PDA

View Full Version : Will there every be a 5th theme park?


tentaguasu
04-19-2007, 11:34 AM
I was very pleasantly surprised by how much I liked AK. I feel like with each successive theme park Disney did an even better job.

I'm wondering if we can hold out hope for yet another park in WDW?

My understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that from a financial standpoint AK has been something of a disappointment. People aren't staying longer or spending more.

So my guess is that financially there is no reason to do another theme park...

Still I'd love to see it.

Any chance it'll happen?

skier_pete
04-19-2007, 11:48 AM
I don't know what the "official" line is, but my guess is we will not see a 5th Disney theme park anytime soon. The reasoning behind the 4 parks is to get people to come to Orlando and stay for a full week solely at Disney. They get some additional business beyond the 7-10 day stays, but most Americans at least don't take more than one week at a time. So, with 4 parks, there is enough here to keep people occupied for a full week. A 5th park would increase the time the majority of people would spend at WDW, but would instead cannibalize attendance at the other four parks. (Even Universal/IOA found this out when they opened the second theme park, and found they took a significant hit away their own park.)

Probably the best you could hope for would be an expansion of one of the existing parks to try to increase the gate at that park.

SkierPete

David R
04-19-2007, 11:50 AM
Yes but we are at least 10 years out from that happening.

jarrdisney
04-19-2007, 11:56 AM
I've heard from multiple CM's that they are in the process of building a new park right now. I take it as a grain of salt though.

tentaguasu
04-19-2007, 12:31 PM
I've heard from multiple CM's that they are in the process of building a new park right now. I take it as a grain of salt though.

How could they possibly do this without it getting out immediately? We could punch up the area on google maps right now and pick out any construction going on.

I'd love it to be true but I just can't imagine how it could be kept secret in today's world.

Zippa D Doodah
04-19-2007, 01:12 PM
Until lately I had thought that a 5th gate was a far-fetched idea. However, now that we all know that WDW is doing booming business lately, I can foresee a new gate opening sooner rather than later. That still means 8-10 years out at the soonest though. If there is to be a 5th gate Iger and the big wigs will need to make that commitment soon.

raidermatt
04-19-2007, 01:38 PM
It's been my hope that they would continue to make significant additions/enhancements to the existing four parks, especially AK and MGM, before building a 5th park.

While I'm not sure Disney sees that as being as great a need as most of us do, it did appear that the somewhat lackluster performance of DCA and AK would make them hesitate before pulling the trigger on another park in either location.

But with all of the hotel expansion being planned/discussed, I'm starting to wonder. Those people are going need somewhere to go.

WDW has the new Contemporary tower, AKL DVC, The Four Seasons, 4000-5000 third party rooms being added right outside the gate but still on property, and supposedly Pop Century to finish. Sure, some of these people will just be people who used to stay off-site, but not all.

Are all of these people going to go into the existing 4 parks?

Horace Horsecollar
04-19-2007, 01:44 PM
According to RCID planning documents, Disney has three large sites for future theme parks. Will any of those sites are ever be developed as a fifth major WDW theme park? There is no answer to that question.

I assume that there have been and will continue to be "blue sky" planning efforts for a fifth park, but that's not the same as actually green-lighting a fifth park.

I think that the Disney executives have now learned that the Disney brand alone isn't enough make people rush to the entrance gate. They know what happened at Disney's California Adventure and Disney Studios Paris.

A fifth theme park would require a huge investment of up-front capital, and it would generate huge ongoing operating costs. Each new WDW park adds substantial overhead expense, regardless of whether total attendance at the WDW parks increases or stays the same.

Unless Disney executives are convinced that the fifth park would generate a proportional increase in revenue and profit, they won't approve such a park.

To put it another way, if Disney adds 25% to theme park capacity and operating expense, would there be a 25% increase in overall guest attendance and spending?

ChrisFL
04-19-2007, 03:15 PM
To put it another way, if Disney adds 25% to theme park capacity and operating expense, would there be a 25% increase in overall guest attendance and spending?

Unless they make something quality as good as Tokyo DisneySea I'd say no

ASilmser
04-19-2007, 03:46 PM
Unless they make something quality as good as Tokyo DisneySea I'd say no

To quote Dr Seuss:

"if I ran the zoo. . . "

I would first bring the rest of the parks up to the same quality as Tokyo Disney Sea. . . . and THEN think about adding a 5th gate.

Each park has it's "issues" right now. I think if they invest the amount of money into the existing parks as a new park would cost, the people would come in droves. They could THEN justify the expansion, with the numbers to prove it. Right now, they are still getting a handle on the damage that years of uninspired management, 9-11, and a hurricane or two have done. I wish they would use their new-found numbers and set those imagineers loose with a pile of cash and a vision.

By the way, the jury is still out as to whether we are still dealing with uninspired management--at least as far as WDW is concerned.

All Aboard
04-19-2007, 04:02 PM
I feel like with each successive theme park Disney did an even better job.That might be the first time I've ever read that statement.

I agree with others. WAAAAY before WDW adds another gate (especially if it is going to be on the scale of AK or DCA when they opened) they need to focus on enhancing the 3rd and 4th gates first. And, throw World Showcase in there while they're at it.

larry_poppins
04-19-2007, 04:23 PM
I know I will be flamed for this, but I consider Universal and Sea World the fifth, sixth, and seventh parks. I don't expect anymore US parks from Disney. Iger is only interested in putting mini parks in India and China. The Magic Your Way tickets give you days past #5 for just a few dollars. I don't think this will encourage new park construction. I expect future attraction development along Monsters Laugh floor.

If you want to see a great park visit Tokyo DisneySea!

Larry

ChrisFL
04-19-2007, 04:28 PM
I feel like with each successive theme park Disney did an even better job.

I guess you could say that if you're not a fan of rides

raidermatt
04-19-2007, 04:53 PM
I guess you could say that if you're not a fan of rides.

Guest Survey CM: Sir, what did you like least about your experience today?

Guest: The lines!



1 month later...

Jay Rasulo: Bob, can you put down your iPod? I need to go over something with you.

Bob Iger: Great piece of technology, Jay. I invented the internet you know...

Jay: Yes, Bob, I know. Anyway, we've been going over some of our guest survey data from the parks, and our biggest complaint is the length of the lines.

Bob: You're the park guy, Jay. Isn't technology great?

Jay: Sure, but I just need to make sure you're ok with this. I think if we take out the attractions, we can eliminate the lines, and thereby take care of our biggest guest complaint. Then we can shift that attraction money over to the marketing of next year's celebration: "The Most Happiest Celebration of Dreams on Earth".

Bob: You're the park guy Jay. Don't like going to 'em myself. Can't repackage and distribute network content there.

Jay: Don't worry sir, I don't go to 'em either. So, we good?

Bob: You're the park guy Jay.

DancingBear
04-19-2007, 05:22 PM
I feel like with each successive theme park Disney did an even better job.Are you serious? Studios was better than Magic Kingdom and Epcot?

mitros
04-19-2007, 05:34 PM
Guest Survey CM: Sir, what did you like least about your experience today?

Guest: The lines!



1 month later...

Jay Rasulo: Bob, can you put down your iPod? I need to go over something with you.

Bob Iger: Great piece of technology, Jay. I invented the internet you know...

Jay: Yes, Bob, I know. Anyway, we've been going over some of our guest survey data from the parks, and our biggest complaint is the length of the lines.

Bob: You're the park guy, Jay. Isn't technology great?

Jay: Sure, but I just need to make sure you're ok with this. I think if we take out the attractions, we can eliminate the lines, and thereby take care of our biggest guest complaint. Then we can shift that attraction money over to the marketing of next year's celebration: "The Most Happiest Celebration of Dreams on Earth".

Bob: You're the park guy Jay. Don't like going to 'em myself. Can't repackage and distribute network content there.

Jay: Don't worry sir, I don't go to 'em either. So, we good?

Bob: You're the park guy Jay.

All right, cut out the jokes matt. Everyone knows that Al Gore invented the internet!:rotfl:

CanadianGuy
04-19-2007, 07:15 PM
ScreamScape has mapped out two key locations (Eastern & Western) they perceive as likely spots for a fifth park -- should one ever come to pass.

It's an interesting theory.

Map of those Eastern & Western proposed park locations here (http://www.screamscape.com/html/wdw_western_way_0.htm)

Map of land proposed for the Western Dev and Four Seasons Dev here (http://www.screamscape.com/html/wdw_-_western_developmet_2.htm)

And scroll about 80% of the way down this page (http://www.screamscape.com/html/walt_disney_world_resort.htm)for '5th park' rumors..

ScreamScape opinions aside.. I think a 5th gate is inevitable in Florida. It's a matter of time.. how much? Probably 12 to 15 years at least.

Knox

Horace Horsecollar
04-19-2007, 08:28 PM
ScreamScape has mapped out two key locations (Eastern & Western) they perceive as likely spots for a fifth park -- should one ever come to pass.

It's an interesting theory.

Map of those Eastern & Western proposed park locations here (http://www.screamscape.com/html/wdw_western_way_0.htm)

Map of land proposed for the Western Dev and Four Seasons Dev here (http://www.screamscape.com/html/wdw_-_western_developmet_2.htm)

And scroll about 80% of the way down this page (http://www.screamscape.com/html/walt_disney_world_resort.htm)for '5th park' rumors..
The webmaster of Screamscape has apparently never looked at the Reedy Creek Improvement District 2008 Plan (http://www.rcid.org/2008Comp_main.cfm) documents. His "Eastern Site" and "Western Site" are conservation areas and flood plains. There are large, undeveloped, buildable sites at WDW -- but not Screamscape's "Eastern Site" and "Western Site."

There is no doubt that there's enough land at WDW for a fifth park... and a sixth and a seventh.

But there's a lot of doubt that Disney executives are willing to spend two billion dollars or so to build a compelling fifth theme park.

CanadianGuy
04-19-2007, 09:10 PM
Agreed.. I hadn't seen that document before.. but the areas ScreamScapes indicates are clearly both identified as flood plains and conservation areas.

Thanks for the link!

Knox

CanadianGuy
04-19-2007, 09:18 PM
As a side note.. on the many transportation maps in the 'traffic' portion of the RCID plans..

There is a "Proposed Road" leaving the I-4 outside of Disney property on the west side and heading north to the Disney property west of Magic Kingdom.. Any ideas what that is?

Knox

Horace Horsecollar
04-19-2007, 10:12 PM
There is a "Proposed Road" leaving the I-4 outside of Disney property on the west side and heading north to the Disney property west of Magic Kingdom.. Any ideas what that is?
That's Toll 429, the Daniel Webster Western Beltway.

For more information, see http://www.floridasturnpike.com/about_system_westernbeltway.cfm

Here's a map: http://www.floridasturnpike.com/maps/UpdatedMaps2007/westernbeltway.pdf

thefirebuilds
04-20-2007, 11:54 AM
How could they possibly do this without it getting out immediately? We could punch up the area on google maps right now and pick out any construction going on.

