DisneylandForward

[coffeefan]

You are seemingly making an argument based on volume rather than quality. Nothing between 96-2018 as I mentioned meets my benchmark of major projects, which doesn’t mean I have disdain for it all. This is a bad dry spell compared to the lovely drip-drip of Star Tours to Splash to Fantasmic to Toontown to Indy in a much shorter window of time, before DCA arrived on the scene and sucked the air out of the room for decades.

Walt Disney World is currently more or less building what constitutes a new gate by modern standards between ~2024-2030 and we may very well not be privy to it all.

-2 Lightening lane new build Coasters
-2 Lightening lane new build major Dark Rides (one park signature)
-1 more major new build hybrid Terrain Ride, also for LL.
-1 night parade.
-1 large new build revenue / DVC hotel complex
-3 or 4 new shows / 1 or 2 video shows
-3 flat rides
-Retail and dining to match.

This coincidentally is not far off Epic or even current day DAK.

If management decided in 23/24 they wanted a 5th gate in ~2029-30 instead, how much of this pipeline survives? Is your argument it all survives?

I’ve left off about 11 further moderate to major overhauls of existing rides/attractions. That’s much more the “extra” that you are focused and framing your argument around and ignoring the bigger picture.

Actually, I didn't see that you mentioned major attractions. That's my bad for missing it. But at least my post showed that Disneyland was not totally ignored.

To be honest, I don't care which park gets the E/D-tickets, so long as we get them at either park. I also think E-tickets on the west coast are rare additions, but I'll take a look at it later. I just don't think it's okay to ignore the impact Indy had.

 

[BrianLo]

Actually, I didn't see that you mentioned major attractions. That's my bad for missing it. But at least my post showed that Disneyland was not totally ignored like implied before.

And honestly, I don't care where E/D-tickets go, so long as we get them at either DL or DCA. I also think E-tickets on the west coast are rare additions, but I'll take a look at it later. I just don't think it's totally okay to ignore the impact Indy had.

No worries!

Not ignoring Indy at all! That was the bookend I was referencing before DCA master planning set in.

I also should have technically said 22 years and not “more or less 25”. I’d frankly be all for a third gate (post DCA’s current projects and Tomorrowland) had the company not presented an alternative that allows for another couple decades of steady additions that don’t strictly encroach on what we already have.

 

[Professortango1]

Disneyland really went from 1995-2019 between major additions. That’s the window I'm referring to.

TL 98? Buzz Lightyear? Nemo Subs? I'd say those were all major, although I guess you could argue that subs was a retheme rather than addition, but still a major project and one of the first I recall being heavily tracked in the digital arena.

 

[DrStarlander]

What I think DLF in theory finally provides is an honest to goodness means of dumping guests out of the park without doing the trudge from Tiana to Main Street.

You've mentioned the idea of a park exit (and entry too?) from DL's DF before and I've thought about it, and I'm not sure I've ever said anything because I'm conflicted. I understand the Monorail has opened that door but in a very special way. I'm not sure an entry/exit out in that park annex is a great way to orchestrate the brand experience. I get why AP holders who are dropping into the park all the time as a hang-out would appreciate it but I'd hate to see tourists use that and miss some of the imprint moments that are key to longterm brand loyalty.

If a fourth entry point can occur to Galaxies Edge behind Pooh, traffic might finally (partially) go somewhere else.

If DL's DF goes forward, I think carving a path from the south edge of Rise over to the DF-headed walkway in Bayou Country will be critical. Sending everybody out and around Hungry Bear, then through the Bayou Country bottle-neck would be a mistake. I think there are a few other tweaks to walkways that could help as well. I can see Explorer Canoes moving to Tom Sawyer Island as it could allow a wider walkway at that bend, and draw some more foot-traffic to the island.

Disneyland really went from 1995-2019 between major additions. That’s the window I'm referring to. Because the five year ramp to DCA began in 1996.

You are seemingly making an argument based on volume rather than quality. Nothing between 96-2018 as I mentioned meets my benchmark of major projects, which doesn’t mean I have disdain for it all. This is a bad dry spell compared to the lovely drip-drip of Star Tours to Splash to Fantasmic to Toontown to Indy in a much shorter window of time, before DCA arrived on the scene and sucked the air out of the room for decades.

They also built like five cruises ships during that time and five overseas parks they had all or partial ownership of and Aulani, right? Or something close to that? I think we have to look at a bigger picture during that period, not just "they spent on DCA so they didn't spend on Disneyland." They were allocating capital across a global portfolio, and a new industry (cruise line). I think it's tempting to look at correlation and draw this if-this-than-that conclusion.

