A Disneyland future themed resort in Texas?

[Saxsoon]

Texas is #5 in the US for tourism then add over 21 million people live there. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/top-10-states-for-tourism/ar-AAcVMdS#page=7

THank you

 

[Bearval]

Disney has infrastructure, land and laws already in place to further develop the Orlando property and people come from all over the world to visit. It would be far cheaper to expand Orlando than to try and build a new resort where they don’t write the “rules”.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Disney has infrastructure, land and laws already in place to further develop the Orlando property and people come from all over the world to visit. It would be far cheaper to expand Orlando than to try and build a new resort where they don’t write the “rules”.

Maybe, maybe not. They may be able to get all that in Texas.

 

[Chuck S]

Maybe, maybe not. They may be able to get all that in Texas.

I kind of doubt it. While there are vast areas South and West of San Antonio that could be large enough for Disney, it is doubtful the State Legislature and the counties involved would be easily swayed to give that much control over to any corporation, especially when you consider the horrible death at the Schlitterbahn water park in Kansas a year or so ago. Schlitterbahn is headquartered in New Braunfels and recently sold their original park in New Braunfels and their Corpus Christi park to Cedar Fair because of pending lawsuits from those that were injured and the unfortunate death of the 10 year old boy, due to an unsafe design of a high speed water raft slide. All the signs were there, the park built and opened the ride even though the engineers a told them it would be unsafe.

 

[Bearval]

Maybe, maybe not. They may be able to get all that in Texas.

When Disney bought up the land he needed in Florida he petitioned the state to incorporate his own city to make it easier to develop and it was granted. Not sure you will see happen today in Texas or any other state again.

 

[tcufrog]

When Disney bought up the land he needed in Florida he petitioned the state to incorporate his own city to make it easier to develop and it was granted. Not sure you will see happen today in Texas or any other state again.

Texas prides itself on being a business friendly state and quite often bends over backwards to attract new business. I think the governor would bend over and kiss his own backside to get a coup like this

 

[Sandiz08]

To build in the middle of a cow pasture in Texas, none of that would matter, except money.

 

[Doug M]

Disneyland was different...it was chosen for its proximity to the Disney studio. But people in the 50s absolutely were vacationing in Los Angeles and San Diego before Disneyland was built.

I have never considered San Antonio as a vacation destination nor have I ever known anyone who has vacationed there. That's not to say people don't go there in large numbers, but I don't think it has a huge draw for people outside the midwest.

Two problems. Disneyland is in Anaheim, and it wasnt a tourist destination until DL, and San Antonio is absolutely a tourist destination, whether you believe it to be or not.

 

[Monykalyn]

Interesting discussion...
San Antonio-Houston could be developed as a major vacation destination with Disney if done right. Major airports and other attractions already in place. Disney cruises out of Galveston already as well. Challenge with that is the distance from SA to Galveston. Houston definitely shorter distance wise to Galveston port (about same as Orlando to Port Canaveral), with about the same horrible traffic as Orlando LOL. And Houston has 2 airports to fly into....Plus you do have the gulf coast as well for beachy vacations...

 

[Call me Doc]

There isn't a point. Travel is so cheap that Disney has no need to cannibalize what they have for another park. While Texas would be logical if there was a reason to create a third U.S. resort there is no business case to actually build one.

I disagree. There will come a point where the prices and crowds are so high that people will choose to stay home. A fifth gate in Florida will only increase the crowds. A third location is needed.

I believe that Disney needs to start planning for this 3rd location in the U.S. soon. Land acquisition, as well as designing the parks take a lot of time. I heard that Joe Rohde was working on Animal Kingdom 10 years before it opened.

Since Disney wishes to stay in warmer climates, Texas seems like the logical location. I would think that at this point, Disney would need to have a resort with a lot going for it from the get go. I'm not driving all the way to Texas for a 1 day park. With that said, I suppose having the park where there is other tourist opportunities would be important. Also, I think East Texas might be better just because it is more green.

 

[Call me Doc]

Interesting discussion...
San Antonio-Houston could be developed as a major vacation destination with Disney if done right. Major airports and other attractions already in place. Disney cruises out of Galveston already as well. Challenge with that is the distance from SA to Galveston. Houston definitely shorter distance wise to Galveston port (about same as Orlando to Port Canaveral), with about the same horrible traffic as Orlando LOL. And Houston has 2 airports to fly into....Plus you do have the gulf coast as well for beachy vacations...

I like the way you think. I bet with Disney's experiences with hurricanes and especially the Galveston experience with Hurricanes, I bet Disney would make sure to be a little bit away from the actual Gulf of Mexico. I had another thought...how about Louisiana? You could combine a Disney trip with a trip to the Big Easy. Just a thought...

 

[YesterDark]

Texas is an interesting place to discuss. It has the infrastructure to support it, I can't really see it in St Louis with their weather or anywhere north of them. The Texas state government would give Disney so many tax breaks for the next 200 years to open a park there, they Disney wouldn't have to worry about getting a break.

San Antonio is an hour - hour and a half from Austin which is a fast growing city with a lot of tech industries. There is plenty of population to support the industry and Disney wouldn't have to compete with other major parks for hospitality staff like you do in Orlando.

If Disney wanted to, Texas is a good spot for it.

But does it make sense from a business sense? You have to determine how many people want to go to a Disney park but DON'T and don't intend to over the next 3 years. You then have to find out the whys. Then you have to do a study to see how many people who didn't want to go, will now go. Then you have to determine how many would go there instead of CA or FL.

It all depends on the parks. Do you build another Castle park? Is it going to be different enough so Disney fans go to WDW and TexasPark? You'll have Star Wars parks on both coasts and probably NOT in Texas. Is that going to be enough for people to chose CA or FL? Do you have a park that is a major draw like someone mentioned like a Marvel park? Can a singular Marvel park sustain interest?

