New Disney Resort Project?

[pilferk]

Not to steer back off track, but for some reason I thought the change at Jambo from "rack rooms" to DVC was to satisfy the need for DVC in that area until Kidani was built? I don't have a factual link or statistics to back that up, but I thought that was what was announced. When I heard about it, I kind of had the impression that if it went well, then they would move forward with Kidani Village...and after Jambo sold well, they decided to move forward. Just a thought from what I could recall...

It was a bit of both.

The Deluxe room category, specifically, were underbooked. Those 200+ room, from my wholly anecdotal information from people working there (so, as I've said before, that for what you think it's worth), were only booked to about 75%-80% capacity (and sometimes less), except during the busiest times of the year. I don't have proof that that statistic is true, but what I DO know is that, except at X-mas and Easter, you could ALWAYS get one of those rooms. It was, the thought went, a "bridging" category. It was the same room type that the Concierge rooms were, but without a bunch of the amenities (lounge access, ability to book the sunrise safari, some in room amenites). And they were significantly more expensive than the standard rooms, only increased occupancy by 1 guest (there was a daybed in the room), and offered much higher views (ie: further from the animals) than the standard rooms.

All in all.....it was a room category that found little appeal amongst the cash guests. You were paying right around $100 more per night (maybe a bit more) for an extra 40 sq ft, a higher floor, and not much else. It's not hard to see why they would be unpopular....they weren't a very good value.

Add to that the fact that DVC was closely approaching a point where they thought SSR would sell out significantly before they could get Kidani on-line, and you have have 2 problems that can be addressed with one (inarguably unorthodox) decision.

Kidani (or, rather, a DVC expansion to AKL) was ALWAYS in the plans. Construction of AKV, site prep of the hotel, all of it was done with an eye on future DVC addition. It wasn't something that Disney suddenly came up with because AKL wasn't filling up. The conversion of the 5th and 6th floors....those were born of brainstorming solutions to disparate issues.

Edit: To add a bit to this..The rumors flying around the boards, at the time the AKV rumor was bubbling, was there were two different projects under consideration for DVC: AKV and CRV (which eventually became BLT). We even saw a model, on a web page, for the CRV tower around that time.

Supposedly (and I'm going by reports on this board, anecdotal info I've heard, and various published reports on the web...so take it all for what it's worth) AKV was chosen because they could bring units on-line more quickly (via the room conversion) than they could with CRV. Between conversion, the fact that much of Kidani's infrastructure was ready, and site prep closer to being ready for vertical construction...they estimated they could "bridge" SSR's sellout. CRV was going to take a LOT more work, because of the proximity to wetlands, some environmental issues, and the restrictions of having to work so closely to the new tower...not to mention the requirement of having to deconstruct the old north tower almost beam by beam due to the possible presence of harmful substances so close to the wetlands/watershed.

 

[nytimez]

Pilferk -- Thanks for all that, very informative.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

It was a bit of both.

The Deluxe room category, specifically, were underbooked. Those 200+ room, from my wholly anecdotal information from people working there (so, as I've said before, that for what you think it's worth), were only booked to about 75%-80% capacity (and sometimes less), except during the busiest times of the year. I don't have proof that that statistic is true, but what I DO know is that, except at X-mas and Easter, you could ALWAYS get one of those rooms. It was, the thought went, a "bridging" category. It was the same room type that the Concierge rooms were, but without a bunch of the amenities (lounge access, ability to book the sunrise safari, some in room amenites). And they were significantly more expensive than the standard rooms, only increased occupancy by 1 guest (there was a daybed in the room), and offered much higher views (ie: further from the animals) than the standard rooms.

All in all.....it was a room category that found little appeal amongst the cash guests. You were paying right around $100 more per night (maybe a bit more) for an extra 40 sq ft, a higher floor, and not much else. It's not hard to see why they would be unpopular....they weren't a very good value.

Add to that the fact that DVC was closely approaching a point where they thought SSR would sell out significantly before they could get Kidani on-line, and you have have 2 problems that can be addressed with one (inarguably unorthodox) decision.

