DisneySea Sells Out

[DVC-Landbaron]

Let me try it again.

Walt’s vision of EPCOT has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. It may deserve its own thread and could spark some rousing debate. But not here. And the completed EPCOT (WS in particular) also has nothing to do with what we’re talking about either. In many cases the mere concept of vastly different themes, close together, causes a bit of a ‘panoramic’ clash. But you’ve got to admit that they did a marvelous job at minimizing the conflicts and for the most part made it as seamless as possible. But again this is inherent in a theme park, and ergo NOT what we are discussing!!

What we are discussing is choice and vision!! Ei$ner had a choice of design (I don’t think he had a choice of location, but if he did that just compounds his stupidity!!) And out of all the designs in the world, what CHOICE did he make? It was his call you know. So with utter disregard and almost blatant contempt the effect these two, rather tall structures (for WDW anyway) have on MY EPCOT he chose something TOTALLY un-Disney. Why? He had the world to choose from! Why these two particular buildings. Why those two particular designs? Out of all the questions I have for this guy (when he finally accepts my backyard barbeque offer) that one is very high on my list. Until I hear a justifiable reason, I’m stuck making a judgment about his ‘vision’ from what I know about the choices he makes. And I find he hasn’t got any vision. Or at the very least his vision is blurred and totally alien to my way of seeing things. Or maybe he’s just plain-old inept. I highly suspect the latter.

Any agreement in this?

ps:

Very nice try though! I hear Northwestern and University of Chakahgo have nice law schools. Maybe a second career?

Thanks!! If I hadn’t fallen into the career I’m in, law was my second choice!!

 

[glo]

Yikes! What passion about two of my favorite hotel. I have to agree with both sides here. I love the Swan and Dolphin and continue going to them over most Disney resorts. M.Graves did have a wonderful vision making these. I took a tour just two weeks ago. It was incredible. The Dolphin was made to resemble an island with a mountain. *** You enter the Dolphin you look up at the ceiling and see the night sky and shooting starts. The sides on the room are rock and have water coming down them. The waterfall outside is suposed to be a waterfall from the top of the mountain. This was meant to resemble a cave in the mountain. That is also why the halls are decorated with beach scenes. The swan across the way is the water. If you look closely there are waves on the building. Both hotels are immacualately maintained. People who work there have to particiapte in some of the same programs the people at the Disney resorts have to take. The hotels are advertised everywhere as the Walt Disney Swanand Dolphin. Thet do not advertise them as the Starwood Swan and Dolphin. Remember that the Swan and Dolphin were there way before the Boardwalk, YC or BC. Disney could have done something to somehow incoporate or block them, but they didn't. They are making the money of the lease of the land and other things. I know I will not sway anyone, but I did want to give my opinion since I was asked.

 

[AKemel]

I do not understand. The Swan and Dolphin hotels are magnificent.
And since Disney does not own them, but only getting a percentage, it is OK to like them.

Also, according to official TDS site, they do allow hopping for 3 or more day admission, like California originally did. 1 day/1 park adult ticket is about $46 and 3 day/hopper is about $120.

 

[All Aboard]

First, Landbaron welcome back.

I agree with you that S/D don't give me the Disney warm and fuzzies. But not for lack of "transporting" me somewhere. To me, they just don't have the charm of other Disney resorts. Lest I remind you of your, mine & Natalie's futile trecking through seemingly endless hallways trying to find a way out of the place.

But, let me ask you this. Just where does the monolith we call the Contemporary transport you? I agree with the scoop, the "garden" wings provide nothing that says "Disney" to me. But, I think we discussed that a few weeks ago. Other than the monorail running through it and the view from the top, there's nothing I can glean from this whole thread that would apply to it.

So, WDW opened with two resorts - one that "transported" you to Polynesia and one that "transported" you nowhere. So, why then, require being transported somewhere special to be a requisite of a resort earning the "Disney" label?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

... Must be a Disney resort!!!

Glo!! Nice to meet you! And thanks for your input. Quite honestly I could never understand why anyone stayed there. You have truly opened my eyes a bit and next year I will be checking them out much more than ever before. Thanks.

But again, my problem is not the design, per se. What really bothers me is the location. They do indeed, as Scoop says, rise out of nowhere like some sort of gothic (Tim Burton) dream sequence!! If this happened on a tiny corner of the property, I’d have no problem with it. Unfortunately, the only time I really notice them is from inside EPCOT. And then they just aggravate the hell out me!!

Disney could have done something to somehow incorporate or block them, but they didn't.

And that bothers me as well. If they made a mistake in the first place, then why not make the best of it and at least try to do something thematic with the rest of the surrounding property and landscape.

No, this should be an entirely separate thread and certainly not just a Baron/Scoop discussion....so bring over the resort experts and let's start a thread on resort placement......because, maybe, if HE won't agree with ME, HE might with you

Scoop, my main man!! I thought we were already in agreement as to placement, remember

Now, while I agree with you on Swan/Dolphin being misplaced

Our only disagreement is putting the blame where it belongs. On Ei$ner’s head!!!



