What EPCOT refurb never should have happened?

aboden · Post by **aboden** » Aug Mon 18, 2008 10:22 pm

I agree horizons was imo a bad thing to remove but I like to think that the structure was one of the major root causes for it being shut down, I also agree SW that WoW is a waste of space, I didn't get to go there much when it was open but I have seen to many building left and not used, they fall apart fast. I wonder how the maintenance is on WoW?

BirdandRobot · Post by **BirdandRobot** » Aug Tue 19, 2008 11:50 am

aboden wrote:I agree horizons was imo a bad thing to remove but I like to think that the structure was one of the major root causes for it being shut down

From my what I've heard (meaning what's been reported on a number of forums by people who supposedly have inside connections), the structural problems were a fabrication to justify/gloss over Disney's removal of the ride. There was no sinkhole and the building wasn't on the brink of collapsing. On the contrary, Disney was planning to give the ride a substantial renovation but Eisner felt the rehab would be too costly without a sponsor. Eventually a space pavilion was proposed and a deal was struck with Compaq, who willingly funded the demolition of Horizons in exchange for a new, sleek, albeit smaller Space pavilion. Thus was the genesis of Mission: Space.

Like Iâ€™ve said the authenticity of this story is a matter of dispute, but in light of past sabotages like 20k Leagues, Mr. Toad, or Imagination, it sounds rather plausible.

agingerbugg · Post by **agingerbugg** » Aug Tue 19, 2008 12:15 pm

BirdandRobot wrote:
aboden wrote:I agree horizons was imo a bad thing to remove but I like to think that the structure was one of the major root causes for it being shut down
From my what I've heard (meaning what's been reported on a number of forums by people who supposedly have inside connections), the structural problems were a fabrication to justify/gloss over Disney's removal of the ride. There was no sinkhole and the building wasn't on the brink of collapsing. On the contrary, Disney was planning to give the ride a substantial renovation but Eisner felt the rehab would be too costly without a sponsor. Eventually a space pavilion was proposed and a deal was struck with Compaq, who willingly funded the demolition of Horizons in exchange for a new, sleek, albeit smaller Space pavilion. Thus was the genesis of Mission: Space.

Like Iâ€™ve said the authenticity of this story is a matter of dispute, but in light of past sabotages like 20k Leagues, Mr. Toad, or Imagination, it sounds rather plausible.

True, it does sound plausible. But, Mission:Space would have fit nicely into the WOL pavilion and it would have probably cost less then demolishing the old structure and building a new structure. This leads me to another question, now I am no engineer, but wouldn't it have been cheaper to remove the Horizons ride and build Mission:Space in the same structure? I don't see how demolition and construction would be more cost effective than renovation. Just an opinion, I welcome refuting arguments.

Cheshire Cat · Post by **Cheshire Cat** » Aug Tue 19, 2008 2:29 pm

True, it does sound plausible. But, Mission:Space would have fit nicely into the WOL pavilion and it would have probably cost less then demolishing the old structure and building a new structure. This leads me to another question, now I am no engineer, but wouldn't it have been cheaper to remove the Horizons ride and build Mission:Space in the same structure? I don't see how demolition and construction would be more cost effective than renovation. Just an opinion, I welcome refuting arguments.

Now, I don't believe the sinkhole story, but Disney's rebuttle is that they had to destroy the building in order to put the proper device in the sinkhole which would prevent it from causing damage in the future. After this "device" was put in place it was safe to build there again.

agingerbugg · Post by **agingerbugg** » Aug Tue 19, 2008 3:06 pm

BS I say. I live in Florida (I am actually trying to incorporate that fact in as many posts as I can, see my posting history), in an area that is sinkhole prone. It does not require demolishing an entire structure to "fix" a sinkhole. Depending on where the sinkhole is, it may require going through the foundation, but not removing the whole thing. Now the rumor that the building was unsound and about to collapse at any minute...maybe. I don't know enough about building construction and engineering (included that one in two posts on the same thread), but I can't believe that, with as much money as was spent on EPCOT Center's construction, WDI would have hired a hackneyed architect. If that were the case, SSE would have fallen off its mounts and rolled down I-4, dozens would have been injured when the outside ramp of WoM vibrated off its center mounting post and hundreds would have perished when the atrium of the Land collapsed under the weight of its unique skylight. But, this is just my honest opinion.

ctrain2281 · Post by **ctrain2281** » Aug Tue 19, 2008 3:28 pm

agingerbugg wrote:
True, it does sound plausible. But, Mission:Space would have fit nicely into the WOL pavilion and it would have probably cost less then demolishing the old structure and building a new structure. This leads me to another question, now I am no engineer, but wouldn't it have been cheaper to remove the Horizons ride and build Mission:Space in the same structure? I don't see how demolition and construction would be more cost effective than renovation. Just an opinion, I welcome refuting arguments.

