MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[Advisable Joseph]

That’s not what they told the South Florida Water Management District.

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]

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.

That last sheet shows the entire Rivers of America being filled and no new pond in the area.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

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?

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.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

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.

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]

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.

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]

No one cared about the River boat, people where not using it, weren't interested

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.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I’ll also mention the riverboat is one of the most accessible attractions at WDW - everyone can ride it with no additional wait, no transfers, etc. - all ages and abilities can experience the attraction together.

Even many theatre shows the family has to split up with some being seated near the ADA spots and others seated elsewhere.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Know what else can help increase ridership? Actually being open. Today, the Liberty Belle is only open for 62% of the standard operating day and 52% of the total operating day.

 

[Raineman]

Actually, Disney is proving that only one thing, and one thing only is, indeed, sacred…

We shouldn't have to worry about hearing cars racing from Haunted Mansion or Liberty Square when this project is done-the loud sounds of "cha-ching!" coming from the Cars Land LL will drown everything else out.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

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....

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]

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"

Parks need both, ones that popular with long waits and ones that are fillers.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Hence why Disney needs to use its blessing of size and EXPAND not REPLACE

With Villains and Cars, both are happening at the same time. More acreage that's currently not part of the park is being used within the park.

Same with TRON.

Same with Monsters Coaster.

Same with Guardians and Ratatouille.

Same with SWL and TSL.

Same with Encanto.

But there's also a limit to expanding: A giant swamp. Some of which is designated as preserved wetlands, which, if Disney wanted to build on would require purchasing acreage many times bigger elsewhere to designate as preserved wetlands (which is what Disney did for the DHS expansion).

And even where they can readily build, it's still a swamp that needs drainage and designation of nearby retention/detention ponds.

The blessing of size is being used up. This is why all new hotels/DVC are towers and not sprawling compounds like the Value or Moderate resorts.

They do have some buildable land, but not readily connected to existing parks. This is why the Cars/Villain lands require water management permits just for a laydown yard.

 

[MrPromey]

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

Yes, Spaceship Earth, as it exists today was at one time a walk-on for the majority of hours Epcot was open and by that I mean you literally walked up the ramp and straight onto the turntable. They changed nothing in the attraction itself to get us to the common standby lines we now have.

If we're to go by it's previous status as a walk-on, what changed that has made it now in demand?

Even talking about "interest", it's important to remember that it isn't some sort of "it factor" an attraction does or doesn't have or something that exists in guests heads' completely out of DIsney's control.

 

[Disstevefan1]

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"

I already conceded you, Bob, Josh and Hugh was correct. Business is business.

I am really going to miss CoP, HoP...... Do you think the Peoplemover will be going away? I will really miss Peoplemover.

Could you please talk to the folks in charge of Disney's movie business.

They need your pure business logic.

 

[MisterPenguin]

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

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

I get it!!

 

[mattpeto]

Not sure the reason for the hyperbole and sarcasm?

It’s not a stretch to say that if Disney is willing to remove an integral, themed area of the park that makes it cohesive, at the altar of LL revenue, then the moment any other classic attraction doesn’t bring enough ancillary revenue, it’s in danger.

Personally I think CoP will be next. Despite the fact Stitch is STILL sitting empty across the avenue.

It's the Doom and Gloom around here. They aren't taking down the castle or Pirates or etc.

Yeah, it is not going to work out like that. If anything, it will drive more people to MK. Lines overall with be just as long (if not more) and there will be one or two less places to escape the crowds/lines and just enjoy MK.

Why do you think Disney is doubling down on putting more in MK, when AK, DHS and Epcot could use more rides?

No matter what Disney does (Pandora, Galaxy's Edge, Toy Story Land) - people still end up using their 5th park at Magic Kingdom.

Adding more attractions have always been the answer. Net new is more ideal (like Villains Land), but in this case the Cars attraction, if close to RSR in terms of quality has an opportunity to be a huge capacity eater.

 

[Jrb1979]

It's the Doom and Gloom around here. They aren't taking down the castle or Pirates or etc.


Why do you think Disney is doubling down on putting more in MK, when AK, DHS and Epcot could use more rides?

No matter what Disney does (Pandora, Galaxy's Edge, Toy Story Land) - people still end up using their 5th park at Magic Kingdom.

Adding more attractions have always been the answer. Net new is more ideal (like Villains Land), but in this case the Cars attraction, if close to RSR in terms of quality has an opportunity to be a huge capacity eater.

Most aren't against adding new attractions to MK or any park for that matter. It's always been about the theme of the park and keeping it intact. They have been slowly moving away from that. WDW is basically becoming a mish Mash of IP with most not fitting the theme of the park.

 

[Andrew C]

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.

Hey, if people are interested in waiting in lines all day, if they think that is a good theme park experience, and if Disney wants to give them that...who am I to tell them otherwise? But that type of experience just isn't for me.

 

[Jrb1979]

Hey, if people are interested in waiting in lines all day, if they think that is a good theme park experience, and if Disney wants to give them that...who am I to tell them otherwise. But that type of experience just isn't for me.

I can see where that thought process comes from. It goes back to FP+. Most guests would book their 3 top attractions for each day and maybe do another couple of attractions with small waits. That was their day.

 

[DisneyRoy]

Most aren't against adding new attractions to MK or any park for that matter. It's always been about the theme of the park and keeping it intact. They have been slowly moving away from that. WDW is basically becoming a mish Mash of IP with most not fitting the theme of the park.

And obviously us "olds" have an issue with that. But kids nowadays identify to that better and prefer it. My 16 yo daughter screams bring on the IP every time we go.