The Swan and Dolphin's Fate

[IcicleM]

Now, this isn't quite news or much of a rumor, but I do know that apparently the two hotels were built and people viewed them as ugly, and "eye sores" and apparently the contract is going to run out, eventually. I've been wondering what's going to happen to the hotels?

They're also MGM Studios Hotels, and (as another discussion was going on) the name MGM may (eventually) be dropped, and (most likely) the park will be called Disney Studios (because in Paris, that's what they call themselves already) and then blah blah blah and fiddledee-dee, what's gonna happen to the two hotels? @_@

 

[gsimpson]

tishman was also the general contractor for much of Epcot, and supposedly that was part of the deal they had as well. As for the contemporary being slide out rooms I believe that was originally true, US Steel bragged about the concept for several years and was they claim to have been involved with the Contermporary and it was part of their proof of concept, a concept which failed.

 

[Victoria]

yeah dont' trust those boat drivers, i rode it the other day and they spouted off countless false information. They are still spreading the rumor that the swan and dolphin were intended to be monorail resorts. which is false. that square section of the resorts is a architecural trade mark of the architect.

Then explain why the black squares showed up several years after the
Swan and Dolphin were built...awfully late to be putting your "mark" on a project, not to mention a very LARGE one. :lookaroun

 

[Victoria]

never ever trust information from a Disney transportation worker.

Ain't that the truth!!! :lol:

 

[jeffb]

tishman was also the general contractor for much of Epcot, and supposedly that was part of the deal they had as well. As for the contemporary being slide out rooms I believe that was originally true, US Steel bragged about the concept for several years and was they claim to have been involved with the Contermporary and it was part of their proof of concept, a concept which failed.

There is a short promo video by US Steel that show how the hotel frame was built, the rooms were fabricated a few miles away and then slid in. The video is on the web (can't recall the link - if I come up with it I will post it). I think this concept is even mentioned in a few Disney books.

 

[jeffb]

http://www.archive.org/details/us_steel_2

here is the US Steel video

 

[ClemsonTigger]

I personally do not like how they impede the view of EPCOT and think that they should go. I also think that Disney needs to be agressively buying more and more property around WDW to help prevent more and more encroachment, not to mention the fact that it most likely will be cheaper buying now than in 10 or 20 years---if it's available by then. S/D can go bye-bye as far as I'm concerned.

In fact Disney has been selling property along certain perimeter sections.

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showpost.php?p=1567526&postcount=1

 

[Slowjack]

tishman was also the general contractor for much of Epcot, and supposedly that was part of the deal they had as well. As for the contemporary being slide out rooms I believe that was originally true, US Steel bragged about the concept for several years and was they claim to have been involved with the Contermporary and it was part of their proof of concept, a concept which failed.

No, that's not what I was talking about. Yes, the Contemporary (and the Poly, for that matter) were built in a modular manner, where the rooms were built off-site with all the decorations already in, then trucked in and slid into the frame. No argument there. The insane rumor I was referring to was that the redecorating plan was to, in essence, dismantle the entire building, redo the rooms offsite, then build the hotels again. The rooms were built to slide in, but not to slide out.

 

[DisneyJill]

tishman was also the general contractor for much of Epcot, and supposedly that was part of the deal they had as well. As for the contemporary being slide out rooms I believe that was originally true, US Steel bragged about the concept for several years and was they claim to have been involved with the Contermporary and it was part of their proof of concept, a concept which failed.

Tishman isn't a contractor. Perhaps there IS a Tishman that is, but this isn't the same one. They are a real estate company specializing in hotels. Essentially, they buy and sell properties. Same as Pyramid Advisors or White Lodging or Merrik (that may not be how you spell it?). Pyramid Advisors generally buys underperforming hotels, renovates and reflags them. I believe Tishman just buys and operates high-end properties, but they don't contract construction projects.

 

[CoffeeJedi]

Actually, the black square is not the architect's trademark, nor is it a monorail pass-through. The guy who designed the hotels is Michael Graves, you can see his consumer products at Target, his trademark is an "egg" shape.
http://www.mouseplanet.com/articles.php?art=ww060726ws
According to Wade Sampson, that black square is actually the "heart of the mountain" in the backstory of the hotels.

 

[Victoria]

Then explain why the black squares showed up several years after the
Swan and Dolphin were built...awfully late to be putting your "mark" on a project, not to mention a very LARGE one. :lookaroun

Ok. I might have to stand corrected here. Didnt the black boxes appear AFTER the hotels were built? I thought they had. Then again, I was kinda young in the 90's so I might not remember everything exactly. :lookaroun

 

[shybre]

Tishman isn't a contractor. Perhaps there IS a Tishman that is, but this isn't the same one. They are a real estate company specializing in hotels. Essentially, they buy and sell properties. Same as Pyramid Advisors or White Lodging or Merrik (that may not be how you spell it?). Pyramid Advisors generally buys underperforming hotels, renovates and reflags them. I believe Tishman just buys and operates high-end properties, but they don't contract construction projects.

According to the Tishman website they are a construction company as well as hotel management.

