MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

SamusAranX

SamusAranX

Well-Known Member
JMcMahonEsq said:
They were walk on's because people didn't have any interest in them.

While there are relaxing and magical to some small minority, they weren't to the majority of guests as no one wanted to experience them.

People didn't think about them when they were readily available, they aren't going to miss them when they are not.
Click to expand...
Literally an opinion to claim whole cloth that people didn’t have any interest in them. And not a very accurate one. Walk on doesn’t mean less popular in most cases, it means high capacity and sometimes less popular mixed in
 
HauntedPirate

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
SamusAranX said:
Hence why Disney needs to use its blessing of size and EXPAND not REPLACE
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean they have tons of land at the ready. Much of what they own isn't suitable for development, is reserved for conservation, or would require capital investment (and possibly a massive capital investment) to make usable.

Bob and his henchmen have been poor stewards of the parks since he took over. Staggs and Rasulo really set things down a path which they may not be able to recover from, particularly in light of the IP "preference" and revenue generation required of anything new these days.
 
A

Advisable Joseph

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
That’s not what they told the South Florida Water Management District.
Click to expand...
I think the forum might have misinterpreted the document you allude to.

Based on the new information coming out, I think it was about an embankmant dam holding in water in the lower loop as a new pond, as well as filling in the canal north of the lock, albeit in a rather confusing manner.
From the SFWMD permit:
Exhibit No.2.0E SWM Plans

Last page.

But things are fluid right now, and I could be wrong.

We'll have to see if Orange County's hydrology reports change once again.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Advisable Joseph said:
I think the forum might have misinterpreted the document you allude to.

Based on the new information coming out, I think it was about an embankmant dam holding in water in the lower loop as a new pond, as well as filling in the canal north of the lock, albeit in a rather confusing manner.
From the SFWMD permit:
Exhibit No.2.0E SWM Plans

Last page.

But things are fluid right now, and I could be wrong.

We'll have to see if Orange County's hydrology reports change once again.
Click to expand...
That last sheet shows the entire Rivers of America being filled and no new pond in the area.
 
J

JMcMahonEsq

Well-Known Member
JohnD said:
It just find it interesting that Walt Disney bought more than 27,000 acres because there was no lack of space to do things on his property compared to DLP. Yet DisneyCorp is cannibalizing space rather using extra space which it is more than capable of using. Can you imagine Walt Disney saying, "No one cared about the River, people where [sic] not using it, weren't interested. It makes no sense to tie up areas of the park which could be developed in ways that more people will enjoy." I can't. What's next? Fill up the waste of space that is World Showcase Lagoon?
Click to expand...
There were multiple reasons behind the large land purchase for WDW. Having space to expand was one, but also having space where other people couldn't build was equally important. They did not want outsiders crowding into the WDW area offering competing hotels/food/ect

Second, the overall land purchased is not 1 to 1 relevant for what is available for expansion. Large portions of the land cannot be developed due to restrictions/land conservation requirements. Further other portions of the land are commercially impracticable/undesirable to build on given soil conditions and expenses to develop.

But third, you could have a billion acres, it still makes no sense to spend money on expanding and developing virgin land, having to do all the site work required, infrastructure, ect., when you have unused, or vastly underutilized areas in existing locations, with all the infrastructure build in. It's like saying you should build an expansion on your house to put in a new home office, as opposed to re-purposing the 4th bedroom that no one is using. Sure you could go through all that trouble and expense...but why bother.
 
J

JMcMahonEsq

Well-Known Member
Andrew C said:
Yeah, I don't think some people really get how important it is for the overall experience to have things to do and see that do not require a long wait in a line.
Click to expand...
No, i think people are generally arguing that something isn't important to the overall experience, if the majority of people don't want/ever make the minimal effort to experience them.
 
Jrb1979

Jrb1979

Well-Known Member
JMcMahonEsq said:
No, i think people are generally arguing that something isn't important to the overall experience, if the majority of people don't want/ever make the minimal effort to experience them.
Click to expand...
Sure. Let's get rid of Dumbo, Carousel of Progress, Tea Cups, TIki Room. Get rid of anything majority don't ride. Have parks full of E tickets. Thats what you want then?
 
TrainsOfDisney

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
JMcMahonEsq said:
No one cared about the River boat, people where not using it, weren't interested
Click to expand...
That statement is obviously false. The riverboat has a good daily ridership number.

If you don’t think the park should have a mix of A-E tickets that’s a different argument. Pretty much every theme park and even carnival has a mix of a-e attractions by design.
 
Disstevefan1

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
JMcMahonEsq said:
No, i think people are generally arguing that something isn't important to the overall experience, if the majority of people don't want/ever make the minimal effort to experience them.
Click to expand...
Ahh, my less than quarter in use brain is feeling good...... ;)
DestroyROAgood.jpg
 
J

JMcMahonEsq

Well-Known Member
Disstevefan1 said:
You (and Bob, Josh and Hugh) are right.

There should be no walk on attractions, Walk on attractions is bad for business. All attractions should have full queues and (of course) SELL LLs.

You got me. I use much less than a quarter of my brain on a daily basis.

I am already missing CoP....
Click to expand...
So your argument is that a business should strive to build/keep attractions that are so unpopular that no one wants to experience them in order to what....service the 1-2 people that do?

I mean we are not talking about having attractions where the capacity per hour is so high that a line never builds up. Sure that would be great. But are you seriously trying to say its better to have rides with no one using them, then get rid of them and building something that hopefully the majority of guests will want to experience? I mean seriously explain that business pitch to me.

"We need to keep Liberty Bell up and running, and Tom Sawyers Island in fact we need to spend money to improve/repair them"

"Is spending money on it going to bring in new revenue/customers?"

"Nope, no one is spending more money for this"

"Is it going to increase current guest fan base satisfaction?"

"Nope no one is really using it right now."

"Is it going to help with congestion in the parks?"

"Nope, I mean no one is using it right now anyway, even when there are long lines for other attractions"

"So you want us to take the money we were going to use to create new rides that people want, and instead use it on rides/areas that no one is using?"

"Oh no, we think we should do both, and spend the money in both areas"
 
Jrb1979

Jrb1979

Well-Known Member
JMcMahonEsq said:
So your argument is that a business should strive to build/keep attractions that are so unpopular that no one wants to experience them in order to what....service the 1-2 people that do?

I mean we are not talking about having attractions where the capacity per hour is so high that a line never builds up. Sure that would be great. But are you seriously trying to say its better to have rides with no one using them, then get rid of them and building something that hopefully the majority of guests will want to experience? I mean seriously explain that business pitch to me.

"We need to keep Liberty Bell up and running, and Tom Sawyers Island in fact we need to spend money to improve/repair them"

"Is spending money on it going to bring in new revenue/customers?"

"Nope, no one is spending more money for this"

"Is it going to increase current guest fan base satisfaction?"

"Nope no one is really using it right now."

"Is it going to help with congestion in the parks?"

"Nope, I mean no one is using it right now anyway, even when there are long lines for other attractions"

"So you want us to take the money we were going to use to create new rides that people want, and instead use it on rides/areas that no one is using?"

"Oh no, we think we should do both, and spend the money in both areas"
Click to expand...
Parks need both, ones that popular with long waits and ones that are fillers.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom