Any reason not to make DHS Bigger?

[doconeill]

There's a walkway bridge going over the street to connect portions of DTD.

LINK

But nothing in the parks.

Yup, that's been around for at least a decade...also leads to the Disneyland Hotel.

 

[beer dave]

The part I am questioning is the idea of areas of land being " not suitable for construction." To the best of my knowledge, unless there is a sink hole, the difference between swamp land and buildable land in FL is elevation. I have heard in the past that Disney can build on 2/3 of their property, and have currently built on about 1/3. Most development companies have the ability to declare which areas they are going to leave as preserved, so I would think that they could swap one area for the other. I find it hard to believe that they are land locked in any capacity.

 

[doconeill]

The part I am questioning is the idea of areas of land being " not suitable for construction." To the best of my knowledge, unless there is a sink hole, the difference between swamp land and buildable land in FL is elevation. I have heard in the past that Disney can build on 2/3 of their property, and have currently built on about 1/3. Most development companies have the ability to declare which areas they are going to leave as preserved, so I would think that they could swap one area for the other. I find it hard to believe that they are land locked in any capacity.

If all else is equal, then it is generally possible to say, "that land that was for conservation, well we'll build there and mark that other undeveloped plot as conservation". Things aren't always equal though.

I looked closely at the "RCID 2020 Comprehensive Plan", done in 2010 (essentially a 10-year master plan). Although just slightly less than one third of the land is designated conservation, there are several other categories that include the need for empty space.

The area of land that seems the best suited to the expansion of DHS, to the south beyond the main entrance roadway, is within the "100-year flood plain", which means it is prone to flooding and thus unsuitable.

They also note that most of the "unsuitable" land is part of the Reedy Creek Swamp.

Approximately 64.2% of the current undeveloped land is marked unsuitable.

And here is a relevant excerpt:

During the next 10 years, the District’s development will be directed to those areas identified as suitable in the above analysis. The largest areas of suitable land are located west of Animal Kingdom, between World Drive and I-4 between Osceola Parkway and US 192, around Lake Mable, north of the Magnolia Golf Course, east of the Magic Kingdom parking lot, and west of Disney’s Hollywood Studios.

An interesting note...there is a parcel of land that WDW has wanted to build a resort on since before MK opened - the land just to the north of the TTC along the lagoon, where the Venetian (and later Mediterranean) Resort was to have been built. However, when doing test pilings, they found they had to put them too deep to be worth the cost (reportedly, the pilings sunk entirely below ground level and disappeared).

It remember reports that they tried again a few years ago, apparently with the same result.

Yet, that land is on the "suitable" list.

 

[DanBoris]

The part I am questioning is the idea of areas of land being " not suitable for construction." To the best of my knowledge, unless there is a sink hole, the difference between swamp land and buildable land in FL is elevation. I have heard in the past that Disney can build on 2/3 of their property, and have currently built on about 1/3. Most development companies have the ability to declare which areas they are going to leave as preserved, so I would think that they could swap one area for the other. I find it hard to believe that they are land locked in any capacity.

According to the RCID plan 19.9% of the undeveloped land is in the suitable category, 15.9 is Marginally suitable and the rest is in the unsuitable category. The problem with the suitable land is that most of it is broken up into small plots around the property, there are only a few large plots left.

Yes, they could build on the unsuitable land if they wanted to but it would be a lot more expensive then using the suitable land.

 

[beer dave]

Thanks to both of you for the excellent info. I guess I am still just having trouble with the concept of "unsuitable". I am a FL CGC, and most of my work is custom residential additions. I have built a few new homes here, but no big commercial.

My trouble stems from--
Disney excavated the seven seas lagoon-- and elevated the ground around it for future resorts and whatever supporting structures they may require. How can the Poly be on suitable ground, when about 200 yds away there is ground that is seemingly bottomless? Especially considering that the entire area was constructed. I would think there would be great concern that the poly would sink into the lagoon, not to mention what could happen to the contemporary. Could it be that during the original construction, since done when costs were so much lower, Dis was willing to spend what it takes to sure the pilings and now are not? I guess this wouldn't be a surprise, and would make more sense since it would make the statement that all ground around seven seas is the same. This I could believe.

But then there is the GF DVC-- which is basically the SSR buildings. Why do they not have a problem? Maybe the sinking pilings story is not true?

I don't know.

An underground aquifer ? You would think there would have been a sink hole by now.

 

[doconeill]

Thanks to both of you for the excellent info. I guess I am still just having trouble with the concept of "unsuitable". I am a FL CGC, and most of my work is custom residential additions. I have built a few new homes here, but no big commercial.

My trouble stems from--
Disney excavated the seven seas lagoon-- and elevated the ground around it for future resorts and whatever supporting structures they may require. How can the Poly be on suitable ground, when about 200 yds away there is ground that is seemingly bottomless? Especially considering that the entire area was constructed. I would think there would be great concern that the poly would sink into the lagoon, not to mention what could happen to the contemporary. Could it be that during the original construction, since done when costs were so much lower, Dis was willing to spend what it takes to sure the pilings and now are not? I guess this wouldn't be a surprise, and would make more sense since it would make the statement that all ground around seven seas is the same. This I could believe.

But then there is the GF DVC-- which is basically the SSR buildings. Why do they not have a problem? Maybe the sinking pilings story is not true?

I don't know.

An underground aquifer ? You would think there would have been a sink hole by now.

AFAIK, it all depends on where the bedrock is. Perhaps it turns out that the MK, Poly and GF sit on a bedrock shelf, but that other area is off the shelf and they must go much deeper to support it?

 

[beer dave]

AFAIK, it all depends on where the bedrock is. Perhaps it turns out that the MK, Poly and GF sit on a bedrock shelf, but that other area is off the shelf and they must go much deeper to support it?

Yeah could be. I was looking at geological maps but couldn't find anything helpful.

 

[Elmo007]

T
Hmm...maybe make Star Tours a little more useful...board a Star Speeder, and have a virtual trip to Tatooine, while actually being moved across the road...

You know...kind of like the upcoming Hogwarts Express.

That was exactly what I meant. Build a star wars land on the other side of world drive and have a star wars theme transport over there.

It occurs that they do something similar AK with the Rafki express train

 

[Reddog1134]

They said Walt was daft to build a theme park on a swamp. But he built it all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So he built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So he built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up.

 

[beer dave]

They said Walt was daft to build a theme park on a swamp. But he built it all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So he built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So he built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up.

Okay-- but no singing! You're not going into a song while I'm around.

 

[sachilles]

If you look at google maps, you can see a small canal/water way south east of lma and curves up to the parking area. One would think the road could be moved to follow the contour of the water way, crossing it further down the canal and still link into the parking entrance(preserving the flow). Allowing them to build within the contour of the water way. That seems relatively easy, compared to deconstructing current park attractions. If they aren't going to do that, there has to be a compelling reason.
If a cars area is planned, I think LMA could be an easy re-theme to fit in.

 

[Disney Blues]

They can always expand, I think that was the main purpose of buying the 45 square miles in Florida. "If u build it they will come"

 

[Spacedog1975]

They said Walt was daft to build a theme park on a swamp. But he built it all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So he built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So he built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up.

Okay-- but no singing! You're not going into a song while I'm around.

Is this a song reference that I'm not catching?

 

[doconeill]

If you look at google maps, you can see a small canal/water way south east of lma and curves up to the parking area. One would think the road could be moved to follow the contour of the water way, crossing it further down the canal and still link into the parking entrance(preserving the flow). Allowing them to build within the contour of the water way. That seems relatively easy, compared to deconstructing current park attractions. If they aren't going to do that, there has to be a compelling reason.
If a cars area is planned, I think LMA could be an easy re-theme to fit in.

Yes, but as discussed above, that land is on the "unsuitable" list for building on.

Is this a song reference that I'm not catching?

You must never have watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail...

 

[sachilles]

That was basically my point Doc.
It seems to be low hanging fruit....so if they aren't going to build on it, there must be a compelling reason why. It's listed as unsuitable....and if there was a way to make it suitable for less money than tearing down existing stuff, they'd probably go for it.

 

[Spacedog1975]

Yes, but as discussed above, that land is on the "unsuitable" list for building on.




You must never have watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail...

A spark alights. Obviously I'm in need of watching it again.
More of a Life of Brian guy anyway.

 

[DanBoris]

Thanks to both of you for the excellent info. I guess I am still just having trouble with the concept of "unsuitable". I am a FL CGC, and most of my work is custom residential additions. I have built a few new homes here, but no big commercial.

My trouble stems from--
Disney excavated the seven seas lagoon-- and elevated the ground around it for future resorts and whatever supporting structures they may require. How can the Poly be on suitable ground, when about 200 yds away there is ground that is seemingly bottomless? Especially considering that the entire area was constructed. I would think there would be great concern that the poly would sink into the lagoon, not to mention what could happen to the contemporary. Could it be that during the original construction, since done when costs were so much lower, Dis was willing to spend what it takes to sure the pilings and now are not? I guess this wouldn't be a surprise, and would make more sense since it would make the statement that all ground around seven seas is the same. This I could believe.

But then there is the GF DVC-- which is basically the SSR buildings. Why do they not have a problem? Maybe the sinking pilings story is not true?

I don't know.

An underground aquifer ? You would think there would have been a sink hole by now.

One of the issues might be storm water control. If you start building to many things in one concentrated area you make it harder to properly handle the strom water.

 

[doconeill]

That was basically my point Doc.
It seems to be low hanging fruit....so if they aren't going to build on it, there must be a compelling reason why. It's listed as unsuitable....and if there was a way to make it suitable for less money than tearing down existing stuff, they'd probably go for it.

Ah, I understand what you were saying now.

But there can be other factors as well. Costs to operate LMA, for instance, are very high. So there may be significant savings just be shutting it down - and the land becomes available.

 

[johnGorski]

From what I was told DHS could expand to 175 acers. Expansion would be in the cast member parking lot

 

[DCTooTall]

From what I was told DHS could expand to 175 acers. Expansion would be in the cast member parking lot

I remember when the "cast member" parking lot was part of the Regular guest parking.

Then again, I can say the same thing about the TTC Cast parking....



I've heard the mention before of expanding into where the cast parking is currently, The problems though have been questions of what backstage areas would be disrupted between the current guest areas and the parking lot location, And the fact that the driveway from the main entrance is right there and could be disrupted by the construction.

There was also the question of where the Cast would then be expected to park.