As any longtime reader of this blog will know, I'm interested in theme park development in general, and have done some studying of the processes that the Disney Company has gone through to develop their parks in the United States (and a little bit in Europe as well), because they are the gold standard, after all. Way back when, I did a handful of blog posts about what I saw as the "basics" to developing a theme park resort in the northern Midwest, specifically in the Chicagoland area. And one of my conclusions was that the park would probably have to be completely indoors.
It was suggested that there are examples of indoor theme parks, including the Mall of America in Minnesota (I've never been to it). And later, Dreamworks announced that they were going to develop an all-indoor theme park in New Jersey, close to New York City. But I was thinking about it, and I see Epcot as the first, and best, indoor theme park in the world.
Most theme parks in the northern United States are seasonally open. They run on weekends in the spring and fall, and run at full schedule, every day, over the summer, when kids are out of school. Weather is obviously the big reason for this, but I would also guess that the lack of more to do around them is part of it. They do not depend on "tourists" from other states to come visit them; it's more school kids from the area, and so they are busy when kids aren't in school.
But if an attraction was developed that was completely enclosed (like the Mall of America, for example), does it become a tourist destination? Especially in an area like Chicago, where there are so many other things to recommend travel to it? (This goes for the New Jersey project of Dreamworks, assuming that this is still on the table at all, being in pretty close proximity to NYC.)
Anyway, getting back to Epcot: Every attraction there, with the partial exception of Test Track, is indoors. You only have to go outside to walk between the various pavilions and to reach the World Showcase. Now I would agree that it would lose something if those pavilions were themselves enclosed. Part of their attraction is the fact that they showcase the architecture of the countries they represent, and have sort of a "city" feel - like, if you're going to Paris, or Munich, or Naples, perhaps, and wandering around an actual European (or Mexican, or Canadian or North African) city!
Consider if the walkways were enclosed between the pavilions. You'd have a place that could easily be visited in the middle of winter, without concerns about how much snow was coming down or how many layers of clothing you needed to wear. You could set Epcot in its current form in the northern U.S., and you'd have a functional theme park. Enclose the walkways (arcades, like in Disneyland Paris?) and you have an all-weather park!
I suppose, thinking about it, that most of the parks have a large element of indoor attractions (all the dark rides, the motion simulators, indoor coasters like Rock'n'Roller Coaster and Space Mountain, and most of the shows are enclosed) but Epcot has the general lack of ties to Disney content to be anyone's park, not only Disney. That, coupled with the fact that you could enjoy almost everything about it even if it was snowing like crazy outdoors, make it a prototypical indoor theme park!
*****
If you get a chance, please take a look at my latest offering, 14 Dark Windows, on Amazon for Kindle. It's a collection of short stories, some horror, some milder with supernatural or horrific elements, some just nice stories, available in ebook form for $2.99! Thank you!
*****
Showing posts with label indoor theme park. Show all posts
Showing posts with label indoor theme park. Show all posts
Monday, November 4, 2013
Monday, September 10, 2012
Lincoln Child's UTOPIA revisited
I'm sort of a book nut; I've got thousands of the things laying around. I mostly read mystery and thriller fiction, but at a given time I could be reading something in any genre: I read a lot of science fiction, horror, and some fantasy. (I read a lot of books on Disney, too...as many as I can...)
A while back I made this blog post about the Lincoln Child novel, UTOPIA, and talked generally about the story, which was a thriller about terrorists holding a huge indoor theme park sort of built into a canyon near Las Vegas hostage. It was a good taut story, in my opinion, with interesting characters, from a really good thriller writer (Child is well known for his collaborations with Douglas Preston, stories featuring Agent Pendergast). One of the major characters in this book is not a person at all, but the theme park where everything takes place. Child delves into the details of the place, and I have always found it to be a repeatable read for me.
This is a scan of the drawings at the beginning of the book, depicting the park as it is designed. You can see that there are four distinct areas to the fictional park. The first, Boardwalk, is sort of a carnival area with thrill rides and an aquarium. From there you can go to Camelot, which is sort of self explanatory. Gaslight, a third area, is an area themed to a part of London, England, and last is Callisto, a space station/skyport futuristic area. A fifth area is scheduled to open, themed to Atlantis.
I think that the detail of the drawing is really well done. It's a very thoroughly thought-out concept brought into book form. According to Child, there are no plans for future novels set in Utopia. But I wonder about Child's obvious fascination with the art form known as the "theme park". Where did his inspiration for this come from? There are some obvious (to Disney fans, anyway) comparisons to be made between the found of this park and Walt Disney.
I'll just reiterate: it was a fun read and I probably will read it again someday soon.
*****
A while back I made this blog post about the Lincoln Child novel, UTOPIA, and talked generally about the story, which was a thriller about terrorists holding a huge indoor theme park sort of built into a canyon near Las Vegas hostage. It was a good taut story, in my opinion, with interesting characters, from a really good thriller writer (Child is well known for his collaborations with Douglas Preston, stories featuring Agent Pendergast). One of the major characters in this book is not a person at all, but the theme park where everything takes place. Child delves into the details of the place, and I have always found it to be a repeatable read for me.
This is a scan of the drawings at the beginning of the book, depicting the park as it is designed. You can see that there are four distinct areas to the fictional park. The first, Boardwalk, is sort of a carnival area with thrill rides and an aquarium. From there you can go to Camelot, which is sort of self explanatory. Gaslight, a third area, is an area themed to a part of London, England, and last is Callisto, a space station/skyport futuristic area. A fifth area is scheduled to open, themed to Atlantis.
I think that the detail of the drawing is really well done. It's a very thoroughly thought-out concept brought into book form. According to Child, there are no plans for future novels set in Utopia. But I wonder about Child's obvious fascination with the art form known as the "theme park". Where did his inspiration for this come from? There are some obvious (to Disney fans, anyway) comparisons to be made between the found of this park and Walt Disney.
I'll just reiterate: it was a fun read and I probably will read it again someday soon.
*****
Friday, March 18, 2011
Scott's Theme Park thoughts
If you were to peruse old posts on this blog, or click on the labels "Indoor Theme Park", "Cold Weather Parks", or maybe "Midwest Attractions" you might notice that it's been sort of a running theme of the blog that I play around with conceptualizing a high quality, year-round theme park in the upper Midwest, specifically in the Chicago area.
I believe that this would be a good location for such a venture, because of the population within driving distance, and because of the accessibility of the area via several means of transportation. There are two major airports in O'Hare and Midway, a proposed (but whether it will ever be build is a different story) third airport near Peotone. Two major highways crisscross here (I80 and I55), and Amtrack trains come through here as well. There is also a lot of land in the area that might be available.
The limiting factor is the weather. For 6 months out of the year, the weather here is unpredictible and not amenable to an outdoor park. The one large local amusement park, Six Flags Great America, is a 6 month outdoor park. There are virtually no other amusement parks in the area. Kiddieland closed, as did Santa's Village. You have to drive to Indiana (Indiana Beach), Michigan (Michigan's Adventure) or the Wisconsin Dells (a whole bunch of stuff) to find other amusement parks.
