Well at first I though the class envy stuff was bait, but after a few post that seem to insinuate that is the basis of opposition to this project, I'll bite.
That the Anti- project posters are envious is like saying villagers are envious of a hoard of sacking vikings.
My discussion points follow along these lines:
1. The sale of Reedy Creek governed property.
The founders of
Disneyland discovered what happens when you not only don't control the property that approuches your project, but goverment regulations within the project as well. The answer is, tenaciosly aquire the neccisary amount of property, then firmly lobby for and set up a workable system of self goverment before even moving forward. They were succesful. Was this accomplished so a multi-national corparation could then uncaringly squeeze every last dime out of rubes pockets, all the while short sightedly destoying the profit base? At the stirrings of Disney World many within the organization were indeed worried when Walt passed away. The worry was that in effect this was what was to become of all that Florida land. But Roy came through, went forward with the project, and in a high minded sense established what he christened Walt Disney World. Many claim that this high sense of standard would moribound the resort for many years to come, but thats for a different discussion. What I'm trying to establish here, is that the 43 sq miles were origianly deemed special enough, that given the choice, they were indeed taking the chance of financial ruin against a pure profit approuch. To de -annex this property flies in the face of what has preserved the uniquness of this destination and made it a winner after all.
If one cares to argue the state of the current Disney corporating, then I think you will find yourself only edifing the point of why this project is wrong.
2. The Unaquiviable exclusivity of the now de-annexed property
If we take into consideration then of what was intended for this property, the idea of creating somthing on that idealistic land which 99.9% of the guest cannot enjoy is troublesome. When guest exrpierence old and new attractions, resorts, tours, and events, they become part of a community. Some of this community is posting here daily and sharing all there is to offer. Golden Oak expressly and haughtly closes that door. We are not talking about VIP seating, or a designated portal of exclusivity, but a large cut of property. Check the build out estimates on the Disney site, and if this thing is succesful, as in quick green, we ain't seen nothin yet.
3. The idea of locating Golden Oak within the boundries of Walt Disney World
Often I'll see a counterpoint that goes along the lines, well Disney can't sit on it laurels and not try to expand its product. I would %100 agree with that, with some caveots of course. First, I would hope that some things would always be considered unDisney like. If there is any arguement to that, then Disney as a brand is lost. But that's not where I'm going with this. What should Disney consider its procuct line within Walt Disney World. Should residential housing be considered? Well its there all ready in a few forms, so lets narrow it down to what are positive forms of housing? Employee housing is there, governed and controled by Reedy Creek, and a neccesary part of doing buisness. We have Celebration, initially a grand expierment on what communtiy should be, and although not pressed there against Bay Lake, a public display of idealistic efforts. What could have been, EPCOT, another commercial and resdidental community with a purpose to elvolved as a showcase of cutting edge urban space, which I think is agreeable.
And then there is Golden Oaks purpose... and that purpose is... to offer a select few the purchase of stewardly held land, and close it. Of course at the right price. That is is why initially I joked that Universal should come in and buy this. At least it would be sold out for community enjoyment, and really could anyone argue that selling off property is what is going on here?
4. The Myth then that people are just envious
I suggest that the theory be tested by moving the location of the Golden Oak developement just outside the border of Walt Disney World proper. Right on the very edge, buy some property and build to your hearts content. I think I can here a cricket chirp. No one cares, why? Becuase we are no longer stepping on the toes of things we just discussed. But we know that will never happen. This project would be laughingly unviabe exccept the plain and simple fact is that Disney is selling off its long protected Florida property. Otherwise, your'e looking at another piece in the pile of many failed high end Orlando area developments.
5. Location Location Location
And there it is, in our face. The main issue. Now to be the Magic Kingdom Area / Golden Oak Developement / and numerous other closed area developements if succesful. Its large, unaviodable, and no longer governed by Disney. Knock yourself out contesting this one, I'll be glad to listen how it's not really at the Magic Kingdom, far away enough and hidden so that we will never have to even think about it. Yea. We've heard that one before.
Place is what makes Disney, place is what makes the Magic Kingdom. It is establishhed by and through open space and uniqueness.
Developements such as Golden Oak gobble up the open space and more than dillute the uniqueness.
So there ya go. A quick as possible after working late shift slice to chew on, probably full of misspelled words. But that doesn't make it any less important to Disney fans, for or against.
Why not have DIS buy one of the houses, and we can use it like our own private rental house for DISMeets & famiy vacations, etc.
The DIS Vacation Club! I Love it!!
