Orlando: Why replace existing attractions vs. using new land ?

[snarlingcoyote]

Even if you take out Indy and expand into that parking lot, You'd then have to figure out where the employees would park. That section of the parking lot is the Employee Parking (And I believe, that building is the employee entrance), The current parking lot from what I remember hearing is bordered by swamps, wetlands, and designated conservation land, so expanding the parking lot isn't that easy to do.

It's not THAT hard. It's expensive, but not hard. You fill out some paperwork, you pay $$$$. You get to build.

<==========Lives in a region where it seems like every 4th house is built in a "wetland."

 

[ASteelersMidget]

It's not THAT hard. It's expensive, but not hard. You fill out some paperwork, you pay $$$$. You get to build.

<==========Lives in a region where it seems like every 4th house is built in a "wetland."

I've highlighted the reason why it will never happen

 

[JeanfromBNA]

It's not THAT hard. It's expensive, but not hard. You fill out some paperwork, you pay $$$$. You get to build.

<==========Lives in a region where it seems like every 4th house is built in a "wetland."

Depends upon the regulatory environment. Feds, State and local regulators still have the ability to deny wetland fill permits, or they can delay the heck out of them: require changes, more studies, etc. to the point where you just give up. This is opposed to just changing an existing use.

 

[Disco]

Two words, parking garage.
Actually, I'd rather they tore out the IJ Theater and used the space to make an entire Star Wars Land. Adding the cantina from the rumors I saw really wouldn't be enough.
If they could squeeze in the IJ ride from DL I would be a happy camper. They can put that in Adventure Land or AK so doesn't have to be here.
I would like to see the back lot area become and expanded Pixar Place (MI coaster) with a little left over for an expanded Muppets land.
The only problem with converting the back lot into attractions is that the park is getting awfully long. Adding another stretch to walk is kind of getting crazy.
They might have to tear down the IJ Theater just to make it the new park entrance.
That's why I think expanding to the west against the highway is better. There's a parking garage and a few buildings along Theater to the Stars Ln that they can probably reclaim now. Cars land it wouldn't be but Pixar Place 2 it could.
Stunt show has to go, I'd like to see the tram stay but improved. With stunt show gone, maybe they can do something with the tram and add a little space to Muppet Land.
The great movie ride can stay but needs some updating too. I love the HIStK playgroung but it is dated. Ants wouldn't be much better. Probably should rip it out and do something else.

 

[zacDf1]

Or moving the parking lot south shouldn't be that much of an issue ... isn't it ?
My feeling still is that MGM is a park that feels and is actually much smaller than the other 3 ones. You need less time and you go home with less impressions. Adding new attractions is therefore better than replacing existing ones.
I would rather than wait 2-3 years down the road so that they don't have to do all now.

 

[skier_pete]

Or moving the parking lot south shouldn't be that much of an issue ... isn't it ?

Large parts of DisneyWorld are conservation wetlands. It is quite possible as others have said that that portion of land is set aside as wetlands and Can't be built on.

My feeling still is that MGM is a park that feels and is actually much smaller than the other 3 ones. You need less time and you go home with less impressions. Adding new attractions is therefore better than replacing existing ones.
I would rather than wait 2-3 years down the road so that they don't have to do all now.

People on here are very free with Disney's money. Building a parking garage, expanding property is MUCH more expensive than building on existing land. It might cost an extra $50 to $100 million to expand versus build on existing. Wouldn't you rather have that money put into the "show"?

I agree that DHS needs more there. However, pulling out the backlot will not be missed by many people. I think LMA will be more missed than the Backlot tour. However, I am not sure if folks on the WDW side have paid much attention to Carsland. Even just duplicating it, it is an area that even once it settles down will take a good 2-3 hours to see. Right now its more like 4 or more with the lines. And Radiator Spring Racers is a ride you will want to ride EVERY TRIP, not just once and then never return - like the backlot or LMA.

In addition - Backlot and LMA sell zero merchanise. Get that number - ZERO. Not to be cynical, but Disney wants you to buy crap everywhere you go. Cars merchandise is big, and CarsLAND merchanidise is HUGE. They can't keep the stores stocks in Carsland! Pulling out a couple of attractions that can take up time for people but sell nothing and replace them with attractions that sell tons...someone back there is doing the math.

