This makes me very sad

[David R]

I hate to say this but we can't expect Disney to fill that property in our life-time. They have to pace themselves. Sure, we've seen 3 new parks in 25 years but don't expect that growth rate to continue.

If we are lucky we'll see one or MAYBE 2 more.... they have to keep surprising generations to come. And like someone else, WDW is already at least a 4/5 day destination with 4 theme parks and 2 water parks, most people in this country cannot (or would not) take more than a week vacation at a time.

 

[FanOfStitch]

You stated exactly what I was thinking. Very well said!!

 

[NewEnglandDisney]

Getting rid of a few hundred acres of land that wasn't useful to them isn't the end of the world.

Time marches on, and I don't need to be lectured about what WDW means to people. I full well know.

I also know that when people are too close to a situation, they tend to either look at it through rose-colored or crap-colored glasses. This is not a big deal, business as usual.

I'm terribly excited that they are focusing on the existing parks instead of building new ones right away. As for resort development, that's happening as well; however, if you listen to the rumor mill it's mostly going to be DVC properties (because those make a lot more for Disney, and while resorts run near capacity most of the time there just isn't a need for an influx of nightly rooms).

Whenever anyone brings Walt into the discussion it sort of becomes a moot point. The man has been dead for forty-some-odd years, and I don't think many people actually know a lot about how he actually acted and thought. Check out a real biography like Bob Thomas' excellent book. If selling off a few acres out of MANY THOUSANDS was in the best interest of the resort, then so be it.

The land that has exchanged hands is peripheral on the actual property. It's not like they sold off the parcel south of the TTC so someone can build a Motel 6. They are mostly going to be for vacation homes and such and all are off of major roadways and are not visible from the actual property. Most of the parcels could only be accessed from outside roads and wouldn't have been worth developing.

If you want to get all excited, be worried about that spot they never bought that Hilton is building two huge super-tower hotels on, just off-site. If you believe some people, you are going to be able to see them from Epcot and/or MGM.

It's all much ado about nothing...they aren't selling WDW off in pieces. They got rid of some fat on the outer edge, again, a tiny, tiny percentage of the property that was useless to them (and in some cases costing them more than it was worth). There are better things to worry about.

NED

 

[boomhauer]

"I'm terribly excited that they are focusing on the existing parks instead of building new ones right away. As for resort development, that's happening as well; however, if you listen to the rumor mill it's mostly going to be DVC properties (because those make a lot more for Disney, and while resorts run near capacity most of the time there just isn't a need for an influx of nightly rooms)."

Tell that to someone who tries to book a room for a straight week on property during the summer.

"Whenever anyone brings Walt into the discussion it sort of becomes a moot point. The man has been dead for forty-some-odd years, and I don't think many people actually know a lot about how he actually acted and thought. Check out a real biography like Bob Thomas' excellent book. If selling off a few acres out of MANY THOUSANDS was in the best interest of the resort, then so be it."

Have you ever been to Disney World? Obviously, you have. Disney has all but brainwashed us into believing this resort is Walt's legacy, and taught us just how important this space was to him. Unless Disney has been filling our heads with lies, selling any part of the property off isn't what Walt would have wanted.

"It's all much ado about nothing...they aren't selling WDW off in pieces. They got rid of some fat on the outer edge, again, a tiny, tiny percentage of the property that was useless to them (and in some cases costing them more than it was worth). There are better things to worry about."

I'm not genuis mathematician, but I'd say 1/4 of the land isn't exactly "tiny".

 

[Feralpeg]

Not that long ago, I was at a place near my home having my hair cut. There was a guy there getting a hair cut as well. He told the hairdresser that he worked for Disney. They talked about a bunch of things, but I found one thing to be very interesting. WDW sold some land in back of MK along Reams Road. I remember seeing the for sale signs and then hearing the land had been purchased to develop homes. The CM told the woman at the hair salon that Disney was now concerned about the sale. They are afraid that the homes are so close to MK that they will have constant complaints from homeowners about the fireworks. I can hear and see the fireworks every night from my house, but I am about 2 miles away. You could get use to the noise, but the ash from the fireworks could get annoying. Universal has been fighting a similar battle.

My thought on the whole subject was why someone at Disney didn't think of this before deciding to sell the land.

 

[mattsdragon]

Some of the "sold property" that is reported is to DVC members. The entire area of OKW and SSR were, in fact, sold to real estate developers. Now of course, that real estate developer was themselves.

Feralpig: I hope what you said about the houses near MK complaining won't happen. If you buy a house near an airport, do you have any right to complain about plane traffic? I grew up outside of Quantico, Va, and we had dishes rattle all the time because the Marines were doing exercises. We had no right to complain, because the USMC was there long before our town was.

 

[NewEnglandDisney]

"I'm terribly excited that they are focusing on the existing parks instead of building new ones right away. As for resort development, that's happening as well; however, if you listen to the rumor mill it's mostly going to be DVC properties (because those make a lot more for Disney, and while resorts run near capacity most of the time there just isn't a need for an influx of nightly rooms)."

Tell that to someone who tries to book a room for a straight week on property during the summer.

Okay, now think of the BIGGER picture. Yes, it's running at 100% for a few peak periods of year. The demand is not enough for them to build more resort rooms because they aren't needed enough to warrant construction. Why do you think Pop Century : Classic Years has never been finished? Do you think Disney thinks it's pretty? They investment just isn't worth it for the few periods when it's completely booked.

It's good for the resort to be occasionally booked up; it increases demand. It would be suicide if they overbuilt hotels because then the whole property would suffer the other 80% of the time there ARE rooms available.

"Whenever anyone brings Walt into the discussion it sort of becomes a moot point. The man has been dead for forty-some-odd years, and I don't think many people actually know a lot about how he actually acted and thought. Check out a real biography like Bob Thomas' excellent book. If selling off a few acres out of MANY THOUSANDS was in the best interest of the resort, then so be it."

Have you ever been to Disney World? Obviously, you have. Disney has all but brainwashed us into believing this resort is Walt's legacy, and taught us just how important this space was to him. Unless Disney has been filling our heads with lies, selling any part of the property off isn't what Walt would have wanted.

Uh, you just don't get it.

Who the heck are you to say what a man you never knew who's been dead for forty-plus years would have wanted?

It's a tiny portion of land that has been sold off; land that was unusable to WDW for whatever reasons. Walt tore down things many times himself when it benefited the situation. These are tiny parcels that would have never been useful to the park. I think you just don't understand how things like this work, and are looking at it from too much of a philisophical level; this is about what makes sense in terms of long term plans, not romantic notions of land hoarding.

"It's all much ado about nothing...they aren't selling WDW off in pieces. They got rid of some fat on the outer edge, again, a tiny, tiny percentage of the property that was useless to them (and in some cases costing them more than it was worth). There are better things to worry about."

I'm not genuis mathematician, but I'd say 1/4 of the land isn't exactly "tiny".

Uh, I'd agree you aren't a genius mathematician. Disney did not sell 1/4 of their property, LMAO. They sold a single digit percentage in a series of calculated moves.

I just think it's hilarious that people have nothing better to do than whine and moan about a few parcels of land that were sold for good reason. But go ahead, continue crying about how this is going to ruin WDW, LOL, if it makes you feel better.

Or you could be reasonable and realize that this in no way affects your Resort experience, and if some one hadn't brought it up you'd have never known otherwise. Stop looking for ways Disney is trying to ruin your life or at the least your enjoyment of the Resort...if you don't like it, don't go, but don't whine about business decisions that you know nothing about and don't affect you in any way, shape, or form.

NED

 

[ZipaDeeDooDah]

 

[freediverdude]

I was concerned about this as well, until I fully read a past thread about this some months ago (I would have to do a search again and try to find it), and it had pictures of maps of the property with the little parcels that they are selling highlighted. When I saw what these small parcels were, and where they were located, I wasn't worried about it anymore. They were on the very edges of the property, and in places that looked like they couldn't put a hotel or theme park there- either not enough room/blocked on all sides by roads, or would be highly visible to non-Disney property, stuff like that. So my fears about that were calmed. I agree with NewEnglandDisney, though, I am bothered about the Bonnet Creek resort and Hilton putting up towers there. I don't agree with how that turned out, although I guess Disney didn't have a choice- they were just never able to get their hands on that parcel. I just hope that Hilton will work with Disney about the sightlines and/or Disney is able to regulate it through Reedy Creek or something.

