Friday, February 19, 2016

Go Away Green: Three Years Later

About three and a half years ago I published a little essay called Go Away Green, discussing the illusionistic aspects of disguising show buildings inside theme parks.

What are show buildings? They are those big ugly unthemed warehouses which house the sets that the actual attractions take place in.

This doesn't count as spoilers any more, does it?

Quite unexpectedly, Go Away Green turned out to be one of the most consistently popular essays I've ever put out. I think it speaks to the ongoing interest not only in the "backstage" aspect of theme parks, but in the nuts and bolts that go into making a place work. It takes a lot of dedication to care too much about those big featureless walls, so perhaps a followup is in order. Moreover, a lot has changed at Magic Kingdom since 2012. A Fantasyland expansion has come online, previously empty restaurants have been reinvented, and the entire center of the park was demolished and rebuilt. That's a lot of places which previously had very obvious exposed show buildings. What is to be done about them?

The question is not a new one, but the rules about it do change depending on the age of the park we're talking about here. Disneyland has never made much of an effort to wall off its various areas from each other, because everything is so near together it would be almost impossible to do so. Because it's consistent in this approach, it isn't that big of a deal that you can see a Swiss mountain from Frontierland...

...or that the red rocks of Utah are visible from the front lawn of a New Orleans cafe. It's just the way things work there.

Magic Kingdom's designers made a more consistent effort to visually integrate the various areas of Magic Kingdom, but there wasn't much more of an effort to screen the areas off from each other. You can still see parts of Fantasyland from Liberty Square, parts of Adventureland from Frontierland, and so on. There is a move towards subtle visual integration - notice how the shape and size of buildings in Liberty Square subtly echo the shape of Cinderella Castle - but WED Enterprises was still content to allow everything to smush together organically. It's part of the fantasy nature of the park.

Flash forward to 1992, and Disneyland Paris - by far the most integrated effort at a theme park yet - didn't just have a berm around the entire park, but berms separating each themed land from every other one, too. With the traditionally allowable exception of the castle, once inside any of Disneyland Paris' lands, everything is screened off. It's even almost impossible to see Big Thunder from the top of the Swiss Family Treehouse due to very careful positioning. Each "land" in Disneyland Paris is treated as if it is effectively a separate theme park.

WDI carried this quite far. Due to the practicalities of running a theme park, Main Street and Frontierland sit right next to each other. Not to be outdone, the rear of the Frontierland buildings facing Main Street have Victorian false fronts, and the rear of Main Street facing Frontierland is disguised as barns.

Frontierland from Main Street (thanks David G)

Main Street from Frontierland 

It's all very intricate and impressive. My question is: does any of this at the end of the day really matter, or is this just the sort of thing super-fans (and theme park designers) care about? Does anybody except readers (and writers) of blogs like this really care that It's A Small World has nothing to do with the rest of Fantasyland?

In my original post I pointed out that around 50,000 people a day walk under the gigantic unthemed wall in Magic Kingdom's Fantasyland and never give it a second thought. They simply don't see it. I compared this to misdirection in a conjuring trick - real-life stage magic.

In short, I'm still not at all convinced that in the end this matters all this much. Don't get me wrong - disguised infrastructure like the examples above at Disneyland Paris fill me, as a park fan, with delight. They're one of the reasons I got into this in such a heavy way. I stopped my touring of Disneyland Paris to admire them.

So it's in those specific terms of praise that I think the following discussion should be couched. As a fan and admirer of park design, I think it's great that WDI finally addressed some of the lapses in theme which I will single out below. Yet, in the larger sense, I also think it's worth being skeptical about the objective value of such things. In the end, after all, isn't this all to some degree just a game?

Enough preface, let's look at some show building.... camouflage.

In 2015, after a year and a half of on-again, off-again work, Magic Kingdom finally finished up a long-delayed bypass around Main Street. Disneyland built one too, and while Disneyland's is a lot of walls and only used on emergency occasions, Magic Kingdom ended up with a wide open air boulevard that they end up using basically every night. They compensated by filling the whole thing with trees.

It's not much to look at, which is okay in the sense that it's rarely seen in daylight anyway, but what's interesting is how the curtain of trees affects Main Street day-long, Areas which once offered very stark views of the rear of Tomorrowland...


...have been somewhat filled in and give a sense of some remove between areas.


Until the late 90s, large trees were planted behind this wall to block views like this, and even if it's due to a firework crowd flow outlet, it's nice to be able to stand on Main Street and enjoy the illusion of a park just beyond this wall again.

