In earlier articles, Norm Doerges explained some of the fundamentals of design programming – the relationship between attendance and capacity, between economics and the guest experience. In this interview, he explains how these principles worked in actual situations, how they were instrumental in the success of shows and attractions, and what the consequences were for those who chose to ignore them.
Question: You had previously mentioned that it’s not just clients who have been known to disregard design programming, but operators, designers, and even management. Are there any particular examples that you could share with us?
Norm Doerges (“ND”): There are two things that come to mind: one is a more a general recollection, the other a specific experience.
Seeing The Whole Picture
ND: Before design programming was put in place, designers were primarily responsible for area development. This includes the design of all pathways to and from attractions within a theme park. If a designer wanted the architecture, in relation to the area development, to feel cozy and intimate, he’d make the pathways narrow. If he wanted it to feel open and expansive, he would make them wide. But this approach didn’t give any consideration to the numbers of people that would use these pathways, nor to the relative capacity required. Consequently, some areas were overly congested and others had more space than necessary.
Planning For Parades
Question: What about parades? Were there any new ideas that came into play regarding the parades?
ND: The parade route was another design issue that was rarely considered before now. Parade routes were generally decided upon after the theme park was built. Consequently, when it came to actual operations, the operating group had a difficult time finding a parade route that used existing pathways. The routes were too narrow, they had turns that were too sharp, or there was limited viewing space for the parade. From an operating perspective, this made parades terribly difficult to manage.
By introducing a design programming approach, we were able to resolve many of these issues. The first thing we found was that we needed twenty feet to accommodate a marching band. Then in order to provide viewing space, there needed to be five feet on either side – on a flat surface people really couldn’t see the parade beyond five feet. Finally, there needed to be circulation space during the time of the parade, which could last up to fifty minutes. In order to accommodate this circulation, an additional five feet was required. In the end, there needed to forty feet of width throughout the length of the parade route. Once the team understood this, a design could be developed that met the operational requirements, while at the same time address the architectural needs of the specific theme.
Controlling the Crowds
ND: The more specific instance of design programming influencing how Disney came to develop its parks involved the development of a new zone within a large theme park. The operators had always known that the main thoroughfare became overly crowded during heavy exits and entrances in the summer months. So when they began to plan for this new zone, they went to the existing thoroughfare and measured the width of the main street. Again, recognizing that there had been a flow problem in the one area, they added additional footage to their measurement to provide what they thought would be a solution for the new zone. They came back to the design team and announced that the pathway for the new zone needed to be sixty feet wide. On the surface it seemed like they had learned from previous mistakes and had come up with a viable solution.
Question: Problem solved, everyone was happy, right?
ND: Actually, this announcement completely upset the architects. To them, this was like being told you have to put a runway in front of all your attractions. All their efforts at creating a charming atmosphere would be ruined. Traditionally, buildings in theme parks were designed based on forced perspective – a manipulation of scale achieved by building relative to other objects. For example, if you want a building facade to appear larger than it actually is, you make the lampposts smaller, you make the sidewalks narrower. This principle still holds true today. Of course, if your walkway is sixty feet wide, your building has to be built closer to actual scale – forced perspective no longer works because the relationship between objects is now thrown off balance. So when the architects heard that their walkways were bigger, they began drawing all their buildings bigger. Well, you can imagine what this did to the cost – everything started going through the roof. All of the sudden the estimates were coming in way over budget.
Solutions
As it was, there were essentially two parties behind the brewing dilemma: an operator who didn’t understand design programming, and a live entertainment person who wanted to have a parade route. When we were brought in to resolve the situation, we decided the first step was to take the parade out of the initial equation and figure out how wide the walkway should be just for guest traffic. Well, when you ran the math based on actual data, it turned out that only a twenty-foot walkway was really needed. So now instead of a mile of sixty-foot wide architectural concrete, all stamped and textured, we find that twenty works nicely. Furthermore, by reducing the size of the walkway, all the buildings could become smaller in scale and the use of forced perspective could once again be utilized. Now instead of being way over budget, we actually came in under budget because the pathway could be smaller than anyone originally thought it needed to be.
Q: So in both instances you had parties that were trying to design based on limited information.
ND: Yes. They were trying to do their best, but they didn’t understand the whole picture, which is exactly what the design program is meant to do. The first time these methodologies were used in the complete design of a theme park was in the early eighties. It was the first opportunity we had to thoroughly test design programming.
Q: And how did it do?
ND: It was the first time in our experience that a theme park didn’t require retrofitting after it opened.
(c) copyright 2009 Apogee Attractions
Nancy Pulk is a member of the team at Apogee Attractions, http://www.apogeeattractions.com/type/1_themeparkdesign.htm, and is pleased to have an opportunity to share some of the insights regarding themed entertainment that she has picked up since working with the dynamic and impressively experienced principals at Apogee. Norm Doerges, best known for his instrumental role in the planning and development of the enormously successful EPCOT, continues as a vital contributor to the industry he helped develop and as a mentor to newcomers like Nancy. Apogee Attractions – Shaping Visions in Entertainment
Author: Nancy Pulk
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Pressure cooker