I'd love it to be true but I just can't imagine how it could be kept secret in today's world.


I agree with you but let me point out a few details.

Google maps is out of date - always. Those pics are not updated daily or even monthly.

There are construction projects at disney above ground all the time, everywhere.

the competition in this market is so harsh, and disney is so finely tuned i am sure they could time the release of an announcement well into foundations being poured and even asphalt laid. It isnt like the monorail would just be dead ending at a chunk of track in the woods...

raidermatt
04-20-2007, 01:46 PM
As long as its not near any existing roads or within sight of any resorts, tracks, etc., then maybe. But given that when Disney replaces a lightbulb, somebody on the net asks what's going on, I'm skeptical they could really get very far without it being detected.

Plus, like with the Contemporary stuff, wouldn't they have to file permits and such? There seem to be some people around here who are good at tracking down those things pretty early in the process, like with the Contemporary stuff.

thefirebuilds
04-20-2007, 02:20 PM
since theyre reedy creek they would file them with themselves. the state doesnt care.

DancingBear
04-20-2007, 04:24 PM
RCID permit filings are public, but in any event there are other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction.

JohnZ46
04-20-2007, 05:23 PM
I think that there will eventually be a fifth park at WDW.

However, Disney's already negotiating with the city of Anaheim about a third park. I suspect that that will be built first (after reworking some of DCA).

doconeill
04-20-2007, 08:10 PM
"negotating" is an interesting term... :)

Anaheim seems to be forcing Disney to show that it does indeed have plans, and it is likely forcing Disney to re-prioritize a number of projects, probably at the expense of WDW for a while.

MJMcBride
04-20-2007, 10:40 PM
Any chance it'll happen?

In a word, no.

CanadianGuy
04-20-2007, 11:31 PM
That's Toll 429, the Daniel Webster Western Beltway.

For more information, see http://www.floridasturnpike.com/about_system_westernbeltway.cfm

Here's a map: http://www.floridasturnpike.com/maps/UpdatedMaps2007/westernbeltway.pdf

Cool thanks!

Knox

Lord Fantasius
04-23-2007, 03:44 AM
It's been a long time...but the link to the RCID Improvement Plan was intriguing.

Anybody read what was imbedded in the first paragraph under "Use of the Capital Projects to Implement Future Land use Plan on pg. 9B-25?"

Notably, "the traffic improvements listed in Table 9-7 are intended to facilitate development in vacant areas designated for future Mixed Use or Hotel development, particularly in the areas west of the MGM/Disney Studios, the areas around Seven Seas Lagoon and Bay Lake, and the northern and western portions of Lake Buena Vista."

Admittedly, this Plan was written on 6/05/2000, pre 9/11, etc., but RCID is notorious about putting out miss-information, or at least steer the public in one direction and then head off in another. But figuring it takes 3 - 5 years to start a project and another 2 or 3 to complete one, any priority in the Plan back then would just be coming to fruition now; though that's not counting on the changes in society since that was written.

Even back then at the height of growth, no word was made about another gate, just more mixed use and hotel development. There aren't many sections of their property with contiguous plots of land large enough to accommodate a legitimate park; though given that Disney, Inc. considers MGM and AK major gates, I'm not too excited about another half-day park to dilute my experience at the other parks. It's strange that people spend more time at one of their water parks than they do at AK; maybe in this sense they have their 5th and 6th gates already?

I agree with what's been said before, I doubt Disney would lay out $2 or $3 billion for even half a park if they couldn't project out an increase in attendance/revenue 20% attributable to the new park. And with lodging near capacity during the peak season, Disney would have to build a park that would bring guests in during the "off" seasons; or at least entice more people to stay longer during the off seasons. Either way, for Disney, Inc, $2 billion can be expended into more immediately profitable areas that would guarantee faster returns than actually putting value back into a Disney vacation.

Right now, they struggle with keeping the restrooms clean in Fantasyland, which tells me immediately they would rather spend $100 million for a really neat new ride to attract a small target group of the population than another $1 million in cleaning and maintenance. What they seem to forget is that if there are two people planning a vacation and one's a Disney nut and the other oh-hum about another Disney vacation, it's harder to compromise when the non-Disney fan keeps on bringing up the crowd and filth issue. Most "families" don't need another park, what they need is a place they can vacation and relax together.

Oh well, they derailed my argument by introducing free dining during the period we were contemplating, but at least there's a perception we're getting more value for our money since we consider dining an event in itself.

R

ConcKahuna
04-23-2007, 07:29 AM
It's strange that people spend more time at one of their water parks than they do at AK; maybe in this sense they have their 5th and 6th gates already?

I have to say as a local who is in the Disney parks constantly this is very very far from the truth. The average stay at a water park is about 2-3 hours. You might be thinking of the half-finished AK as it was in 98/99, and even into 2000, but most people now stay a full day in that park and many go back for additional visits. Just because you may not like a park doesn't mean others don't.

As for the 5th park, back in 99 I spoke with an imagineer who had stated that plans were in the work for another park (off of Bay Lake) that would be a "dark reflection" of the MK. It would feature villains and thrill rides.

Having spoken to that same imagineer through the years, I can tell you that those plans have been scrapped. Disney decided they didn't want to split families up into different parks, so instead they are putting more thrill-type rides into the other parks. Instead of building more parks, they are spending the money on things like the 2 new and bigger cruise ships, and they are adding new attractions to all of the parks. Epcot is undergoing several refurbishments, such as the Teppanyaki in Japan, the attraction in Mexico, and the recent refurbishments to The Land and The Seas with Nemo and Friends. These changes may not be popular with some of the "Disney Traditionalists" (who crack me up because Walt was all about change), but the general public loves them for the most part.

mitros
04-23-2007, 08:31 PM
That's Toll 429, the Daniel Webster Western Beltway.

For more information, see http://www.floridasturnpike.com/about_system_westernbeltway.cfm

Here's a map: http://www.floridasturnpike.com/maps/UpdatedMaps2007/westernbeltway.pdf

Yea, that new road makes getting to Disney from NW areas of Florida a whole lot easier. You avoid Rt 4 totally! Although when they finally build that second "downtown" area, that road will draw a lot more traffic........unfortunately :sad2:

TheRustyScupper
04-24-2007, 12:44 PM
. . . I feel like with each successive theme park Disney did an even better job . . .


1) As much as I like WDW, I see no evidence to support this assumption.
2) The last two WDW parks (aka, Gates) were opened with
. . . a limited amount of, and far too few, attractions *
. . . poorly designed guest flow patterns
. . . few quality eateries, and in the case of AK, a lack of eateries
. . . indequate investment


* This has been stated by WDW on several travelogue-type TV shows.

ASilmser
04-24-2007, 02:56 PM
1) As much as I like WDW, I see no evidence to support this assumption.
2) The last two WDW parks (aka, Gates) were opened with
. . . a limited amount of, and far too few, attractions *
. . . poorly designed guest flow patterns
. . . few quality eateries, and in the case of AK, a lack of eateries
. . . indequate investment


* This has been stated by WDW on several travelogue-type TV shows.

I agree with you to a point. I would like to put in a plug for AK, however. Yes, it was built with less attractions, but as far as sparing expense goes I would disagree. AK is arguably the most lush and ambitious concept in theme parks in a long time. I have no problem with the fact that the parks open at about 2/3 of what they should be--they just need to add the new areas and attractions quicker. EE should have been built at least 5 years ago and we should be well into the opening of a new themed area like the originally planned Beastly Kingdom. But the theming and concept for AK are grand, beautiful, and innovative (just ignore the current dinoland for a moment, please).

In the case of AK, I think they were prepared to follow the model of adding attractions and areas more quickly. (I'll conceed the restaurant part of your argument--I never understood why they would not have more places to eat if they wanted people to stay longer)

and then. . .

Aside from the Eisner (why do we need these theme parks anyway?) era people seem to forget that shortly after AK opened, travel to WDW took a dive after 9/11/01. How many of us dropped a ton of cash after that in order to go on a spendy vacation? I know that I waited about 6-9 months, and even then, I went on a shorter trip than I normally would have. I know I am not alone. I would venture that many planned upgrades and additions are about 5 years behind, which means that we should start seeing big improvements and announcements from now on.

Three years from now, if there is not another national emergency that effects travel like 9/11 and there are not some big things added or on the way at AK, I will agree with you completely.

JoeEpcotRocks
04-24-2007, 04:54 PM
Disney has plenty of other things to fix first in my not-so-humble opinion.

For example:

Upgrade or replace DisneyQuest. :sad2:

Upgrade empty or "seasonal" buildings in Epcot-FutureWorld :sad2:

Replace Stitch Escapes. :eek:

And how about a new country or two in World Showcase?? :cool2:

raidermatt
04-24-2007, 05:54 PM
I could live with the open with 2/3 and quickly build out strategy if that's what they actually did, but they don't. They don't open with 2/3, and they don't quickly build out to the extent we are talking about.

MGM is 18 years old and has a fraction of the things to do that MK and Epcot have, nevermind DL.

What they do now is open with really 1/2 or less of what is considered a "full" Disney park, add a few things quickly, and then they appear to re-evaluate and only add anything else when its deemed necessary. And clearly the bar for needing additions is nowhere near where it used to be.

Note that I'm differentiating between additions and replacements.

With respect to AK, I do like much of what has been done (with a huge exception or three), but there simply is still not enough to do there for a lot of people.

But while I said I could live with opening at 2/3, that doesn't mean its a great idea. Disney isn't some newcomer who needs to test the waters before they can tell if the public will like what they have to offer. Or at least that's a problem they shouldn't have.

By opening with 2/3 (and in reality, 1/2 or less), they disappoint their customers and create a huge hurdle to overcome. Its hard enough to make something people like, but when you intentionally make that path more rocky, it gets even harder.

Disney does not need to go that route. They have the resources to hold off on opening until they have much more to offer, and they have (or at least had) the reputation with the public to make it a far less risky proposition for them. In fact, that repuation (or brand value, if you will) is a compelling reason NOT to put 1/2 parks out there.

GreatLakes5
04-24-2007, 06:30 PM
I was back at Disney for the first time in many, many years in February. Depending on your perspective, I was amazed at how much MK had not changed. (Good to me - I live in memories ;) Probably not good to others). I was disappointed by some changes in Epcot and even more disappointed that there have not been more countries added - seems like a logical thing to do assuming there is space available.

So this was our first experience with AK - we have a son who loves animals, nature, etc....He was pleased. We were a bit disappointed - it didn't seem to have the "punch" the other parks have in some way or another. To us it wasn't Disney enough :wizard: if that makes sense. Personal opinion, of course....

What about additions or improvements in the Fort Wilderness area? That whole River Country area seems like it would have potential to become something again? Perhaps attracting more people to that area for its subdued entertainment potentials? :confused:

raidermatt
04-25-2007, 01:39 PM
On a recent wdwtoday podcast, one of the authors of the unofficial guide (I think it was Len Testsa) mentioned that they had seen an internal Disney research report that showed that the earlier in the trip that people visit AK, the more they like it. In other words, if they see the other parks first, they like AK less. I assume this was first time visitors, since previous visitors would already have an opinion before they arrived.

