Is Epic Universe the future of theme park structure?

[DarkMetroid567]

Where is the access point from Berk to Stardust? I don't think there's any, and if you do you'll need a bridge to go over the Stardust access road.

I get why it is the way it is but man that walk from Hiccup’s to Stardust sucks.

 

[MrRoamer]

When we went, my daughter was in an ECV because she had just jacked up her ankle. Being a new park with a unique layout like it is especially all the verticality it was fairly difficult to find our way around. We didn't realize the bridge across with the ramp was where it was so we ended up trekking from SNES World down to the entrance and over to Berk which was a hike and a half fo sho!

When I actually walked it, I was surprised how far the different lands actually are from each other. That was another part of the reason I started thinking what if it is just for right now thing.

We also ended up backstage 3 or 4 times accidentally due to the elevators. I was pretty surprised how easy it actually was to make a mistake and end up someplace clearly wrong.

 

[youhow2]

I get why it is the way it is but man that walk from Hiccup’s to Stardust sucks.

I think this design is great and very intentional.

In order for theme parks to work, There is a formula you must create that makes people stay in the park for a certain amount of time so guest are more likely to buy food and merchandise.

The current park design schema we see in epic is a modified hub and spoke with closed loops and portals into the individual "lands" that serve multiple purposes:

1. Better thematic density, a better disconnection from "reality", a more immersive and powerful guest experience. Makes people more willing to loosen up their wallets.

2. You create an additional artificial distance to visit each of the lands by placing the E tickets all the way in the back of each closed off land and guest must walk through a beautiful "midway", enticed to sit down or stop for food and drink to go to any land. In order to ride any two E tickets in the park as an average guest, you're probably spending 4.5 hours in the park, minimum, and you're going to buy plenty of food for you and your family at that point. There also seem to be plenty of distractions and diversions to keep you engaged in any individual land. Design wise, this brilliant, but still very "by the book".


You also have a "fun" balance in the park, one family property on each side and one more edgy or adult property on each side. You have to walk across the midway, across the entire length of the park to get to either or. By the looks of it, a whole day can be spent in 3 lands and the hub, if that, which makes return visits more likely. You also have two other parks in the mix... I'm excited for the future of Universal's theme park offerings.


Do I think other parks or the next "AAA" park will do the same design? Maybe not. But, I certainly believe the wizarding world and diagon alley in particular will continue to be "The" design study for extracting the best design and guest experience, as well as creating more loops to trap guest in the park longer, and we will see more lands with big draw potential designed like so. I am also curious about broader applications and evolutions of this new design schema in play in theme parks now and into the future.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

My personal take on this question is twofold:

1. I would be surprised if Universal finds the physical layout of Epic is not more effective than that of IOA or USF. While it does require a lot of walking, I think there’s a psychological benefit to this layout over the “walk in a circle around a lagoon” layout. I dont know what the exact acreage is of either park, but Jurassic Park feels farther away from Seuss Landing than Dark Universe does from Berk. The fact that there’s not a glaring physical obstruction like a large lake in the middle Epic, nor the need to pass through any more distinct midways/zones besides the ones I’m coming from/going to, makes Epic feel more manageable even if it really isn’t. Why this matters? Because with one hour to park close at IOA, I’m more likely to leave if I’m by the exit; meanwhile at Epic, I have stopped through every land on my way out during that last hour to see the night ambiance which led to a couple incremental alcohol/souvenir purchases.

2. Conceptually, I do believe that this style of park will be outdated eventually. While single-IP lands are the only thing being built between Disney and Universal right now, it still all feels like a fad that’s riding off the success of Hogsmeade. It has worked out well so far, but the mine of IPs to tap into is running thin (especially as less and less new media is introduced/catches fire in today’s world). I also don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility for an IP to completely fall out of favor with the general public which will really put one of these parks in a bind…extreme example, but imagine if Splash Mountain had been located in “Song of the South Land.” I think these single-IP lands are shortsighted and hinder the longevity of the parks they’re located in for the sake of easier upfront marketing.

 

[DarkMetroid567]

I think this design is great and very intentional.

In order for theme parks to work, There is a formula you must create that makes people stay in the park for a certain amount of time so guest are more likely to buy food and merchandise.

The current park design schema we see in epic is a modified hub and spoke with closed loops and portals into the individual "lands" that serve multiple purposes:

1. Better thematic density, a better disconnection from "reality", a more immersive and powerful guest experience. Makes people more willing to loosen up their wallets.

2. You create an additional artificial distance to visit each of the lands by placing the E tickets all the way in the back of each closed off land and guest must walk through a beautiful "midway", enticed to sit down or stop for food and drink to go to any land. In order to ride any two E tickets in the park as an average guest, you're probably spending 4.5 hours in the park, minimum, and you're going to buy plenty of food for you and your family at that point. There also seem to be plenty of distractions and diversions to keep you engaged in any individual land. Design wise, this brilliant, but still very "by the book".


You also have a "fun" balance in the park, one family property on each side and one more edgy or adult property on each side. You have to walk across the midway, across the entire length of the park to get to either or. By the looks of it, a whole day can be spent in 3 lands and the hub, if that, which makes return visits more likely. You also have two other parks in the mix... I'm excited for the future of Universal's theme park offerings.


Do I think other parks or the next "AAA" park will do the same design? Maybe not. But, I certainly believe the wizarding world and diagon alley in particular will continue to be "The" design study for extracting the best design and guest experience, as well as creating more loops to trap guest in the park longer, and we will see more lands with big draw potential designed like so. I am also curious about broader applications and evolutions of this new design schema in play in theme parks now and into the future.

I don’t disagree with any of these, but at least for my Stardust example, none of this really goes to why that walk sucks so much. In fact, I think a big reason it DOES suck is the psychological effect OrlandoGuy mentioned. Stardust looms over that section of Berk and makes the walk feel needless and long. I think if Berk were a little more immersive in that regard, I wouldn’t feel that way.