PDA

View Full Version : Westcot was not to be



Cadaverous Pallor
09-30-2003, 09:20 AM
http://www.jimhillmedia.com/legacy/index.htm?../articles/archive.0005-3.1.htm~contentFrame

Andrew provided the above link in another thread. It leads to a great article on why DCA isn't exactly a jewel in the Disney crown. I knew the general story before but this shows a lot more detail. I read from the linked page on to the last page.

I admit I didn't know the name Barry Braverman before, but now I'll never forget it. We blame a lot on Pressler but it looks like he had a partner in crime. And I can't believe that they actually wanted to build a theme park without Imagineers. Imagine what THAT would have been like!

I also now know that we never would have had a Westcot or a full-scale DisneySea in Anaheim. The neighbors will not stand for it. It was their protests that brought Westcot to it's knees. This saddens me, but I guess that's what happens when you build a new theme park near homes. I wish Disney had just bought out miles around so that there wouldn't be neighbors to begin with.....<grumble grumble>

Of course we can also blame EuroDisney, but by the looks of things it was really the neighbors that killed Westcot.

I do have one issue with the article - when describing the glory that would have been Westcot, it mentions numerous attractions that would have been borrowed from Epcot. But when condemning DCA, it says that borrowing attractions from Florida isn't a good idea. Pick a side! :confused: The rest of the Westcot description didn't impress me very much - too few rides and new ideas. Of course this was all early planning stage stuff, but I don't think it's enough info to prove the article's point - that this early planning was the reason we feel so gypped with DCA.

Ah, what a tragedy the whole thing is. :(

GREGOR
09-30-2003, 10:09 AM
Somebody posted this link a while ago. It's the plan of the entire resort as they envisioned it. It includes the hotels, Disneyland Center & lake, Disneyland Plaza & amphitheater, and Westcot (oh, and Disneyland too). It looks really great. Too bad...:crying:

http://rotocat.tripod.com/westcot.htm
.

SacTown Chronic
09-30-2003, 10:10 AM
Moral of the story:

As anyone over the age of 12 knows, you have got to spend money to make money. Disney did not spend money on DCA, now they are not making money with DCA. Eisner scratches head and says "huh, that kinda makes sense".



NIMB:

This stands for Not In My Backyard. This phenomenon makes sense when you are discussing a prison or nuclear reactor. But a Disney park? This Anaheim HOME group shot itself in the foot over that one. They could have negotiated for new schools and maybe some lifetime AP's. Oh well, now they have DCA to look at every day.

Lost Boy
09-30-2003, 10:23 AM
Well, it looks like building Disney Parks without Imagineers is coming true, at least at Disneyland. Cynthia Harris announced last week that Tower of Terror would be the last attraction that Disneyland would allow the Imagineers to build at the Disneyland Resort. From now on everthing will be "outsourced". Of course, Paul Pressler said the same thing after the new Boat House was built. And they went right ahead and built Indiana Jones. So, who knows what they are thinking now.

Andrew
09-30-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Lost Boy
Cynthia Harris announced last week that Tower of Terror would be the last attraction that Disneyland would allow the Imagineers to build at the Disneyland Resort. From now on everthing will be "outsourced".

Do you have a cite or press release or something for this?

GREGOR
09-30-2003, 10:36 AM
re: NIMB

Too bad the Anaheim officials at the time didn't come up with the mis-use of eminent domain like they're doing here in Cleveland. They could've come up with an impossible list of criteria that would've designated those homes as blighted and forced them to sell. Then, they could've sold the land to Disney, all in the name of "benefiting the community". Disney could've had all the land they needed!:D

dshimel
09-30-2003, 12:58 PM
When I bought my house in Colorado Springs, it was in the glide path of the COS Airport and Peterson Air Force Base that share the runways. The city was always fighting with the airlines and the AFB to prevent as many loud planes from landing at night as possible. The Federal government could fine the state and city for "noise polution". They rerouted most flights, but had to come over my house whenever the winds were blowing strong enough from the South.

Hey, I bought my house knowing the airport was there. I got a good deal on it too. The Fed shouldn't be fining people for waking me up, just because I bought a house in the glide path.

I think the same goes for anyone that bought a house near Disneyland anytime since 1955. You bought a house next to a Disney theme park, knowing it was there. Shut up about traffic and fireworks and noise and whatever. Now, anyone that was there before 1955 (which is no one since it was all orange groves) has a right to complain.

