Flying Elephants & Industrial Ski Slopes: Spaces Where Dreams Come True

“Physically, Disneyland would be a small world in itself- it would encompass the essence of the things that were good and true in American life. It would reflect the faith and challenge of the future, the entertainment, the interest in intelligently presented facts, the stimulation of imagination, the standards of health and achievement, and above all, a sense of strength, contentment, and well-being.” – Walt Disney




The architecture of BIG is not unlike Disney.  Projects such as Via 57 West or the Waste-to-Energy plant create small worlds that project a surreal optimism on the built environment.  But as Disney World makes reality a dream, BIG creates a dreamlike reality.  What is the difference?  


In the Tallinn City Hall submittal a series of abstract concepts such as political transparency, democracy and public participation manifested physically.  The traditional town hall form is totally transformed as societal ideals translate into form and material.  Reality is distorted as a demonstration.  This thinking takes ideas and systems that are immeasurable or seemingly too large to grasp and shrinks them down to the scale of a building.  Buildings become ecosystems, hybrid monsters and culturally determined symbols.  


Disney parks rely on a similar system of symbolic projective architecture, but the icons of Disney are rooted in fiction.  To make reality into a dream, fictional stories must be scaled to life.  Mice that have been given human characteristics are human-sized at Disneyworld.  The iconic Sleeping Beauty castle in Anaheim is only 77 feet tall, relying on optical illusions to make its spires seem much taller.  So the fantasy isn’t even all that real.  

Disney and BIG both inhabit the world of projective architecture but as a word of caution: don’t confuse escapism with optimism.  

Comments

  1. The thing with themed entertainment design is just that, entertainment. People know that when they go to places like Disney they will experience something that isn't "real". When Disney created Celebration, FL they tried to create this town that they could control every aspect of and people didn't like it. I think it was because Disney tried to bring their world of "fantasy" into the real world. It was too perfect for people to feel comfortable in. On the opposite side, BIG is able to create projective architecture that people are comfortable with in the real world. I think this is because people know that when they see a BIG building they know it is real, they aren't expecting a faux facade or forced perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I totally agree that people understand that when entering amusement parks they are suspending reality, but I think it is super interesting that places like Disney World operate as a city and are just as worthy of analysis as other built environments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like the comment about Disney world as a real city, it is. Refugee camps are cities, Seaside is a city as well, but not different than a Disney world. Seaside simulated desires for 'European like' architecture and american conservatism and problems with historism. Imho BIG architecture can be compared with Disney because it is also primitive and reflects users desires, both a brands. Both are creating experience with a fancy looking facade. Architecture on point, I am willing to say that it is a hipster looking one. It reflects our mental and community oriented thoughts about how the life has to be. It is very Instagrammish, has diversity, not boring and outstanding as everyone of us wants to be.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts