Disneyland Project Tracker

[Padriac]

Originally Posted by MasterGracey

So then, what, ultimately is your point?

Is the Bank-turned-Disney Galley thematically appropriate? Or is it acceptable only because the rest of Main Street is a thematic mess?

If you go with the latter, then I think your argument is null. Just because there are other problems doesn't mean that we should complacently allow more problems to be added onto the pile. We should be advocating that each new addition should work to re-strengthening the theme and show. And we should be encouraging Disney to fix past mistakes.

Put simply, the exterior does not need to match the interior, at least not as stringently as you seem to think.

Much of Disneyland works this way. New Orleans Square for instance: from the outside everything needs to look like the streets of New Orleans, and the buildings fit this theme perfectly. But inside one of these buildings is... outside. At night. In the Bayou. The interior doesn't really match the exterior, but it works. The same thinking applies to much of Fantasyland (why are fairy tales happening in this Bavarian village?) and Tomorrowland (why is there a space port inside this nondescript building?).

Now you may reply that other problems don't justify new ones. But that's just it: these *aren't* problems. The exterior themes should fit the land. And the interior themes should also fit the theme of the land, but the two don't need to exactly reflect each other.

As long as this art gallery seems like a turn of the century art gallery just like the rest of Main Street, it should be fine. Sure the bank takeover cover story thing is a bit convoluted, but we all know the truth: Disney had a bunch of period bank props, they have no need for a bank, they can use that space, it would be costly (and a shame, really) to remove all that period and history just to arbitrarily fit the new (probably not even permanent) purpose. So they kept it.

Just like many businesses today attempt to maintain the history of the building they use while repurposing it, Disney is attempting to maintain it's own history by not scrubbing away any existence of the bank. Just like the small town art gallery used to be the small town bank, the DISNEYLAND art gallery used to be the DISNEYLAND bank. From either perspective the same thing is happening: honoring the past. If they bulldozed the bank and built a new gallery it would cots a lot and at the end of the day I'd mostly think "remember the cool period bank that use to be here..." This way we keep the best part of the bank (the look) while still using the space. I'd never walk into that bank ever without its repurposing.

An *old town* would need a bank, so the EXTERIOR is a bank. *Disneyland* does not need a bank, so the interior is NOT a bank. Simple.

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by Padriac

Put simply, the exterior does not need to match the interior, at least not as stringently as you seem to think.

Much of Disneyland works this way. New Orleans Square for instance: from the outside everything needs to look like the streets of New Orleans, and the buildings fit this theme perfectly. But inside one of these buildings is... outside. At night. In the Bayou. The interior doesn't really match the exterior, but it works. The same thinking applies to much of Fantasyland (why are fairy tales happening in this Bavarian village?) and Tomorrowland (why is there a space port inside this nondescript building?).

An *old town* would need a bank, so the EXTERIOR is a bank. *Disneyland* does not need a bank, so the interior is NOT a bank. Simple.

Sorry, I really don't agree with that at all. The references you mentioned don't have the same applications required for them to work as it should on Main Street USA.

A restaurant called "THE BLUE BAYOU" is a restaurant in the bayou. But nothing else has changed. The architecture is still the same. And the Bayou is a representation of New Orleans as well.

As for Pirates, it's an adventure that takes you to another time and place. Of course it's going to have a completely different architecture.

As for Fantasyland, the exterior of the attractions resemble the architecture used in each film!



Main Street is Main Street. There is no hidden agenda, no secrets to uncover. It is what it simply is. A bank on the outside should be a bank on the inside. An art gallery on the inside should be an art gallery on the outside.

A mexican restaurant shouldn't look like a chinese restaurant and vice versa.

[Padriac]

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

A restaurant called "THE BLUE BAYOU" is a restaurant in the bayou. But nothing else has changed. The architecture is still the same. And the Bayou is a representation of New Orleans as well.

But the outside of this building does not look like a Bayou, which is what it is when you are inside. And you can't be outside when you are inside a building. This makes way less sense then having an art gallery in a bank, which I guarantee you has actually happened.

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

As for Pirates, it's an adventure that takes you to another time and place. Of course it's going to have a completely different architecture.

This excuse could apply to a great many rides in Disneyland.

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

As for Fantasyland, the exterior of the attractions resemble the architecture used in each film!

This simply is not true. At best Fantasyland resembles the village in Pinnochio, but it certainly does not look like semi-recent London (Peter Pan), for example.

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

A mexican restaurant shouldn't look like a chinese restaurant and vice versa.

Obviously. But a Mexican restaurant could be opened in an old bank. It's been done in Temcula CA. I've eaten there. And yes, there's still a safe.

