LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThere's a whole gallery of artwork from all angles, haven't you looked on Screamscape?Originally Posted by DoppelV
There's a whole gallery of artwork from all angles, haven't you looked on Screamscape?
As a matter of fact, I have, I check it every morning. Still, to date, I have only seen one elevation, looking at the same side of the building the latest rendering shows, and an aerial oblique. I'm not quite sure where you've seen a "gallery".
With modernist architecture, there is only so much you can do with the exterior. I would like to see renderings of the interior, before I pass final judgement.
In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate.
DoppelV
There's a whole slide show! I've even seen an aerial view.
EDIT: okay it's three shots. Two of which have been posted here, and now here is the third, which I think has been posted before:
Context. Disney is all about the context.
While we had a great time at the Contemporary, I have to say that the new building, with the glass and steel look instead of all that concrete, is much more contemporary than the old relic sitting next to it.
Thumbs up from me, right now. Depending on in-park sightlines it could go up or down.
it does look more....well...contemporary....but still...its a BEAST lol....i still dunno how i feel about it
Blast Off Into Adventure!!
Keep in mind the old tower is going to get some love as part of the expansion plan. The interior has already been planned, and I'd love to see them restyle the exterior of the A-frame to reduce the amount of bare concrete and make it look a bit more modern. Perhaps just as little as a paint job, maybe a bit more. Give the pillars that arctic white look for consistency the new building has instead of that weathered darkened grey it's been sporting for approx 30 years now.
People who have known this building for decades wince at the thought of all this, I know, but hey things change. I like the building, too, but I think it can be improved, and maybe I just don't have many memories holding me back from saying that because I only ever saw it in person for the first time about a year ago. If you like the resort the way it is, you've had plenty of years to go there and enjoy it.
That "relic" as you call it is a unique structure and a WDW landmark. Hell, it's a FLORIDA landmark, and I'd even go so far to say it's a NATIONAL landmark. It needs to be painted WHITE again, as it was when the place first opened and as it was the very first time I visited WDW 26 years ago in the summer of 1981. The additon next to it will never achieve any sort of iconic status. Never.
Updating the main tower is a wonderful thought. The key to making the whole Contemporary work is making sure the atmosphere is, well, contemporary. The DVC addition isn't the part that really bothers me. I'm sure someone has already commented on this (I haven't read all posts), but it's the currently planned shape that doesn't groove. The round, fluid building design contrasts the main building too much. It looks miss-matched from the images I've seen. What's wrong with a square structure? Sharp angles can be very edgy and modern, if that's the look they are going for.
"All our dreams can come true.....if we have the courage to pursue them."
- Walt Disney
Well it's also too tall. BUT, I have a radical thought. Why does the "Contemporary" have to be "contemporary"? Since all other Disney hotels are either nostalgia or fantasy the Contemporary in 2007 fits right in with all the rest....it's now nostalgia....It can keep the name but just realise that now it's theme is the "nostalgia" of what "contemporary" was and meant when WDW first opened. It's why I've always felt that the original 1967 all white Tomorrowland at Disneyland and the early to mid 70's all white Tomorrowland at WDW MK should have stayed....just because it's called Tomorrowland, it doesn't have to be about Tomorrow anymore, because if stayed the way it was, over time it's place and sense of being in the context of the current time would have changed, and it could have become a nostalgic look at that late 60's 70's Jetsons type of future....see what I mean? The meaning of Tomorrowland would have changed on it's own overtime! When they built TL '98 in DL wasn't that what they were going for? A Nostalgic look at what people in past thought the future was going to be like? If I could reverse time I'd just bring back the old white Tomorrowlands and be quite happy! But people I guess, they just can't grasp the concept that I am pointing out. People just don't get it, and see how it would work and make sense. They're too busy being preoccupied by this erroneous notion that Tomorrowland always and forever has to represent the future.
I hear what you're saying, Nick. And I agree that the proposed structure is way too tall. I've always thought the Contemporary screamed futuristic. How many of us have our houses decorated like the Contemporary? Therefore, the structure and its decor have always felt modern, even if the last refurb was, say, 10 years ago. With the way technology evolves today, Disney would have to constantly update Tomorrowland, etc to keep on the cutting edge - that sounds like way too much work. However, if the new addition is designed to look like 2007, then I think the main tower should reflect that too. They can decorate both buildings in a 1960s "futuristic" theme like you are referring to, that's fine. As long as the two complement each other, I'll be good.
"All our dreams can come true.....if we have the courage to pursue them."
- Walt Disney
There's what I'm talking about. "WDW will never be as good as when I first went there!" seems to be an underlying theme with a lot of people.
So what? WDW is a business, not a museum. Why must everything have this timeless state where things look exactly the same as they did when they opened? Why can't there ever be change?The additon next to it will never achieve any sort of iconic status. Never.
As soon as anyone makes that tired "not a museum" argument they're tuned out. But as I said before, Walt Disney would have known when to stop, becuase he would have realised how the meaning of the existence of his parks had changed in the context of time and the space it grew into occupying in American history and culture.
I have seen some other designs which have 2 structures just like the future building on either side of the existing building. They are 3 stories high and would be a perfect alterrnative to the projected structure.
My God, that sounds so much more tolerable. Really. I wish what you saw was the real plan! Where did you see this! Find it for us!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks