References:
Books referenced for this publication that document the Serious Architecture of Walt Disney.

The posthumously completed Bay Lake Tower is a major addition to the existing Contemporary Resort, a complex of several buildings that includes a postmodern convention center designed by GSAA and the Contemporary Tower. The resort is within walking distance to Magic Kingdom theme park and its impact on the reality of the fantasy that is Disney World places extreme importance on future development. The existing Contemporary Tower was completed in 1971 and designed by forgotten modern master Welton Becket. The tower’s signature A-frame profile has been an icon to the eclectic Walt Disney World skyline since its completion.[2] The experience of zooming through the boundless atrium while aboard the futuristic monorail is instilled with the spirit of Walt Disney himself and for that reason it is loved by all guests.

Instead of competing with this experience, Mr. Gwathmey wisely chooses to politely defer to the existing tower and its unique experience. Deference, as a design tactic, transcends mere recognition of the need for visual relief, or the difference between background and foreground. It is an egoless discipline of designing a building or series of buildings in a way that defers to a focus, and imparts to the inherited structure a stronger expression. Could you imagine if Cinderella’s Castle were surrounded by structures from the other Disney animated epics, and lacked the formal clarity that it currently has? It would be visually chaotic. For each signature structure added the others are made less impactful. The baroque boulevard of Main Street U.S.A. with its mélange of design periods (19^th century Americana meets medieval castle), and surrounding landscape are all elements that act deferentially to Cinderella’s Castle and thereby enhance the overall experience.

Deference as an architectural tactic is also the prevalent theme in Mr. Gwathmey’s design for the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum addition, completed in 1992. The orthogonal forms and patterns of Mr. Gwathmey’s addition defer to Wright’s curvilinear design. The juxtaposition of the treatment between the two structures clearly distinguishes the difference between Gwathmey and Wright, and Wright’s design is comparatively enhanced by the subdued addition.

Mr. Gwathmey’s mastery of deference as a compositional device is most evident at Bay Lake Tower. Unlike his design for the Guggenheim addition, at Bay Lake Tower he defers to the existing structure by engaging Becket in a sophisticated architectural dialogue, using the formal language established by Becket for the Contemporary Tower. Similarities in aesthetic design exist between the two towers, but Mr. Gwathmey avoids vapid stylizing by understanding the causal orders that shape each design element, and then positioning them in a manner consistent with each element’s function and purpose.

Photo Gallery:

The Dialogue

While most buildings are characterized as having a front and rear elevation, the two towers of the Contemporary Resort dispenses with this norm with their visual interplay of exterior and interior façades. The Contemporary Tower’s A-frame structure encloses an expansive fifteen-story atrium in which the eastern and western walls of the atrium appear as if they are elevations belonging to separate yet identical structures. Similarly, the horseshoe configuration of Bay Lake Tower creates the appearance of an exterior and ‘interior’ façade. The exterior façade of Bay Lake Tower faces outward towards Magic Kingdom and the Contemporary Resort, while the inward facing façade frames a contemporary version of a classical courtyard that rivals the scale of the Contemporary’s atrium.

The incorporation of exterior and interior façades in the design of Bay Lake Tower is the catalyst to a more complex visual dialogue between the two designs. A critical reading of the towers’ elevations reveals that the architectural language is developed in response to the following orders: views of Magic Kingdom and Bay Lake, structural forces, and the horizontal movement of the monorail. The exterior façade of the Contemporary Tower expresses the building’s repetitive steel A-frame structure, while the interior façades feature streamlined horizontals that exaggerate and embellish the speed of the monorail as it enters and exits the vast atrium.

The design of the exterior façade of Bay Lake Tower posed the greatest challenge because it had to respond to both the horizontality of the monorail and the verticality imposed by the structural system, which is dominant in the Contemporary Tower’s exterior façade. Mr. Gwathmey resolves all of these issues by designing a façade that changes in appearance according to the viewer’s proximity to the building. Up close the cream colored horizontal lines establish the composition, while the sweeping curve of the building’s plan creates a distorted perspective that exaggerates riders’ sense of speed on the moving monorail. From afar the horizontal curves defer to the staccato rhythm of verticals created by the alternating placement of glazed surface and recessed balconies. Although the exterior façade of Bay Lake Tower is subordinate to the Contemporary Tower, its interior façade is a dynamic composition of vertical forms that cast dramatic shadows and maintain a stately presence on Bay Lake. Mr. Gwathmey hints to the verticality that remains hidden on the interior façade with the two strategically placed vertical spires on the exterior façade, which frame views of the Contemporary Tower to the East and Magic Kingdom to the West. These two spires are the only moments of relief on the exterior façade from the zooming horizontal lines.

