Do the funky chicken?
- Thread starter Lesley
- Start date
Planogirl
I feel the nerd in me stirring
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2000
If I want nostalgia, I'll visit Route 66 which isn't too far away from us and look at the original stuff. And I personally don't have a clue how to do the Funky Chicken or how to hula hoop. Maybe some the resort CM's could give lessons? Now that conjures up some interesting visions! 
Safari Steve
D23 Expo Here I Come!!!
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2000
Existing places meant to conjure up Nostalgia: Wilderness Lodge, Grand Floridian, Boardwalk, Port Orleans, Old Key West, Main St USA, Frontierland, Fantasyland, Camp MinnieMickey, Disney/MGM Studios (Hollywood Blvd, Sunset Blvd, Echo Lake, GMR, Prime Time Cafe, Sci-Fi Dine in). This is not a new concept, which makes the case in question quite unusual.
We just returned a few days ago (hadn't been to WDW in over a year). I had read all the posting of folks who hated the look of Pop Century, but kinda forgot about it. One day, out of nowhere, this gaudy sight hit us. At first I thought it was an offsite ticky tacky tourist attraction. I chose to forget about it til now. OMG, it was Pop Century!!! The funky chicken reference just helped it click in my head. Lesley, I think your South of the Border analogy was dead on!!! I wish Pop Century would just disappear!
That's exactly how it happened to us.....we were going "Ew...what's that?" then I realized it was Pop Century. Then I stared in horror as we drove through CBR and could still see it...bad show, very bad show. If you ever stay at CBR request a room facing away from this eyesore!
An okay idea gone horribly wrong.....
An okay idea gone horribly wrong.....
donald@home
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2001
There is a BIG difference between recreating detailed environments that capture the romance and adventure from distant times and places with the use of architecture themed to a specific time and place, building materials, landscaping, costumes, background music, interior decorating, props, etc., and screaming DO THE FUNKY CHICKEN from the top of a cookie cutter motel decorated with huge icons. I, like others, have seen these horrendous buildings (at least a couple of them) and this IS a new concept: a new BAD concept. It will be interesting to see what happens to this resort.
OnWithTheShow
No Entangling Alliances
- Joined
- Sep 20, 1999
I kind of like the theme of pop century and certainly agree that the need for more value resorts is very important. I want as many people as possible to be able to afford to experience the magic of WDW. As far as sighlines into the resort go I am sure that once construction is complete that many of them will be covered by the landscaping which has yet to be installed.
At some point Disney needs to ask itself how many of these land-wasting eyesoars they want to construct before it starts to devalue the rest of the WDW property. I understand that Pop Century is visible from Carribean Beach resort. If true, I for one, will no longer stay at CB.
And what effect will Pop Century have on the congestion of WDW? They've already managed to convert the quaint lake-side shopping district of Disney Village into the Mall of America. What will happen when 20,000 guests are suddenly plopped nearby? How many more fume-spewing busses will soon be clogging their over-stressed roadways?
Contrary to what most people think, Disney does not have a lot of land left to develop on. Ever since they allocated 9,000 acres (one-third of their property) to build their own subdivision (Celebration) Disney only has a total of 9,000 acres to build on (the remaining 9,000 acres fall under land conservation). And after 25 resorts, four theme parks, three water parks, a campground, two night-time districts, five golf courses and a sporting complex they simply have reached their limit in my opinion.
So when I see WDW constructing these boraxic Motel 6's, which chew up incredible amounts of land, (and place more burdens on their over-stressed transporations system) it absolutely bumbs me out. I understand the concept of appealing to all income levels but at what cost to their overall property?
Back in the mid-80s Disney set out to be a premier hotelier and they achieved that goal. Today, they seem hell bent on becoming vacation slum lords with little concern about the long-term impact it will have on their guests' vacation experience, or the value of their land.
Pity.
And what effect will Pop Century have on the congestion of WDW? They've already managed to convert the quaint lake-side shopping district of Disney Village into the Mall of America. What will happen when 20,000 guests are suddenly plopped nearby? How many more fume-spewing busses will soon be clogging their over-stressed roadways?
Contrary to what most people think, Disney does not have a lot of land left to develop on. Ever since they allocated 9,000 acres (one-third of their property) to build their own subdivision (Celebration) Disney only has a total of 9,000 acres to build on (the remaining 9,000 acres fall under land conservation). And after 25 resorts, four theme parks, three water parks, a campground, two night-time districts, five golf courses and a sporting complex they simply have reached their limit in my opinion.
