PDA

View Full Version : Historic Landmark or Something to be Altered?



smd4
09-04-2002, 04:11 PM
Here's one to chew on...

Will there ever come a time, or SHOULD there ever come a time, when places like Disneyland become protected historical landmarks? Will Disneyland ever become something more than just an amusement park?

Whenever any of our great architectural works become threatened, they are protected. Historic buildings cannot be torn down, and improvements must be in keeping with what the architect had in mind.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa would NEVER be straightened.

In art, anyone wishing to give the Mona Lisa a red sweater, or put a diving board in one of Monet's "Water Lily" ponds, would be shot.

Why should Disneyland be any different? Clearly, the place has artistic, architectural, societal and cultural significance beyond its function as an amusement park.

Should it be protected? Should classic atrtractions be re-built, just as portions of the great California Missions were rebuilt, to reflect their past grandeur? Or should changes be made haphazardly, without regard for this significance?

What are your thoughts?

DisneylandKid
09-04-2002, 05:53 PM
Interesting question. I don't quite know what to say! :)

rexfarms
09-04-2002, 06:07 PM
First off, Disneyland is a Theme Park. hehe ;) that being said, I dont think this would ever happen becuase then the ownership of Disneyland would shift from the Disney Company to the State of Caliofornia. in escense, it seems like a good idea, but put into reality, I dont think it would work. But how much of California's economy is supported by Disneyland? :)

Laffite
09-04-2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by rexfarms
the ownership of Disneyland would shift from the Disney Company to the State of Caliofornia.

Wow. That's a heavy concept! :eek:

happyfunball
09-04-2002, 06:14 PM
I could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure an historical landmark can be privately owned, they're just very restricted on what they can change or alter on the site.

I seriously doubt disneyland would become an offical historical landmark since once that happened, they would never be able to change anything cause any changes would then have to be approved by whatever committee oversees historical landmarks in california.

personally I wouldn't want it because once you do that, its a static museum, more or less..

perhaps they could take old rides and put them on display somewhere. In San Jose they have the San Jose museum that takes old buildings from the area's past and moves them to some acreage they have over next to the japanese gardens and they restore them.

or maybe like Columbia where they restored an entire old gold rush town.

blusilva
09-04-2002, 08:53 PM
The Leaning Tower of Pisa actually *was* mostly straightened a few years back. They had to, because it had sunk so much it was dangerous. They did leave a little bit of a lean to it though.

As for Disneyland.....I just don't know. Many of the changes they've made to the park over the years have been wonderful improvements; the most obvious of which to me would be the complete re-theming and re-designing of Fantasyland in the early 80s. But then again, some of the changes have been disasters, *coughNewTomorrowland97cough*

I've bought all three "Disneyland: Through A Photographer's Eyes" books via MouseShoppe and have pored over every last photograph. I find it facinating. The Disneyland of today bears very little resemblance to the Disneyland of opening day or of 1959. Disneyland has steadily evolved over the years. I doubt even Walt himself would recognize it on the whole.

Nigel2
09-04-2002, 09:12 PM
As noted by HFB (hehe... don't taunt happy fun ball...:D ) but yeah they would not be able to do anything. It would kill their attendance as well since they really wouldn't be able to offer anything new. Now if they wanted to for example name something like Walt's appartment that it would be fine since they don't change it but attractions or buildings would be a totally different thing.

RStar
09-05-2002, 09:45 AM
Disney already owns a historical landmark. The El Capitan Theater. And when they restored it there were some major things in the "Off-stage" areas they would have liked to change, but couldn't. Funny thing is that part of what they couldn't change ment that they had to break code. Kind of a catch 22. They couldn't add wheelchair access to the building next door, so we had to go out the back of the building and in to the back of the other.

