California Grill

[KNWVIKING]

Baron, it's your contention that Disney closed the deck because they wanted to add tables to a popular restaurant. I'll accept your hypothesis - but I'm curious if you or anyone else knows: Did the deck close immediately following the addition of the tables ? Or was it weeks,months,years afterwards ? ( I have no idea when the tables were added, but I guess it's been close to a year since you reported it was closed).

One other observation about CG: When we ate there in May - before the 2nd floor check in - DW and I noticed that not only was the bar packed, but the lounge area was nothing more then an extension of the Grill for guests without PS's. The entire lounge area was nothing more then families ordering off the full menu. I guess the only point I'm trying to make is that CG is extremely popular - at least during firework times - so in a sense, isn't this Walt's business model ? Give the people great show and profit will be a by-product ?

 

[YoHo]

You have got to be KIDDING ME!

Crusader, there is a gigantic map at the TTC showing there plans. there were two other "deluxe" resorts that were never built to address that problem. There were areas onf land designated for hotel expansion beyond that.

They did have plans. Those plans were molested by Eisner and company.

 

[bretsyboo]

sarah get ready to lock the thread.

Crusader the rest of your post was pure idiocy but thanks to the late hours and a previous Dis error I'm going to assume that the readers know the difference between "closed" and "refurbished" among other areas of innateness your post repeatedly stumbled over in order to get to the last paragraph you wrote already affectionatly known to me as the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on Disney since I took my first steps on the World Wide Web.

Now, if one of you out there reading any part of the rest of the post and wondering why it is stupid, please say so and one of 40 million people should quickly respond. I don't think anyone should read any part of the post and think anything along the lines of good point. So if you do you can write an unembarassing post along the lines of "while I think it's dumb...my friend here...." and I would hope that plenty of people would be happy to show you the light. This offer doesn't go out to a few of you out there that I have read plenty of and am convinced that there is no way you'd ever change your mind on anything. I don't mean that as offensive toiwards any of you, simply that if you think that way, I know you well enough that you aren't going to change, and so I'm not going to spend time posting only to hear that it is I that am crazy.

Now, on to a paragraph that will live on in my head for the rest of the time I walk this great orb.

The observation deck should have remained for the contemporary guests. The problem was the past guests and their entourage thought they were entitled to it no matter where they chose to stay and crowded in along with all the hotel's present guests. They're responsible for taking something unique and special and tromping on it.

I-don't-even-know-what-to-say.

It's your fault. It's my fault. It is the fault of the guests.

Had only guests not wanted to see the fireworks then today we could still see the fireworks so long as we continue not seeing them.

Of course it should be well known that all guests were equal and that contemporary guests weren't any more special than any other guests, because, yeah...that was the Disney way, and that so far as I can tell, it was never anything just for contemporary guests as the post suggests. So not only did guests think they were entitled to it, they WERE entitled to it. Frankly seeing the fireworks from the 15th floor probably wasn't that big of a thrill to contemporary guests on the 14th, 13th, 12th, 11th, or 10th floors at least. And this is of course, inarguable because people out here have praised disney for opening up part of the 4th floor to observation.

But I want to know from all of you, though I'm betting not many are continuing to read this thread...

Is it the guests fault? Did we do sometyhing wrong? Do you agree? Should we all look at wach other and say "SHAME on you for wanting to see fireworks and forcing Disney to close it off when they tried as hard as they possibly could have to give you that experience. It was your greed that ultimatly handcuffed Disney and left them with no choice but to regretfully close it."

I am very interested to know how many of you think that the guests are at fault for all of this. It will certainly help answer the question of whether this board is worth posting on.

And poor Viking, poor poor viking asked a good question in the midst of this that I don't want to just go by without response...but I'm a bit tired now so I want to make sure someone else might remember to do it since I'm really sick of this thread now.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Boo.

I think you’re being too hard on the poor crusader!! Really look at this paragraph. Study it. It is what one would expect from a mundane, ordinary, follow-the-pack, run-of-the-mill company!! REALLY!! It is!! And it typifies the Ei$ner Philosophy. You pay for the Magic you get!! And anyone who had a first encounter with Disney POST 1984 would naturally think that this is the norm for the company!!

You know that this is 180 degrees out of phase with Walt’s Philosophy. And I KNOWit. And most people following this thread know it too. But the poor sap that didn’t experience Disney, the TRUE DISNEY, way back when, would think we are damn near communists to even entertain such a notion!!!

So look at it once more.

