Fun exploration ... thanks for the focused case study of a few parks. From your measurement for the Shanghai Park, it appears that the open area to the left is for a second gate. great video
Watching this made me realize how much of the walking makes up part of the memories of having been to some of the parks mentioned. Sadly as much as I enjoyed the attractions and experiences in Epcot, I remember the walking so much more than my visits to other parks. And I remember all those construction walls. It feels like Epcot was so much bigger, but judging by step counter readings, the amount of walking is not so vastly different from visits to other parks as it feels like. I guess walking around something like the land of Harry Potter vs a walkway made of construction walls makes a difference!
Theming definitely helps the walking through theme parks feel more pleasant. Heck, it doesn't even need to be elaborate theming. Gardens and fountains are just nice to walk around, especially compared to blank construction walls. The biggest problem with Epcot was scale. They closed the entire center of the park, rather than work on it in sections. That meant having to loop around the entire perimeter of that half of the park, rather than have direct cut-throughs. Not to mention having that area be under construction for over five years...
Very great video. However, I have a question. Since you are not counting shows that don't have seating does this mean that luminous, Disneyland's Fantasmic, and DCA's World of Color Don't count as attractions? Because without a doubt they are essential parts of ones at these parks.
Correct, those kinds of nighttime shows were not counted. Part of the reason is that some parks only run those shows seasonally, so it was easier to exclude them all rather than decide on a case by case basis what should or shouldn't count. Also, those shows use existing park infrastructure, whereas the kinds of shows we counted use their own infrastructure. To that end, Fantasmic! at Disneyland doesn't count, because it's performed and viewed along the Rivers of America, but Fantasmic! at Disney's Hollywood Studios in Orlando would count, because it has its own dedicated amphitheater. In the same way, street performers weren't counted. Again, some parks have them daily; others seasonally. Sometimes even within a single park, street performers and character meet-ups can vary day to day. So counting these kinds of things wasn't feasible. To you point though, these kinds of shows and street performers are very much an essential part of the park experience. These attractions per acre calculations were meant to represent a generalized idea of how space is utilized in parks, and not represent any "real" endorsement or criticism of a particular park.
Fun exploration ... thanks for the focused case study of a few parks. From your measurement for the Shanghai Park, it appears that the open area to the left is for a second gate.
great video
great video as always! it was super interesting seeing how you compared the size of different parks/how they could be measured
Watching this made me realize how much of the walking makes up part of the memories of having been to some of the parks mentioned.
Sadly as much as I enjoyed the attractions and experiences in Epcot, I remember the walking so much more than my visits to other parks. And I remember all those construction walls.
It feels like Epcot was so much bigger, but judging by step counter readings, the amount of walking is not so vastly different from visits to other parks as it feels like. I guess walking around something like the land of Harry Potter vs a walkway made of construction walls makes a difference!
Theming definitely helps the walking through theme parks feel more pleasant. Heck, it doesn't even need to be elaborate theming. Gardens and fountains are just nice to walk around, especially compared to blank construction walls. The biggest problem with Epcot was scale. They closed the entire center of the park, rather than work on it in sections. That meant having to loop around the entire perimeter of that half of the park, rather than have direct cut-throughs. Not to mention having that area be under construction for over five years...
@@ThemeParchiveremind me again how long it took from breaking ground to opening day for Disneyland? Asking for a friend
Very great video. However, I have a question. Since you are not counting shows that don't have seating does this mean that luminous, Disneyland's Fantasmic, and DCA's World of Color Don't count as attractions? Because without a doubt they are essential parts of ones at these parks.
Correct, those kinds of nighttime shows were not counted. Part of the reason is that some parks only run those shows seasonally, so it was easier to exclude them all rather than decide on a case by case basis what should or shouldn't count. Also, those shows use existing park infrastructure, whereas the kinds of shows we counted use their own infrastructure. To that end, Fantasmic! at Disneyland doesn't count, because it's performed and viewed along the Rivers of America, but Fantasmic! at Disney's Hollywood Studios in Orlando would count, because it has its own dedicated amphitheater.
In the same way, street performers weren't counted. Again, some parks have them daily; others seasonally. Sometimes even within a single park, street performers and character meet-ups can vary day to day. So counting these kinds of things wasn't feasible. To you point though, these kinds of shows and street performers are very much an essential part of the park experience. These attractions per acre calculations were meant to represent a generalized idea of how space is utilized in parks, and not represent any "real" endorsement or criticism of a particular park.