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

[zacDf1]

Dear Disney-Lovers,

I hope I did not oversee anything that could answer the following:

along the Avatar discussion I heard a lot of discussion also about replacing existing, hot attractions that are even people eaters, e.g. as themeparkinsider posted:

"...
We do know this: Avatar was slated to go into the space in Animal Kingdom now occupied by Festival of the Lion King. If that show doesn't close in January to make room for Avatar, as is now planned, we will know for sure that the Avatar project is in trouble. And if Lights, Motors, Action closes instead early next year, we'll know that Cars Land East likely will happen, too. Keep your eyes open. "

So I'm wondering if those alternatives do mean that the attractions will be replaced or simply removed ?

1. Lion King
   I definetly DO hope that this will only be moved. Any info about it please ?
2. Lights, Motors, Action and/or Backlot Tour (mentioned in Themepark Insider's whole article too)
   Lights, Motos and Action is an alltime favorite and a big people eater ... why replacing it ?
   For Backlot Tour I have read mixed opinions but I still consider it as a good thing.

Disney Orlando does have plenty of land (in comp. to e.g. California) ... so why knock something down rather than adding things ?
Ok, if something is worn off or bad, ok. Also adding more attractions raises the operation cost ...
But on the other hand ticket prices do go constantly up.
Adding more attractions would give even more reasons to come more often ...

Or - have a new, fifth park ?! Has this even been officially commented ?

Thank you for sharing any info.
Cheers

 

[Disneyfreak44]

The reasons for replacing lights motors action is because it costs a lot of money to run it may be a people eater for its daily 2 shows but Disney is now all about making money and not losing much at all but i hope it stays because that means cars land (that is amazing and unique to california adventure) won't be copied

 

[rodkenrich]

,,

 

[timmac]

A PP already hinted on it, but it comes down to cost.

They have the land, but that's merely one of several resources needed for an attraction. Even at that, building onto new land (which means excavation, installation of utilities and infrastructure, etc) is far more involved that using existing space that's already there.

There's no sense building "outwards" in a way that increases total attraction count unless one of a short list of reasons:
1) There's reason to believe that it's addition will bring in new guests above and beyond what are currently there.
2) There's reason to believe that it's addition will result in significant greater profits from existing guests.
3) There are already so many guests that new guest areas are needed to prevent over crowding and help the guest experience. (which in short order leads to happier people spending more money)

Along with one of the above, it also needs to be the case that the new addition will not substantially ablate guests (profits) from somewhere else. If the addition would, then it would only be a matter of time before the negatively affected attraction(s) would get shut down. Doing a replacement instead of an addition just simply combines these two steps.

 

[DanBoris]

Dear Disney-Lovers,

I hope I did not oversee anything that could answer the following:

along the Avatar discussion I heard a lot of discussion also about replacing existing, hot attractions that are even people eaters, e.g. as themeparkinsider posted:

"...
We do know this: Avatar was slated to go into the space in Animal Kingdom now occupied by Festival of the Lion King. If that show doesn't close in January to make room for Avatar, as is now planned, we will know for sure that the Avatar project is in trouble. And if Lights, Motors, Action closes instead early next year, we'll know that Cars Land East likely will happen, too. Keep your eyes open. "

So I'm wondering if those alternatives do mean that the attractions will be replaced or simply removed ?

1. Lion King
   I definetly DO hope that this will only be moved. Any info about it please ?
2. Lights, Motors, Action and/or Backlot Tour (mentioned in Themepark Insider's whole article too)
   Lights, Motos and Action is an alltime favorite and a big people eater ... why replacing it ?
   For Backlot Tour I have read mixed opinions but I still consider it as a good thing.

Disney Orlando does have plenty of land (in comp. to e.g. California) ... so why knock something down rather than adding things ?
Ok, if something is worn off or bad, ok. Also adding more attractions raises the operation cost ...
But on the other hand ticket prices do go constantly up.
Adding more attractions would give even more reasons to come more often ...

Or - have a new, fifth park ?! Has this even been officially commented ?

Thank you for sharing any info.
Cheers

It all comes down to money. If you add on to an existing park without taking things away you increase the cost of maintenance, staff, etc. It only makes sense to add on when you can show that it will bring in more money. There is already more to do at Disney then the average guest can fit into thier vacation. Same argument goes for a fifth gate. Unless you find something that will bring in a large untapped audiance, the fifth gate will just canabalize guests from the other four parks.

 

[DanBoris]

A PP already hinted on it, but it comes down to cost.

They have the land, but that's merely one of several resources needed for an attraction. Even at that, building onto new land (which means excavation, installation of utilities and infrastructure, etc) is far more involved that using existing space that's already there.

There's no sense building "outwards" in a way that increases total attraction count unless one of a short list of reasons:
1) There's reason to believe that it's addition will bring in new guests above and beyond what are currently there.
2) There's reason to believe that it's addition will result in significant greater profits from existing guests.
3) There are already so many guests that new guest areas are needed to prevent over crowding and help the guest experience. (which in short order leads to happier people spending more money)

Along with one of the above, it also needs to be the case that the new addition will not substantially ablate guests (profits) from somewhere else. If the addition would, then it would only be a matter of time before the negatively affected attraction(s) would get shut down. Doing a replacement instead of an addition just simply combines these two steps.

I was writing my post at the exact same time, great minds think alike!

 

[ASteelersMidget]

It's is all money issues.

Disney doesn't want to spend the $$$$$ if there return isn't $$$$$$$$

 

[Reddog1134]

It's the same reason they rather build a DVC addition to existing resorts then build an entirely new DVC. It costs less money when you already have the existing infrastructure.

 

[Disco]

DHS wasn't designed well either. It is very hard to expand much further I am thinking. The highway is to the back of the resort so you can only go in two directions. There is only so far they can stretch the streets to add attractions I'm afraid.
AK on the other hand was originally designed to have another entire land at Camp Mickey. They may relocate Lion King but I'd rather have rides than shows anyway if they don't.
AK appears to have great growth potential in other areas too. It's not hemmed in by any roads and has another huge area in front of conservation station.
MK is already busting out of the seams so I think it is done expanding as well. The Fantasy Land "expansion" is really just the renovation (FLR) of an old ride area.
Of course Epcot has some built in expansion spaces left in the World Showcase along with a closed major pavilion.
A 5th gate is not needed.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

I would suggest going to Google Earth or the satellite view of a program such as MapQuest. Look at the individual Parks from a fairly low effective altitude. Take into consideration roadways and backstage infrastructure.

And you also should visualize topographic features. For example, the large clusters of trees in the MK Parking Lot are not there for decoration; because of underground conditions it would not have been safe to pave over everything in those areas.

 

[DCTooTall]

As others mentioned all the $$$ issues involved in the decision to replace existing attractions vs. building on new land, i won't touch upon them.


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.

MK is also landlocked. It's entire perimeter is occupied by service structures and one of the main backstage roadways to those service structures. There isn't a lot of room which could be used to expand outward without needing to relocated all the service structures first... (Which wouldn't give you a ton of extra space anyways). As someone else mentioned, the FLE for the most part is just utilizing the land which originally was used for 20k Leagues's lagoon and show building.

Epcot.... Also Landlocked. Between major roadways in front and behind it, and all the service buildings surrounding it.... It also can't be expanded outwards. there are however a few plots within the park (several in the World Showcase, and 1 I can think of in Future World between the Land and Living Seas) that could be used for a new pavilion or attraction if Disney was so motivated.

AK... It has the best potential for expansion, but it is still somewhat limited. Camp Minnie-Mickey is taking up a small part of the plot originally intended and prep'd for the Beastly kingdom section of the park and can be used. There might also be the ability to expand a little bit on the Nemo theater side of the park with the move of a few backstage service buildings. And then there is some room back by the conservation station.... but the area in the back of the park has some logistic issues with expansion due to the animal backstage housing which would require limits on the noise that could be generated back there, as well as potential guest access issues due to the isolation from the main guest traffic areas.

 

[JeanfromBNA]

A couple of others have already mentioned the cost to excavate and extend infrastructure and utilities. But Florida has to contend with something most states don't: A shallow water table and high annual rainfall. About half of Disney's land is in the National Wetlands Inventory (same for the rest of Florida). Maybe a quarter of Disney's vacant land is not impacted by wetlands; the rest is NWI. Filling wetlands is expensive from a construction and development standpoint, as well as from a permitting standpoint. Federal permits can take a long time to get and the developer has to compensate by either creating new wetlands somewhere nearby or buying into a wetlands bank at a ratio of at least 2:1. That means if Disney wants to fill one acre of wetlands, they have to create or pay for at least two acres (often more). Then there's the local permitting process. All of this has to be coordinated with the actual land development and building construction. And I didn't even discuss the endangered species studies . . .

It's much simpler to demo the backlot tour, and rebuild, and I wouldn't miss it much.

 

[skier_pete]

Festival of the Lion King will not be closed permanently, though it could be down for a while. As others point out, DAK has the best oppurtunity for expansion, and Camp MinnieMickey was originally supposed to be where Beastly Kingdom went, so there is plenty of room for an Avatarland there. Finding space elsewhere for FotLK will be fairly straightforward as well, as there is some other space over by Africa/Asia that could be used.