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by Padriac

Obviously. But a Mexican restaurant could be opened in an old bank. It's been done in Temcula CA. I've eaten there. And yes, there's still a safe.

Then you've missed the point of the debate. This isn't Temecula. Main Street isn't a 'modern' version of an old town. It is meant to be an idealized turn-of-the-century town. A town where nothing bad ever happens nor does a business fail. A bank would be a bank and an art gallery would be an art gallery.

Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom has completely lost this mentality by converting everything, including the Cinema and Firehouse into store locations.

[mechurchlady]

So what is new? I ran into walls some place that should not have been there this week in DLR but where escapes my memory. Astro Orbitor looked like it was ready to take riders and has a nice theming but no word on if they added disabled friendly vehicles. I got to meet the security guard named Ernie twice and what a blast, cool all American dude. I got to see them setting up the Up thing in the esplanade. Sad note is that the Dumbo I rode Wednesday had been carved into along the right inside just at the front on the side. Why would someone carve graffiti or what ever that was. Dumbo sure is getting worn in spots.

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

Then you've missed the point of the debate. This isn't Temecula. Main Street isn't a 'modern' version of an old town. It is meant to be an idealized turn-of-the-century town. A town where nothing bad ever happens nor does a business fail. A bank would be a bank and an art gallery would be an art gallery.

Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom has completely lost this mentality by converting everything, including the Cinema and Firehouse into store locations.

And there you go. That's the point.

Good post

[Padriac]

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

Then you've missed the point of the debate. This isn't Temecula. Main Street isn't a 'modern' version of an old town. It is meant to be an idealized turn-of-the-century town. A town where nothing bad ever happens nor does a business fail. A bank would be a bank and an art gallery would be an art gallery.

Why did the bank "fail"? It moved on. I thought you guys thought this backstory business was unnecessary, but now you're inventing/sticking to it as justification. The art gallery was built in what used to be a bank. This could still happen in an idealized town where nothing bad happens.

The thinking that you and MasterAgenda have is that if the bank building is not a bank it must be leveled and gutted and start from scratch. This would not happen even in Marceline Missourri in 1909.

I get the point: if they built Main Street today they probably wouldn't build the bank as it has no real purpose. But if you are trying to maintain a small town look, a bank and city hall are big parts of that. So it makes sense to theme the exteriors as such even if the insides fit theme park purposes. You guys seem so hell-bent on theming that you want this to be a real functioning town. Even children in the park realize they are not in an old Town but a place that looks like one. Big difference.

A small town like this is far more likely to have a bank than an art gallery. But Disneyland needs no bank, and it does need the art gallery.

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by Padriac

Why did the bank "fail"? It moved on. I thought you guys thought this backstory business was unnecessary, but now you're inventing/sticking to it as justification. The art gallery was built in what used to be a bank. This could still happen in an idealized town where nothing bad happens.

The thinking that you and MasterAgenda have is that if the bank building is not a bank it must be leveled and gutted and start from scratch. This would not happen even in Marceline Missourri in 1909.

Thanks for the veiled attack.

The point is that if the bank is unnecessary, then get rid of it. If a Gallery must use the space, then take out the bank completely.

The reason new businesses leave remnants of old businesses is to preserve local history in modern times. Main Street, U.S.A. is designed in the spirit of progress -- an idealized turn-of-the-century Anywhere, U.S.A. that always stays the same, but is always moving forward.

Having the unused skeleton of a bank overlaid with art gallery fixtures and paintings is not moving forward, it's doing as little as you can to install a new store.

If you want to see how something like this can possibly turn out, go see the Main Street Cinema at the Magic Kingdom. The outside looks like a Cinema still, and the inside even resembles one, oh, and there's even still a little screen in the back that shows Mickey cartoons. But guess what? It's a store.

What's the point of keeping it a Cinema when it actually isn't one at all? What's the point of keeping it a bank when it actually isn't one at all?

Originally Posted by Padriac

I get the point: if they built Main Street today they probably wouldn't build the bank as it has no real purpose. But if you are trying to maintain a small town look, a bank and city hall are big parts of that. So it makes sense to theme the exteriors as such even if the insides fit theme park purposes. You guys seem so hell-bent on theming that you want this to be a real functioning town. Even children in the park realize they are not in an old Town but a place that looks like one. Big difference.

A small town like this is far more likely to have a bank than an art gallery. But Disneyland needs no bank, and it does need the art gallery.

The concept that "Well, the guest knows its fake anyway" is the sort of thinking that got us Disney's California Adventure.

What matters is that it creates a believable illusion, and that's clearly something that Disney is no longer interested in creating on the level that Walt Disney was.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by Padriac

But the outside of this building does not look like a Bayou, which is what it is when you are inside. And you can't be outside when you are inside a building. This makes way less sense then having an art gallery in a bank, which I guarantee you has actually happened.


