With so many DVCers, do we need another park?

[tjkraz]

The problem now is the parks are overcrowed even in the so called slow times. This makes for problems. People with small children are waiting longer and kids are hard to keep happy even when things go better. many of these families will not have a magical time and decide to go elsewhere(beach, islands,etc.). My kids are not that young, but when you have a hard time moving around, you tend to want to rethink your vacation plans. I have been at all different times of the year and this happens in all of them.

Our children are currently 5 and 3. We've visited WDW 7 times since our oldest was born and have yet to experience any crowding that would discourage us from visiting. Our trips have fallen in the months of January, February, March, May, September and December. As previously stated, we've never waited more than 30 minutes for a single attraction. With proper use of FastPass and an informed approach to the attractions (i.e., don't try to hit Dumbo or Tomorrowland Speedway mid-afternoon), there's just no reason to wait.

Still, I have no doubt that people leave WDW very disillusioned. Reasons probably include too busy, too expensive, not enough slow rides, not enough fast rides, and so on. Still, Disney isn't going to spend BILLIONS of dollars to address each of these complaints.

Disney is adding more DVC members in new resorts(SSR alone at capacity or close will affect park capacity because it adds more people from a new resort that weren't there before)...

Let's keep things in perspective here. Saratoga Springs will have a little over 800 rooms when complete...most of them Two Bedroom villas. If we assume that all of the rooms are occupied and all at maximum capacity, SSR will be home to about 6600 Disney guests. Spread over the 4 theme parks, that's an average of 1650 additional guests per park. Even on a slow day that's about 5% of the guests in a park at any given time.

And that's a high estimate. The resort will not be consistently at 100% occpancy...the rooms will not be consistently at 100% occupancy...all of the SSR residents will not visit one of the four theme parks every day, etc. You also seem to be making the assumption that SSR guests are all new business (guests who are ONLY at WDW because of DVC/SSR), which is far from the truth. If not for DVC, many of these people would still be at the parks--they would just be staying elsewhere.

If it is a new gate, then that will ease the overcrowded current parks, as long as it is a must see destination, and will ultimately bring more people...

Sounds good in theory...and that's the logic they used to justify building DAK. The problem is it didn't pan out. People didn't use DAK as impetus for planning a trip to WDW or for extending a planned trip--instead they just cut a half-day out of their Magic Kingdom or MGM touring and can easily hit everything of interest at DAK.

I'd be willing to bet you get equal or better response by spending millions on a single can't-miss attraction (Everest, Soarin) as you do spending billions on an underwhelming theme park.

Besides, Disney already has an even bigger problem on its hands in the form of California Adventure. According to the numbers published in Amusement Business, WDW's MK had average daily attendance of 44,000 per day in 2005. Epcot's average was 27,000. DCA's average was less than 16,000 per day--and that's with it sitting right next to DL, the second most visited park in the US (39k per day.) That kinda shoots a hole in theory that people are really worried about overcrowding, eh?

IMO, attraction quality is what draws people to WDW and what will keep them coming back. And the best way to deliver quality is to use capital improvement budgets wisely on new attractions--not parking lots, sewer lines, landscaping and all of the other expenses that would accompany a 5th gate.

 

[BeccaG]

Just to throw some fuel on the rumor fire!! I read somewhere, and to be honest I don't remember where, but there was a rumor that they WERE planning another theme park and it was going to be a thrill based Villan Theme Park. AKV was part of the report, so maybe, just maybe, it will be true!

 

[Olaf]

Back in 1993 Disney announced the plans to build a new theme park in Haymarket,VA. A lot of planning and coordination with the state government had taken place and it really looked like a go, but then some historical groups fought and after a while Disney had such a bad taste in their mouth that they withdrew their plans less than a year later.

You should see what's there now? Poor planning has resulted in a huge number of McMansions, with inadequate roads, highways, and schools. Really stupid. The people screaming the loudest back then didn't even live in the county. I think Disney could have done it right.

 

[Slakk]

Have to agree too.

Back in 1993 Disney announced the plans to build a new theme park in Haymarket,VA. A lot of planning and coordination with the state government had taken place and it really looked like a go, but then some historical groups fought and after a while Disney had such a bad taste in their mouth that they withdrew their plans less than a year later.

I don't think the bad taste has left for them. Expansion is what will happen for a good while longer.

That had to be the DUMBEST move ever made by Disney execs...how anyone could think building a theme park over a battlefield where thousands of Americans died would be a good thing? I for one am so happy that it went away.

 

[kdzgon]

...I'm not sure that overall attendance has even returned to pre-9/11 levels, so I doubt overcrowding is viewed as an issue at this point.