So when I see WDW constructing these boraxic Motel 6's, which chew up incredible amounts of land, (and place more burdens on their over-stressed transporations system) it absolutely bumbs me out. I understand the concept of appealing to all income levels but at what cost to their overall property?
Back in the mid-80s Disney set out to be a premier hotelier and they achieved that goal. Today, they seem hell bent on becoming vacation slum lords with little concern about the long-term impact it will have on their guests' vacation experience, or the value of their land.
Pity.
DVC-Landbaron
What Would Walt Do?
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2000
Very well said!!! Especially the "vacation slum lords" bit! Wonderful!!
C
Captain Crook
Guest
What are you a journalist? With the catchy phrases that don't really mean anything and all. I knew you'd like it Landbaron, I knew it instantly. "Vacation slum lord"...As if anybody visits WDW because they have to...
(these comments were intended humorously).This discussion shows the level of innanity in our Disney discussions. Unlike the threads on animation where reality can be qualified & proven and results quantified and reviewed this discussion is only about perception and personal taste. Many of you claim to hate Pop due to its crass theming but deep down you're mad at Disney for other things (Eisner, loss of EE, hour reductions, Eisner, attraction cutbacks, off the shelf rides, Eisner) and wouldn't admit to this being a good idea even if it were the Taj Mahal.
Disney needs to build more affordable rooms (AS does great business to prove it). Just because you don't like the style and immature or pointless theming doesn't mean there aren't lots of people who will, after all this is America - home of the pointless & inane (I give you Oprah & Brittany as proof). Further, what affect will it have on you and your vacation plans? I can tell you that the crowded busses at AS, the cheerleaders in the hall or whatever else have never affected my vacation at AKL or even the S/D for that matter. I see Pop as we drive by, my wife & I cringe at the scheme, my kids hoot & holler at the sight of crazy things they've never seen before, but thats the extent that this Resort will affect me (as I drive by). I'll not be staying there, most likely, but I absolutely do not begrudge someone who chooses to, be it due to the lower prices or the theming, it makes no difference to me.
As for being seen from CBR, rest assured the landscape buffer will address this. We all should know by now that landscaping is an area Disney knows how to do well & is still doing.
Regarding land, Disney has plenty of developable land left - enough so that my life will be through before they're tapped out (and I've got a good 2 or 3 years left!). As a matter of fact, I've heard they've even added to their land holdings in the area recently (can anyone confirm this?).
So, Pop Century, love it? No. Hate it? Certainly not. It's just one of those things...
All Aboard
Por favor mantengan se alejado de las puertas
- Joined
- Oct 21, 1999
Actually, value resorts are pretty darn efficient uses of land. Compare the density of Pop Century with it's neighbor to the north, CBR.
Ugly or not, when we get into discussions about devaluing the experience for others, that's where hop off. "My stays at the Grand Floridian Concierge just aren't the same since they built the gauche All Star motels and just anybody can stay on-site."
Next thread please.
Ugly or not, when we get into discussions about devaluing the experience for others, that's where hop off. "My stays at the Grand Floridian Concierge just aren't the same since they built the gauche All Star motels and just anybody can stay on-site."
Next thread please.
Another Voice
Charter Member of The Element
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2000
Inexpensive is not the same thing as cheap. And even cheap is not the same thing as tawdry.
There is nothing wrong with the budget hotel concept, but thats not an excuse to ditch effort, imagination, and common sense. The concept behind Disney is that it is ALL supposed to be good; not that everythings okay as long as I can drive past it really fast and that its not visible from my luxury resort.
There is nothing wrong with the budget hotel concept, but thats not an excuse to ditch effort, imagination, and common sense. The concept behind Disney is that it is ALL supposed to be good; not that everythings okay as long as I can drive past it really fast and that its not visible from my luxury resort.
DVC-Landbaron
What Would Walt Do?
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2000
And the car pool comes out in force!!!! 
Do I know how to reel in a Captain or what?
So! We can quantify the experience that an animated feature gives us, but not a resort?!?! I'm sorry Captain, but I don't see the difference. I try to see where you draw the line, but it appears to me that you keep moving the thing!
Well!! So now you're clairvoyant!! You may want to think that about the others in this thread, but seriously Captain, do you really believe this of me? Do you think I discount everything Disney offers just because I think Ei$ner is inept? If it were themed, as opposed to decorated I would not squawk at all. Even if I didn't particularly like the theme, I'd not utter a peep. If it at least tried to be a "Disney Experience" I would rave about the apparent turnaround in the corporate philosophy. Sadly though, it is cheaply (and some may even say gaudily) decorated, and further illustrates the decline of Walt's philosophy. Hmmm, unless I'm greatly mistaken, it is the same as the film thread. What'd think? An isolated example delineating the dilution of theme and clearly pointing out the diametrically opposed visions of Walt and Ei$ner.