This excuse could apply to a great many rides in Disneyland.



This simply is not true. At best Fantasyland resembles the village in Pinnochio, but it certainly does not look like semi-recent London (Peter Pan), for example.



Obviously. But a Mexican restaurant could be opened in an old bank. It's been done in Temcula CA. I've eaten there. And yes, there's still a safe.

Each facade in Fantasyland fits its attraction quite well and blends with its surroundings as well, it's really an amazing design. Pirates is a conscious decision to create some Disney magic by playing with the relationships of indoors vs outdoors and giving the type of atmostpheric control you have inside with the feel of actually being outside. While I can see both sides on this debate, I just don't think these are the same at all as the bank situation.

To me keeping the bank is actually a sign of DL becoming a museum, and it's funny to me that people have brought up the "not a museum" arguement about this topic to justify what WDI has planned. It's not a museum of a historical era, but it's an element of DL becoming a museum about itself. More and more it seems people want everything at DL preserved and see it all as worthy of historic recognition. This is what is interesting about this debate is that it suddenly many people who call for preservation of things want the bank completely removed and vice versa. In the end I don't really think there is a perfect solution, there are good reasons to want to keep parts of the bank, and good reasons to fully remodel it into a studio or gallery. I'm ok with it either way, sometimes there are ok reasons to break the theme rules.

[mycroft16]

Originally Posted by Padriac

The thinking that you and MasterAgenda have is that if the bank building is not a bank it must be leveled and gutted and start from scratch. This would not happen even in Marceline Missourri in 1909.

No, this is not the thinking. It must not be leveled (can't level and gut). But if a gallery were to move into a bank, the first thing the new owners would do is to remove as much of the bank 'stuff' as they could. Counters, desks, etc would all be removed. They would not leave banking paraphernalia. The only thing to not be removed would likely be the vault door itself as it is difficult and costly to remove and because it can be used for "artistic flavor." But leaving counters and teller stations etc serves no purpose to the gallery. All of that would go. Even lighting fixtures would likely be ripped out and replaced by gallery friendly lighting. Even at the turn of the century this would happen. Buildings are repurposed, not the furniture and stuff in the building.

If Disney is intent on putting the gallery there, and I'm fine if they are... they need to do it as a gallery. The fact that it used to be a bank needs to be the absolute bare minimum most subtle reference and nothing more. Period. The only thing that should remain of the bank is a vault door. That's it. No crazy story or anything. The bank simply moved on and the gallery took the building over and redid it to be their own. Just as would RALLY happen.

I get the point: if they built Main Street today they probably wouldn't build the bank as it has no real purpose. But if you are trying to maintain a small town look, a bank and city hall are big parts of that. So it makes sense to theme the exteriors as such even if the insides fit theme park purposes. You guys seem so hell-bent on theming that you want this to be a real functioning town. Even children in the park realize they are not in an old Town but a place that looks like one. Big difference.

No, we are not so hell-bent on themeing that we want it to be a real functioning town. Then it wouldn't be themeing any more, but a real functioning town. The Imagineers who built Disneyland realized though that in order to make the magic happen, these places had to look absoltuely real, down to the last detail. The most minute of hand carved woodwork had to be perfect. They didn't need to invent crazy stories for buildings and such because the story was in the details of the actual architecture. You knew things about a place just by looking at it. THAT is story. Story is what you see, not what you have to know or read about. Story, in a theme park, is the history of a place. And that is told subconciously, in a glance. In a fraction of a second. This is something that Bob Gurr, Rolly Crump, et al. were masters of.

Having the exterior be a bank but the interior be a gallery is not good. It's bad story, bad history, bad theme. Having it be a gallery both interior and exterior is good. You leave one or two details from the bank that could not be gotten rid of without massive construction (the vault door) and you've successfully done it. This is a gallery space, and in a casual, fraction of a second glance, every guest will know that it was a bank at some point. It adds hsitory and depth to the place without being in your face... the way the real world really functions. That's the secret to successfull themeing. You have to go so far over the top with the details that you ignore them on the concious level and they all drop to the subconcious. Your mind picks up on them but they are not something you sit and notice all around you. They simple exist.

[Coheteboy]

Mastergracey, Unclebob, Mycroft... great posts. This is the best example in recent memory where I'm actually quite adamant of the "disneyland is not a museum" quote.

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by mycroft16

No, this is not the thinking. It must not be leveled (can't level and gut). But if a gallery were to move into a bank, the first thing the new owners would do is to remove as much of the bank 'stuff' as they could. Counters, desks, etc would all be removed. They would not leave banking paraphernalia. The only thing to not be removed would likely be the vault door itself as it is difficult and costly to remove and because it can be used for "artistic flavor." But leaving counters and teller stations etc serves no purpose to the gallery. All of that would go. Even lighting fixtures would likely be ripped out and replaced by gallery friendly lighting. Even at the turn of the century this would happen. Buildings are repurposed, not the furniture and stuff in the building.

If Disney is intent on putting the gallery there, and I'm fine if they are... they need to do it as a gallery. The fact that it used to be a bank needs to be the absolute bare minimum most subtle reference and nothing more. Period. The only thing that should remain of the bank is a vault door. That's it. No crazy story or anything. The bank simply moved on and the gallery took the building over and redid it to be their own. Just as would RALLY happen.



No, we are not so hell-bent on themeing that we want it to be a real functioning town. Then it wouldn't be themeing any more, but a real functioning town. The Imagineers who built Disneyland realized though that in order to make the magic happen, these places had to look absoltuely real, down to the last detail. The most minute of hand carved woodwork had to be perfect. They didn't need to invent crazy stories for buildings and such because the story was in the details of the actual architecture. You knew things about a place just by looking at it. THAT is story. Story is what you see, not what you have to know or read about. Story, in a theme park, is the history of a place. And that is told subconciously, in a glance. In a fraction of a second. This is something that Bob Gurr, Rolly Crump, et al. were masters of.

Having the exterior be a bank but the interior be a gallery is not good. It's bad story, bad history, bad theme. Having it be a gallery both interior and exterior is good. You leave one or two details from the bank that could not be gotten rid of without massive construction (the vault door) and you've successfully done it. This is a gallery space, and in a casual, fraction of a second glance, every guest will know that it was a bank at some point. It adds hsitory and depth to the place without being in your face... the way the real world really functions. That's the secret to successfull themeing. You have to go so far over the top with the details that you ignore them on the concious level and they all drop to the subconcious. Your mind picks up on them but they are not something you sit and notice all around you. They simple exist.

Post of the day. Hands down.

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

Mastergracey, Unclebob, Mycroft... great posts. This is the best example in recent memory where I'm actually quite adamant of the "disneyland is not a museum" quote.

I hate that stupid "Disneyland is not a museum" quote. But, I find it ironic that Walt Disney Imagineering only uses it when its convenient. Disneyland wasn't a museum when they removed the original gallery, updated Pirates, or added characters to "it's a small world." But apparently, Disneyland is a museum now.

Bravo, WDI.

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by MasterGracey

hate that stupid "Disneyland is not a museum" quote. But, I find it ironic that Walt Disney Imagineering only uses it when its convenient. Disneyland wasn't a museum when they removed the original gallery, updated Pirates, or added characters to "it's a small world." But apparently, Disneyland is a museum now.

Bravo, WDI.

Oh I hate it too. They seem to do completely the opposite of what they should be doing. And if they argue that they're only listening to the fans, that's a horrible approach as well. They should be doing absolutely what needs to be done.

I think Disney is just afraid of taking real risks these days so they have to protect themselves with whatever Walt quote they can find.

I bet you anything they're keeping the bank in fear of the hardcore fans going nuts. "We don't want another 'small world' debacle. keep the bank".


Some will argue that it's our own faults? I'd argue that they need to figure out their ish and do what's right. They pulled out the Gallery for that stupid unused Dream Suite that only lasted for a year. Wow that was a great use of money wasn't it?

[mechurchlady]

Wednesday or was it Tuesday, whatever, the path to the south/right side of the bank was closed off except to CMs and there was not access to the bathroom. Not the wall I was trying to remember but a closure anyways, lol.

Also i have been seeing painters out at the DCA wharf and the esplanade. A little fence around them and all you see are the soles of shoes. They are doing touch up work.

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

Oh I hate it too. They seem to do completely the opposite of what they should be doing. And if they argue that they're only listening to the fans, that's a horrible approach as well. They should be doing absolutely what needs to be done.

I think Disney is just afraid of taking real risks these days so they have to protect themselves with whatever Walt quote they can find.

I bet you anything they're keeping the bank in fear of the hardcore fans going nuts. "We don't want another 'small world' debacle. keep the bank".


Some will argue that it's our own faults? I'd argue that they need to figure out their ish and do what's right. They pulled out the Gallery for that stupid unused Dream Suite that only lasted for a year. Wow that was a great use of money wasn't it?

You're giving yourself too much credit. They don't do much for the hardcore fans except merchandise events and limited edition pins.

I would put my money on budgetary issues. It would cost too much to gut the place and remove and relocate that antique vault. It's easier and cheaper to keep it around and build the Gallery around it, all the while claiming historical significance.