 

[NewEnglandDisney]

I was concerned about this as well, until I fully read a past thread about this some months ago (I would have to do a search again and try to find it), and it had pictures of maps of the property with the little parcels that they are selling highlighted. When I saw what these small parcels were, and where they were located, I wasn't worried about it anymore. They were on the very edges of the property, and in places that looked like they couldn't put a hotel or theme park there- either not enough room/blocked on all sides by roads, or would be highly visible to non-Disney property, stuff like that.

Exactly. People tend to panic without knowing the facts.

These were parcels of land that were USELESS...they were on the outskirts of the property and they made a bundle on it when they were never going to, or able to, use them anyway. So what if some condos pop up hidden completely from view of WDW guests on touching the property...you will NEVER see them unless you get in your own car, go to NON-DISNEY roads, and get to them. They weren't going to put another mini-golf next to the public highway, LOL.

Once you know the facts, it's quite clear that it won't affect WDW long term at all. They didn't just say in some meeting, "Hey, let's ruin WDW by selling it off piece by piece and running away with the profits! Who-hoo!". These were calculated sales done and negotiated over many years and planned with great care. They didn't just do it willy-nilly.

Again, if people look at a REAL map of WDW (and not those stylized ones they give you), you would see that the vast majority of land at WDW is undeveloped. They could expand with many more hotels and several more full-sized theme parks and never use up all the space.

So nothing for anyone to get "sad" about, or to get upset about. Just business as usual, in spite of what some may believe they think a dead man they never knew would have objected soley on principle.

NED

 

[CathrynRose]

Well, there you go.

I'm sure Walt would be ecstatic to know this his dream is being sold off in chunks to real estate developers looking to build condos.

Shame on Disney execs.

As you mentioned previously - he bought that land specifically to AVOID having anything surrounding it...like at Dsineyland.

They should be totally ashamed of themselves. Jerks.

 

[seashoreCM]

Are you sure that land resale was not one of the goals of the company when Walt arranged to buy all of that land?

Unlike in Anaheim when other investors saw the surrounding land appreciate in value when Disneyland gained popularity, Disney got to resell the land at the outskirts of Lake Buena Vista and make the profits as WDW gained in popularity.

Or at least buying more than you need at bargain prices and then at least breaking even by selling the excess gives a lot more flexibiility in planning what The World will look like compared with buying too little and not being able to build what you want.

Just think, if Walt had bought up all of Anaheim way back when, The World would be there and it would be the East Coasters like me who would have a more complex journey to it.

Disney hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/disney.htm

 

[boomhauer]

"Uh, you just don't get it.

Who the heck are you to say what a man you never knew who's been dead for forty-plus years would have wanted?"

I'm someone who's been to Disney World 15 times who's been told over and over again how this was Walt's legacy. I'm someone who's seen and heard Walt and others who knew him say several times about his extreme displeasure of the neon jungle that became the outskirts of Disneyland. That property was bought so the same thing would not happen to Disney World that happened to Disneyland.

"Uh, I'd agree you aren't a genius mathematician. Disney did not sell 1/4 of their property, LMAO. They sold a single digit percentage in a series of calculated moves."

Accoding to the original post that I read, they've sold 1/4 of the land. Is it correct? I don't know. This thread is based on the assumption that the article is correct. Therefore, it seems as though your mathematical skills might be a bit off.

"I just think it's hilarious that people have nothing better to do than whine and moan about a few parcels of land that were sold for good reason. But go ahead, continue crying about how this is going to ruin WDW, LOL, if it makes you feel better."

I had a teacher who used to say, 'I'd rather people think I was wrong for standing up for my beliefs, than be a ******* by stepping on others.'

 

[CathrynRose]

Who the heck are you to say what a man you never knew who's been dead for forty-plus years would have wanted?



NED

I think it's pretty obvious what he wanted when he bought acres upon acres upon acres of land TO AVOID what happened in California.

Now, many of us feel, Disney exec's are poo-poo'ing his original idea of having a HUGE buffer around his parks and are selling it off.

