Disney the Urban Designer

DESIGNING DESTINATIONS AS SYSTEMS - NOT JUST SPECTACLES:

When Disney opened his eponymous park in Anaheim in 1955, he hadn’t just reinvented the theme park — he had intuited key frameworks that urban designers would not formalise until decades later.

Long before Kevin Lynch mapped the legible city, Gordon Cullen choreographed serial vision, or Jan Gehl placed human scale at the heart of planning, Disney was already putting these ideas into practice.

As The Economist later noted, Walt Disney was a textbook polymath — innovator, entrepreneur, cartoonist, voice actor, animator, studio boss, and theme park creator.

That breadth made him a natural systems thinker: seeing connections across disciplines. Disneyland wasn’t a film set you could walk through — it was urban design before the field itself recognised it.

Speaking at the Harvard Planning Conference in 1963, urbanist James Rouse described Disneyland as:

“The greatest piece of urban design in the United States today… It took an area of activity — the amusement park — and lifted it to a standard so high in its performance, in its respect for people, in its functioning for people, that it really does become a brand-new thing.”

Disneyland was far more than a backdrop for rides. It shaped how millions experienced public space, often more effectively than post-war urban renewal:

Legibility – Decades before Kevin Lynch formalised the concept, Disney’s “weenies” (visual landmarks) acted as wayfinding anchors in a hub-and-spoke plan that echoed historic European cities and Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City ideals.
Human scale – Streets and spaces designed for comfort, intimacy, and social life in an era dominated by the car — anticipating Jan Gehl’s call for human-centred cities.
Serial vision – Like Cullen’s Townscape, Disneyland unfolded as a choreographed sequence — compression of the station berm, opening to the town square, the reveal of Main Street and axis to the plaza with sleeping beauty's castle beyond.
Empathy in design – Disney famously left areas grassed to observe where guests naturally walked before paving — long before urban design popularised the concept of “desire lines.”
Integrated transport – Monorails, people movers, pedestrian-first transitions decades ahead of mainstream practice.

FROM OBJECTS TO SYSTEMS

While most architects and creatives approach places as bounded objects — a building, a plaza, a ride — Disney instinctively applied urbanist thinking, treating them as unbounded systems: flows of people, shifting behaviours, feedback loops, and cultural meaning.

As tourism researcher Rodolfo Baggio observes:

“Tourist destinations are dynamic, evolving complex systems, encompassing numerous factors and activities that are interdependent and whose relationships might be highly nonlinear.”

Disneyland embodied that reality. It was never finished, but constantly adapted. As Walt himself put it:

“Whatever worked became the code. Whatever failed to meet the public need was changed, replaced by a better idea.”

This ethos of curiosity-fuelled iteration was what set Disney apart. He was comfortable crossing disciplines, testing, and evolving ideas — an early expression of the systems thinking we now consider essential.

As he put it himself:

“There’s really no secret about our approach. We keep moving forward, opening up new doors, doing new things because we’re curious — and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.”

FROM PARK TO PROTOTYPE

By the mid-1960s, he wanted to take that same iterative spirit and apply it to something far larger: not another park, but a prototype city for 20,000 residents, designed to be in perpetual evolution.

Boxed in by suburban sprawl around Anaheim, he looked east — acquiring 27,400 acres of swamp land in Florida, over 50 times larger than Disneyland and nearly twice the size of Manhattan.

This was not just expansion. It was a leap in scale and ambition: a blueprint for a city of the future — a place to live, work, and evolve. The proposed name made the ambition clear - Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT).

In the 1966 EPCOT film, Walt put it plainly:

“I don’t believe there is a challenge anywhere in the world that’s more important to people everywhere than finding solutions to the problems of our cities.”

The plan was extraordinary. While a Magic Kingdom theme park, hotels, and recreational areas would anchor one corner, the remaining 90% was dedicated to something far more radical:

Central Hub – in a layout inspired by Disneyland and the Garden City Movement, a central, climate-controlled retail district with convention hotel, and monorail station, would form the city centre hub.
Residential & ecology – mixed-density neighbourhoods would radiate from the centre, in a green-belt parkland setting, prioritising pedestrians and greenways.
Innovation & industry – a 1,000-acre showcase where companies trialled new mobility, energy, and home technologies.

Like Disneyland before it, EPCOT was not conceived as a finished product but as a perpetual prototype — closer in spirit to Cedric Price’s Fun Palace than any theme park. It was the gigaproject of its day: the ambition of NEOM, but imagined as a living organism that would evolve with feedback, not a static monument.

