Is Epic Universe the future of theme park structure?

[GA-MBIT]

Epic Universe features an incredibly different park structure compared to the common "Hub and Spoke" or "Loop" structures used in the past, with 4 single-IP lands featuring only path in or out, disjointedly connected with an extra-large hub area. To my knowledge, it's a model that has never been tried before at this scale. It is fundamentally based around the relatively recent success and framework of theme park additions such as Diagon Alley, Pandora, Galaxy's Edge, and to an extent, even the initial plans for Super Nintendo World itself. Those plans had been designed with a Diagon Alley-like "portal" system in mind for all of it's proposed parks, even USF.

For sake of discussion, let's put a pin in the discussion of whether a new theme park is likely at all. Let's say that yes, there will be new parks built in the future past this point. Will those new parks be built like Epic Universe? Is this a new future for park design, or do you think this park will act as a singular entity? Do you think the single-IP land framework could age with time? Does the extra flexibility for upcharge events or park buyouts outweigh potential traffic flow quirks from the most popular lands to the least popular ones?

Very curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

I’d argue that the Epic Universe layout is just a larger/modern version of how Disneyland was laid out on opening day. Disneyland had portals at each entrance, and the lands were self contained. Eventually they realized for the purpose of guest flow they had to connect each land. Epic just replaces Fantasyland with a hotel and expands the hub itself to be more prominent.

What makes it different from Disneyland is that the lands are themed around a specific IP versus a general “theme” that can fit lots of characters and ideas. However, IOA was the first park to devote entire lands on a singular IP.

I don’t think Epic Universe’s layout is anything new, just an adaption of previous concepts at a grander scale.


As for what a potential 4th gate looks like… no idea. I’d argue something like Tokyo DisneySea where they create lands with broader themes mixed with singular IP lands.

 

[DrStarlander]

IOA was the first park to devote entire lands on a singular IP.

I think King's Island opened in 1972 with a Hanna-Barbera Land, and Knott's had Camp Snoopy in 1983, But maybe IOA was the first to have all (or almost all) its lands based on individual IPs?

 

[Legacy]

I mean… it’s a hub and spoke. It just has a complicated hub.

 

[Clive]

I mean… it’s a hub and spoke. It just has a complicated hub.

It's a hub and spoke with exclusively immersive IP worlds. You could easily argue Islands of Adventure also featured almost exclusively immersive IP worlds, but with a "loop around a lagoon" layout used by its sister park and World Showcase in Epcot. The difference, at least in marketing terms, is that Epic is more immersive because everything is (in theory) designed to the standards set by the Wizarding World, which is undeniably a step up from much of the scenic in Islands (though I'd argue Seuss Landing, Lost Continent, Port of Entry, and even opening day Jurassic Park all came within striking distance of that standard).

 

[GA-MBIT]

I think for some reason, I have interpreted "hub and spoke" to refer to a system where each spoke is interconnected in a mostly circular shape. Like the hub and spokes on a wagon wheel. Magic Kingdom has always been used as the example for hub and spoke design in conversations that I've seen, and so the two shapes became linked in my head completely.

I do find it interesting that a park as expansive as Epic would be built in a way that resembles a pre-interconnected Disneyland at all. Epic is a hub-and-spoke, but based on it's development history, you could also say it's four Diagon Alley's attached to a Citywalk in the shape of Main Street U.S.A. It takes a shape which, to my mind at least, doesn't have a contemporary match.

There are people who's job it was and still is to make sure that this park layout works, so I'm sure all of my concerns about the layout have been brought up before, but I'd love to hear those reasons. To my layman perspective, I feel like there are some limitations and possible crowd control issues that could arive from the kind of design that Epic utilizes. I already have issues with the amount of backtracking required to explore Epic, and so when I'm looking at the blue sky dreaming of concepts like this...

I can only think of how much worse it could become. Obviously this art is way more expansive than we'll probably see the park ever actually become, but making that trek between DK to Hiccup's in the existing park is already kinda rough. Any hypothetical expansions that broaden the width of the park further only compound that problem in my mind.

It seems like Great Britain is taking a much more usual IoA-style to it's park design. I suppose it's just an open-ended question as to how Epic will grow, if it'll follow a similar path to Disneyland and connect in some way eventually or if any other park will look like it again. Obviously none of us have those answers, but I find the questions and the discussions that spawn from them interesting still.

 

[DrStarlander]

I think for some reason, I have interpreted "hub and spoke" to refer to a system where each spoke is interconnected in a mostly circular shape. Like the hub and spokes on a wagon wheel. Magic Kingdom has always been used as the example for hub and spoke design in conversations that I've seen, and so the two shapes became linked in my head completely.

I do find it interesting that a park as expansive as Epic would be built in a way that resembles a pre-interconnected Disneyland at all. Epic is a hub-and-spoke, but based on it's development history, you could also say it's four Diagon Alley's attached to a Citywalk in the shape of Main Street U.S.A. It takes a shape which, to my mind at least, doesn't have a contemporary match.

There are people who's job it was and still is to make sure that this park layout works, so I'm sure all of my concerns about the layout have been brought up before, but I'd love to hear those reasons. To my layman perspective, I feel like there are some limitations and possible crowd control issues that could arive from the kind of design that Epic utilizes. I already have issues with the amount of backtracking required to explore Epic, and so when I'm looking at the blue sky dreaming of concepts like this...

I can only think of how much worse it could become. Obviously this art is way more expansive than we'll probably see the park ever actually become, but making that trek between DK to Hiccup's in the existing park is already kinda rough. Any hypothetical expansions that broaden the width of the park further only compound that problem in my mind.

It seems like Great Britain is taking a much more usual IoA-style to it's park design. I suppose it's just an open-ended question as to how Epic will grow, if it'll follow a similar path to Disneyland and connect in some way eventually or if any other park will look like it again. Obviously none of us have those answers, but I find the questions and the discussions that spawn from them interesting still.

Makes me wonder if there's a related topic around how park design affects guest behavior and expectations around the number of days they feel they need in the park. Arguably there is a basic "normie" tourist expectation that you can/should see a theme park in one day, more days being optional/luxury. (People talk about their trip to WDW typically as: "I'm gonna do a day at Epcot, a day at Animal Kingdom, a day at Hollywood Studios..."). Maybe the design of Epic and the arduousness of crossing the park is by design to solidly make it (if not now, someday) a mandatory 2-day park?

And this is not a comment suggesting Universal did anything wrong or manipulative. But maybe instead of building more "gates" in a resort, each with all the overhead infrastructure (entry lands, guest services, big nighttime shows...) they could have a single park drive two days of tickets by forcing a more focused or curated experience of seeing 2-3 worlds on Day One and 2-3 worlds on Day Two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate from all that, I want to say one thing I loved about Europa Park was the multiple aerial modes of transportation. The whimsy and kinetics were great, and maybe Celestial Park could have fun hop on/hop off monorails, skyways or people movers to move you between the portals.

 

[Mad Dog]

Epic's design seems to allow it a special place in corporate buyouts, an income which Universal uses heavily. With the addition of that huge box, capacity 2800, next to Nintendo, I envision a corporate buyout that has various levels of buy. Certain lands costing more, and possible buys of more than one land. All the while, Universal could keep portions of the park open to the public instead of shutting down the entire park as they do with
IOA and USF now.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

Epic's design seems to allow it a special place in corporate buyouts, an income which Universal uses heavily. With the addition of that huge box, capacity 2800, next to Nintendo, I envision a corporate buyout that has various levels of buy. Certain lands costing more, and possible buys of more than one land. All the while, Universal could keep portions of the park open to the public instead of shutting down the entire park as they do with
IOA and USF now.

While I unfortunately agree that Epic was designed with this in mind... I think it's bad practice for a park that should stay open late with all of its lands.

If they have to, keep private events at USF Mon-Thu.