I don't doubt the assertion, but looking at investments, putting them in buckets of major additions or not to make a point, not taking into account overall company and global investments. I just think it's a lot of correlation and pattern-searching so far. It would be great to have quotes from executive to back it up. Again, I'm not a disbeliever necessarily, it just feels like walking through a crime scene pitching theories of what happened.

Now you can differentiate between expansions and replacements, but that happens at any park, even single park resorts.

Yes, Disneyland is 70 years old, it's going to get replacements more than greenfield expansions compared to most other parks. Discounting investments there because they're smaller is ignoring the apples to oranges difference. The park is already stacked with rides. Why would they build "major additions" there, when they're building a global resorts and cruise business?

 

[Disney Irish]

You've mentioned the idea of a park exit (and entry too?) from DL's DF before and I've thought about it, and I'm not sure I've ever said anything because I'm conflicted. I understand the Monorail has opened that door but in a very special way. I'm not sure an entry/exit out in that park annex is a great way to orchestrate the brand experience. I get why AP holders who are dropping into the park all the time as a hang-out would appreciate it but I'd hate to see tourists use that and miss some of the imprint moments that are key to longterm brand loyalty.

A majority of tourists will still go out via Main St and the main gates, because most would end up leaving after the nighttime entertainment anyways. So I don't think you have to worry much about the long term brand loyalty being imprinted from that standpoint.

But also think about it from a guest flow standpoint. Having multiple exits means less log jam of guests all trying to leave out one exit during that time. That in reality gives a better guest experience, better long term impression, and long term brand loyalty in the long run.

I don't know if they would actually do it, but I like the idea of it for many reasons.

If DL's DF goes forward, I think carving a path from the south edge of Rise over to the DF-headed walkway in Bayou Country will be critical. Sending everybody out and around Hungry Bear, then through the Bayou Country bottle-neck would be a mistake. I think there are a few other tweaks to walkways that could help as well. I can see Explorer Canoes moving to Tom Sawyer Island as it could allow a wider walkway at that bend, and draw some more foot-traffic to the island.

I think a path can be carved out from both CC and from the west side of GE. It would mean that GE wouldn't get expansion over on that side, but I think that is a important tradeoff.

They also built like five cruises ships during that time and five overseas parks they had all or partial ownership of and Aulani, right? Or something close to that? I think we have to look at a bigger picture during that period, not just "they spent on DCA so they didn't spend on Disneyland." They were allocating capital across a global portfolio, and a new industry (cruise line). I think it's tempting to look at correlation and draw this if-this-than-that conclusion.

I don't doubt the assertion, but looking at investments, putting them in buckets of major additions or not to make a point, not taking into account overall company and global investments. I just think it's a lot of correlation and pattern-searching so far. It would be great to have quotes from executive to back it up. Again, I'm not a disbeliever necessarily, I just feels like walking through a crime scene pitching theories of what happened.

This makes Brian's points even stronger though. Because of investment priorities elsewhere outside of the Resort DL proper didn't get any major investments in it for over 2 decades. And any investment it did get were always shortchanged and cheap. So much so that many on these boards and sites like it would say that the sum of the parts didn't equal what was replaced in almost every case.

And don't get me started on how much of a downgrade DCA 1.0 was because of those other investments priorities outside of the Resort. Had those other investment priorities not sucked up all the resources maybe we could have gotten WestCot, or at least a better initial DCA 1.0. And so that can't be glossed over here either.

So the long and short of it, the moment budgets start getting allocated away from DL and DCA and onto other capex intensive projects, history shows both will get at best ignored and at worst will get cheapness that ends up being a downgrade. There is only so much budget that can be allocated to capex for a Resort, and a 3rd gate would suck up all of that capex.

Yes, Disneyland is 70 years old, it's going to get replacements more than greenfield expansions compared to most other parks. Discounting investments there because they're smaller is ignoring the apples to oranges difference. The park is already stacked with rides. Why would they build "major additions" there, when they're building a global resorts and cruise business?

Except it doesn't have to be that way. With the DLForward expansion DL can move from primarily replacements to new additions for several decades. That cannot be ignored the importance of that. And the impact it would have in a positive way to the overall Park, and really overall Resort. Because like it or not, when people think of DLR they think primarily of DL, and when more investment can go into DL it gives a better long term impression and makes a guest for life.

 

[GravityFalls]

There are so many structural problems with the right side of the park (Tomorrowland, Autopia, Matterhorn) that an expansion of Disneyland into the hotel district might be necessary to offset the loss in capacity. Those attractions are so close to one another you could end up with a domino effect where closing one forces the closure of another.

