"Disney's America" theme park? New WDW/DVC possibilities!

[pkgman]

Slakk: What happened to the area? I have heard and Horace eluded that the whole area has become commercialize big box sprawl. My understanding was that Disney didnot grease the correct palm for the project.

 

[Slakk]

Slakk: What happened to the area? I have heard and Horace eluded that the whole area has become commercialize big box sprawl. My understanding was that Disney didnot grease the correct palm for the project.

I don't doubt it has become big box sprawl - I know that right here in my hometown a pivotal Revolutionary battle site is now an all improtant Home Depot. It personally disgusts me how we as a country have no reverence for our own history.

I also recall someone wanting to build a condo project at Gettysburg.

 

[Starr W.]

I don't doubt it has become big box sprawl - I know that right here in my hometown a pivotal Revolutionary battle site is now an all improtant Home Depot. It personally disgusts me how we as a country have no reverence for our own history.

I also recall someone wanting to build a condo project at Gettysburg.

Hey, we're building a "town center" aka an outdoor mall almost on top of the Fallen Timbers Battleground from the War of 1812. It wouldn't have been a problem if those pesky historians & archeologists hadn't spent the time figuring out the battle didn't take place where everyone thought. History Channel did a show about their work and were still getting the mall.

 

[jimmytammy]

I remember when this project was in the works. What stands out in my mind(and that can be a cold, dense place for me ) that I remember most is getting a subscription to Civil War magazine, and the historians fighting Disney on this subject. I was and still am an avid Civil War buff, and I was like so many history buffs, against the notion of Disney building a park on or near land that was hallowed.

In retrospect, it may have been a good move, to allow Disney to build it, given what I saw dissapointedly the last time I was in that area. As a boy, I remember the rolling hillsides as we approached the battlefield. As an adult, Walmart stood out as I once again approached the battlefield. Disney would have handled the sprawl so much better IMO.

The ritzy folks who lived in that area knew who to get on their side. The buffs were passionate, still are, about the encroachment taking place all around. And the ritzy folks allowed the buffs to fight part of their battle.

But alas, a theme park in an area where it can get pretty cold part of the year, wouldnt work. Busch Gardens in Williamsburg survives, but it closes for almost half a year. I think Disney was wise in pulling out. I would love to see WDW open a theme park based on history. Yes it would be Disneyfied to the hilt, but it would probably invoke more interest in folks who otherwise could care less.

Not trying to start a debate, just throwing in my 2 cents.

 

[simzac]

Have to disagree about a theme park in an area that gets cold during the winter. Just look at Disneyland Paris and Disneyland Tokyo, both get snow in the winter and both are doing very well, Tokyo the better of the two, but Paris is improving by the day. JMO

 

[PrincessDadx2]

Slakk: What happened to the area? I have heard and Horace eluded that the whole area has become commercialize big box sprawl. My understanding was that Disney didnot grease the correct palm for the project.

They built about 20,000 houses and now they have the sprawl and traffic plus have to build schools, fire, etc. Much worse for the area. People were foolish who thought that it would not be developed. Disney would have been a much more transportation and tax efficient solution. The park was only going to be open 9 months a year and the travel flow would have been opposite of any commuting traffic.

 

[RaneyOnline]

As a class project, I took several pictures of actual disney attractions and some of the planed Disney's America attractions and showed how the themes would fit into the history of St.Louis, Missouri. I really believed back then that a third US Disney park was possible. Now, I agree that Disney is more interested in parks accross the globe.

 

[mwehttam]

I agree with jimmytammy 100%. As a Civil War buff/reenactor and having a BA in History, I was against the Park in a big way. In retrospect, the area would have probably benefited more with the part then the sprawl it is getting now.

Slakk - as for the park being on the Battlefield, Horace is right. It was away, off the NPS land. As for your argument about the land begin "historic" and shouldn't be built on, then most development in the Mid-Atlantic, and around the country should be stopped and existing structures knocked down. There is so much historic land or land with history where I live (Rockland County, NY - suburbs of NYC) that no development should have taking place. But that is not practical. You have to find the line between preservation and getting own with our lives. It is a very fine line, I agree. Will everyone always be happy? No. But I think organizations like the NPS as well as local organizations do a fine job and the best job they can.

As for the Virginia park, looking back, I feel the landed gentry did use misinformation to get historians and buffs like myself in an uproar to get what they wanted. Now, I don't live in the area but I can't see how what Disney would have done would have been any better what what is going on there now with the "big-box" sprawl. But it wouldn't have been worse.

Here is a link that goes directly to the NPS Manassas site about the Disney park:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mana/adhi11b.htm

On a final note, what I find funny and or sad, and this not directed at anyone just anybody, just an observation I have gathered over the years, is that people get their panties in a bunch when a historic site is threatened, but no one ever visits the site. If we want to preserve our historic sites, we have to visit them, show that they are important to us. And drop a few spare bucks or change into the donation box to help keep the place open.

