Is Disney World ready for a fifth theme park?

[stashbin]

Without getting into the debate of whether or not Disney will or will not build another park, I will offer my opinion of what I think would be a good idea for a new gate.
Magic Kingdom has so many things geared for little ones, I think the tweens would like to see a park with all of the new characters we see on Disney. Maybe one that has Wizards of Waverly Place, and some of those other really popular shows. Maybe it could be sectioned off like a place for the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse type things and then another section for older kids.

Adding another park doesn't mean it has to be enormous. In fact, part of the reason I love Hollywood so much is because it's not so big.

 

[wdwdano@yahoo.com]

Most certainly they would make more profits for the bottom line. Same for when they built Animal Kingdom, and same for Mgm before it was built. You don't build something and sell a profit for overhead and expenses?! You build for profits.

So essentially I think that it would be great to have a new park. Are there logistics to work out. I am sure, not for us dis-ers to have to worry about.

I bet a Villains park would be really great and feature very cool roller-coaster and ride systems. Theming would be great and I am sure the imagineers would have great lighting systems.

If you could have one villain concept for a table service what would you choose?

My choice is either Creulla or Ursulla(under the sea)




"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”
― Winston S. Churchill

 

[stashbin]

Most certainly they would make more profits for the bottom line. Same for when they built Animal Kingdom, and same for Mgm before it was built. You don't build something and sell a profit for overhead and expenses?! You build for profits.

So essentially I think that it would be great to have a new park. Are there logistics to work out. I am sure, not for us dis-ers to have to worry about.

I bet a Villains park would be really great and feature very cool roller-coaster and ride systems. Theming would be great and I am sure the imagineers would have great lighting systems.

If you could have one villain concept for a table service what would you choose?

My choice is either Creulla or Ursulla(under the sea)




"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”
― Winston S. Churchill

Captain Hook or Ursula for seafood

 

[lockedoutlogic]

There is so much naivety and lack of economic understanding in regards to parks here that i had to do some tai chi just to calm myself down...

 

[ASteelersMidget]

There is so much naivety and lack of economic understanding in regards to parks here that i had to do some tai chi just to calm myself down...

I take offense to that I have a fine economic understanding and I'm under 21!

 

[wdwdano@yahoo.com]

Captain Hook or Ursula for seafood

Could we eat in a schooner or pirate ship. I can see a lookout from the top over the park!

 

[dwardlaw]

True, it would be very cool. Too bad there'd be no backing for it at this point... Disney's focus on mainland is on expansion and improving, while their new theme park expeditions are focused abroad, most significantly Shanghai Disneyland...

I personally would like Disney doing more on mainland America, however that statement will get flamed to a crisp because "They're a company and must look for opportunities that best interest them", "The parks we have now are good enough, who would want to go to a park in (Insert state/area here)." I'm not saying they're going to build a 5th gate in Florida, or a new park on mainland, just that I think it'd be nice if they did...

I am with you Dan

 

[tjkraz]

Thats a good point. A new footprint would be nice to spread things out. . . .

You're confusing what would be good for guests with what would be good for Disney.

A theme park like the Magic Kingdom costs about the same amount to operate whether there are 30,000 guests on any given day or 40,000 guests. All of the minimum positions still need to be filled--security, gate attendants, ride attendants, performers, etc.

So which do you think is more profitable: The MK attracting 30K or 40K?

Obviously it's the latter. From Disney's perspective--an economic perspective--there's just no reason to build and operate another gate just to thin out the crowds. Disney doesn't want 5 minute wait times. The want parks packed with guests prepared to empty their pockets.

Most certainly they would make more profits for the bottom line. Same for when they built Animal Kingdom, and same for Mgm before it was built. You don't build something and sell a profit for overhead and expenses?! You build for profits.

You're still missing the big picture.

Think about what you spent for your last Disney trip. Let's say $2000 just for the sake of argument. If Disney opens a 5th gate their expenses would grow by roughly 25%. Are you going to increase your spending by 25% to make that park profitable? Are you honestly going to go from spending $2000 per trip (or whatever the figure may be) to $2500 per trip?

Unless a new park generates ADDITIONAL business, there's no justification for it. If it simply prompts you to spend one less day at the Magic Kingdom, Disney hasn't brought in any new revenue. Your money is simply being shifted from the Magic Kingdom P&L to the 5th gate P&L.

