WDW Wants to develop more wetlands than planned - Orlando Sentinel Article

[ParrotBill]

Here is the article:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...ture-development-wetlands-20151013-story.html

It is saying that Disney had an agreement to restore land in the Mira Lago property they acquired in exchange for permission to develop 350 acres of wetlands in WDW over the next 30 years. Now they are asking permission to develop 575 acres of wetlands. (nearly 1 square mile out of the 45 square miles in WDW!) Disney said "attendance growth and rising demand are driving projections." The largest amount are in an area surrounding the Magic Kingdom. Disney has agreement to develop 116 acres and wants to add 169 acres to that. A person is quoted about the development plans: "It runs the entire list — parking lots, expansion of … the theme-park attractions themselves, service areas," he said.

And wetlands is only a portion of the development plan. The article says Disney will try to develop as much as possible outside of wetlands.

Here is a link to Reedy Creek's land use plan through 2020, so only the next 5 years are really shown here.
http://rcid.org/About/2020CompPlan.aspx
Open the document titled "Future Land Use Element Policies Data Analysis"or this link

http://rcid.org/Portals/0/Documents...e_Land_Use_Element_Policies-Data-Analysis.pdf

The report indicates that Conservation Lands include mostly wetlands. It makes sense that wetlands would be classified under Conservation Lands. Scroll down to see some maps of this. Now look at conservation lands near the Magic Kingdom. Not very many, right? You have to look far east and far south to find the conservation lands.

I am surprised and a bit put off that Disney wants to destroy nearly a square mile of wetlands, but at the same time I am amazed that Disney is starting to plan this much growth.

Discuss... so what is Disney dreaming up that could develop a couple square miles?

 

[rteetz]

Long term plan for a possible 5th gate?

 

[ParrotBill]

Another document at the RCID site, "Transportation Element Policies..." tells a lot more of the growth projection story. It talks to the car and transportation growth expectations and there is a map on page 3B-31 which shows potential future hotel and other developments.... enjoy

 

[ParrotBill]

Long term plan for a possible 5th gate?

Maybe. But definitely hotels and more commercial uses. The article and the RCID documents talk about how many services are offered to visitors. And it says future developments will be "more dense" than before to squeeze more onto less land.

On the map I just posted, I see an expansion north side of Animal Kingdom, and a development space big enough for a 5th park on the east side of World Drive opposite where the Speedway is today.

 

[rteetz]

Maybe. But definitely hotels and more commercial uses. The article and the RCID documents talk about how many services are offered to visitors. And it says future developments will be "more dense" than before to squeeze more onto less land.

On the map I just posted, I see an expansion north side of Animal Kingdom, and a development space big enough for a 5th park on the east side of World Drive opposite where the Speedway is today.

More hotels and commercial things for the eventual build of a 5th gate maybe.

Disney has been talking a lot lately about how they are growing rapidly. It will be interesting to see what comes from this.

 

[OldsDr]

I can't imagine, maybe just a ploy to make the land more valuable de-annex and sell off.

I think any development and improvement money should be spent on the existing theme parks and infrastructure. They have enough underutilized space there for tremendous growth.

But then again I can't read the articles from this computer and I posted anyway.

 

[Eoghann]

More hotels and commercial things for the eventual build of a 5th gate maybe.

Disney has been talking a lot lately about how they are growing rapidly. It will be interesting to see what comes from this.

They might be projecting out 20 years or something I guess. Doesn't hurt to have the agreement in place.

But they're not building a 5th gate any time soon. They haven't properly built up their 3 other parks for a start and until they do that a 5th gate really doesn't help them that much.

 

[ParrotBill]

Their attendance growth record and projections since the recession are driving this. They have noticed people want to spend time doing more than parks which has driven a lot of the golf course and downtown disney changes. When you look at the proposed development areas it's clear they will "add on" to many existing areas. But there are a couple of standout separate areas for development and one is quite large.

Not a ploy to sell off land - these are parcels deep inside the core WDW space. And they've added on to the core lands with the west side land purchase. What is made clear in the article is that WDW bought additional lands and promised to do conservation restoration in exchange for the right to do further development within their core parcel. Present conservation promises are blocking them from doing what is needed to accommodate the project growth in visitors.

This is a development plan for the next 30 years... although the RCID plan I found was intended through 2020, just 5 years from now... clearly to be extended soon when they get their permission and can adjust it.

 

[ParrotBill]

They haven't properly built up their 3 other parks for a start and until they do that a 5th gate really doesn't help them that much.

