GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Born from the visionary mind of Walt Disney himself, Celebration is a new town in central Florida, located about a 30-minute drive south of Orlando and only 11 minutes from Walt Disney World. With buildout expected in 2023, Celebration is a mature community. The initial planning phase started in 1985, the groundbreaking happened in 1994, and the first phase opened in 1996. A far cry from Walt Disney’s original vision of an experimental prototype city of tomorrow, Celebration was built from master plans created by Robert A.M. Stern and the late Jaquelin Robertson, among others, and comprises buildings designed by architects such as Philip Johnson, Michael Graves, César Pelli, Robert Venturi, Charles Moore, and Aldo Rossi, among others. Upon completion, Celebration will be a mixed-use community sitting on about 4,900 acres entitled with 8,065 residential units, 2.6 million square feet of office and medical office space, 2 million square feet of retail and retail-related space, and a 227-bed medical center. The town is also home to a golf course and has entitlements for 1,539 hotel rooms, 150 timeshare units, two additional golf courses, and 1.8 million square feet of industrial space. The later entitlements will not necessarily be built.

 

THE SITE

Located on the east side of Interstate 4, which runs from Daytona Beach, through Orlando, and to Tampa, Celebration consists of 4,900 acres. It is bordered on the north by US-192. Further north, just about seven miles away, is Walt Disney World, and in between these two destinations are the majority of the Disney Company’s entertainment and hospitality holdings in Florida, including the Magic Kingdom, EPCOT Center, Disney’s Animal Kingdom, Disney’s Hollwood Studios, and 27 resort hotels totaling 27,601 rooms. Separating the predominant residential component of the project from the medical and office campus is US-417, a toll road that connects to Interstate 4 on one end and provides a clear route to Orlando International Airport.

 

The heart of the community is Celebration Town Center, a cluster of structures that includes a hotel, multifamily housing, and mixed-use buildings containing restaurants, taverns, and shops at the north end of one of the small lakes created for stormwater. Residences are clustered in village arrangements extending beyond the main area of single-family houses that surround the town center.

 

DEVELOPMENT TEAM

The conceptual foundations for Celebration were established in 1950 when Walt Disney formed WED Enterprises to build Disneyland in California. The success of Disneyland spurred Disney to turn his sights to land in Florida, which he envisioned would be home not just to an East Coast Disneyland, Walt Disney World, but also to the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT). EPCOT would be a planned community with space for residential units, research and development facilities, tourism, and entertainment. In total, some 27,400 acres of land was purchased for this vision. While Walt Disney World opened in 1971 and a much-revised version of EPCOT opened in 1982, the residential component of Disney’s vision lingered on paper.

 

In 1985, 19 years after Disney’s death in 1966, the Walt Disney Company’s new leadership team (consisting of chairman Michael D. Eisner and president Frank Wells) entertained the concept of a planned community. The community was part of a larger expansionary phase for Walt Disney Company holdings in Florida, which would be spearheaded by the newly formed Disney Development Company (DDC) and led by Peter Rummell and Todd Mansfield. DDC also oversaw a massive hotel development program at Disney World, cruise ships as part of the burgeoning Disney Cruise Lines venture, what is now Disneyland Paris, and a history-themed park to be located near Washington, D.C., in Northern Virginia. Managing the planned residential development on a day-to-day basis was the Celebration Company, which was led by Todd Mansfield, Tom Lewis, and Don Killoren.

 

PLANNING

The Celebration planning process started with the “Futures Conference 1985,” a visioning session to brainstorm possible futures for Disney World and its surrounding landholdings. Of the original 27,400 acres of land purchased for Disney World and future Florida projects, only 2,000 were developed. The conference brought in a group of internationally known experts from a range of fields, including the following: architects Michael Graves and Jaquelin “Jacque” Robertson; futurists Madelyn Hochstein, Thomas Paine, and John Naisbitt; developers Jim Rouse (the developer of Columbia, Maryland), Ray Watson (part of the Irvine, California, development team and a member of the Walt Disney Company board of directors), and Chuck Cobb; engineer Robert Lucky from AT&T Bell Laboratories; as well as Roy E. Disney (son of Walt Disney’s brother and business partner, Roy Disney), Michael Eisner, and Frank Wells.

