Pop Century: Yea or Nay?

[SnackyStacky]

When we were at Pop I absolutely could not believe the numbers of people taking pictures in front of all of the, heretofore on the DIS regarded as, gaudy "decorations". You know the giant Lady and the Tramp or the Juke Box or the YoYo...In fact I heard MORE than one group talking about how wonderful the "themeing" was at this resort (Pop). I had to interrupt their conversations and tell them that according to Another Voice, this was not 'theming' but rather 'decorations'.

I really think it's just a fundamental difference in expectation.

When I go to Disney, I expect more than I do from any other vacation. Why is that? Because that's what Walt did. He set people's expectations at a much higher level.

Granted, I wasn't around when Disneyland open. I wasn't even a glimmer in anybody's eye when Disney World opened. But I have become so enamored with all things Disney that I fanatically learned as much as I could about Walt, his ideals, his work, his background, etc. Going into one of his creations just doesn't have the same meaning to me that it does to somebody who just one day decides "We've never been to Disney World. Why don't we go?" How could someone coming from that angle be in the same place as someone like me? I'm certainly not saying that I know more than anybody, or my opinion is more valid than anybody else's - just that I'm coming from someplace totally different.

And then there's the majority of the folks on the DIS. They go once, and just LOVE it there, and accept it for what it is. Their devotion isn't NEARLY as fanatical as mine, and that's okay! It just means that once again - they're coming from someplace totally different.

When I see the video presentation Walt did for Epcot, it stuns me. It stuns me that this man could even IMAGINE a city the way he did. And had he lived - I would bet everything I own and everything I ever WILL own that he would have completed HIS E.P.C.O.T.

After seeing that, HOW can I be impressed with Pop? A few square motel buildings with giant fiberglass and oversize catch phrases? The man dreamed up, laid plans, and had very detailed ideas for an entire city!!!!

As for the should it have been built part? In my personal opinion - no it should not have. I don't believe that the Imagineers are fully realizing their potential. And I believe that it's because of budget cuts. I think if they were given carte blanche they could come up with one helluva budget resort. I really believe that Pop serves only to lower expectations - those of corporate management, as well as the guests.

Does that mean that anyone who enjoys it is wrong? Hell no! If they like it - more power to them. I just don't think it's even close to what Disney is capable of.

Tell me why you think any business could justify not serving this segment of the population?

C'mon now - if Disney hadn't overbuilt AND classified their guests based on what they could or would pay, they wouldn't have NEEDED budget accomodations.

I won't even go into how unimaginative and boring ... the Polynesian is.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you find the Polynesian unimaginitive. Is it the theme itself, or the execution thereof?

 

[DisneyDude10171]

I would like to step in for a moment to clarify things regarding the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim (not to be confused with the one in Disneyland Paris or the soon-to-be one in Hong Kong):

The hotel was built by Jack Wrather sometime after the park's opening in 1955 at encouragement of Walt Disney. Disney could not afford to build and develop the hotel himself, but reasoned that one would be successful if located nearby. Over the years, it was expanded to have the present 3 towers. Following Walt's death, the company attempted to purchase the hotel, so as to have complete control of the place which bore part of the company's name. In 1988, Eisner acquired the entire Wrather corporation, which included the hotel and the Queen Mary. As for the Paradise Pier, that hotel, which had several different names was also not designed by Disney. It was constructed in 1984 and acquired in 1995 from a Japanese company.

As for my stance, I won't say much- but will say that's it's skewed seeing as how I am an architecture student currently being trained in design. Keep in mind that I do not HATE Pop.

I would agree that developers of the Disney theme park properties- including WDI- need to be careful not to fall into Eisner's branding ideas (this is not necessarily an Eisner slam- he did do many valuable things for the company--- some years ago...)

You see, it IS places like Poly, CR, etc. where more creativity is evident- they were not made with the express intention of being connected with something already in existence. Take Alien Encounter-- ahem, Stitch Escape! for example. AE was a fine show as it was, and even attracted large crowds, but an underlying reason why it is being replaced is that it will now be immediately recognizable as being connected to Disney. That in itself is not bad, but making everything Disney-unique might not proove to be such a great idea.

Of course, talking about any of this is easier said than done, as the people responsible for the buildings and attractions have to try and please "everyone". Regardless of the outcome, we must respect the incredible amount of time a project of this magnitude demands. Imagine the number of times that final products we see (including Pop and Stitch) have been reworked and pushed- and then slapping the creators with "it could have been better". That's one thing that I can say is against the spirit of Disney.

