MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[donaldtoo]

Yea, I’m not even gonna’ respond to anything beyond this post, for now.
But, I guess time will tell how this all fleshes out.
That’s also the part that worries me the most, as Disney has shown us, many times in the past, that things didn’t always flesh out very well, these days.
Call me a curmudgeon, as I relish it…!!!

 

[Stripes]

Nothing says conviction like a false choice.

Fine. So you’re the master planner now. The park wants to build 4 new attractions as well as dining and shops. You’re told you need to maintain as much future flexibility as possible. What would you do?

What are the water management issues with the water management system?

My point was that shrinking the river in order to develop the northwest corner of the park presents more significant water management challenges than those encountered in Anaheim. Am I wrong?

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Yea, I’m not even gonna’ respond to anything beyond this post, for now.
But, I guess time will tell how this all fleshes out.
That’s also the part that worries me the most, as Disney has shown us, many times in the past, that things didn’t always flesh out very well, these days.
Call me a curmudgeon, as I relish it…!!!

I am less against this change than others - but it is a huge risk and they do need to "nail it" .... If they wind up cutting the budget and the area is poorly done that will be a huge black eye and will really sour me. I think the end result *can* be great but huge margin for error and I certainly understand people not having confidence in it

 

[Grantwil93]

So your position is that they should’ve refurbished the Rivers of America and the Liberty Belle? And expanded Beyond Frontierland and create a massive in-park dead end?

It's the position of many who don't really think about the "why"

You can't keep enough of the river to be worth it in almost an idea i can come up with, the boat has no clearance to move and you have to build infrastructure for the river that doesn't exist.

They didn't build the river with future expansion in that spot or behind it in mind

Arguably, and preferably for me, you don't change it.

But if they want to do anything back there, it almost HAS to go. That's the reality of this

Plus, as somone who works there, park operations wants it gone because it's a massive dead end as it sits now with the entire crowd in the front of the park at night.
Let alone trying to put 2 huge expansions behind it with essentially 1 20ft wide path to get in AND out(next to big thunder)

 

[Ayla]

The superior Rivers of America will still exist at Disneyland. The Magic Kingdom version doesn’t have a dry dock, has far more significant water management issues, etc.

There are some very talented and impressive people working on this project. I think most of the people hating on this project will be surprised by the end result.

I don't think we will be.

 

[Streetway Again]

I don't think we will be.

If you are so convinced you will hate it beforehand, it will become a self fulfilling prophecy that you will dislike it, no matter the quality that may or may not happen. As much as i would’ve wanted the river to stay, i advise everyone to have an open mind about this.
I think it will be surprisingly god, but I will gladly eat my words if im wrong.

 

[danlb_2000]

So your position is that they should’ve refurbished the Rivers of America and the Liberty Belle? And expanded Beyond Frontierland and create a massive in-park dead end?

I’ve been watching people stroll Frontierland. Hardly anybody pays the river any mind.

Disney parks are special because of 100's of details that people don't consciously notice but combine to make the experience what it is.

 

[Purduevian]

Fine. So you’re the master planner now. The park wants to build 4 new attractions as well as dining and shops. You’re told you need to maintain as much future flexibility as possible. What would you do?

My point was that shrinking the river in order to develop the northwest corner of the park presents more significant water management challenges than those encountered in Anaheim. Am I wrong?

I mean if we really want to go down the imagineering route and blowing a budget... I would demo the Pinocchio bathrooms and make a bridge (that guests wouldn't realize is a bridge) over the Utilidoors entrance and swoop behind small world to meet up with Villain's land. For fireworks code make it indoors like knockturn ally.

View attachment 844172

They could save the river and do it... they decided not to

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

It’s a great idea if you’re a master planner looking at the park, its surroundings, and the needs of future guests.

That’s very debatable.

But if they want to do anything back there, it almost HAS to go. That's the reality of this

Not really. There are solutions to any problem.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Fine. So you’re the master planner now. The park wants to build 4 new attractions as well as dining and shops.

with a similar plan, budget, and IP’s?

Keep the lower portion of the River and island - keep the riverboat.

Villians goes the same place.

Cars attractions replace speedway.