And there are virtually no "theme" parks. Legoland has an indoor facility in Schaumburg, which features a single dark ride, a 3D theater, a "factory experience", and a couple other things to do...not much for the almost 30 dollar admission price.
Other than that, there really isn't much. We can drive to Indiana to visit the Amish communities where there is themed dining and attractions in the form of an almost museum-like area. We can drive to Iowa, to Amana, where Amish also have tons of wineries, dining establishments and shops. We can drive to the Dells, where we can visit some themed water parks and other attractions. Or over to Michigan, where Nelis' Dutch Village and some other attractions are located in Holland.
So why NOT here? I can't see a good reason. We will fly to Florida or California and spend an entire week at Disney, in an immersive vacation where sometimes we don't ever leave the grounds of the resort. We don't always explore the surrounding area (well, actually *we* do...when we've gone to California we've always made it a point to drive to some of the attractions around the area - as far away as the San Diego Zoo or Hollywood, a bit closer, and seen some oceanfront towns also) so why do we need the beach a hundred miles (or less) away? The weather is great, but a lot of us from around here drive to the Dells to stay at a water park that offers us basically a waterpark. Artificial beach!
Assuming that I'm correct, and this area could support some sort of high quality themed park and resort, then I begin thinking about what it would look like. It wouldn't be Disney, obviously - I'm talking about ME designing this, not borrowing the Imagineers' work. It wouldn't be Universal, or movie themed. Could it be themed to life in the old days? Like the Holland, Michigan theme park, or the Amish communities? Well, yeah, but what about the weather?
I was thinking small at first, a single theme park and a hotel with a water park attached. But after reading Project Future, I decided that there was not enough in that concept to make the park a destination, and I'd need to expand the concept. So my next concept was for three theme parks, two hotels, a huge indoor/outdoor water park, a retail shopping and dining area, and a golf course.
Then I read Building A Better Mouse and thought about the cost of EPCOT in 1982. 1.2 BILLION dollars! Holy cats, that's a lot! And while my concept didn't call for quite the elaborate-ness of EPCOT's attractions, I was thinking of things that were on that order. Ride-throughs and simulators and boats and a coaster or two, with a few ideas where we'd be a bit more original in our presentation. (I'm not an engineer, so I was kinda thinking that if I get my own team of "imagineers" we'd come up with more cool stuff than I'd ever think up on my own...)
Now I'm thinking the whole thing needs to be downsized back to a much smaller initial stage. Back to the single theme "park", if you will, in the sense that Legoland in Schaumburg is a theme park. An enclosed building that can fit enough modestly sized attractions, with a low enough park ticket, to draw people from the area mostly, and hopefully get profitable quickly. Pay off the notes, then proceed with planning the more extravagant resort.
Think it's doable? I'd love to think so. But more likely it will remain a thought experiment, mostly worked out in my own notebooks and occasionally, like today, on the pages of this blog...
*****
I believe that this would be a good location for such a venture, because of the population within driving distance, and because of the accessibility of the area via several means of transportation. There are two major airports in O'Hare and Midway, a proposed (but whether it will ever be build is a different story) third airport near Peotone. Two major highways crisscross here (I80 and I55), and Amtrack trains come through here as well. There is also a lot of land in the area that might be available.
The limiting factor is the weather. For 6 months out of the year, the weather here is unpredictible and not amenable to an outdoor park. The one large local amusement park, Six Flags Great America, is a 6 month outdoor park. There are virtually no other amusement parks in the area. Kiddieland closed, as did Santa's Village. You have to drive to Indiana (Indiana Beach), Michigan (Michigan's Adventure) or the Wisconsin Dells (a whole bunch of stuff) to find other amusement parks.
And there are virtually no "theme" parks. Legoland has an indoor facility in Schaumburg, which features a single dark ride, a 3D theater, a "factory experience", and a couple other things to do...not much for the almost 30 dollar admission price.
Other than that, there really isn't much. We can drive to Indiana to visit the Amish communities where there is themed dining and attractions in the form of an almost museum-like area. We can drive to Iowa, to Amana, where Amish also have tons of wineries, dining establishments and shops. We can drive to the Dells, where we can visit some themed water parks and other attractions. Or over to Michigan, where Nelis' Dutch Village and some other attractions are located in Holland.
So why NOT here? I can't see a good reason. We will fly to Florida or California and spend an entire week at Disney, in an immersive vacation where sometimes we don't ever leave the grounds of the resort. We don't always explore the surrounding area (well, actually *we* do...when we've gone to California we've always made it a point to drive to some of the attractions around the area - as far away as the San Diego Zoo or Hollywood, a bit closer, and seen some oceanfront towns also) so why do we need the beach a hundred miles (or less) away? The weather is great, but a lot of us from around here drive to the Dells to stay at a water park that offers us basically a waterpark. Artificial beach!
Assuming that I'm correct, and this area could support some sort of high quality themed park and resort, then I begin thinking about what it would look like. It wouldn't be Disney, obviously - I'm talking about ME designing this, not borrowing the Imagineers' work. It wouldn't be Universal, or movie themed. Could it be themed to life in the old days? Like the Holland, Michigan theme park, or the Amish communities? Well, yeah, but what about the weather?
I was thinking small at first, a single theme park and a hotel with a water park attached. But after reading Project Future, I decided that there was not enough in that concept to make the park a destination, and I'd need to expand the concept. So my next concept was for three theme parks, two hotels, a huge indoor/outdoor water park, a retail shopping and dining area, and a golf course.
Then I read Building A Better Mouse and thought about the cost of EPCOT in 1982. 1.2 BILLION dollars! Holy cats, that's a lot! And while my concept didn't call for quite the elaborate-ness of EPCOT's attractions, I was thinking of things that were on that order. Ride-throughs and simulators and boats and a coaster or two, with a few ideas where we'd be a bit more original in our presentation. (I'm not an engineer, so I was kinda thinking that if I get my own team of "imagineers" we'd come up with more cool stuff than I'd ever think up on my own...)
Now I'm thinking the whole thing needs to be downsized back to a much smaller initial stage. Back to the single theme "park", if you will, in the sense that Legoland in Schaumburg is a theme park. An enclosed building that can fit enough modestly sized attractions, with a low enough park ticket, to draw people from the area mostly, and hopefully get profitable quickly. Pay off the notes, then proceed with planning the more extravagant resort.
Think it's doable? I'd love to think so. But more likely it will remain a thought experiment, mostly worked out in my own notebooks and occasionally, like today, on the pages of this blog...
*****
Saturday, December 4, 2010
The limitation with an all year park in the north - illustrated.
I'm sitting here in my office at work, between patients (I figure I have 10 minutes till my next one) and looking out the window at our employee parking lot. It's snowing.
It's been snowing since sometime in the middle of last night. I shoveled the drive this morning, and I'd guess something around 3 inches had fallen overnight. The drive to work was miserably slow; it's our first real snow of the year, and the plows are out but the snow is heavy and slushy, and the roads were slick. Now I'm used to driving in these conditions; I do it every winter.
But it got me thinking as I drove to work about this as a limiting factor for a park in the north. It's not a day to be outside, unless you're 10 years old and building snowmen. But on the other hand, there were some really beautiful places I drove past, where the snow on the trees really makes for a gorgeous vista.