The nightmare scenario. If you start with Autopia, there are environmental regulations that require Disney to test and remove the soil that surrounds any underground gas tanks. Would that then encroach on Matterhorn? Would you then have to rebuild Matterhorn with a larger footprint because of modern building and safety codes? Would that encroach on the lagoon requiring to be torn out and replaced? Does that then encroach on Tomorrowland? Is the people mover track so broken and embedded into those buildings that you end up having to replace all of them

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

A majority of tourists will still go out via Main St and the main gates, because most would end up leaving after the nighttime entertainment anyways. So I don't think you have to worry much about the long term brand loyalty being imprinted from that standpoint.

But also think about it from a guest flow standpoint. Having multiple exits means less log jam of guests all trying to leave out one exit during that time. That in reality gives a better guest experience, better long term impression, and long term brand loyalty in the long run.

I don't know if they would actually do it, but I like the idea of it for many reasons.


I think a path can be carved out from both CC and from the west side of GE. It would mean that GE wouldn't get expansion over on that side, but I think that is an important tradeoff.

While I agree with Starlander that not leaving via Main Street really diminishes the final impression of the park I also agree with you that that ship sailed years ago. If you enter/leave the park in the evening you’re already very likely leaving via the Main Street bypasses, it’s not ideal but honestly probably a more magical experience than trying to fight your way through 10,000 people trying to maneuver the sidewalks during a parade or nighttime show.

We’ve never stayed at GC but use that entrance/exit all the time to go to the restaurants/bars at GC and also to get back and forth to DTD, it’s not as magical as the main entrance but it’s super convenient and often times avoiding the crowds is simply more pleasant than the architecture.

I think the biggest benefit is safety though, I’ve argued for years they can’t expand DL simply due to the size constraints of Main Street, I’m sure there’s more than enough backstage exits in an emergency that it’s technically 100% safe but in day to day operations it often feels like they’re pushing the limits of what’s actually safe with that pinch point. A second entrance/exit would solve that problem.

 

[coffeefan]

They also built like five cruises ships during that time and five overseas parks they had all or partial ownership of and Aulani, right? Or something close to that? I think we have to look at a bigger picture during that period, not just "they spent on DCA so they didn't spend on Disneyland." They were allocating capital across a global portfolio, and a new industry (cruise line). I think it's tempting to look at correlation and draw this if-this-than-that conclusion.

I don't doubt the assertion, but looking at investments, putting them in buckets of major additions or not to make a point, not taking into account overall company and global investments. I just think it's a lot of correlation and pattern-searching so far. It would be great to have quotes from executive to back it up. Again, I'm not a disbeliever necessarily, it just feels like walking through a crime scene pitching theories of what happened.

I agree, but it is interesting to discuss. I also wonder if 1996 is the best benchmark, since technically the second gate was announced in 1991 (and planned to open in 1998), but changed in 1995 to DCA. The major factor being that DLP struggled, so I wonder if DLP had a bigger impact on DL than DCA had on DL.

Yes, Disneyland is 70 years old, it's going to get replacements more than greenfield expansions compared to most other parks. Discounting investments there because they're smaller is ignoring the apples to oranges difference. The park is already stacked with rides. Why would they build "major additions" there, when they're building a global resorts and cruise business?

Agreed. Given DL size and attractions, there's also a higger cost just to maintain them as well. Ideally, DL should be preserved and direct investments to its trouble areas in TL and GE, and continue expanding DCA.

 

[DrStarlander]

Believe it or not, my idea with using TSL for the hotel/shopping district, what I had been calling the West Coast version of Disney Springs with Hotels, was so they could tear down DTD and use that as the last huge piece of the expansion puzzle so they can make one big contiguous parcel for the west side. This could either be used as expansion of the two parks, or as a 3rd gate. Because that gives you almost as much space as DCA for a 3rd gate.

So again I'm not looking for a 2nd mall, in fact I'm not looking for a mall at all, as I've said numerous times. I've always said I just don't want a 3rd gate (for many reasons), I rather have expansion of DL and DCA. But if moving the hotel and retail district to TSL gives them reason to tear down DTD and make enough land to build a proper 3rd gate within a few steps of DL and DCA, why not.

I don't see any scenario where they tear down DTD. It's between the two parks and the bulk of the hotels. (And I'm not at all a fan of DTD.) And I don't see how they'd attract enough traffic to a shopping district at Toy Story. It's just too out of the way. But you think they can and certainly maybe they'll try. Or maybe they'll do a small Cotina thing over there because neither a third gate, retail, nor hotels models out.