 

From the conference came a set of guidelines for development around Disney World. First, they agreed that it was essential for the Walt Disney Company to act fast. The company had just survived a corporate takeover attempt and was criticized for not developing its substantial Florida landholdings. Next, the conference participants wanted the planning to be people oriented, not technology oriented, with an emphasis on systems, institutions, relationships, and human-scale environments. Finally, the conference agreed that the creation of residential communities should not place Disney in “the government business.” Rather, Disney would develop the property, but the day-to-day governance should be left squarely in the hands of Florida’s governance systems.

 

VISION

Building off the Futures Conference, DDC began the process of creating a vision for the project. The team’s challenge was to combine residential development that would fit in with the rest of Walt Disney World. The team felt that the project needed the ineffable quality that sets a Disney product apart from other products.

 

With this challenge touching every aspect of the project, the team identified another challenge. In trying to attract potential residents from all over the United States, the team wanted to minimize the trauma of moving—the trauma of trading the known for the unknown, the familiar for the unfamiliar, friends for strangers. Taking a page from the playbook of many resort and retirement communities, the development team examined the potential of sports amenities to help residents interact with each other through common interests. The team noted that golf and tennis facilities can help neighbors build friendships through play. However, the team also noted that 80 percent of their target market did not play golf or tennis. Their challenge was to design a physical environment that reflected the special mood and energy of the people who wanted to live there. For the team, this meant great architecture, great landscaping, and great amenities, but nothing so great or avant-garde that people couldn’t identify with it. It also meant an environment that would reflect the uniqueness of the community and the people who made up that community. The physical structures would magnify and mirror the community.

 

From the conference in 1985 until the development of regional impact (DRI) application was submitted to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) in 1991, the development team, in consultation with Eisner and Wells, kept refining and honing this vision. They were looking for the qualities behind the archetype of the American town. They considered college towns such as Princeton, New Jersey; Hanover, New Hampshire; and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. They considered Chautauqua, New York, as a place, as well as “Chautauqua assemblies” as formats for teaching and sharing knowledge. Streetscapes, sidewalks, pedestrians, bicyclists, and public buildings were all studied. In 2020, designing places with options for nonmotorized transportation is commonplace. In 1985, however, it was unusual.

 

It was during the permitting process in 1993 that the team finalized its two-part vision for the project. The vision statement read as follows:

(1) High Concept: Celebration affords the opportunity to live in a town adjacent to the world’s greatest resort, and embodies The Walt Disney Company’s unique franchise on entertainment, family values, and innovation.

(2) The Vision: There once was a place where neighbors greeted neighbors in the quiet of summer twilight, where children chased fireflies, and porch swings provided easy refuge from the cares of the day. The movie house showed cartoons on Saturday, the grocery store delivered, and there was one teacher who always knew you had that special something.

 

This vision was to be built on five “cornerstones” for the project: health, education, technology, community, and place. The team was very interested in designing a project that emphasized and enhanced the health and education of the residents. The project would use state-of-the-art technology. The project would be a distinctive and unique place that served the well-being of the community. The development team believed that the “place” and the “cornerstones” software would result in the creation of a sense of community among the Celebration residents, workers, and visitors.

 

MASTER PLANNING

In 1987, with the Futures Conference 1985 guidelines in place and an active discussion about the project’s vision underway, DDC hired consulting firm Robert Charles Lesser to produce a residential program guide that included five development scenarios for the land. Hank Fishkind of M.G. Lewis Econometrics was then employed to analyze these scenarios. The chosen scenario was selected because it was believed to have the best balance to meet the projected market demand as well as having the highest net present value of the five. This scenario called for 8,645 residential units ranging from young beginner units to upper-income units, preretirement units, and life-care units. In addition, the plan called for 180 acres of commercial space and three golf courses. With buildout only three years away as of 2020, the number of residential units is estimated to be 8,065, with 59 acres of office space, 45 acres of retail space, 8.25 acres of medical office space, and 40 acres of industrial space, together totaling 152 acres.

 

At this stage in the process, the project was given a temporary name: the Osceola Mixed-Use Development (OMUD). Under the supervision of Eisner himself, the development team hired four planning and architecture firms to create four competing plans for the site: Robert A.M. Stern Associates (RAMSA), Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ), Gwathmy-Siegel (GS), and Edward Durell Stone Associates (EDSA). Each firm received an honorarium of $25,000 (in 1987 dollars) for its efforts. Given the high profile of the concept, the principals from each of these firms were directly involved in this effort: Robert “Bob” Stern from RAMSA, Andrés Duany from DPZ, Charles “Charlie” Gwathmey and Bob Siegel from GS, and Edward Stone from EDSA.