When Walt died just two months after unveiling EPCOT, the corporate appetite for that level of experimentation evaporated. When Walt Disney World opened in 1971, only the Magic Kingdom had been built. A decade later, the EPCOT name was recycled for a new theme park — part science museum, part World’s Fair — but stripped of the live-work vision at its core.

What had been conceived as a dynamic, feedback-driven urban laboratory became a bounded entertainment product.

CELEBRATION: DESIGNING FOR OPENING DAY OR DESIGNING FOR LIFE

Twenty-five years later, Disney’s ambition to build a real community resurfaced. Unlike EPCOT’s futurist modernism, Celebration, Florida embraced nostalgic architecture, and a carefully branded small-town aesthetic.

On the surface, it looked perfect: walkable streets, mixed-use centre, nostalgic civic spaces. But this was only part of the system. The bigger picture — jobs, transport, governance, and long-term adaptability — was left outside the frame.

Walkability without self-sufficiency — residents still relied on cars and the I-4 corridor, one of Florida’s most congested highways.
Control without resilience — strict codes ensured aesthetic order, but left little space for organic growth or adaptation.
Place without stewardship — when Disney stepped back, civic assets were sold to private equity, replacing governance with extraction.

Where EPCOT had been imagined as a living system — an adaptable framework designed to evolve with feedback and shifting needs — Celebration prioritised appearance over adaptability. It lacked the governance, infrastructure, and resilience that allow communities to thrive.

EPCOT was designed as a process; Celebration as a product. One promised perpetual evolution, the other froze at opening day.

WICKED PROBLEMS AND LIVING SYSTEMS

What EPCOT promised — and Celebration exposed — is that destinations behave less like finished objects and more like what academics call wicked problems: challenges with no single solution, only shifting trade-offs and evolving requirements.

And yet, too often, we still treat them as spectacles: designed once, launched with fanfare, then left to operate with little feedback or recalibration.

SYSTEMS THINKING IN PRACTICE

Every destination — whether city-scale or a six-month immersive pop-up — is a system. To the casual observer, its interactions can resemble a whac-a-mole game: push one problem down too hard and another surfaces elsewhere in the system. The skill lies in balancing the whole board — not just striking the nearest mole.

Underestimating the Queue
If a theme park goes too hard on virtual queues, you’ll get fewer people in line — but you’ll also get overcrowding in plazas and walkways if the rest of the system isn’t ready. Queues aren’t just a symptom; they’re a containment mechanism. Remove them without rebalancing, and you break the system.
Overtourism
Barcelona shows the same pattern at city scale. Tourism brings 15 million visitors to a city of just 1.5 million residents, putting housing, services, and local businesses under strain. Attempts to curb the influx — banning new short-term lets, capping hotel licences, or restricting cruise arrivals — just displaces the problem. Neighbourhoods flip from residential to tourist use, housing costs soar, and the “authentic Barcelona” brand fuels yet more demand. The city becomes trapped in a feedback loop: each quick fix in isolation pushes the pressure to a new part of the system, making the whole harder to balance.

VIRTUOUS CIRCLES

Understanding the wider system is how you turn vicious circles into virtuous ones — where every intervention strengthens the destination’s long-term health, rather than just moving the problem around.

By seeing the key parts of a system in context — whether ecology, operations, commercial drivers, or cultural settings — you can design destinations that become more than the sum of their parts. That’s the power of systems thinking. And we’re codifying it into practical tools our clients can use.

OUR APPROACH: TOOLS FOR LIVING SYSTEMS

Decades as destination masterplanners has taught us this: even celebrated places leak performance or stagnate when their systems drift out of balance. That’s why we’ve built tools to keep them alive, adaptable, and delivering value for their full lifecycle:

Destination Flywheel™ – An intensive, expert-led process that brings stakeholders together to shape and stress-test a destination’s future. By cycling ideas through creative, commercial, and operational lenses, it keeps the system balanced — whether the priority is guest flow, ecology, heritage, or another critical factor.

Guest Flow Optimisation™ – Data-led improvements for existing destinations with:

Minimal CapEx
Better flow, dwell time, and satisfaction
Higher ROI through behavioural design and operational clarity

Our tools are designed as living frameworks — not fixed solutions — evolving with each destination.

THE PRINCIPLES THAT ENDURES

Destinations aren’t just spectacles. They are systems — whether built to last a season or a century.

In an age of climate shocks, shifting visitor behaviours, and rising operating costs, designing destinations as adaptive systems is no longer optional — it’s the only way they can survive and thrive.

Spectacles fade. Systems endure.

get in touch