LMA stunt show is reasonably popular -but the expense of it is the reason it was cut to only two showings a day, and was the only way to keep it full. The expense is paying the stunt drivers - who (rightly) earn a very high salary. For every person that likes the show, there are those that can't be bothered. (Including our family - which saw it once and have never been back.) It's obviously not enough of a loser for them to close it for no reason - but if the space were to be needed for something else...I could see them closing it down. There is almost ZERO room to expand at DHS.





In the end, this is all just speculation right now.

 

[zacDf1]

Thank you for your comments giving me how for FotLK ... Afrika Land would be a better fit even.

Whereas if Avatar Land is still coming, they might simply create a similar show with all the new Characters.

There is almost ZERO room to expand at DHS.

But why do you think there is no room @DHS ? Looking at the entire DHS and its surroundings and/or whole Disney area ... isn't there tons of room ? Don't even want to do any comparison to Hollywood/LA areas ...

 

[Cheshire Figment]

But why do you think there is no room @DHS ? Looking at the entire DHS and its surroundings and/or whole Disney area ... isn't there tons of room ?

There are major roads on two sides of DHS. the parking lot on the third, and to try to relocate the entry road from World Drive would involve putting the road directly over a swamp.

 

[Disco]

It's not completely bleak though. There are a few backstage building that I'm assuming can be taken over considering the park is not a production studio anymore. To do so will make a horrible park layout even worse though. LOL, not that it matters now. I would take the rides any way I could get them.

 

[skier_pete]

But why do you think there is no room @DHS ? Looking at the entire DHS and its surroundings and/or whole Disney area ... isn't there tons of room ? Don't even want to do any comparison to Hollywood/LA areas ...

What CF says - look at the Google Map of DHS below. It's hemmed in by World Drive to the west, and Beuna Vista drive to the North (Not to mention the Swan and Dolphin beyond that!) with the massive parking lot to the east. This leaves any expansion only available to the south, even though that is one of the entrance roads to the property.

However the south side is the one which just so happens to be the side of the property that the LMA stunt show and Backlot tour is. Then look at how LARGE the footprint for the Backlot Tour and LMA are. That much space taking up by two items that are either not at all popular (Backlot Tour) or overly expensive to produce (LMA).

Now, look at the same scale map (500-meter scale) of DCA and see the carsland footprint.

So, why expand? Take out two attractions that don't drive attendance at all, replace it with an attraction that WILL drive attendance, and voila.

You have to understand the logic of it all - two parks at WDW are considered by many 1-day or 1/2-day parks - DAK and DHS. Expand those, and you give peopl more incentive to stay on site for the whole week. No need for a new park.

 

[TowMater92]

They can free up a lot more land by taking out the Indiana Jones stunt show along with the two large building behind it and even part of the parking lot. The show is dated and needs to be replaced. They could make that a area for Pixar. To the people that don't want Cars Land copied not everyone goes to or wants to go to Disneyland. I live in WA state and I fly to Florida to go to Disney. Just because you go to both that doesn't mean other people do or want to. I don't care about the Fantasy Land expansion and my Nephews, BIL and Dad don't either but would any of us complain because we don't want it? No, other people do want it and the Cars Land would cater to people that Fantasy Land doesn't. Why can't there be a land that boys will like? Disney needs to build some stuff for boys not just girls.

 

[DCTooTall]

They can free up a lot more land by taking out the Indiana Jones stunt show along with the two large building behind it and even part of the parking lot. The show is dated and needs to be replaced. They could make that a area for Pixar. To the people that don't want Cars Land copied not everyone goes to or wants to go to Disneyland. I live in WA state and I fly to Florida to go to Disney. Just because you go to both that doesn't mean other people do or want to. I don't care about the Fantasy Land expansion and my Nephews, BIL and Dad don't either but would any of us complain because we don't want it? No, other people do want it and the Cars Land would cater to people that Fantasy Land doesn't. Why can't there be a land that boys will like? Disney needs to build some stuff for boys not just girls.

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.

 

[skier_pete]

They can free up a lot more land by taking out the Indiana Jones stunt show along with the two large building behind it and even part of the parking lot. The show is dated and needs to be replaced.

Except we always go in the off-season, and that Indiana Jones show is always packed with people for 6 shows a day. My understanding is that this show isn't as expensive as LMA (which sort of surprises me as it uses more stunt people) and clears a lot more people through it. Part of the reason they've never bothered to change it. (Star Tours got "fixed" because people weren't riding it.) Same thing with VotLM and BatB shows, they both feel old and tired to me, but they still pack 'em in.

Disney needs a motive to change something. Cheap shows filled with people isn't one of 'em.