Rumor Swan and Dolphin Tower Expansion - The Cove

biggy H

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
That building just looks like any other glass office building... totally wrong for WDW.
 

marni1971

WDW History nut
Premium Member
It’s odd. Eisner rejected the original Tishman hotels that were proposed after they were moved from LBV to here. They were too box-like, generic glass buildings that could be built anywhere. That’s why we got the Swolphin.

Yet here we are in 2018 looking at a box-like generic glass building that could be built anywhere.
 
Last edited:

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
Swan, Dolphin, and Office Park.

Much better if Swan, Dolphin, and other type of creature. Such as penguin, kangaroo, walrus, etc.....
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
It’s odd. Eisner rejected the original Tishman hotels that were proposed after they were moved from LBV to here. They were too box-like, generic glass buildings that could be built anywhere. That’s why we go the Swolphin.

Yet here we are in 2018 looking at a box-like generic glass building that could be built anywhere.
Do you have concepts of what they were originally going to look like? I'm curious.
 

WDW95

Active Member
It is sad to see how easily history is forgotten.

The reason the Swan and Dolphin look the way they do is that Micheal Eisner saw original renderings for the hotel design (which look exactly like the images shared for this third tower) and deemed it inappropriate for WDW. Instead, the buildings had to be more unique and needed to be iconic as they rose above the tree line and visitors drove down World Drive towards the Magic Kingdom. Prior to the Swan and Dolphin, the Contemporary (which in itself was for certain iconic) was the tallest building on property.

Love it or hate it, the Swan and Dolphin are excellent examples of well thought out design. The whole complex, from the master planning of the site to the small details such as railings and doorknobs have been meticulously thought of. It is a shame to tack on an afterthought addition which disregards the original design intent of the complex. The Swan and Dolphin recall the character of Florida resorts and were aligned with Disney's mission of "entertainment architecture". Everything was framed and creates a memorable composition. Bring back Grave's firm as they will know best how to compliment the original design.

Adding a banal, office-looking tower, would be an insult to the original design intent sought by Graves, Eisner, and WDI. It is inappropriate to build a tower that looks like it belongs on Hotel Plaza Blvd as opposed to the center of WDW property. But today, it seems like building towers as cheaply and efficiently as possible seems to be more important than design. Bay Lake Tower at least recalls the design of the main A-Frame with its color, material choices, and geographic forms. It is unique to stand on it's own but compliments the main building. The "U" plan of the building is in the same design language as the "A" section of the main building. However, after Bay Lake Tower, the other towers Disney built leave much to be desired for not being iconic and unique. We all know the problems with the Grand Floridian tower (out of scale and not matching the detail of the original resort). At Coronado a tower would never have been built in rural turn-of-the-century Mexico (instead it is a modern tower with Mexican decorations, not unlike Las Vegas towers). Riviera again ruins the ambiance of Caribbean Beach and is again just a standard tower with no unique aspects to it. Lastly, the Four Seasons tower is again just a standard tower that could be found in many other parts of Orlando.

I seriously hope they reconsider the design of this proposed addition or that Disney will shoot down the design and instead insist on an improved design like they did over 30 years ago when the pair was originally designed.
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
Is this an as built rendering or does.it contain elements of forced perspective?
It's a "I tried to do forced perspective in MS Paint and realized I didn't want to put too much effort into it so I stopped trying and that's how it ended up" rendering.
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
It is sad to see how easily history is forgotten.

The reason the Swan and Dolphin look the way they do is that Micheal Eisner saw original renderings for the hotel design (which look exactly like the images shared for this third tower) and deemed it inappropriate for WDW. Instead, the buildings had to be more unique and needed to be iconic as they rose above the tree line and visitors drove down World Drive towards the Magic Kingdom. Prior to the Swan and Dolphin, the Contemporary (which in itself was for certain iconic) was the tallest building on property.

Love it or hate it, the Swan and Dolphin are excellent examples of well thought out design. The whole complex, from the master planning of the site to the small details such as railings and doorknobs have been meticulously thought of. It is a shame to tack on an afterthought addition which disregards the original design intent of the complex. The Swan and Dolphin recall the character of Florida resorts and were aligned with Disney's mission of "entertainment architecture". Everything was framed and creates a memorable composition. Bring back Grave's firm as they will know best how to compliment the original design.

Adding a banal, office-looking tower, would be an insult to the original design intent sought by Graves, Eisner, and WDI. It is inappropriate to build a tower that looks like it belongs on Hotel Plaza Blvd as opposed to the center of WDW property. But today, it seems like building towers as cheaply and efficiently as possible seems to be more important than design. Bay Lake Tower at least recalls the design of the main A-Frame with its color, material choices, and geographic forms. It is unique to stand on it's own but compliments the main building. The "U" plan of the building is in the same design language as the "A" section of the main building. However, after Bay Lake Tower, the other towers Disney built leave much to be desired for not being iconic and unique. We all know the problems with the Grand Floridian tower (out of scale and not matching the detail of the original resort). At Coronado a tower would never have been built in rural turn-of-the-century Mexico (instead it is a modern tower with Mexican decorations, not unlike Las Vegas towers). Riviera again ruins the ambiance of Caribbean Beach and is again just a standard tower with no unique aspects to it. Lastly, the Four Seasons tower is again just a standard tower that could be found in many other parts of Orlando.

I seriously hope they reconsider the design of this proposed addition or that Disney will shoot down the design and instead insist on an improved design like they did over 30 years ago when the pair was originally designed.
At the absolute, very least they should add some color to it. A solid white/gray/blue-ish block is just boring.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
The new hotel looks worse (for its location) than the worst I could have imagined (thought it was going to be an architectural sister to the Swan)... and seeing the tripe that goes up in and around Orlando, I can imagine some awful buildings.
View attachment 266892

This thing would fit perfectly in the business district of Stamford, Ct.. Looks like the HQ for a medical diagonstics company. Just awful.
That's gotta be a hoax, right?
 
Top Bottom