Gcurling!!

First, Landbaron welcome back.

Thank you!!! And right back at you!! Where have you been?

But, let me ask you this. Just where does the monolith we call the Contemporary transport you?

Well, to a 17 year old kid in 1972, it did indeed transport me into the future. Now the future is an awfully hard thing to keep in sight. Just look at how quickly Tomorrowland and even Future World grow stale and at times even laughable. So I think the concept of the Contemporary design was chosen wisely. It really is monolithic and fairly nondescript. It could be anytime, anywhere. Perhaps a bit too much concrete, but hey, you can’t replace the entire concept every five years, can you? As far as the rooms go, well, even Disney stopped the game at some point. The Poly rooms had some palm tree type wallpaper and the Contemporary had some abstract design, but basically the room was a hotel room. So what sets the Poly apart? The lush vegetation. The lobby!!! The beach!! What sets the Contemporary apart? The monorail of course!! From all the common areas within the hotel; lounges, restaurants and shops, the monorail can be seen and heard. And the Top of the World!! Well, enough said!! To me it still works. And to that the barren, concrete walkways, straight lines, angular cut landscaping and a pool that played contemporary music under the water and to me that says, “Nothing else like it in downtown Chicago”. So yes, it still transports me. Not as much, perhaps, but much, much, much, much, much more so that the Swan or Dolphin ever could!!!!

So, why then, require being transported somewhere special to be a requisite of a resort earning the "Disney" label?

OK. I’ll bite. Transporting is my concept. What’s your criteria? Just what makes a Disney Resort a Disney Resort?

YoHo!!

(I liked the American Club Comment. By the way. If Eisner had built it would it have been a 50 foot Urinal Complete with Cake?)

I haven't laughed so hard in a long time!!!!

 

[airlarry]

Maybe I am misinterpreting the Baron's comments but isn't it kind of simple?

1. The Swalphin does not fit the 'vision' of WDW, as the Poly or Fort Wilderness or the Beach Club do. (Well, Baron, this seems a matter of personal taste, I am afraid.)

2. The *placement* of the Swalphin does not fit the 'vision' of WDW.

Here, the Baron has you beat. How can anyone argue that the 'placement', and it alone, fits into the overall theme of the World Showcase...as you can clearly see the hotel(s) from inside the park. Contrast this with the MK, where the hotels (like the Contemp) are alleged to have been vaguely placed in line with the 'lands' ... i.e. the Contemp with Tomorrowland, and the Poly with Adventureland. I like the part on the monorail as you approach the MK where you see the Contemp, and then over its shoulder, you see Space Mountain. Cool effect.

And please contrast this with the Disney Seas, where every conceivable angle seems to have been carefully planned by our beloved Imagineers. I mean, everything is in its place, and there are no garish hotels hanging out over the wrong themed places.

And finally, contrast this with the pictures we see at Disney's CaliMisAdventure, where apparently, sightlines were compromised.



In sum, you might be able to debate effectively with the Baron about the taste of the Swalphin, but you sure can't argue that it should not have been built where it was. I rest my case, your honors.

 

[YoHo]

Just an Aside on the Contemporary. I agree it still is wonderous if remarkably 70's/80's austere future styled.


Tell me, Landbaron and others, Assuming it was done with all the flair, panache and quality it deserved, how would you feel if they redesigned it along the lines of the current Tomorrowland theme? My immediate thought is that it could work since everything that is still great about the place would stay(monorail/ Grand Canyon Concourse) while the outdated themeing would be changed. Of course there is something to be said for leaving it as is.

I think one of its precieved problems is its Topiary. New high class expensive resort hotels have more greenery, not less. Of course, that's easily added as well.

 

[disneycub]

First impression upon seeing the interior and exterior decor of the Swolphin:

Christopher Lloyd on acid and in a very foul mood.

 

[JeffJewell]

Assuming it was done with all the flair, panache and quality it deserved, how would you feel if they redesigned it along the lines of the current Tomorrowland theme?

I think that would be great. I still love the Contemporary, but then again, the Contemporary I love is really the one from 1972 (In 1972, the Contemporary was _way_ cool, even more so if you were six at the time). As long as it has the flair and panache and quality in big buckets, I can have my memories and the future, too.

I think one of its precieved problems is its Topiary.

Does that mean inside or outside or both?

If you mean inside, I could see an argument for or against more, depending on the subtleties of the re-theme.

If you mean outside, I think that the lack of lush surroundings is one of the Contemporary's greatest faults. I wish they'd never added the wings or the convention center; not only do they strike me as being rather ordinary sitting next to the tower, they mean a lot less green and a lot more concrete. I think that was a bad trade-off for the extra money.

Jeff