Source: Smith, Dave. Disney A to Z: The Updated Official Encyclopedia. Hyperion, New York City. 1996, 1998.

 

[Captain Crook]

I agree Snacky that a big difference in much of our discussion is at the fundumentality core. What Walt did, what was expected then has morphed into a behemouth of gargantuan proportions with different realities. Does this mean one shouldn't hope for the perfection striving of the past? I don't think so, but I think (sadly) it's one of those things where we each will 'pick our battles' so to speak. I do find it disingenuous to simply wave off everything post 1985 (or whatever) as purely profit motive although I will agree that as we've moved further the profit motive is certainly at the core way more than before and projecs like Pop lead the way in this thinking.

DisneyDude, from the design standpoint I can certainly see your frustration and I appreciate the mild tone you took while expressing it.

But let me ask something, fIf we were to make a basic comparison on the cost outlay for something fantastic (an AKL or Asian Resort) versus a themed motel? Wouldn't the difference in initail outlay must be great and wouldn't the payback breakdown have to be different? Could Disney even consider a low priced alternative using the full imagination mode??? It seems to me that is why the catagories exist (so there is something for everyone).

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
Considering occupancy rates are up at all Disney resorts people are not "downgrading" to Pop, I think most likely it is getting people who used to stay off property.

Up compared to when? At all hotels even the ones that have been closed off and on for the past 3 years? If you subtract out all of those off the market rooms...including Shades of Green are you still up? Or are you just back to numbes Disney was pulling beofre 1999?

 

[MHopkins2]

The only thing I don't like about Pop (didn't like from the pictures and REALLY didn't like once I saw them in person) are the people and especially the "sayings" on the top of each building. Other than that, I thought it was fine. My favorite part may seem silly, because it's such a little thing, but it really added to the resort for me: if you pay attention to the "soundtrack" that plays in Everything Pop, at the bus stop, and at other places around the resort, they play "five song sets" with one song from each decade, in order. I doubt they will copy that idea over to the Legendary Years, but it's a fun little addition.

 

[crusader]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
So my question is, was Disney wrong in its offering or do the good reviews and high occupancy make it justified?

Disney is not wrong in providing less expensive on-site accomodations. The values have continually proven themselves more than capable of generating bookings. Whether it be with large groups or families who want to spend less on where they stay in order to afford more on other aspects of their vacation, this company should always strive to meet and exceed the demands of tomorrow's audience.

I view the construction of Pop Century as build-out for future growth while the population continues to expand. That section of the property is far too distanced to warrant a deluxe resort the likes of the Asian or the Venetian, and given the size of Coronado Springs along with having several other moderates already on-site, it makes sense that a value was decided on here.

The complaints are mainly that this type of accomodation is too cheap, tawdry and insulting to what Disney represents in terms of quality. That may be true - in terms of the themeing - but I fail to see how that applies to building a more economical resort. It only really tells me that the designing was poor.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
But let me ask something, fIf we were to make a basic comparison on the cost outlay for something fantastic (an AKL or Asian Resort) versus a themed motel? Wouldn't the difference in initail outlay must be great and wouldn't the payback breakdown have to be different? Could Disney even consider a low priced alternative using the full imagination mode??? It seems to me that is why the catagories exist (so there is something for everyone).

It's not my job to imagineer a budget hotel, but it seems to me that something along the lines of a moderate could easily be done in a budget setting. Rooms the same size as what they have at the All Stars with a lot more attention to detail. I would sure feel better paying Disney prices for a budget hotel that didn't skimp on theme. I could deal with their dorm-size rooms at not-so-budget prices, if there was something there to look at besides big pieces of fiberglass.

 

[WDWHound]

I was against POP from the beginning, though I have softened a little bit regarding it recently. I have 2 main complaints about POP. First, I agree with everyone who has said that the Sayings on the roofline are tacky. Worse, they can be seen from the CBR. I have always been a fan of the Caribean Beach Resort (I can hear Baron and Voice's blood preasure rising from here), but its hard to get emersed in the Carribean environment with a giant sign rising above the trees inviting me to "do the funky chicken".

Second, every Disney Resort except the All Stars attempt to sweep you away to another place. You are in the Carribean, The Wilderness, Africa, Key West, the South West, The Hotel of the Future, Atlantic City at the Boardwalk.... the list goes on and on. Where are you when go to Pop? The land where things get really, really big?