I am curious what you mean by this. AK and DS has some clear plans that will complete in the next 1-3 years. AK expansion can be seen in their plan. DS is kind of landlocked from further expansion. EPCOT is built out to its limits; room for a few more to fill in/replace only. MK is pretty much done expanding I would think.

If 25% more people are showing up, they have to figure out what do with their cars, where they will overnight,and how to get them around. And how to feed them, provide water, sewer, electricity, phone and Internet to them. Do you try to squeeze them in to existing attractions, with all that requires, or start some new ones if you have the capital and investment money to do that (which further drives visitor uptick.) I believe they have the money.

 

[rteetz]

They might be projecting out 20 years or something I guess. Doesn't hurt to have the agreement in place.

But they're not building a 5th gate any time soon. They haven't properly built up their 3 other parks for a start and until they do that a 5th gate really doesn't help them that much.

Yes I believe this is part of their 20 year plan, just in case they go that route.

 

[rteetz]

I am curious what you mean by this. AK and DS has some clear plans that will complete in the next 1-3 years. AK expansion can be seen in their plan. DS is kind of landlocked from further expansion. EPCOT is built out to its limits; room for a few more to fill in/replace only. MK is pretty much done expanding I would think.

If 25% more people are showing up, they have to figure out what do with their cars, where they will overnight,and how to get them around. And how to feed them, provide water, sewer, electricity, phone and Internet to them. Do you try to squeeze them in to existing attractions, with all that requires, or start some new ones if you have the capital and investment money to do that (which further drives visitor uptick.) I believe they have the money.

AK is definitely being built up well as it should've originally been.

DHS has room for expansion across the street, parking lots, and it's evident that they are doing this with the construction plans in place.

Disney springs has a small amount of space in west side that they could potentially use if they wanted.

Epcot doesn't need to expand it just needs to better utilize what's already inside.

Those cars are going in all of the new parking improvements planned. Disney Springs just got one parking garage with another currently being built. DHS is very likely getting two large parking garages. MK just demolished the speedway for parking expansions.

 

[ParrotBill]

Ah ok just wondering if you saw much more than I did recently. Thanks. Even with the Disney Springs changes they are in need of more to spread that demand out, which I think will happen with some of these development plans. I do see limits in what they can sustain for park attendance growth. Crowd levels are reaching "high" more often... and now we see tickets design to incent you not to visit during busy times. They could improve things by really focusing their park changes to include more high demand attractions and higher capacity/loaders. I approve of the expansions to Soarin' and Toy Story Mania for example. I hope that the new things coming in DS and AK are high capacity "E" ticket attractions. I was disappointed that the MK expansion was ALL low capacity rides/attractions. Not one high capacity attraction!

 

[LeeAndRobin]

I am surprised and a bit put off that Disney wants to destroy nearly a square mile of wetlands, but at the same time I am amazed that Disney is starting to plan this much growth.

This land was purchased by WDW before there was any such thing as "wetland preservation" laws, and I seriously doubt the original plans for the land included anything to do with "wetlands preservation". My opinion, which many won't agree with, is that Disney should be free to do with their land as they please. It's a bit late to start wanting them to "preserve the wetlands".

That said, Disney has done way more than most companies would have done towards wetlands preservation.

 

[rteetz]

Ah ok just wondering if you saw much more than I did recently. Thanks. Even with the Disney Springs changes they are in need of more to spread that demand out, which I think will happen with some of these development plans. I do see limits in what they can sustain for park attendance growth. Crowd levels are reaching "high" more often... and now we see tickets design to incent you not to visit during busy times. They could improve things by really focusing their park changes to include more high demand attractions and higher capacity/loaders. I approve of the expansions to Soarin' and Toy Story Mania for example. I hope that the new things coming in DS and AK are high capacity "E" ticket attractions. I was disappointed that the MK expansion was ALL low capacity rides/attractions. Not one high capacity attraction!

DHS will have two e ticket Star Wars attractions
AK will have at least one the jury is still out on the second avatar attraction

 

[Spacedog1975]

As a Disney geek, I'd be thrilled to have a 5th gate. As someone who wants foot traffic to alleviate, I would be thrilled to have a fifth gate. For the life of me, I can't think of something they have now that doesn't slot into the existing gates.

 

[DDLand]

This land was purchased by WDW before there was any such thing as "wetland preservation" laws, and I seriously doubt the original plans for the land included anything to do with "wetlands preservation". My opinion, which many won't agree with, is that Disney should be free to do with their land as they please. It's a bit late to start wanting them to "preserve the wetlands".

That said, Disney has done way more than most companies would have done towards wetlands preservation.