Agreed!! But NOT IN DISNEY!!!! In Disney there is no "pointless & inane". Just quality. Disney quality!!
By further diluting the brand, theme and purpose of WDW. To me just knowing it's there makes me sad.
C
Captain Crook
Guest
Do I know how to hook a Landbaron, or what???
airlarry!
Did you know some ferns date back to Prehistoric t
- Joined
- May 30, 2000
Mon Capitain:
Egads, mon, have you seen them or their concept? They are horrid! I drove past them while being built last year and was amazed at how tacky they were.
I am no GF snob, as some have called those who prefer that beautiful hotel. I've never even been there. I've stayed at the Mods and the Values, but that doesn't mean I'm a schleppy slob who will take a dollop of decoration in exchange for sub $57 room rates. I have pride in my vacation, please.
The question in my mind is what was the motivation behind building these. I am beginning to think that there are some Burbank buffoons who are in an actual game of Motel tiddlywinks...betting that they can out-cheap themselves with every new hotel constructed on the property, safe in the knowledge that we Disney fans will stay there not matter how ugly just because of the price and because it is on-site. Gawd, I hope that they are not right. I hope these are never finished in their present plans and that I am never tempted with some postcard in the mail offering a 'Disney Magical Value Vacation' for only $39 a night. Because then I may eat the words in my second paragraph and actually stay there like some 18th century harlot.
I want Disney to add rooms not for the sake of adding more guests or getting more dollars from I-192. I want them to add value rooms to give those with lesser means a chance to stay on-site and experience the magic...with less amenities, of course, but with a well-planned and well-executed theme that transports them away from Motel 6.
Egads, mon, have you seen them or their concept? They are horrid! I drove past them while being built last year and was amazed at how tacky they were.
I am no GF snob, as some have called those who prefer that beautiful hotel. I've never even been there. I've stayed at the Mods and the Values, but that doesn't mean I'm a schleppy slob who will take a dollop of decoration in exchange for sub $57 room rates. I have pride in my vacation, please.
The question in my mind is what was the motivation behind building these. I am beginning to think that there are some Burbank buffoons who are in an actual game of Motel tiddlywinks...betting that they can out-cheap themselves with every new hotel constructed on the property, safe in the knowledge that we Disney fans will stay there not matter how ugly just because of the price and because it is on-site. Gawd, I hope that they are not right. I hope these are never finished in their present plans and that I am never tempted with some postcard in the mail offering a 'Disney Magical Value Vacation' for only $39 a night. Because then I may eat the words in my second paragraph and actually stay there like some 18th century harlot.
I want Disney to add rooms not for the sake of adding more guests or getting more dollars from I-192. I want them to add value rooms to give those with lesser means a chance to stay on-site and experience the magic...with less amenities, of course, but with a well-planned and well-executed theme that transports them away from Motel 6.
C
Captain Crook
Guest
We stay at WDW some 20-25 nights per year & drive by Pop every time. Don't get me wrong, it does nothing for me, but I'm betting many people will like it and the garrish exterior of a hotel I'm not staying at bothers be little...I just think it wrong to sit on high and criticize everything 'just because', which is going on way to often around here, IMO...
As to the motivation for building them, well, it's the profit motive of course, and they're betting there will be a demand for this type of accomodation or they wouldn't have built them. As Disney has had pretty good success with their hotel division, I'll defer. Further, I prefer to defer my final judgement on the overall environment until the thing is actually completed. Landscaping can soften a lot of hard edges...
As to the motivation for building them, well, it's the profit motive of course, and they're betting there will be a demand for this type of accomodation or they wouldn't have built them. As Disney has had pretty good success with their hotel division, I'll defer. Further, I prefer to defer my final judgement on the overall environment until the thing is actually completed. Landscaping can soften a lot of hard edges...
For those of you responding to my "vacation ghetto" post, I think you may be missing the real point.
My main problem with Disney, first and foremost, is that they have sold off their long-term ability to expand at the same quality level they have in the past: At 9,000 acres, Celebration chews up half of WDW's useable land.
What that means to the rest of us is that all future developments are being positioned closer and closer together.