Disneyphile
09-30-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by dshimel
I think the same goes for anyone that bought a house near Disneyland anytime since 1955. You bought a house next to a Disney theme park, knowing it was there. Shut up about traffic and fireworks and noise and whatever. Now, anyone that was there before 1955 (which is no one since it was all orange groves) has a right to complain.
My sentiments exactly! :D

Heck, I'd LOVE to live near Disneyland. I'd be there everyday to unwind from work. :) As for the fireworks, I'd build a rooftop patio just for the viewing! :fez:

malin
09-30-2003, 01:13 PM
Isn't the new look Space Mountain being design by WDI?

Westcot was supposed to of been based on the same concept as Epcot.Well with the recent problems that Epcot has been facing,read more here http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/custom/tourism/orl-asecdisney27092703sep27,0,4980931.story?coll=orl-business-headlines-tourism

My question is if Disney has gone ahead and built Westcot,would it now be facing the same problems as Epcot and DCA.I think there is a chance it might be.

Cadaverous Pallor
09-30-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by GREGOR
Somebody posted this link a while ago. It's the plan of the entire resort as they envisioned it. It includes the hotels, Disneyland Center & lake, Disneyland Plaza & amphitheater, and Westcot (oh, and Disneyland too). It looks really great. Too bad...:crying:

http://rotocat.tripod.com/westcot.htm
. Cool link! The map backs up the article, in that it includes a bunch of land that Disney didn't even own. They went about it all wrong - they should have acquired all the land first, then started making maps. When the landowners found out about the maps, they were pretty miffed.

I hate NIMBys. They're the same people that complain that Disneyland has fireworks. Like others said, it's been there since '55, get a freakin' clue.

DBJ
09-30-2003, 01:57 PM
Wow, great article. A very interesting read.

Ironic though that Epcot is trying to re-make over it's image into a more thrill oriented park with Test Track, Soarin' 2, the rumored Project Gemini. While conceptually strong, I would think that if they modeled the attraction mix of Westcot too closely to Epcot it would not be a success.

I think the Imagineers were on the right track with DisneySeas however, and as history has proven, DisneySeas is the by far the more successful concept. But, isn't that the case that the shortsightedness of the upper management of the parks has created their own problems with AK, Disney Studios Paris, DCA?

By cutting budgest short in the beginnings of the park's development, they wind up instantly alienating the potential fanbase of the new parks and then scramble to add attractions to draw people back. First impressions can be deadly.

I also think that DCA could have been successful as a clone or off the shelf ride park, only if they would have been more creative in the installation of their clones and picked better rides to install. GRR is an example of a well done clone. The basic technology behind the ride is similar to other raft rides at other theme parks, but the theme elevates it.

Universal's Islands of Adventure is a good example of "clone" park. Dueling Dragons is a similar ride to any other inverted coaster at it's core, but the idea of having two inverted coasters deuling combined with the theming elevates it above the competition. The Hulk, again a traditional coaster core, but combined with a theme and a custom launch, raises it. Spiderman took the idea of the 4D film, tweaked it with an original concept for a ride vehicle, and came out with a winner.

DCA was an opportunity to take the best examples of what is out there in the theme park world and combine it into one park. While there is still a chance that such vision may one day return to the parks in the US, I don't think it can happen under Disney's current management.

Matt Hamand
10-01-2003, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by dshimel

I think the same goes for anyone that bought a house near Disneyland anytime since 1955. You bought a house next to a Disney theme park, knowing it was there. Shut up about traffic and fireworks and noise and whatever. Now, anyone that was there before 1955 (which is no one since it was all orange groves) has a right to complain. [/B]

I have as little sympathy for NIMBY people as the next guy but I do think that there is a difference between buying a house next to Disneyland and buying a house next to the Disney Mega resort. Not the same thing at all.

Matt

unoriginal
10-01-2003, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Matt Hamand
I have as little sympathy for NIMBY people as the next guy but I do think that there is a difference between buying a house next to Disneyland and buying a house next to the Disney Mega resort. Not the same thing at all.

Exactly, Disney wasn't just proposing to expand DL. They wanted to double perhaps even triple the size of the resort. That would definitely impact the local neighborhoods, doesn't seem to matter if you were a NIMBY or not.

Morrigoon
10-01-2003, 04:28 PM
Nope, sorry. You buy a house near a Disney park, you know what that entails. Don't like it? Sell! Lots of people would like to live near a Disney park.