This makes Brian's points even stronger though.

But the case was being made in this thread specifically that investments in DCA meant fewer investments in Disneyland. Full stop. Obliquely, likely. But they were also investing in 10-12 other major projects globally so it's arguably part of the truth but overly simplistic and not the whole truth. Even if they didn't build DCA it may have been difficult to make a business case in doing "major expansions" at Disneyland so long as there were other more lucrative ROI-wise investments they could make.

I think we can all agree there's a finite amount of cap ex. They are funding a massive global enterprise. They're likely to spend the cap ex in ways their modeling suggests they make money. And not spend it ways that don't project to make money. And ultimately they'll do what they do, and if a third gate pencils out they'll build it, if not they won't.

Except it doesn't have to be that way. With the DLForward expansion DL can move from primarily replacements to new additions for several decades. That cannot be ignored the importance of that. And the impact it would have in a positive way to the overall Park, and really overall Resort. Because like it or not, when people think of DLR they think primarily of DL, and when more investment can go into DL it gives a better long term impression and makes a guest for life.

Yes, and as a fan I like having new things to see and do, if they are designed well. But my point was the park is already stacked with attractions so incremental adds may not have as much leverage. Adding an attraction to DAK is an 8 or 10% addition in capacity or whatever) and can really affect the perception of the park, say from being half-day to full-day. That can drive park attendance, amortization of costs, hotel stays. Lots of yield. Adding an attraction to DL is like 2% to 3% and may not have as much yield perception-wise. In either case the attractions cost the same. I just think DL is entering a phase in the next 10 to 15 years where noticeably reduced additions and expansions will occur as the cap ex can be deployed more usefully elsewhere.

I wonder if DLP had a bigger impact on DL than DCA had on DL.

Very interesting theory.

 

[Disney Irish]

I don't see any scenario where they tear down DTD. It's between the two parks and the bulk of the hotels. (And I'm not at all a fan of DTD.) And I don't see how they'd attract enough traffic to a shopping district at Toy Story. It's just too out of the way. But you think they can and certainly maybe they'll try. Or maybe they'll do a small Cotina thing over there because neither a third gate, retail, nor hotels models out.

Think of it in two fold, again its not JUST a "mall" -

1. Disney Hotels, ie that is where the majority Disney hotels will now be and thus tourists will be staying, plus all the people just staying on Harbor other surrounding hotels, ie lots and lots of foot traffic from conventions.
2. It separates out Disney shopping from the Parks, meaning locals would be more willing to spend time there since it'd be separated from Park traffic, and all that hassle. The thing that was lost when DTD Parking got reconfigured was the ability for locals to just stop in to hangout for shopping and a bite to eat. If its moved to TSL that makes it easier to be a "hangout" again.

So with that there would be enough traffic, believe me.

But the case was being made in this thread specifically that investments in DCA meant fewer investments in Disneyland. Full stop. Obliquely, likely. But they were also investing in 10-12 other major projects globally so it's arguably part of the truth but overly simplistic and not the whole truth. Even if they didn't build DCA it may have been difficult to make a business case in doing "major expansions" at Disneyland so long as there were other more lucrative ROI-wise investments they could make.

It all goes hand-in-hand though. If they hadn't spent $1.4B on the initial build out for DCA, plus whatever was spent on development prior, that money could have all gone to DL. Imagine for example a fully realized and built out TL98 instead of the cheapness that we got, no offense to Tony he did the best he could with what he had.

I think we can all agree there's a finite amount of cap ex. They are funding a massive global enterprise. They're likely to spend the cap ex in ways their modeling suggests they make money. And not spend it ways that don't project to make money. And ultimately they'll do what they do, and if a third gate pencils out they'll build it, if not they won't.

Agreed, which is why I've been trying to look at this with my business hat on and not a fan hat (even if I get flack for that from Coffee). From a fan perspective it makes sense why a 3rd gate maybe should be built, even if I don't personally want it. However from a business standpoint not so much, and for all the reasons why that have been discussed.

And if we want whats best for the Resort, as hard as that is, I think we all have to agree that a 3rd gate might draw too much capex away from the rest of the Resort and be a negative overall. Not to mention, has anyone thought about a potential DCA1.0 happening again? That would be disastrous for the overall Resort.