The observation deck should have remained for the contemporary guests. The problem was the past guests and their entourage thought they were entitled to it no matter where they chose to stay and crowded in along with all the hotel's present guests. They're responsible for taking something unique and special and tromping on it.

I agree it is probably one of the dumbest things I’ve heard but you really have to take a look at it from their point of view!!

The tip off, right away, is the… “For Contemporary guests”!!! How crazy that concept would have been back in 1972!! Or even 1984!! How foreign to the “Disney Way”!! And yet, how well accepted today!! How ordinary!! How commonplace!! What company in their right mind would really NOT commoditize their product!! It’s text book stuff!!! College classes churn out hoards of these cretins!! Fortunately for us, Walt never attended these classes!! Ei$ner, however, keeps a copy of “Basic Business for Dummies” on his night stand!!!

HEY!! You know!! I bet that might have something to do with what set this company apart in the first place!! What’d ya think!?!? Maybe, just maybe, it is this very concept (among a myriad of others) that made Disney – MAGICAL!!! Just a guess on my part, but maybe!!

Had only guests not wanted to see the fireworks then today we could still see the fireworks so long as we continue not seeing them.

BOY!! I wish I had enough guts to start a quote of the day on this board!!! Or that I was sure Sara wouldn’t shut it down IMMEDIATELY!!! I would make this one a font=15 - IN RED!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Baron, it's your contention that Disney closed the deck because they wanted to add tables to a popular restaurant.

No.

That is merely a by-product. The real reason is “PAY-PER-VIEW”. Plain and simple. Nothing more or less than turning the prime spots in EPCOT into profit centers.

And it doesn’t matter in what order. Disney is very good a ‘phasing – out’ things and spin. Particularly SPIN!! It would not surprise me at all, if some middle manager, corporate type had a power point – clearly showing that closing the free portion AND opening the vastly inferior 4th floor deck would increase CG sales by X%.

What I can NOT understand is how everyone else can’t see it as well!!!

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by bretsyboo Disney through epcot was a cohesive unit under a plan.

Where is the evidence of this? I've already posted several problems with the initial planning which have gone unanswered. Again, the first major expansion (EPCOT) was flawed in many ways:

--Since you enter from the front of Future World, little foot traffic flowed into Future World in the a.m. AND folks watching the big park-closing fireworks show around the lagoon had to walk all the way back through the park.

--Spaceship Earth sits right on top of the entrance, rather than being a "weenie" to draw people into the park.

--It sits at the end of a monorail line that goes nowhere else except the TTC. The concept of the TTC itself was largely a failure. Epcot's parking lot was more crowded than anticipated because people drove straight to EPCOT rather than utilizing the TTC.

--No evidence of planning for any EPCOT resorts having the sort of coordination with EPCOT that the Poly and CR have with the MK.

The placement of the pop century resorts was like there wasn't even an attpempt.

What's the problem with PC's placement exactly?

Fact was through epcot there was a magical way to get to and from almost every place on property.

What was the magical way to get to and from the Marketplace from anywhere? From the Golf Resort? To get from Fort Wilderness to Epcot, I assume you had to take the internal train, then a boat to TTC, then the monorail?

Fact of the matter is even from within the parks there was a plan on how to disperse the guests. Epcot still has the largest paths of any park and there were those nice little swan boats you could take around the lagoon.

Internal park pedestrian movement was the only area Disney had any real experience in. And yet:

--Epcot's plan was a miserable failure, leaving World Showcase largely empty in the mornings, and Future World (to a lesser extent) largely empty in the evenings.

--Despite all the land they had, MK's design didn't seem particularly well-suited to expansion. Toontown is an obvious add-on, not integrated into the traffic pattern well at all. Splash Mountain and Big Thunder Mountain ended up jammed in right next to each other.

--Epcot's large pathways have been criticized by designers as hurting the human scale and feeling too sterile. Like 'em or not, the AK's more meandering and smaller pathways were designed to evoke the human scale and sense of discovery in emulation of Disneyland, partly in reaction to the problems with Future World's pathways.

MGM openend with NOTHING but a way for a bus to get there, and somehow DAK opened with less.

One difference being, of course, that when MGM opened (admittedly in a rush to beat Universal and not that well-designed) and AK opened, MK and Epcot were already there.

The resorts have always had so many experiences within themselves it would make you ill to think of what you've been missing out on.

