5th Park inevitable ?

[DanBoris]

I think the amount of new resorts is a reason.... for a 5th park. The parks will be overcrowded if they just keep building resorts and no new parks.

It doesn't work that way. People aren't coming to go to a hotel, they are coming to go to a park. Doesn't matter how many hotels they build, they are not going to fill up unless there are parks to draw people.

 

[Phicinfan]

I wonder about all the hotel adds. I do think they expect even greater attendance in WDW due to SW:GE. Plus you have the 50th coming for MK(WDW) and then 40th for Epcot.

but I also wonder if they won't at some point phase out some of the other resorts for these new ones, instead of constantly paying to update. Who knows.

I do think SW:GE will keep that park hopping for quite a while. I also think SW will make DHS #2 in draw for crowds, but I don't think it will surpass MK.

 

[DanBoris]

I wonder about all the hotel adds. I do think they expect even greater attendance in WDW due to SW:GE. Plus you have the 50th coming for MK(WDW) and then 40th for Epcot.

but I also wonder if they won't at some point phase out some of the other resorts for these new ones, instead of constantly paying to update. Who knows.

I do think SW:GE will keep that park hopping for quite a while. I also think SW will make DHS #2 in draw for crowds, but I don't think it will surpass MK.

But is Disney really adding a lot of hotels? Riviera is a partial replacement for CBR, Destino is a partial replacement for Coronado, and Reflections will be totally new. Yes, there will be a net gain in rooms, but it's not like Disney is building 1000's of new rooms.

 

[boscfan]

It doesn't work that way. People aren't coming to go to a hotel, they are coming to go to a park. Doesn't matter how many hotels they build, they are not going to fill up unless there are parks to draw people.

You're helping my point with your comments. Disney would fill their hotels more if they had more parks. People aren't going to come and empty their pockets if the parks are too overcrowded.

They'll stay home or go somewhere else.

 

[jknezek]

You're helping my point with your comments. Disney would fill their hotels more if they had more parks. People aren't going to come and empty their pockets if the parks are too overcrowded.

They'll stay home or go somewhere else.

Except there isn't one definition of overcrowded. Disney has already passed my thought on overcrowded, but people keep jumping in like lemmings on a cliff. I expect that there is no one tipping point where the parks all of a sudden start emptying because it is too expensive. It's going to depend on the economy and many other factors, not some perceived moment when the lines are too long. That is just too variable person to person.

 

[rteetz]

You're helping my point with your comments. Disney would fill their hotels more if they had more parks. People aren't going to come and empty their pockets if the parks are too overcrowded.

They'll stay home or go somewhere else.

Disney hotels only make up maybe half or maybe a bit more of who is in the parks every day. There are tons of guests who are local, or stay offsite instead. Disney is building more hotels not for a 5th park but because there is an increase in current demand and to try and get more people to stay onsite instead of offsite.

 

[ELLH]

SWGE will carry Disney for the next ten years or so IMO.

I only see that happening if the new SW movies/shows do well. If they all receive the same criticisms and (relatively) underwhelming reviews as the more recent SW movies then I don't foresee the kind of appeal you're alluding to going out that far.

 

[DanBoris]

You're helping my point with your comments. Disney would fill their hotels more if they had more parks. People aren't going to come and empty their pockets if the parks are too overcrowded.

They'll stay home or go somewhere else.

That statement is what the whole 5th gate discussion hinges on. The question as to whether a 5th park would bring in enough new guests over the long term to justify it's cost.

 

[ELLH]

I'd like to know what prompted Disney to build additional parks to begin with. Especially HS and then AK. I assumed HS (MGM at the time) was built to answer Universal's theme park but apparently MGM was built first and Universal's park was a year later.

Was it out of necessity due to growing crowds (the case many make for the need for a 5th gate today), was it a nice upswing in the economy so Disney said "why not", was it part of a master plan from early on, etc, a combination, etc? Obviously money is a driving factor but what was the push for the choice at the time?

Understanding why Disney chose to build, at least, those two parks may help us understand why Disney might want to build a 5th park.

 

[Dfan79]

What it may hinge on is perhaps... Universal. If they open a real 3rd gate (Volcano Bay doesn't count) with lands like Nintendo, Dreamworks, Jurassic World and filler. Perhaps Disney will have to pry open their wallets for a 5th gate (Typhoon and Blizzard don't count).

 

[rteetz]

What it may hinge on is perhaps... Universal. If they open a real 3rd gate (Volcano Bay doesn't count) with lands like Nintendo, Dreamworks, Jurassic World and filler. Perhaps Disney will have to pry open their wallets for a 5th gate (Typhoon and Blizzard doesn't count).

Universal certainly will open another a park. It’s just a matter of when.

 

[ELLH]

Universal certainly will open another a park. It’s just a matter of when.

I don't think this is even up for debate, is it?

https://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201902/6603/

 

[Dfan79]

I'd like to know what prompted Disney to build additional parks to begin with. Especially HS and then AK. I assumed HS (MGM at the time) was built to answer Universal's theme park but apparently MGM was built first and Universal's park was a year later.

