How much free space does Disney World have left?

[Langelo]

They own a lot of property, but a good amount of it is set aside for conservation or already has something built on it.

Do they have room for another park??

I've seen a few old maps that show some blank areas, but nothing that seems big enough.

 

[Eoghann]

Short answer yes.

A substantial amount of the land that was originally zoned as unsuitable for development could (if sufficient money was thrown at it) be developed. Land that is currently marked for conservation could be substituted with land else where for conservation.

They could build another park easily if they wanted to but they're not going to. They could also expand the existing parks if they wanted to.

 

[DanBoris]

Long answer...

This is tricky question to get exactly right since it's a moving target. The best source of this information is the Reedy Creek 2020 Comprehensive Plan and a wetland impact permit that Disney filed in 2014. According to the permit the Reedy Creek Improvement District (which is basically WDW) encompasses a total of 29,745 acres. As of the 2020 plan, 9395 acres have been developed, 1373 acres is water and 8322 is in the Wildlife Management Conservation Area (WMCA) which leaves 10655 acres undeveloped. RCID has 12402 acres of wetlands, but I have found no accounting of how much of this falls in the undeveloped areas. Disney was originally permitted to impact 599 acres of those wetlands, and as of the 2014 permit had not used all those impacts (although I cannot find the exact number). The 2014 permit asked for an additional 350 acres of impacts over the next 30 years. None of these impacts can come from the WMCA so it appears unlikely they will ever touch that land. Disney has purchased other conservation land outside of RCID that is used to offset the wetland impacts.

There is a map in the 2020 plan that shows where the unused land is and it's suitability rating. The less suitable, they harder and more expensive it is to build on. There are only a couple large suitable blocks of contiguous land left. There are blocks big enough for at lest one or two more major parks.

 

[DanBoris]

Short answer yes.

A substantial amount of the land that was originally zoned as unsuitable for development could (if sufficient money was thrown at it) be developed. Land that is currently marked for conservation could be substituted with land else where for conservation.

They could build another park easily if they wanted to but they're not going to. They could also expand the existing parks if they wanted to.

Disney has purchased land outside of RCID to substitute for wetland impacts, but permits have made it clear that this land will not come from the conservation land within WDW (the WMCA).

 

[DanBoris]

Here is the suitability map from the 2020 plan. Dark green is unsuitable (mostly conservation land), light green is marginally suitable, and red is suitable. Everything else is developed land. You can see a good sized chunk of suitable land east of the former speedway, and another big one north of Wide World of Sports. There is a chunk north of Animal Kingdom, but that is currently used by horticultural services. There was a nice chuck on land west of DHS but about half of this is now going to be for a new storm water retention pond to support the DHS expansion, and the new DHS fireworks launch area. The suitable land just north west of Epcot is being used for the solar farm.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Answer: a ton

 

[Tigger's ally]

To me, the two areas that allow the most expansion are close to MK which I can't see an additional park there which probably means a swap out of usable for non usable. Also, after finally cracking the vault on parking garages with the two in DSL, could more space be gained by adding some big garages instead of all the flatland parking at each park?

 

[a4matte]

A good friend of mine is the Director of Marketing for a small park and he goes down to Orlando for the IAAPA (International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions) convention every year. He usually tells me some of the stuff Disney talks about at the convention and they went over the numbers this past year. Things like how many more full sized parks they could still build on their current property.

Trying to find where he told me - I've gotten a new phone since and I don't think I transferred the texts over. I think it was somewhere around 3-ish or more parks? They also went into how much more resort space and other things they could do with their property.

I'll be back if I can find the full info he sent me or if he remembers the details still.

--edit--

He texted back and said he thinks they told them they could have 8 total parks on the property and "not interfere or feel crowded". So 2 more, since they included the 2 water parks in the count.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I think the 90's era master plans said that 8 full sized parks could be built with proper service areas...

There is still ZERO incentive for Disney to build anymore. That is unlikely to ever change.

Why?
A. Blame your boss
B. Blame your congressman

 

[Tigger's ally]

I think the 90's era master plans said that 8 full sized parks could be built with proper service areas...

There is still ZERO incentive for Disney to build anymore. That is unlikely to ever change.

Why?
A. Blame your boss
B. Blame your congressman

Only boss I have I married over 30years ago. Why should I blame her. She wants more parks. You trying to get me in trouble?

Also, I am from Illinois, you know the state that has almost all it's former governors in prison and is kind of responsible for the president we have now. Yes, I can blame all my politicians. Isn't a good one in the bunch.

By the way, if my wife comes looking for you just remember, it's too late LOL.

 

[DanBoris]

To me, the two areas that allow the most expansion are close to MK which I can't see an additional park there which probably means a swap out of usable for non usable. Also, after finally cracking the vault on parking garages with the two in DSL, could more space be gained by adding some big garages instead of all the flatland parking at each park?