I assume you're not including the Golf Resort on that list.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
...And anyone who had a first encounter with Disney POST 1984 would naturally think that this is the norm for the company!!...But the poor sap that didn’t experience Disney, the TRUE DISNEY, way back when, would think we are damn near communists to even entertain such a notion!!!

Just another little reminder, LB, that you don't have a corner on Disney history.

 

[KNWVIKING]

How do I put this into words......

Baron, I think we both see the same problem but with totally different perspectives. In one regard it's almost as if you're giving the powers-that-be at Disney too much credit for being shrewd businessman.

IMO, you view what has happened at CG as some sort of step-by-step master plan that was played out over X time frame.

Step One: Develope CG into a great location, use observation deck as a draw.
Step Two: Add tables to maximize profits.
Step Three: Phase out the deck to non guests.
Step Four: Put in place a check-in process to eliminate freeloaders.
TBA Step Five: Charge fee to anyone willing to pay for access to deck.

I see it this way.

Step One: Develope CG into a great location. The deck is a great feature.
Step Two: Reservation Desk is overwelmed with PS requests, turning away so many guests is bad show. Can something be done ? Let's add some tables.
Step Three: WOW. Who are all these people that know about thedeck. Dinner guests are complaining. Maybe we need to close the deck.
Step Four: Hmmm... tried closing it, but CG is still being flooded by people who only want to watch the Fireworks. Find a way to keep them off the elevators. Check-in on 2nd floor.
TBA Step Five: (Rumored) Discussed Pay-per-View but decided against it.

Same problem, different POV's.

 

[crusader]

there were two other "deluxe" resorts that were never built to address that problem.

So why didn't Walt greenlight the construction? This has nothing to do with Eisner. There was a demand back then and it was ignored. I'd like to know why they weren't built during that time.

Bret Bret Bret.

Relax. The guest is entitled to see fireworks every night if they choose. Particularly a resort guest.

But Disney should never give in to guests not staying at the contemporary who encroach on an observation deck there and have a complete and utter disregard for anything short of what they want. Come on!

 

[crusader]

The tip off, right away, is the… “For Contemporary guests”!!! How crazy that concept would have been back in 1972!! Or even 1984!! How foreign to the “Disney Way”

Really. Obviously you didn't feel any social disparity staying in a hotel with a monorail built for your experience which every one of us lower budgeted campers were cheated out of.

We had to take a bus to the transportation and ticket center and transfer from there if we wanted to ride it. We knew we were being slighted from day one.

That was the Disney Way in 72. Money talks.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by crusader
So why didn't Walt greenlight the construction? This has nothing to do with Eisner. There was a demand back then and it was ignored. I'd like to know why they weren't built during that time.

Isn't it obvious? The brilliant master planners of the time knew that neither of these other monorail resorts was going to be a high-rise, and therefor building them would undoubtedly lead to crowding on the Contemporary observation deck. Eisner, however, ignored these warnings and went ahead and built the GF anyway.

 

[crusader]

Of course it should be well known that all guests were equal and that contemporary guests weren't any more special than any other guests, because, yeah...that was the Disney way, and that so far as I can tell, it was never anything just for contemporary guests as the post suggests.

Alright, I'm going to take you back in time. In the 70's nobody staying offsite or in the campgrounds knew about this observation deck. The only way they would have discovered it was by accident or if they had a rsvp at the Top of the World (which would have been almost never) because it was the most expensive restaurant in Disney - complete with a dress code. It was not advertised as a restaurant for families. It was clearly an upscale dining experience for high paying well dressed guests.

The deck was there to compliment the restaurant. That was the planning intention.

 

[DancingBear]

Several points:

--Folks primarily come to WDW for the parks. I don't have the marketing data, but I would suspect that the process of self-selection makes this even more true for those staying at the Value resorts. So, these folks aren't looking for something to do in the evening--they are out at the parks until they close, which during the busy season is pretty late (and during the off-season there isn't really a problem). Then they come back and sleep.

--As usual, the anti-Eisner crowd dismisses the value of any of the "new" stuff. For example, whether it's essentially a mall or not, the West Side (1) attracts a fair number of resort guests to its shops and restaurants, (2) includes La Nouba, which certainly attracts its own crowd, (3) it helped revitalize the existing and somewhat sleepy Marketplace area (and the existing movie theater). Pleasure Island certainly attracts resort visitors as well as locals. And the Boardwalk is another evening destination. And the mini-golf courses are open until 11 p.m.