The solid vertical masses that comprise the interior façade serve as an expression of the building’s mechanical systems and service areas, while large vertical reveals are glazed, permitting views out toward the lake from the corridors. One of the most exciting moments in the entire design is the transition from interior to exterior façade which is ornamented with two   ‘crystalline blades’ that function as the egress stair towers,.  Without the spires the transition between exterior and interior façade would be anticlimactic.

The play of horizontals and verticals at Bay Lake Tower is executed with such rigor and originality that Mr. Gwathmey creates a structure that is technically superior in its execution to the original Contemporary Tower with the exception of the structure’s apex, the Top of the World Lounge. This is the only moment that the design appears to replicate the original without deference to the elements’ origin of being. Despite the similarities between the apexes of the Contemporary and Bay Lake Towers, the top of Bay Lake Tower feels foreign and obtrusive. It neither denies nor accepts the vertical or horizontal, and this indifference is its weakness.

While the apex of Bay Lake Tower is the weakest moment in the design, the pedestrian bridge that connects the existing tower to Bay Lake Tower evinces his mastery of dealing with difficult relationships to existing structures. The bridge acts as an independent element and helps to distinguish the two towers as separate and distinct, and is a departure from their established aesthetics. The lack of resolution in connection between the two towers is intentional, implying that the bridge is its own structure, belonging neither to the Contemporary or Bay Lake Tower. The bridge is a referential departure from the architectural language of the Contemporary Tower and is instead a playful interpretation of the monorail and its concrete structural system. This correlation in formal language between the monorail and the bridge is validated by their shared function: both structures move people. The pedestrian bridge serves as another instance of Mr. Gwathmey’s ability to understand the source of a language and reinterpret it in a manner that is appropriate yet consistent with its origin.

The Serious Architecture of Walt Disney World

Architects in professional and academic circles often lack a critical appreciation for the great architectural experiment that is Walt Disney World. The buildings and environments constructed in the Reedy Creek Improvement District are often dismissed by professors as not “serious architecture”, or are slandered by architects and critics as “theming”. The truth is that the architecture of Walt Disney is serious and precise, and the environments found there are executed at such a high level of sophistication that the scale and spirit of this place can never be recreated. Mr. Gwathmey respects this, and it is evident in his design of Bay Lake Tower.

It is unfortunate that the addition to the Art & Architecture Building at New Haven will leave its mark in history as Mr. Gwathmey’s final work, because Mr. Gwathmey was an architect capable of producing memorable works of architecture that hold their own against some of the best buildings ever constructed. Bay Lake Tower will never be loved in the same way that visitors love the Contemporary Tower, but because of his deference he makes one of Disney’s oldest icons (and the unforgettable experience of riding on the monorail as it speeds through the atrium towards the Magic Kingdom) that much better. The forgotten Bay Lake Tower is classic Gwathmey, and stands as a deserving grand finale for an architect who never backed down from a challenge and always understood that sometimes it is better to defer than to receive.

The above article was featured in the Winter 2010 issue of Florida/Caribbean Architect Magazine.

References:

[1] New York Times critic Nicolai Ouroussoff’s description of the GSAA designed addition to the Art & Architecture building at Yale, as published in Yale Revelation: Renewal for a Building and Its Original Designer.
[2] Wikipedia

Related Photos

The Disney Treehouse Villas are a fun little project which will be featured in an upcoming article on prefabrication.  The buildings are also noteworthy because they were built on protected wetlands, and designed according to sustainable standards that minimize the impact of construction on the wetlands.  The Disney Treehouse Villas are different than a typical resort. Instead of sharing one building with 59 other families, you are in one of 60 buildings, and all the buildings are spread throughout the forest. It is actually a lot like visiting the Ewok villages from Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, at least that is how I felt while visiting. They even stole the Ewok’s color scheme. In fact, the only difference between the Ewok villages of Star Wars and the Treehouse Villas by Disney, is that the villas are on Earth, where there are building codes, and the Ewoks are unfortunately not real. Two of the units in the resort are ADA accessible, which is where that kid and his ramps come into play.  Now, this is neither the longest nor ugliest ADA ramp that I have ever seen. Even though the ramp is almost as long as a football field it is contextual and appropriate, and I’ll explain why, after a photo break.