 

[NewEnglandDisney]

Boomhauer, Cathryn -

I'm going to leave you guys to your complaint fest. This happened quite some time ago, and you both seem oblivious to the details, and think you speak for dead people.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd see that there is no possibility of WDW becoming a "neon jungle". Absolutely laughable. You both ignore the facts and rant about your ill-concieved notions of how things should be.

Really, it's laughable that you'd both be insulting Disney over something you clearly don't understand. Do some research and you'll see - it was a few tiny parcels of land around the outer edges of property that could not be developed and are not going to contribute to the fall of Disney.

Like I said, both of you would have NEVER BEEN THE WISER if someone hadn't dredged up this topic which, again, happened quite some time ago. You would have never noticed, yet you are in here calling Disney execs jerks and going on about what you think you know about something you clearly don't understand at all.

So go on, keep up the rhetoric and ignore the facts - this will never affect you in any way, shape, or form, but you keep complaining about nothing if it makes you feel better to sit and rant about things you obviously know nothing factually about.

NED

 

[boomhauer]

Boomhauer, Cathryn -

I'm going to leave you guys to your complaint fest. This happened quite some time ago, and you both seem oblivious to the details, and think you speak for dead people.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd see that there is no possibility of WDW becoming a "neon jungle". Absolutely laughable. You both ignore the facts and rant about your ill-concieved notions of how things should be.

Really, it's laughable that you'd both be insulting Disney over something you clearly don't understand. Do some research and you'll see - it was a few tiny parcels of land around the outer edges of property that could not be developed and are not going to contribute to the fall of Disney.

Like I said, both of you would have NEVER BEEN THE WISER if someone hadn't dredged up this topic which, again, happened quite some time ago. You would have never noticed, yet you are in here calling Disney execs jerks and going on about what you think you know about something you clearly don't understand at all.

So go on, keep up the rhetoric and ignore the facts - this will never affect you in any way, shape, or form, but you keep complaining about nothing if it makes you feel better to sit and rant about things you obviously know nothing factually about.

NED

Thank you very much for setting me straight. I was just about to lose my way when you stepped and showed me the light.

And may I say that you are a lovely person with a simply charming personality.

Bye bye then.

 

[btuftee]

Just out of curiosity, I pulled up Google maps and sketched out the WDW property, and all of the visible development on it. Black is the WDW property outline (roughly), red shows developed areas. As you can see, the property is sort of getting crowded... but then again, look at the size of the MK or Epcot, they're actually pretty tiny. A good bulk of the property is taken up with hotels, infrastructure, and golf courses. If WDW really needed more land for a park, one of the golf courses would be the first to go (after undeveloped land of course). I don't foresee any new development on the WDW hotel scene, save for a new DVC resort somewhere.

I'd say that WDW is in no danger of running out of space anytime soon. They could stick ten Magic Kingdoms in there with room to spare!

 

[Mono~rail]

I'd say that WDW is in no danger of running out of space anytime soon. They could stick ten Magic Kingdoms in there with room to spare!

Thanks for that great map, btuftee!

 

[salmoneous]

Walt was quite an interesting guy and there are a number of good (and bad) books out there telling the story of WDW and what Walt was up to. The notion that he bought up a bunch of land in Florida to surround his theme park with a buffer from the tacky clutter that plagued Disneyland is true, but only part of the story. He wanted a buffer, he wanted to be a developer, he wanted to be a real estate speculator and he wanted to build E.P.C.O.T (as opposed to Epcot).

The only significant chuck of original WDW property that has been sold off is Celebration. Note where Celebration is located - way the heck away from the MK on the other side of I4. Walt didn't buy that land to be a buffer for the Magic Kingdom. There's no original dream being destroyed here. In fact, Celebration fits in exactly with Walt's dream of building an E.P.C.O.T.

There's a lot the current Disney corporation has done that deviates from Walt's dream. I don't think this is one of them.

 

[DisneyWorldWisher]

That's horrible. Why would they sell it for land sales? That doesn't sound like something Disney would do.

Walt purchased that much land so he would have plenty of room for Walt Disney World to expand and grow... I don't think (or at least hope) that it isnt true!

Alas, I believe it has grown. I don't believe Walt ever thought one park and 2 hotels could become 4 whole parks, a whole shopping district, and 25 hotels.