It's winter here, and we generally don't hang around outside. If you're dressed for it, and you're in a place that's designed for it, a walk on a snowy day can be fun, interesting, even exhilirating. But when you think about a theme park and that sort of day outside, it doesn't fit.
I've always thought that most everything would have to be inside, with enclosed walkways or the entire park in a huge superstructure. Days like this just make that limitation much clearer.
*****
It's been snowing since sometime in the middle of last night. I shoveled the drive this morning, and I'd guess something around 3 inches had fallen overnight. The drive to work was miserably slow; it's our first real snow of the year, and the plows are out but the snow is heavy and slushy, and the roads were slick. Now I'm used to driving in these conditions; I do it every winter.
But it got me thinking as I drove to work about this as a limiting factor for a park in the north. It's not a day to be outside, unless you're 10 years old and building snowmen. But on the other hand, there were some really beautiful places I drove past, where the snow on the trees really makes for a gorgeous vista.
It's winter here, and we generally don't hang around outside. If you're dressed for it, and you're in a place that's designed for it, a walk on a snowy day can be fun, interesting, even exhilirating. But when you think about a theme park and that sort of day outside, it doesn't fit.
I've always thought that most everything would have to be inside, with enclosed walkways or the entire park in a huge superstructure. Days like this just make that limitation much clearer.
*****
Monday, July 12, 2010
What I didn't take into consideration...
About 6 months ago I was writing a whole bunch of entries about my pipe dream of developing a theme park in my hometown, near Chicago, Illinois. (Disclaimer: Even as I wrote them, I figured the chance of me actually doing anything about this dream was about .001% - only because there's about the same chance that I might become an astronaut someday...so this was pretty much all a thought experiment.) (If you want to read them look at my December and January archives.)
Anyway, I was on vacation last week in New York City (more blog entries to come about things from that trip that may or may not relate to Disney...) and read my newest acquisition, Project Future, by Chad Denver Emerson on the flight there and then before bed for a few nights, finishing it on Wednesday (I think). A very interesting, if a bit dry, book about the process of getting Walt Disney World's construction off the ground, in the purchasing phase of the project, and in the legislative phase also, which I'll be writing about in a little more depth in the future.
But it occurred to me as I read it that there was something I neglected to take into consideration as I wrote my arguments (with myself) that it was possible to develop such a theme park in my part of the country: the guests, customers, whatever you want to call them. What would make them want to come here?
When Disney opened their theme park in California, it was really the only game in town. There were certainly other amusement parks in California, and in the United States, but NOTHING like Disney, which was a place where one could go to experience the worlds of those beloved films that had been produced by the studios. That "new" communication medium, television, was also available to promote the parks, and Walt Disney used it effectively, before anyone else really even knew its power.
So I think Disneyland did become a destination, not just because of the park but because of the location of the park, in a part of the United States that was a desirable vacation destination. And when Walt Disney decided to build the Florida Project, he was thinking in terms of creating another huge tourist destination. "Control" was a word used a lot throughout the Project Future book. He didn't want the cheesy motels and food stands that had blighted his park in California. He wanted guests to come stay with him for a while, and go home satisfied. Even after his death, a lot of the strategy focused on making WDW a tourist destination rather than simply a stop. And it was a strategy that worked.
So what would make a theme park in my part of the country a "destination"? Unfortunately, nothing, at least not the way I've imagined it. I've been thinking in terms of a single indoor theme park with a high level of quality attractions enclosed and a strong overriding theme. I've been thinking of a single hotel, possibly attached to the park. I've been thinking of an indoor/outdoor water park attached to the hotel, accessible to hotel guests and as part of the park ticket. I've been thinking about a botanical gardens/greenhouse complex, a walk-through attraction aside from the park. Is that enough?
I don't think so. If it were, Six Flags Great America would be a destination. It's a fun amusement park with a low level of theming, with an attached water park included with park admission, and a ton of hotels around it. There is a large shopping complex/outlet mall called Gurnee Mills. And though I'm not aware of everything in the area, I am pretty sure there are a bunch of low level tourist-trap type things to do.
The Wisconsin Dells is a tourist destination, mostly due to their mix of huge water park hotels, their nature based outdoor activities (boat tours of the Dells and "Duck" tours of the area), a couple of smaller amusement parks, and plenty of tourist trap activities like miniature golf and go-carts and panning for "gemstones", not to mention a winery and an Indian casino nearby and the Tommy Bartlett Water Show and a ski "resort" (Christmas Mountain) all in the area. It's an area that gets plenty of traffic, albeit mostly from the surrounding midwest states, year around.
What is there to recommend my town as a destination other than my imaginary park and entertainment complex? Well, there is a nice minor league baseball stadium with a pretty bad independent Northern League baseball team playing there. There are two casinos, a Harrah's and the Empress casinos. There is a world class city within an hour of the area, and a lot of other attractions within 45 minutes. But not much right here.
Why would people choose to stay at my imagined hotel? Answer: They probably wouldn't. There just isn't enough to recommend the park or the area as a long term destination, long weekend or week-long trip. It's the part I really didn't think about enough.
More thought is needed on this subject. Thanks for reading, if you got this far...
Anyway, I was on vacation last week in New York City (more blog entries to come about things from that trip that may or may not relate to Disney...) and read my newest acquisition, Project Future, by Chad Denver Emerson on the flight there and then before bed for a few nights, finishing it on Wednesday (I think). A very interesting, if a bit dry, book about the process of getting Walt Disney World's construction off the ground, in the purchasing phase of the project, and in the legislative phase also, which I'll be writing about in a little more depth in the future.
But it occurred to me as I read it that there was something I neglected to take into consideration as I wrote my arguments (with myself) that it was possible to develop such a theme park in my part of the country: the guests, customers, whatever you want to call them. What would make them want to come here?
When Disney opened their theme park in California, it was really the only game in town. There were certainly other amusement parks in California, and in the United States, but NOTHING like Disney, which was a place where one could go to experience the worlds of those beloved films that had been produced by the studios. That "new" communication medium, television, was also available to promote the parks, and Walt Disney used it effectively, before anyone else really even knew its power.
So I think Disneyland did become a destination, not just because of the park but because of the location of the park, in a part of the United States that was a desirable vacation destination. And when Walt Disney decided to build the Florida Project, he was thinking in terms of creating another huge tourist destination. "Control" was a word used a lot throughout the Project Future book. He didn't want the cheesy motels and food stands that had blighted his park in California. He wanted guests to come stay with him for a while, and go home satisfied. Even after his death, a lot of the strategy focused on making WDW a tourist destination rather than simply a stop. And it was a strategy that worked.
So what would make a theme park in my part of the country a "destination"? Unfortunately, nothing, at least not the way I've imagined it. I've been thinking in terms of a single indoor theme park with a high level of quality attractions enclosed and a strong overriding theme. I've been thinking of a single hotel, possibly attached to the park. I've been thinking of an indoor/outdoor water park attached to the hotel, accessible to hotel guests and as part of the park ticket. I've been thinking about a botanical gardens/greenhouse complex, a walk-through attraction aside from the park. Is that enough?