Okay, off my soap box now.

-Matt

P.S. - Happy New Year!

 

[Granny]

My dream would be for Disney's America to be built near St. Louis. I heard that Walt Disney proposed building a park near St. Louis but changed his mind after an argument with Mr Busch. Anyone else hear this rumor?

I've heard the same rumor. Reportedly, Mr. Busch was opposed because Walt Disney wouldn't allow the sale of beer in the parks. In retrospect, a midwest WDW probably wouldn't have been a great idea given the weather in the region.

 

[Slakk]

I agree with jimmytammy 100%. As a Civil War buff/reenactor and having a BA in History, I was against the Park in a big way. In retrospect, the area would have probably benefited more with the part then the sprawl it is getting now.

Slakk - as for the park being on the Battlefield, Horace is right. It was away, off the NPS land. As for your argument about the land begin "historic" and shouldn't be built on, then most development in the Mid-Atlantic, and around the country should be stopped and existing structures knocked down. There is so much historic land or land with history where I live (Rockland County, NY - suburbs of NYC) that no development should have taking place. But that is not practical. You have to find the line between preservation and getting own with our lives. It is a very fine line, I agree. Will everyone always be happy? No. But I think organizations like the NPS as well as local organizations do a fine job and the best job they can.

As for the Virginia park, looking back, I feel the landed gentry did use misinformation to get historians and buffs like myself in an uproar to get what they wanted. Now, I don't live in the area but I can't see how what Disney would have done would have been any better what what is going on there now with the "big-box" sprawl. But it wouldn't have been worse.

Here is a link that goes directly to the NPS Manassas site about the Disney park:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mana/adhi11b.htm

On a final note, what I find funny and or sad, and this not directed at anyone just anybody, just an observation I have gathered over the years, is that people get their panties in a bunch when a historic site is threatened, but no one ever visits the site. If we want to preserve our historic sites, we have to visit them, show that they are important to us. And drop a few spare bucks or change into the donation box to help keep the place open.

Okay, off my soap box now.

-Matt

P.S. - Happy New Year!

Well I have visited many historical sites so count me off your list but agree with you in principal.

I never said not build what I said is it is in poor taste to build a politically correct Disney-esque version of American history in an area where many Americans died fighting a brutal and very complex civil war.

Disney does very well in imagination but need to leave history alone - Pocahontas was a prime example as is the MK Hall of Presidents.

I do not love urban sprawl but hating sprawl was not the issue. It is the fact that the theme and location were not a good combination - no different then if a company decided to build a theme park about German history 3.5 miles from Auswitz...

 

[mwehttam]

...no different then if a company decided to build a theme park about German history 3.5 miles from Auswitz...

The fact you compared Disney to Nazi Germany is so ludicrous that I can no longer take you seriously.

-Matt

 

[3DisneyKids]

I have to think that Disney is looking internationally right now. This is something I wrote about two years ago for work:

In January, 2003, the Walt Disney Company broke ground on its eleventh theme park on Lantau Island in Hong Kong. By analyzing the current Disney project, we can better assess the feasibility of a third Disney theme park on the Asian continent.
According to information put forth both by the Hong Kong government as well as the Walt Disney Company (The Government of Hong Kong, 2004) tourism contributed to 4% of Hong Kong’s Gross Domestic Product in 1998. The $14.1 billion Disney project is a key component of the Hong Kong Tourist Association’s (HKTA) strong commitment to a position Hong Kong as one of Asia's most popular international destinations. In order to achieve this goal, the government of Hong Kong appointed a Tourism Commissioner in 1999, has given the HKTA $100 million in funding, and made it easier to travel between Hong Kong, Mainland China, Taiwan, and Russia (The Government of Hong Kong, 2004).
Specifically, in terms of the economic benefits of Hong Kong Disneyland, the Hong Kong government indicates that the new theme park “will attract millions of tourists a year, create thousands of jobs, enrich the quality of life, and enhance Hong Kong's international image” (The Government of Hong Kong, 2004). The Hong Kong government further asserts that the Hong Kong Disneyland project could potentially yield a benefit of $148 billion over 40 years, will create nearly 20,000 new jobs (rising to over 35,000 over twenty years), as well as approximately 16,000 jobs in construction and infrastructure. These figures are based on the assumptions that the park's attendance in its first year of operation is 5.2 million with a gradual increase of ten million within fifteen years (The Government of Hong Kong, 2004). It should be noted that agencies outside of the Hong Kong government predict smaller numbers, both in terms of revenue as well as jobs.
In terms of the tourism draw, the Hong Kong government estimates that the new Disney theme park will attract 3.4 million incoming tourists in the first year of operation, rising to 7.3 million after fifteen years. Approximately 40% of the first year tourists will visit Hong Kong because of the Disney theme park, with this figure rising to an estimated 2.9 million new visitors to Hong Kong after 15 years of operation. The Hong Kong government further estimates that dollars spent by these tourists will be $8.3 billion in the first year, rising to $16.8 billion per annum by the twentieth year (The Government of Hong Kong, 2004). Again, it is important to note that non-governmental figures are less promising.
Clearly, the Hong Kong government believes that the Disney project will be a boon to the economy, both in the short term as well as long-range planning. Scholars also note the potential profitability of this venture. Gaba, Pan, and Ungson (2002) state that larger, Fortune 500 firms, of which Disney is one, will enter the Chinese market earlier and are thus more likely to have success. Moreover, Lieberthal and Lieberthal (2003) assert that the multinationals will be the “biggest winners” in China during the next ten years. However, there is not uniform agreement in the literature on this issue. According to other scholars, the profitability of Hong Kong Disneyland depends largely tourists from the Mainland, and this influx of Chinese may not happen in the projected masses, as China is still a poor country per capita (Sung, 2002). Moreover, research by Sung (2002) indicates that the tourists from Mainland China that do visit Hong Kong under the guise of visiting Disneyland, may do so only stay illegally in Hong Kong, thus potentially placing a drain on the economy.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

The fact you compared Disney to Nazi Germany is so ludicrous that I can no longer take you seriously.

-Matt

Agreed!

The "not in my backyard" people certainly claim a lot of land for themselves as "historic" or is that "hysterical."

 

[tomandrobin]

I am also of the the same thought that the next "Disney Park" will be international. China and India I think are most likely to get the next park, followed by Brazil.

 

[dvc at last !]

I do not see Disney building a Theme Park in a cold climate. The season
is too short.

It would be great to see a 5th Theme Park in WDW !

 

[profdsny]

WOW... never had a thread ressurected like this. I have to say though, at the time I was very involved in saving historical sites and promoting the history of Virginia. I do not believe the site would have encompassed the actual battlefields, and I do believe that it is the elite landowners that got this project rejected. I too was looking for a 5th gate, and I think Disney America would have been a wonderful reflection of Virginia and the USA. Oh well... water way under the bridge.

As mentioned, the site was NOT going to be on actuall battlefields, but certainly in the vicinity. A lot of people then didn't want it because of the supposed traffic. True. But have you looked at the area now? How much difference would this have made versus what is there now in regards to that? I know a lot of people did want it because of the jobs it would bring then. Actually, what you have in the area now is the same that you have everywhere else in the country. More of the same big box stores, and tons of sit down chain eatery. No character at all. 95 out of DC looks no different than 25 through Albuguerque or 90 through Sioux Falls.
Btw, has anyone ever been to the site of the Battle of New Orleans? Pre-Katrina, anyhow. Only battlefield I've ever been to with an oil-refinery overlooking it.
And, there was never any suggestion from Disney that the thing was going to be PC. That was mostly the people who were against it claiming that. As if, given the history of slavery in that area till after the Civil War, being PC would have been a bad thing.

 

[kimberh]

I live in Charleston, S.C. We have, what is left of our Plantations from The Revolution and the Civil War, We are loaded with history. We are one of the 13 original colonies. What land, we have left here, is fought over by develpers and we still hold on. I could see where building Disney in Virginia would be a heated debate, what I don't understand, is how all the boxed establishments were allowed in? Did the elected officals change?

 

[DisDaydreamer]

As mentioned, the site was NOT going to be on actuall battlefields, but certainly in the vicinity. A lot of people then didn't want it because of the supposed traffic. True. But have you looked at the area now? How much difference would this have made versus what is there now in regards to that? I know a lot of people did want it because of the jobs it would bring then. Actually, what you have in the area now is the same that you have everywhere else in the country. More of the same big box stores, and tons of sit down chain eatery. No character at all. 95 out of DC looks no different than 25 through Albuguerque or 90 through Sioux Falls.
Btw, has anyone ever been to the site of the Battle of New Orleans? Pre-Katrina, anyhow. Only battlefield I've ever been to with an oil-refinery overlooking it.
And, there was never any suggestion from Disney that the thing was going to be PC. That was mostly the people who were against it claiming that. As if, given the history of slavery in that area till after the Civil War, being PC would have been a bad thing.

You are surely right. I still live just west of the Haymarket area and I refuse to drive to/thru that area because of the traffic/congestion. I truly believe Disney would have been a better result than what is there now. Virginia has never done a good job of promoting heritage tourism (not like PA) and this would have done a (Disney) world of good for that industry, the region, and Virginia. Opportunity gone though. We'll be heading south someday soon so we're not loosing sleep over it.

BTW what is PC

 

[RaneyOnline]

Well, I think things would've been different if Disney had bought land on the SE side of D.C. and not out in Haymarket were land prices were already set to rise and rich people lived nearby.

I don't know if the theme park would draw visitors AWAY from nearby battlefields but I do think it would create more interest in American History.

I still think putting the park near St.Louis would be a less-threatening place and it would put a Disney vacation closer to many within the nation. It would be awsome even if it was a smaller seasonal park.