EPCOT

DISNEY WORLD

SIGHT ANALYSIS + AGENT ANALYSIS

ROBERT PIOTROWSKI

SIGHT ANALYSIS

AGENT ANALYSIS

ROBERT PIOTROWSKI SIGHT ANALYSIS

AGENT ANALYSIS

SIGHT ANALYSIS

AGENT ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

The Epcot theme park, part of the Walt Disney World Resort located in Orlando, Florida was originally planned as a concept city o�ering the community of the future. The “Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow” was initially designed to stimulate American corporations into inviting and promoting new ideas of urban living and lifestyle. These ideas eventually transpired in the theme park, which was dedicated to the celebra-tion of human achievement in technology, innovation, and international culture. The park sits on 300 acres and can house roughly 10.83 guests. Epcot is planned around two main features, one being a body of water and the other being a geodesic sphere which serves as the park’s main attraction and branding. All attractions circle these two features giving the guest a clear marker as to where they are in the complex. This is true when running a sight analysis on the park. Sightlines are mostly preserved thanks to the huge expansive distance provided by the body of water. The only areas where sightlines are diminished are in the auxiliary areas in each of the parks world showcase attractions. The World Showcase ties to emulate the World’s Fair, o�ering attrac-tions and experiences tied to a particular country in the world. These clusters of attractions are really the only areas where sight is now directed inward for a more immersive experience. Unfortunately, the agent/circula-tion analysis has a few large margins of error. This is probably due to the large scale of the sight and the level of detail required in the initial drawing to run a proper calculation. The agent analysis has many of the data points set at inaccessible areas, which are untrue to how the park functions. The analysis does however give a proper generalized analysis, in where pathways revolve around the lake. The “hot spots” however, are probably o�, as it calculated increased density in areas that just had less information in the drawing. This leads one to believe the most used areas are those on the circumference of the park, rather than in the actual park itself.