Yes, and as a fan I like having new things to see and do, if they are designed well. But my point was the park is already stacked with attractions so incremental adds may not have as much leverage. Adding an attraction to DAK is an 8 or 10% addition in capacity or whatever) and can really affect the perception of the park, say from being half-day to full-day. That can drive park attendance, amortization of costs, hotel stays. Lots of yield. Adding an attraction to DL is like 2% to 3% and may not have as much yield perception-wise. In either case the attractions cost the same. I just think DL is entering a phase in the next 10 to 15 years where noticeably reduced additions and expansions will occur as the cap ex can be deployed more usefully elsewhere.

I have a feeling we'll find out sooner rather than later who is going to be correct here. As I have a feeling that Josh is going to start to layout his plans for Disney first at the shareholders meeting in 10 days, and at D23 in August.

 

[Disney Irish]

I agree, but it is interesting to discuss. I also wonder if 1996 is the best benchmark, since technically the second gate was announced in 1991 (and planned to open in 1998), but changed in 1995 to DCA. The major factor being that DLP struggled, so I wonder if DLP had a bigger impact on DL than DCA had on DL.

We all like to think about pie-in-the-sky ideas and that everything will be perfect. But when reality sets in and real world happens that pie-in-the-sky idea can turn into muck real quick. The impacts of the rest of the company cannot be understated on its impact to DCA. And so there is no guarantee even if there is a 3rd gate that you get your WestCot, or Mick gets his World Showcase, you could get DCA1.0 or worse, and that is bad for the Resort. Its part of the many reasons why I'm against a 3rd gate.

 

[DrStarlander]

So with that there would be enough traffic, believe me.

Okay. Incidentally, when I worked at Economics Research Associates (the company Harrison "Buzz" Price founded) that's what I did: retail and theme park feasibility studies, ride/tenant mix and square-footage allocation, cinema capacity (how many screens), competitive market analysis, site planning recommendations, etc. Caruso's The Grove was one of my projects, I also worked on a big entertainment retail project for Anaheim stadium that didn't get built. I'll be interested to see what happens. I'm sure they're working with an ERA-type consultant to model all the scenarios out. They'll each be described in a 100-page or so coil-bound report full of graphs and charts that will get shown to Josh and the Board. I have box in the garage full of them. If they build a hotel/shopping district there I hope it's super cool and wildly successful.

Not to mention, has anyone thought about a potential DCA1.0 happening again? That would be disastrous for the overall Resort.

Tell me you didn't just go there.

I have a feeling we'll find out sooner rather than later who is going to be correct here. As I have a feeling that Josh is going to start to layout his plans for Disney first at the shareholders meeting in 10 days, and at D23 in August.

The fact that EGW is now underway does suggest something will be happening at TS or Simba in coming years.

 

[MistaDee]

What a spirited discussion! Wading in with some thoughts on a few points.

The new gate fans need to acknowledge it really is a zero sum game. You can’t have both (Disneyland forward and a third park), you get one. Either Disneyland and DCA continue to see a steady stream of investments, or they get put on the back burner for a quarter century to support a third gate initiative.

1. "Either/or" --> "If/then"

Is it a given that developing the Simba lot/“DLForward” is mutually exclusive with some kind of theme park usage on TSL? It seems to me that there is a scarcity of land in Anaheim that’s zoned to be theme park, but plenty that’s zoned for shopping/dining. I certainly agree that they wouldn't allocate capital to simultaneously develop DLF and TSL, but in the long-term I don't think it's unthinkable that both sites could be theme parks.

If I were Disney, and trying to maximize capacity in the long term it seems that building out the TSL as some kind of Westcot experience with integrated hotels - which would be able to charge significantly more if they were “park view” - and buying up the struggling OC Vibe to redevelop as the “Disney Springs”/additional hotel district would be the maximalist plan.

It’s fair to argue they wouldn’t sell to Disney at a fair price, but I think this is on a long enough time horizon, and the potential upside is such that Disney could move forward with this as Plan A

I appreciate that passions seem to run high with this issue but I suppose I’m just not convinced it’s an either/or in the long-run. The question of how to sequence their investments / which comes first would certainly be relevant. If I had to guess I suppose I’d say it would make sense to develop the adjacent lots first and then turn to a potential 3rd gate + hotels in the 2040s or so.

They could also preserve some optionality and make their development decisions based on attendance patterns: if DCA is still lagging considerably after this latest tranche of investment, they may prioritize the Simba lot. If after that, Disneyland and DCA are still being packed to the gills they could pivot to doing the TSL. If DL park sees a dropoff (this seems like it would never happen) then they could choose to do the north parcel of DLForward to boost attendance there. Not advocating for any one particular sequence here, but just trying to gently push back on the idea that this has to be some zero sum game when we're talking about 10, 15, years down the road.


