• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

News 'Beyond Big Thunder Mountain' Blue Sky concept revealed for Magic Kingdom

Disgruntled Walt

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
You are only thinking of land availability. However, you have to account for the loss of access to maintenance for the Lilly Bell with the expansion north of BTMRR. If they lose that, then you might as well either dock the boat permanently and convert to restaurant(which I believe was one rumor that was floating around), and then potentially convert TSI to some other. So losing the ROA would give full access and more space for whatever they may be adding to do it.
I'm not convinced they're willing to spend the money to fill in the ROA. That's a lot of expensive work just to get to a blank slate, from which they'll then build new stuff.
 

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
I would hate to lose the kinetics of water activity and TSL...They used to have canoes and keelboats on the river too... It was a busy harbor... Now we are just down to Tom Sawyer rafts and the riverboat. They could probably work around the dry dock and conceal it backstage... but I really hope we don't lose those placemaking details that add so much charm to the park.
 

Phicinfan

Well-Known Member
I'm not convinced they're willing to spend the money to fill in the ROA. That's a lot of expensive work just to get to a blank slate, from which they'll then build new stuff.
I don't fully disagree. However, how you "hide" or allow the out exit for Lilly Bell and build and tie in expansion north could be just as challenging or expensive. Who knows.

I will add, even if they fill in ROA(again not saying I am for this) you can maintain TSI as is, just have easier access to it. Or retheme it for some other type of walk around option, and free up more walkway to get to HM and such
 

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
Id hate to lose ROA but it really messes up all the guest flow options on that side of the park
it seems like there are options without destroying the centerpiece waterway of the park, but none of those are inexpensive...funny that with the "blessing Of Size" they never really designed MK for expansion without having to really tear down existing structures and millions in infrastructure....
 

DisneyDodo

Well-Known Member
I would be shocked if they decided to fully fill in RoA. The most extreme scenario I could envision would be something like this:
1712843827448.png


Which would allow for the continued operation and maintenance of the LB, while opening up significantly more land for expansion.
 

donsullivan

Premium Member
I would be shocked if they decided to fully fill in RoA. The most extreme scenario I could envision would be something like this:
View attachment 778598

Which would allow for the continued operation and maintenance of the LB, while opening up significantly more land for expansion.
Anything they consider doing that involves reducing the water storage capacity of RoA will require some sort of an offset to the water storage capacity somewhere else within the water system which includes Seven Seas Lagoon and Bay Lake. That is a requirement of the South Florida Water Management District. RoA is linked via the canal on the West of MK down to Seven Seas Lagoon. It doesn't mean they could not do it, but it would require either Seven Seas Lagoon or Bay Lake to be expanded to match the water storage capacity lost with such a reduction. SFWMD is where you would see the early permit if they are considering anything like that.
 

Coaster Lover

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
I hope villains land includes a large indoor theater venue. I honestly can't remember the last time Disney built a new theater venue at a domestic park and a nice, indoor, effects driven show with a cavalcade of various villains could be really neat if done well (and could be a nice balance to the two new indoor theater shows EU will have at opening). Further needed considering I don't believe Magic Kingdom has a single indoor theatrical experience (that is with live actors and not an AA show).
 

bmr1591

Well-Known Member
I could name at least a handful of good themes for a fifth gate (if one is ever considered) and an entire park devoted to villains is not one of them. Too excessive

A villains land wouldn't be all that bad if they approached it with care

Genuinely would love to hear your ideas.
 

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
it seems like there are options without destroying the centerpiece waterway of the park, but none of those are inexpensive...funny that with the "blessing Of Size" they never really designed MK for expansion without having to really tear down existing structures and millions in infrastructure....
I commented on this at Disneyland Paris and also Shanghai, it looks like they learned this lesson and gave things a bit more space to allow for growth. The biggest issue I see is Haunted Mansion area, if they’re going to try to link the Beyond all the way around it’s going to take some rearranging along the shore there to fit the queue, new path, and still hide the show building.
 

DisneyDodo

Well-Known Member
Anything they consider doing that involves reducing the water storage capacity of RoA will require some sort of an offset to the water storage capacity somewhere else within the water system which includes Seven Seas Lagoon and Bay Lake. That is a requirement of the South Florida Water Management District. RoA is linked via the canal on the West of MK down to Seven Seas Lagoon. It doesn't mean they could not do it, but it would require either Seven Seas Lagoon or Bay Lake to be expanded to match the water storage capacity lost with such a reduction. SFWMD is where you would see the early permit if they are considering anything like that.
Right, which is part of why I think the total removal of the river is so unlikely. The proposal I shared above is what I view as the most extreme scenario. What I think is most likely would be them shortening the river to a lesser extent, just enough to open up the area northwest of HM to allow for better guest flow and a more complete and cohesive Villains (or whatever) land for BBTM Phase 2.

It would still be a pretty expensive change, but they wouldn’t have much trouble offsetting the lost water retention capacity.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom