Building more ... not just replacing

[Good Morning Dewdrop]

Curious to see why for perhaps 35 years, the MK's borders haven't increased? The question on this board seems to come to which attractions do you want to replace vs. just adding more. And I don't think that for some of the attractions it would cost that much more money.

For example, what about if MK offered up a few Kiddie water parks and put them across the tracks right above fantasy land. It doesn't cost much money (for Disney) as it would just be slides and buckets dropping water on people's heads. Those water parks wouldn't really compete with the water parks at BB or TL, but just a way for kids to cool off and enjoy some theming.
It just seems that if you added a few shows (Aladdin, Hunchback, Tarzan), a big roller coaster or two and perhaps a few more areas to cool off on hot days the lines would drop on some of the other rides. Don't have to come up with elaborate new rides (do love ToT and RnRC) just copy what has already been done with some Disney theming for popular shows that have been ignored (Aladdin?, Pocahontas?, Hercules?)

I'm confused - why would they add a kiddie water park when they just did the whole Casey's area - plenty of water flowing over there !

 

[AliceandAriel]

I agree with all your points.... what prompted me to write this was another thread asking about WDW' "dead zones" and it was suggested to tear down the Swiss Family Treehouse and build something else. I love the tree house. It brings so many great memories of my treehouse growing up. And really what can you build onto an area that is the footprint of a tree?

Disney is blowing it with some of the most obvious ideas. My teenagers don't feel the Disney nostalgia as I do and would prefer to ride Spiderman and Hulk at Universal. They love RnRC, but BTMR, SplM and SpcM don't measure up. Can't figure out why they don't add a couple of great roller coasters. As I said earlier, a number of theme parks have small water parks; why doesn't Disney do that as a way to cool their patrons down. We are probably talking millions of dollars.

Probably too late now, but couldn't they have scored a deal for Wizard of Oz with MGM? They do own the full rights to Star Wars have 3 movies upcoming (great !!), but they are building Avatar Land.

Disney has the land, has the rights for Star Wars, but seemingly won't build anything new unless they tear something down first.

I agree with the idea of expanding some borders rather than tearing down other rides currently up, but from a marketing perspective you also need to see why they tear down old rides in favor of new ones. It's because the generation that enjoyed the old rides is small compared to the new generation that could love a a new ride.

Not saying I agree with it, just saying that's probably how they view the matter. "Why add more when we can add on current ground and take down that old ride no one goes on anymore?"

That being said, I do think Disney should hop to it and add a little more 'thrill' to some of their parks. It may be family friendly, but some families still want a little rush that places like Space Mountain can't dish out. I adore Disney, and would go there before any other place in the world, but when I visit the theme park near my house, I do bonkers on the roller coasters, and can't help but wish Disney had more in their parks to rival my full attention. Everyone needs to stop with this 3D/4D crap they keep churning out as 'rides' (I'm looking at YOU, Universal) because all it does it make people sick and give the worst migraines ever. Build more coasters, build more shooting gallery games like Buzz Lightyear and TSM, give us something to sink our teeth into with glee.

 

[DebbieB]

Disney has focused more in the last 15 years on construction of value resorts, DVC expansions and also the cruise line, and the NF expansion is pretty nice...there is always something new happening at WDW. As for River Country, health codes won't allow it to be reopened as it is. I'm not sure it would be a great investment to revamp it because people who loved it back in the day would howl about the changes. Also, I'd rather see "pond scum" on the other side of the railroad tracks at MK than the iHop and parking lots you see at DL in Anaheim.

The reason I mentioned the pond scum was not for the look as much as it proves it is ecological wetlands that they will probably not be permitted to disturb and probably not good to build on.

 

[NACFl]

Probably not; you're right. Contrary to what my home state's central and southern portions may make our visitors think, we do want to preserve some of our natural environment (I.e., pond scum and mosquitoes) for the future generations...I think if you look at the overall use of what Lake Buena Vista Holding Company et al purchased back in the day in central Florida, Walt's successors aren't making such bad decisions. Every time I drive by the entrance to Golden Oak or one of the luxury resorts, I don't think the Disney empire has any reason to fret too much over it's future development. I LOVE Carousel of Progress, and I've been in there plenty of times all by myself. I miss Mr. Toad, River Country and Snow White, but the new queue for Dumbo beats the crap out of listening to my DSS whine about the wait time to ride the flying elephant, and I still love Ft Wilderness now just as much as I loved camping there in my childhood.

 

[wdwfan22]

I agree with the idea of expanding some borders rather than tearing down other rides currently up, but from a marketing perspective you also need to see why they tear down old rides in favor of new ones. It's because the generation that enjoyed the old rides is small compared to the new generation that could love a a new ride.

Not saying I agree with it, just saying that's probably how they view the matter. "Why add more when we can add on current ground and take down that old ride no one goes on anymore?"

That being said, I do think Disney should hop to it and add a little more 'thrill' to some of their parks. It may be family friendly, but some families still want a little rush that places like Space Mountain can't dish out. I adore Disney, and would go there before any other place in the world, but when I visit the theme park near my house, I do bonkers on the roller coasters, and can't help but wish Disney had more in their parks to rival my full attention. Everyone needs to stop with this 3D/4D crap they keep churning out as 'rides' (I'm looking at YOU, Universal) because all it does it make people sick and give the worst migraines ever. Build more coasters, build more shooting gallery games like Buzz Lightyear and TSM, give us something to sink our teeth into with glee.

Disneyland does not have that perspective. With all the zillions of visitors every day, and long lines at most attractions, it only makes sense to leave the nostalgic (and I think fantastic older rides) and build new ones also. I'm all for thrill rides, and they can certainly add more of those for my liking. The parks keep getting more and more crowded, and leaving old rides, and building new ones would certainly help the parks more enjoyable. But I think DL has it right. It spreads the crowds out more, even if the lines for some rides aren't crazy long and would satisfy everyone. That's why Walt bought all that land. Expand, don't replace!! IMHO.

I still love DW, I just wish they would take a page from DLs philosophy.

 

[larryz]

Curious to see why for perhaps 35 years, the MK's borders haven't increased?

Don't forget -- they pretty much sealed the borders with that train that goes around the park, plus industrial area to the West and a well-used service road just to the North.

 

[PacoDF]

Just remember: land isn't the only scarce resource there. They surely evaluate the maintenance costs (that for sure are higher every year for older attractions) and the running costs of rides that 'most' people don't care that much anyways. And then they avoid setting up more new land to build, as they use land that is already prepared to build and serviced by energy, water, service roads, etc.