2. Viability of a TSL “3rd gate”

I agree the current plot of land wouldn’t have enough space to warrant an equivalent full price ticket as Disneyland park, but I don’t think that what they build on TSL necessarily has to be a head to head competitor with the other 2 parks. With the success of their seasonal events, the cruise line, DVC, even the failed attempt at the Starcruiser hotel I do think there's an appetite at Disney to diversify their offerings.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they initially did due charge full price due to the novelty premium. If demand doesn’t keep up, I could definitely see this be a food & wine / seasonal event focused space with a reduced ticket price, or even a dedicated special event park with quarterly events where your admissions includes some of those Food & Wine or Not So Scary type perks. This would also allow them to sell big package deals for "VIP" style folks that include a stay at the integrated hotels and priority viewing areas or other added perks and packages. A smaller, denser offering with more frequent special events and entertainment would make sense for a lot of the repeat visitors that make up so much of their market.

Much like with the zero-sum question, I'm not trying to say that my specific examples are what Disney need to do, but that given some of the space constraints and the locals heavy market, we don't have to imagine a full sized Disneyland park style being crammed into a smaller satellite space.

Believe it or not, my idea with using TSL for the hotel/shopping district, what I had been calling the West Coast version of Disney Springs with Hotels, was so they could tear down DTD and use that as the last huge piece of the expansion puzzle so they can make one big contiguous parcel for the west side. This could either be used as expansion of the two parks, or as a 3rd gate. Because that gives you almost as much space as DCA for a 3rd gate.

So again I'm not looking for a 2nd mall, in fact I'm not looking for a mall at all, as I've said numerous times. I've always said I just don't want a 3rd gate (for many reasons), I rather have expansion of DL and DCA. But if moving the hotel and retail district to TSL gives them reason to tear down DTD and make enough land to build a proper 3rd gate within a few steps of DL and DCA, why not.

3. Viability of a standalone hotels/shopping district

Much like Walt's "flywheel" that powers Disney's overall enterprise: with film IP driving television into publishing into merchandise into theme park developments and back around, I sort of see the foot traffic/demand at a resort being somewhat similar. Theme parks kickstart the wheel which brings the foot traffic, bringing them past retail shopping/dining and attracting out of town guests to stay at hotels. You can also command a significantly stronger premium if your hotels have the benefit of proximity to a park, park view, or even some sort of package deal with the events like I contemplated for some sort of Westcot.

The Disney name alone would certainly command a certain level of demand for out of towners, but I’m very skeptical a shopping district removed from the parks would generate enough foot traffic to pencil out without that primary demand that a theme park provides. People like DTD but as others have mentioned, SoCal is not lacking for malls that are far superior to DTD without the added benefit of proximity to the park.

If we’re trying to understand things from a logical business perspective tearing down DTD entirely and moving it away from the core of the resort seems pretty dubious

The cost of the tear down alone would be significant, to say nothing of the lost revenue in the meantime. You’d also lose out on a lot of the hungry/spendy guests filtering out to their cars and elsewhere that the current location capture

 

[Disney Irish]

Okay. Incidentally, when I worked at Economics Research Associates (the company Harrison "Buzz" Price founded) that's what I did: retail and theme park feasibility studies, ride/tenant mix and square-footage allocation, cinema capacity (how many screens), competitive market analysis, site planning recommendations, etc. Caruso's The Grove was one of my projects, I also worked on a big entertainment retail project for Anaheim stadium that didn't get built. I'll be interested to see what happens. I'm sure they're working with an ERA-type consultant to model all the scenarios out. They'll each be described in a 100-page or so coil-bound report full of graphs and charts that will get shown to Josh and the Board. I have box in the garage full of them. If they build a hotel/shopping district there I hope it's super cool and wildly successful.

Yeah it'll be interesting to see what they come up with if that is what they decide to do. And cool info about your background.

Tell me you didn't just go there.

We've been looking at history for some indication on what is to come, well you can't discount that part of history just because its inconvenient.

The fact that EGW is now underway does suggest something will be happening at TS or Simba in coming years.

"Coming years" is relative though. EGW is just the first in a long line of dominoes to fall, its domino number 1, TSL and Simba getting developed could be domino 399 and domino 400 in 25 years.

All I'm saying is that I think Josh is going to want to layout his plan for DLR sooner rather than later. So even if its "Hey this is where I see DLR 25 years from now", it'll at least be known.

 

[MK-fan]

Frankly I agree with a 3rd park being a bad idea for the resort as a whole. The resort will suffer as a whole and Disneyland and DCA will be deprived of updates and new attractions.

