typically means larger footers and or friction piles. However field conditions might not allow this design. In that case I could see where some type of large slab with more smaller supports would be necessary. Then there is also the possibility that the customer simply said I do not want to mow the grass under my roller coaster so after all the footers and piles are in pour a slab on top of it.

The other and more than like correct answer in the case of Terminator is the slab would fall into the ease of construction category. Unlike a steel coaster that can do huge spans between supports a wooden coasters requires an exponentially larger amount of support columns simply because of the limitations of the material that you are using. This of course could be done with hundreds of individual footers vs a slab, but what is the chance of them locating hundreds of individual footers just right? It is pretty much next to zero. But a slab on the other hand offers a huge amount of flexibility for the location of the support columns.

Now I have never seen this slab in question but I can all but guarantee you that it is not your typical 4" fiber reinforced slab used in residential construction that cracks if you look at it wrong. More than likely this thing is several feet thick with enough re-bar in it to go from here to Mars and back again.

 

[jt04]

I'm just saying that I've seen more people say they don't think it is up to Disney standards and that it's nothing special than people that do. Of course there can be no facts in regards to something as such as aesthetics, but I would suspect if we were able to hear some thoughts from architectural professionals, they would lean towards saying that the new tower (and the convention center) don't do a very good job of standing out and complementing the A-frame.

Just think about it, put yourself in the shoes of an average joe several decades from now, maybe has visited Walt Disney World once or twice in his lifetime, doesn't even know Disney boards like this exist, much less visit one. You're shown a picture of just this tower building (without the A-frame next to it) and you are asked what you identify with it, where it is. Do you think there's something that sticks out in your mind about it that leads you to associate with Walt Disney World, as the A-frame tower has for many years? Or are you going to say something to the effect of "Oh, well, that looks like it's on the beach in Miami or San Diego or something?"



It is an extreme example of what the current business attitudes at Disney could theoretically lead to in the far future. I don't honestly expect that it will ever happen. The point I am trying to get across is that this could just potentially lead to more decisions that takes away from what makes Walt Disney World special and unique as a vacation destination.



Like I've said before, I'm looking forward to purchasing into it myself, I don't have to look at the ugly thing while I'm staying inside of it. I don't have any problem with the idea of a new tower in that spot, but I am very much against something that looks so generic. The rooms all look great, the new Top of the World lounge looks like a very pleasant area, and the pool looks like a lot of fun. I just feel that the look of the building doesn't meet Disney standards, and I don't think I'm the only one.

No but "ugly" is certainly subjective. I find the building quite approriate for the resort it is part of. It's simply attractive in it's minimalist lines and quite "Contemporary". I love it!

 

[joel_maxwell]

Like most things in engineering there is never just one answer that will always work. Money, loads, field conditions, ease of construction even ascetics can all guide you in one direction or another.

For the most part money is the biggest determining factor in most designs. Most customers want the least expensive solution to their problems. I have never been involved in designing a roller coaster but logic would dictate that you want to be able to use as few supports as possible. This typically means larger footers and or friction piles. However field conditions might not allow this design. In that case I could see where some type of large slab with more smaller supports would be necessary. Then there is also the possibility that the customer simply said I do not want to mow the grass under my roller coaster so after all the footers and piles are in pour a slab on top of it.

The other and more than like correct answer in the case of Terminator is the slab would fall into the ease of construction category. Unlike a steel coaster that can do huge spans between supports a wooden coasters requires an exponentially larger amount of support columns simply because of the limitations of the material that you are using. This of course could be done with hundreds of individual footers vs a slab, but what is the chance of them locating hundreds of individual footers just right? It is pretty much next to zero. But a slab on the other hand offers a huge amount of flexibility for the location of the support columns.

Now I have never seen this slab in question but I can all but guarantee you that it is not your typical 4" fiber reinforced slab used in residential construction that cracks if you look at it wrong. More than likely this thing is several feet thick with enough re-bar in it to go from here to Mars and back again.

As usual... thanks Richard. I knew you would sniff out my question somehow

Oh, I introduce to you... Mr. Mega Slab. For the record, i do recall seeing the re-bar being laid and yes, it was enough to reach the moon. http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=688475#688475

EDIT: holy re-bar heaven batman! http://www.themeparkreview.com/parks/photo.php?pageid=23&linkid=4166

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

No but "ugly" is certainly subjective. I find the building quite approriate for the resort it is part of. It's simply attractive in it's minimalist lines and quite "Contemporary". I love it!

More power to you, I'm genuinely glad you like it.

Yes, the name is "Contemporary", but the hotel has come to define a certain vibe for itself, and this building just does not fit with it for me. It screams to me that someone said "Abstract shapes are contemporary, so throw this horseshoe-shaped building up next to that A-frame tower, and it'll be perfect!"

 

[Pirate665]

This comment alone makes you lose credibility in my mind.

It's a matter of opinion. I started off on WDW POTC. While I like DL's, in my mind it's not great... Again, I said my opinion. I came from WDW to DLR. Not the other way. I have love for my home resort.