Other rough corners were not exactly removed so much as covered up to the point where only the truly sharp eyed would notice them.

On the Hub side of Main Street, the most visible gap of theming in Magic Kingdom - the entirely visible rear of Main Street - is no more. The rear of the buildings, once painted in Go Away Green, now have painted on brick details, interestingly acknowledging that this is the actual rear of Main Street for any who would bother to look.

The remaining protrusion onto the Hub, the side of the Plaza Restaurant, received a rather simple dimensional facade wrap and a few new trees. This doesn't stand up to close scrutiny, but as I pointed out in my original article, very few will choose to look at this as opposed to the gigantic castle off to the right.

With some extra trees and from a bit of a distance it becomes very hard to distinguish from the more fully realized architecture, which was the point all along:

Over in Fantasyland, so much of the area has been redeveloped that a great deal of modification of sightlines had to take place. New walls have done up to block rooftop AC units (one wonders what modern WDI would make of the endless miles of plain white roofs once visible from the Skyway), and extra paint has been brought in to disguise plain walls.

Previously this was bare walls & exposed infrastructure
One small area of rockwork was rebuilt at least three times, increasing in size each time, to prevent the new show building for the Belle story time attraction from being seen from the Village Haus restrooms. The bizarre result:

To me that looks like a rock floating weirdly in midair, but I guess at least it isn't the view of the back of a corrugated metal shed.

Elsewhere in New Fantasyland, sightlines have been scrupulously maintained. One of the most impressive is this artificial rocky cliff which blocks views of the Little Mermaid show building from every possible vantage point, including the nearby Storybook Circus:

Only in aerial photos can you appreciate how extensive this detail is. It works from all perspectives, including the top of new the roller coaster:

Scott Keating

Yet in other ways the fully-articulated modern theming extravaganzas in New Fantasyland sit weirdly cheek to jowl with the more illusionistic or just plain simple 1971 architecture. My absolute favorite, the west side of the Hall of Presidents show building, is still proudly sitting out in the open:

Depending on the season, Haunted Mansion's show building is no big secret:

Other areas of Magic Kingdom weirdly combine areas you feel you probably shouldn't be seeing with  evocative detail. There's this detailed fence atop the Adventureland Veranda which helps distract from the plain wall behind it:

The side of the Peter Pan's Flight show building can be glimpsed between two Fantasyland structures, simultaneously offering visible pipes and a themed turret:

These wooden logs on the Frontierland side appear to "hold up" an Adventureland facade:

The exact spot where Adventureland (left) becomes Frontierland (right)

It's worth remembering that Disneyland mostly just lets her architectural style smash together like two trains. The concept of transitory architecture was pioneered for Magic Kingdom.

But on the other hand from the train it's very easy to see the stark naked rear of Pirates of the Caribbean, Fantasyland, and the unthemed overpass which I remarked on in Ten Big Design Blunders. Now that the backside of Main Street has been painted over, filled with trees, and basically banished, this is probably the single largest intrusion of the "outside world" into Walt Disney World left.

If we broaden our horizons a bit we could talk about the colossal show building for Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey, which sits out in the open like a shelled peanut:

Or this illusionistic slight of hand on the Disneyland Railroad which passes by so quickly it's easy to forget it's disguising a giant warehouse as... a giant warehouse.

Again, we must ask: does it truly in the end matter?

I think in order to answer that we have to question the extent to which a non-committed audience is likely to respond to the little holes where the illusion slips out. Many guests don't even see obvious details, never mind these weird little gaps where something unintended slips through. You can technically see the Contemporary from Liberty Square, but almost nobody bothers to look to see it.

To what extent does something that's basically subliminal affect the overall perception of the whole?

Tokyo DisneySEA goes to unprecedentedly elaborate means to screen out its back-of-house areas from guest view. If even subliminally, touches like that add to the luster of the park, and make it seem like a more impressive, a complete package. Disneyland Paris and Tokyo DisneySEA enjoy sterling reputations in part because the detail they are built with is staggering. It's possible that even if the majority of audiences don't stop to look at every little thing, the mere fact that it's there impresses on them in some subliminal way.

This is why I think that sweating the small stuff adds up. The measurable difference is played out every day in the park - in reputation, word of mouth, and demand. Mind-boggling spectacles like The Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean, Tower of Terror, The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man, Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey, and Kilimanjaro Safaris still do command long waits because word of mouth has made them into the tentpoles of their respective parks, and audiences respond to them for the crazily elaborate experiences that they are. They may not see everything, but the richness of the experience alone is arresting.

