I have written about park form before, a couple times actually. Most notably in this post about the Urban Form of theme parks. In reality, that post is Part 1 to this post you are reading, so its worth looking back at that essay.
The simplicity and effectiveness of this form has always fascinated me. It works so well that it seems obvious, but you have to know that there was an incredible amount of trial and error that led to it and a lot of theory behind its success. It did not just magically be the shape of the original Disneyland by accident and it does not continue to be used for nearly all major parks by coincidence.
However, there are other options for park layout that have started to become popular to varying degree of success compared to the original. The fairly common loop park is the most notable, but there are some super unique cases, especially some parks that are combinations of two or more forms. That makes me ask what makes these parks successful enough to be used, but not successful enough to have overtaken the original?
In this post, this analysis of park forms, I want to go deeper into all the common park forms and analyze their pros and cons. I also want to look into applying forms to individual lands of the parks to see if there is any interesting patterns there. And finally look at some of the formal urban planning theory that I think creates some of the logic behind how these forms work.
First, a breakdown and summary of my interpretation of the various dominant park forms. I'll specifically be looking at the worldwide Disney and Universal parks, and will list what parks fall into what groupings. Some parks will be in multiple, because they are a combination of forms. Zoom into the images to see the diagram of each park.
Hub and Spoke Park - Disneyland, Magic Kingdom, Animal Kingdom, Hollywood Studios, Disneyland Paris, Disney Studios Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland, Tokyo Disneyland, Shanghai Disneyland
The standard and the classic, used by the most parks around the world. Its pros are evident: easy and clear navigation by way of the hub and the adjacent park icon, the single entrance corridor which help with navigation, and the inclusion of a thematic transition and gathering space at the center of the park. Cons? I'm sure they exist but I am not sure what they are. The best I can think of is that it has recently created a dependence on the hub for major entertainment and gathering events, which is a crowd control problem.
One element of the Hub and Spoke that is an addition from the opening day model is the circular path that intersects the spokes and forms a ring around the park, connecting the lands. In the original Hub and Spoke concept, each spoke was a self contained land and to get to another land, guests had to travel back through the hub. The intersecting path, which I guess technically is the rim of the hub and spoke, makes the park overall much more functional.
Loop Park - Islands of Adventure, Universal Singapore, EPCOT, Universal Orlando, Universal Osaka, Hong Kong Disneyland, Tokyo DisneySea
The runner up in the worldwide popularity contest. This seems to be usually used for smaller parks or as a part of a larger park that combines forms. The primary characteristic is a shorter entrance corridor leading to a left or right split that loops around a central element, usually water. Essentially its a hub with just one looping spoke. The benefits are that it is the clearest form, it has very easy navigation since it is just one continuous path, and it allows for some kind of central body of water for use in entertainment or transportation. The negatives to this form in my opinion is that by vacating the center of the loop, a lot of usable park space is wasted which could be a problem for smaller and denser parks.
Another weird condition that I have noticed is that the space directly adjacent to the central element is sometimes underused and hard to activate. There are two cases: the EPCOT model where the edge is the public space and results in kind of one sided lands that sit on the neutral pathway, or the Islands of Adventure model where the path is embedded in the immersive lands but it is hard to actually activate and engage with the central water element. Not saying either are bad, but its an interesting condition with different results.
There are twists on the loop park that make some very unique parks. Hong Kong Disneyland is essentially a Hub and Spoke park with a loop being built around it, which is a really cool way to expand a park. Tokyo Disney Sea is practically a loop park with another loop inside of it and then another smaller loop inside that, placing the water elements between the loops. It is pretty simple but solves a lot of problems. Also, the loop forms half of a couple parks when combined with another form, such as EPCOT and the Universal Studios Parks. Lastly, it is interesting to me that it appears that Hollywood Studios is being transformed into a loop park with the two new lands at the back of the park. There would be nothing in the center, but the single continuous path that loops the back half of the park is being clearly defined.
Divergent Hubs Park - California Adventure, EPCOT
Pros for this form appear to be a more complex organization system of relating lands and can better fit into strange shaped sites for the park, but at the expense of sometimes making a more confusing park to work your way through. I would say it works well in EPCOT and maybe a little less well in California Adventure. This should probably really be a subform of Hub and Spoke, but I wanted to get specific with this analysis.
Grid Park - Universal Orlando, Universal Osaka
This really only exists at this point in two parks, the pair of Universal Studios Parks, but it could be used to describe old Disney MGM Studios too to a lesser extent.