I don't think so. If it were, Six Flags Great America would be a destination. It's a fun amusement park with a low level of theming, with an attached water park included with park admission, and a ton of hotels around it. There is a large shopping complex/outlet mall called Gurnee Mills. And though I'm not aware of everything in the area, I am pretty sure there are a bunch of low level tourist-trap type things to do.
The Wisconsin Dells is a tourist destination, mostly due to their mix of huge water park hotels, their nature based outdoor activities (boat tours of the Dells and "Duck" tours of the area), a couple of smaller amusement parks, and plenty of tourist trap activities like miniature golf and go-carts and panning for "gemstones", not to mention a winery and an Indian casino nearby and the Tommy Bartlett Water Show and a ski "resort" (Christmas Mountain) all in the area. It's an area that gets plenty of traffic, albeit mostly from the surrounding midwest states, year around.
What is there to recommend my town as a destination other than my imaginary park and entertainment complex? Well, there is a nice minor league baseball stadium with a pretty bad independent Northern League baseball team playing there. There are two casinos, a Harrah's and the Empress casinos. There is a world class city within an hour of the area, and a lot of other attractions within 45 minutes. But not much right here.
Why would people choose to stay at my imagined hotel? Answer: They probably wouldn't. There just isn't enough to recommend the park or the area as a long term destination, long weekend or week-long trip. It's the part I really didn't think about enough.
More thought is needed on this subject. Thanks for reading, if you got this far...
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
UTOPIA by Lincoln Child
Here's an interesting book - written by one of the creators of the Pendergast novels, Lincoln Child tells a thrilling story centered in the ultimate theme park, known as Utopia. For the most part, this is a caper novel, about a group of "terrorists" who threaten to kill and maim theme park visitors if they are not given the keys to the advanced holographic technologies that make the park so unique. And it was a good read, one which I tackled a couple years ago, and skimmed yesterday.
But I didn't want to post about it here on Disney Fan Ramblings in order to simply review the book. Though I did not note any direct comparisons by the author to Disney theme parks, I thought the parallels were obvious in many places.
Not the least of which is the driving force for Utopia. We are introduced early in the book to a hologram of Eric Nightingale, the "visionary" behind the creation of Utopia. Nightingale started out as a professional magician and creator of two cartoon series based on his old magic act, and used his "star power" to bring together a group of "corporations and venture capitalists" to form the "Utopia Holding Company". At the time of the book, Nightingale has been dead for more than a year, having been killed in a plane crash six months before his park opened.
The hologram addresses an assembly of scientists there to work on things at the park, in a sort of oriention presentation, and tells them that what he wants to provide at Utopia is a "fully immersive experience - a utopian experience which educates while it delights..." That sounds familiar, doesn't it? The words could be coming out of Walt's mouth. He goes on to say that he wants to achieve this goal without the used of "gimmicky rides or cheap amusement park thrills." That, in turn, sounds like the criticism I read so often on blogs critical of Disney today. To create this immersion, the park relies on advanced robotics - far beyond anything used in Disney - and breakthrough technology in holographics and video.
A map at the beginning of the book shows four part to the park, each accessible from a "corridor" called the "Nexus". The future world is called "Callisto" and is a space port. Another world is "Camelot", with dragons and castles. A third world is "Boardwalk", a "turn of the century seaside amusement park" while the fourth is called "Gaslight", a Jack-the-Ripper era English town. Expansion is planned to include a fifth world based on Atlantis.
The park is located in Nevada, a short drive from Las Vegas. As such, the place also incorporates casinos into its entertainment offerings (something it's mentioned that Eric Nightingale would have never approved of). It is also served by a monorail which brings visitors from Vegas to the park in the desert. Another detail mentioned in the book is that what seems to be the "ground" of the park is actually the fourth floor of the structure, built into a canyon. The entire park is covered by a dome.
I was struck by the number of times a main character observes, either in thought or aloud, that the park had become something that would cause Eric Nightingale to turn over in his grave. For example, main character Andrew Warne observes, as his daughter gushes about how awesome the place it, "The place is just...All these rides, all these shops. It's so commercial. Nightingale would turn in his grave." This brings Warne, who knew Nightingale personally (Warne is the inventor of the Metanet, the AI programming that makes sure the robotics work and "learn") to reflect upon Nightingale's vision.
In another part of the book, Warne is bemoaning the decision to take his Metanet off line, the equivalent of killing it, with the park's sole robotics scientist, Teresa Bonifacio, and they are talking about how holographics have replaced robotics as the main thrust of the park's technology. Teresa says,
Again, doesn't this description sound a lot like someone talking about the Walt Disney who dreamed about EPCOT in Florida?
Well, I don't want to get too deep into the plot of the book, which is, by the way, a page turner. But I thought that the ideas about the future of theme park development and the maps (alas, I don't have images of them) at the beginning of the book make for interesting reading for anyone interested in imagineering and theme park design.
*****
But I didn't want to post about it here on Disney Fan Ramblings in order to simply review the book. Though I did not note any direct comparisons by the author to Disney theme parks, I thought the parallels were obvious in many places.
Not the least of which is the driving force for Utopia. We are introduced early in the book to a hologram of Eric Nightingale, the "visionary" behind the creation of Utopia. Nightingale started out as a professional magician and creator of two cartoon series based on his old magic act, and used his "star power" to bring together a group of "corporations and venture capitalists" to form the "Utopia Holding Company". At the time of the book, Nightingale has been dead for more than a year, having been killed in a plane crash six months before his park opened.
The hologram addresses an assembly of scientists there to work on things at the park, in a sort of oriention presentation, and tells them that what he wants to provide at Utopia is a "fully immersive experience - a utopian experience which educates while it delights..." That sounds familiar, doesn't it? The words could be coming out of Walt's mouth. He goes on to say that he wants to achieve this goal without the used of "gimmicky rides or cheap amusement park thrills." That, in turn, sounds like the criticism I read so often on blogs critical of Disney today. To create this immersion, the park relies on advanced robotics - far beyond anything used in Disney - and breakthrough technology in holographics and video.
A map at the beginning of the book shows four part to the park, each accessible from a "corridor" called the "Nexus". The future world is called "Callisto" and is a space port. Another world is "Camelot", with dragons and castles. A third world is "Boardwalk", a "turn of the century seaside amusement park" while the fourth is called "Gaslight", a Jack-the-Ripper era English town. Expansion is planned to include a fifth world based on Atlantis.
The park is located in Nevada, a short drive from Las Vegas. As such, the place also incorporates casinos into its entertainment offerings (something it's mentioned that Eric Nightingale would have never approved of). It is also served by a monorail which brings visitors from Vegas to the park in the desert. Another detail mentioned in the book is that what seems to be the "ground" of the park is actually the fourth floor of the structure, built into a canyon. The entire park is covered by a dome.
I was struck by the number of times a main character observes, either in thought or aloud, that the park had become something that would cause Eric Nightingale to turn over in his grave. For example, main character Andrew Warne observes, as his daughter gushes about how awesome the place it, "The place is just...All these rides, all these shops. It's so commercial. Nightingale would turn in his grave." This brings Warne, who knew Nightingale personally (Warne is the inventor of the Metanet, the AI programming that makes sure the robotics work and "learn") to reflect upon Nightingale's vision.