Lots of questions. Really interesting discussion on what would be successful. Everything is bigger in Texas. Imagine the new castle park is Elsa's? Thats a big ice castle.

 

[TXAKDisneyFan]

No one goes to Texas for vacation. Florida was chosen because it was ALREADY a popular tourist destination. You build vacation kingdoms where people go on vacation. Hawaii would make more sense than Texas.

Not super scientific, and these types of lists are always qualified with questionable methodology, but a cursory search of top US destinations came up with many lists including San Antonio (as well as Austin, Houston, Dallas)...
People absolutely DO go to Texas for vacation. Honestly, that's the kind of dismissive attitude that people who live on the coasts sometimes express that puts others off.

Having lived all over the US, I know that TX has a lot of advantages over other places. There are tons of things to do here already, and most of the state has very mild winters so we're able to do things all year. San Antonio does have drought issues, but not as severe as many parts of California. (I've heard plenty people express how pleasantly surprised they are at how green the San Antonio/Austin area is.) Otherwise it's inland enough that hurricanes aren't really an issue. There is a lot of untouched, relatively inexpensive, land. It does get super hot in San Antonio, although it doesn't feel as oppressive as Houston (or Orlando) since it's *usually* not as humid.

Houston (city) traffic is a nightmare. Transportation (airport) options are better than San Antonio/Austin though, and Houston is obv closer to Galveston.

Not that I think it would ever actually be built, but a resort between San Antonio and Houston probably makes the most sense.

 

[Sandiz08]

I’m all for an Elsa Ice Castle off of I-10 between San Antonio and Houston.

 

[YesterDark]

I love data driven discussions, took a look at some data, Texas does not seem "popular" as a destination for vacation according to a bunch of lists. Here's one:

https://www.travelleadersgroup.com/...rding-to-travel-leaders-groups-latest-survey/


That list link on this page that had Texas at #5 was talking about return on state budgeting for tourism.

 

[Call me Doc]

Yesterdark:

I do not doubt your list, but do note that Chicago is the only city listed in the Central USA. Chicago would of course be a terrible location.

Yes, Central Florida was already a tourist destination before Disney, BUT Gator Land and Cypress Gardens circa 1960 is a far cry from Central Florida of today as a tourist destination.

Walt Disney particularly looked for large plots of land, interstate access and warm weather. Sure, having tourists built in could be helpful in the early stages, but know that Disney brings its own tourist.

The bigger issue is that too many parks hurts the uniqueness of the Disney experience. A third location in the US needs to be the final destination in my opinion.

 

[YesterDark]

Yesterdark:

I do not doubt your list, but do note that Chicago is the only city listed in the Central USA. Chicago would of course be a terrible location.

Yes, Central Florida was already a tourist destination before Disney, BUT Gator Land and Cypress Gardens circa 1960 is a far cry from Central Florida of today as a tourist destination.

Walt Disney particularly looked for large plots of land, interstate access and warm weather. Sure, having tourists built in could be helpful in the early stages, but know that Disney brings its own tourist.

The bigger issue is that too many parks hurts the uniqueness of the Disney experience. A third location in the US needs to be the final destination in my opinion.

My list wasn't for a place to put a Disney park, but just regarding Texas as a popular destination which I personally haven't heard anyone ever going there for a vacation.

 

[Chuck S]

My list wasn't for a place to put a Disney park, but just regarding Texas as a popular destination which I personally haven't heard anyone ever going there for a vacation.

But, but remember, Texas takes 2 days to drive across, It is 1/3 the width of the US...nearly 900 miles wide, East to West. Nearly the same as the distance from NYC to DIsney World. There are a lot of vacationers here, many from within our own state. And as another poster saud, the 5th largest tourist destination in the US. There has to be tourism to support a city like San Antonio...Sea World, Six Flags, the Riverwalk, the Alamo, Schlitterbahn, Natural Bridge Caverns, San Antonio Zoo...there is a LOT to do in the greater San Antonio metroplex, all of which relies on tourism.

 

[YesterDark]

nt

 

[jknezek]

It really doesn't matter. Disney is not going to build another domestic park. The infrastructure costs would be prohibitive. WDW has plenty of land for another park and the overhead is already established with park management, hotel management, transit management and more, all of which would need to be recreated as well as the physical infrastructure of a new park. And new parks need to open with enough attractions to make it a stand alone experience. An added park at WDW does not need to be a full day experience. The openings of, at the time MGM, and AK show that Disney knows additive parks can be done with fewer attractions and then built over time. A new stand alone would be prohibitively expensive to replicate a full-day park, and opening a half day park between Houston and San Antonio has no business case in the Disney method.

Location isn't really important so long as you can fly for a few hundred dollars a ticket. Orlando thrives on tourist tickets and that's why there are so many budget carriers in and out. Until you reach that kind of critical mass in another area, the flights tend to be more expensive and less convenient. While making Houston/San Antonio a massive tourist hub would cause the flights to follow, from the get-go they wouldn't be available, dropping the customer base. Disney needs fly-in tourists to cover costs. The AP holders are the cheapest customers. Per day they spend less on tickets, souvenirs, food and lodging then fly-in guests. So you aren't going to build a park in Texas for people within a 4 hour drive. Yes, you need those people, but they aren't your real money makers.

I understand the desire, and fully agree that the Houston/San Antonio corridor would make more sense than anywhere else in the U.S., but any logical examination of the business case very quickly shows that it will not happen the way things are right now. No one can predict 40 or 50 years down the line, of course, so things may change. But looking at any kind of 2 or 3 decade plan it is plain the numbers simply do not come close to working.