Kidani (or, rather, a DVC expansion to AKL) was ALWAYS in the plans. Construction of AKV, site prep of the hotel, all of it was done with an eye on future DVC addition. It wasn't something that Disney suddenly came up with because AKL wasn't filling up. The conversion of the 5th and 6th floors....those were born of brainstorming solutions to disparate issues.

Edit: To add a bit to this..The rumors flying around the boards, at the time the AKV rumor was bubbling, was there were two different projects under consideration for DVC: AKV and CRV (which eventually became BLT). We even saw a model, on a web page, for the CRV tower around that time.

Supposedly (and I'm going by reports on this board, anecdotal info I've heard, and various published reports on the web...so take it all for what it's worth) AKV was chosen because they could bring units on-line more quickly (via the room conversion) than they could with CRV. Between conversion, the fact that much of Kidani's infrastructure was ready, and site prep closer to being ready for vertical construction...they estimated they could "bridge" SSR's sellout. CRV was going to take a LOT more work, because of the proximity to wetlands, some environmental issues, and the restrictions of having to work so closely to the new tower...not to mention the requirement of having to deconstruct the old north tower almost beam by beam due to the possible presence of harmful substances so close to the wetlands/watershed.

i have to agree that this was a well laid out explanation/ progression.

of course...the thing that sticks out most is that the retrofit was done on underbooked rooms...even if the stated goal was to prepare for no inventory to be sold at the time of a ssr sellout...that still leaves the original contention i made wide open.

Obviously this poster knows what really goes on...that is refreshing. I worked at a WDW resort during the construction of AKL and during its first couple of years of operation. Probably 1/3rd of the staff from my unit transferred to AKL in March of 01 when it went online. I know full well what the problems were there...they did ridiculous amounts of research and survey on both AKL and DAK at the time to attempt and explain both the lack of demand of the lodge and the freefall in attendance at DAK at the time. Theme/ animals was a huge response. The clientele wasn't down with it...to put it succinctly. Perhaps you needed to be there or in direct contact with to understand what the reality of the situation is over there. But it's nice to see somebody who seems to speak from actual knowledge as opposed to just throwing webgeek blurbs drawn from sentinel and wall street journal articles randomly at the intellectual dartboard.

so...
you take vacant rooms and convert them - even if you need more units because you are afraid you'll not have any to peddle after the tours for a period (though saratoga didn't "sell out" until 2 years after the animal kingdom sales began...and based on one 20 second google search you can see the amount of resales that saratoga has out there...and it is reasonable to assume that disney is also sitting on a scrooge mcduck sized pile of them as well...so did it really sell out? anyway...sidetrack disengaged)...if you retrofit aren't you by definition doing a fix on animal kingdom lodge?

Ironically...that both bay lake and animal kingdom kidani opened mere months apart...so you have to wonder why that was as well. As far as eco-concerns...i now work in that field and i can tell you that the reedy creek provision allows disney to not wait for the save the stork society to stop protesting before they move forward with a wetlands area construciton project. nobody stands in the way of the WDW masterplan. Heck, if you look at half of the special initiatives by the florida DEP...walt disney world is and active partner in the programs...same for some USEPA initiatives. The agencies and Disney are practically golfing buddies. So while that might have played a role in some of the pre-construction planning and design work...they got that half moon tower at contemp up off the ground and occupied awfully damned quick...and the pilings alone where a massive hurdle...65-75 foot below grade to the bedrock...and still she was up in 2 years flat.
That one is still more of an enigma

 

[nytimez]

But it's nice to see somebody who seems to speak from actual knowledge as opposed to just throwing webgeek blurbs drawn from sentinel and wall street journal articles randomly at the intellectual dartboard.

Man, you hate being wrong.

But why bother with facts when you can just make stuff up, use no sources, cite no figures and occasionally refer to things that don't even exist?

PS: Still waiting to see that annual report you invented...

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Man, you hate being wrong.

Are you speaking in code? Or just not reading? I can't see where you get your quips from...mental fatigue would be my guess

At least you know how i feel about you...WWOHP pass a billion visitors yet? Disney announce a trillion dollar "response" today?

