MouseTales author David Koenig answers letter in response to his article on the City of Anaheim’s development plans (link):
Bret Boyle writes:
I’ve enjoyed reading your work for some time now. Please don’t think this is a complaint, it’s not. I LOVE MousePlanet, I was just having a hard time reading the info on the maps and I was hoping you could send a link to the website where the original pictures are posted. I went to http://www.anaheim.net/ and tried link after link, but I couldn’t find them.
Go to www.anaheim.net/administration/PIO/news.asp?id=552 and hit the link “View SWA presentation” to download a 9.8MB PDF of the city’s pitch.
Kirk Reynolds writes:
Thank you for your informative article on the City of Anaheim’s proposal for a grand parkway connecting Angel Stadium and the Anaheim Convention Center. How this will all play out remains to be seen as I can tell you from my own encounters as an architectural designer.
I have gone up against many a city planning board. I can tell you the City does have a lot of power in these matters. That having been said, the silver lining is that the lack of a third gate would be beneficial to remodeling DCA. I never felt a third gate was a good solution when Disney already has nearly 50 acres of DCA that can be revitalized.
If I have learned anything from living in Las Vegas, it is that land is valuable and when something does not work as planned, you can bulldoze it and start fresh. No need to acquire more land (especially at $200,000 an acre).
If the City of Anaheim is serious about creating an urban corridor with this parkway, surely a park, water or otherwise, will not offer the density along the sidewalk that the City’s renderings would indicate. This does not look good for Disney. What does look good, are the acres of underutilized property that includes DCA and the Timon parking lot to the South.
Raze DCA and you could easily build a DisneySea quality park on the reclaimed land, and throw in a water park to boot. This would also keep all your guests in the same block rather than shlepping them across Harbor to a location to the southeast (which would never be as magical a trip via trolley, monorail or otherwise compared to WDW).
In short, I think the parkway could prove to be a real blessing for everyone involved, forcing Disney into a better second gate (not that the City really cares about that, but you get my drift), and Anaheim gets its conventioneer corridor complete with high-end restaurants and clubs, shopping and urban density.
As a side note, I am sorry to see the collapsing bridge at Universal Studios Hollywood go. It is one of my favorite Universal landmarks from my childhood and the Bionic Woman! So many little details have gone by the wayside at so many parks in the last decade. Thanks again for your article!
Thanks, Kirk! We’ll have to see what happens. Your solution would definitely be an improvement. But remember: Even if Anaheim takes over the strawberry field, that’s no guarantee that Disney will “fix” DCA. And, yes, the collapsing bridge may no longer be a high-tech thrill, but it is nice to have a few simple reminders of our childhood visits.
Erik Bruvold writes:
I would be amazed if Anaheim tried to take Disney’s property through eminent domain (ED). In addition to it being “Disney” the City would be under tremendous pressure to rethink that strategy given the current political climate surrounding the use of ED for economic development purposes (which ultimately this proposal is).
I agree that there is an “exit” strategy for Disney if they choose to exert it. Not sure we see a small park though. A very reasonable strategy would be for a DVC/residential sale/mixed us project. You could actually do something that would work well—essentially condos and DVC sharing some common areas and amenities. Depending upon the densities you could get approved it could be a nice capital windfall to the company.
You’re right, I don’t see Anaheim going to the mat with Disney if Disney is adamantly opposed to the idea. That said, they did dream this whole plan up with absolutely no input from Disney and, despite the current debate over the proper use of ED, Anaheim is using ED as we speak to displace mobile home owners east of Disney’s property. Still, I think we both find an “exit strategy” such as yours a much more realistic idea.
Andy Schubert writes:
I haven’t been to LA, so this idea may not be feasible.
If Disney and the City of Anaheim swapped properties (the city gets the strawberry fields on which to build a NEW convention center and Disney demolishes the existing convention center to build their third gate), there may be some interesting results.
First, Anaheim gets a new convention center built around the new grand parkway. Since they are built at the same time, traffic issues are resolved per planning rather than afterthought.
Second, Disney’s future third gate would be the focal end point of the grand parkway as people travel westward, AND it would collect Disney’s three parks together, simplifying resort traffic management and layout.
Perhaps a new parking garage next to this new convention center could be shared by both the city and Disney. Your thoughts?
An intriguing suggestion, but not financially feasible, I’m afraid. Plus, the city of Anaheim is happy with the existing convention center and likes that it’s so close to Disneyland. As well, there are many other owners of hotels and other businesses surrounding the convention center that would have to be displaced to trade Disney a comparable number of acres. They definitely will not go quietly.
David C. writes:
In your 6 October 2005 article, “Road Block,” you stated that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the government practice of eminent domain. This is untrue.
The highly controversial ruling to which you refer did not uphold eminent domain—the legal right of government to force the sale of private property that is needed for some government purpose. That power of the government was never in doubt. What the majority in that ruling said was that the power of eminent domain allows the government to force you to sell your property so that it may be used by another private citizen.
This is an extraordinary ruling that clearly deviates from the text of the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes the taking of private property for public use. As Justices O’Connor and Thomas stated in their dissents, the majority replaced the phrase actually in the Constitution’s text, “public use,” with the phrase “public purpose,” and then defined “public purpose” to mean anything which serves any government interest whatsoever!
So if anyone richer than you says he will replace your home or business with something that will provide the local government with higher property tax revenues, that is all the “public” justification the local government needs to force you to sell your property!
When the Supreme Court of the United States destroys the distinction between the public use of property and the private use of property—thereby nullifying an important provision of the Bill of Rights—you should be far too outraged to casually refer to it as the upholding of a government power that no one challenged in court! Shame on you!
Thanks for your note. The parenthetical phrase you refer to [“…eminent domain (a government practice recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court…”] was not in the article I submitted to MousePlanet. It evidently was added before publication by an editor to draw a parallel to the recent Supreme Court case. While I agree with you that the sentence is technically incorrect (the Court did not uphold the practice of eminent domain in general), the point she likely was trying to get across was valid: the Court did uphold the practice of eminent domain as it is currently being used by Anaheim (to build homes and businesses more to its liking).
Sal Giusto comments on Michael Eisner’s goodbye memo that David included in his column:
Great Article. Looks like you wrote that last paragraph about not seeing the last of Eisner a little too soon. Late news on October 6 says that he has removed himself completely from Disney. I’d like to hear the whole story on that development, if there is one.
You’re absolutely right. I finished the article Monday. After the announcement, I wonder if by “helping out with the board of directors,” the assistants meant that that was the next office they needed to clean out.
Greg Jones comments on the changes going on at Universal Studios Hollywood:
I used to love going to Universal Studios, but the magic seems to have leaked out of the place. They used to have the Conan the Barbarian Show, which was great, with all kinds of special effects and a theater with a curtain of falling water. They used to have a really good special effects show, too. And I liked the Miami Vice Show with its shooting helicopter better than Waterworld. I really liked the E.T Ride, also. All are gone. I think Universal has become a less fun experience, that’s why I haven’t been for a couple of years. Too bad they don’t ask before they change stuff.
Thanks, Greg. I think you’re right. Years ago, I felt a much deeper connection to Universal Studios. The rides and shows seemed a lot more personal, and there was more emphasis on the “real magic” of the backlot tour. The tram tour keeps shrinking, charming favorites like the Wild West stunt show have been eliminated, and new additions, like The Mummy and T2, while great attractions, have a “cold” feeling about them.
David Koenig’s article “Wax Off” (link) on the closing of the Movieland Wax Museum generated some questions and quite a few memories of the faded attraction:
Tom Sinsky writes:
In a word or two, who is Blaine Gibson? Thanks!
How about a word or 32? Blaine Gibson was—and, when frequently pulled out of retirement, is—Disney’s master sculptor, who’s responsible for all the dead-on likenesses at Disney parks: Mr. Lincoln, the entire Hall of Presidents, the American Adventure, the Partners statue, etc.
Alan Cranford writes:
I never made the time to see the Movieland Wax Museum. My loss. I visited Madam Tussaud’s in London during 2002, and Movieland was on my “to do” list, but not a very high priority. Orange County is a bit far for me—your MousePlanet article allowed me to visit both past and present. Thank you for a fine article.
Thanks, Alan. Too bad they couldn’t have worked a little harder for your business while they had the chance!
Michele Griffin writes:
Great story! I am also sad to see it go, but after our last visit there it is probably best.
Sad, but you’re right, it had passed its expiration date.
Michael Terry writes:
Just finished reading your almost poetic recollection of Movieland Wax Museum. as a southern Cal. native, Movieland was a twice yearly pilgrimage for our family, and a lot of my memories parallel yours.
I do have one memory that you didn’t mention that was always the highlight of the trip for me…. They had this guy dressed in a Keystone Kop outfit, complete with baton and whistle who would stand perfectly motionless, and people would gather around and pose for pictures and poke at him and just at the right moment he would come alive and scare the sense out of the whole room.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Sad to see it go.
Thanks for the reminder! They still sold postcards of the sporadically animated Keystone Kop, long after he retired from the force.
Dan Rendant writes:
Hi David—enjoyed your MP column on the Movieland Wax Museum. I went down for a final visit on October 23, getting there at 10 am. Maybe 10 people in line then, but when I left around 12:30 pm the line was all the way around to the back of the building. Bet the crowds are even bigger this weekend.