 

The designs from DPZ, RAMSA, and GS were neotraditional with streets aligned in gridded patterns, while EDSA produced a design of cul-de-sac and curving roads, common to post–World War II suburban development. In 1987, neotraditional design, traditional neighborhood developments, and DPZ’s own new urbanism were new and were creating a national dialogue in planning circles on how suburbs could evolve. This dialogue was inspired, in part, by DPZ’s Seaside and Kentlands communities in Florida and Maryland, respectively. Eisner and Wells were both taken with the three neotraditional plans. At the conclusion of the presentation of these plans, Lewis noted that Eisner said, “Get these three together and develop one consensus plan!”

 

Having three internationally acclaimed planning and architecture firms working together on the same project was—and is—highly unusual in the real estate industry. Yet the OMUD project was enticing enough to the three firms that they each agreed to this unusual arrangement. Through fall 1987 and into the first quarter of 1988, the firms worked together to create the Consensus Master Plan II.

 

Simultaneously, in 1987 and 1988, the Walt Disney Company was engaged in its own strategic decision-making process. As an entertainment company, it needed to determine how much land Walt Disney World would need as it continued to expand its entertainment and hospitality services. At this time, the company owned a total of 27,400 acres, including the OMUD site. The buildout calculations were determined based on the following: (a) the 20-year projected growth in domestic and international individuals taking vacations in the United States; (b) the proportion of those from step a who would vacation in Florida; (c) the proportion of those from step b who would vacation in central Florida; and finally (d) the proportion of those from step c who could be enticed to visit Disney attractions. From these calculations, the company determined the number of potential new theme parks and hotels and the back-of-house space to support its endeavors. The company then ascertained that the land south of US-192 (the OMUD site) was not needed for the future growth of the company’s primary mission in Florida of providing theme parks, entertainment, and hospitality. The OMUD project could continue to move forward.

 

By April 1988, the DDC had a master plan that combined the ideas of three of the top international planning and architecture firms and the land commitment to build on the Walt Disney Company’s surplus holdings south of US-192. However, Eisner and Wells were not ready to break ground. The Consensus Master Plan II was then passed along to Cooper Robertson & Partners (CR) and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM). Jacque Robertson represented CR while Marilyn Taylor and David Childs represented SOM. In December 1989, the CR and SOM master plan was presented to Eisner and Wells.

 

Eisner and Wells then gave the plan back to Robertson (CR) and Stern (RAMSA) for a fourth revision. While the master-planning process was underway, the DDC was also working with the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Turnpike Enterprise to reroute the State Road 417 toll road (also known as the Southern Connector), a proposed ring road around Orlando that would connect Interstate 4 to Orlando International Airport, through Disney’s holdings south of US-192. Robertson and Stern had the challenge of bringing together all the ideas and concepts discussed in earlier versions while taking into account this multilane highway, which would cut through the northern area of the OMUD site. The overall master-planning process concluded in early 1992 with the submission of DDC’s development of regional impact (DRI) application to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC).

 

APPROVALS

The proposed size and expected regionwide impacts of the OMUD triggered the state-mandated Development of Regional Impact process. This process is overseen by the applicable regional planning council (RPC). As of January 2020, there are 10 RPCs in the state. The RPCs are intended to provide regional planning and coordinating services to the jurisdictions and counties within their regions. The submission of the OMUD DRI application to the ECFRPC started a two-year process of negotiations with the local governments in the region. Osceola County and the ECFRPC were the main participants on the public side of this process.

 

The DRI negotiations occurred at the same time that Lewis continued discussions with the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Turnpike Enterprise over the location of the Southern Connector (US-417) mentioned earlier. Because US-417 would connect to Interstate 4, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration were also at the negotiating table. In addition, the DDC was interested in building an east–west highway north of the OMUD site and north of US-192. The impacts, spillover effects, and finances of each of these projects needed to be discussed and sorted out before the OMUD DRI could be approved. As a toll road, the Southern Connector depended on projected traffic revenue to be successful. Much of that revenue would come from the future residents of the OMUD project. Osceola Parkway, likewise, would be supported from OMUD traffic. Osceola County, seeing the potential benefits of the parkway, was therefore motivated to support OMUD’s DRI application. And both projects would benefit from the two new interchanges that the DDC had planned to connect this burgeoning transportation network to Interstate 4. Furthermore, the Walt Disney Company donated rights-of-way and contributed funds to all these transportation improvements.