Nope. It would not have. It closed suddenly for a very important reason. One that would prohibit the ride from running anymore.

I wish I was allowed to comment, but I am prohibited from doing so. Yes, the coaster was in "danger" of "sorts" but it's sad it takes something like that to catch them to do something. (Again, notice I have word things lightly here...)

As for the uphill on POTC, that's something each person decides on there own. I hate it but understand it's reason, thus is why I like the speed ramp honestly. It's a matter of opinion. Some of friends agree, most disagree. That's it. That's why I said, my opinion. One of the things I wish WDW's did have was the longer intro. Very nice to go through the bar and bedroom and have a good laugh.

Now one thing you will never hear me say is that I dislike DL's HM. In my mind, that is the superior HM. And next to PM, even then it can not be beat. So, take it for what you will, my opinion, but the point I was trying to drive home is that YOU have power to help do something about the current management style. Just wake them up!

>Steve

 

[imagineer boy]

And DL's POTC is not that great. One of the things that WDW prided itself on, and I simply adore, is the speed ramp. At WDW, you didn't have to go "up the waterfall" as it wasn't outside the berm. That's the part I've hated about DL's POTC. (If you really wanted something special in your POTC experience, then ride DLP's... Amazing.)

Actually, WDW's does go outside the berm. Look at it on google earth. And I agree with Lee, I love the going up the waterfall effect. It gives the ride a proper ending and it doesn't just end out of no where like WDW's version.

Although, I do agree with your thoughts on Pirates Lair on TSI. Out of place, and poor.

 

[tirian]

Now one thing you will never hear me say is that I dislike DL's HM. In my mind, that is the superior HM. And next to PM, even then it can not be beat.

WDW's new HM is way, way, WAY better than DL's. PM doesn't really compare to either; it's just too different.

In my opinion, Paris' POTC is the golden standard.

Now please remind me, what does this all have to do with Space Mt's track replacement?

 

[EpcotServo]

If you guy's are talking about Disney's Watergate Resort, there's no discussion needed.

It's all kinds of ugly.

You can see it...just drive past.

Look over at the contemporary...

and there it is.









Ugly.


All up in your face.

 

[tirian]

Some people liked the Wand. Some people like Richard Simmons. Some people like to wear stripes with polka dots.

That doesn't make any of those things tasteful in the general consensus.

I'm getting tired of seeing "I don't agree with you so THERE!" posts on these boards. They're ridiculous, and remind me of fifteen-year-olds that wear all black because they think looking different actually makes them different. It's immature. If somebody has a reason for disagreeing, okay, say so—that's conversation. But arguing just because "you can" doesn't impress anybody. (This comment is not aimed at any one person in particular.)

As for the new DVC, I think it looks all right, but it's definitely not cutting-edge like the original Contemporary was. Disney doesn't put much effort into designing any of their resorts anymore; BC, BW, YC, SS, and OKW are basically just variations of the exact same architecture with different decorations.

 

[PhotoDave219]

So if the problem is the Shareholders and the stock price.....

.... would it be possible to make Disney a privately held company ever again?

 

[jt04]

So if the problem is the Shareholders and the stock price.....

.... would it be possible to make Disney a privately held company ever again?

It was attempted. It didn't work.:ROFLOL::zipit:........:wave:

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

If you guy's are talking about Disney's Watergate Resort, there's no discussion needed.

It's all kinds of ugly.

You can see it...just drive past.

Look over at the contemporary...

and there it is.









Ugly.


All up in your face.

Thank you, Travis!

Some people liked the Wand. Some people like Richard Simmons. Some people like to wear stripes with polka dots.

That doesn't make any of those things tasteful in the general consensus.

I'm getting tired of seeing "I don't agree with you so THERE!" posts on these boards. They're ridiculous, and remind me of fifteen-year-olds that wear all black because they think looking different actually makes them different. It's immature. If somebody has a reason for disagreeing, okay, say so—that's conversation. But arguing just because "you can" doesn't impress anybody. (This comment is not aimed at any one person in particular.)

As for the new DVC, I think it looks all right, but it's definitely not cutting-edge like the original Contemporary was. Disney doesn't put much effort into designing any of their resorts anymore; BC, BW, YC, SS, and OKW are basically just variations of the exact same architecture with different decorations.

Agree 100%! The exterior of the Bay Lake Tower reeks of minimal effort.

Incidentally, a friend of mine from Saratoga Springs, New York, told me that she has no idea where they got any of the inspiration for Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort from. I think she had said there is a reference to a popular ice cream parlor, but seemingly none of the architecture or anything relates to the actual town of Saratoga Springs.

 

[Foolish Mortal]

So if the problem is the Shareholders and the stock price.....

.... would it be possible to make Disney a privately held company ever again?

If only it was possible

 

[WDW1974]

I love Wilderness Lodge (it's my second favorite Resort), and I can understand why people like Yacht & Beach, BoardWalk, and Grand Floridian. Grand Floridian just feels like it is stealing something special and unique from the Hotel del Coronado in San Diego. And I feel like they missed an opportunity to do something really special with the EPCOT Resort Area, being attached to World Showcase they could have done some amazingly-themed Resorts based on different countries.