For what it is, I understand that it was done well. Its just that what it is is not whatI call a Disney Resort. Its more like a Mueseum to pop culture with a giant kids playground mixed in.

As for the Disneyland Hotel, it was never owned by Walt. Walt gave Jack Wrather the rights to build and run the hotel in return for his investing in Disneyland.

 

[detective mickey]

never stayed at pop, but did stay at all-stars movies which seems to share some of the large oversized fiberglass and cut out metal items theming. it was our first stay on site and we were delighted. i want to stay at pofq or por next time. my point being the first trip was with children. they loved the gaudy oversized "cartoonish" looking props. i think some people are not considering the possibility that these resorts, including pop, may be geared for a childs enjoyment. children may not view akl or pofq with the same enthusiasm.
i do wish we could have different disney themed hotels though, such as tom sawyers island hotel, hollywood towers, pirates of the carribean, future world, haunted mansion etc. i think they would be fun. all stars movies seems to be the best disney cartoon theme hotel.

i know this is for the rides board but, and i know i may get blasted for this but pooh and buzz are cheap cheap cheap.
still cant wait to go back, disney is like sex, the worst i ever had was amazing.

 

[Nebsky]

I would say a nay-------yea....

Ya know, last August we stayed at All Star Sports in a Preferred Room and this past March, we stayed at Pop Century in a Preferred room.

I have to say I liked staying at All Star Sports better. One of my main reasons for this is the gift shop and eating area. I liked them separate. It seemed to me that it was just an after thought and they combined the two at Pop Century. Its too busy to get through. I also liked Sports better for the check-in area. The TV playing movies so kids can watch while grown ups check in is within sight. I didnt like the fact that I couldnt see my son. Dont worry, wife went over there with him while waiting to check in.

Going to the outside areas, I liked to oversized ICONs of years past at Pop as opposed to the oversized sports stuff. The lettering on top of the buildings was kind of lame, but I guess they needed other things to catch the eyes. It should go, but I dont know what else they could put up.

One thing that Pop had that was better was dedicated bus for that resort only. This was HUGE!! I didnt like sharing busses with Movies/Music when we were there in August. The one draw back though was leaving MK really close to closing time the bus que was horrible. It was twice the size of the normal ques and was overflowing. Luckily they had 2 busses at a time, but it still was a 45 min wait. After that we drove the car.
Another gripe I had with POP was the parking or lack there of. Several times I had to park out front rather than the dedicated parking lot. I did not have a car at Sports, so I cant compare those.

Overall, I just liked the Sports better. Both are value resorts and you get what you pay for. I will say that if I was going to stay at the value resorts again Pop would probably be #2 for me...
My rankings would go...
All Star Sports
Pop Century!
All Star Movies
All Star Music.

 

[Another Voice]

"Disney is not wrong in providing less expensive on-site accomodations."

Exactly. Even in the very early planning for WDW, Walt himself made reference to "motor motels". And, each of the major resorts were supposed to include several levels of accommodations each with a different price point (where do you think the hated Garden Wings at the Contemporary can from)?

The problem with Pop Century isn't that it's the wrong market, it's that Disney® treated that market so shamefully. The resorts aren't "cheap" – that Lady & The Tramp fiberglass costs more than the annual earnings of all the families staying around it. Why wasn't all that money put to better use?

Imagination doesn't cost a penny. All it takes are clever, talented people willing to work hard. Granted, they've been fired from Disney, but that's kinda of the whole point, isn't it? The crime isn't that Disney built the place, but that they didn't even try to build it well.

 

[crusader]

The crime isn't that Disney built the place, but that they didn't even try to build it well.

Well said. Maybe it is part of the "slope" mentioned time and time again here. Maybe it's just a lack of effort in assigning the proper resources to the project - relying on the fact that the customer would show up either way. If money wasn't the issue then somebody dropped the ball.

The "values" have never appealed to me. Call it veteranitis if you will, but I've become accustomed to access and need the visuals and transportation options afforded with proximity.

There was no other choice in the 70's when staying on-site. That's certainly not the case today, and the longer time goes on the further away from that situation we are.

One thing I will commend is the Grand Californian. That resort truly gives the guest a sense of being "in" Disney - away from the confines of the city - and absolutely outdoes itself in terms of the accomodations. Exceptional!

 

[Captain Crook]

Voice, I can accept that argument as totally valid. But still what does the "they didn't even try" theory say about the people who actually like Pop for the way that it is (not just the cost structure), and there are lots of these folks out there?

