Will there every be a 5th theme park?

[Horace Horsecollar]

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]

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Google maps is out of date - always.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]

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]

since theyre reedy creek they would file them with themselves. the state doesnt care.

 

[DancingBear]

RCID permit filings are public, but in any event there are other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction.

 

[JohnZ46]

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]

"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]

Any chance it'll happen?

In a word, no.

 

[CanadianGuy]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[TheRustyScupper]

. . . 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]

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]

Disney has plenty of other things to fix first in my not-so-humble opinion.

For example:

Upgrade or replace DisneyQuest.

Upgrade empty or "seasonal" buildings in Epcot-FutureWorld

Replace Stitch Escapes.

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

 

[raidermatt]

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]

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 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?

 

[raidermatt]

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]

and fwiw AK is my favorite park. I could skip all the others (Epcot a close second...)

 

[Lord Fantasius]

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