Jump to content

Talk:Disney's Contemporary Resort

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Cas24, those are some great edits! I just want to draw attention to a few specific changes I made:

  • Be careful to use "encyclopedic language". Like, the heading "A Uniquely Contemporary Design" is more advertising-ish than encyclopedic.
  • As one of the original hotels at Disney World, it was one of only two hotels that Walt Disney had knowledge of before his death. We can't say that for certain; we don't know whether Walt had the other resorts in mind.
  • The wings are connected to the central building by sidewalks (partially covered), not bridges.
  • I don't think the humidity was the reason for the modules no longer being removable - humidity doesn't make concrete expand, does it?
  • You said that the resort incorporated many different construction methods and firsts for a resort hotel. I removed this for now because it's not substantiated, but I'd like more information on it - what are some of the construction methods that were used, and what were some of the firsts?
  • I removed this: Current rooms at the Contemporary Resort are bold, with a rapid infusion of color and retro style. Making use of sharp primary colors red, yellow and blue, these colors adorn the walls, beds and various pieces of furniture in guest rooms. It doesn't really tell me much, other than making the rooms sound like kindergarten playrooms. Can you find (or photograph) pictures of the insides of the rooms that we can use?

I had to stop editing about halfway through for now, because I've got some errands to run. The rest of the article still needs some work to make it more encyclopedic - for example, the exhortation that guests should not be alarmed doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. - Brian Kendig 15:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]

Hi Brian,

Yeah, later last night I was reviewing the edits that I had made, and they sounded a bit advert-type like, though I didn't have a chance to go ahead and fix them up. I'll continue to make some modifications, hopefully where you left off, to make it much more encyclopedic. As far as pictures go, I'll be heading to this resort in a couple days, and have planned to take pictures there (thus not having to worry about copyright issues). You're more than welcome to do so though yourself (seeing as you live in Walt Disney World...you actually live at the resort or in Celebration?) though :). I have linked photos to the new rooms in the external links section until I can get some royalty free photos myself.

I still intend to put a statement back in about the rooms however, with their sharp use of color. It's an important factor that coincides with the overall feel of the rooms. If you want to base it off of public reaction to them... some would say they were kindergarden playrooms :P. Cas24 19:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds terrific! I think a discussion about the old look of the rooms is warranted - just be careful to be specific, and if you're documenting an opinion, be specific about what people expressed the opinion - don't use weasel words. I look forward to seeing your pictures! - Brian Kendig 02:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROOM RENOVATION PARAGRAPH DISPUTE "Room renovation should have been a simple matter of replacing modules when refurbishment was needed; however, it was found that the modules settled and became stuck in place, rendering them unremovable." While this sounds logical, I dispute the degree to which it was planned. As one person pointed out, once the rooms where in place and the plumbing fixtures where attachted, why would you pay for the expense for the room to be completely removed just to recarpet, rewallpaper the walls and rehab the bathroom? (Not to mention the hassle & expense of bringing in the cranes and the logistics of 'storing' the rooms on the ground during their refit and/or transporting to an outlying location for the remodel.) It is much more plausible that this plan to remove the rooms is an urban ledgen. David H