 

[nytimez]

At least you know how i feel about you...WWOHP pass a billion visitors yet? Disney announce a trillion dollar "response" today?

Ah, still making stuff up, I see. I admire your consistency. And glad I can give you the attention you clearly need.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Ah, still making stuff up, I see. I admire your consistency. And glad I can give you the attention you clearly need.

What said i was wrong? go back and read it and you won't find what you are basing your mental leaks on...

I complimented the poster and made the link to my premise on saratoga that was morphed into a discussion on AKV (which i didn't really go to) Disprove it...you can't...or come up with a compelling counterargument...you either can't or won't.
But i still will give you alot of credit if you come up with one premise that you can make a reasonable case for...but that's not what has been done here or anywhere else.

Give me an insight...expound on something...come up with more than a wikipedia entry as a basis for spouting the company line and wishful thinking...

then we can be pals

(i'm testing you...by the way...i want to see insight and creativity...i don't need summaries of other people's ideas here...it's not interesting or amusing)

 

[nytimez]

What said i was wrong? go back and read it and you won't find what you are basing your mental leaks on...

OK, for starters, where did I say WWOHP had a "billion" visitors

I complimented the poster and made the link to my premise on saratoga that was morphed into a discussion on AKV (which i didn't really go to) Disprove it...you can't...or come up with a compelling counterargument...you either can't or won't.
But i still will give you alot of credit if you come up with one premise that you can make a reasonable case for...but that's not what has been done here or anywhere else.

Give me an insight...expound on something...come up with more than a wikipedia entry as a basis for spouting the company line and wishful thinking...

then we can be pals

(i'm testing you...by the way...i want to see insight and creativity...i don't need summaries of other people's ideas here...it's not interesting or amusing)

Where have I cited a wikipedia entry? Where have I spouted a company line? When did I declare WWOHP had a "billion" visitors or that WDW was preparing a trillion dollar report.

You're just proving what I've suspected all along -- you don't actually read what others say, you just like to spout stuff you make up, and then put on the mock outrage act when others call you on it. The pattern is so predictable it's boring.

I'm not interested in being pals. I have no desire to be "interesting" or "amusing" to you, and I don't perform on your command. But I will happily call you on it every time you make something up, which is pretty much every time you start typing.

But I'll make a deal with you: Show that annual report you cited, and I'll be pals. But don't bother with your group hug icon -- because there's no danger of that ever happening.


EDIT: You know what? Before this turns ugly, I'm going to put a stop to this here. I won't engage you anymore, on this or any other thread.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I think we finally found some common ground and a stalemate...

cuz this is amusing, but predictable and boring as well.

i'll be north korea...you be south

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I can't believe i wasted my time doing this....

Revenue from ticket sales was 3.50 billion in 2009....that includes paris, disnelyand, and wdw

if you divide that out amongst the 88 million ticketed visitors that year...it works out to $41 in revenue per person, per ticket, per day. That alone doesn't cut it...but we'll get to that.

Operating expenses in the unit are close to 11 billion dollars...as evidenced by a 4% drop of 379 million in costs in 2009. Now that includes lots of other stuff (notably resort operations)...and the revenue figures don't...i believe...include licensing and third party figures...

but whatever....they made 3.5 bil on tickets....they made 3.55 bil on merchandise and food and bev in the parks in 2009. more in raw number alone...but realize that the cost associated with merch, food and bev are basically the raw goods...as the labor and operational expenses fall under the park related costs...they come out the park tickets.

so the profit comes from the merchandise and food....the internal numbers was a 5 to 1 profit to cost ratio (yes....some of us have worked there with access to this type of stuff...even if it was available as a management "tool" to encourage the pushing of more product)

Not so with tickets....

so if you assume 11,ooo in tickets per park at WDW (that is the average)...you generate a big fat 451,000 in ticket revenue per day....

we're swimming in it!!! pure gold.

assume 3,000 employees per day ( a whoefully low number) x 8 hours (vast majority of staff is fulltime) x $8.00 per day (again...a low number...even at the mouse's frontline sweatshop) and you get about 200,000 dollars in employee cost alone....so you're down to about 250K per day in Gate revenue....

but wait...we forgot about retirement, taxes, and medical....oops....so we're down to probably about 150K....

wait...gotta power this thing....gotta have buses and trains and boats to schlep people in....gotta have a zillion other associated costs and fees...maintenance, parts, third party costs that can't be assigned anywhere else....

so i guess we've got....let me do the math...