Mr. Wiggins
10-01-2003, 05:19 PM
Having followed the flap in the press at that time, I think Westcot's bad rap was as much a result of how Disney handled homeowners, politicians and the press as it was NIMBYs or the daunting size of the park.

Remember that up to that time the public image of Disney was of kindly Uncle Walt. Westcot was the public's first exposure to the high-handed "take it or leave it" brand of hardball that typified the business attitude of the new Disney. Folks were at first bewildered, then dismayed, then just plain p.o.'d. More than any other single factor, the company's combative style of business and arrogant dealings with neighborhood groups created in Orange County a de facto confederacy of Disney dislikers -- politicos, residents and press -- who previously were Disney supporters and even partisans.

innerSpaceman
10-01-2003, 07:29 PM
Ok, then, but I still don't get it. Was the community uncooperativeness the cause for a 2nd theme park that purposesly would not create crowds and traffic and neighborhood clamor? Was DCA chosen so that it would be a relative failure in order to appease the local homeowners and businesses?

Because, and correct me if I'm wrong, the footprint of the Westcot version of the Resort and the footprint of the current resort are pretty much the same, no? Disney property would still have been bound by Katella to the south (and of course by Disneyland to the north). I don't think the western boundary went any further outward than the western end of the current Disneyland Hotel property and the parking structure. And on the east ... well, the Harbor Freeway ain't going nowhere.

So what did the switch from Westcot to DCA have to do with anything relating to traffic patterns, neighborhood congestion, etc.? If I recall correctly, even the quantity of Disney hotels was to be the same as it is now. So what gives?

9oldmen
10-01-2003, 08:22 PM
So what did the switch from Westcot to DCA have to do with anything relating to traffic patterns, neighborhood congestion, etc.? If I recall correctly, even the quantity of Disney hotels was to be the same as it is now. So what gives?

Also, it sounds like that "Disney Arena" had nearly the same seating capacity as Hyperion. Maybe I'm wrong here. Also, the neighbors didn't want a 300 foot golden sphere in their backyards, but they didn't have a problem with Maliboomer or TOT? I know those two attractions aren't nearly 300 feet, but I bet they make more noise that a golden sphere that contains a slow moving dark ride.

Mr. Wiggins
10-01-2003, 10:39 PM
I think Westcot became DCA primarily because it was created at a time when Disney, for a number of reasons that have been thrashed around elsewhere, was internally confused about its product. Uncomfortable with continuing the stylistic traditions of Walt’s Disney (and miscast in any event to do so), but unable to envision its own style, the new Disney expressed instead an uneasy hybrid -- we got images of Uncle Mikey as a stiff, latter-day Walt, hosting Disney-tradition family TV shows. Uncertain of its stylistic soul, the new Disney was unable to express the concept of Westcot, either internally or to the public, with the simplicity, clarity and passion that, say, Walt once sold the concept of Disneyland to his own employees, to ABC Television and ultimately to America.

I remember thinking the Westcot concept drawings had a hundred times the glitz of Herb Ryman’s stuff but only a hundredth the story value. Real estate types got excited, money folks were happy, but the press and general public never felt the idea had much Disney magic. (Call it the Architecture of Reassurance, the Warm Bath or simply heart, by the mid-80’s the “magic” thing was increasingly irrelevant to the corporate culture, except as an icon.) In short, Westcot was the first up-close look the public had of Disney sans Pixie Dust.

The project made good sense as a real estate development but little sense in terms of the public's traditional expectations of Disney theme park product. Toss in Disney’s often high-handed negotiation tactics and the stage was set for homeowners and politicians to battle what was increasingly perceived as a modern uber-corporation -- all given heightened coverage by an increasingly disillusioned-with-Disney press. Gone was Uncle Walt; the new “face on the product” was anything but warm & fuzzy.

In quick order came the sort of business decisions that Jim Hill’s articles describe regarding Pressler and Braverman. The result: a park concept that expresses -- quite accurately, I think -- the culture of the corporation that created it.

Matt Hamand
10-02-2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Morrigoon
Nope, sorry. You buy a house near a Disney park, you know what that entails. Don't like it? Sell! Lots of people would like to live near a Disney park.

This is exactly correct and totally consistent with what I said above. If you buy a house near a Disney park you do know what you are getting.

But if you buy a house near a Disney park and 3 years later they decide that they will be putting in a huge new theme park, a couple of hotels, a shopping and dining district, a massive new trasportation system, and a lake, that's not the same thing.

Matt