Also, if they "had to stick to what the original architect had in mind" they would have no problem with upgrading Disneyland because what Walt "had in mind" was that Disneyland would "never be finished" and "always evolve and improve".

hefferdude
09-05-2002, 11:16 AM
the ownership of Disneyland would shift from the Disney Company to the State of Caliofornia.

Vision this;

1. All CM's would get to wear the nifty California Parks
Ranger outfit.:( ( "Ranger Rick" ? ) and compete
with Hearst Castle.

2. It could be run from Sacramento. Yikes! We'd have to
say TDS instead of TDA.

3. As CM's you MIGHT get paid during all budget impasses :crying:

4. If anything worked, they could legislate on it
until it didn't. :D

Bill Catherall
09-05-2002, 11:36 AM
I just can't let the Tower of Pisa comments go without my input. ;)

The tower doesn't lean because of "architectural intent." It leans because the ground is mostly clay and they never established a good foundation to prevent sinking. When the weight from the building started to displace the water out of the clay soil, one side of the building started to shift.

This was discovered long before they finished it and they tried to correct it as it was being built. Because of this the building isn't suitable to ever be made fully upright. The masonry just wouldn't hold it. It would collapse if they stood it straight up! It's actually more stable in a semi-leaning position.

As for Disneyland...I agree with what RStar said. The original "architect" intended for it to be an ever changing, ever evolving attraction. Making it a static museum piece would be contrary to that vision.

Laffite
09-05-2002, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by hefferdude

4. If anything worked, they could legislate on it
until it didn't. :D

not to mention that any decisions will be 5 times as slow, and any improvements/re/constructions wil have at least 3 years to get approved. :D

Kevin Yee
09-05-2002, 11:47 AM
Two other things to consider:

1. *parts* of a theme park can become national landmarks. Case in point: the original Berry shack at Knott's is one, and clearly labeled as such.

At Disney, the closest might be the Sleeping Beauty Castle icon.

2. Buildings within the park are already protected by history in a way you describe, sort of. They are grandfathered in building codes, which is why the Castle doesn't have to have wheelchair access as mandated by the ADA. Well, assuming the Castle ever reopens, that is.

smd4
09-05-2002, 11:54 AM
Kevin, I think I may doubt you about things being "grandfathered" in. If this is so, why were things like the "Haunted Shack" at Knott's removed (I think I read here that the reason for its demise was that it wasn't handicapped-accessible)?

I don't know, but this is an interesting discussion. I'm sure Disney would fight tooth and nail to prevent any such designatons, and I could see their point in trying to prevent the government from telling them what they could and couldn't do with their own private property.

But I can also see some things at the park as being so culturally important that protection might be deemed necessary (the castle being a good example). But aren't other attractions/buildings just as important as the castle? And who would make such distinctions?

Interesting...

3894
09-05-2002, 03:03 PM
Any one of us can nominate Disneyland or parts thereof for the national register of historic places. Disneyland would then be notified and given the chance to object or concur.

Basicially evaluation comes down to this:

1) Is Disneyland associated with an important historic context? (yes)
2) Does Disneyland retain historic integrity? (pretty much - except for Tomorrowland)
3) Is Disneyland 50 years or older? (not quite)

If Disneyland were to be listed, there would be Federal involvement in the maintenance, management, and disposal of all physical aspects of the park.

Think Disney Co. would object or concur with our nomination?

Andrew
09-05-2002, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by 3894
Think Disney Co. would object or concur with our nomination?

What happens when they object? Is the objection just a flat refusal, end of the line, or is there a hearing or arbitration process?

I recall some newsgroup discussion of this about the time the Swiss Family Treehouse was about to be closed and either ripped out (which didn't happen) or turned into Tarzan's Treehouse (which obviously did).

3894
09-05-2002, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Andrew
What happens when they object? Is the objection just a flat refusal, end of the line, or is there a hearing or arbitration process?



If Disney Co. were to object, California's State Historic Preservation officer would forward the nomination to the National Park Service. This often (but not always) derails the formal listing in the National Register.