For whatever that's worth.

thefirebuilds
04-25-2007, 01:45 PM
and fwiw AK is my favorite park. I could skip all the others (Epcot a close second...)

Lord Fantasius
04-25-2007, 03:18 PM
Just because you may not like a park doesn't mean others don't.

I never said I didn't like the park...it's very intricate and detailed, and what is has is very well done. But would I spend $65, or whatever it costs these days, to visit it if it were not apart of WDW and one of my discounted multi-day park hopper tickets? That's the question for me and how I judge it. And honestly, I don't think either AK or MGM Studios would even be in the top 10 attended amusement parks if they were standing alone next to a Universal or SeaWorld.

Yes, you might be able to spend a day there, and even come back for another portion of a day, but would you be as excited relegated to AK if for the same amount of money you could be at MK or EPCOT? It's an add-on park, complementary to the whole WDW experience, like the individual lands in MK, but not something I would travel to see if it weren't already there.

Both MGM and AK give me the sense that Disney, Inc., was in the let's-build-the-minimal-amount-of-park-possible-to-see-what-the-public-will-pay-to-visit mindset at the time, causing them to play catch up ever since. And if they add a 5th or 6th half-parks with that same mindset, they might as well not even sell single day passes at the gate as the only people visiting them will be those with park hoppers or "Tickets to the World" passes.

E-ticket rides are nice, and make for great headliners, but where are the A, B, C, and D-ticket rides that can be enjoyed together as a family? The carausels, the WEDWay people mover, the dark rides, etc.? For every E-ticket ride at MK there are 4 or 5 non-thrill rides to complement them, and I don't think Walt designed it that way by accident or because he didn't have the money to build a park full of E-rides (though Roy would have killed him). For humor's sake, what ratio is there at AK or MGM?

I guess we'll see when I'm there with my 4yo in September....

R

fey_spirit
04-27-2007, 05:12 PM
I will agree that the third gate still needs work, but the fourth is fine just the way she is... if they add any more there, there wont be time to get in and get everything done before they close the gates at that ungodly early hour... esp in peak season.

I think if they want more people to come one of the first things they need to adress are the complaints that we hear from those who don't go... one of those complaints is that "it's too crowded" a 5th gate would pull people away from the other parks that is very very true, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing if it make it a more pleasant experience thus drawing more people.

Then again I l cling desperatly to the hopes for a fifth gate because they've all but killed my favorite part of Disney in the parks (The villans) and I would love to see a Villans land complete with extreme chills and thrills - not to mention that would help give them an edge in the one market that Universal tends to beat them out on.

DancingBear
04-27-2007, 05:24 PM
I will agree that the third gate still needs work, but the fourth is fine just the way she is... if they add any more there, there wont be time to get in and get everything done before they close the gates at that ungodly early hour... esp in peak season.First, if that is the standard (too much stuff to do to get everything done in one day during peak season), then I guess Magic Kingdom fails that also.

Second, how about they stay open later?

fey_spirit
04-27-2007, 05:33 PM
The diffrence between MK and AK is that there is too much to do in one afternoon at the Mk, and plenty to do over two or three days...

At AK it's almost impossible to do everything in one day now - but not enough there to make it worth going for more then one day... (That is if you're after more then the animals... I suppose if you wanted to go for rides and shows for one day, and animals the next... even then...)

They would have to do more then brush Ak up a little to make it worth spending two days there - if I want to look at animals while in Disney World I can hop over to AKL and not spend the money on park tickets...

Besides you miss the most important part ::planting tounge firmly in cheek:: I want my Villans! In all seroiusness though I note you didn't mention any argument that having a park based on the conept of providing thrills and chills right along with the other four family fun parks would give them an edge in that area when competing with Universal... they have a hard time putting these in the other parks in any real number because then the parents of young kids start complaing about how little Jhonny can't ride that yet... never mind that something like this would keep Litte Jhonny wanting to come back after he turns 16 and starts thinking Universal is superior because it has better coaster & Thrill ratio.

First, if that is the standard (too much stuff to do to get everything done in one day during peak season), then I guess Magic Kingdom fails that also.

Second, how about they stay open later?

G8r4evr
04-29-2007, 12:29 PM
I agree, MGM needs alot of work, but I looove AK!!

Another Voice
04-29-2007, 11:32 PM
Will there ever be a fifth theme park?
Not in the way we think about them.

Disney is currently in love with the idea of the "premium park". Traditional theme parks are huge investments which need a constant stream of guests. It's a "low margin, high volume" business. In the travel industry, constantly getting lots of people to fly/drive/rail/bus their way to Orlando is a daunting challenge.

Disney wants to go the other way - "high margin, low volume". That means charging a few people big bucks for a lot smaller experience. Think about the way spas have sprouted up all over the place. People don't want to wait in long lines and be serviced en masse anymore. People want something more personal and less of a hassle - and they'll pay huge bucks for it.

The current model is SeasWorld's Dolphin Cove where for big bucks you can swim, look at birds, eat a better-than-theme park meal and torment captive marine mammals without the crowds and poor people that populate other theme parks.

Disney wants something just like that.

One of the big problems, however, is coming up with an idea that will have people pay $500+ a day to see AND that Disney can make on a budget that will turn a profit on it's opening day. People aren't going to settle for modest California Adventure level attractions for that kind of ticket; Disney's real attractions are based paybacks of years and years with millions of visitors.

They've talked about creating something based on old video games, took a stab at creating a "magical relam" outside of standard Disney fare (this place has to appeal to well-heeled adults, not the people who trade Mickey pins). And of course there was the stab at 'Harry Potter'. But everything has turned up either unmarketable or not "Disney" enough (as in pushing the brand) to get any interest. The sad fact for Disney is that "The Brand" doesn't appeal to the $300 for a facial set. The Disney Institute was a huge and massively expensive attempt at the market and it was a tremendous failure.

disneyfan67
04-30-2007, 01:30 AM
I have read all the responses and it provided some interesting thought. I don't think Disney should add another gate, unless it was just like the park in Japan, Tokyo Disney Sea. Which from everything I could get my hands on about it, is an impressive park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_DisneySea

I doubt with all the money tied up in to the new cruise ships and a possible 3rd park in Disneyland, that Disney would take on a big expense like Tokyo Disney Sea. I read in different places, including the link of above that it was in the range of 5 Billion dollars back a decade or so. I couldn't imagine the cost now. I would love to be able to see a park of that quality in the U.S.

I would like to see WDW rebuild and add more attractions to the parks they already have. MK really should get the updated sub ride like Disneyland is getting in June, plus a few others, and expand MGM (Pixar) studios. That is one park that could use some more rides. How about finally expanding the monorail line to go to AK and AKL? I would make AKL my home resort if the transportation wasn't limited to just taking the bus. You want to get more people through the gates at AK? Build a Monorail line to it, add a couple more attractions and they will come.

GreatLakes5
04-30-2007, 07:23 AM
IMK really should get the updated sub ride like Disneyland is getting in June, plus a few others, and expand MGM (Pixar) studios. That is one park that could use some more rides. How about finally expanding the monorail line to go to AK and AKL? I would make AKL my home resort if the transportation wasn't limited to just taking the bus. You want to get more people through the gates at AK? Build a Monorail line to it, add a couple more attractions and they will come.

I'm going to date myself with the first question -

When did Nemo's sub get taken away/replaced? (That would be Captain Nemo, not the orange fish ;) ) It was a staple for me as a child.

Secondly, I agree with the monorail or SOMETHING...perhaps part of the reason we didn't thrill with AK as I thought we would was that, apart from those at the AKL, it felt so removed. I realize big animals need big space, but I do wonder if either something - anything - could be done in between to make it feel closer OR the monorail could be extended. (:laughing: at the thought of extending the monorail being said like it's just so easy to do...)

XImagineer
04-30-2007, 10:09 AM
We all know that Disney has the land for more parks, and probably the demand is there to build them, but the real problem facing WDW is staffing the existing parks and resorts they have.

When I got hired back in the early 80s as a ride operator, they only hired something like 1 out of every 20 applicants. Now, there is greater competition in the area for employees, an area that has a very low unemployment rate at that, and Disney is having a really hard time filling existing jobs. The locals tend to shy away from it, as Disney is notoriously a low payer. Its not an exaggeration that you can make more at the local McDonald's here than you can as a Disney employee. The low pay and disproportionate rise in the cost-of-living has turned off a lot of quality people from moving down here and taking Disney jobs to get "get their foot in the door". The College Program has been expanded tremendously, but staffing your company with a revolving door of temporary employees is not the most sound business decision for the long term.

When Disney can once again staff its parks and resorts with quality people, that will be the time to start looking at expansion. Until then, don't expect too much.

disneyfan67
04-30-2007, 10:47 AM
I'm going to date myself with the first question -

When did Nemo's sub get taken away/replaced? (That would be Captain Nemo, not the orange fish ;) ) It was a staple for me as a child.

Secondly, I agree with the monorail or SOMETHING...perhaps part of the reason we didn't thrill with AK as I thought we would was that, apart from those at the AKL, it felt so removed. I realize big animals need big space, but I do wonder if either something - anything - could be done in between to make it feel closer OR the monorail could be extended. (:laughing: at the thought of extending the monorail being said like it's just so easy to do...)



According to Widen your World (link below), the "20,000 Leagues under the Sea" sub ride made it's last voyage in August of 1994. It is now a lame "Winnie the Pooh" play ground area with a soft floor surface for the liitle ones and a complete waste of prime realestate, IMO.

http://www.omniluxe.net/wyw/20K.htm


I'm a firm believer that Disney should add a monorail line to AK and it would improve that parks attendence figures. It would be great to be able to ride over to AK or AKL just for part of the day to just ride Everest or go to AKL and just check everything out and get a bite to eat. People who have never set foot in AKL would see how unique it is and plan to stay there on their next visit.

thefirebuilds
04-30-2007, 11:32 AM
Monorails make tigers impotent. Duh.

G8r4evr
04-30-2007, 05:19 PM
According to Widen your World (link below), the "20,000 Leagues under the Sea" sub ride made it's last voyage in August of 1994. It is now a lame "Winnie the Pooh" play ground area with a soft floor surface for the liitle ones and a complete waste of prime realestate, IMO.

http://www.omniluxe.net/wyw/20K.htm


I'm a firm believer that Disney should add a monorail line to AK and it would improve that parks attendence figures. It would be great to be able to ride over to AK or AKL just for part of the day to just ride Everest or go to AKL and just check everything out and get a bite to eat. People who have never set foot in AKL would see how unique it is and plan to stay there on their next visit.

Expanding the monorail is near the top of my Disney Wish List. Im really surprised that TPTB havent made this a focus. Is it really the expensive...in Disney Dollars?

CanadianGuy
04-30-2007, 06:25 PM
I have heard some RI-DONK-CULOUS figures floated for expanding the monorail.. Numbers like $5 to 12 million per mile or something like that.