From WDW's inception, they've been committed to preserving at least 1/3 of all RCID lands for conservation to offset their development. They're not just getting started, because they've been doing this since the 1970's. I believe this was one of the legal requirements of getting WDW off the ground. For every acre of conservation land used, they have to offset it by 2 or 3 acres (the exact number escapes me) being set apart as habitat preservation either in the RCID or outside. Hence the Mara Lago development.

While I generally agree that being more lenient with land development; WDW is a special case. It sits in area very prone to flooding, and that feeds into the Florida Everglades. The importance of preserving land in and around WDW is critical to native ecosystems, but also to infrastructure in and around WDW. If they just paved over everything, the water would have no place to go but out over all the area. Flooding would become a commonplace occurrence. Preserving wetlands is as much about helping the environment as it is about protecting WDW and the local economy.

 

[Eoghann]

DHS will have two e ticket Star Wars attractions
AK will have at least one the jury is still out on the second avatar attraction

To my mind capacity of the rides is a bigger issue. I know everyone wants the E-tickets but they tend to attract additional guests. You need to have ride capacity for those guests, either by making the E-tickets people eating machines or having B & C ticket rides that can keep people occupied.

 

[Mimsy Borogove]

First off, the Slantinel website is terrible. I had a hard time reading the article as it was jumping all around, so take this with a grain of salt. Overall, Disney is proposing this at a very convenient time when our illustrious governor has pretty much gutted FDEP and the Water Management Districts. I fully expect that the SFWMD board will vote in favor of removing the conservation easements in place (unless they were written particularly well, most are not ironclad even though they were intended to be conservation in perpetuity) on the wetlands proposed for development. That being said, a couple points: when WDW was first developed in the 1970s, there were few, if any environmental regulations protecting wetlands and a crazy high amount of wetlands were filled in/destroyed all over the state. The state regulatory program that protects wetlands came into existence in 1984 and over time has become some of the strongest wetland protection rules in the country. At the federal level, the Corps of Engineers will review, and in recent years the Corps has been sued over lack of protection of wetlands (Rapanos case), so IMHO they have become more stringent in reviewing projects. However, this is Disney, and it would be naive to assume that any Disney plans would be subject to the same review process as just anybody else. I think it's great that they are planning to restore 3,000 acres that happen to be located (as far as I can tell) in/adjacent to the Kissimmee River Basin, which is incredibly important preservation as all water flows south to the Everglades (as someone else mentioned) and the Kissimmee River recently (within the last 10-15 years) has had a major restoration projects in place that restoration would tie very nicely into. That (Mira Lago restoration) is valuable mitigation, and based upon what I've seen with my own eyes on property, they also have many smaller wetland areas scattered throughout the developed areas.

I'm not saying rah-rah, ain't it all grand from an environmental standpoint, but the reality is that it's a smart move right now to submit a 20 or 30-year plan during the current political climate when it's more apt to be pushed through with minimal pushback and then they can develop as necessary down the line.

 

[rteetz]

To my mind capacity of the rides is a bigger issue. I know everyone wants the E-tickets but they tend to attract additional guests. You need to have ride capacity for those guests, either by making the E-tickets people eating machines or having B & C ticket rides that can keep people occupied.

With DHS you'll get that mix of both. Two major E tickets in Star Wars and the family attractions to keep people occupied in toy story. Then of course whatever comes with phase 3.

 

[DanBoris]

From WDW's inception, they've been committed to preserving at least 1/3 of all RCID lands for conservation to offset their development. They're not just getting started, because they've been doing this since the 1970's. I believe this was one of the legal requirements of getting WDW off the ground. For every acre of conservation land used, they have to offset it by 2 or 3 acres (the exact number escapes me) being set apart as habitat preservation either in the RCID or outside. Hence the Mara Lago development.

While I generally agree that being more lenient with land development; WDW is a special case. It sits in area very prone to flooding, and that feeds into the Florida Everglades. The importance of preserving land in and around WDW is critical to native ecosystems, but also to infrastructure in and around WDW. If they just paved over everything, the water would have no place to go but out over all the area. Flooding would become a commonplace occurrence. Preserving wetlands is as much about helping the environment as it is about protecting WDW and the local economy.

Yep, and this is why anything that changes how storm water is handled on WDW property has to go through a permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. This is definitely not a "rubber stamp" process since it's no unusual for the SFWMD to ask for changes to permits or more supporting information. The permit we are talking about here was actually first submitted back in June of 2014 and has been going back and forth between SFWMD and Disney since then.