In parallel, Disney Development Company leaders Killoren, Mansfield, and Robert Rhodes (former DDC general counsel) led permitting of a complex environment mitigation project that was at the time unprecedented in Florida or nationally. To obtain regulatory approval of isolated wetland impacts necessary for the buildout of the Walt Disney World Resort and Celebration, the company created the Disney Wilderness Preserve. In collaboration with the Nature Conservancy and the Florida Audubon Society, Disney acquired the 8,500-acre Walker Ranch (to become the Disney Wilderness Preserve) and agreed to place a conservation easement over 7,500 acres adjacent to Celebration. The complex plan took many years and required approval by six different federal and state agencies and was essential to be able to build new theme parks and resorts.

The company agreed to establish a trust to fund long-term management and restoration of 2,000 acres of wetlands and uplands on the Walker Ranch. To be managed by the Nature Conservancy, the preserve offers programs for public use and environmental education. The preserve became a national model for using a systems approach to manage environmental impacts as an alternative to managing isolated impacts on site and was a precursor to environmental mitigation banking. Hailed by then–Florida Governor Lawton Chiles and Carol Browner, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as an environmental jewel, the preserve has grown dramatically by subsequent additions of land by others.

 

DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE

For the development team, the aesthetics and design of the buildings were crucial to the success of the project. To efficiently communicate design themes to all the parties and firms working on the OMUD, the team used pattern books developed in collaboration with Urban Design Associates, a pioneer in the creation of modern-day pattern books. With a history dating back to the Roman architect Vitruvius, pattern books can be an effective communication tool. Historically, pattern books have provided examples of architectural designs, illustrations, and instructions for architectural styles ranging from classical to renaissance. The Celebration pattern book included several design themes: classical, coastal, Victorian, colonial revival, Mediterranean, and French. These themes would be clustered in four lot districts: estate, village, cottage, and townhouse. The book also included guidelines for alleys and landscaping.

 

In addition to a pattern book, Celebration is characterized by a number of signature buildings designed by world-renowned architects. In many cases, the architects and designers were selected by Eisner to work on specific buildings of his choice. Eisner’s taste and creative energy, perhaps honed by his years of working in television and film, guided much of the aesthetic style of the commercial buildings.

 

The bank was assigned to Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates. A neoclassical style was to be used to give the bank a civic presence. The post office went to Michael Graves. Located on the town square, the post office would have a rotunda serving its main entrance. The cinema was assigned to César Pelli with the goal of being reminiscent of the classic “picture palace” of small American towns from earlier in the 20th century, complete with a large marquee that could be seen from a distance. The preview center went to Charles Moore of Moore-Anderson. The center would be recognizable by its tower comprising a double-helix staircase from which potential homebuyers could look across the town. Philip Johnson had the town hall. Its inspiration was an outstanding front porch typical of town halls in midwestern small towns. Finally, the hotel was assigned to Graham Gund. The Celebration Inn would combine small-scale qualities of a house with the civic, landmark qualities of a grand hotel. Its design was intended to evoke the history of many small-town inns that grew over time from landmark homes.

Importantly, led by EDAW (now part of AECOM) and principal Joe Brown, the team developed a comprehensive landscape master plan and trail system for the entire town. This plan became a backbone of continuity throughout the community and is one of the most memorable physical features of Celebration cited by residents and guests. Walkability is one of the primary features of the town.

 

NAMING

Polls, surveys, contests, and multiple brand consultants were employed to help identify the right name for the project. The development team believed that OMUD’s name needed to be integrally connected to the ongoing planning and design process. Interbrand, an international company based in New York, was hired. Known for creating brand identities, the company had clients ranging from Ford and General Motors to beverage firms like Heineken, Guinness, Coca-Cola, and Pepsi-Cola, to companies like Hewlett-Packard and IBM. Interbrand conducted four focus groups in New York and Chicago to generate a list of potential names.

 

With a list of names in hand, the development team started evaluating each of them. Names that the team liked were passed on to Disney’s legal team (consisting of Frank Ioppolo, Anne Nielsen, and Valerie Roberts) for feedback on their availability. The legal team searched five service areas: (i) real estate development; (ii) retail stores; (iii) shopping centers; (iv) commercial, business, and office projects; and (v) entertainment. In addition, name suggestions came from Disney cast members not working on OMUD.

 

Interbrand presented its list of 19 recommendations in March 1990. Criteria for names included those that evoked the following: (i) an ideal or perfect world; (ii) an environment at peace with itself and the outside world; (iii) nature; and (iv) a place where wonderful advancements originate.

 

Interbrand’s objectives for the name included names that were:

• Registrable and protectable;
• Distinctive;
• Easy to recognize;
• Easy to pronounce;
• Consistent with Disney’s reputation for innovation;
• Friendly and upbeat;
• Suggestive of enjoyable living, vacations, or educational experiences;
• Applicable today, but forward moving, timeless, and enduring;
• A strong first impression with appeal and stopping power;
• In English with international acceptability;
• Memorable;
• Easy to differentiate; and
• Evocative of America.

 

During Interbrand’s presentation, each name was presented, along with a logic for the name and a definition. Also included was a list of all 129 names considered. An additional 27 names were added to list. These names came from two surveys conducted by the DDC or that had been sent in by cast members and other parts of the Walt Disney Company. The name “Celebration” was not on any of these lists. Focus groups were also conducted with guests of the two theme parks and surrounding hotels. The focus groups consisted of 8 percent Florida residents and 92 percent out-of-state visitors, the majority of whom hailed from New England and abroad. Forty-one percent were with their families and 59 percent were individuals. The median age was between 35 and 44. The list of names was then narrowed down to five candidates: Horizons, Jubilee, Meridian, Solaris, and Antares.

 

But the DDC was not satisfied. Many of the favored names were knocked out of consideration by the legal team due to partial or full nonavailability. At this point, a new consulting firm was brought in—Lippincott & Margulies, another New York–based branding firm. Lippincott spent 1990 reviewing a master list of 264 potential names, including 122 from Interbrand, 24 from Disney University and the Disney Archive, 27 from Walt Disney cast members, and six from a DDC retreat that focused specifically on generating a name for OMUD. In October 1990, a reduced list of names was presented to Eisner. The list included the following: Amber Reed, Ameray, Emeralton, Leveling, Radiance, Shimmeron, Sunspree, Veridian, Vibrance, and Uniqua. Eisner was not impressed with any of these selections. Coincidentally, the Disney Mall to be located west of Interstate 4 was using the working name “Celebration Center,” but Celebration was not being considered for OMUD.

 

Pressure was mounting and in January 1991 a final list of 12 proposed names was submitted to the DDC executive team. Celebration still was not on this list. More polling and focus groups narrowed the list down to eight names. The goal became to have a recommended name ready for Eisner’s scheduled tour of the project later in the first quarter of 1991. When the day of the tour came and a name was still not selected, Rummell, Mansfield, and Lewis climbed into an SUV with Eisner and his wife, Jane. During the tour, the team reviewed the list, now whittled down to Horizons, New Vista, Dimensions, Ameritown, and Celebration. It was there that Jane Eisner selected Celebration. And on May 6, 1991, the name was filed with the U.S. trademark office.

 

CELEBRATION FOUNDATION
At the core of the OMUD project was a desire to create a sense of community. Rummell used a hardware/software metaphor to emphasize the importance of community. The hardware was composed of the built spaces, buildings, houses, and the arrangement of streets, parks, squares, and landscaping. The software would be the people who lived there and the social networks they created while living there. For Rummell and Mansfield, the software was the most important part of the project. The team had to build social networks and find funding for activities and programs that help build those networks. Charles Adams and Chris Corr of the Celebration Company (a subsidiary of DDC) led these efforts at Celebration (and subsequently in many other communities). While not often recognized in reviews or books about Celebration, this software may be the most meaningful planning attribute in terms of its contribution to the sense of community among residents that exists today. Mansfield subsequently wrote a book, Community, the New American Dream, which was focused on the notion of community as a driver in planning new large-scale towns.