The irony of this being a difficult form for a theme park is that its precisely how cities work. Cities are grids. So if you attempt to recreate a city based land, it is hard to avoid its problems while also making something that looks like a city. Solutions are to either make it a city of one street, like Sunset Boulevard or Marvel Superhero Island, or vacate the center of the land-city and place something like a park or public square in the middle, like New York Harbor in Tokyo Disney Sea, so that visibility is maintained across the park.
Organic Growth Park - Universal Hollywood
There are surely more theme park form than the ones listed above that break down the specifics of the patterns even farther. But I think those above give a good outline to the shapes of the most common parks and are enough information to start an analysis of how and why these park forms function.
To me, it is clear that the two most important functions of a good theme park layout are that it is clear enough for guests to understand how to navigate it and that it allows for the creation of immersive spaces. However, in a way these are opposing goals. Of course you want a park that guests can figure out how to move through, which often means increased visibility between lands and along major pathways. Guests want to be able to visually understand relationships and where to go next. And you want a park that you can theme immersively, which often means visual separation between dissimilar themed spaces. You want total sensory control inside the immersive world. A good park finds a way to balance those two opposing goals.
An example for that previous conundrum is Diagon Alley. It's a great land in a great park. It is super immersive and its interior layout work well. But for a while now it has been documented that some guests just can't figure out where it is. That's a problem, but one that could only be solved by guests having a better visual understanding of what and where it is. Unfortunately that opposes the story of the place, so it sacrifices navigability.
I think this is why the Hub and Spoke model works best, specifically because of the Hub. In the best application, it presents an immediate preview of each and every land from a single space, immediately forcing the guest to build a visual understanding of the park. Then as you leave the hub and work your way down a spoke, you can be isolated into the separate lands but always know your way back to that Hub and the moment of navigational clarity. The loop also works because even though you often do not get a full picture of the land options when you enter, the navigation is so simple that you have to see it all just by continuing on a path. Can't get lost on a single path. Divergent Hubs, Grids, and the rest start to create moments of isolation from the overall navigation where you can get lost and separated from the big picture of the park, even if they can better immerse you sometimes.
Individual lands in these parks can also have distinctly planned forms. Not every land necessarily can be categorized neatly with a clear form, but there is always some kind of internal logic as to how elements of the land relate. Never, or I guess very rarely, are pieces of a land dispersed without some kind of designed plan of some complexity. I'll go over a couple that I see frequently in the parks and give a couple of examples for each.
Hub and Spoke Land - Magic Kingdom Tomorrowland, Future World West
This is the mini version of the big idea park plan. This is when a land is designed to lead you to a center point and then elements are distributed around this "hub". The benefits are basically the same as the park form, it is a clear organization system that efficiently brings guests into a themed world, clearly shows them the options of the land, and distributes the guests out. There's a lot of options for movement in this kind of land and usually is either pretty open plan or has a network of paths connecting major points to create a variety of routes.
Though its the most common park form, its not a very common land form. The best example is a couple of the Tomorrowlands. The entrance corridor of the land leads to the rocket-tower plaza area, acting as the hub. Then the elements of the land are arrayed from there and all visible at once from the center point.
Linear Land - Sunset Boulevard, Main Street. Toy Story Land
This is a much more common land form and a very simple one. In its simplest essence, its just a single path through a land. Enter on one side, exit on the other, with attractions and elements along the single path. Navigation is clear and its usually pretty immersive, but depending on the size and shape of the path, guests may not always be able to see all the elements of the land at once. This is not a bad thing, because it could be used to create a more mysterious and explorable land that feels bigger than it actually is. The linear nature of the land, especially when multiple linear lands are set back to back to back, forces a lot of backtracking through already explored spaces, which sometimes can be frustrating to have to walk the same line over and over.
Examples of this include nearly all lands in a loop park, except EPCOT of course, Sunset Boulevard, and the new Toy Story Land. Some of those are really simple single paths, some are a little more complex with branches coming off the main path, but in those cases, I think the dominant move of the land is still best represented with a linear path.
It is interesting to me that one of the qualifications I gave for this land is one entrance/exit on either side connected by a path, when in reality that describes basically all lands. I guess it really comes down to the patterning of the guest experience between those two points that define how the land is formed.
Loop Land - Pixar Pier, Magic Kingdom Fantasyland
Another land that is based on a park form. The loop land is simply a looping pathway around a central element, usually with one (or two maybe) access paths to the loop. It's basically a linear land that bends on itself. This has the same benefits and drawbacks as the park form. Easy navigation and great visibility, but might use a lot of space.
There's not a ton of these, with the best pure example being Paradise (Pixar) Pier looping around the Paradise Bay. New Fantasyland is pretty close to a loop as well in a way, just with more branches from the main path.