Photo Gallery:

Much of the site is protected wetlands, and the resort’s site is secluded from all major development. When a guest in one of the units, you feel as if you and your family & friends are the only people in the forest.  What is unique about the ADA units is that the excessively long ramp completely removes guests from ‘real world’ necessities such as the automobile, maintenance trucks, resort staff and other amenities, which detract from the experience of living in the trees. This 300 feet buffer should have been enforced on all of the units to create an illusion of a city in the trees. If I were to design the master plan for this project, I would have taken a page out of the Ewok village playbook and would have connected ALL of the units with suspended walkways. These suspended trails in the woods would allow guests to feel as if they are walking amongst the trees, experiencing nature completely removed from the ‘real world’. The 58 non-ADA units are relatively close to the drive for the unit, and one does not feel as isolated in nature as one would if staying in an ADA unit.  The only unfortunate thing about these ramps is that the other 58 units don’t have them. Sometimes we do silly things like create 300 feet ramps in the woods, and realize after the project is complete that doing so was not such a bad idea afterall. You win this round kid who loves ramps but hates elevators. Next time, you won’t be so lucky.

Related Photos

Photo Gallery:

Like many hotels in Orlando, and Florida for that matter, Bay Lake Tower has a large recreational area complete with bamboo garden, plaza, shuffle board, pool and a water slide!  Yes, the water slide was fun, but upon walking the site the morning after our stay I could not help but notice that the water slide was perhaps one of the best architectural features of the hotel.  The final design of the water slide is the result of a collaborative effort between Wing Chao, Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects, and MSI Design, but before continuing, I must admit that I have a fetish for glass block.  I love the material and have been a believer since I saw my first Richard Meier building, but like ribbon windows and tilt wall construction it has developed a bad reputation for being made ordinary.  When most people think of glass block they think of basements and crappy stairwells. Although glass block has fallen slightly from its pedestal as a respectable building material it still survives as an architectural cult favorite, and is only manufactured in one place in the states, Pittsburgh Corning. Now may I ask you a question? Actually you have no choice in the matter.

When is the last time that you paused to examine the details of a water slide?

Now I know what you are thinking, ‘What?! A water slide, this guy is really going to analyze a water slide?’ Yes, dammit and for good reason.  Anything done poorly or well has value, value in that if you can analyze it and understand why it is successful or not. One can take those lessons learned and apply them as techniques or strategies to solving new problems, regardless of the architectural style or fashion that the project was completed in.

Mickey Mouse Architecture:
The water slide gives homage to Mickey Mouse, and some may frown upon this literal use of Disney’s star character on the facade, but given the context that the site is a baseball’s throw away from Magic Kingdom and that it is a water slide, the use of Mickey’s trademark silhouette is a given and is fully justified.  Sometimes things are so obvious that we try to steer clear from them in design, rather than seeking new techniques or treatments for reinventing what has been done before.  The designer of this slide uses Mickey’s silhouette in two places:  Mickey is patterned into the spiraling glass block at a larger than life scale, which is hardly perceptible in person, and the second place is within the frame of the stair tower lined with neon lights.  The spiral stair and slide also suggest a sense of playfulness which is reminiscent of Mickey Mouse.