NOTHING

and it doesn't include the average 1-2 billion dollars in captial investment on an annual basis...which can only be assigned to park operational cost and can only be offset by gate revenue....

It's really not that hard...its there if you bother to look for it. but, to be fair, the ticket revenue was kinda buried and the Eisner reports seemed to break it down a little more nuts and bolts-esque...

But it doesn't matter....what a waste of my insomnia morning...i hate it when people tell you don't know what you KNOW

...like harry potter will be out of the mainstream the second the credits roll.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

For the record...set up the DMZ...cuz i'm done with this, Post

 

[pilferk]

i have to agree that this was a well laid out explanation/ progression.

of course...the thing that sticks out most is that the retrofit was done on underbooked rooms...even if the stated goal was to prepare for no inventory to be sold at the time of a ssr sellout...that still leaves the original contention i made wide open.

I actually think I stated that the goal was to BOTH fix the issue on the underbooked CATEGORY of rooms AND give them something to sell

Obviously this poster knows what really goes on...that is refreshing. I worked at a WDW resort during the construction of AKL and during its first couple of years of operation. Probably 1/3rd of the staff from my unit transferred to AKL in March of 01 when it went online. I know full well what the problems were there...they did ridiculous amounts of research and survey on both AKL and DAK at the time to attempt and explain both the lack of demand of the lodge and the freefall in attendance at DAK at the time. Theme/ animals was a huge response.

The anecdotal info I've heard doesn't agree. And since we're both nameless, faceless posters on the interwebs, we'll have to agree to part company on that one. I don't expect you to believe me, since I have no concrete proof. And I'm, likewise, not going to take your say so given what I've heard to the contrary.

From what I've heard, the theming/animal viewing experience/guest satisfaction surveys are pretty high from guests who stay there. The most usual places the Lodge fails is location and deluxe amenities (a common theme amongst their deluxe resorts). And, at least as far as I've heard, Disney doesn't often survey guests about why they DIDN'T choose to stay somewhere....only why they chose the resort they did and about their experiences during their stay.

With DAK, the issues seem to stem from completeness....much like when DHS opened. It opened with a lack of "standard" attractions and no real thrill rides. And they have not (for whatever reason) returned to complete the other 1/2-ish of the park, though adding Everest gave them a substantial (7%-ish) boost.

The numbers also don't show an attendance "freefall", either. It is the least attended park, but it has been that way since it opened. There was a slight drop in the late 90's (one seen by all the parks, actually), and another around the events of Sept 11th (which effected both the end of '01 and the beginning of '02). But in reality, the attendance at that gate have been steadily increasing (6 million in 9 months of operation in '98, to 7.7 million in 2001, to 8.2 million in '05, to 8.9 million in '07 to 9.4 million in '08). That's steady growth, and if the bean counters put some more $$ into it (which they won't, until they think they can actually see some better ROI on them than the projects they currently have in the pipeline), likely the park would be fine. It's a 1/2 day park, as it stands...and Disney actually seems to be OK with that.

But, as you mentioned, that's more of a tangent discussion.

The clientele wasn't down with it...to put it succinctly. Perhaps you needed to be there or in direct contact with to understand what the reality of the situation is over there. But it's nice to see somebody who seems to speak from actual knowledge as opposed to just throwing webgeek blurbs drawn from sentinel and wall street journal articles randomly at the intellectual dartboard.