Part of the problem I'm told is that some of the land the monorail routes would pass thru is either flood plain or just plain ol' swamp. So sinking pilings to bedrock (where it exists) to support the monorail properly could cost MEGA $$$... and taking a route that avoids these areas adds significant distance.

Anyone else have details on this?

Knox

ChrisFL
04-30-2007, 06:29 PM
I have heard some RI-DONK-CULOUS figures floated for expanding the monorail.. Numbers like $5 to 12 million per mile or something like that.

Part of the problem I'm told is that some of the land the monorail routes would pass thru is either flood plain or just plain ol' swamp. So sinking pilings to bedrock (where it exists) to support the monorail properly could cost MEGA $$$... and taking a route that avoids these areas adds significant distance.

Anyone else have details on this?

Knox

No details but it wouldn't surprise me about the swampland...I mean WDW's property was mostly swamp and sinkholes are abound in Florida due to the high water table. I know that could cause issues with expanding the monorail.

Although no one has mentioned MGM. Epcot and MGM are very close to each other and it doesn't seem that difficult to have some kind of transport to it thats faster than the boat or the awful buses.

Horace Horsecollar
04-30-2007, 06:36 PM
I have heard some RI-DONK-CULOUS figures floated for expanding the monorail.. Numbers like $5 to 12 million per mile or something like that.
If Disney could expand the WDW Monorail for a mere $5 to 12 million per mile, they would jump at the opportunity.

The Las Vegas Monorail cost $166.7 million per mile. It uses the same Bombardier technology (which Bombardier acquired from Disney) as the WDW monorail.

Now, Las Vegas and WDW are different terrains with different challenges. Maybe the WDW monorail could be expanded for half of the cost per mile as the Las Vegas Monorail. Maybe not.

Of course, after the construction costs, there are operating costs. Yes, there would some savings from fewer buses on those bus routes that are eliminated. But, in the end, a monorail expansion is an expensive undertaking, and one that doesn't produce direct revenue.

CanadianGuy
04-30-2007, 06:41 PM
Thanks Horace.. But didn't the Vegas monorail costs include substantial costs of land acquisition etc? (Just checking - I'm not sure on this)

I couldn't remember the amounts I had heard for Disney exactly and didn't want to exaggerate.. A quick search reveals that my numbers were way low considering that in 1959 Disney built the DL monorail -- 8/10 of a mile for just around a million 1959 dollars.. So obviously.. it would be many factors of that now...

Knox

Another Voice
04-30-2007, 06:55 PM
Various different routes have all been mapped out and surveyed, stations have been designed and essentially everything is ready for the bulldozers to roll. Expansion of the monorail system was built into the design of EPCOT Center back in 1982; it's been expected with each addition to the park since then.

The problem is that Disney won't make a big enough profit from it.

When WDW first opened, there was a charge for transporation. Most people never saw it, it was included in your passport price (but printed on the ticket), or came in the price of your resort room. For a lot of politicial, legal and tax reasons, WDW Transportation Co. was done away with* and the monorail became "free".

So now WDW is looking at a several hundred million investment with no obvious revenue stream to pay for it. There is no way they will spend that kind of money to iincrease attendance at Animal Kingdom when they could spend that same amount of money to make & market Pirates of the Caribbean 4: Plunder The Franchise and (hopefully) make gobs of money.


* - General Motors, sponsor of a not-small pavilion at Epcot to the tune of $100+ million dollars has spent the last half century killing transportation systems in cities across America. WDW wasn't any different.

doconeill
04-30-2007, 08:47 PM
I would love to see a monorail expansion.

Perhaps rather than "extending" to MGM, they could shift and have a station in the vicinity of the International Gateway or find space between BW and BC/YC? MGM would be a short distance from there, and the resorts can be serviced as well. Its a relatively small expansion without the land issues.

AK is far more difficult as its so remote to everything else.

G8r4evr
04-30-2007, 08:54 PM
Thanks Horace.. But didn't the Vegas monorail costs include substantial costs of land acquisition etc? (Just checking - I'm not sure on this)

I couldn't remember the amounts I had heard for Disney exactly and didn't want to exaggerate.. A quick search reveals that my numbers were way low considering that in 1959 Disney built the DL monorail -- 8/10 of a mile for just around a million 1959 dollars.. So obviously.. it would be many factors of that now...

Knox

Good grief, I had no idea of the cost. It doesnt sound like we will see a monorail expanion in our lifetime :sad2:

Lord Fantasius
04-30-2007, 09:33 PM
Who says the monorail doesn't produce direct revenue? A quick review of deluxe resorts will show that even rooms with a view of the parking lot at a monorail resort will fetch a $25 - $50 premium over a similar rooom at a non-monorail resort. Honestly, if people could jump on a monorail from the AKL and have breakfast at the CR, lunch at GF and dinner at Poly watching the fireworks without stepping foot in a bus I think they would fill AKL at far higher room rates than they are charging now. Not to mention any other deluxe resort connected to the monorail (think WL).

Secondly, the LV monorail construction costs weren't even close to $166m / mile. Back when it was being constructed, information was easier to find but an accountant's review of the so-called cost to build the LV monorail showed that almost half of the oft-quoted price tag was for the purchase of land, and zoning and easement changes/permits. Additionally, built into the bond issue (which is the "price tag" usually referred to) was a 25% premium that was used to repay the initial investors so they would not be out any money even if the monorail did not make any money. Ergo, the only people at risk for losing their shirts were the municipality and the people buying the bonds. If I remember correctly, the analyst showed that only about a quarter, if a third possibly, of the extravagant sum usually thrown around was actually utilized to build the entire thing, or around $25m/mile, including stations, equipment, everything!

The biggest hurdle of course at WDW is driving pilings into the march/swamp area to support the rail, but even that is feasible with the right engineering. The actual cost of building the monorail track would really be around $10m/mile, sans stations, equipment, etc., which is about what the actual construction figures for LV after backing-out political contributions/graft which I'm expecting would be notably less at Disney.

Sadly, however, I don't think Disney, Inc., will ever extend the monorail since the corporation is ruled by short-sighted management who probably didn't even ride a monorail until they took their position at Disney, Inc. Hence, they have little understanding of the dreams and imagination the monorail inspires in young (and old) kids, nor understand the big reason DL and WDW are so fantastical to a lot of people..they are NOT just another resort or theme park, they are imaginary realms made physical.

And no, the last time I thought a bus was a fantastical creation was when I was saying choo-choo and eating mashed peas out of a food jar.

-R

thefirebuilds
04-30-2007, 10:33 PM
Wait, how about a bus with TVs on it!!?!?!?

Horace Horsecollar
04-30-2007, 10:39 PM
Who says the monorail doesn't produce direct revenue? A quick review of deluxe resorts will show that even rooms with a view of the parking lot at a monorail resort will fetch a $25 - $50 premium over a similar rooom at a non-monorail resort.
I'm the person who said that a monorail doesn't produce direct revenue -- because I know the difference between "direct" and "indirect."

The problem with indirect revenue is that it's difficult to quantify. Opposing sides can calculate vastly different results from the same base numbers. In the end, financial folks view things like the monorail as "cost centers" whose costs must be burdened against "revenue centers" (such as resort hotels or a theme park tickets), reducing the net profit from those "revenue centers." The argument then becomes how much (if any) additional revenue the "revenue centers" produce because of each "cost center." Generally, "cost centers" are viewed as necessary evils.

Secondly, the LV monorail construction costs weren't even close to $166m / mile.

Fine. My gut reaction is that the WDW Monorail could be expanded for substantially less that $166.7 million per mile. I said as much in my post. But I'm not qualified to state a specific number.

The actual cost of building the monorail track would really be around $10m/mile, sans stations, equipment, etc., which is about what the actual construction figures for LV after backing-out political contributions/graft which I'm expecting would be notably less at Disney.
You can state with certainty that the "actual cost of building the monorail track would really be around" $10 million per mile? My gut reaction is that that's way too low.

And no, the last time I thought a bus was a fantastical creation was when I was saying choo-choo and eating mashed peas out of a food jar.
Nobody is saying that unthemed buses belching diesel exhaust are wonderful. I would be thrilled to have an extensive network of monorails at my disposal when visiting WDW.

However, one of the things I really like about this forum, compared to all the other Disney rumor forums and "armchair imagineering" forums (which i ignore), is that the participants on this board usually understand that Disney makes decisions for business reasons. Sometimes, Disney makes good business decisions. Sometimes, Disney makes bad business decisions, based on a dubious understanding of their own business. (AV is particularly good at pointing out the latter.)

Clearly, the powers at Disney have not been able to make a business case for expanding the WDW Monorail system since the opening of Epcot, almost a quarter century ago.

YoHo
04-30-2007, 11:24 PM
* - General Motors, sponsor of a not-small pavilion at Epcot to the tune of $100+ million dollars has spent the last half century killing transportation systems in cities across America. WDW wasn't any different.


I can't speak to Disney, that's your forte, but country wide, this is not true, GM and the rest of Detroit had very little to do with the death of public transportation

Horace Horsecollar
05-01-2007, 12:11 AM
I can't speak to Disney, that's your forte, but country wide, this is not true, GM and the rest of Detroit had very little to do with the death of public transportation
You might want to read up on National City Lines. You can start with these Wikipedia entries:

-- National City Lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines)

-- Great American Streetcar Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

Another Voice
05-01-2007, 12:20 AM
Clearly, the powers at Disney have not been able to make a business case for expanding the WDW Monorail system since the opening of Epcot, almost a quarter century ago.
The sad reality is that Walt Disney World has a tremendous bsuiness case for expanding the monorail - faster and cheaper transportation for guests, higher guest statisfaction, lower operating costs, another reason why guests shouldn't have cars and leave property, etc.

It's The Walt Disney Company that has problems. Corporate hates the theme parks. They consider them money wasting hogs, a dinosaur business the produces nothing but pain. They HATE putting capital into the places when there are so many get-rich-faster schemes out there - for the price of the monorails you could make a couple Jerry Bruckheimer blockbusters, buy a lowly cable network, fund dozens of Disney Channel movies and albums. All of those have the promise of quick and easy returns.

Disney doesn't realize that the problems at the parks are the result of their failure to reinvest. Old rides become stale and uninteresting. Infrastuture crumbs and guests are inconvienenced more and more. Lines grow longer and workers are harder than ever to hire. But Disney solution is to cut expenses - a downward spiral that will take billions more dollars to fix than if they had done it right in the first place.


P.S. - My grandmother used to tell me about taking the Pacific Red Car from Long Beach to Los Angeles, from downtown to Anaheim and even all the down to Newport Beach. It was one of the largest public transportation systems in the country. Right up until the day General Motors bought it, ripped up the tracks and promised to replace everything with busses. Southern California hasn't had a decent system since.

Lord Fantasius
05-01-2007, 02:31 AM
I'm the person who said that a monorail doesn't produce direct revenue -- because I know the difference between "direct" and "indirect."