--Does anyone really know where the gate-crashers at Stormalong Bay come from? Are folks from the Values really finding there way over there (not an easy transportation and parking feat) rather than swimming in their own less-elaborate but themed pools? If this is happening, is it a design flaw, or part of a growing general lack of courtesy in society that no planner would have anticipated? Or are folks from the Boardwalk and the Swan and Dolphin (each of which have their own very nice pools) walking over to the YC/BC? Other than SAB, is there really a big pool-hopping problem?

--Other than the small CR upper-level deck, is there really a big overcrowding problem with monorail resort fireworks-watchers, or EWP-viewers? Perhaps a little more competition for the hammocks at the Poly, but between the CR fourth floor deck, the Poly beach, and the GF, seems like there is a lot of space around.

 

[airlarry!]

DB,

1. Are you comparing the experiments in park design made with EPCOT to closing down the deck for park guests? Actually, I think that pointing out that Epcot Center's traffic patterns, the failure to masterplan the resorts around them (which by the way, can be pointed back at Ei$ner), and the failure to utilize the existing monorail line more effectively, does not necessarily condemn only Ei$ner but is still mismanagement of the property. Doesn't matter who, it's still a bad decision.

Saying that Ei$ner's decisions are as bad as Ron's, doesn't mean that Ei$ner's decisions get elevated in some fashion.

2. Oh, and I think Boo, no I'm positive Boo said "almost" any place on the property. Your argument against the Fort Wilderness resort sorta kinda is understood. But again, the problem there lay in tying Epcot back to the Magic Kingdom, NOT with the design of FW in the MK area. Launch, train, etc.....

I do not mean to demean your opinion here, only to challenge it, but your post on the "almost" lends me to believe that you either do not understand what the designers were trying to accomplish with the Marketplace and with the Golf Resort, or do not realize the impact that the later expansion had on transportation issues to and from FW and the Golf Resort. Again, not necessarily all Ei$ner's fault, but its still poor management decisions regarding use of the property.

3. Who greenlighted Splash and Toontown again, and thus oversaw where it was placed? (In the case of Splash, if you say Ei$ner's son, you get bonus points). Louder, I can't hear you...

4.

One difference being, of course, that when MGM opened (admittedly in a rush to beat Universal and not that well-designed) and AK opened, MK and Epcot were already there.

I can see Jay R dancing and clapping right now. See they understand why we built DLP-Studios the way we did! They get it! They understand!

5.

I assume you're not including the Golf Resort on that list.

Boo, can I handle this one? Please?

Golf Resort=golf course thingie to do.
All Star Sports=no sports to do
All Star Movies=no movies to see
All Star Music=no music to hear

Hmm....If I brought my wife and kids to this newfangled amusement park/resort, but I'm not so interested in spending three days riding Dumbo, maybe I go anyway. Because on day 2, while my wife is relaxing by the pool or the beach at the Poly, riding water sprites with the kids, I can still work on my handicap.

What can I do at the Poop Century again? Oh yeah, I can sleep and shower.

 

[crusader]

Man you guys are really stretching this.

Here:

Why didn't they complete the master plan the way it was intended? (including the golf resort)

They blamed it on the energy crisis in the early 70's.

Quit trying to rewrite history.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/omniluxe/asian.htm

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"What can I do at the Poop Century again? Oh yeah, I can sleep and shower."***

Well, when you get home you can go over to your favorite golf shop and spend those $600.00 or so dollars you saved by staying at Poop Century.

You could also have booked a round of golf at anyone of the courses regardless of where you stayed.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by airlarry! 1. Are you comparing the experiments in park design made with EPCOT to closing down the deck for park guests?

Nope, I'm responding to the assertions that (1) Disney was great at urban planning pre-1984, and the master plan pre-1984 was incredibly brilliant, and (2) the fact that WDW faces some issues now in transportation, etc., means the Eisner era has lacked any planning.

Actually, I think that pointing out that Epcot Center's traffic patterns, the failure to masterplan the resorts around them (which by the way, can be pointed back at Ei$ner)...

As I said before, Epcot itself was not designed in a fashion which lent itself to integrated resorts the way that MK was---isn't that a failure of the pre-Eisner master plan? Given the situation as it existed when Eisner arrived (high-rise hotels which became the S&D, Epcot design not lending itself to integrated resort development, and WS needing more traffic), I think the Boardwalk-area resorts are nicely realized.

...and the failure to utilize the existing monorail line more effectively, does not necessarily condemn only Ei$ner but is still mismanagement of the property. Doesn't matter who, it's still a bad decision.

Again, I assert that it's not so much a failure to utilize the existing monorail line more effectively, as it is that the existing monorail line wasn't really designed to do anything other than take folks from the TTC to Epcot.

Saying that Ei$ner's decisions are as bad as Ron's, doesn't mean that Ei$ner's decisions get elevated in some fashion.

Not trying to elevate Eisner, just point out, again, that there was not a golden age of Disney planning pre-1984 which has suddenly collapsed due to Eisner. Rather, there are simply the complications which arise in large real estate developments, pre- and post-1984.

2. Oh, and I think Boo, no I'm positive Boo said "almost" any place on the property. Your argument against the Fort Wilderness resort sorta kinda is understood. But again, the problem there lay in tying Epcot back to the Magic Kingdom, NOT with the design of FW in the MK area. Launch, train, etc.....

I do not mean to demean your opinion here, only to challenge it, but your post on the "almost" lends me to believe that you either do not understand what the designers were trying to accomplish with the Marketplace and with the Golf Resort...

Seems a bit disingenuous to say "almost" any place on the property and exclude the Golf Resort, FW and the Marketplace, when after all the entire development consisted only of those three locations plus MK, CR, the Poly and Epcot.

...or do not realize the impact that the later expansion had on transportation issues to and from FW and the Golf Resort. Again, not necessarily all Ei$ner's fault, but its still poor management decisions regarding use of the property.

3. Who greenlighted Splash and Toontown again, and thus oversaw where it was placed? (In the case of Splash, if you say Ei$ner's son, you get bonus points). Louder, I can't hear you...

The point on both of these issues, and again nobody has refuted this, is that the brilliant pre-1984 master plan didn't seem to accomodate either (1) expansion of development on the rest of the huge piece of real estate they owned (or even around Epcot itself), or (2) expansion within the Magic Kingdom--where else exactly should they have put Splash Mountain that would have integrated wonderfully with the pre-1984 MK plan?

Golf Resort=golf course thingie to do.

But those two (beautiful) golf courses aren't going to do a thing to keep the Golf Resort guests on the property in the evenings, now, are they?

Hmm....If I brought my wife and kids to this newfangled amusement park/resort, but I'm not so interested in spending three days riding Dumbo, maybe I go anyway. Because on day 2, while my wife is relaxing by the pool or the beach at the Poly, riding water sprites with the kids, I can still work on my handicap.

What can I do at the Poop Century again? Oh yeah, I can sleep and shower.

First of all, if you wanted other things to do at your resort, you probably wouldn't have picked PC to stay at (there are many, many other options). Second, the pools at the PC, while not SAB, are still nicer than those at the EconoLodge, and enjoyed by many PC guests just fine, thanks. Third, while you hit the links, perhaps at one of the two (also lovely) new courses of the Eisner era, your wife and kids could go to one of the two incredible water parks, or shop and play at Downtown Disney, or play mini-golf, or...

 

[bretsyboo]

{QUOTE]So why didn't Walt greenlight the construction?[/QUOTE]

Hey yeah someone why didn't he?

Anbyone? Anyone?

No answer? Maybe I'll try to look it up myself.

Ohhhh....says in about a million places he was dead 3 years before construction began on anything in Florida, 5 years before the magic kingdom opened, and 15 years before epcot opened. Still, why couldn't he have greenlighted it? Seems like he would have included it on those monthly tapes he recorded, or the heathens we have so read about would have thawed him out and asked him or something doesn't it?

I'm so embarassed not to know this! I mean not knowing the first thing about the Florida Project, the Development of EPCOT, or heck basica facts as when Walt was around, and yet I expected to discuss Disney? I am an idiot!

Crusader and DB, I'll get to your posts in a minute, however I'd like to get an answer from both of you. I think we can end a lot of conversations before they start depending on your answer.

You have both critisized old management quite a bit here, so a little questionairre...

What do you think of Michael Eisner?
What did you think of the 45% no vote?
What did you think when he didn't step down (or rather only lost one position)?
What do you think of Walt Disney?
What do you think of Walt Disney in comparision to Michael Eisner?
What do you think of the Walt Disney World Resort before Michael Eisner?
What do you think of the Walt Disney World Resort the day it opened?
And, let's play the what if game here. It's apparent Eisner is gone in 2006, let's say somehow we get a major medical achievement, and all of those WED Imagineers from so many years ago are givin age medecine and Roy is back from the dead, and all of those people that initially built the WDW Resort come back in power, on a scale of 1-10 how successful would the Walt Disney Company be if they were to come back and implement philosophies from the yesteryears? If Roy's old team regained youth and took power would that mean the rise of Disney? The fall? What? And please explain your rating.