Generally, it is much easier for a construction and engineering viewpoint to just start from scratch then to try to build within the confines of an existing building. It allows you complete freedom when building and you don't have to deal with the existing structures weaknesses or flaws.

All that being said, I want my old Horizons back. If you can dream it, you can do it after all!

aboden · Post by **aboden** » Aug Wed 20, 2008 1:05 am

ctrain2281 wrote:
agingerbugg wrote:
True, it does sound plausible. But, Mission:Space would have fit nicely into the WOL pavilion and it would have probably cost less then demolishing the old structure and building a new structure. This leads me to another question, now I am no engineer, but wouldn't it have been cheaper to remove the Horizons ride and build Mission:Space in the same structure? I don't see how demolition and construction would be more cost effective than renovation. Just an opinion, I welcome refuting arguments.
Generally, it is much easier for a construction and engineering viewpoint to just start from scratch then to try to build within the confines of an existing building. It allows you complete freedom when building and you don't have to deal with the existing structures weaknesses or flaws.

All that being said, I want my old Horizons back. If you can dream it, you can do it after all!

I live here too, I try to work that in too lol but under a structure is harder. I like to believe it was because of that. hehe

But renovating a structure could and could not be cost effective to renovate versus starting new. Abatement rules on if there was any toxic stuff i.e. asbestos in the building could have ruled out trying to save the structure and contain it or tear it all down. Now I know Disney would not want something in the news, that they had asbestos in there rides, even though it was widely used and the best stuff, before what we know now.

I am unsure though if asbestos was realized before Epcot was built or rather before the building plans got approved. What ever the reasons only a few would know the whole and complete truth...if only we could find those people.

Post by **js3901** » Aug Wed 20, 2008 1:13 am

if you want to start a debate over building codes and such, I ask that you start a new thread. talking about asbestos/sinkholes/rumors/myths and the like tend to take away from the original theme of the thread...

aboden · Post by **aboden** » Aug Wed 20, 2008 8:56 pm

you are correct sir, I guess my main reasons was if it was due to issues that went beyond just refurbishment, but I'm being overly technical hehe

redstomr63 · Post by **redstomr63** » Aug Fri 29, 2008 7:02 pm

Horizons without a doubt. There is a ride that is sorely missed in Epcot these days.

cccmouse · Post by **cccmouse** » Sep Mon 01, 2008 6:38 pm

Journey into Imagination. The Disney Imagineers managed to take this attraction from great to pitiful.

parkhopper26 · Post by **parkhopper26** » Sep Mon 01, 2008 7:54 pm

as much as i miss the original journey into imagination it really is a huge disappointment every time i go to epcot and find wonders of life closed

AKLRULZ · Post by **AKLRULZ** » Sep Tue 02, 2008 6:31 am

JIYM - it was great in it's orginal state.

meticulus9 · Post by **meticulus9** » Sep Tue 02, 2008 11:35 am

almost all of the rehabs in epcot have been disappointing. some just more than others...

he real bad: horizons vs M:S. JIYI vs Imagination!., canada's new film

The few that are upgrades: food rocks into soarin', capt EO into HISA

the i prefer they didn't but its ok: WOM (a great ride!) vs TT. El Rio vs Gran Fiesta.

they also did some small upgrades which plused some attractions: the ending of AA. china's new film, ellen energy adventue ( i dont like it, but it was worse before)

Admiral01 · Post by **Admiral01** » Sep Tue 02, 2008 8:24 pm

I must be in the minority for liking Universe of Energy much better before the refurb into Ellen's Energy Adventure. I wish that Disney would take the opportunity, with the current state of energy around the world today, to make a very needed refurbishment into something a little more grand and inspiring.

I haven't seen Canada's new film. Is it really bad?

Subsonic Radio

What EPCOT refurb never should have happened?

What ride/show should have been left alone?