The non-usable land is unsuitable for construction for a reason not just because that's the way it is designated on a map. Yes, they could build on it, but it's not a simple matter of swapping one for the other.

A good friend of mine is the Director of Marketing for a small park and he goes down to Orlando for the IAAPA (International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions) convention every year. He usually tells me some of the stuff Disney talks about at the convention and they went over the numbers this past year. Things like how many more full sized parks they could still build on their current property.

Trying to find where he told me - I've gotten a new phone since and I don't think I transferred the texts over. I think it was somewhere around 3-ish or more parks? They also went into how much more resort space and other things they could do with their property.

I'll be back if I can find the full info he sent me or if he remembers the details still.

--edit--

He texted back and said he thinks they told them they could have 8 total parks on the property and "not interfere or feel crowded". So 2 more, since they included the 2 water parks in the count.

The 2020 master plan made allowances for 1 additional major park, and 2 additional minor parks for a total of 10. It also allows for 11,300 more hotel rooms and 18 more gold course holes. Note that this doesn't mean they actual plan to build this, just that the plan allows for it.

 

[Airship Ariadne]

Clearly there is, and there is a perfect spot ready for it if they wanted to build another park...The ESPN Wide World of Sports complex with the suitable land surrounding it would be the ideal "5th gate" location. They already closed the speedway experience, they could close the rest of the facility for a new park with limited impact on revenue.

Now I don't believe for a moment that there are any plans for a 5th gate...just saying if there were, this is the logical location in terms of costs to build.

 

[Whatsthegoodword]

Whether they have the space or not, I just don't see the need for a 5th gate. How many people take a WDW vacation longer than a week? Not many. Four parks is about all you can cover in a week, especially if you take a waterpark/rest day.

The only argument I see for a 5th gate is the continual growth of ticket sales. If this continues, then Disney might want to reduce crowding by building a 5th (and final) Park. BUT, before that happens they would have to maximize DHS, AK & Epcot. They're years from doing that.

 

[Eoghann]

I've said this so many times I must be boring people. There won't be a 5th gate in the foreseeable future. New parks cost a lot more to build than new rides or expansions of existing parks (all that infrastructure).

Disney has parks that need revamping (DHS, Epcot), parks that could stand to be built out further (Animal Kingdom) and parks that would benefit from some additions to control crowds (MK). All of this would be cheaper, quicker and provide a direct financial boost.

A fifth gate mostly just increases costs for a decade or so.

 

[rteetz]

Clearly there is, and there is a perfect spot ready for it if they wanted to build another park...The ESPN Wide World of Sports complex with the suitable land surrounding it would be the ideal "5th gate" location. They already closed the speedway experience, they could close the rest of the facility for a new park with limited impact on revenue.

Now I don't believe for a moment that there are any plans for a 5th gate...just saying if there were, this is the logical location in terms of costs to build.

The sports complex brings in too much money and is used all the time. I doubt they would close it for another park.

 

[rteetz]

I've said this so many times I must be boring people. There won't be a 5th gate in the foreseeable future. New parks cost a lot more to build than new rides or expansions of existing parks (all that infrastructure).

Disney has parks that need revamping (DHS, Epcot), parks that could stand to be built out further (Animal Kingdom) and parks that would benefit from some additions to control crowds (MK). All of this would be cheaper, quicker and provide a direct financial boost.

A fifth gate mostly just increases costs for a decade or so.

I don't see a fight gate in the next decade but I wouldn't it out 15-20 years from now or so.

I think you will see a good amount of work on the existing parks including the MK during the next 10 years.

 

[Airship Ariadne]

The sports complex brings in too much money and is used all the time. I doubt they would close it for another park.

1. there is no such thing as "too much money" for WDW.
2. it doesn't bring in nearly as much as a 5th Gate would
3. They have shown no hesitation in the past about closing something popular and profitable to make something else that would be a bigger money maker.

 

[rteetz]

1. there is no such thing as "too much money" for WDW.
2. it doesn't bring in nearly as much as a 5th Gate would
3. They have shown no hesitation in the past about closing something popular and profitable to make something else that would be a bigger money maker.

Why get rid of one when you can have both? Yes a 5th gate would bring in more than ESPN, but Disney would much rather have both than just one.

 

[Eoghann]

2. it doesn't bring in nearly as much as a 5th Gate would

That's highly debatable actually. In order for a 5th Gate to bring in any notable money it has to either:

1) Persuade people who wouldn't otherwise visit WDW to come
2) Persuade people to stay longer and visit the parks more.

The second is highly unlikely because people don't have unlimited vacation days and as for the first, what would this 5th gate offer than the current parks couldn't provide?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

"Gates" are never as easy as is assumed EVERY SINGLE TIME this is brought up.

We'll forget for a moment that they learned what "more gates" does in 1998...

...the simple question I never get an answer to is: who's working there?