I love WL. I could spend a week there without going to a park and not feel like I was missing a thing. Just an amazing resort. They even integrated the DVC wing beautifully (although I was quite p-i-s-s-e-d when I heard they were adding it ... I just feel that every deluxe resort shouldn't be DVC'd)

The YC and BC were favorites of mine when they opened, but they quickly became very rundown and neglected ... and after their 2002-03 era rehabs the exact same thing happened.

As to your suggestion about bringing in World Showcase themed hotels, I don't know if you are aware of it but that was part of the concept for Westcot in Anaheim (you'd have had hotels towering over the international areas of the park, also serving as a berm to block the outside world that seeps into DCA)

I wish they'd gone with doing DVC at the Grand Floridian first, because I'm sure it'll be done quite tastefully, much in the way it was with the Villas at Wilderness Lodge. Although, I would assume they would have done that with the Contemporary, so who knows.

Don't be so sure ... although I haven't seen the actual plans, I just know they exist.

 

[WDW1974]

New building or conversion?

As to the GF of which you are asking, I'm not sure.

But I'd bet new building even if it meant moving/relocating things like the spa, tennis courts etc ...

That resort is obviously very profitable and generally has very high load levels even in bad times like this.

For instance, I could see a case where GF is 84% occupied this week vs. maybe 61% at BW or 52% at OKW ... because of that I'd think they'd want to add there vs. convert.

 

[WDW1974]

I disagree completely. DL's PotC is that great, to me. And I love the "up the waterfall" portion. Love it!

DL's PoC is a great ride. It shames the MK original in so many ways. I remember PoC being one of my favorite MK rides ... that was until 1990 when I made my first visit to DL.

I knew in advance that it was longer and that it had the BB for dining. But nothing could prepare me for how much better and more developed it was. I've never enjoyed the MK version nearly as much since.

But I'm also torn because DLP's version is amazing in its own right. And with 21st century effects. The way the story is told is in opposite to the other versions (to show how the pirates evil ways cost them in the end) and no Jack Sparrow and movie crew as well... I guess they're tied for me because they're both great attractions.

MK's? Good, but no longer great.

Now ... I'd love to see the version they've talked about for HKDL (and supposedly Shanghai as well) come to fruition because they would take the thrills and effects up quite a few notches and be movie-related more than clones of what started in 1967.

 

[bjbrad99]

I don't think the state has any actual regulations that dictate a roller coaster's construction one way or another though. The steel coasters certainly are not any different than their Florida counterparts.

Actually, state regulations and building codes have immense control regarding how a roller coaster is designed. The state provides the various static loads that the coaster must endure (such as wind, snow, earthquake, personnel, etc). From this, the structural /civil engineering department designs the structure to meet these building codes, plus an associated factor of safety.

Side note. The building codes for New Jersey are very strict. It is funny when you are 1,000 miles away in Switzerland having lunch and listening to Swiss engineers complain about the state of New Jersey.

 

[jakeman]

Some people liked the Wand. Some people like Richard Simmons. Some people like to wear stripes with polka dots.

That doesn't make any of those things tasteful in the general consensus.

I think the issue is that we (collectively on this board) do not represent the appropriate demographic of people who go to WDW, so I think that understanding the "general consensus" is a hard thing for us to do.

I'm getting tired of seeing "I don't agree with you so THERE!" posts on these boards. They're ridiculous, and remind me of fifteen-year-olds that wear all black because they think looking different actually makes them different. It's immature. If somebody has a reason for disagreeing, okay, say so—that's conversation. But arguing just because "you can" doesn't impress anybody. (This comment is not aimed at any one person in particular.)

I understand what you are saying, but speaking for the other side, regardless of ones personal opinion is a great way to propel the conversation along. There are too many one dimensional opinions here, either Disney can do not wrong or Disney can do no right. To discuss the possibility of a gray area involves some people playing devil's advocate; otherwise we just have the two sides screaming at each other. If I misunderstand (is that word? :lol please correct me.

As for the new DVC, I think it looks all right, but it's definitely not cutting-edge like the original Contemporary was. Disney doesn't put much effort into designing any of their resorts anymore; BC, BW, YC, SS, and OKW are basically just variations of the exact same architecture with different decorations.

I can agree with this. However, Contemporary has not been so in a long time. Additionally, you do know you are saying that Disney gave up on unique hotels back in the mid-90s, the supposed golden era?

 

[jt04]

I understand what you are saying, but speaking for the other side, regardless of ones personal opinion is a great way to propel the conversation along. There are too many one dimensional opinions here, either Disney can do not wrong or Disney can do no right. To discuss the possibility of a gray area involves some people playing devil's advocate; otherwise we just have the two sides screaming at each other. If I misunderstand (is that word? :lol please correct me.

Very well said. Thank you!

PS- I think the design is "contemporary" as we move from design that refects individualism into design that reflects a more homogenized and less individualistic society. Think on that critics.