Yes the 5th gate would make money, but the other parks would simultaneously become less profitable.

So essentially I think that it would be great to have a new park. Are there logistics to work out. I am sure, not for us dis-ers to have to worry about.

Most of us think it would be great to have a new park. But it just ain't happening.

Disney went 11 years between MK and Epcot...7 years between EP and DHS...9 years between DHS and DAK. It's now been 14 years since the last WDW park opening with no activity in sight.

Michael Eisner was an ego-maniac who often used the theme park division as his own personal playground. His reign was great for the parks (DCA notwithstanding) because he typically made decisions without running them past an army of accountants and statisticians. He approved theme parks, water parks, tens-of-thousands of hotel rooms...all without any real idea of how such additions would impact the bottom line.

Today such decisions are much more calculated.

Don't mistake the Walt Disney Company of the 80s and 90s with TWDC of 2012. If Bob Iger had been in charge of TWDC in the mid-90s, Animal Kingdom wouldn't have even been built.

 

[Faldred]

Without getting into the debate of whether or not Disney will or will not build another park, I will offer my opinion of what I think would be a good idea for a new gate.
Magic Kingdom has so many things geared for little ones, I think the tweens would like to see a park with all of the new characters we see on Disney. Maybe one that has Wizards of Waverly Place, and some of those other really popular shows. Maybe it could be sectioned off like a place for the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse type things and then another section for older kids.

Adding another park doesn't mean it has to be enormous. In fact, part of the reason I love Hollywood so much is because it's not so big.

Actually, the type of thing you're talking about would belong in a more ideally laid out DHS. As it is today, the park is laid out pretty haphazardly, but with the "magic wand" concept I mentioned above, it could be evolved to make a lot more sense -- one of the ideas would be to have one section of the park devoted to TV, which would require attractions that can themselves be updated quickly as shows come and go, so that they don't become stale or out of date.

From a business sense, it would be leveraging the entertainment side of Disney/ABC into the parks, and vice-versa. (I.e., the shows promote the parks and the parks promote the shows.)

 

[jlbelle]

I asked my 5 year old what he thought would be a good theme park as I think most of disney is geared more towards older kids and adults.
He said, "what about somewhere where you can go and actually play with toys".

Seems pretty trivial, but although I think disney is a very playful place with arcades, rides, and fun things to do, the younger kids actually only get to play back at the hotel room with a few toys that we actually buy. My son was happier at the hotel playing in our room and swimming at the hotel and couldn't be bothered about the rest of the park.

Perhaps he's on to something - a place where kids (young kids) can actually play equipped with everything imaginable that you would see in an actual playground, a large shallow water park like the one at the CoCo hotel in Universal and a place where there are several huts or cottages where different types of toys are set up to actually play with and perhaps even a kids gym with gymnastics equipment. I know my son would love this.

What about incorporating a toy store and restuarant there so that you can eat and look around at toy displays and you can think about what toys to buy while embellishing on great food for kids with better desserts like those you get at the writer's stop and main street bakery.


"PLAYWORLD" would be a good theme park I think and more geared towards really young kids. Perhaps consider converting a water park into a play park. There are so many pools and mini play grounds and I think one water park is enough - perhaps even expand on the one remaining.

 

[Emma1987]

The Disney Villian park idea is pretty good. It could be a park with more thrilling rides kinda like Islands of Adventure.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The Disney Villian park idea is pretty good. It could be a park with more thrilling rides kinda like Islands of Adventure.

its a fantastic idea...there has been 10 years of buzz on the internet to provide free advertising already...

but its only good on an "idea" front...from an economic front, its horrible in terms of cost and logistics.

so it will not happen without a major game changer coming to orlando.

 

[Yellosno]

I would also love to see a villain park (in a perfect world where prices stay the same and all) I would also love to see AK get expanded but a high thrill park or expansion to a park would be the greatest thing for me personally, also I would be pretty stocked to see river country reopen

 

[rutgers1]

You're confusing what would be good for guests with what would be good for Disney.

A theme park like the Magic Kingdom costs about the same amount to operate whether there are 30,000 guests on any given day or 40,000 guests. All of the minimum positions still need to be filled--security, gate attendants, ride attendants, performers, etc.

So which do you think is more profitable: The MK attracting 30K or 40K?