He wanted to create virtual worlds complete in every detail; past worlds, future worlds, that would instruct visitors as they entertained. Worlds that relied on immersiveness, not rides, to delight guests. A themed system, Nightingale had called it, that would use the latest advances in digital media, holograms, robotics, to weave its magic. And he'd wanted Warne to design the robotics substructure.
In another part of the book, Warne is bemoaning the decision to take his Metanet off line, the equivalent of killing it, with the park's sole robotics scientist, Teresa Bonifacio, and they are talking about how holographics have replaced robotics as the main thrust of the park's technology. Teresa says,
Nightingale was a visionary. He saw Utopia as more than a New Age theme park with fancy gadgets. He meant it as a crucible for new technology.
Again, doesn't this description sound a lot like someone talking about the Walt Disney who dreamed about EPCOT in Florida?
Well, I don't want to get too deep into the plot of the book, which is, by the way, a page turner. But I thought that the ideas about the future of theme park development and the maps (alas, I don't have images of them) at the beginning of the book make for interesting reading for anyone interested in imagineering and theme park design.
*****
Monday, January 4, 2010
Some ideas on stuff to fill a park...
When you think of Disney parks you usually think of the big attractions - or the iconic attractions...stuff like Pirates of the Caribbean, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, or maybe Tower of Terror or Soarin'. Or maybe you think of the iconic architectural and design features - Main Street USA, the Tree of Life, Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty Castle, or Spaceship Earth.
But you don't usually think of the little things. Oh, this is not to say that you don't notice them, or that the crazed Disney blogger doesn't think of this level of detail (because many of them do), just that when a casual or even not-so-casual fan thinks of Florida's theme parks, or of the Anaheim parks, the attractions and big stuff is what comes to mind.
And you need the big stuff - it's the trademark, the "weenie" as Walt would call it. But there is so much little detail in these parks that people will pay to look at, to enjoy, to make a part of the overall experience, and I don't have to tell this to a major Disney fan. They know it. They know where the stuff is, what it does, maybe some of the history of the details.
Some of it is Disney-specific, like the windows. Those names in the windows, along with the business they "advertise", that's Disney history. Only at a Disney park will you see something like that. But there are some details, some "smaller" things, that might translate to a smaller theme park.
I've always loved trains. There's a little train set-up back near the Germany pavilion in World Showcase that is always fun for me to look at for a few minutes (at least). Around Christmas my family usually goes to the John Hancock building in Chicago at least once to look at their model train set-up,and we stand there and stare at the trains and also at the other pieces that are in motion. And Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry has one of the biggest train set-ups in the world. There are always people crowded around these displays, studying the trains and the buildings and the details incorporated into the set-ups. The MSI's train setup tells us a story, that of transportation between Chicago and Seattle. The story includes the features of the lands between the two cities, as well as trying to represent the people and the towns between them.
I've often thought that those Department 56 village collections are cut from the same cloth. The level of detail you can incorporate in your village is limited only by your imagination and your artistic skill. The buildings are very fun to collect and put together in a representation of the town of your dreams.
Has anyone ever heard of a "Cabinet of Curiosities"? These were the forebears to our museums of natural history and collections. The House on the Rock in Spring Green, Wisconsin is sort of a "cabinet of curiosities", in that it presents collections of stuff that, while not authenticated or curated in a rigorous manner, give the viewer plenty to look at and wonder over. Douglas Preston and Lee Child used this phrase as the title of one of their Pendergast novels, and gave their readers a little historical insight into the existence of these collections. There is plenty to be curious about, and collecting and displaying this sort of stuff could be a lot of fun, for both the collector and one experiencing the collections.
I've always been interested in the technology that goes into rock concert stage shows. You know what I mean, we've been watching things explode up on stage there for years. Some cutting edge video technology is used nowadays. Sound system technology is very advanced. The instruments even get into the act. Could an exhibit like this be used in some sort of themed exhibition? Or maybe a "Rock Band" or "Band Hero" type of attraction?
I like the idea of a micro-zoo or a micro-botanical garden also. (I like the idea of a bigger version of both of these types of attractions, but we're talking about something that will fit within a theme park.) Depending on what the theme is, some sort of exhibit featuring animal life, or using plant life to give a lush-ness to the surroundings is highly desirable.
There is a big old device at the Museum of Science and Industry, I think it's called Jolly-Ball or something like that. It follows the progress of a ball through a big vertical board, where the ball rides down tracks, through troughs, through spirals, up elevators, in miniature streetcars, through a boat, and more. It takes about 5 minutes to complete its journey, and I've never seen it without a bunch of kids standing there watching it, or waiting for it to begin. My kids are usually right there in the front. It's hypnotic, to stand there and watch the thing.
Stuff like this is the sort of stuff I could see using in a themed environment to give the guests plenty to look at besides experiencing whatever would be the signature attractions of the park. More thinking out loud coming...I think...
But you don't usually think of the little things. Oh, this is not to say that you don't notice them, or that the crazed Disney blogger doesn't think of this level of detail (because many of them do), just that when a casual or even not-so-casual fan thinks of Florida's theme parks, or of the Anaheim parks, the attractions and big stuff is what comes to mind.
And you need the big stuff - it's the trademark, the "weenie" as Walt would call it. But there is so much little detail in these parks that people will pay to look at, to enjoy, to make a part of the overall experience, and I don't have to tell this to a major Disney fan. They know it. They know where the stuff is, what it does, maybe some of the history of the details.
Some of it is Disney-specific, like the windows. Those names in the windows, along with the business they "advertise", that's Disney history. Only at a Disney park will you see something like that. But there are some details, some "smaller" things, that might translate to a smaller theme park.
I've always loved trains. There's a little train set-up back near the Germany pavilion in World Showcase that is always fun for me to look at for a few minutes (at least). Around Christmas my family usually goes to the John Hancock building in Chicago at least once to look at their model train set-up,and we stand there and stare at the trains and also at the other pieces that are in motion. And Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry has one of the biggest train set-ups in the world. There are always people crowded around these displays, studying the trains and the buildings and the details incorporated into the set-ups. The MSI's train setup tells us a story, that of transportation between Chicago and Seattle. The story includes the features of the lands between the two cities, as well as trying to represent the people and the towns between them.
I've often thought that those Department 56 village collections are cut from the same cloth. The level of detail you can incorporate in your village is limited only by your imagination and your artistic skill. The buildings are very fun to collect and put together in a representation of the town of your dreams.
Has anyone ever heard of a "Cabinet of Curiosities"? These were the forebears to our museums of natural history and collections. The House on the Rock in Spring Green, Wisconsin is sort of a "cabinet of curiosities", in that it presents collections of stuff that, while not authenticated or curated in a rigorous manner, give the viewer plenty to look at and wonder over. Douglas Preston and Lee Child used this phrase as the title of one of their Pendergast novels, and gave their readers a little historical insight into the existence of these collections. There is plenty to be curious about, and collecting and displaying this sort of stuff could be a lot of fun, for both the collector and one experiencing the collections.