The problem with indirect revenue is that it's difficult to quantify. Opposing sides can calculate vastly different results from the same base numbers. In the end, financial folks view things like the monorail as "cost centers" whose costs must be burdened against "revenue centers" (such as resort hotels or a theme park tickets), reducing the net profit from those "revenue centers." The argument then becomes how much (if any) additional revenue the "revenue centers" produce because of each "cost center." Generally, "cost centers" are viewed as necessary evils.

With that argument, you can't consider any ride at WDW to generate direct revenue since they've done away with the ride tickets. It's strange however that Disney, Inc., propogates the impact EE has had on attendance and the increase in revenue but can't do it across the rest of WDW.

Yes, I do work in an industry that is, unfortunately, very much run on a cost center/profit center basis though am hopefully "outside" enough to see it is not a necessary evil, but rather utilized as a controlling mechanism by an ever smaller group of people to measure, usually for the purpose of blaming someone else for, an organization's failure. Micromanaging based solely on microeconomics is always a bad idea and is the quickest way to kill a vision.

Fine. My gut reaction is that the WDW Monorail could be expanded for substantially less that $166.7 million per mile. I said as much in my post. But I'm not qualified to state a specific number.

Actually what you said was rather ambivalent, "maybe...maybe not." I was using the no. the CPA analyst who did the review and who explained each step of his analysis in a 5-pg report.


You can state with certainty that the "actual cost of building the monorail track would really be around" $10 million per mile? My gut reaction is that that's way too low.

Well, how's this - I have a 95% confidence level that I am within a small neighborhood of 90% certainty!

Nobody is saying that unthemed buses belching diesel exhaust are wonderful. I would be thrilled to have an extensive network of monorails at my disposal when visiting WDW.

Then how about one that stops at every hotel room door since we're dreaming big...or were you being fascetious?

However, one of the things I really like about this forum, compared to all the other Disney rumor forums and "armchair imagineering" forums (which i ignore), is that the participants on this board usually understand that Disney makes decisions for business reasons. Sometimes, Disney makes good business decisions. Sometimes, Disney makes bad business decisions, based on a dubious understanding of their own business. (AV is particularly good at pointing out the latter.)

Clearly, the powers at Disney have not been able to make a business case for expanding the WDW Monorail system since the opening of Epcot, almost a quarter century ago.

Umm, must rethink who is actually paying Disney their salaries...wonder if its us armchair imagineers or some great imagineer in the sky? If all I am is a statistical quantity then Disney, Inc., is already dead.

-R

ChrisFL
05-01-2007, 07:28 AM
P.S. - My grandmother used to tell me about taking the Pacific Red Car from Long Beach to Los Angeles, from downtown to Anaheim and even all the down to Newport Beach. It was one of the largest public transportation systems in the country. Right up until the day General Motors bought it, ripped up the tracks and promised to replace everything with busses. Southern California hasn't had a decent system since.

Like Cloverleaf in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

doconeill
05-01-2007, 08:01 AM
On one of the Walt Disney Treasures DVDs talking about Disneyland, it was mentioned that when the WEDway Peoplemover was built, Walt wanted Ford to sponsor it. They declined, at least in part because why would they want to sponsor a transportation system that would harm them as a company? So instead, Walt got Goodyear to sponsor it - it after all did use tires to push the vehicles...

Interestingly, the story seemed to imply that it was built with tire propulsion because of the Goodyear sponsorship. would the induction technology currently used at WDW sufficiently advanced back then that it could have been used if they wanted at Disneyland?

DancingBear
05-01-2007, 08:02 AM
A quick review of deluxe resorts will show that even rooms with a view of the parking lot at a monorail resort will fetch a $25 - $50 premium over a similar rooom at a non-monorail resort.Sure, but those resorts all just happen to be in view of the most popular theme park on the planet.

Honestly, if people could jump on a monorail from the AKL and have breakfast at the CR, lunch at GF and dinner at Poly watching the fireworks without stepping foot in a bus I think they would fill AKL at far higher room rates than they are charging now.Perhaps. But suppose that trip for breakfast involved a whole bunch of stops and perhaps a couple of train transfers?

The actual cost of building the monorail track would really be around $10m/mile, sans stations, equipment, etc.That's gonna be one fun ride without stations or equipment.

The Monorail Society enthusiastically supports the creation of monorail systems. They have some cost figures on their website for various systems:

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/HowMuch.html

Michael623
05-01-2007, 08:24 AM
I may be thinking a bit too far out of the box here but what about a compromise with some kind of a light rail system? Better than a bus but not as cool as a monorail yet much less expensive.

Horace Horsecollar
05-01-2007, 09:25 AM
Then how about one that stops at every hotel room door since we're dreaming big...or were you being fascetious?
Huh? You think I'm either advocating transportation to every hotel room door or I'm being facetious?

I simply wrote, "Nobody is saying that unthemed buses belching diesel exhaust are wonderful. I would be thrilled to have an extensive network of monorails at my disposal when visiting WDW." I was simply agreeing that monorails provide a better guest experience than city buses.

Umm, must rethink who is actually paying Disney their salaries...wonder if its us armchair imagineers or some great imagineer in the sky? If all I am is a statistical quantity then Disney, Inc., is already dead.
Yes. You and I are each "a statistical quantity" for The Walt Disney Company. Disney is a business, and needs to make smart business decisions. Every business faces the challenge of how to make revenues and profits grow. That's fine.

Many of us on this board question some of Disney's business decisions and spending priorities. Constantly charging more and delivering less is ultimately a very risky business strategy. The decision makers at Disney need to understand why people spend thousands of dollars on WDW vacations and how to get more people to visit more often with greater guest satisfaction. And that means offering great, immersive experiences -- not attaching ugly, pastel "Year of a Million Dreams" signs onto beautifully themed buildings.

But that doesn't change the fact that Disney is a business that needs to make decisions for business reasons.

fey_spirit
05-01-2007, 11:00 AM
You know on paper this all sounds really great - actually really really great.
But I wonder if application wouldn't be a nightmare... they do this and there will be a build up in attendance, which means more crowds, all loading into the same four parks that are already over crowded 90% of the year.

Sounds like a living nightmare to me...
I think in the end it would hurt their attendance over the long haul because I can't be the only person who would find a better use for my 10k a year then to pile myself into four tiny little parks that made me feel like I was trapped in a sardine can - no matter how cool the rides were, esp since what are now 90 - 180 minute lines could as good as double if they were really succesful...


I would like to see WDW rebuild and add more attractions to the parks they already have. MK really should get the updated sub ride like Disneyland is getting in June, plus a few others, and expand MGM (Pixar) studios. That is one park that could use some more rides. How about finally expanding the monorail line to go to AK and AKL? I would make AKL my home resort if the transportation wasn't limited to just taking the bus. You want to get more people through the gates at AK? Build a Monorail line to it, add a couple more attractions and they will come.

Another Voice
05-01-2007, 11:19 AM
I may be thinking a bit too far out of the box here but what about a compromise with some kind of a light rail system?
Again, back in the mid-1990's, WDW came within a Michael Eisner signature of having its first light rail line. It would have started at the Ticket and Transportation Center, to Fort Wilderness and the planned Buffalo Junction Resort then turned south for a stop at Dixie Landings and Port Orleans, a potential stop at Old Key West and then finished at Downtown Disney.

It was killed by the same "use of capital" that keeps killing the monorail. Although the trolley was a "cheap" alternative, it was still too much money to waste on the parks with a direct revenue source.

And yes, General Motors gave Disney huge discounts on busses and other incentives to keep WDW reliant on diesel death wagons.

ChrisFL
05-01-2007, 11:47 AM
You know on paper this all sounds really great - actually really really great.
But I wonder if application wouldn't be a nightmare... they do this and there will be a build up in attendance, which means more crowds, all loading into the same four parks that are already over crowded 90% of the year.

Sounds like a living nightmare to me...
I think in the end it would hurt their attendance over the long haul because I can't be the only person who would find a better use for my 10k a year then to pile myself into four tiny little parks that made me feel like I was trapped in a sardine can - no matter how cool the rides were, esp since what are now 90 - 180 minute lines could as good as double if they were really succesful...

WDW is popular, but I think your numbers are a bit off...MK may be crowded much of the year, but the other 3 parks aren't 90% crowded most of the year,far from it from what I've seen.

fey_spirit
05-01-2007, 12:08 PM
To be fair - I may be in the wrong here... I can't unequivacably state what the crowd conditions are like at any point in the year other then the second week of December... as that is the only time of the year I'll go after hearing every one elses horror stories about the crowds during most of the rest of the year...

However I still belive that a new gate, along with building things up in the other parks, would not only improve the overall existing parks but help defer the crowd levels as they rise in response to those improvments... that would be win/win in the long run wouldn't it?


WDW is popular, but I think your numbers are a bit off...MK may be crowded much of the year, but the other 3 parks aren't 90% crowded most of the year,far from it from what I've seen.

Another Voice
05-01-2007, 01:44 PM
But Disney wants crowded parks. People standing in line have already paid their admission price - that's money in the bank. But it costs the same amount of money to run an attraction that has a two hour wait as it does to run one with no line. So why not close three attractions (and save all that money) and get people over the forth ride. Instant profit.

Why spend all that money to build a new park just to spread out the people more? That's what happened at Animal Kingdom - it just change traffic patterns but didn't bring new people in. That's a waste of a billion dollars from Disney's POV.

raidermatt
05-01-2007, 05:50 PM
The Monorail Society enthusiastically supports the creation of monorail systems. They have some cost figures on their website for various systems:

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/HowMuch.html

Those numbers don't look particularly unreasonable for WDW, particularly when spread out over several years.

YoHo
05-01-2007, 11:29 PM
You might want to read up on National City Lines. You can start with these Wikipedia entries:

-- National City Lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines)

-- Great American Streetcar Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)


Trust me, I know what the conventional wisdom is, but those Wiki articles don't tell the whole story. GM took advantage of the prevailing attitudes of the population on cars and public transportation.

Lord Fantasius
05-05-2007, 04:12 PM
Yes. You and I are each "a statistical quantity" for The Walt Disney Company. Disney is a business, and needs to make smart business decisions. Every business faces the challenge of how to make revenues and profits grow. That's fine.

Many of us on this board question some of Disney's business decisions and spending priorities. Constantly charging more and delivering less is ultimately a very risky business strategy. The decision makers at Disney need to understand why people spend thousands of dollars on WDW vacations and how to get more people to visit more often with greater guest satisfaction. And that means offering great, immersive experiences -- not attaching ugly, pastel "Year of a Million Dreams" signs onto beautifully themed buildings.

But that doesn't change the fact that Disney is a business that needs to make decisions for business reasons.