Obviously it's the latter. From Disney's perspective--an economic perspective--there's just no reason to build and operate another gate just to thin out the crowds. Disney doesn't want 5 minute wait times. The want parks packed with guests prepared to empty their pockets.



You're still missing the big picture.

Think about what you spent for your last Disney trip. Let's say $2000 just for the sake of argument. If Disney opens a 5th gate their expenses would grow by roughly 25%. Are you going to increase your spending by 25% to make that park profitable? Are you honestly going to go from spending $2000 per trip (or whatever the figure may be) to $2500 per trip?

Unless a new park generates ADDITIONAL business, there's no justification for it. If it simply prompts you to spend one less day at the Magic Kingdom, Disney hasn't brought in any new revenue. Your money is simply being shifted from the Magic Kingdom P&L to the 5th gate P&L.

Yes the 5th gate would make money, but the other parks would simultaneously become less profitable.



Most of us think it would be great to have a new park. But it just ain't happening.

Disney went 11 years between MK and Epcot...7 years between EP and DHS...9 years between DHS and DAK. It's now been 14 years since the last WDW park opening with no activity in sight.

Michael Eisner was an ego-maniac who often used the theme park division as his own personal playground. His reign was great for the parks (DCA notwithstanding) because he typically made decisions without running them past an army of accountants and statisticians. He approved theme parks, water parks, tens-of-thousands of hotel rooms...all without any real idea of how such additions would impact the bottom line.

Today such decisions are much more calculated.

Don't mistake the Walt Disney Company of the 80s and 90s with TWDC of 2012. If Bob Iger had been in charge of TWDC in the mid-90s, Animal Kingdom wouldn't have even been built.

I don't know if I agree that it doesn't make any economic sense. While I think they should improve Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studios to make them full-day parks, I can see how another gate would improve the bottom line. While it doesn't make sense when asking if someone would spend 25% more in a particular trip, it DOES make sense when considering how often that person would go to Disney.

After going to Disney on average 2 times over the past few years, I am taking a year off. Part of the reason is economic, but the other part is that there simply isn't anything that I feel I must see or do. Although Disney is considerably bigger than Universal (which I never need more than 2 days for), I still feel like I can get my fill in 5 days max. Another gate would not only encourage me to stay another day or two, but it would be a draw to come back at another time.

When I hear people planning their Disney trips, they often try to figure out how many days they need and then plan accordingly. Another park would necessitate more days. And considering a lot of people finish a trip and remark that they have to come back to see the things they didn't get to, I imagine that tendency would be even greater if there was another park.

This phenomena also works with hotels. There are many people who love to travel to Disney to experience the different hotels. New hotels means new trips. For many, the hotel is as important as the parks.

I realize that common sense says that there is a point where new hotels and new parks will not result in more visitors and more money spent. I don't think Disney has hit that point yet.

 

[wdwdano@yahoo.com]

I would also love to see a villain park (in a perfect world where prices stay the same and all) I would also love to see AK get expanded but a high thrill park or expansion to a park would be the greatest thing for me personally, also I would be pretty stocked to see river country reopen

That's great fellow Disers. Now we are on to something. This thread wasn't about ripping the idea apart it was about blue sky and brainstorm. That is where the fun lives. Love the ideas!

 

[wdwdano@yahoo.com]

I don't know if I agree that it doesn't make any economic sense. While I think they should improve Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studios to make them full-day parks, I can see how another gate would improve the bottom line. While it doesn't make sense when asking if someone would spend 25% more in a particular trip, it DOES make sense when considering how often that person would go to Disney.

After going to Disney on average 2 times over the past few years, I am taking a year off. Part of the reason is economic, but the other part is that there simply isn't anything that I feel I must see or do. Although Disney is considerably bigger than Universal (which I never need more than 2 days for), I still feel like I can get my fill in 5 days max. Another gate would not only encourage me to stay another day or two, but it would be a draw to come back at another time.

When I hear people planning their Disney trips, they often try to figure out how many days they need and then plan accordingly. Another park would necessitate more days. And considering a lot of people finish a trip and remark that they have to come back to see the things they didn't get to, I imagine that tendency would be even greater if there was another park.

This phenomena also works with hotels. There are many people who love to travel to Disney to experience the different hotels. New hotels means new trips. For many, the hotel is as important as the parks.