But it's worth remembering that Disneyland and Magic Kingdom are unique. Compared to something like Disneyland Paris, the design of both of the stateside parks is far less intricate. These parks are stepping stones towards the modern extravaganza parks represented by an Islands of Adventure or a Tokyo DisneySEA, and to some extent I think they should stay that way.

Magic Kingdom is the last Disney park to have that sense of naive architecture that you get at Disneyland. Yes, it's bigger, and yes, over the years Disneyland has made the texture of their park much more intricate. But intricacy is different than sophistication, and I wouldn't want to live in a place where weirdo design touches like those logs holding up those Magic Kingdom facades or that too-small-for-people bridge in Disneyland's Adventureland were "sophisticated" out of existence. These places are, after all, historical objects as well.

Al Huffman

Floating around the perimeters of theme parks, show buildings are the white phantoms of the art form - ever present, rarely seen. In a place so full of richly satisfying distractions, isn't it interesting how much we can learn about them by choosing to look at things we aren't supposed to see?


Chris said...

I think I get what you're saying there at the end. As a long time visitor to only Walt Disney World, my first visit to Disneyland was revelatory. Once I got over my shock at the tiny castle and the wacky location of Big Thunder, I fell in love with the place, and I wonder if the phenomenon you described might have something to do with it.

For me, part of the tremendous appeal of Disneyland is precisely that it's less "slick" than Magic Kingdom (and from the sound of it, even less slick than DisneySea or Disneyland Paris!). I've heard people call Disneyland "quaint," which feels like a veiled insult, but to me it feels more like a huge toy - like you get to play in a gigantic Christmas village on some grandmother's mantle. And I think some of the qualities of the park that might make it seem haphazard or unprofessional to one person, might make it seem more toy-like, authentic, and even charming to me.

It's like a paradox. Seeing just a hint of the backstage (not too much) doesn't destroy the magic, it actually enhances it by making me feel like I could accomplish those design feats and control the land in the same way that Walt did. By seeing a little bit of the underbelly of the magic, I get to (in a small way) play the part of Walt, building his enormous Christmas village.

Andrew Raymond St├╝ck said...

Fantastic article as always! You know, the concept of "Go Away Green" kinda reminds me of the "Somebody Else's Problem" device from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. The device was supposedly invented when scientists realized it was easier to convince people by mass hypnosis to ignore something, rather than actually render it invisible.

K. Martinez said...

I grew up on Disneyland since the 1960's What I love about Disneyland is that you can see the Matterhorn from Frontierland. Or that the famous Swiss peak rises above a subtropical submarine lagoon. Or that a large fantasy treehouse rises next door to a Pirates entrance port building. It's part of what heightens the fantasy to me. Also, the Rivers of America has always been a panorama of the American landscape and I love the fact that one can almost view it all at once. I also think of Disneyland as somewhat of a mechanical wonderland or a big toy. One of my favorite vintage images of Disneyland is a postcard showing a group of palm trees in front of the Alpine themed Matterhorn. It's visual imagery like that which makes me think "Only at Disneyland!" If it's absolute realism that I want, I'll go see the real thing.

As for the Magic Kingdom, I started going there in the late 1970's and appreciated it on it's own merits. The transitioning between the "lands" is more complete and complex and it's what gives the Magic Kingdom its unique character along with its grand scale. While I'm aware of the "warehouse" show buildings, its when they try too hard to hide it that my attention is drawn to it. And I love that I can see Cinderella's Castle from Liberty Square, Frontierland or Tomorrowland. It reminds me that the Magic Kingdom above all is about fantasy visions, whether it's the frontier, futurism, European tales or historical moments. Bottom line, it's those supposed "flaws" that make me love these individual parks. If you try too hard to fix it, it loses its charm. Thanks for another wonderful article.

Reesie said...

I prefer it when Disney hides the backstage area from view, although having been a CM in the past, I do know the intricacies of the attractions. Sometimes I just want to buy into the illusion, and I'd rather not have said illusion shattered.

That big ugly block a building for Forbidden Journey should really be analyzed more. I've only spoken to a small handful of people about it, and I think it's problem that should be brought up more. I've been going to Universal for years. I realize it is not Disney. That's why I go. It's a different experience. However, the Harry Potter area was hyped up beyond belief to the point where I couldn't wait to experience what had been called the best themed area in a US park....Boy was I disappointed.