Whether you love DCA or you hate it, it still needs alot of work. DCA has never lived up to Disneyland and still is yet to do the job. Yes an Avengers E Ticket will help but no matter how much lipstick you put on Avengers Campus, it is still a pig. You still have to fix places like Paradise Park and Hollywood Land. When DCA has 10 heavy hitter attractions, then it might be able to stand up on its own. By the end of this decade, it will only have 7, maybe 8 if you count Toy Story Mania!

Galaxy's Edge still needs one more attraction to try and help justify its 14 acres. Disneyland still needs work, the right side of the park is severely lacking in attractions that people actually want to go to. Tomorrowland takes up the entire right side of the park and is 16 acres with 6 rides and only one of those rides is a people eater. Disneyland needs to beef up that side the park and make it a little more well rounded.

 

[Disney Irish]

What a spirited discussion! Wading in with some thoughts on a few points.



1. "Either/or" --> "If/then"

Is it a given that developing the Simba lot/“DLForward” is mutually exclusive with some kind of theme park usage on TSL? It seems to me that there is a scarcity of land in Anaheim that’s zoned to be theme park, but plenty that’s zoned for shopping/dining. I certainly agree that they wouldn't allocate capital to simultaneously develop DLF and TSL, but in the long-term I don't think it's unthinkable that both sites could be theme parks.

If I were Disney, and trying to maximize capacity in the long term it seems that building out the TSL as some kind of Westcot experience with integrated hotels - which would be able to charge significantly more if they were “park view” - and buying up the struggling OC Vibe to redevelop as the “Disney Springs”/additional hotel district would be the maximalist plan.

It’s fair to argue they wouldn’t sell to Disney at a fair price, but I think this is on a long enough time horizon, and the potential upside is such that Disney could move forward with this as Plan A

I appreciate that passions seem to run high with this issue but I suppose I’m just not convinced it’s an either/or in the long-run. The question of how to sequence their investments / which comes first would certainly be relevant. If I had to guess I suppose I’d say it would make sense to develop the adjacent lots first and then turn to a potential 3rd gate + hotels in the 2040s or so.

They could also preserve some optionality and make their development decisions based on attendance patterns: if DCA is still lagging considerably after this latest tranche of investment, they may prioritize the Simba lot. If after that, Disneyland and DCA are still being packed to the gills they could pivot to doing the TSL. If DL park sees a dropoff (this seems like it would never happen) then they could choose to do the north parcel of DLForward to boost attendance there. Not advocating for any one particular sequence here, but just trying to gently push back on the idea that this has to be some zero sum game when we're talking about 10, 15, years down the road.


2. Viability of a TSL “3rd gate”

I agree the current plot of land wouldn’t have enough space to warrant an equivalent full price ticket as Disneyland park, but I don’t think that what they build on TSL necessarily has to be a head to head competitor with the other 2 parks. With the success of their seasonal events, the cruise line, DVC, even the failed attempt at the Starcruiser hotel I do think there's an appetite at Disney to diversify their offerings.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they initially did due charge full price due to the novelty premium. If demand doesn’t keep up, I could definitely see this be a food & wine / seasonal event focused space with a reduced ticket price, or even a dedicated special event park with quarterly events where your admissions includes some of those Food & Wine or Not So Scary type perks. This would also allow them to sell big package deals for "VIP" style folks that include a stay at the integrated hotels and priority viewing areas or other added perks and packages. A smaller, denser offering with more frequent special events and entertainment would make sense for a lot of the repeat visitors that make up so much of their market.

Much like with the zero-sum question, I'm not trying to say that my specific examples are what Disney need to do, but that given some of the space constraints and the locals heavy market, we don't have to imagine a full sized Disneyland park style being crammed into a smaller satellite space.

The whole point of the DLForward rezoning was to turn "everything" within the Disney owned properties to "theme park space". So things that were exclusively hotel/retail/parking before is now eligible to be "theme park" development. Thus giving Disney the most flexibility for the next 40 years. TSL was always zoned as "theme park", which is why rumors of a 3rd gate going there have been around since the early days of the internet.

And surely if TSL is too far away for some hotels and shopping (your comments below), so is OC Vibe idea.

3. Viability of a standalone hotels/shopping district

Much like Walt's "flywheel" that powers Disney's overall enterprise: with film IP driving television into publishing into merchandise into theme park developments and back around, I sort of see the foot traffic/demand at a resort being somewhat similar. Theme parks kickstart the wheel which brings the foot traffic, bringing them past retail shopping/dining and attracting out of town guests to stay at hotels. You can also command a significantly stronger premium if your hotels have the benefit of proximity to a park, park view, or even some sort of package deal with the events like I contemplated for some sort of Westcot.