 

[Stripes]

Disney parks are special because of 100's of details that people don't consciously notice but combine to make the experience what it is.

But if the effect the river has is operating at a subconscious level, surely its replacement could do the same?

They could save the river and do it... they decided not to

I’m sure they could’ve but it wouldn’t have been the best decision for the park’s long-term needs.

 

[Grantwil93]

That’s very debatable.

Not really. There are solutions to any problem.

What's the solution? How much more or less money is it? How will this impact park iperations when the expansions open? How many people actually want us to keep it? Can we even save it at all if we want to build back there?

Its easy to say they can do it. They probably can with enough time and money. But just saying it can be done like it's easy, isn't an argument in good faith

 

[Purduevian]

But if the effect the river has is operating at a subconscious level, surely its replacement could do the same?

I’m sure they could’ve but it wouldn’t have been the best decision for the park’s long-term needs.

What long term needs? There is still plenty of space to expand into... just off the top of my head I can think of 6 more expansion plots that don't need to move the river (on top of all of the land north of the river/BTM/HM

 

[Jrb1979]

But if the effect the river has is operating at a subconscious level, surely its replacement could do the same?

I’m sure they could’ve but it wouldn’t have been the best decision for the park’s long-term needs.

It's more than that. The lands in MK were the focal point with the IP blended into it. iP was less in your face like it is now with every attraction they add.

 

[Stripes]

What long term needs? There is still plenty of space to expand into... just off the top of my head I can think of 6 more expansion plots that don't need to move the river (on top of all of the land north of the river/BTM/HM

Why take away one of those expansions plots when there’s a costly, underutilized plot of land that, after its redevelopment, unlocks even more expansion opportunities? For example, Magic Kingdom’s first resort hotel with direct access to the park.

 

[Purduevian]

Why take away one of those expansions plots when there’s a costly, underutilized plot of land that, after its redevelopment, unlocks even more expansion opportunities? For example, Magic Kingdom’s first resort hotel with direct access to the park.

Why take away a guest facing area when there are many Unutilized pots of land, and after its development doesn't take away from any other current opportunities that currently exist?

EDIT: I get that the answer is money... better for investors, worse for guests

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

They can literally build whatever they want, wherever they want. They turned swampland into theme parks and resorts. They can expand the park however they want to. But they're choosing to do it this way instead.

 

[mickEblu]

Why take away one of those expansions plots when there’s a costly, underutilized plot of land that, after its redevelopment, unlocks even more expansion opportunities? For example, Magic Kingdom’s first resort hotel with direct access to the park.

Because it’s an integral part of their most popular park at their flagship resort that provides beautiful ambiance that has resonated with guests for 50+ years. Some things you don’t mess with. Disney could really use some bonafide Wins with the last few years they’ve had. This is not it.

 

[Ayla]

If you are so convinced you will hate it beforehand, it will become a self fulfilling prophecy that you will dislike it, no matter the quality that may or may not happen. As much as i would’ve wanted the river to stay, i advise everyone to have an open mind about this.
I think it will be surprisingly god, but I will gladly eat my words if im wrong.

Past experience tells me all I need to know.

 

[Streetway Again]

People here really have trouble with things that aren’t black and white good or bad, do they?

This is a grey area decision in its merit. It is a very heavy decision, that I’m sure was not made lightly. I do think that both sides of this argument bring very good and valid points to the table for the argument for or against the rivers at MK. At the end of the day, this whole argument comes down to personal preference as guests. Does I’m not sure if we will ever truly know if this was the right or the wrong decision until it opens, and even then I’m not sure if we will ever know for sure without a shadow of a doubt. I would rather everyone have greater respect for our opinions, and not just continually call eachother wrong.

I admit, cars and the river going wouldn’t be my first choice, and I imagine it was kidna what executives wanted. But do I kinda get why it was made? Yeah. That’s me though. I do agree that there is something to be lost with the rivers, but that doesn’t mean something won’t be gained as well! Give the imagineers a chance. But I understand those who would not, and don’t see as I do. For me, I’m choosing to have an open mind for this because of all those reasons, and for the fact that I would rather not spend the next 5 years of my fandom being angry.