Both Hollywood and Animal were checkmate moves after Universal decided to create their first 2 parks. Hollywood was rushed out w/ very few attractions just so they could beat Uni.

It was originally going to be just a pavilion at Epcot, but Eisner learned of Universal's plans to come to Florida. So he made it its very own park.

 

[ELLH]

Both Hollywood and Animal were checkmate moves after Universal decided to create their first 2 parks. Hollywood was rushed out w/ very few attractions just so they could beat Uni.

It was originally going to be just a pavilion at Epcot, but Eisner learned of Universal's plans to come to Florida. So he made it its very own park.

OK. Let's go with that being the absolute driving force (something I can believe).

So given that, it seems the common thread for new park building is "competition". Not "crowd control".

That makes sense.

I have had a hard time buying in to the notion that Disney would spend billions to build a new park simply because their other 4 are so packed. Another park, as I said waaaaay earlier in this thread, is a big risk and if (when) the economy takes a downturn that park would be a big expense. I don't see the risk being worth the reward based on crowd control alone.

 

[The Pho]

I'd like to know what prompted Disney to build additional parks to begin with. Especially HS and then AK. I assumed HS (MGM at the time) was built to answer Universal's theme park but apparently MGM was built first and Universal's park was a year later.

Was it out of necessity due to growing crowds (the case many make for the need for a 5th gate today), was it a nice upswing in the economy so Disney said "why not", was it part of a master plan from early on, etc, a combination, etc? Obviously money is a driving factor but what was the push for the choice at the time?

Understanding why Disney chose to build, at least, those two parks may help us understand why Disney might want to build a 5th park.

MGM was a reaction to Universal building their park from Eisner. It was just finished first, but still a reaction. Animal Kingdom was largely preemptive action against future threats from Busch Gardens Tampa, much like how The Living Seas was partially a move against SeaWorld. They weren’t solely reactionary moves, as they also saw room for the market to grow, branching out to different styles was meant to draw in new crowds they didn’t draw before.

 

[Phicinfan]

But is Disney really adding a lot of hotels? Riviera is a partial replacement for CBR, Destino is a partial replacement for Coronado, and Reflections will be totally new. Yes, there will be a net gain in rooms, but it's not like Disney is building 1000's of new rooms.

True, but you are also forgetting the Star Wars resort. I wonder if they don't go to that direction more if and or when they add a major IP? Moving away from the other resorts they have built in some areas. But I grant you other than Star Wars and Reflections....they are basically revamping existing.

 

[Dfan79]

OK. Let's go with that being the absolute driving force (something I can believe).

So given that, it seems the common thread for new park building is "competition". Not "crowd control".

That makes sense.

I have had a hard time buying in to the notion that Disney would spend billions to build a new park simply because their other 4 are so packed. Another park, as I said waaaaay earlier in this thread, is a big risk and if (when) the economy takes a downturn that park would be a big expense. I don't see the risk being worth the reward based on crowd control alone.

Fine, I'm alright with "The Competition" aspect and notion. Because leaks have already... well leaked out that Universal IS going to build another theme park on their recently purchased land. And that the Nintendo Land section which was originally forecasted for their original park "Universal Studios" is now planned for "Fantastic Worlds".

 

[Dfan79]

MGM was a reaction to Universal building their park from Eisner. It was just finished first, but still a reaction. Animal Kingdom was largely preemptive action against future threats from Busch Gardens Tampa, much like how The Living Seas was partially a move against SeaWorld. They weren’t solely reactionary moves, as they also saw room for the market to grow, branching out to different styles was meant to draw in new crowds they didn’t draw before.

Nope, I don't think that Busch Gardens was seen as a threat at all. It is pretty far away from Orlando (about 1 and 1/2 hrs) and it opened in 1959 and other parts followed in 1965. So it was open even way before Magic Kingdom in 1971.


Disney opened new gates because of Universal.

Hollywood Studios - May 1, 1989
Universal Studios - June 7, 1990

and

Animal Kingdom - April 22, 1998
Islands of Adventure - May 28, 1999

 

[The Pho]

Nope, I don't think that Busch Gardens was seen as a threat at all. It is pretty far away from Orlando (about 1 and 1/2 hrs) and it opened in 1959 and other parts followed in 1965. So it was open even way before Magic Kingdom in 1971.


Disney opened new gates because of Universal.

Hollywood Studios - May 1, 1989
Universal Studios - June 7, 1990

and

Animal Kingdom - April 22, 1998
Islands of Adventure - May 28, 1999

Studios was very much Universal. Animal was a reaction to other competition. They didn’t build a zoo to counter a mild thrill park. It was preemptive against Busch while also competing against Universal and SeaWorld.

Busch may have opened first, but when it opened it was a brewery and a garden. It opened with 4 employees and 4 parrots. It became the park it is today, much much later. In 1965, it expanded with a savanna for animals, solidifying it’s zoo status. It wasn’t until 1976 it got its first ride, the Scorpion coaster. In the late 90’s it started having more aggressive expansion plans, adding many coasters.

 

[rteetz]

I don't think this is even up for debate, is it?

https://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201902/6603/

Correct. We just don’t know when it will open.