I've always been interested in the technology that goes into rock concert stage shows. You know what I mean, we've been watching things explode up on stage there for years. Some cutting edge video technology is used nowadays. Sound system technology is very advanced. The instruments even get into the act. Could an exhibit like this be used in some sort of themed exhibition? Or maybe a "Rock Band" or "Band Hero" type of attraction?
I like the idea of a micro-zoo or a micro-botanical garden also. (I like the idea of a bigger version of both of these types of attractions, but we're talking about something that will fit within a theme park.) Depending on what the theme is, some sort of exhibit featuring animal life, or using plant life to give a lush-ness to the surroundings is highly desirable.
There is a big old device at the Museum of Science and Industry, I think it's called Jolly-Ball or something like that. It follows the progress of a ball through a big vertical board, where the ball rides down tracks, through troughs, through spirals, up elevators, in miniature streetcars, through a boat, and more. It takes about 5 minutes to complete its journey, and I've never seen it without a bunch of kids standing there watching it, or waiting for it to begin. My kids are usually right there in the front. It's hypnotic, to stand there and watch the thing.
Stuff like this is the sort of stuff I could see using in a themed environment to give the guests plenty to look at besides experiencing whatever would be the signature attractions of the park. More thinking out loud coming...I think...
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
So what's on the agenda for this theme park?
In the last few posts, I sort of convinced myself (if no one else) that designing and developing some sort of themed entertainment concept in my part of the world (the Chicagoland area) is possible and while success isn't a given, it isn't totally impossible, either.
I also argued that there were only two types of layout that would work. One would be to more or less copy EPCOT's basic idea of pavilions separated by beautifully decorated common areas and walkways. All "attractions" are located indoors, with perhaps a few notable exceptions (which haven't been determined at all). The other model would be a totally enclosed structure, sort of like Mall of America, or like what developers tried to do with Old Chicago, a theme park in Bolingbrook, IL.
And in the last post, I considered (very superficially) the reasons for failures of amusement parks around the country, and decided that most of it had to do with the places getting stale. Any park of this sort, or even any museum or attraction, has to depend on repeat business. Change is going to have to drive the attendance of these types of customers/guests. The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago is popular because they are constantly changing the special exhibits and the films that can be viewed there, and because the permanent exhibits occasionally get updated or redone completely in some cases. (For example, there has always been an exhibit on biology, with a heart model you can walk through, on the mezzanine which has been totally redone, and which my family and I will likely see next weekend.)
I have a couple of ideas for content of this project. I think they can be made sufficiently broad to encompass a lot of quality exhibits and attractions. Whether they can support the kind of change that would be required remains to be thought through.
About a year ago, I posted that we had visited Legoland Schaumburg, located near the very large enclosed shopping mall called Woodfield. Legoland in Illinois is a large enclosed space in a strip mall. They charge something between 20 and 30 bucks to get in. They have a walk through attraction at the beginning, with all sorts of large scale Lego creations. They have a dark ride through a Lego-based story (I can't recall the content now), they have a 3-D theater with an animated Lego-type story, they have a "Lego Factory Tour" where you crowd into a smallish room and see Lego's being "created". There is a play area where kids can build with Legos and run their creations on ramps, similar to the facility in Downtown Disney. There is a snack bar, and a Lego store. There are also, spread throughout the facility, several large scale Lego figures built by their artists.
When I look at what they have to offer, it doesn't sound like much. We'll have to do better than this in our theme park. We have to offer unique attractions that entertain families, that can hold the interest of the teens, and that can be run indoors, since we can't do any massive outdoor types of thrill rides, at least not to start out. It would be cool to add something "like" Rock'n'Roller Coaster later, perhaps, as one of those upgrades, something themed to our park of course.
I don't know how much of my ideas I want to post here. Probably I should just post everything, since I'm non exactly inundated with readers...it's not like anything I post is very likely to end up in the hands of someone else anyway. ("Hey, let's go read that Disney Fan Ramblings blog to get ideas for our new entertainment concept! He's got the best ideas and he's putting them out for us to borrow from freely!!!" Yeah, that's likely to happen...more likely is "Look at the lame ideas this guy has! At last we get some comic relief!" ) Still, I think I'll just keep arguing with myself here and sort of working some of this stuff out in print. Look for more posts on this thread sometime soon...
I also argued that there were only two types of layout that would work. One would be to more or less copy EPCOT's basic idea of pavilions separated by beautifully decorated common areas and walkways. All "attractions" are located indoors, with perhaps a few notable exceptions (which haven't been determined at all). The other model would be a totally enclosed structure, sort of like Mall of America, or like what developers tried to do with Old Chicago, a theme park in Bolingbrook, IL.
And in the last post, I considered (very superficially) the reasons for failures of amusement parks around the country, and decided that most of it had to do with the places getting stale. Any park of this sort, or even any museum or attraction, has to depend on repeat business. Change is going to have to drive the attendance of these types of customers/guests. The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago is popular because they are constantly changing the special exhibits and the films that can be viewed there, and because the permanent exhibits occasionally get updated or redone completely in some cases. (For example, there has always been an exhibit on biology, with a heart model you can walk through, on the mezzanine which has been totally redone, and which my family and I will likely see next weekend.)
I have a couple of ideas for content of this project. I think they can be made sufficiently broad to encompass a lot of quality exhibits and attractions. Whether they can support the kind of change that would be required remains to be thought through.
About a year ago, I posted that we had visited Legoland Schaumburg, located near the very large enclosed shopping mall called Woodfield. Legoland in Illinois is a large enclosed space in a strip mall. They charge something between 20 and 30 bucks to get in. They have a walk through attraction at the beginning, with all sorts of large scale Lego creations. They have a dark ride through a Lego-based story (I can't recall the content now), they have a 3-D theater with an animated Lego-type story, they have a "Lego Factory Tour" where you crowd into a smallish room and see Lego's being "created". There is a play area where kids can build with Legos and run their creations on ramps, similar to the facility in Downtown Disney. There is a snack bar, and a Lego store. There are also, spread throughout the facility, several large scale Lego figures built by their artists.
When I look at what they have to offer, it doesn't sound like much. We'll have to do better than this in our theme park. We have to offer unique attractions that entertain families, that can hold the interest of the teens, and that can be run indoors, since we can't do any massive outdoor types of thrill rides, at least not to start out. It would be cool to add something "like" Rock'n'Roller Coaster later, perhaps, as one of those upgrades, something themed to our park of course.
I don't know how much of my ideas I want to post here. Probably I should just post everything, since I'm non exactly inundated with readers...it's not like anything I post is very likely to end up in the hands of someone else anyway. ("Hey, let's go read that Disney Fan Ramblings blog to get ideas for our new entertainment concept! He's got the best ideas and he's putting them out for us to borrow from freely!!!" Yeah, that's likely to happen...more likely is "Look at the lame ideas this guy has! At last we get some comic relief!" ) Still, I think I'll just keep arguing with myself here and sort of working some of this stuff out in print. Look for more posts on this thread sometime soon...
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
More ramblings on designing a theme park...