 

[vonpluto]

I don't know if it was bad information but I was told Disney wasn't allowed to build a major convention center for 10 years after the S/D opened. S/D has much more convention space than all the other hotels EXCLUDING CSR combined. CSR opened about 10 years after the S/D opened.

Maybe their was a qualifier on the size of the convention facilities. The Contemporary, GF and Y&B facilities all opened in 1992.

Swan opened 11/89, Dolphin 6/90 and CSR between 8/97 and 11/97

Frank

 

[WDWScottieBoy]

Let me get all of this fixed and settled.

Tishman Hotel Company and Metropolitan Life are the two owners of the hotel. Michael Graves is the architect of the hotel, and his contract ends next year. The hotel itself is on a 99-year contract. (They were built after a contract with Disney for constructing Epcot, MGM and later AK. That was from the Tishman Construction Company, another part of the Tishman family of businesses.)

The Swan is a Westin by name and the Dolphin is a Sheraton by name. Both are under the Starwood flag.

The black squares in the hotel (yes, they are individual units and can be removed) are for the possibility of having the monorail go through it.

I'll add more to this as I remember more.

One more thing: the hotels have just undergone a MAJOR renovation and don't look ANYTHING like the inside as how they did. I'm planning on taking some pictures this week of the "new" hotel to show everyone how it looks now. It's definitely more of a Westin and the Dolphin is more of a Sheraton now.

 

[Victoria]

Let me get all of this fixed and settled.

Tishman Hotel Company and Metropolitan Life are the two owners of the hotel. Michael Graves is the architect of the hotel, and his contract ends next year. The hotel itself is on a 99-year contract. (They were built after a contract with Disney for constructing Epcot, MGM and later AK. That was from the Tishman Construction Company, another part of the Tishman family of businesses.)

The Swan is a Westin by name and the Dolphin is a Sheraton by name. Both are under the Starwood flag.

The black squares in the hotel (yes, they are individual units and can be removed) are for the possibility of having the monorail go through it.

I'll add more to this as I remember more.

One more thing: the hotels have just undergone a MAJOR renovation and don't look ANYTHING like the inside as how they did. I'm planning on taking some pictures this week of the "new" hotel to show everyone how it looks now. It's definitely more of a Westin and the Dolphin is more of a Sheraton now.

And they werent always there right? I dont think I am that crazy......:lookaroun

Oh, and I can't wait to see pictures of the new stuff!

 

[WDWScottieBoy]

Looking at the original drawings and diagrams, the black squares have always been there. Of course since it was planned to be a monorail resort, they were the last thing added, and that's why they have a different look. And almost every room (on the interior, the ones facing the other hotel) are the Governor, Grand, Executive and Presidential Suites.

 

[Victoria]

ok. So maybe I am nuts. Oh well. Wouldnt be the first time. So, if (and this is a BIG if) the hotels were to have a monorail added to it, mainly suites would be removed?

Also one more thing....chalk this question to me not knowing too much about architecture and contracts. Why does Michael Graves still have a contract with the hotel? Isn't his work already done? He designed the buildings, they were built, and they were decorated. Did he have a contract to retain some control over how the hotels were renovated in the future? His contract is up next year. Is it going to be renewed? What happens when and if it isnt renewed?

 

[kdavis]

The black squares in the hotel (yes, they are individual units and can be removed) are for the possibility of having the monorail go through it.

Check out Wade Sampson's 7/26 article over at MousePlanet. He relays information from a conversation with the building's architect (Graves) who says that this is not true - the black box on the Swan is part of the overall thematic 'story' told throughout the hotel's design.

 

[TTATraveler]

Check out Wade Sampson's 7/26 article over at MousePlanet. He relays information from a conversation with the building's architect (Graves) who says that this is not true - the black box on the Swan is part of the overall thematic 'story' told throughout the hotel's design.

I read that as well and always had belived that the monorail would be running through the blacked out rooms. Graves storyline about the black box doesn't make much sense to me but then again I am not an artist or think the way a designer/architect thinks. I guess his explanation, if quoted correctly in the article, is the true reason behind the black box.

The theming of the Swan/Dolphin as described by Graves is really subtle and probably not understood by most people who look at the hotels as they appear.

 

[Slowjack]

The black squares in the hotel (yes, they are individual units and can be removed) are for the possibility of having the monorail go through it.

I don't see how anyone can believe that. I certainly don't. They are just design elements. On the Swan, there's another set of black box shapes below the main box, and on the Dolphin, there's a column of them above the main box.

 

[cloudboy]

Graves storyline about the black box doesn't make much sense to me but then again I am not an artist or think the way a designer/architect thinks. I guess his explanation, if quoted correctly in the article, is the true reason behind the black box.

A lot of Graves stuff doesn't always make sense to many architects, even. Post Modernism, in it's purest form, is really about allusions and inside jokes ot the past. I knew an architect who interned (for a very short time - he hated the place) with Graves - I guess it is really a contrast between the classical structures in heavy stone-like structures contrasting with the modern window wall construction showing underneath. If you look at a lot of early tall city buldings they had a very classical base and columns, but up a few levels the iron framework was exposed. This is a reference to that.

Any architects on the board? This is not my forte - maybe you can explain it better. Anyways, no, it is not for the monorails. Big rumor, but alas, false.