I'd appreciate it very much if you did this.

Where is the evidence of this?

I've been asked for the evidence of a lot of things, but this one baffles me. Tell you what DB, look at a map or read something about it. It's documented over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. There are probably 25 books discussing the building of WDW and EPCOT Center and showing just what strategies they used and how they tied the property together. To go into something so easy to look up here would be crazy. Enough books have been written on it that there is no way I'm going to requote a book here. Everything that has been said previously is true, and if that's not evidence, well, what can I tell you. We've found the body, the gun, and a confession on tape, and when the jury asks for the evidence after that, well...not sure what else Is supposed to be shown.

I mean really, have you never heard of the Walt Disney World Preview Center?

--Since you enter from the front of Future World, little foot traffic flowed into Future World in the a.m. AND folks watching the big park-closing fireworks show around the lagoon had to walk all the way back through the park.

You are nuts. We aren't talking about the ignored Epcot of 1995, w are talking about E.P.C.O.T. Center which opened up and remained incredibly successfully until it became apparent that the experimental prototype community of tomorrow would be left to rot. After 1988 nothing went into Epcot until Honey I shrunk the Audience in 1994. In 96 UofE was rethemed Ellen, though much of the video stayed the same. In 99 Test Track Opened. There is 11 years of Epcot. That's what they did to continue keeping up and expanding the park. At the same time they opneed up two new parks on property. Yeah, there is a plan. This is the time that Epcot faultered.

And your fireworks problem is nonsensical. no matter where you end your night you are going to have to walk to the front of the park. The difference is, shows like laserphonic didn't start after close like they have it now. So yeah, if you chose to watch it from the american pavilion and then chose to go home you had to walk through the whole park. But it was your choice then.

And if that is such a problem then DARN the current regime for not attempting to fix it in 20 years!

--Spaceship Earth sits right on top of the entrance, rather than being a "weenie" to draw people into the park.

First of all, let's teach you a little bit about wenies. Spaceship EArth is indeed a weinie it is a giant symbol of Epcot and it's ride is imperative to understanding what EPCOT is, understanding the past and using it to make our future...

Then when you left Epcot you exited out of the back of Spaceship Earth. And then what did you have? Holes through what is now innoventions on your left and right where you saw the giant structures Horizens to your left and the Land to your right, both featuring fascinating looking architecture. Straight ahead of you you saw the World Showcases weinie, the spectacular American Pavilion. Epcot doesn't have a narrow entry way with a line of shops that could potentially clog things up at the beginning of the park, hence, no need for a wenie to get people past anything.. But you know, that's just common sense.

--No evidence of planning for any EPCOT resorts having the sort of coordination with EPCOT that the Poly and CR have with the MK.

OK, OK, OK we've got something here, we've got the admission that at the very least the original WDW resort was well planned, etc.

But againwe have to teach you a few historical things.

1. We aren't talking about Epcot, we are talking about E.P.C.O.T. Center everything was to be built around Epcot. There weren't Magic Kingdom resoprts, and MGM resorts, and such, there were just resorts and plans for resorts.

Educate yourself...

http://waltdatedworld.bravepages.com/id210.htm

Here we see plans for further resorts, here we see plans for the future monorail lines, here we see plans for a community that was all one.

Why was it never built? Money, like it says. Whose issue do you think that was?

Hint...Epcot opened late 82 Eisner was in power 2 years later but Walker and Miller were lame ducks far before Eisner actually took office.

What's the problem with PC's placement exactly?

Well apparently nothing in comparison to the horrible problems with Epcot!

Heck, there is nothing wrong with a 177 acre property that unless you are staying in the buildings right next to the parking lot means it is an absolute hike through a mess of buildings just to get to your car...and often times even longer to get to the bus stop. No problem there.

Problems?

No, none at all with an Animal Kingdom resort having nothing to do with Animals and being built far closer to Wide World of Sports, Epcot, and MGM than it is to Animal Kingdom. No problem with sticking thousands upon thousands of people on the edge of property and making them wait for a bus, a wait that according to the unoffical guide to walt disney takes as long as 18-38 minutes just to get to animal Kingdom...it's home park!

And when buses come every 20 minutes....
And when your walk is like a nature hike through the applilation trail...
18-38 minutes is a looooong time especially considering it says that if you happen to have your own transportation it takes 12-16 minutes. EG any standard person with their own transportation can get to and from pop century faster than disney can get you there by a HUGE margin. So much for planning.

What was the magical way to get to and from the Marketplace from anywhere? From the Golf Resort? To get from Fort Wilderness to Epcot, I assume you had to take the internal train, then a boat to TTC, then the monorail?

Well hopefully you've seen the link that shows that yeah, there were plans to put in that magical transportation, but I don't expect much out of you since heck in my quote I said almost everything and you went on to prove that it wasn't everything!

The point is you didn't have to get on a bus or in your car to get around. Even if you have to stop at the TTC, or ride a boat and a monorail, well, That choice is far more pleasant than a bus. And that was a CHOICE. Fort Wilderness simply had a train because it was so big it gave you an option of walking, so yeah if you were on the far end of the resort you got to take a train, then a boat, then a monorail to Epcot. Wait, are you saying this is a BAD thing? Personally I don't want Epcot strings running from each location to another location winding in and about cluttering up the sky. But there was a way to get from your resort to...
almost
everywhere on property without having to wait for a bus as you diesel your way through traffic lights. Not sure how magical that is.

--Epcot's plan was a miserable failure, leaving World Showcase largely empty in the mornings, and Future World (to a lesser extent) largely empty in the evenings.

Yeah, just completely untrue until the park was ignored in the 90's.

--Despite all the land they had, MK's design didn't seem particularly well-suited to expansion. Toontown is an obvious add-on, not integrated into the traffic pattern well at all. Splash Mountain and Big Thunder Mountain ended up jammed in right next to each other.

Yeah another apologist for the Eisner administration, what could they DO? It's the guests fault. It's the previous administrations fault...

But you're right about Toontown didn't mind it as a temporary place, sure wish the CURRENT LEADERSHIP DIDN'T MAKE IT PERMANANT.

As far as expansion goes, you expand until you are full, and all the while before and after you improve what you've got. The Magic Kingdom is not a full park, but...
It has 6 lands that connect seemlessly. To the left of Main Street id aventureland, which iss right next to frontierland so on and so forth until you get back to main street. If you want a new land connected to the hub then you have to take away from an old land, which is fine, but it should be noted they CHOSE not to do it with toontown.

And as far as the idiocy of the splash mountain comment.
1.They weren't forced to put in a huge E-ticket there
2.There isn't really any problems with them doing it, it's a move I support, and
3.
Tower of terror, Rocknrollercoaster
Mission space, test track
expedition everest, kali river rapids

All of those were built far after Eisner's team took place. They chose the placement, they chose the rides, they built the things. Is the old leadership responsible for them too?

--Epcot's large pathways have been criticized by designers as hurting the human scale and feeling too sterile. Like 'em or not, the AK's more meandering and smaller pathways were designed to evoke the human scale and sense of discovery in emulation of Disneyland, partly in reaction to the problems with Future World's pathways.

The problem for me isn't DAK's path size, it's the number of paths. No matter where you are if you are going to Dinoland or camp minnie mickey you are going to pass through discovery island. The same won't be true once the bridge is permanantly open for dinoland, and the same could be said of africa prior to aisa, but a few small paths are a problem. Thank God the park has a relatively low guest count or else you would be literally stuck wherever you were when the parade was going on. Happily, after 6 years, there is a bridge soon to be permanantly up, and the 2nd of many paths that need to be constructed.

And no, the paths weren't meant to envoke a human blah blah blah, discovery yes (heck they didn't even have signs in the beginning) but it was supposed to be like paths through the wilderness cutting through the great unknown. No human Scale, you are simply going on a series of trails Again fine, just make more trails.

And it wasn't in reaction to Epcoit at all. Do you just make this stuff up? LEt me show you something that came between DAK and Epcot....

MGM

If Epcot was such a problem it's amazing that we don't have small paths interweaving aroung MGM. No, MGM uses much the same strategy as Epcot, though on a smaller overall scale. MGM's paths are for the most part very wide. Animation courtyard is literally a courtyard. The backlot is darn big, and you could see the spaciousness of sunset strip if only there were, you know, A STINKING PATH TO GET ON AND OFF OTHER THAN THE WHOLE ROAD.

I don't have a problem with DAK's style of paths, only the number, and no one has a problem with Epcot's style. Sterility comes from surroundings. No one thought Epcot was sterile when it was given attention.