Again, there's so much overwhelming evidence and indications that there are SOME other factors at work here, it's tough for me to simply take your word for it being about "theme". I've heard too many contrary reports, seen too much contrary evidence, to think that's more than simply your opinion. For all intents and purposes, it looks like there was ONE category of room that was really an "issue". And it's hard to logically wrap your head around how that would have anything to do with theme

Resort size
External events
Lack of value/differentiation

All seem to have been mitigating factors. They're much more obvious, logical factors (Occam's razor). And though it's anecdotal (so, again, we're going to have to agree to disagree), they're the ones that have been told to me by people working at AKL.

so...
you take vacant rooms and convert them - even if you need more units because you are afraid you'll not have any to peddle after the tours for a period (though saratoga didn't "sell out" until 2 years after the animal kingdom sales began...and based on one 20 second google search you can see the amount of resales that saratoga has out there...and it is reasonable to assume that disney is also sitting on a scrooge mcduck sized pile of them as well...so did it really sell out? anyway...sidetrack disengaged)...if you retrofit aren't you by definition doing a fix on animal kingdom lodge?

Ultimately, SSR didn't sell out as quickly as they'd projected. So Disney acted to pre-emptively solve a problem that never actually manifested. It's not the first time. Given the upside/downside....that falls into the "no brainer" category. Their projections were telling them SSR could sell out before they had a new offering ready. The upside to "solving the problem" is you fix the underbooking issue in AKL Deluxe rooms AND you have new units, with a pretty big point of differentiation between your current offering, to sell. The downside to "not solving the problem" is you'd run out of units and have nothing new. You look at the two options and quickly see that bringing new units on line actually makes the most sense. Because your worst case scenario still provides benefit and increased opportunity for profit.

Again, I'm not arguing that the retrofit was, in part, a "fix". It certainly was. It just doesn't look like it was a "fix" for the reasons (or, really, for the scope) of the problem you're identifying. It was a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

Ironically...that both bay lake and animal kingdom kidani opened mere months apart...so you have to wonder why that was as well.

Yes, which is why they chose the retrofit option with AKL.

BLT opened in August of 2009.

Kidani opened in May of 2009.

Jambo's DVC units opened in June/July of 2007.

That's a 2 year head start by choosing the option they did.

As far as eco-concerns...i now work in that field and i can tell you that the reedy creek provision allows disney to not wait for the save the stork society to stop protesting before they move forward with a wetlands area construciton project. nobody stands in the way of the WDW masterplan. Heck, if you look at half of the special initiatives by the florida DEP...walt disney world is and active partner in the programs...same for some USEPA initiatives. The agencies and Disney are practically golfing buddies. So while that might have played a role in some of the pre-construction planning and design work...they got that half moon tower at contemp up off the ground and occupied awfully damned quick...and the pilings alone where a massive hurdle...65-75 foot below grade to the bedrock...and still she was up in 2 years flat.
That one is still more of an enigma

Actually, I wasn't talking about the red tape of the construction with BLT, but the actual PROCESS of construction (and demolition). Because of it's proximity to the lake, the North Tower had to be taken down brick by brick, more or less (also..weren't there asbestos concerns that proved minimal?). Then you had to drive the support beams even deeper than one would usually have to on a project of that size, because of the proximity to wetlands (because you DON'T want that foundation shifting, for anything, obviously). And then you have to construct your footprint in the middle of a guest area, fenced in by the lake. So normal construction techniques have to be modified, as does the waste disposal from the site. It's a much more arduous process that has the potential to take significantly longer. And it did take awhile. Demolition on the North Wing started in Jan 2007, and BLT opened in Aug 2009. That's a 31 month project, from start to finish.

By comparison, Kidani started construction in "late 2007" (it's tough to pinpoint exactly when...since the site wasn't accessible to guests), and was mostly complete by May of 2009. The first evidence I remember seeing/hearing about of Kidani's construction was in November of 2007. That's about an 18 month construction time line, which also had to accommodate some special circumstances (the animals on the savanna, guest proximity (though nothing like that at BLT), etc).