Had pretty much the same impressions that you did of the place. Has to be the only themed tourist attraction built since 1955 that puts the souvenir store in the middle of the encounter. Don’t know if you noticed across the street that the cowboy dinner theatre (was it called Buffalo Bill’s Wild West or something like that?) is reopening soon with a pirate theme. Wonder if the Hobby City mini theme park 10 minutes south of Movieland on Beach Blvd. can last much longer.
Looking forward to the Disney World book
Thanks, Dan! Actually, Movieland’s gift shop wasn’t always in the middle of the attraction. They used to have a small shop that you exited into (where they now sell you the George Burns photos) and a larger shop in the octagonal building out front, where you used to be able to buy stuff without having to visit the museum. It’s now a Starbucks. Wild Bill’s has been closed for a year and a half or more. The pirate show is done by the same people who do the Pirate’s Dinner Theater in Orlando, and should open in December. The concept art I’ve seen looks fun.
I’ve never been to Adventure City, so I’m not sure how well it’s surviving.
Anne Budgell writes:
David, I share your sense of nostalgia and feeling of loss. I first visited the Movieland Wax Museum with my parents some 40 years ago and have revisited it other times with them, other relatives, my first partner and most recently, my husband.
Living in Canada, I’ve always seen Anaheim/OC as being the most magical place and have many wonderful memories of trips there; not just of Disneyland, which I love, but Knott’s and the Movieland Wax Museum as well.
Though perhaps a little tacky and more recently in a somewhat tawdry state, I’ve always loved the place and had the same sense of wonder that you had at seeing my favorite stars in settings from their movies. “Singin’ in the Rain” was always one of my favorites and I thought that if I closed my eyes a little that I’d actually see Gene swinging around that lamp post. Greta Garbo, Bela Lugosi, Norma Shearer, I loved them all. It feels like a little bit of my past, and of me, will be shortly gone forever.
Sadly, my husband and I were just in Anaheim and L.A. for a week’s vacation and didn’t make one last visit, mostly because we had no idea the Movieland Wax Museum was closing. If I had, I most certainly would have gone. It’s a shame that many younger moviegoers will never hear of the stars from the distant past—at least with the Movieland Wax Museum, those unfamiliar names could become known, and maybe this has encouraged a few visitors to seek out those old films. Well, it will live on in my old photos and memories and I suspect yours.
And my new photos, as well. Thanks, Anne.
Dean Lundstrom writes:
David, Thanks for writing something about Movieland. I only recently heard of its demise from my Dad. We used to stay at the Aztec Motel almost right across the street and would almost always visit Movieland. What held me spellbound the most though was the incredible sign that was out front. It rivals anything in Las Vegas, especially in the early years when it still rotated. I used to stare across Beach Boulevard at it absolutely mesmerized.
A visit a few years back brought a similar experience to yours several years earlier. Definitely lots of fond memories there, but also a sense of loss that Movieland was in decline. Ironically, a highlight of our visit was the ghoul’s gallery built in the former Living Art portion of the building. It wasn’t the best, but it did offer a well intentioned effort. I hope that many of the people visiting these last days get some good pictures of the place so that we can all look back at them and enjoy Movieland one more time.
Thanks, Dean. Yes, I loved that sign too. When I visited last week I snapped about 100 photos and saved the sign for last. Alas, it didn’t spin, it had faded, it looked dull and dingy. All of it made the sign look, well, smaller.
Janine Ison writes:
I’ve just read the sad tale of the last visit you made to the Movieland Wax Museum. I’d no idea it was closing, or, like you, I would have made one last visit to the museum during our latest So. Cal. trip, 2 weeks ago.
I remember many years ago, taking my children to the museum, and your comment about the George Burns photograph brought me back to that trip. I recall not wanting to purchase the photo, so, I took a photo OF the photo! Who hasn’t done that once or twice? Had to tell you how much I enjoyed your recap of the trip to the wax museum, and felt a twinge of sadness too, that it’s going away. Sad too that the newer figures were of such poor quality. (The Walt Disney and Snow White were horrible!) I remember seeing Arthur, in the bathtub scene, Lou Grant in the news room, and some of the ones you mentioned, but, I guess our generation remembers those older actors and scenes more so than today’s, so, off it goes.
Didn’t they also have a hall of horror? Or some such area? I recall my daughter would NEVER go in that area. My kids now 26 and 24, were probably 9 and 11 when we last visited. As I said, I wish I’d known, I would have made a trip over there on our visit 2 weeks ago.
Thanks for sharing your trip with us on MousePlanet!
Yes, about 20-25 years ago they put all their classic horror figures together in one area and added more recent figures to create a Chamber of Horrors. It was even scarier than that Snow White figure.