I'm just saying (and not just to the PP I quote above) you can say all you want about what you WANT Disney to do, but if your suggestions don't make financial sense, why would they do it? Why expand into the parking lot if you can stay in the existing footprint cheaper?

Enough for now.

 

[bom_noite]

the other major thing that factors in for most of the parks is that most are pretty much landlocked.

MGM is surrounded by major roadways on 2 sides, the parking lot on the 3rd, and conservation land and the primary entrance drive on the 4th. There really isn't a lot of room to expand outward in that park without potentially involving some MAJOR construction to move existing structures. It doesn't help that the park was designed as a working studio, so it's layout doesn't lend itself easily to further expansion.

Is MGM Really Landlocked? Ok, I am not an Engineer, an Imagineer and sometimes cant figure out the working end of a Screwdriver - but - I think there may be a way to expand the Studio's to accommodate a Radiator Springs type ride.

To begin with - I compared Google Maps of DCA (and the Radiator Springs area) to the Lights, Motors Action area - simply not enough area to accommodate the ride - let alone Restaurant, Shops, etc. Thus other attractions would have to go.

The other problems, as the poster stated: the 2nd Entrance runs immediately behind the area in question.

But, thinking about it, could they not just employ a Bridge and elevated road system over the road which leads in to the parking area- akin to what they did for the outdoor portion of est Track (which sits 30 or 40 feet above the parking lots below? Thus, a large portion of track sits on a "Table" which runs out of the existing park. The table supports the Track and the Desert Landscape facade. The existing 2nd entrance then runs under the "Table" which holds the Radiator Springs Track.

I guess the feasibility lies around the land you are working with. Is it wetlands? Do large granite deposits sit down there (what they ran in to building the Monorail extension to Epcot)? I do see a small Pond and Creek back there - maybe that is an issue? Maybe my idea is much more expensive?

If the land was suitable then you would not have to carve up the existing road work. I would think this also might mitigate any Power concerns as the existing power could be run out to the track.

It is probably a silly suggestion. Like I said - I know very little about construction, electrical requirements, land usage restrictions, etc. But - I do know that Disney and others have overcome more challenging obstacles.

 

[DCTooTall]

Is MGM Really Landlocked? Ok, I am not an Engineer, an Imagineer and sometimes cant figure out the working end of a Screwdriver - but - I think there may be a way to expand the Studio's to accommodate a Radiator Springs type ride.

To begin with - I compared Google Maps of DCA (and the Radiator Springs area) to the Lights, Motors Action area - simply not enough area to accommodate the ride - let alone Restaurant, Shops, etc. Thus other attractions would have to go.

The other problems, as the poster stated: the 2nd Entrance runs immediately behind the area in question.

But, thinking about it, could they not just employ a Bridge and elevated road system over the road which leads in to the parking area- akin to what they did for the outdoor portion of est Track (which sits 30 or 40 feet above the parking lots below? Thus, a large portion of track sits on a "Table" which runs out of the existing park. The table supports the Track and the Desert Landscape facade. The existing 2nd entrance then runs under the "Table" which holds the Radiator Springs Track.

I guess the feasibility lies around the land you are working with. Is it wetlands? Do large granite deposits sit down there (what they ran in to building the Monorail extension to Epcot)? I do see a small Pond and Creek back there - maybe that is an issue? Maybe my idea is much more expensive?

If the land was suitable then you would not have to carve up the existing road work. I would think this also might mitigate any Power concerns as the existing power could be run out to the track.

It is probably a silly suggestion. Like I said - I know very little about construction, electrical requirements, land usage restrictions, etc. But - I do know that Disney and others have overcome more challenging obstacles.

There are a few things. First, The Test Track speed loop is out over a backstage area, not a guest area. You run into more potential issues if they built such a "table" over areas where guests are driving. Just imagine what would happen if a guest slammed their car into one of the structural supports? (I think it was last year that a car slammed into one of the monorail pylons in the EPCOT parking lot. They had to shut down the EPCOT loop until they could fully inspect the pylon and track to ensure there wasn't any structural damage.).

