I used myself as an example in this speculation. I spoke from my own observations of myself, and how my perceptions of Chicago changed between when I first moved there and when I left 5 years later. Your perceptions change. Anybody who frequents disneyland can speak to the same phenomenon. You go from overloaded and the place being a blur, to being able to slow down and observe and notice smaller details, to being sort of desensitized at some point by some of the stimuli, even if you still crave it (think of the scale of certain structures, like the expanse of cars land or the height of the tower as two potential examples, though it can be different for everybody). I have lived in rural and urban areas spanning california, massachusetts, the illinois/wisconsin border, central illinois, and minnesota. The core of the theory is simply one of Proxemics and very real human behavior/survival instinct. People in Minnesota will stand in line 5 feet behind the guest in front of them at starbucks. people in chicago have a smaller sense of personal space. People in most of the country would love to live on a quarter-to-full acre of land, if not more. Areas of massachusetts that I lived in were far from boston and people's yards were over an acre. In chicago, the same houses were on a half acre. In new Dallas suburbs, even larger houses are on quarter acres and divided with cinderblock walls. In LA, people's yards are measured in square feet, not acres! And I doubt most people would ever get used to that, but it is a condition of our reality that the people who do choose to live here need to deal with. Some just ignore it and some genuinely adjust to that scale, with smaller spaces over time feeling more comfortable, and small yards the size of a backyard porch anywhere else in the country feeling like an island oasis with the right landscape border to block out neighbors and create a private interior.
We create narrative everywhere we look and we base that on patterns of observations. Those observations are taking place to promote survival. I went to NYC once with a group of classmates from Minnesota and they walked around shuffling the entire time, looking up and not ahead, bumping into people. In an unfamiliar place with a higher level of stimulation than somebody is accustomed to, your senses and mind focus on everything. With time, our brains start to ignore inputs/stimulation that is constant. Even kinetics. Though they are in motion, if we know what they are and understand them not to be a threat, we omit them from our attention. If people are not used to a certain level of population density or crowds (I love being in crowds, at theme parks, music festivals, etc but I have plenty of friends who despise it and feel that it is unpleasant) then the collage of stimuli and sensory detail is going to be more pronounced. I really don't think that is an offensive statement. This is not, I clarify, about content. This is an observation/theory of how our species reacts biologically to changes in environment and stimuli. I haven't disparaged anybody. I'm sincerely sorry that it came off that way, but in this moment, I am clarifying what the rationale was for my theory. If you want to not accept my clarification and apology or genuine intent to deliver fair and objective, emotionless speculation that lack malice, and continue to view me as some antagonist of a rural-to-urban conflict, that is your choice. Like I said, I've lived in cities of 4 million people/regions of 10 million and I've lived in towns of 10,000. I've lived in cities while attending college with higher population counts but which were a magnet for people from rural/agricultural communities, and I have had to navigate those cultural differences cautiously but successfully and with an open mind, and in face-to-face interactions, I know that all people are willing and able to be open to one another.
Another set of supporting observation for my theory was that of the place feeling like LAX, etc. If people in LA are at the airport frequently, around mid century modern architecture and malls and movie theaters all the time when life is at a frenzy and we begin to experience these locations under unrelated levels of stress, then not only are we desensitized to the aesthetics of mid century architecture and urban infrastructure, but we have also come to generate negative associations with those aesthetics. They become intrinsically tied to physical and mental discomfort, and the antithesis of what we desire and aspire to when we need to relax, at which point, the aspirations that kick in are the opposite form of environment; natural, rural, desert, outdoors, etc. Which is when we hit the beach, Big Bear, a national park, etc. These escapes become the reset buttons we turn to when urban life becomes claustrophobic. So not only is the scale of and architecture of tomorrowland not interesting on a biological/sensory or even cultural level, suddenly it elicits anxiety and discomfort. Perhaps it does for everybody, but I know from a trip to India that a level of over-stimulation coupled with newness/unfamiliarity creates a level of intrigue and a rush of adrenaline that is really exciting, high energy, and encourages engagement with these surroundings, rather than familiar stimulation that would either be ignored or exhausting.
I'll also be fair and concede that some urban people can harbor preconceptions about other cultures, and it is only fair to acknowledge that rural people do this as well, and at times these divides aren't geographical but political/ideological, yet there are correlations but no guarantee between the relationship of living environments and ideologies. I know people in market research who use massive datasets that cannot be refuted to inform media mix and advertising strategies. One such example I will sight has to do with the advertising for video on demand of a war movie that came out a few years ago. There was about a dozen different commercials running. There was one that focused on the soldier as a hero/protagonist that played extremely well in rural areas of the country and led to higher conversion rates of viewers of the trailers into renters/purchasers of the film. This in communities that send a lot of young people to serve in our military and who vote for politicians who are more "supportive" of troops/combat publicly. The same commercial played poorly in urban/blue areas, where instead, commercials focusing on the life of this soldier's wife and family, narratives that focused less on fetishizing war or the soldier-as-hero dimension, but instead on familial/relationship narratives, emotion, love, loss led to higher conversions. I know a lot of people that are digital designers, art curators, entertainment designers, architects, technological philosophers, and they have a preconception about theme parks. I, on the other hand, think they are the technological sublime. Masterful blends of technology, narrative, design and fabrication techniques, that exist for no reason other than to create pleasure. So many incredible inventions have come from aerospace, defense, and silicon valley, but they don't really blow me away because I understand that they have broader utility in society. What surprises me more and is more intriguing is the very existence of the application of billions of dollars of investment and invention just to create pleasure. I can't stand the VR buzz and can't stand when digital/entertainment designers and architects reach to VR as this unexplored way of creating more realistic, immersive worlds, while simultaneously shutting themselves off from theme parks.
Separate theory for it being crowded is that they extended a family attraction, Buzz lightyear, into the land, which is essentially turning Tomorrowland into a fantasyland dump for any IP with any relationship to outer space. That has nothing to do with rural people or their taste. Unrelated argument altogether so, I'm sorry for those appearing together.
All contemporary consumers seem interested in IP attractions and Space Mountain. Those are universally shared interests. This is not a rural attack to say that people like buzz or star tours. Urban consumers and socal residents are massively obsessed with entertainment and fiction. Comic books, film, sci-fi, animation, etc. So despite the unanimous agreement that Tomorrowland is not inspiring, scientific-realism, visionary, making any deeper philosophical statement or a statement about the direction of our country or of humanity, and it looking like crap, we still tend to gobble up what is there. You just won't see me hanging out in Tomorrowland unless I'm grabbing a fastpass.
Disney even harbors/has harbored this bias. When they made the Anaheim resort district, they just could not imagine the place being a landscaped escape from Anaheim. They couldn't envision a west coast walt disney world, so they embraced urbanism, which I think was a huge mistake. Surface parking lot, property interlaced with anaheim's, little attempt to isolate people from evidence of the outside world. I think this was really silly and lazy. One needs to look no further than the rivers of america to see that it is feasible to create interior spaces that feel endlessly expansive, and to confirm that even a 10-foot wide planter of trees is enough to block the outside world. They embraced a sort of contemporary architecture rather than the type of themed architecture for the resorts that Orlando has. I for one don't think it would be problematic at all to create a collage of architectural styles right next to one another. Coronado/victoriana adjacent to mission style, adjacent to contemporary, adjacent to rustic/wilderness/craftsman. That has proven not to be problematic in theme park design so I see no reason to show restraint with the anaheim resort district.