The composition of the water slide is also worth discussing as its formal composition adheres nicely to the principles established between the new and existing buildings on the campus.  The formal composition of the water slide consists of a juxtaposition of orthogonal and radial geometries into an assemblage of masses that pull at one another, while at the same time forming a cohesive whole. This juxtaposition also occurs at the larger scale as the angular form of the existing Contemporary Resort designed by Welton Becket contrasts against Gwathmey & Siegel’s curving Bay Lake Tower.  The orthogonal tower ornaments the connection between the dueling spirals.  One must go up to go down and this transformation of potential energy is monumentally exclaimed with a tower element.  The tower weights the composition right at the climax of the experience. You spiral to the top, you spiral to the bottom, spiraling in this project is associated with vertical transformation of the occupant.  The point at which one would hesitate in completing their journey is where the logic and efficiency of an orthogonal tower element is used.  The spiral is an obvious choice to express movement, because a spiral, or in this case the helix  is actually a function of time and motion.

Could I be reading into this too much?  Maybe, but so what if I am.  Have you ever thought of expressing the experiential timeline of a water slide in the form of your building? Maybe you will now.  This is the reason that the analysis of built architecture is so important.

This project is full of many nice clean details, but what left a lasting impression was the detailing of the glass block.  The glass block seems to freely curve and flow like water all around the structure.  At moments there is colored glass block layered against colored glass block.  The material seems to filter the Florida sunlight in a magical way, in a way that you would only expect to be possible at Disney World.  The structure is playful in that you can walk around the slide or through it to access the spiral stair that leads to the top.  While walking through the structure I could not help but notice the beautiful quality of light and how the sky seemed to be captured by the spiraling form of the glass block.  It was then that I noticed that the apparent lightness of the structure, this is because the glass block is actually pulled away from the steel pipe structure.  The anchors are tied back to the steel pipe and add to the character of the structure.  Every detail is bolted and exposed in a manner that creates an underlying order throughout the structure.  At first glance the structure appears as a playful water slide, composed of whimsical shapes in a haphazard manner, but upon closer inspection one notices that the form is very ordered and the detailing is clean, rhythmic, and industrial.

The form and the design concepts implemented in this project would have only remained concepts if not for the execution of the details and realization of the project in its current state.  Regardless, the water slide at Bay Lake Tower is an exceptional project, and is an opportunity that could have easily been missed, but instead it was turned into architecture.  Now I don’t want to oversell the project, don’t make an architectural pilgrimage just to see this building, but if you are ever in Disney World and would like to be pleasantly surprised, you have to visit what is a rare example of an architectural water slide.

Related Photos

During my last visit to Disney Hollywood Studios I was walking to my car when I glanced back towards the entrance to the park, and felt as if I was looking at an old friend and had forgotten his name. It was one of those feelings you get when you look at a building and know that you should know the name of the building, or sense that it was designed by a talented architect. Later on that weekend I was flipping through my copy of Modern Architecture A-Z and solved the mystery of who designed the entrance to Disney Hollywood Studios.  The entrance to Disney Hollywood Studios is nearly an exact copy of the Pan Pacific Auditorium in Los Angeles, California, which was completed in 1935, and designed by Wurdeman & Bechet.  Disney refers to it as a full-scale, stylized replica, but let’s just call it what it is, a copy. I have listed a photograph of the Disney Hollywood Studios entrance below that I took that day, and a photograph of the Pan Pacific Auditorium building which can be found on page 67 of Modern Architecture A-Z.

I began to think about what would happen if I were to create a full-scale, stylized replica of some of Disney’s merchandise or characters and posted them for sale on this website.  I figure that the conversation would be something similar to the below:

Disney Attorney: “Remove that content from your website Mr. Cornetet and give us all the money you made from selling your bootleg merchandise, close down your website, give us your first born and you’re never allowed to watch another Disney movie, ever!”

Me: “I’m sorry sir, there has been some confusion, I am selling full-scale, stylized replica Mickey Mouse ears, I hope that clears everything up, and are we talking about all Disney movies or just the animated ones?”

Disney Attorney: “All of them.”

That was fun, but you know what is more fun, stealing ideas.  Unfortunately architectural copyright infringement goes virtually unpunished, and people are making a lot of money off of these stolen ideas.  Architects and designers everywhere are getting the shaft and not earning royalties that they have justifiably earned.  Every time you hear a musician on the radio, they are getting paid for the use of their song, which leads me to another kind of architectural copyright infringement that is becoming more common.  Why is it that the creative works of musicians can be used in commercials to sell cars only if you pay them royalties, but when famous works of architecture are used to sell cars, and as far as I know, the architects do not receive any compensation for the use of their work.   Now let’s run through another scenario, what would happen if I took a song re-recorded it with somebody else and tried to sell it, again, a big no-no, but companies like Disney are free to take the ideas of architects and copy them.  The insulting part is that they do not hide the fact, they insult us by saying ‘oh, its a replica’.  The ethical thing to do would be to pay the architects of the Pan Pacific Auditorium or their heirs, royalties on their design.