Can't you conceive that your vision of imagination isn't suited for all and that perhaps, just perhaps this overly simplified (to some) is just what (some) others are looking for? After all WalMart is exploding while Macy's is withering.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Voice, I can accept that argument as totally valid. But still what does the "they didn't even try" theory say about the people who actually like Pop for the way that it is (not just the cost structure), and there are lots of these folks out there?

Why does Voice's argument have to say ANYTHING about the people that like it? It really is like you were asking a loaded question. Anything that anybody says - you have an answer for.

I don't see how Disney's effort and people that like Pop have to co-exist, and have a relationship to one another.

Think about when you were in college, and threw together a paper at 3am the morning that it was due. Then by some miracle, you got an A it. Just because you didn't try doesn't mean that the professor knows you didn't try, and it certainly doesn't mean that the professor won't like it.

Same deal with Walt Disney vacationers. Do you honestly think they care about how much effort Disney put into building Pop Century?

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
After all WalMart is exploding while Macy's is withering.

Just FTR, I'm way more of a Macy's shopper than a WalMart one.

 

[DisneyDude10171]

Originally posted by crusader
Well said. Maybe it is part of the "slope" mentioned time and time again here. Maybe it's just a lack of effort in assigning the proper resources to the project - relying on the fact that the customer would show up either way. If money wasn't the issue then somebody dropped the ball.

The "values" have never appealed to me. Call it veteranitis if you will, but I've become accustomed to access and need the visuals and transportation options afforded with proximity.

There was no other choice in the 70's when staying on-site. That's certainly not the case today, and the longer time goes on the further away from that situation we are.

One thing I will commend is the Grand Californian. That resort truly gives the guest a sense of being "in" Disney - away from the confines of the city - and absolutely outdoes itself in terms of the accomodations. Exceptional!

Couldn't agree with you more!!

 

[Captain Crook]

Sorry Snacky...It's the second time I've been accused of issuing a "loaded question" in this thread, yet I've found the discussion overall to be quite good.

Look, I'm not trying to change Mr. Voice's (or anyone else's) opinion anymore than he's trying to change mine and I actually find it credible that Mr. Voice was able to verbalize a statement for which I could consider valid. Does this mean that I should abandon the way I look at Pop and what is transpiring?

I'm only trying to have some interesting discussion and honestly not trying to be a know it all, yet that's obviously the way I'm coming off...So for that I'll try to be more careful.

T

 

[Stitch 03]

I stayed at POP during Febraury for 5 nights. I have to admit that I would not be anxious to stay there again. However, that is my personal opinion. There are a lot of people who do really like that resort. Some of those people have been visiting WDW and staying on property for years. (BTW this conclusion I came to while lurking on the resorts board).

The one thing that I feel dictates how POP looks is what I refer to as 'The List'. Thie is a theory that I came up with on my last WDW visit. The theory is that there is a list of things that each class of resort can and/or cannot have. Examples:

1) Thou shalt not have interior corridors in moderate and value resorts.

2) Thou shalt not put full-service restaurants in value resorts.

3) Thou shalt not have pool slides at value resorts.

4) Thou shalt not have a moderate or value resort provide transportation other then bus to a theme park.

5) Thou shalt not include concierge services in a value or moderate.

And the list goes on.

Theme aside it is kind of amazing how, for the most part, all properties within a class are similar. It is almost as if Disney feels they need to have the class of hotels clearly distinguished to justify the price differences.

My conclusion? I do not think that Disney skimped on effort or cost when putting together POP. They just built a hotel based on the demographic need (need for more value rooms), and designed that hotel based upon a pre-determined blueprint for what a value resort looks like and its amenities. And that blueprint is the All Stars.

The idea of the 'list' is that no one should ever mistake a value for a moderate or a moderate for a deluxe.

 

[Phoebesaturn]

I just want to know why budget minded people have such a high demand for tacky? At least thats the feeling I'm getting from these resorts. God forbid...budget minded people might not like a giant Yo-Yo or football outside their room.

 

[Captain Crook]

I'm sure there are many, many, many budget minded people who WOULD be totally turned off by the rather simplistic offerings of Pop...But likewise there are many well-heeled folks who disdain the trappings of a Ritz-Calton or 4Seasons...I guess what needs to be discerned is what is/was the intent? What demographic is really being coveted by what?

This isn't to say Disney is always right, but it seems to me that Pop IS proving them right in this case much like DCA proved them wrong in that (brand loyalty) decision.

It's not iron clad but I do agree with Stitch 03's conclusion...You said it much better than me.