In the last post, I sort of rambled on about whether it would even be possible to design a "theme park" for a small midwestern town near Chicago. There are challenges, to be sure. But aren't there challenges anywhere? The major challenge for Walt Disney, it seems, was simply that no one had really ever done what he was trying to do. Everyone said it was a folly; it would not be a success. No way. But Walt proved the naysayers wrong, simply by doing it the way he believed would be best, and, maybe more importantly, the way it would have entertainment value and interest for him.
Then the challenges in Florida, not the least of which was how to build a theme park on swamp land. That challenge entailed a massive engineering effort to drain the land and create "lakes" and "rivers" where marshes had previously existed. He had the economic power to get certain concessions from the Florida state government, basically making him his own local governing agency.
The challenges in the upper midwest mostly involve the weather, assuming that land could be acquired and governments and civic organizations could be gotten on board. There are plenty of amusement parks in this part of the country. But they operate seasonally, closing for good by (at the latest) early November, and reopening in the spring, usually in April for weekends only. I personally wouldn't want my theme park to be a half year enterprise. I'd like to operate year round.
This limitation gives me two possibilities. First, a completely enclosed structure could be built. As I mentioned in a previous post, Disney considered making a theme park in St. Louis, where the weather is a little better than here, but where it is still a factor. When he considered this location, imagineers apparently drew up plans for a four story building, one square city block in size. (A Haunted Mansion was to be the focal point of that park.) Imagineers apparently also pulled out those plans when designing the "World Bazaar" for Tokyo Disneyland.
As some (including the author of Futureprobe, in response to that aforementioned post) have noted, enclosed structures have been done on a large scale. The Mall of America is one such structure. I've never been to that one, but I have been to other large-scale malls (there are many around the Chicagoland area) and one completely enclosed amusement park, done in the 1970's, called " Old Chicago". This park was in suburban Bolingbrook, and consisted of a "mall" with stores around the outside, and a fairly large amusement park in the central open area. Attractions included a rollercoaster with a couple of corkscrew type inversions, a log flume ride, several spinning rides, and other standard amusement park attractions, like a carousel and (I believe) a ferris wheel. That particular park wasn't profitable in the end, partly because the amusement park part couldn't compete with Great America and other area parks, and the mall part certainly couldn't compete with places like Woodfield and Yorktown. Neither one was good enough. About the only thing it had going for it was that it could operate year round, and as a high school kid at that time, I can tell you that it was a popular destination for our group outings and date nights in the winter months.
The second possibility is to mimic EPCOT and design a multi-acre park that consists of wonderful landscaping and pavilions which host the attractions. I am partial to this sort of design, but it too has limits. First, it requires a bunch of land compared to that enclosed structure. Second, the weather will play a role in wintertime usage, where you'd have to contend with snow packed walkways. A day like yesterday, for example, in the Chicagoland area, would see snow falling gently all day. But we've also seen near blizzard conditions.
I suppose that EPCOT in Florida has to contend with hurricane season down there. I was actually at Disney in 2004 (I think) when Hurricane Jeanne hit. We were staying at the Port Orleans, got in a few hours before they closed the airports. The tollway booths were abandoned; you simply drove right through. We got to WDW and were told that the parks were closed (we realized this would be the case) and that we'd better plan on staying in our room all day on Sunday. We provisioned up with cereals and non-perishable foods, a small styrofoam cooler (that we overpaid for) for milk and such for the kids, and some bottled water. Then we got to watch the trees parallel the ground for most of the day, until about 5 or 6 pm, when we could go outside finally. The parks opened the next day, and obviously they weren't terribly crowded.
Anyway, with preparation, and maybe walkways that could be covered, possibly heated, good drainage, etc etc, you could make open spaces that would be as beautiful in the winter as they would be in the summer. I like this idea. But it seems far less do-able to me than simply enclosing the entire structure from the get-go.
Water parks and some of Disney's own location based entertainment ideas seem to suggest that this is feasible. And since we're just pipe-dreaming here, we'll forget about the costs involved for now, and just concentrate on whether something like this could be accomplished from the technical and engineering standpoint.
See? Isn't this fun?
Then the challenges in Florida, not the least of which was how to build a theme park on swamp land. That challenge entailed a massive engineering effort to drain the land and create "lakes" and "rivers" where marshes had previously existed. He had the economic power to get certain concessions from the Florida state government, basically making him his own local governing agency.
The challenges in the upper midwest mostly involve the weather, assuming that land could be acquired and governments and civic organizations could be gotten on board. There are plenty of amusement parks in this part of the country. But they operate seasonally, closing for good by (at the latest) early November, and reopening in the spring, usually in April for weekends only. I personally wouldn't want my theme park to be a half year enterprise. I'd like to operate year round.
This limitation gives me two possibilities. First, a completely enclosed structure could be built. As I mentioned in a previous post, Disney considered making a theme park in St. Louis, where the weather is a little better than here, but where it is still a factor. When he considered this location, imagineers apparently drew up plans for a four story building, one square city block in size. (A Haunted Mansion was to be the focal point of that park.) Imagineers apparently also pulled out those plans when designing the "World Bazaar" for Tokyo Disneyland.
As some (including the author of Futureprobe, in response to that aforementioned post) have noted, enclosed structures have been done on a large scale. The Mall of America is one such structure. I've never been to that one, but I have been to other large-scale malls (there are many around the Chicagoland area) and one completely enclosed amusement park, done in the 1970's, called " Old Chicago". This park was in suburban Bolingbrook, and consisted of a "mall" with stores around the outside, and a fairly large amusement park in the central open area. Attractions included a rollercoaster with a couple of corkscrew type inversions, a log flume ride, several spinning rides, and other standard amusement park attractions, like a carousel and (I believe) a ferris wheel. That particular park wasn't profitable in the end, partly because the amusement park part couldn't compete with Great America and other area parks, and the mall part certainly couldn't compete with places like Woodfield and Yorktown. Neither one was good enough. About the only thing it had going for it was that it could operate year round, and as a high school kid at that time, I can tell you that it was a popular destination for our group outings and date nights in the winter months.
The second possibility is to mimic EPCOT and design a multi-acre park that consists of wonderful landscaping and pavilions which host the attractions. I am partial to this sort of design, but it too has limits. First, it requires a bunch of land compared to that enclosed structure. Second, the weather will play a role in wintertime usage, where you'd have to contend with snow packed walkways. A day like yesterday, for example, in the Chicagoland area, would see snow falling gently all day. But we've also seen near blizzard conditions.
I suppose that EPCOT in Florida has to contend with hurricane season down there. I was actually at Disney in 2004 (I think) when Hurricane Jeanne hit. We were staying at the Port Orleans, got in a few hours before they closed the airports. The tollway booths were abandoned; you simply drove right through. We got to WDW and were told that the parks were closed (we realized this would be the case) and that we'd better plan on staying in our room all day on Sunday. We provisioned up with cereals and non-perishable foods, a small styrofoam cooler (that we overpaid for) for milk and such for the kids, and some bottled water. Then we got to watch the trees parallel the ground for most of the day, until about 5 or 6 pm, when we could go outside finally. The parks opened the next day, and obviously they weren't terribly crowded.