I am already angry, and I have so much more to write about, so let us move onto the specifics of architectural copyright infringement.  Unfortunately most architects know nothing about the laws that protect their work, and it is this lack of knowledge that is perhaps the key reason that architects say ‘hey that is pretty cool, my building is in a commercial’, instead of calling their lawyer and asking ‘where is my damn movie check.’

Much of what I am about to discuss is information which is supported by research I have completed at the U.S. Copyright Office website, which is the definitive source on the topic.  The rest of the information is in reference to an article Architecture & Copyright Law by Gallagher & Dawsey Co., LPA.  I would like to now point out that I am not a legal expert and that I am barely competent enough to write this blog, so don’t get mad at me if you follow my advice and the sky falls. I would also like to point out that I am neither endorsing the U.S. government nor Gallagher & Dawsey Co., LPA, but am noting these sources in order to give my argument some credibility.

An argument that we frequently have at HKS is in regards to when does copyright protection exist?  The Mr. and Mrs. Bosses of my office want to put the © copyright symbol on every damn piece of paper that exist, and if something is printed without it, they want it reprinted with it.  This is the old school way of thinking, which has since been revised.  In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed into law the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990, which protects architects from unauthorized uses of their protected design(s).  The fact is that after 1990, copyright protection is enabled as soon as an original work is created. The use of the copyright symbol is optional and is generally used to convey three pieces of information: 1. identifies the work as being copyrighted 2. identifies the copyright owner 3. shows the first year of publication. Use of the copyright symbol only has one advantage and that is that defendant’s cannot use a defense based on innocent infringement.

The easy thing to do is to use the copyright symbol on all creative material, and I have considered attempting to hide a copyright symbol somewhere on the buildings that I design.  In order to guaranteed maximum protection from having your designs copied by other architects, your projects should be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office for the low cost of $30.00.  Gallagher & Dawsey state in their article:

“Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States to the authors of ‘original works of authorship,’ including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works; including architectural works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Copyright protection affords the creator the right to control the display, publication, reproduction and creation of derivative works.”

The above is very clear in its intent and does not apply to only exact copies, but protects architects from copying the overall form, composition or arrangement of spaces, which would certainly apply to Disney’s Pan Pacific Auditorium replica.  The Pan Pacific Auditorium was designed in 1935 and that is pretty old, so copyright laws probably don’t apply.  Wrong!  Copyright protection exists for the life of the creator and seventy years after his/her death.  Even if Gallagher & Dawsey and their designers all died in 1935 that would still mean that Disney is guilty of architectural copyright infringement, being that the Disney Hollywood Studios entrance was constructed before 2005.  Fortunately for Disney they are not guilty of breaking the law, because the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 does not apply to buildings built before December 1, 1990, and only protects buildings constructed after the act was signed into law.  This hardly seems fair.  I believe that the law should not be retroactive and that if previous architectural works were copied or replicated before December 1, 2009, even though it is ethically wrong, these people should legally not be prosecuted for their ethical crimes.  Although Disney is not legally guilty of such a crime, we must ask ourselves is ethical to copy the works of others?, even if it is legal.  With the passage of this act, the government IS protecting architecture built after 1990, but has essentially made it legal for architects and owners to copy works prior to 1990.  This seems ridiculous and should be the primary concern of lobbyist groups such as the AIA.  Why are other industries getting paid royalties for their creative works, while as architects we get beat down by the man?

I would like to start a master list of articles on architectural copyright infringement.  If you have any resources that you would like to contribute, please e-mail myself and I will add them to this list:

Architectural Copycats written by Betsy Schiffman for publication in Forbes.

Copyright Issues In Architecture written by Manuel R. Valcarcel IV for publication in Southeast Real Estate Business.

Related Photos

Related Photos