According to my Disney guide, 2006 attendance and reservations have returned to pre-9/11 numbers for the first time.

Sept 2006 was my first return to WDW since Sept 1988 (I know, I know...but "life issues" intervened). We were also there in Dec '85 and Nov 86 (Thanksgiving). I remember thinking how even the "off" season was SO crowded (ithey were running special pricing for Fl residents in Sept), I wasn't sure we'd be returning often, especially at the ticket prices. Even with the free dining offer, Sept '06 was nothing like '88 - it was much less crowded. Now, obviously the add'l parks makes all the difference, but my point is people kept coming, and Disney modified as necessary.

As to the increase from DVC, I agree these are mainly guests that would be attending anyway, but I would argue that they might attend more often as DVC owners. I also agree that although they are on site at WDW, they (as a group) spend less vacation hours at the parks themselves; their style of visiting is different, and often less hurried.

My take on the reason for AK is a little different. While I'd agree perhaps Disney did factor in the possibility of longer trips, I think the low price to add days 8,9 & 10 is a greater incentive for this than AK alone. I do believe that the addition of AK DOES encourage some people to extend their trip a bit, but I think AK was designed to draw a different kind of guest, giving that added incentive for some (especially "new" visitors) that might perceive WDW as simply an "amusement park". Plus it can add a bit of "justification" to taking kids out of school, and it increases revenues incrementally, just in added character meals, pins, collectibles, etc.

 

[Olaf]

That had to be the DUMBEST move ever made by Disney execs...how anyone could think building a theme park over a battlefield where thousands of Americans died would be a good thing? I for one am so happy that it went away.

Right. Far better for a bunch of huge houses to be built, offering little in the way of a commercial tax base for the county. And with the county having to pay for the roads and schools, which are woefully inadequate already.

Here you can buy a home there now. This is just one of many developers who are working on the site. Prince William County has approved the building of over 2,000 homes on the site.

http://www.realtycouncil.com/haymarket.shtml

As far as DVC members go? We're just a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.

 

[kdzgon]

That had to be the DUMBEST move ever made by Disney execs...how anyone could think building a theme park over a battlefield where thousands of Americans died would be a good thing? I for one am so happy that it went away.

I don't really understand this style of thinking. War is never pretty, but better things should come of it than leaving entire areas as "shrines". I have three Ds and three SILs (plus 2 former SILs) either active duty or just finished active duty service (2&2 USN, 1&1 USMC). While neither they nor we would want to see them lose their lives, most of them were in situations (more than once) where the likelihood was certainly there. I am POSITIVE none would want to be placed "center stage" in this way should they have given their lives to our country, though.

While a theme park is not for everyone, there is no question if done well (as Disney does) it brings revenues and employment to an area. A revitalized area is a much better tribute to those that gave all than vacant land or housing developments, IMO.

 

[salmoneous]

If Disney isn't careful, it'll be just like Yogi said:

Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

That had to be the DUMBEST move ever made by Disney execs...how anyone could think building a theme park over a battlefield where thousands of Americans died would be a good thing? I for one am so happy that it went away.

You are mistaken about the location of the site for Disney's America. The Walt Disney Company did not propose "a theme park over a battlefield where thousands of Americans died."

Disney's America in Haymarket, Virginia, would have been located 3.5 miles from the Manassas National Battlefield Park. The Disney site did not have historic significance, and no knowledgeable person claimed that it did. The concern was not that Disney was actually planning to build on a battlefield or other historic site, but that Disney's project would lead to urban sprawl and more traffic in the area.

A coalition of local landed gentry and national historians opposed Disney's America. When Disney had enough of the bad publicity, Disney gave up on the site.

I understand that urban sprawl and more traffic came to the area anyway.

For a map, see http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mana/map3.jpg

 

[Mtnman44]

Sometimes it just blows me away the sheer genius of the Walt Disney Company. They are marketing masters. Can anyone disagree? All of us nuts pay large sums of money to travel there, pay top tier prices for lodging and very expensive admissions prices all for the privilege of what? To enter and shop of course! All of the park locations are nothing retail, retail, retail sprinkled in amongst the rides and scenery. Ha. Ha. genius.

I have to admidt. The addition of Animal Kingdom did make me extend my trip. I try to allow for one to two days per park, including universal, to my trips. With one less park I would most likely subract a day or two. However, the marketing masterminds as Disney came out with this new ticket structure that almost forces me to buy a 10 day ticket! I'm mean come on, it only $30 more or something for the extra days! genius!

 

[Olaf]

I understand that urban sprawl and more traffic came to the area anyway.

For a map, see http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mana/map3.jpg

I'll say. You should see I-66 at rush hour. Makes I-95, through the mixing bowl, look like a piece of cake.