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I actually think I stated that the goal was to BOTH fix the issue on the underbooked CATEGORY of rooms AND give them something to sell



The anecdotal info I've heard doesn't agree. And since we're both nameless, faceless posters on the interwebs, we'll have to agree to part company on that one. I don't expect you to believe me, since I have no concrete proof. And I'm, likewise, not going to take your say so given what I've heard to the contrary.

From what I've heard, the theming/animal viewing experience/guest satisfaction surveys are pretty high from guests who stay there. The most usual places the Lodge fails is location and deluxe amenities (a common theme amongst their deluxe resorts). And, at least as far as I've heard, Disney doesn't often survey guests about why they DIDN'T choose to stay somewhere....only why they chose the resort they did and about their experiences during their stay.

With DAK, the issues seem to stem from completeness....much like when DHS opened. It opened with a lack of "standard" attractions and no real thrill rides. And they have not (for whatever reason) returned to complete the other 1/2-ish of the park, though adding Everest gave them a substantial (7%-ish) boost.

The numbers also don't show an attendance "freefall", either. It is the least attended park, but it has been that way since it opened. There was a slight drop in the late 90's (one seen by all the parks, actually), and another around the events of Sept 11th (which effected both the end of '01 and the beginning of '02). But in reality, the attendance at that gate have been steadily increasing (6 million in 9 months of operation in '98, to 7.7 million in 2001, to 8.2 million in '05, to 8.9 million in '07 to 9.4 million in '08). That's steady growth, and if the bean counters put some more $$ into it (which they won't, until they think they can actually see some better ROI on them than the projects they currently have in the pipeline), likely the park would be fine. It's a 1/2 day park, as it stands...and Disney actually seems to be OK with that.

But, as you mentioned, that's more of a tangent discussion.



Again, there's so much overwhelming evidence and indications that there are SOME other factors at work here, it's tough for me to simply take your word for it being about "theme". I've heard too many contrary reports, seen too much contrary evidence, to think that's more than simply your opinion. For all intents and purposes, it looks like there was ONE category of room that was really an "issue". And it's hard to logically wrap your head around how that would have anything to do with theme

Resort size
External events
Lack of value/differentiation

All seem to have been mitigating factors. They're much more obvious, logical factors (Occam's razor). And though it's anecdotal (so, again, we're going to have to agree to disagree), they're the ones that have been told to me by people working at AKL.



Ultimately, SSR didn't sell out as quickly as they'd projected. So Disney acted to pre-emptively solve a problem that never actually manifested. It's not the first time. Given the upside/downside....that falls into the "no brainer" category. Their projections were telling them SSR could sell out before they had a new offering ready. The upside to "solving the problem" is you fix the underbooking issue in AKL Deluxe rooms AND you have new units, with a pretty big point of differentiation between your current offering, to sell. The downside to "not solving the problem" is you'd run out of units and have nothing new. You look at the two options and quickly see that bringing new units on line actually makes the most sense. Because your worst case scenario still provides benefit and increased opportunity for profit.

Again, I'm not arguing that the retrofit was, in part, a "fix". It certainly was. It just doesn't look like it was a "fix" for the reasons (or, really, for the scope) of the problem you're identifying. It was a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.



Yes, which is why they chose the retrofit option with AKL.

BLT opened in August of 2009.

Kidani opened in May of 2009.

Jambo's DVC units opened in June/July of 2007.

That's a 2 year head start by choosing the option they did.



Actually, I wasn't talking about the red tape of the construction with BLT, but the actual PROCESS of construction (and demolition). Because of it's proximity to the lake, the North Tower had to be taken down brick by brick, more or less (also..weren't there asbestos concerns that proved minimal?). Then you had to drive the support beams even deeper than one would usually have to on a project of that size, because of the proximity to wetlands (because you DON'T want that foundation shifting, for anything, obviously). And then you have to construct your footprint in the middle of a guest area, fenced in by the lake. So normal construction techniques have to be modified, as does the waste disposal from the site. It's a much more arduous process that has the potential to take significantly longer. And it did take awhile. Demolition on the North Wing started in Jan 2007, and BLT opened in Aug 2009. That's a 31 month project, from start to finish.

By comparison, Kidani started construction in "late 2007" (it's tough to pinpoint exactly when...since the site wasn't accessible to guests), and was mostly complete by May of 2009. The first evidence I remember seeing/hearing about of Kidani's construction was in November of 2007. That's about an 18 month construction time line, which also had to accommodate some special circumstances (the animals on the savanna, guest proximity (though nothing like that at BLT), etc).

couple of things:

by and large...i agree with/ conceed with everything you've said...

As we all know, Disney surveys are completely loaded questions and don't spell out exactly why people don't like something...because they just don't ask the questions/ wanna know the answers. They want wiggle room in any "guest satisfaction" surveys they conduct so that whatever they choose to do to address something can be justified based on interpretation/ perspective....
But i also know that alot of the people conducting the surveys over in the animal kingdom areas in the early 2000's were told that the theme element was far less desirable than the other gates at WDW...there was just no where to enter it on the touchpad...but disney likes to always have an escape route from their surveys and there is not one for having data that says the public doesn't like the concept.

But if i said that theme and design were the ONLY reasons for the comparative struggles of the park and lodge...then i came off the wrong way. I'm merely stating that it is a factor...in a greater volume than anyone realizes.

But i'll admit that some of it was employee perception and heresay at the time...

And i guess "freefall" was the wrong word to describe the attendance at Animal Kingdom...."flat" would have been a better choice. The attendance there was flat for several years...and then of course boomed when the other gates were juiced to the gills.
But we know why this it...disney thought mere geographic size would equal attendance more on the level of MK/ EPCOT...but they really didn't put anything in the park...so nobody felt like hanging around. they projections from TWDC on Animal kingdom were pretty high...something i would say wasn't necessarily true for either mgm or even Epcot. that won't change until they decide...or should i say IF they decide to flesh out the park. But i also agree that Disney doesn't seem to mind. I'm sure that alot of that is the operational headaches and staffing issues they now try to avoid...but i also think that they want the guest to flow towards the higher retail locations in the afternoons...and MK, EPCOT, and Downtown jump to mind right off the top of my head.

The constuction of Bay lake - given the kinds of concerns that were highlighted - was on a ridiculous pace. It makes me think they had carte blanche when it came to environmental issues. I never read about how they handled the asbestos issue in the demolition of the north tower...but the construction period was during the highest volume of use for asbestos (ACM) in the United States in construction applications and it was undoubtedly used. But it could have been limited to some thermal systems and therefore not as much as a factor as thought prior to the start of demolition/ remediation. Most of the magic kingdom areas that had asbestos as an insulator/ soundproofer/ decorative element (small world ceiling comes to mind) was abated in the early to mid-90's. Some undoubtedly remains buried in the park, poly, and contemporary. But that is how this country was built...especially the east coast.

generally speaking...i agree with most of what you said though

 

[anthony2k7]

as you may have seen i started a thread in the resorts forum asking if people disliked the theming of AKL.

to my surprise there were a few - far from the majority though. however, most that do dislike it, it was because it was "dark" or not very disney (whatever that means!). i dont recall seeing anyone say they dislike it because its african.



so, just you then lockedoutlogic.

 

[SandrA9810]

Wow... this is a fun topic.

The last time I was in the tunnels of MK in '08, there were still asbestos warnings all over the place. It's usually ok until you try to take it out and that causes all the problems. More than once I've heard about the ground shifting under the Contemporary. Which I believe was said more about the north and south garden towers. The design of the A frame with the slide out rooms is what keeps the Contemporary in good shape, but it does prevent them from ever sliding the rooms out again for remodeling.

I know DVC is the cash cow of profits, but it's really starting to get annoying with all the new DVC resorts. Since they'd have to pull from the profits of the resorts to create just a regular resort, it's a no brainer to pull from the excessive profits of the DVC and slap a DVC sticker on the project.

