Disney hates poor people

innerSpaceman · 03-26-2007, 08:28 AM

Nope, that one's not gonna fly, Alex. Walt Disney never opened a theme park in Florida ... and that was NOT his goal there. His goal in Florida was a futuristic city, and he didn't give a fig about the theme park that was to pay the bills.

Unfortunately, the man died ... and we have only results to go by. Disneyland, built in the midst of a teeming metropolis ... with a customer mix tilted heavily toward regular, repeat customers from a saavy, urban market ... grows and thrives and changes and succeeds as an art form and beloved icon as no other Disney park ever will. DisneyWorld becomes a financial juggernaut, but suffers from a heavy tourist mix by too often throughout its history becoming stagnant and ill-maintained and is, more often than not, substandard artistically.

The only part of that vast complex to even remotely come from Walt Disney's intention was Epcot Center ... DisneyWorld's biggest artistic success.

But intentions tell nothing ... and we can glean nothing from Walt Disney's intention to build far away from the teeming metropolis except that he died, and he never did so.

Alex · 03-26-2007, 09:45 AM

Oh pucky. He's quite vociferously on record as hating what happened in Anaheim in the area around his park.

Plus, the ideas of city management have changed in 50 years in ways that Disney wouldn't have imagined or been able to plan for and the tax base for Anaheim has tilted dramatically away from Disneyland.

As for stagnancy, Disneyland has had several periods of such itself so I don't see anything unique there that would have developed from Florida's geographic isolation. And, from an irregular visitor's perspective, Magic Kingdom is better than Disneyland, in my not particularly humble opinion. And a large part of that is because Disney can do exactly what they want when they want and you don't have to deal with the LA urban/suburban experience to get in. For people used to it there is nothing particularly wrong with Anaheim and surrounding areas but for people from outside the region it is an amazingly ugly region.

The design ideals behind Disneyland (particularly immersion and exuberance) simply aren't compatible with having tens of thousands of people living residentially within a couple of miles.

I'm not saying that Disneyland has to end up completely isolated, dozens of miles from the nearest neighbor but a bigger buffer zone than Harbor and Katella would probably be better for everybody involved. Like it or not, most people who live near Disneyland do not directly (or even secondarily) derive their living from Disneyland. And those people want what everybody wants in their neighborhood: peace and quiet, light traffic, and minimum hassles.

I have no doubt that if Disney could have afforded to buy 5,000 acres in 1955 and built the park in the middle of it, he would have done so. He certainly didn't say "you know what will make the place great? A Denny's across the street, neighbors bitching about smoke from fireworks, and fighting development proposals that would have sightlines visible inside the park."

But really it isn't poor people Disney needs to fear (the poor can always be steamrolled eventually), it is gentrification and upper class housing. The kind of people that move into a high rise condo South of Market and then bitch that the landmark Coke sign is too bright or that the autobody shops are a blight on the neighborhood. When those people move within a mile and then decide that any exposure to fireworks smoke is harmful to their children (or their even more loved designer dogs) then Disney will really have something to fear from community activism.

03-26-2007, 08:28 AM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Nope, that one's not gonna fly, Alex. Walt Disney never opened a theme park in Florida ... and that was NOT his goal there. His goal in Florida was a futuristic city, and he didn't give a fig about the theme park that was to pay the bills. Unfortunately, the man died ... and we have only results to go by. Disneyland, built in the midst of a teeming metropolis ... with a customer mix tilted heavily toward regular, repeat customers from a saavy, urban market ... grows and thrives and changes and succeeds as an art form and beloved icon as no other Disney park ever will. DisneyWorld becomes a financial juggernaut, but suffers from a heavy tourist mix by too often throughout its history becoming stagnant and ill-maintained and is, more often than not, substandard artistically. The only part of that vast complex to even remotely come from Walt Disney's intention was Epcot Center ... DisneyWorld's biggest artistic success. But intentions tell nothing ... and we can glean nothing from Walt Disney's intention to build far away from the teeming metropolis except that he died, and he never did so.
	Submit to Quotes

03-26-2007, 09:45 AM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Oh pucky. He's quite vociferously on record as hating what happened in Anaheim in the area around his park. Plus, the ideas of city management have changed in 50 years in ways that Disney wouldn't have imagined or been able to plan for and the tax base for Anaheim has tilted dramatically away from Disneyland. As for stagnancy, Disneyland has had several periods of such itself so I don't see anything unique there that would have developed from Florida's geographic isolation. And, from an irregular visitor's perspective, Magic Kingdom is better than Disneyland, in my not particularly humble opinion. And a large part of that is because Disney can do exactly what they want when they want and you don't have to deal with the LA urban/suburban experience to get in. For people used to it there is nothing particularly wrong with Anaheim and surrounding areas but for people from outside the region it is an amazingly ugly region. The design ideals behind Disneyland (particularly immersion and exuberance) simply aren't compatible with having tens of thousands of people living residentially within a couple of miles. I'm not saying that Disneyland has to end up completely isolated, dozens of miles from the nearest neighbor but a bigger buffer zone than Harbor and Katella would probably be better for everybody involved. Like it or not, most people who live near Disneyland do not directly (or even secondarily) derive their living from Disneyland. And those people want what everybody wants in their neighborhood: peace and quiet, light traffic, and minimum hassles. I have no doubt that if Disney could have afforded to buy 5,000 acres in 1955 and built the park in the middle of it, he would have done so. He certainly didn't say "you know what will make the place great? A Denny's across the street, neighbors bitching about smoke from fireworks, and fighting development proposals that would have sightlines visible inside the park." But really it isn't poor people Disney needs to fear (the poor can always be steamrolled eventually), it is gentrification and upper class housing. The kind of people that move into a high rise condo South of Market and then bitch that the landmark Coke sign is too bright or that the autobody shops are a blight on the neighborhood. When those people move within a mile and then decide that any exposure to fireworks smoke is harmful to their children (or their even more loved designer dogs) then Disney will really have something to fear from community activism.
	Submit to Quotes