By all means, build an epic-sized Motel 6 with a giant Woody hat on top of it if you want to. I don't care
What I do care about is that Disney still has a 27,000-acre mentality when in reality they only have 9,000 acres of space to develop on. The result is that now the gigantic Motel 6 is right next to the Carribean Beach Resort. Call me a snob all you want, but if I'm paying $150 a night I don't want the unsightliness, traffic and cacaphony of a $80-a-night prefabricated housing project right next door.
For example, I was no happier when WDW built the NASCAR track in the parking lot of the Magic Kingdom. If I ever did have enough money to stay at the Polynesian, (no, I'm not a Grand Floridian snob. Nice try.) I would now have to listen Jeff-Gordon-wanna-bees rip around that sad little track. Why such an obnoxious location? Room: wherelse were they going to plop it down?
Look at Animal Kingdom: The same price range (if not more) than Wilderness Lodge. WL is nestled deep in the woods of WDW (because they had the space at the time it was built). AKL, however, is on the outskirts of their property where some rooms look out on a Days Inn - how authentic. Why? They're running out of land to develop these projects like they have done in the past.
You know what would have been more daring than selling a third of their land to build a Del-Web-style community? Having the patience, foresight and confidence to dig out another lake the size of the Seven Seas Lagoon and build attractions and hotels along its shore.
Before Celebration, WDW had more than enough land to do that. They didn't have the guts. The easier short-term answer was to sell-off that land and let third-parties develop it, which is exactly what they did with Celebration. It's a major leasing deal, nothing more.
One of you called any criticism of Pop Century inane because it's a thinly veiled attack against Eisner's short-term vision. You're right, I think Eisner is focused on short-term answers to long-term problems. But there is no misdirected animosity here; my animosity is quite blatent. If Celebration didn't exist, WDW could have continued to develop new projects while taking advantage of their once-greatest asset space.
My main problem with Disney, first and foremost, is that they have sold off their long-term ability to expand at the same quality level they have in the past: At 9,000 acres, Celebration chews up half of WDW's useable land.
What that means to the rest of us is that all future developments are being positioned closer and closer together.
By all means, build an epic-sized Motel 6 with a giant Woody hat on top of it if you want to. I don't care
What I do care about is that Disney still has a 27,000-acre mentality when in reality they only have 9,000 acres of space to develop on. The result is that now the gigantic Motel 6 is right next to the Carribean Beach Resort. Call me a snob all you want, but if I'm paying $150 a night I don't want the unsightliness, traffic and cacaphony of a $80-a-night prefabricated housing project right next door.
For example, I was no happier when WDW built the NASCAR track in the parking lot of the Magic Kingdom. If I ever did have enough money to stay at the Polynesian, (no, I'm not a Grand Floridian snob. Nice try.) I would now have to listen Jeff-Gordon-wanna-bees rip around that sad little track. Why such an obnoxious location? Room: wherelse were they going to plop it down?
Look at Animal Kingdom: The same price range (if not more) than Wilderness Lodge. WL is nestled deep in the woods of WDW (because they had the space at the time it was built). AKL, however, is on the outskirts of their property where some rooms look out on a Days Inn - how authentic. Why? They're running out of land to develop these projects like they have done in the past.
You know what would have been more daring than selling a third of their land to build a Del-Web-style community? Having the patience, foresight and confidence to dig out another lake the size of the Seven Seas Lagoon and build attractions and hotels along its shore.
Before Celebration, WDW had more than enough land to do that. They didn't have the guts. The easier short-term answer was to sell-off that land and let third-parties develop it, which is exactly what they did with Celebration. It's a major leasing deal, nothing more.
One of you called any criticism of Pop Century inane because it's a thinly veiled attack against Eisner's short-term vision. You're right, I think Eisner is focused on short-term answers to long-term problems. But there is no misdirected animosity here; my animosity is quite blatent. If Celebration didn't exist, WDW could have continued to develop new projects while taking advantage of their once-greatest asset space.
Planogirl
I feel the nerd in me stirring
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2000
Besides what exactly is wrong with an ATTRACTIVE budget resort? Everyone goes on and on about the Disney "magic" but I'm having problems equating giant bowling pins and doing the funky chicken with Disney magic. I realize that this is just one person's opinion but I would love an affordable, nicely-themed budget hotel. I don't ask for a lot from these places because of their lower prices but "K.I.S.S" is sometimes a nice philosophy IMO.
Are you sure that you meant to insult Motel 6 like this?
Are you sure that you meant to insult Motel 6 like this?
Share this page
GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
