Drainage problems at AK?

[mitros]

Jim Hill Media says that there is an ongoing problem with the drainage system at the AK, causing a sinkhole along the safari route. They say it is due to the cutting corners during construction of the park, by using corrugated metal pipes in the drainage system. It seems that the "fix" is going to cost some $67 million. Another case of Eisners penny wise pound foolish method of taking care of the theme parks?

 

[Peter Pirate]

Needs to be proven as true first though, right?

 

[JPN4265]

Needs to be proven as true first though, right?

ITA!

 

[mitros]

ITA?

 

[Dznefreek]

I don't think you can say an 800 million dollar park is cutting corners.

There was a similar rumor about IOA when it was being built. . . . a sinkhole under the Hulk coaster.

 

[DC7800]

If you want sinkhole rumors, there's always Horizons.

Beyond that, how much Animal Kingdom cost isn't the point. If the original design was projected at $1.2 billion (or whatever the real numbers are; I'm just making up an example here) but you instead do it "on the cheap" for $800 million you have indeed cut corners with something. Maybe you used cheaper materials or a less robust design. The result is you spend far more on maintenance (and rebuilding) than if you had just spent the money to do it right the first time.

I find it very easy to believe Disney would have done something like that, whethor this particular rumor is true or not.

 

[rocketriter]

If you want sinkhole rumors, there's always Horizons.

I find it very easy to believe Disney would have done something like that [spent too little on construction] whethor this particular rumor is true or not.

DC7800, you may be right, particularly since you're a CM. But if so this is a significant change from the original Disney policy. The buildings at WDW were significantly overbuilt, for example, rather than underbuilt so that they could withstand hurricane damage, and they didn't take a lot of damage last fall. Do you feel that this policy changed during the first half of the Eisner administration? The second half? Some other time?

 

[peter11435]

DC7800, you may be right, particularly since you're a CM. But if so this is a significant change from the original Disney policy. The buildings at WDW were significantly overbuilt, for example, rather than underbuilt so that they could withstand hurricane damage, and they didn't take a lot of damage last fall. Do you feel that this policy changed during the first half of the Eisner administration? The second half? Some other time?

Well, all of the buildings built under Eisner, including those at AK are still there after three hurricanes. I would say they are still building quality structures. Look at some of the damage at other orlando attractions and hotels. I think Disney's performance in the hurricanes shows that the buildings are still "overbuilt."

 

[mitros]

"Buildings" may be overbuilt, but apparentley they used less then they could have to do the drainage system. Eisner most assuredley was cutting corners during the construction of AK. This has been said numerous times right after the place opened.

 

[DancingBear]

First of all, sometimes stuff happens. For example, the railroad which the Pre-Eisner folks built around Fort Wilderness had many problems with the track and engines and was eventually abandoned. You can always spend more when you build something to make it stronger, at some point you make a judgment, and sometimes the judgments don't pan out.

Second, the stories I've heard about budget pressures on AK have all had to do with taking attractions off the board, not cutting corners on what they actually built. Look at the density of the landscaping alone.

 

[mitros]

Yes, you are partially correct, however, way back when the AK was being built, there were several articles in the Orlando Sentinel regarding BOTH the discarding of certain things, Beastly Kingdom being one, as well as skimping on certain construction items that Eisner directly had his hand in. So, yes, there were cutbacks in certain attraction elements, but there were most assuredly cutbacks in certain construction entities ordered by Eisner because he felt they were already spending too much on the project.

 

[DukeStreetKing]

Yes, you are partially correct, however, way back when the AK was being built, there were several articles in the Orlando Sentinel regarding BOTH the discarding of certain things, Beastly Kingdom being one, as well as skimping on certain construction items that Eisner directly had his hand in. So, yes, there were cutbacks in certain attraction elements, but there were most assuredly cutbacks in certain construction entities ordered by Eisner because he felt they were already spending too much on the project.

Quoting the Orlando Slantinel?!!

 

[mitros]

So you have no confidence in the Orlando Sentinel. I actually was not discussing the truth or the un-truths that comes out of the Orlando Sentinel, Cast members, Jim Hill Media, or some of the posters on the Disboards, I am merely posting a rumor on the DISNEY RUMORS AND NEWS BOARD. That is what we do here, no?

 

[raidermatt]

Second, the stories I've heard about budget pressures on AK have all had to do with taking attractions off the board, not cutting corners on what they actually built. Look at the density of the landscaping alone.

Unfortunately, infrastructure skimping wouldn't be obvious to anyone, and wouldn't become known for quite awhile. Also wouldn't be "sexy" to report, nor would anybody be able to prove it, unlike the removal of an entire land.

That doesn't mean they DID skimp, or that they have built anything that is not safe. Only that there are lots of choices that can be made where all of the options are safe, but where the cheaper one can result in less reliability or longevity.

Again, that doesn't mean they DID do this, but really, its hard for me to imagine that they wouldn't in some cases, again given the concern over budgets. Certainly most other companies would do this, and we know that out in Anaheim at least, certain types of maintenance have been let go in the past, including during the timeframe AK was built. Doesn't prove anything, I know, but it does give a little insight into how at least some within the company were/are thinking.

 

[WEDWAY100]

This is just to add some fuel to the rumor. I was at DAK on Sunday, and as I left the parking lot, I saw several very large concrete drainage tubes lined up waiting for installation somewhere. I had not read Jim's article, so I assumed they were for the Everest construction. However, at this point in the construction of Everest, I would think that most of the underground work for that project is complete.

This does not mean that those drainage tubes are there to fix a problem, but it sure makes me wonder.

 

[Plus4206]

In the construction business there is always something "newer,better,cheaper" coming out. Wether it truely is "better" is always a wait and see chance you take. If in fact there is an infrastructure problem at AK I find it hard to believe ME made an informed decision to do it the wrong way in order to save a few bucks. He would have to realize the failed system would come back to haunt him as it is apparently doing now.

It's possible they simply made a mistake. Given the choice of doing the drainage system by a tried & true method for x dollars or doing it some new way that's supposed to just as good for x - y dollars, I can understand the decision by the powers-that-be making the decision to save money.

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20.