 

To this end, the team created the Celebration Foundation. The vision for the foundation was as follows:

Working hand-in-hand with community members and stakeholders, the Foundation serves as a focal point for community involvement and participation. It promotes and enhances the community’s foundation principles—shared responsibility, lifelong learning, health promotion, volunteerism, communication and information sharing, wholeness/balance, civic pride, vision, opportunity, and innovation.

 

The mission of the foundation was to be

… dedicated to enriching the lives of those who live and work in Celebration and promoting innovation and excellence in community building.

 

The foundation would split its time and efforts between two foci—one internal, the other external. The internal focus would be centered on activities at the Celebration Community Center through activities and things such as a new-resident welcome wagon, a residential directory, and a resource center and would include programs and special classes. The center would also support volunteer actions and hold black-tie fundraising events for the larger Osceola County community.

 

The external focus would be handled by the Celebration Forum, which sought to center Celebration as “a model and living laboratory for communities everywhere by its commitment to inspire, grow, share, and support.” Its activities would include a speaker’s bureau, a journal, an internship program, and advisory and consulting services.

 

The development team set up the Celebration Foundation as a 501(c)(4). It was to be a social welfare organization instead of a public charity. This was done so that the Celebration Company would have more control over the foundation. Funding for the foundation was tricky, however. Traditionally, 501(c)(4) organizations receive funding through member dues, program fees, and assessments. Member dues would not be viable for Celebration because even at the projected buildout, the population of residents would be too small to attain the funding needed. Program fees were instituted, but they likewise faced the same problem of too small a funding base. Given these hurdles, initial funding for the foundation came from the Celebration Company, with $1.7 million donated to the foundation to maintain it in its first five years. Sustaining revenue would come in the form of transaction fees placed on every home sale in the project. These were projected to amount to about $700,000 in the first five years of Celebration’s existence. Third-party revenue leveraged by the Walt Disney Company provided an additional $300,000 for the same five-year period. Project staff numbers started out at two for the foundation and grew to five by the end of the five-year time frame.

 

OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

Because Celebration was a Disney project, it was destined for—and received—significant media coverage. With many eyes on the project, the development team—advised and inspired by renowned community builder Charles Fraser—built it with the goal of having an impact on the future of community development. Prior to Celebration, there were few walkable, neotraditional communities of the sort, other than those designed by DPZ. Few new projects at that time were of the size, type, and theme of Celebration. Today, such developments are much more common. Forging this new territory required new tools such as pattern books and focus groups as well as an emphasis on growing the software of the community, which are commonplace today. The goal of having an impact on the future of community development has been realized both by Celebration becoming an example studied worldwide and also because many of the DDC team members went on to create numerous other communities of note across the United States.

 

Though many surveys and focus groups were conducted during the planning phase, the development team underestimated just how receptive potential buyers would be to Celebration. As a result, the development team’s land sales to the selected custom and production builders who would construct the homes were underpriced. For example, in Savannah Square, one of Celebration’s neighborhoods, the team projected that townhouse units would sell for around $100,000. Instead, not too long after initial sales, units were selling for around $300,000. Earlier in the planning process, Eisner had suggested that the development team keep the land and lease it. The team, however, did the opposite and was therefore unable to capture much of the value that was created.

 

Finally, the development did not plan for enough townhouses to keep up with demand. In the planning phase, Duany noted that developers at that time were unfamiliar with the potential performance of higher-density housing types away from metropolitan centers. Detached single-family homes were the norm for suburban developments. Conventional market analyses at that time led to the conclusion that demand for townhouses would be limited. Instead, the development team found that there was indeed a strong market for townhouses when they were built in towns.

 

As one of the earliest examples of a new type of suburban development and Disney’s first experience with this type of project, Celebration represents a milestone in the history of real estate development in the United States. It was the hope of the development team that future developers would learn from the planning and development of this project.

 

More information about the creation and history of Celebration can be found at: https://www.floridatrend.com/article/28300/celebration-the-inside-story.

Principal Author: Jason Scully

Case coauthor: Tom Lewis

Tom Lewis, now deceased, was an attorney, an architect, and a retired colonel in the U.S. Air Force. He served as chairman of Orlando’s zoning commission and vice chairman of the city’s planning board, and at the state level as assistant secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation and secretary of the Florida Department of Community Affairs. He became vice president of the Disney Development Company, for community development, and led the planning and design team for the town of Celebration, Disney’s groundbreaking residential development.