The plan was to have a set of 'spare rooms' on a rolling rehab schedule - you would take out the rooms that needed rehab and replace them with renovated rooms, a process that could be completed within a day. You would then renovate the rooms that were just taken out, and they would be placed back in the tower while the next lot was being renovated. Another plan of theirs was when a room was trashed, you'd take out the trashed room and replace it with a fixed one - making the room servicable again in a matter of hours. That's what I can remember from 'Since the World Began', WDW's 25th Aniversary Book. 210.84.33.90 10:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but think about the cost of doing that? You'd have to get someone up there to disconnect all of the electrical, in-room cable, phones and plumbing. Then there's the time and expense necessary for the rigging to slid it out, lower it and then rig up the replacement room and slide it in. Carpet can be ripped and replaced in a less than day - same thing for wall paper, leaving only remodeling the bathroom which could be done in three days or so. What's more cost effective and more logical? Furthermore, what about the time factor? A good rigger wouldn't be trying to move multiple rooms simultaneously given the hazzard. (I happen to have worked closely with some of the best riggers out of Chicago.) Therefore, you'd only have one or two cranes in place moving one room at a time. (It's likely that two cranes would be needed.) Also being familar with how rigging jobs go, and unexpected delays, as well as labor issues, count on 1 room per day - either up or down. Assuming that the cranes are working vertically so that they can replace a maximum number of rooms before having to be moved, you're looking at a minimum of 64 days to replace a vertical block of 32 rooms on a single side before moving the cranes to the next position. (This makes the assumption that the cranes can be positioned in such a way to give them access to 4 rooms on a single floor without having to relocate the crane. 8 floors (5th-12th) * 4 rooms per floor * 2 days to switchout the room.) There is also the issue as to what degree the plumbing and electrical layout would impact surrounding occupied rooms. I don't know if each room's utilities are isolated. In typical hotels, the rooms aren't 100% isolated from each other - especially the sewers. Keep in mind that when the rooms were installed, the hotel wasn't occupied. Electrical and water could be cut off to an entire floor and there'd be no toilets being flushed. Going back to the labor and crane issue, even if you could tighten up the room switch-out to one down, one up per day, you'd still be limited to working with a single room number per day due to issue of having only one or two cranes on site. If the rooms staying in place, you send up multiple crews so that multiple rooms are being worked on simultaneously (send up ten crews on Monday and the carpet and wallpaper is stripped on ten rooms), resulting in 20 rooms being completed each 5 business days. (I'm assuming there's 20 rooms per floor per side, can't remember the actual count). So at 20 rooms per 5 business days, you're still at a faster turnover rate than the cranes - even at one down/one up per day. (Based on prior resort experience, a room can be fully renovated in 5 business days or less.) If we're dealing with a single room, why go through the expense of bringing in cranes, trucking a spare room and lifting it up? It would not be single day event, but rather a minimum of 2 1/2 days at least (one day to block off & clear the area for the crane and to bring it in, one day for the switchout, and 1/2 day to move out the crane) - not to mention that the cost of the cranes and rigging labor would more than exceed the lost revenue from just placing the room on out of order. Furthermore, from my resort experience, trashed rooms can be fixed in just a matter of days because trashed rooms are very seldom so severely trashed that a full rehab is necessary. Toss in there that the hotel is more than within their rights to pursue the offender not just for the cost of repairs but also for lost revenue from their room inventory being reduced. You mentioned about the rooms being rehab'd in lots, one batch is removed and switched out and then later another batch is done. In resorts, there are basically two different types of rehabs - the rehab that refreshes the room by replacing all existing furnishings with the same furnishings and the rehab that replaces everything in favor of new design. The 'refresh' type of rehab doesn't usually require the bathroom to be touched as its the furniture, wall paper and carpet that takes the beating. Yes there are times when a tub, tile, comode or sink needs to be changed, but very seldom as fiberglass, tile and porcelain can take a lot of abuse before showing any wear and tear. Why then spend money on a crane and riggers just to change out carpet or wallpaper or furniture which can all be done in a single day if you push the crew or two days?

In short, Why remove the rooms if logically you're not speeding up the process or introducing any cost-savings? Switching out the rooms only adds time and expense to the rehab.

Having lived through multiple renovations, sign me... David C. Holley Walt Disney World Hotel Operations 1995 - 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.85.2 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why No Mention Of Mary Blair?

[edit]

This is a great article, however there appears to be a glaring omission. Why haven't you mentioned the mural designed by Mary Blair which is in the Grand Canyon Concourse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.21.230 (talk • contribs)

Mary Blair is noted the second paragraph and in the caption below the image of her mosaic. She is also wikilinked to her WP article. hydnjo talk 19:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Room re-write

[edit]

Should the guest room section be re-writen so that is describes the new (renovated) room layout. As of now, all rooms should be renovated.Jetset59 (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campground?

[edit]

I have strong doubts about the statement that, pre-1984, the Contemporary was considered a campground. I have never heard this mentioned anywhere else, including the many Disney World-related books and articles that I've read. Can this be verified? PurpleChez (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Disney's Contemporary Resort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The section under the external link"Complete Contemporary Resort Photo Gallery and Architectural Critique" does not actually take visitors anywhere.

Also, the dining section could use an update to include Chef Mickey's, Contempo Cafe, The Wave, and restaurants in Bay Lake Tower.

Kabarton1 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Kabarton1 January 30, 2017[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disney's Contemporary Resort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Hotel Atrium Club

[edit]

What is the Atrium Club and what does it include? 74.105.248.65 (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parking

[edit]

Is there free parking if you stay at contemporary? 2601:18C:9281:E080:3734:BE0:1CDC:98BB (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disney%27s_Contemporary_Resort&oldid=1248112544"