I agree for the most part, that Disney, Inc., is a business, and needs to make smart decisions to stay in business for future generations. HOWEVER, the theme parks, particularly, DL & WDW, were never designed to be a "profit center." And that's from Walt himself...to him the theme parks were his/Disney, Inc's, gift to the "family" (and yes, however you probably want to define it these days) for supporting his movies. He didn't care whether they [the theme parks] made a profit - though Roy tried to make sure they didn't drain the corporation too much - and any profit was icing on the cake to them. Both of them saw Disney, Inc., from the "10,000 ft" perspective and knew that one side of the business was there to support the other side. They didn't "see" individual profit centers, but an integrated body.

I think the problem most of us have is that we bought into Walt's vision and then were told by subsequent management that we would have to pay for Walt's generosity to make the CEO and Board of Directors that came later rich. It's strange that while Walt was an artistic autocratic taskmaster (from what I've read and understand), he was not a wealthy person by today's standard as he put most of his, and the corporation's, money back into the business and parks, etc. Compare that to most of his successors who have used Disney, Inc. to make themselves wealthy, and you'll see why the majority of are frustrated by management's "business" decisions.

-R

Horace Horsecollar
05-06-2007, 09:06 AM
HOWEVER, the theme parks, particularly, DL & WDW, were never designed to be a "profit center." And that's from Walt himself...to him the theme parks were his/Disney, Inc's, gift to the "family" (and yes, however you probably want to define it these days) for supporting his movies. He didn't care whether they [the theme parks] made a profit - though Roy tried to make sure they didn't drain the corporation too much - and any profit was icing on the cake to them.
It's necessary to separate the PR language from the business realities.

Disneyland was a business venture -- although a very risky business venture, to be sure -- not a "gift" from Uncle Walt to his fans. Walt had a vision . He believed that the public would pay. He was right.

The big difference from today is that the profits were plowed back into Disneyland.

speedyf
05-06-2007, 03:27 PM
I think a 5th park will happen...but, probably not anytime soon. I agree with many others that I would rather see the existing parks improved before a 5th park was added.

As for feasibility...I know that the numbers were up this year for theme park attendence. Does anyone have pre-Animal Kingdom figures to see if the Animal Kingdom actually did attract more guests....or if it took away guests from the other 3 parks?

I know there is no official count...but, I remember seeing the total number for Disney World was around 42 million this year (4 parks). I'm just guessing that the 3 parks before Animal Kingdom were not bringing in 42 million guests per year? or maybe they were? I'm sure it would be something Disney could study easily to see if it would be worthwhile.

I would also be in favor of an expansion of the transportation system with a light rail from the TTA to Animal Kingdom and MGM or a monorail expansion if possible.

Since I'm a novice to this stuff...this may sound like a stupid question...but, would it be possible for RCID to add a 1% tax to onsite hotel reservations to pay for the expanded transportation?

I originally thought of charging a quarter to ride the bus or monorail...etc...but, figured the 1% tax or "transportation surcharge" would make more sense.

I mean...any time the government wants more money to fix roads, etc...they just up the taxes on us...why not Disney? Heck...I'm already paying $109 for a "value" room....what's another $1 per night to avoid a few buses.

At this point...I'm waiting for them to build "sub-value" resorts with 100 sq ft rooms with bunk beds. That way...families can afford to stay onsite again....

Speed :teleport:

speedyf
05-06-2007, 03:34 PM
Nevermind about the 1% tax...it won't work.

Of all people....me.....a Louisiana resident....would think that they would put an extra 1% tax on the room and then actually use that 1% tax money to upgrade the transportation system.

This is how they do it in Louisiana.

#1 - We will allow casinos and all tax revenue from the casinos will go to teacher raises and education.

#2 - So...we made $50 million in tax revenues from the casinos this year? Cut $50 million worth of funding from the general fund that normally goes to education and replace it with this $50 million in revenues from the casinos that is constitutionally earmarked for education.

#3 - Now...we didn't lie or break any laws....and we got an extra $50 million in the general fund to use for other idiotic things instead of education. Haha...the Louisiana people were duped again....

Sorry about that...ignore my stupidity.

Speed :teleport:

EUROPACL
05-06-2007, 03:54 PM
Since I'm a novice to this stuff...this may sound like a stupid question...but, would it be possible for RCID to add a 1% tax to onsite hotel reservations to pay for the expanded transportation?

I originally thought of charging a quarter to ride the bus or monorail...etc...but, figured the 1% tax or "transportation surcharge" would make more sense.

I mean...any time the government wants more money to fix roads, etc...they just up the taxes on us...why not Disney? Heck...I'm already paying $109 for a "value" room....what's another $1 per night to avoid a few buses.



Disney loves people like you...so the 109 bucks a night to stay in a Motel 6...the 60 bucks to get into the park....the 8 dollar chicken fingers...the 3 dollar coke...all to get into half opened ,half completed and half staffed parks and here you are begging for Disney to charge you more?? Wow...just Wow.

CanadianGuy
05-06-2007, 04:59 PM
AV will no doubt chime in.. but originally the transportation was a separate entity and some % of your entrance ticket covered it. That actually made sense.

They got rid of that so now transportation is merely seen as something that 'costs' them money.

I think he posted all that in this thread.. but I'm not sure and don't have time to look.

Knox

Lord Fantasius
05-06-2007, 05:44 PM
AV did comment on it in post #56, When WDW first opened, there was a charge for transporation. Most people never saw it, it was included in your passport price (but printed on the ticket), or came in the price of your resort room. For a lot of politicial, legal and tax reasons, WDW Transportation Co. was done away with* and the monorail became "free".

I'm not sure of the "political reasons," but I know the legal and tax reasons are that originally when the monorail (up to, and including the EPCOT monorail) and entire transportation infrastructure were being built, it was easier to identify and track this as a separate booked expense as a recorded line item. Since transportation has gone to merely maintanence and upkeep, there's no need to identify the charge for it anymore than they would segregate water, electrical, etc., charges for a hotel room.

Legally, if a corp. lists a separate charge for a specific use, it has to be tracked separately and can only be used for that use...hence, it became too restrictive for Disney, Inc., not to use those funds for something else. Additionally, from a tax perspective, a reimbursable expense is not tax-deductible, but business expenses can be charged against profits. Hence, once transportation became merely maintenance, it was more tax advantageous to deduct it from operations rather than maintain a separate reimbursable account for it.

If Disney were ever to expand the monorail or build a light rail to connect the other parks, I would expect the transportation charge to return, but right now it's too restrictive and disadvantageous for Disney, Inc. to charge it this way; especially since they love people riding mobile advertising vehicles.

-R

JoeEpcotRocks
05-08-2007, 01:35 PM
Disney loves people like you...so the 109 bucks a night to stay in a Motel 6...the 60 bucks to get into the park....the 8 dollar chicken fingers...the 3 dollar coke...all to get into half opened ,half completed and half staffed parks and here you are begging for Disney to charge you more?? Wow...just Wow.

I'd pay 1% more for an expanded monorail system, depending upon the details. :)

Who stays at a Motel 6? And I LOVE the parks! :thumbsup2

disneyfan67
05-08-2007, 04:08 PM
I'd pay 1% more for an expanded monorail system, depending upon the details. :)

Who stays at a Motel 6? And I LOVE the parks! :thumbsup2





Joe, I can't be a 100% sure, but I think the poster you questioned, is referring to the Value resorts. Some see them as the same quality as a Motel 6 with Disney Decorations. I've seen the WDW value resorts go for a 100 bucks and then some, for a night and IMHO, that's no value to me.

I appreciate the passion and concern our fellow members on these threads bring to the debate. I love Disney, but even a die hard fan like myself, sees there's much room for improvement. I'm glad that people who are fans of WDW and Disney in general, see what's currently wrong and want it to change for the better.

JoeEpcotRocks
05-08-2007, 04:42 PM
Joe, I can't be a 100% sure, but I think the poster you questioned, is referring to the Value resorts. Some see them as the same quality as a Motel 6 with Disney Decorations. I've seen the WDW value resorts go for a 100 bucks and then some, for a night and IMHO, that's no value to me.

I appreciate the passion and concern our fellow members on these threads bring to the debate. I love Disney, but even a die hard fan like myself, sees there's much room for improvement. I'm glad that people who are fans of WDW and Disney in general, see what's currently wrong and want it to change for the better.

Yes, there's always room for improvement. That's what I like about Disney, they keep trying to improve things. :)

They need to do something with those "seasonal" buildings in Epcot Future World and a new country or 2 would be nice in the World Showcase. :cool2:

EUROPACL
05-08-2007, 05:39 PM
Yes, there's always room for improvement. That's what I like about Disney, they keep trying to improve things. :)

They need to do something with those "seasonal" buildings in Epcot Future World and a new country or 2 would be nice in the World Showcase. :cool2:

Paid by the word or by the smilies?

YoHo
05-08-2007, 05:41 PM
Maybe he's from the bizarro world where Disney is actually not an ineptly run hateful mega media corporation that cares more about the ratings of Am I Hot? then it does about the death count on Mission: Space.

JoeEpcotRocks
05-08-2007, 09:28 PM
Maybe he's from the bizarro world where Disney is actually not an ineptly run hateful mega media corporation that cares more about the ratings of Am I Hot? then it does about the death count on Mission: Space.

Good satire. You should work for the Onion. :lmao:

More room at Disney for those who love it. :cool2:

YoHo
05-08-2007, 10:00 PM
:confused3

clkelley
05-21-2007, 01:19 PM
There are a lot of things that will keep a fifth gate from opening for awhile. The biggest problem is staffing. They can't keep staffing levels at what they need with what could potentially be open now. (Disney would probably love to have more restaurants open longer, but can't get the staff in to work them.)

The biggest reason is the cost of living in Orlando has risen, and folks on Disney (and Universal) pay can't afford to live close enough to the parks to work there. If they live further out, the cost of gas/transportation kills them also.

Another Voice
05-21-2007, 08:55 PM
Not that this will stop anyone from writing about the great new Villians park or slow the "things are magically magical wonderful and growing all the time" posts or those that think fewer guests at WDW mean nothing but shorter lines for churros - here is the offical word from Disney's CEO himself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18789791/from/RS.4/

Disney's Iger speaks about Anaheim housing dispute
The Orange County Register
May 21, 2007

...As to whether Disney plans to create a third theme park in Anaheim on land it owns near Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure, Iger said, "We have no announcements to make in that regard. We continue to look at opportunities in this area in terms of investing capital to create growth. We've continued to invest heavily in Disneyland and in California Adventure."

"The future of Disneyland is bright," Iger said. "I have no announcements to make about further developments except that Walt said 'Disneyland will never be completed, we'll continue to build and to grow.' And that's what we're doing."

Iger said Disney has no plans for another theme park in Orlando, Florida. "We have no plans at this point to open a (fifth) gate or (fifth) park there. We have four already. While we continue to invest in those, those four are doing just fine."

Iger doesn't like the parks, he thinks they are a bad investment, he sees Disney's future in networks and mobile phones and downloaded episodes of 'Phil of the Future'.

irisbud
05-22-2007, 04:38 PM
AV will no doubt chime in.. but originally the transportation was a separate entity and some % of your entrance ticket covered it. That actually made sense.

They got rid of that so now transportation is merely seen as something that 'costs' them money.