Once the National Park Service determines that Disneyland is eligible for inclusion on the National Register, the paper work is forwarded to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Disneyland would almost certainly be accepted.

My guess is that a deal would then be cut. A part or parts of Disneyland (with significant exclusions) would be designated for the Register. This would allow Disney Co. to continue to modify most of the park.

innerSpaceman
09-05-2002, 03:38 PM
Ok, I say that on July 18, 2005, one day after the Park turns 50, we all submit a petition to have Sleeping Beauty Castle and the Main Street Train Station be designated as historical landmarks.

After all, they ARE historical landmarks. If Disney objects (and even if they prevail on their objection), we can add to the mounting heap of bad publicity for the Company by getting their objections all over the news. Fun for us either way, and the possiblity of protecting the castle and the train station from the ravages of neglect.

Kevin Yee
09-05-2002, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by smd4
Kevin, I think I may doubt you about things being "grandfathered" in. If this is so, why were things like the "Haunted Shack" at Knott's removed (I think I read here that the reason for its demise was that it wasn't handicapped-accessible)?

Because it underperformed, and the new Cedar Fair ownership smelled an opportunity to build a flying coaster on a per-charge basis (bad idea, obviously; it's gone already).

The ADA card may have been played as an excuse, but grandfathering certainly does exist. Tarzan's treehouse remains wheelchair inaccessible to this day.

Bison74
09-05-2002, 07:23 PM
I can't remember where I read it, but I was under the impression that the Disneyland Railroad Station on Main Street is already considered a "Historical Monument".

As said before, it's one of the few Disney structures that are not wheelchair accessible.

It brings up another interesting thought. Imagine if Disneyland was removed but the historical monuments remained. What an odd plot of land would remain.

DisneylandBoy
09-05-2002, 08:38 PM
I don't think Walt would want Disneyland to become a National Landmark. He said that Disneyland would constantly be changing and growing. I do agree, however, that it would be cool if some things in the park were considered Historical Landmarks, (the only two I could think of would be the Castle and the Matterhorn). Obviously, the Disney company would not tear down either one, but in 100 years, who knows?

TerryTiger
09-05-2002, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by innerSpaceman
Ok, I say that on July 18, 2005, one day after the Park turns 50, we all submit a petition to have Sleeping Beauty Castle and the Main Street Train Station be designated as historical landmarks.

After all, they ARE historical landmarks. If Disney objects (and even if they prevail on their objection), we can add to the mounting heap of bad publicity for the Company by getting their objections all over the news. Fun for us either way, and the possiblity of protecting the castle and the train station from the ravages of neglect.

I see no reason why ALL of Main Street couldn't be included in the designation. The interiors (ie. shops) could still evolve and change as they have in the past, but the historic facades remain pretty much as they were built.

And in 7 more years it'll be time to designate the Matterhorn!

3894
09-06-2002, 06:19 AM
Hard Sell #1: While you and I might be interested in spending federal tax dollars on the preservation of Disneyland, many would see this as low priority or even scandalous.

Hard Sell #2: The fire station and the castle aren't going anywhere. Neither is Main Street. Explain to me how federal protection of these areas would make any substantial difference. Okay, we'd have the satisfaction of the status conferred by National Register designation but beyond that?

To me, Tomorrowland is the one area that would benefit.

What do you think?

RStar
09-06-2002, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by 3894


To me, Tomorrowland is the one area that would benefit.



How would it benefit?

3894
09-06-2002, 08:38 AM
I think of Tomorrowland as a possible Williamsburg, VA. for two reasons:

1) It's a time capsule.

2) Williamsburg retained the bones of its buildings but things had been converted to service stations and so on. You know what Williamsburg is like now.

I think the 1967 version of Tomorrowland is historically important. It captured an optimism, a faith in the future of science and humankind that was central to the period (and swept away by disillusionment with Vietnam and Nixon).