The Disney name alone would certainly command a certain level of demand for out of towners, but I’m very skeptical a shopping district removed from the parks would generate enough foot traffic to pencil out without that primary demand that a theme park provides. People like DTD but as others have mentioned, SoCal is not lacking for malls that are far superior to DTD without the added benefit of proximity to the park.

If we’re trying to understand things from a logical business perspective tearing down DTD entirely and moving it away from the core of the resort seems pretty dubious

The cost of the tear down alone would be significant, to say nothing of the lost revenue in the meantime. You’d also lose out on a lot of the hungry/spendy guests filtering out to their cars and elsewhere that the current location capture

I don't think people here realize how much foot traffic there is near the TSL today. You literally have at least 20 hotels all right in the street corner of Harbor and Katella next to TSL. Not to mention all the convention traffic from the convention center literally a block across the street from TSL.

You legitimately have upwards of 100k+ people walking around TSL daily. I'm pretty sure there is enough foot traffic around there.

 

[CoastalElite64]

Frankly I agree with a 3rd park being a bad idea for the resort as a whole. The resort will suffer as a whole and Disneyland and DCA will be deprived of updates and new attractions.

Whether you love DCA or you hate it, it still needs alot of work. DCA has never lived up to Disneyland and still is yet to do the job. Yes an Avengers E Ticket will help but no matter how much lipstick you put on Avengers Campus, it is still a pig. You still have to fix places like Paradise Park and Hollywood Land. When DCA has 10 heavy hitter attractions, then it might be able to stand up on its own. By the end of this decade, it will only have 7, maybe 8 if you count Toy Story Mania!

Galaxy's Edge still needs one more attraction to try and help justify its 14 acres. Disneyland still needs work, the right side of the park is severely lacking in attractions that people actually want to go to. Tomorrowland takes up the entire right side of the park and is 16 acres with 6 rides and only one of those rides is a people eater. Disneyland needs to beef up that side the park and make it a little more well rounded.

If only Star Wars land had gone in DCA where Hollywood land is DCA would be near complete after the Big 3.

 

[Disney Irish]

If only Star Wars land had gone in DCA where Hollywood land is DCA would be near complete after the Big 3.

It would have been half its size (which some may have liked but beside the point). Its one of the main complaints about Avatar going in there, the land is not very large, ~7 acres.

 

[DrStarlander]

We've been looking at history for some indication on what is to come, well you can't discount that part of history just because its inconvenient.

Agreed, never discount the possibility of a disappointing project. Fingers crossed whatever they do is fantastic.

"Coming years" is relative though. EGW is just the first in a long line of dominoes to fall, its domino number 1, TSL and Simba getting developed could be domino 399 and domino 400 in 25 years.

To be specific, I did mean maybe development activity in TS in roughly 5 to 7 years. Crazy, I know. It's because I'm stumped on this: Other than reclaiming about 2.5 acres for Avatar, what would be the reason to build EGW now if TS and Simba remain parking for many years to come? If it's all just for a couple of acres of Avatar, does that seem like an extraordinary effort/investment (hundred of millions of dollars, maybe) for so little incremental acreage? For frugal Disney, seems they would have just taken more of Hollywood Blvd. for Avatar, that would be so much cheaper and quicker.

Or, now, with ART buses ending, it seems they could put a TS drop off to the far north by the edge of TL and still recapture a lot of that land, fast and cheap. And kick the can on EGW until they do want to develop Simba/TS. That is, there are opportunities to be frugal and Disney is not taking them, and my head can't comprehend!

All I can think of is perhaps there's not enough parking for the crowds they expect DCA expansions to bring in.

And surely if TSL is too far away for some hotels and shopping (your comments below), so is OC Vibe idea.

I haven't followed OC Vibe closely but I can't find much about retail there. I think I saw a 50,000 F&B element but I'm not seeing claims about retail square footage (admittedly I haven't dug too deep). And I think they've reduced the office space in favor of more housing. I wasn't joking about the Cotina comment, housing could be in the cards for some of TS if it's also a lot of retail.

 

[CoastalElite64]

It would have been half its size (which some may have liked but beside the point). Its one of the main complaints about Avatar going in there, the land is not very large, ~7 acres.

It has a lot of wasted space.

All they needed for rides was RoTR and 2 pods for SR. Instead of Guardians make it Vaders Castle. The rest can go where it fits.