One difference being, of course, that when MGM opened (admittedly in a rush to beat Universal and not that well-designed) and AK opened, MK and Epcot were already there.

Say what? I'm not sure if I am reading this right but...are you advocating expansion with half day parks? Are you saying paths like DCA, HKDL, DLPS are the right way to go?

I assume you're not including the Golf Resort on that list.

Anyone who knows anything about the golf resort would assume that I am.
Again, educate yourself.
http://www.solarius.com/dvp/wdw/shadesofgreen.htm

So why didn't Walt greenlight the construction? This has nothing to do with Eisner. There was a demand back then and it was ignored. I'd like to know why they weren't built during that time.

Well they weren't ignored in any way. The resort was to be built in phases. They lost their power almost immediatly after Epcot opened. Had Eisner taken over in say...88...I'd imagine at least two of those resorts, or others, would have been built.

But Disney should never give in to guests not staying at the contemporary who encroach on an observation deck there and have a complete and utter disregard for anything short of what they want. Come on!

Yup Crusader, you're right, guests fault. Bunch o' idiots storming the contemporary demanding a fireworks viewing and free steak while their elitist counterparts, the contemporary guests, looked on in horror.
Why I heard rumors the contemporary would wobble back and forth from angry mobs of people trying to get the best position.
Disney should never give in to guest demands. When they take something away, and the guests want it back, how DARE they!

An you are right, people have an utter disregard for anything but what they want, that's why you have people here screaming NO! BURN THE RESTAURANT! WE WANT THE WHOLE THING FOR FREE!

SCREW WAITING LISTS! WE WILL ALL GO UP THERE IF WE WANT!

Firework watching satanists wanting something back that was taken away from them!

Really. Obviously you didn't feel any social disparity staying in a hotel with a monorail built for your experience which every one of us lower budgeted campers were cheated out of.

Boat. Boat. Boat. Boat. Boat.
The monorail was contemporary. The theme with the poly is shaky, but at that point people were in the water, so there wasn't a way to get them over that way, so they put the monorail out front and with a station designed as a mixture of poly/contemp design. Fort Wilderness was a camp ground. Camp Grounds so far as I know to this very day still haven't put in monorails. But you know what you could take?
boat.

Isn't it obvious? The brilliant master planners of the time knew that neither of these other monorail resorts was going to be a high-rise, and therefor building them would undoubtedly lead to crowding on the Contemporary observation deck. Eisner, however, ignored these warnings and went ahead and built the GF anyway.

I only post this quote to point out to everyone else DB's urtter contempt for Walt and his people. brilliant db scoffs? these people weren't brilliant.

The deck was there to compliment the restaurant. That was the planning intention.

Lounge man, there was a lounge next to the restaurant. It's still called a lounge now, but it's really just the california grill expanded. If it was as you contend, then there would have never been access. The people just want their lounge back.

The plans were there, they were haulted by things like the energy crisis (remember the pop century building delays after 9-11?) the massive undertaking of Epcot, and walker/miller and their general lack of strong leadership that inhibited them from getting theings done.

But the plans were there, and what we could have gotten was spectacular...just like what we were given was spectacular.

Now I have to read what idiocy was posted while I wrote this.

 

[bretsyboo]

yup more idiocy.

but you are right crusader, people shouldn't be allowed to go in the contemp ifthey don't stay there.

Just like all of those people at pop century shouldn't be allowed to have any other resort experience. They can pay money to go somewhere else on property for their entertainment, or they can swim...in..a...bowling pin...until it closes....

But those two (beautiful) golf courses aren't going to do a thing to keep the Golf Resort guests on the property in the evenings, now, are they?

No, but maybe the restaurants might...
Or maybe the fact that in many places in the resort you can see the fireworks....
not the point though. The point is you need enough stuff to do at night, not a different activity at each individual resort to make sure people have no reason to cross over.

Thousands upon thousands of rooms with 2-4 people each and nothing new to do.

Someone for the first time say how this was good planning? Someone say how it was equal to anything pre 84?

 

[crusader]

Bret,

You're grasping at straws. yeah I said Walt. He was involved prior to his death in these projects.

Do you really need to go to great lengths to dismiss simple implications? They pretty much speak for themselves. I'll try to be more sensitive to your needs.

But seriously, we can really do without all the Nah-Nah Nah-Nah Nah-Nah (I'm a know it all) stuff if you'd just relax a bit. Take a deep breath and exhale.

Whew!