I think he posted all that in this thread.. but I'm not sure and don't have time to look.

Knox


I think that the costs of the transportation is something that would have to be weighed against the revenue that is indirectly generated by it. I love Disney for Disney and would go there anyway: BF, not so much. He does, however, like that there is not a direct charge for transportation and that the need to rent a car is eliminated by using Disney's transportation. Yes, I realize that we are paying for this in the inflated resort prices, but it does take away an outside expense that we would otherwise incur. If you are staying on the property or even visiting the parks you are going to be paying for the transportation anyway. Another bonus to this for Disney is that it DOES keep people on the property. When you consider that you can add extra days for mere dollars once you pass a certain threshold, then why would you pay a large extra sum to visit another park, plus have to pay for transportation to get there? It is much easier just to remain on their property and in their clutches from the time that you leave MCO to the time that you return there. People love ease and convenience, and this is just an example of that. I'm sure if I ran the numbers I would be horrified at what I did not save, but I'm not going to. I'm one of those monorail junkies. Another 50-100 a night not to have to ride busses all of the time is alright by me.

As to another park, I have always been somehwat surprised that Disney HASN'T done a botique type of park (a la Discovery Cove). Discovery Cove is something totally different than any product Disney has to offer, even by virture of attendence size alone. I think Disney could make money with it. Look at Disney's concierge levels. They aren't even real concierge levels like you would find at most hotels, yet they get away with selling rooms at exorbinant, inflated prices due in no small part to their exclusivity. How much is that gold room key really worth? (Yes, I bit and would again, but I would still never say that it is true concierge service)

JMTC

raidermatt
05-22-2007, 07:15 PM
There are a lot of things that will keep a fifth gate from opening for awhile. The biggest problem is staffing.

Staffing is a problem, no doubt, but its somewhat self perpetuating. I understand why Disney, and others, want to keep labor costs down. But in doing so to the extent they have (especially Disney... they pay the lowest and they are the market leader), they have only made the overall problem worse because they aren't attracting new workers to the area.

For what its worth, SeaWorld is opening a new water park. Of course that won't require anywhere near the staffing that a 5th gate at WDW would require, but they apparently don't feel the labor market is so prohibitive that expansion isn't possible.

rwrocksme
05-28-2007, 04:16 PM
i do think that there will be a new disney park someday...but when? at the earliest, 10-15 years.

also, for what it's worth, i don't think AK is a failure. i think it WAS a failure, when it opened, but now it's lovely. i do agree that it's a little removed from the rest of the property. another AK resort, maybe? with a mythical creatures theme?

just an idea

mitros
05-28-2007, 04:21 PM
I don't know, we visit WDW regularly, and all of the parks are so crowded all of the time, and it is hard to find a time of year when it is not busy. Another park would suit me just fine. But having said that, I guess a new park will just attract that many more people, and it will be just as crowded.......... never mind:sad2:

YoHo
05-28-2007, 07:41 PM
Or, Disney could hire staff and open attractions fully and expand in their existing parks so they could soak up the people.

Dcanoli
05-30-2007, 08:53 AM
I'm really late in finding this thread but just wanted to throw my two cents in.....

A few months ago, my husband called me from out of town. Now, he works for the property insurance company that insures all of Disney. (They even have three guys that live down there that focus primary on Disney because of its size.)

He called to tell me that he saw some plans for a new park. I tried to "argue" w/him saying that if they WERE going to build something new, it would definitely leak out....he has been adamant that what he saw was plans for a new Park.

Now, I can't tell you with 100% certainty what he saw--because, of course, those documents are only for the insurance company's eyes--and he didn't really get to look at them for long, but he was pretty adamant.

He is always telling me that before Disney can build ANYTHING--a building, a pump house, ANYTHING--it has to all be approved before this insurance company. They can't lift a hammer until all their blueprints and plans are stamped approved.

That's why the Parks and resorts are built so well. They are built to exact specs for hurricane, fires, etc. That's also why they tell everyone to stay put at the Resorts during hurricanes. Those places are built better than any other buildings around.

....not something set in concrete.....but just my two cents worth.....

Only time will tell what those blueprints/plans were for!

Horace Horsecollar
05-30-2007, 09:14 AM
He called to tell me that he saw some plans for a new park. I tried to "argue" w/him saying that if they WERE going to build something new, it would definitely leak out....he has been adamant that what he saw was plans for a new Park.
I'm convinced that Disney has drawn up plans for several different parks, with a business case for each. Part of the cost side of the business case would be the insurance costs. It's important for a business to consider various options for growth and to evaluate the potential return on investment for each option.

However, having drawings and spreadsheets is a very different from having a green light from Disney's corporate headquarters to spend over a billion dollars on a fifth major park.

Dcanoli
05-30-2007, 09:23 AM
Good points!

serendipity
06-09-2007, 02:19 PM
Here's wishing.........:wizard:

minijeanie
06-16-2007, 10:23 PM
IMO I feel no need for a 5th park....

they are building on AK....with the YETI ride and new restaurant going in I think they are going to expand on this park ....

plus I agree with others that most visitors cannot spend more than a week at wdw and with 4 parks...plus water parks, this suffices

paulh
06-17-2007, 06:44 AM
to me more rides at AK and MGM plus a new waterpark.this would be better than a 5th gate
Paulh

adabob
06-18-2007, 09:33 AM
to me more rides at AK and MGM plus a new waterpark.this would be better than a 5th gate
Paulh

MGM and AK are kinda missing rides compaired to MK and Epcot rides right now

Mickey Rules
06-19-2007, 03:36 PM
I'm sorry if I am saying what others already said, but a friend of mine has a friend that used to be a CM at WDW, he said that she said that they have plans to build a "villians" theme park. I don't know if that is true or not...but it is the rumor board lol.

MJMcBride
06-19-2007, 09:03 PM
I'm sorry if I am saying what others already said, but a friend of mine has a friend that used to be a CM at WDW, he said that she said that they have plans to build a "villians" theme park. I don't know if that is true or not...but it is the rumor board lol.

They do not. Well, they may at some point have designed some plans, but there is no intent to construct a new park, or villians park for the forseeable future. That was a hot rumor when Universal launched IOA and everyone seemed to think Disney would launch its own thrill-ride park.

Mickey Rules
06-19-2007, 10:41 PM
They do not. Well, they may at some point have designed some plans, but there is no intent to construct a new park, or villians park for the forseeable future. That was a hot rumor when Universal launched IOA and everyone seemed to think Disney would launch its own thrill-ride park.

Well that's good I guess. I don't think that a villians park would work well, it would probablly scare the kids. I also don't think that a Disney thrill PARK would work well either, it just isn't Disney like. I think that a few thrill rides scattered around work better because they fit in...ie RnRC and ToT.

MJMcBride
06-19-2007, 10:46 PM
Well that's good I guess. I don't think that a villians park would work well, it would probablly scare the kids. I also don't think that a Disney thrill PARK would work well either, it just isn't Disney like. I think that a few thrill rides scattered around work better because they fit in...ie RnRC and ToT.

True enough, it was also nice to see Disney being so uncharacteristically non-reactionary.

YoHo
06-20-2007, 01:10 AM
I think the idea that it would be an entire park was more fan wank then actual plans though I'm sure someone somewhere had drawn them up. They all stemed from the even older Villian mountain plans which would have been a part of Fantasyland. Those plans of course were intermingled with fire mountain rumors etc etc etc.

Mickey Rules
06-21-2007, 09:55 PM
I quote..."Disney's Animal Kingdom is the fourth and largest park, but certainly not the last." This is a new show because it shows the Comedy Club (showed attraction with people), Expedition Everest (also the inside and working attraction...showing people on it and interviewing them after they rode it), and something about the YOAMD...it may have been the parade...They also showed the inside of the Castle. They referenced the amble unused property...and some guy who refered to Disney as "we" also said that there are things that will be done. This got me thinking that maybe Disney does have some plans for future parks...so in the long run, I would think, there will be a new park.

YoHo
06-21-2007, 09:59 PM
Future parks maybe, future parks in WDW? Well, maybe, but there are certainly zero plans for any with the current management.

It's probably a reference to Hong Kong, DSP and Destination Disney stuff. All of which sucks.

Mickey Rules
06-21-2007, 10:16 PM
Future parks maybe, future parks in WDW? Well, maybe, but there are certainly zero plans for any with the current management.

It's probably a reference to Hong Kong, DSP and Destination Disney stuff. All of which sucks.

well maybe, but it was all about WDW and didn't reference any of the other Disney resorts, and they did do a WDW flyover as he said it...but whatever.

Dcanoli
06-21-2007, 10:41 PM
MickeyRules....I think they have lots of little ideas running through their heads, and where those ideas actually materialize is anyone's guess, but I truly believe that SOMEWHERE they have either ideas or plans for a future WDW Park.

Will it ever come to fruition? We could stay here all night and ponder the pros and cons, but I'd put money on it, they already have some sort of plans SOMEWHERE for at least an idea of what they'd like to do in Orlando in the future.

BTW.....My DS was flipping channels about 9:30, and we caught the end of the show. It is the same show they've been showing for years, but they always update it and add new video, etc. That's why we got to see things like the Comedy Club and Finding Nemo: The Musical. :goodvibes

But, when I saw them talking about plans for the future, I immediately thought about this thread and all you guys!

YoHo
06-21-2007, 11:33 PM
Well, Of COURSE they have ideas for new parks. It's just never going to happen.

Dcanoli
06-21-2007, 11:47 PM
Well...you just never know....never say "never!"

Did we ever think they would make a Disney Studios or AK park?

YoHo
06-22-2007, 12:24 AM
No, because they weren't on the master plan. There was a time when Disney didn't hide things.

There was also a time when I didn't think Disney could screw something up the way they screwed up MGM and AK.

Dcanoli
06-22-2007, 12:41 AM
Wow! For someone with over 3,600 posts, I'm a little surprised at that last post!

I love MGM--its atmosphere and street performers are great, and it is simply amazing to see where AK came from--a barren land of NOTHING....

If Disney had kept to the ORIGINAL plan, it would have grown stale and died. Kudos to Disney for trying to keep on top and one step ahead (though they don't always accomplish this).

Do you really think they are HIDING things? Like any business, things are kept private and not thrown out to the public at all times.

How long do you think Walt was talking and tossing ideas about EPCOT behind the scenes before anyone in the public ever heard about it?

The WORLD (i.e., Disney) is perfect as it is, IMHO. You can barely squeeze in everything now as it is on a 7-day vacation! I simply cannot imagine having to add a whole other Park to my vacation!

Personally, I hope they don't add another Park, but I would be disappointed if they did, and I wouldn't count them out as not doing one either....

However, all that said--I think at the moment their "Park" focus is lying in other countries (i.e, China, etc.)