I realize that common sense says that there is a point where new hotels and new parks will not result in more visitors and more money spent. I don't think Disney has hit that point yet.

Well put! I also think there are quite a few people in the world who have not been to Disney Parks. But I know Disney capitalizes on new experiences with the people that have been there 20 and 30 years. I know I would go to a new park if it was full of more coasters and interesting ride systems and stories.

 

[OldsDr]

I don't know if I agree that it doesn't make any economic sense. While I think they should improve Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studios to make them full-day parks, I can see how another gate would improve the bottom line. While it doesn't make sense when asking if someone would spend 25% more in a particular trip, it DOES make sense when considering how often that person would go to Disney.

After going to Disney on average 2 times over the past few years, I am taking a year off. Part of the reason is economic, but the other part is that there simply isn't anything that I feel I must see or do. Although Disney is considerably bigger than Universal (which I never need more than 2 days for), I still feel like I can get my fill in 5 days max. Another gate would not only encourage me to stay another day or two, but it would be a draw to come back at another time.

When I hear people planning their Disney trips, they often try to figure out how many days they need and then plan accordingly. Another park would necessitate more days. And considering a lot of people finish a trip and remark that they have to come back to see the things they didn't get to, I imagine that tendency would be even greater if there was another park.

This phenomena also works with hotels. There are many people who love to travel to Disney to experience the different hotels. New hotels means new trips. For many, the hotel is as important as the parks.

I realize that common sense says that there is a point where new hotels and new parks will not result in more visitors and more money spent. I don't think Disney has hit that point yet.

Everything i remeber reading states that this was disproven with AK. It worked with the opening of MGM, BUt they hit saturation with AK Most people don't take more than a 7 day vacation. so with MK and EP being 2 days each with MGM and and AK being at least 1/2 day each (for new customers they are full day parks) that brings it up to 5 to 7 days of stuff for people to do.(that is ignoring waterparks, DTD and the pools at the resorts) Add in travel time(wich is included in most peoples 7 days of vacation) and you have exactly what Disney wants. Enough to do on a 7 day vacation. Add in Magical express and WDW now extremly happy with a customer that has enough to keep most people busy for their whole vacation. So there is less of a desire and no car (excluding a taxi or mears) to vist the non-WDW parks.


Nevermind the already stretched thin labor pool in the area, talk about a decline in service witha fith gate.


If they were to build one I would love to see it contain all the extinct rides.

 

[wdwdano@yahoo.com]

Everything i remeber reading states that this was disproven with AK. It worked with the opening of MGM, BUt they hit saturation with AK Most people don't take more than a 7 day vacation. so with MK and EP being 2 days each with MGM and and AK being at least 1/2 day each (for new customers they are full day parks) that brings it up to 5 to 7 days of stuff for people to do.(that is ignoring waterparks, DTD and the pools at the resorts) Add in travel time(wich is included in most peoples 7 days of vacation) and you have exactly what Disney wants. Enough to do on a 7 day vacation. Add in Magical express and WDW now extremly happy with a customer that has enough to keep most people busy for their whole vacation. So there is less of a desire and no car (excluding a taxi or mears) to vist the non-WDW parks.


Nevermind the already stretched thin labor pool in the area, talk about a decline in service witha fith gate.


If they were to build one I would love to see it contain all the extinct rides.

You couldn't possibly do it all in 7 days or even seven months. I have been going to Disney for MANY years and haven't seen it all.

 

[OldsDr]

You couldn't possibly do it all in 7 days or even seven months. I have been going to Disney for MANY years and haven't seen it all.

Me too and I Agree with your statement, that exactly why a fifth gate is not required. moost people only take 7 days for vacation. Keep updating what they have will be good for decades


But if they were to build one I would love to see an IOA thrill type park(with traditional Disney Themeing and very few outdor rides including the coasters)

 

[wdwdano@yahoo.com]

Me too and I Agree with your statement, that exactly why a fifth gate is not required. moost people only take 7 days for vacation. Keep updating what they have will be good for decades


But if they were to build one I would love to see an IOA thrill type park(with traditional Disney Themeing and very few outdor rides including the coasters)

I would also love the coasters. I have also always dreamed of a coaster that was like the scene in Monsters Inc that would be hanging coaster that went vrooming around the factory and through different scenes whilst being chased by Randall.