The other major issue with building a raised section like you are speaking of is the makeup of the ground within Florida. With such a high water table, and other uniquely Florida issues, It is much more complicated and expensive to sink the footers needed to support such a structure. It's this same issue that has been one of the primary factors in the monorail system not being expanded beyond it's present state. Granite deposits would actually be a blessing since Granite would provide a much more stable footing than the limestone that (i believe) makes up much more of the rock under he disney resort [and Florida in general].

From an engineering standpoint, as someone with only a basic understanding of some of the principles and considerations that would need to be made... It would be MUCH more difficult to construct the type of 'table' you are suggesting that to construct the bridges and even the monorail tracks around the property. In general, The Monorail, pedestrian, and roadway bridges are generally only dealing with forces on 2 axis.... Namely, downward forces and the back-and-forth forces coming from the direction of travel.

If you are talking about constructing an attraction on that table... especially one such as RSR, you would need to worry about building something capable of supporting the additional cross axis, as well as potential twisting and other forces from the attraction's movements in multiple directions.


Something else to give you an idea of how "unstable" the ground around the Disney properties can be.... There is a reason the World Showcase and Future World are located so far apart, and the Odyssey is on stilts. Those 2 small lakes/ponds that seperate the 2 halfs of the park are actually sinkholes that were opened during/around the park's construction. (thinking it may have been during pre-construction/site survey stages.... and could've even been intentionally flooded/created when the unstable ground was discovered to prevent an uncontrolled collapse later)

 

[bom_noite]

There are a few things. First, The Test Track speed loop is out over a backstage area, not a guest area. You run into more potential issues if they built such a "table" over areas where guests are driving. Just imagine what would happen if a guest slammed their car into one of the structural supports? (I think it was last year that a car slammed into one of the monorail pylons in the EPCOT parking lot. They had to shut down the EPCOT loop until they could fully inspect the pylon and track to ensure there wasn't any structural damage.).

Good points - a few thoughts:

I thought it was Granite they ran in - you say Limestone - I am sure you are correct. I just know it gave them such a headache (and ridiculous cost) to build the Monorail extension they said: "Never Again!".

Drivers running in to the "Legs" of the Table would not be too hard to remedy - you simply put 10 foot cement barriers so nobody could even get close to any supporting structure.

I used the phrase "Table" to paint a picture in your mind. Perhaps "Raised Structure" is a more appropriate description.

I think we agree: The land is the difficult part to deal with. You better create a structure that does not sink over time causing huge cracking issues.

My overall point is this: I agree they are landlocked now - but creative solutions could expand the park as they they do have ton's of land outside the park proper that could be utilized. The Studio's, as I understand (from friends and family who work/ed there) was a rushed project to compete with Universal. They originally saw it as a Day Park that would command half the price of the other two. That theory died somewhere along the way.

I know Mickey is tight with a buck: I worked for them as a contractor over a 6 month period - and you could not imagine some of the story's I could tell you!

 

[JeanfromBNA]

I should preface this by saying that I absolutely could be wrong, since I didn't bother to research anything before this answer, but most of Florida's "rock" is calciferous limestone. Most limestone is pretty hard. Erodible, but hard. We have to blast it all the time here in Middle Tennessee. I would be surprised if they encountered granite during construction in central Florida, but that's one of the wonderful surprises of design and construction. You can dig test pits to see what might be under there before you build, but you can't dig up the whole site.

As for elevated structures, they require a whole different type of engineering. The footers are usually larger than the final footprint, and you still have to have access to build.

Why not dream about what could be done instead of the attractions in DHS that have jumped the shark? Put me down for a Star Wars or Pixar Land! Just don't mess with MuppetVision. That show never fails to crack me up.

 

[bom_noite]

I should preface this by saying that I absolutely could be wrong, since I didn't bother to research anything before this answer, but most of Florida's "rock" is calciferous limestone. Most limestone is pretty hard. Erodible, but hard.

I totally mis-spoke on the Granite. My apologies - but from my knowledge to get rid of Limestone you only need to pour a Corona over it? Da Dum Dum.