I worked at Animal Kingdom during the projects of the Tusker House and Yak and Yeti. That park has always seemed incomplete, and if the rumors were ever true about the "mystical animal side" to the park. They should have completed it before opening the park. I was also told that the parade was scheduled at 4pm every day to keep guests in the park longer. But I know within the last year or so, they've changed the parade to 3pm to follow the rest. Maybe with the extra dinning offers, it's slightly more appealing to stay a bit later.
But read any where on this internet, and every one's suggestion for touring DAK is to start bright and early. It's not the park to just stroll into in the afternoon. You get in there, get done, and get out. Maybe people are wanting to get more money from their park ticket, but nothing has significantly changed to keep people in the park past 2-3pm. I still can't find a reason to myself.

I believe a downfall to AKL is the lack of access to it's park. All the other DVC properties have almost walk-ability access to it's Park. Wilderness Lodge is an exception, however there are two modes of transportation, and relatively close for a bus ride. When I worked at DAK there were numerous complaints about the horrible transportation between the Lodge and gate entrance. SSR and OKW are both considered DTD resorts, so they're not connected to a Park.

Now I love the fact that they've rebuilt the Treehouse villas. It was a sad boat ride past them after the hurricanes, but I think part of the problem was no handicap access. They were probably grandfathered in before the hurricanes for lack of wheelchair accessible. But once they hurricanes hit and they had to close the doors, it took away from the grandfather clause. Although we all know how fast Disney can work when they want to. It's possible that they didn't have to do that. But it's really starting to irritate me all the stuff the want to do around Ft Wilderness and the wetlands there.
I'm afraid to think of what the noise and light pollution is going to do to the Fort with the Golden Oaks (which I hate with a passion). Now this crazy idea of building more on the shore of Bay Lake. Creating more traffic, noise, lights, and people. Ft Wilderness does great on it own, there's no need to ruin something that isn't broke. There's a million places to build across property, why do they have to do it there??

Why can't they plan something like another park before filling up the entire property with resorts?? Soon enough, Disney is going to turn into "all inclusive" and you won't find any day time visitors. Heck they could then take the parking lots out and put more resorts on the doorsteps to the parks...

 

[lockedoutlogic]

as you may have seen i started a thread in the resorts forum asking if people disliked the theming of AKL.

to my surprise there were a few - far from the majority though. however, most that do dislike it, it was because it was "dark" or not very disney (whatever that means!). i dont recall seeing anyone say they dislike it because its african.



so, just you then lockedoutlogic.

wow...

if i was taking a poll of who was on this WEBBOARD who did/ didn't like the lodge...you might have something.

but i don't particularly care about the power of the post.

i was talking about some of the things that swirled around during its early years of operation and using that as a basis (in theory) for how the management has proceeded since...and about how the people act/ acted who actually go stay (i'm willing to bet most of those people aren't on your opinion thread)

try to keep up

 

[anthony2k7]

wow...

but i don't particularly care about the power of the post.

other than your own post you mean

 

[doconeill]

The last time I was in the tunnels of MK in '08, there were still asbestos warnings all over the place. It's usually ok until you try to take it out and that causes all the problems. More than once I've heard about the ground shifting under the Contemporary. Which I believe was said more about the north and south garden towers. The design of the A frame with the slide out rooms is what keeps the Contemporary in good shape, but it does prevent them from ever sliding the rooms out again for remodeling.

Actually, the myth that the contemporary rooms are removable so they can just be swapped out for remodeling was pretty well debunked.

The "slide-in" design was done only so that multiple elements could be constructed simultaneously in order to meet the incredibly tight schedule needed to be ready for opening. The rooms would be constructed off-site while the frame was created - then they rooms would be "plugged in" while other elements were also being worked on. There were a number of problems they had which did cause delays - getting them to fit, having to balance them (insert one one side then the other, necessitating moving all the equipment, etc.).

But after the rooms were inserted, they did the external work which would have to be ripped off if they actually intended to replace the rooms - and the amount of work to do that would far exceed the cost of simply renovating the room in-place.

 

[SandrA9810]

Debunked or not... it's a cool thought.

 

[doconeill]

Debunked or not... it's a cool thought.

I think that's why it has had legs for so long...it's a neat idea. kind of like how they keep "swapping out" the bridge of the Enterprise between each movie...