Anyway, with preparation, and maybe walkways that could be covered, possibly heated, good drainage, etc etc, you could make open spaces that would be as beautiful in the winter as they would be in the summer. I like this idea. But it seems far less do-able to me than simply enclosing the entire structure from the get-go.
Water parks and some of Disney's own location based entertainment ideas seem to suggest that this is feasible. And since we're just pipe-dreaming here, we'll forget about the costs involved for now, and just concentrate on whether something like this could be accomplished from the technical and engineering standpoint.
See? Isn't this fun?
Saturday, August 1, 2009
D23 magazine and cold weather parks
My 3rd issue (well, 2nd for me - I bought the first at the Disney store) of D23 came a couple of days ago and I finished a fairly thorough read of it last night. Some good articles, including a nice on on the Blue Bayou and its genesis, and one on the Walt Disney Family Museum in San Francisco's Presidio.
I really enjoyed the cover story on the Haunted Mansion, which told bunches of interesting stories gathered from interviews from Imagineers involved in the building of it. One of the neat tales was about Wally Boag (the star of the review in Frontierland) suggesting that they put a phone booth out front, have it ring periodically, and when someone answered it, have the "caller" make a scary phone call from "inside" the Mansion, which hadn't opened yet.
Another tidbit, almost sort of buried in the article except for the fact that there was an illustration of the blueprint of a portion of the project, was that a Haunted Mansion would have been the "weenie" of the imagined indoor theme park in St. Louis. Of course, this park never got past the imagineering stages as the "Florida Project" became Walt's and the company's focus, and we all know what happened there.
I was interested in the details: the park would have been a totally enclosed, one city block structure, 4 stories high, and would have contained representations of New Orleans and St. Louis Squares. It was not detailed much further than this, and on the map that they pictured, there was an allusion to a "basement attraction" but no others besides the Haunted Mansion were discussed. It was also to have a Blue Bayou-type ceiling.
Far as I know, there is STILL nothing like this in the world. But perhaps there should be.
I really enjoyed the cover story on the Haunted Mansion, which told bunches of interesting stories gathered from interviews from Imagineers involved in the building of it. One of the neat tales was about Wally Boag (the star of the review in Frontierland) suggesting that they put a phone booth out front, have it ring periodically, and when someone answered it, have the "caller" make a scary phone call from "inside" the Mansion, which hadn't opened yet.
Another tidbit, almost sort of buried in the article except for the fact that there was an illustration of the blueprint of a portion of the project, was that a Haunted Mansion would have been the "weenie" of the imagined indoor theme park in St. Louis. Of course, this park never got past the imagineering stages as the "Florida Project" became Walt's and the company's focus, and we all know what happened there.
I was interested in the details: the park would have been a totally enclosed, one city block structure, 4 stories high, and would have contained representations of New Orleans and St. Louis Squares. It was not detailed much further than this, and on the map that they pictured, there was an allusion to a "basement attraction" but no others besides the Haunted Mansion were discussed. It was also to have a Blue Bayou-type ceiling.
Far as I know, there is STILL nothing like this in the world. But perhaps there should be.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Legoland Schaumburg (IL)
Last summer we went to the relatively new Legoland in the Streets of Woodfield Mall in Schaumburg, Illinois. We were actually going to a Disney Vacation Club presentation about their new purchasing opportunities and the new stuff coming to Disney parks. (I had this premonition that we were going to win the grand prize of a vacation to WDW...shows you how accurate my premonitions are...)
Anyway, right next to the DVC home in Woodfield Mall was the Legoland, and, since my kids are 8 and 6, they began insisting we go there. They had been good, sitting through that DVC presentation (though there were parts of it they did enjoy), so we obliged. Besides, I was curious as to what it was.
From the outside, it looks pretty small. It does take up two floors, but a lot of it is a Lego store and the ticket taking and waiting area to get in. Once inside, it was bigger than it looked. You enter into a room with a scale model, in Legos, of the city of Chicago. There is also an area where the kids can control some cranes and vehicles. That's sort of a pre-show/waiting area to be admitted into the facility proper.
Once they admit the group you happen to be in, you walk into a pathway filled with full sized Lego creations, people, animals, and fantasy creatures. It's an area that the kids can touch and play on things, but there is not much to it.
When you exit that area, you see some more full sized figures. If I recall correctly, there were Star Wars figures, a Batman figure, and another character - Spiderman? I don't remember too well, though we probably have some photos of the figures.
Then you can visit the "attractions" such as they are. There is a dark ride through a medieval sort of scene where all the animatronics are made of Legos. It was not exactly Disney-quality, but it was pretty good. There is a 3D movie about an adventure of a Lego boy who has to go save a princess and fight an evil sorcerer. There is a tour of the Lego "factory", where you get a Lego brick at the end of the show. And there is a hands on area for creating Lego vehicles, much like you'll find at the Lego store in Downtown Disney, with ramps to run them on and bins of parts all over the place. There's a snack bar in the same room with the Lego parts, and of course you exit through the store.
It's a bit pricey for what they have, but the attractions are fairly good (if not Disney) quality.
I've never been to the Legoland in California, but I have to think that this is nothing like it, really....probably hard to compare the two.
The thought came to me that, what if one could create something like this, themed originally, of course, in my area? I think it could be a huge success. It has to be all indoors, obviously, but it is in interesting thought experiment.
Anyway, right next to the DVC home in Woodfield Mall was the Legoland, and, since my kids are 8 and 6, they began insisting we go there. They had been good, sitting through that DVC presentation (though there were parts of it they did enjoy), so we obliged. Besides, I was curious as to what it was.
From the outside, it looks pretty small. It does take up two floors, but a lot of it is a Lego store and the ticket taking and waiting area to get in. Once inside, it was bigger than it looked. You enter into a room with a scale model, in Legos, of the city of Chicago. There is also an area where the kids can control some cranes and vehicles. That's sort of a pre-show/waiting area to be admitted into the facility proper.
Once they admit the group you happen to be in, you walk into a pathway filled with full sized Lego creations, people, animals, and fantasy creatures. It's an area that the kids can touch and play on things, but there is not much to it.
When you exit that area, you see some more full sized figures. If I recall correctly, there were Star Wars figures, a Batman figure, and another character - Spiderman? I don't remember too well, though we probably have some photos of the figures.
Then you can visit the "attractions" such as they are. There is a dark ride through a medieval sort of scene where all the animatronics are made of Legos. It was not exactly Disney-quality, but it was pretty good. There is a 3D movie about an adventure of a Lego boy who has to go save a princess and fight an evil sorcerer. There is a tour of the Lego "factory", where you get a Lego brick at the end of the show. And there is a hands on area for creating Lego vehicles, much like you'll find at the Lego store in Downtown Disney, with ramps to run them on and bins of parts all over the place. There's a snack bar in the same room with the Lego parts, and of course you exit through the store.
It's a bit pricey for what they have, but the attractions are fairly good (if not Disney) quality.
I've never been to the Legoland in California, but I have to think that this is nothing like it, really....probably hard to compare the two.
The thought came to me that, what if one could create something like this, themed originally, of course, in my area? I think it could be a huge success. It has to be all indoors, obviously, but it is in interesting thought experiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