Border Path Land - Adventureland, Asia
This is a subset of the linear land that I am really interested in. These are usually linear lands that have some kind of defined edge on one side only that the path runs along. Think Adventureland, with the jungle on one side and the buildings on the other. That is a solidly defined line. There are many examples with a path running along a body of water or some other kind of defined edge.
The thing I find interesting about this is that it creates a path that seems less arbitrary because of course you would put the path next to the water or the jungle or whatever it is. It makes a more natural and believable edge to the land. It also means that you often can not see the whole land at once because the majority of the elements are on one side of the path and elongated along the edge.
Pocket Land - Muppet Studios, World Showcase Pavilions
This is a fairly clear land type, a dead end land with just one entrance and exit. It exists as its own little pocket off the rest of the park. These are not the most efficient with guest flow because of the dead end, but in small situations, they can work. The World Showcase pavilions are the best example and work perfectly for their size. Anything much larger would be a crowd control nightmare. The good thing about lands this small and with this clear of an entrance/exit is that its usually very easy to navigate and understand where you are.
There are just a couple land forms, I am sure there are plenty more. Also, it could easily be said that many or most lands could fit into multiple groupings. I tried to be very general on purpose to get an outline of a couple types, but I could believe other arguments. For instance, a loop land might also be a larger pocket land with an element in the center. A linear land could be a hub and spoke if there are branches off from the main linear path. Its a flexible set of definitions.
The success of a park is clear navigation and ability to be immersive, and the same can be said for a land, though I would flip their priority. I think the higher goal of a land is to enclose you in the theme to the point that the land seems fuller and richer than it actually is. That may mean that the internal navigation of the isolated area is not 100% clear, but if the navigation of the park overall works well, then guests should always be able to work their way through the park.
Now that we have looked at what these forms are and how well they work, the question to ask is why do they work like they do. During my time in architecture school, there was one particular theory lesson that stood out to me for its application to theme parks. "The Image of the City", written by Kevin Lynch, includes a discussion of the ways that people understand and use cities in predictable ways by reading the city as made of 5 key elements: paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks.
When I read that, I immediately related it to theme parks in my mind. They have natural comparisons on first glance. Districts are lands. Landmarks are park icons. But there is more to understand once you get into the more detailed definition of the elements
Paths - Paths are the channels by which people travel, like roads, sidewalks, and trails. Their purpose is to connect points of space. They are the most important element because they are the structure that the rest of the elements are formed on.
Edges - Edges are boundaries that define the extents of a space or a path. They can be either real and solid, or perceived and flexible. Their purpose is to define space by either separating space or acting as a seam between defined spaces.
Districts - Districts are sizable two-dimensional areas that have a common character to its space. It is a grouping of space that you enter and exit by way of a path. Its purpose is to represent the grouping of a collection of similar spaces into one object.
Nodes - Nodes are large defined spaces that can be entered and serve as focus points in a city. These are significant connection points that define pathways and serve as the notable and important spaces of a city. Their purpose is to define the big picture network of the city.
Landmarks - Landmarks are iconic elements that act as points of reference for movement in a city. They are objects you cannot occupy, not spaces that you can which are nodes. Their purpose is to act as reference points that connect the rest of the elements of the city.
I think this theory and those 5 elements of the city have a profound influence on how theme parks work. Theme parks are nothing more than idealized urban planning exercises that happen to also have a theme. Guests don't come to the park with an understanding of planning theory and theme park history. Hub and Spoke means nothing to them. They come with just the societal understandings of how urban space works that all of us instinctively build up over time. The idea of a town square (node) and a iconic building (landmark) that forms the center point of a network of roads (paths) makes total sense. That's all the hub and spoke is when you see it as an urban planning element.
Basically all the park and land forms I mentioned have ties some of these elements. Hub and Spoke is Node and Path. Loop is Path that loops around a central Landmark, even if it is just water. Grid is a grid of simple paths. A border path is a Path along an Edge. A pocket land is a district.
On top of that concept, the 5 elements also help explain why some actual cities are confusing. Endless grids with no space defining districts, nodes, or landmarks make a city that is impossible to read and easy to get lost in. See what I said about the Grid Form park. Essentially, the 5 elements are character building elements that form patterns of movement, making or breaking an urban plan.
So the lesson I take from this is simple and intuitive: design with how humans understand space in mind. If you ignore the Image of the City that we have trained ourselves to have, your park will be in trouble. It just so happens that the Hub and Spoke aligns well with this theory while some of the other park forms are a little less successful.
Thanks for reading this, especially those of you that made it all the way to the end. This is a concept and an essay that I have seriously been thinking about for 3+ years at this point, so I am glad that I finally have put it down in writing.
Next month, back to a design post. It's likely going to be an attraction, and something totally different than those I have done before. Maybe even magical in a way. Check back near the end of August!
