TheMaxRebo
Well-Known Member
More the former - I think mostly they just want it in there just in case they ever want to think about adding more parks vs having to have the plans updated if it ever happens and the plans didn't have it in there
-
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 Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
More the former - I think mostly they just want it in there just in case they ever want to think about adding more parks vs having to have the plans updated if it ever happens and the plans didn't have it in there
"the District" decides what the property can support, "the Company" decides the direction they want to develop
EeyoreFan#24
Well-Known Member
There was also an interesting addition where it was added that things could now be changed by development agreements. I forget the exact section, but I believe it used to say something like if the district annexed or deannexed land the data could change, but I guess now they could enter into a development agreement and the plan wouldn’t completely guide.
Which could happen anyway. It’s essentially a zoning and growth plan they could change when they want.
Which could happen anyway. It’s essentially a zoning and growth plan they could change when they want.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, they don't need a fifth gate, I think they should EXPAND their existing parks instead of "destroy and replace".
JusticeDisney
Well-Known Member
A fifth park will absolutely happen. It’s simply a matter of when.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
I bet we get a fifth gate before the in ground lighting in EPCOT is fixed
Aschwenker
Active Member
Maybe I'm reading the map wrong, but all the Entertainment areas in the Comprehensive Plan 2045 already contain Entertainment venues. So, where can the plan support these two additional minor parks and one major park without destruction of something existing?
The five really large Entertainment areas are the four theme parks and adjacent parking along with the Transportation & Ticket Center across the Seven Seas Lagoon from Magic Kingdom. Then there are the three smaller Entertainment areas that are Blizzard Beach, Typhoon Lagoon, and ESPN Wide World of Sports.
In fact, everything on the Plan already has elements within it that fit the area category. There are no areas marked for Resorts/Hotels or Commercial that don't contain a resort/hotel or commercial facility currently.
The five really large Entertainment areas are the four theme parks and adjacent parking along with the Transportation & Ticket Center across the Seven Seas Lagoon from Magic Kingdom. Then there are the three smaller Entertainment areas that are Blizzard Beach, Typhoon Lagoon, and ESPN Wide World of Sports.
In fact, everything on the Plan already has elements within it that fit the area category. There are no areas marked for Resorts/Hotels or Commercial that don't contain a resort/hotel or commercial facility currently.
Kevin_W
Well-Known Member
Agreed. There is so much infrastructure cost to a 5th gate (more roads, more busses, more electrical substations, etc.) that you don't need for expansion of the existing parks.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Better to look at the suitability map. Dark green is the conservation area, this is not totally off limits but from a practical and bureaucratic stand point it's the hardest to use. On the other end of the spectrum is the red which is considered suitable for construction. The very light green is Marginally Suitable and the middle screen is Marginally Unsuitable.
lentesta
Premium Member
I just don't see them doing a 5th gate in Orlando.
Given all the work going on and to be announced at DHS, I think a park-adjacent hotel complex is a safer bet for them.
JohnD
Well-Known Member
So, on this map, they're showing that the area east of SSL is "suitable" for development. I thought that area was swampy. But the map is showing it's possible another monorail resort could be built there.
Waiting for the breathless posts regarding positive confirmation of a 5th gate, 5th gate ideas, placement, et al.
Nothing new here, really. Except the humorous “attendance growth based on historical average growth”.
Nothing new here, really. Except the humorous “attendance growth based on historical average growth”.
ctrlaltdel
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it's all about optionality. It's much easier to move forward with the creation of a new park when you already have land-use approval, even if there are no plans to open one anytime soon.
CJR
Well-Known Member
I don't think people really want a fifth theme park. Maybe if it had the old way of designing, but DAK wouldn't happen today, IMHO. Today, it would be Disney Lakeside Adventure Park.
Until we get some creative people in charge, which may never happen, it's best to just develop what we have.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Incorrect
It will never happen…”why?” has been discussed ad naseum for decades now
Last edited:
ctrlaltdel
Well-Known Member
I don't know about never, but I don't really see the actual value it would bring to the resort at this point. Plenty of holes to fill in the existing parks.
Much more likely DLR gets a third gate of some kind before WDW gets a fifth gate.
Gringrinngghost
Well-Known Member
They’ll have to take them from Uni.
They don't have the real estate unless they built a "theme park tower." Remember, they tried the multi-story amusement center concept in Orlando. It didn't work out so well.
Rhinocerous
Premium Member
It will be a small boutique park that still has more rides than HS and AK combined.