YoHo
06-22-2007, 01:25 AM
I appreciate your opinions on this and I don't mean to try suggest you shouldn't have them, but the reason I have 3600 posts, because I've spent a long time talking about how the Disney company really works and why it works (or doesn't work). I personally cannot disagree more with Disney World being perfect right now. I think it's anything but perfect right now. MGM studios was designed terribly, but it used to be fun. They've removed many of the unique attractions and replaced them with nothing more then synergy. Animal Kingdom is equally poorly designed.

I'm not saying they aren't fun parks or can't be fun parks, but there's a difference between what you or I think is fun and what is good.

Here, I talked about how I approach Disney discussions here:
http://www.july171955.com/b2evolution/index.php?blog=3

Dcanoli
06-22-2007, 01:42 AM
I personally cannot disagree more with Disney World being perfect right now. I think it's anything but perfect right now.
I'm not saying they aren't fun parks or can't be fun parks, but there's a difference between what you or I think is fun and what is good.

KUDOS on your blog! Great, I loved it! And, a lot of it I agreed with...now, that said, let me say this....

Let me clarify myself...what I meant by perfect was this...I think that four parks is enough! How in the world can we possibly squeeze anything more into a vacation there? For crying out loud, we had to go for Spring Break just to do the OUTSIDE world (see my siggie), meaning--ANYTHING BESIDES THE PARKS! We took an entire 7 days doing Disney w/o doing Disney Parks--it is getting insane down there! That's what I mean by perfect--4 parks!

Not that the four Parks in themselves are perfect because we all know they are not--however, again--that said--I do still love the Street Performers and the sheer beauty of AK.

....and I do agree with you 100% that there are people out there that love WHATEVER Disney throws out w/its name on it...heck, we never even went to see Meet the Robinsons...just didn't look good to us....you have to be very careful--it's a fine line--loving and being crazy about Disney and accepting everything DISNEY throws out to us as being GOOD, because it's not all good--heck, I'm even a little tepid about the new rat movie coming out--loved Cars, but this rat movie just doesn't look that good to me....

There are definitely parts of MGM that need some work--the GMR for example--the parks are far from perfect--you and I both know that, but I still wouldn't put it past them to keep trying to build their conglomerate (sp?)....would you?

I doubt we'll see a new Park any time soon. (In our lifetime?) As I said, they are busy eyeing China and such....but it's always a possibility with them owning so much land down there....

...hey, I loved your ME and BI comps! Totally agree....that really was a good 12-point blog!

YoHo
06-22-2007, 01:53 AM
Thanks for the support of the blog.

It may surprise people here to here that I actually agree that four parks is I think a pretty good number. I'm disappointed that AK replaced a wetlands preserve. I think that was short sighted and not in keeping with how they wanted to develop WDW, but the actual existence of the park is fine by me.

disneyfan67
06-22-2007, 02:13 AM
Great job on the blog. I just got done reading it and I have to admit, it's pretty damn good.:thumbsup2

mickeyismylife
06-25-2007, 06:51 PM
I saw this on the travel channel special of Disney World. In the background, there was some guy working on a computer. On the screen was pictures of Skyscrapers. As I saw this, the narrator said some thing like "coming up, the future of Disney World" But when the commercials were over, the show didn't say anything about a new park.
This makes me think that the next park, while still on the drawing boards, will be city themed. However, as they already have MGM, Epcot, and Mainstreet, that seems very unlikely.

Pollito916
06-25-2007, 09:57 PM
I saw this on the travel channel special of Disney World. In the background, there was some guy working on a computer. On the screen was pictures of Skyscrapers. As I saw this, the narrator said some thing like "coming up, the future of Disney World" But when the commercials were over, the show didn't say anything about a new park.
This makes me think that the next park, while still on the drawing boards, will be city themed. However, as they already have MGM, Epcot, and Mainstreet, that seems very unlikely.

I saw the same special and was disappointed when they said that then didn't show anything. :confused:

Phantom82
06-26-2007, 12:54 PM
For those of you who are intrested, I actually live in Djibouti, Africa on the Horn of Africa, yes i'm american, over here as supercomputer dork. Anyways, here there is a place they call Djibouti, Disney Land its pretty run down but every now and then they open it up and let the kids roam arround the area and play. None of the rides work and there are no characters, but lots of mickey paintings and what not. Even says Djibouti Disney Land, but I think Disney sold the property back because everyone here is poor, and it was an attemptto build up the economy a long time ago. Its not very big either, could walk across the few attractions in a matter of 5 or 10 min.

doconeill
06-26-2007, 01:07 PM
For those of you who are intrested, I actually live in Djibouti, Africa on the Horn of Africa, yes i'm american, over here as supercomputer dork. Anyways, here there is a place they call Djibouti, Disney Land its pretty run down but every now and then they open it up and let the kids roam arround the area and play. None of the rides work and there are no characters, but lots of mickey paintings and what not. Even says Djibouti Disney Land, but I think Disney sold the property back because everyone here is poor, and it was an attemptto build up the economy a long time ago. Its not very big either, could walk across the few attractions in a matter of 5 or 10 min.

I wonder if it was an illegal (depends on the country's laws I guess) knockoff like this one in China (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1442649)

Phantom82
06-26-2007, 01:46 PM
No, alot of differnt companies end up trying to build something here and it doesn't work out because of the heat, and the smell. They think they can do something big because of the location and weather, but it doesn't turn out like that. I think, that it was actually one or maybe they gave them permission to do it for the kids.

mickeyismylife
06-26-2007, 06:54 PM
I was thinking about the skyscrapers i saw on the travel channel special and I came up with this possibility. What if Disney is trying to build a Disney Sea in Orlando? It would make sense. The skyscrapers could be part of The American Waterfront part. It would also explain why Disney never built an Indiana Jones ride in Adventureland, why they never built Fire Mountain (which is supposedly what started the idea for Journey to the center of the earth ride) and it would also explain why 20,000 leagues under the sea was replaced at Disney world instead of upgraded.

YoHo
06-26-2007, 07:10 PM
I've not seen the show, but I'd lay odds that those shots were old pictures of the original DisneySeas which would have been built in long beach and utilize the queen mary. Probably isn't anything new in that picture. Just 15 year old dead plans.

Pooh_Bear_92
06-27-2007, 12:09 PM
I love disney i really do! but thinking about Animal Kingdom is not that old right now, and though it is a very good park (especially since they built Expedtion:everest! <-- that ride is amazing! ) it still has alot of building to do, Its good, but compared to some of the other parks, it feels like it misses something, I do not think that Disney should build any more Parks untill this one is slightly more developed!

x:rolleyes1

But I do LOVE AK
EVEREST RULES BAYBEE!

dwelty
06-28-2007, 11:42 AM
Disney will spend money on fixing DCA and Disney Studios Paris before it builds another park in Orlando.

MJMcBride
06-28-2007, 09:36 PM
Thanks for the support of the blog.

It may surprise people here to here that I actually agree that four parks is I think a pretty good number. I'm disappointed that AK replaced a wetlands preserve. I think that was short sighted and not in keeping with how they wanted to develop WDW, but the actual existence of the park is fine by me.

wasn't Disney as part of filling in wetlands obligated to creat them elsewhere

MJMcBride
06-28-2007, 09:38 PM
KUDOS on your blog! Great, I loved it! And, a lot of it I agreed with...

oh no not another one

YoHo
06-28-2007, 09:39 PM
I believe they did this offsite right?

That totally violates some of the founding concepts that went into the resort.

sskipper2
06-29-2007, 12:26 PM
First Post.

Been a casual reader of the blogs for a while and this is the one that always draws me back. So feel free to shoot holes in this idea. I work for uncle sam at Patrick Air Force Base (aka Cocoa Beach) zip 32925. This facility as are all DOD installations is reviewed for closure and or re-allignment every few years. I believe 2012 is the next review. Patrick AFB has a runway and both river and beachfrontage. Several miles of both. Disney Sea is brought up often on this board, so here goes. If congress decides to close Patrick AFB would the mouse be intrested? Environmentally there would be challenges. Logistically? Money? The local gov will/would love to fill the place with the mouse if the DOD leaves I am sure. Okay next is the fact that a rumor to this effect has been running around this base for more than a decade. I know Disney once owned beachfront in the Cocoa Beach area, by now I am sure its sold. For those that think this is worth checking into try google earth with the zip code from above to get a good overview of the size of the property and the waterfrontage it has. The rumor also stated that the mouse had actually proposed the idea during one of the reviews of the base. :cool2:

And for you monorail fans the large causeway south of the base will be extended to reach I-95 in the near future 07/08. See what cost seventy miles of monorail from Orlando to Disney Sea(aka Patrick AFB) would cost. LOL.

Over 40 visits to the World since Dec 1973.

ChrisFL
06-29-2007, 12:41 PM
First Post.

Been a casual reader of the blogs for a while and this is the one that always draws me back. So feel free to shoot holes in this idea. I work for uncle sam at Patrick Air Force Base (aka Cocoa Beach) zip 32925. This facility as are all DOD installations is reviewed for closure and or re-allignment every few years. I believe 2012 is the next review. Patrick AFB has a runway and both river and beachfrontage. Several miles of both. Disney Sea is brought up often on this board, so here goes. If congress decides to close Patrick AFB would the mouse be intrested? Environmentally there would be challenges. Logistically? Money? The local gov will/would love to fill the place with the mouse if the DOD leaves I am sure. Okay next is the fact that a rumor to this effect has been running around this base for more than a decade. I know Disney once owned beachfront in the Cocoa Beach area, by now I am sure its sold. For those that think this is worth checking into try google earth with the zip code from above to get a good overview of the size of the property and the waterfrontage it has. The rumor also stated that the mouse had actually proposed the idea during one of the reviews of the base. :cool2:

And for you monorail fans the large causeway south of the base will be extended to reach I-95 in the near future 07/08. See what cost seventy miles of monorail from Orlando to Disney Sea(aka Patrick AFB) would cost.

Over 40 visits to the World since Dec 1973.


They wont run a monorail track the mile or so from Epcot to MGM, so I doubt they'd be able to run one to Cocoa Beach!

sskipper2
06-29-2007, 12:46 PM
Yeah I know, but the debate in the monorail threads is always fun to watch. I luv to see the dreamers and bean counters go throught the hoops of can, cant, shuold, how, and why. Its always a laugh to read.:) Just a little fuel for thier fire.:goodvibes

thefirebuilds
06-29-2007, 05:30 PM
You might want to read up on National City Lines. You can start with these Wikipedia entries:

-- National City Lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines)

-- Great American Streetcar Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

*cough* *paste*
The neutrality of this article or section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

thefirebuilds
06-29-2007, 05:34 PM
I love disney i really do! but thinking about Animal Kingdom is not that old right now, and though it is a very good park (especially since they built Expedtion:everest! <-- that ride is amazing! ) it still has alot of building to do, Its good, but compared to some of the other parks, it feels like it misses something, I do not think that Disney should build any more Parks untill this one is slightly more developed!

x:rolleyes1

But I do LOVE AK
EVEREST RULES BAYBEE!

That's odd, everytime I go there I just think about how bad it embarasses MGM. Our last trip to Disney we didn't even bother with MGM and we only spent like 2 hours at MK.