I really really wanted to believe I was in Hogwarts, but that ugly side of the building and the clear view of the backstage area kept me from it. Little things stuck out like the apparent fake owls, the mics that the performers would wear, the lack of transition between Hogsmede and Jurassic Park, and the video screens that were used for animations or food menus that would sometimes display an error screen like a 90's PC. This, along with the rude reception I received from some employees upon my first visit to this new area, soiled my experience as a whole.

Furthermore, Forbidden Journey is a good ride, but the constant breakdowns I encountered did more to take me out of the moment. I was flying over Hogwarts one minute, and the next minute I was staring at a blank screen. When Midway Mania breaks down, there's a fun practice screen that doesn't take the guest out of the moment. Universal could benefit from something like that.

Anyway, I'm sorry to rant about something off topic on your comments page, but since you brought up the lack of themeing in that area of IoA, I thought I'd share my views. Had Universal themed this area like a movie set in the tradition of their older attractions, none of these points would have stood out or bothered me. It's because they tried to play it off as a "real" universe in they way Disney does so well that this irked me.

What I got from that experience was that most guests (at any park) really don't pay attention to that sort of thing. That was huge eye-opener for me, as I always sort of assumed that the heavy thematic details of the Orlando parks were a big reason people went to them. You're very right to believe that our community is probably the majority of those who look for the the transitions (or lack thereof) between the themed areas. Your average tourist probably doesn't notice.

simoneyes said...

So glad you called out the hilarity of the "Mardi Gras parade prop storage" detail near the New Orleans Square station at DL. It's so meta.

Like other commenters, I feel that part of what makes Disneyland so special is that feeling that the Imagineers were figuring the whole concept of themed design out as they went. Of course newer parks are slicker, more immersive, more impressive, and I am happy to enjoy the artistry and cohesiveness of their vision when I get to visit them. But Disneyland bursts at the seams, and I love it. However, I can imagine that for people who grew up going to newer parks it probably does feel a little amateurish. A little "regional", if you will. Ultimately I think Disneyland is a worldwide tourist attraction as much as an historic landmark as it is as a resort, although Disney has spent a lot of money trying to change that in the last couple decades.

Seth Brown said...

Great picture of Tokyo DisneySEA. I always loved that their backstage cuts right through the middle of the park!

Major Pepperidge said...

It's always a good day when I find a new post on "Passport 2 Dreams New and Old"! Thanks for this. I just found some photos from the construction of the Indiana Jones Adventure, and of course the massive unthemed walls are painted green. It's interesting to see that some of the formerly unaddressed backstage areas have received at least a little bit of attention; while I agree with you that many people just don't notice, it's the attention to small details that make the difference. To me, anyway.

FX-1 said...

I would draw a distinction between backstage-intrusion and theme-intrusion. Seeing the show buildings really does throw off the experience sometimes. I understand we're only a tiny fraction who really think about these things, but that just makes it a lower priority, it doesn't make it not a problem. Even the "laypeople" do still notice them every once in a while, and in my experience the person seeing it is often the uncle who doesn't really "get" Disney who is less inclined to suspend disbelief and instead will allow that error to add to his sense that he's only reluctantly here for the sake of some children, not actively enjoying the experience himself. Maybe that's not the norm, though.

Now, I think when designers are attempting to fix backstage-intrusion they should acknowledge that the probably can't stop ALL of it, and that's ok. If it's kept to a real minimum it can even add to the magic as earlier comment pointed out. They should also avoid haphazardly adding to good buildings in a way that ruins their effect just to cover up some concrete. But in general, preventing backstage-intrusion is a good idea.

On the subject of theme-intrusion though I'm right there with you. In fact I may even be more extreme than you. By theme-intrusion I mean the ability to see Frontierland from Adventureland or the way Main Street iron fences might run into Tomorrowland. I actually don't consider this a problem at all, at least in the case of Magic Kingdom-type parks. More granular themes of specific places like Diagon Alley have to worry about this more, but Magic Kingdom's more high-concept themes afford it an opportunity to allow lands to intersect. And frankly I don't think they take advantage of that opportunity as much as they should. Instead using it as an excuse for why certain awkward transitions are ok, I think instead this should be something the designers take deliberate ownership of.

I'm thinking specifically about the transition between Fantasyland and Tomorrowland in Orlando. The futuristic buildings just sort of peter-out and then the pavement changes color instead of using it as an opportunity for visual dialog between a sci-fi world and a magical world. Maybe this has changed now, I haven't been in a few years.