Disney buys 1000 acres of land

[Missing20K]

I had forgotten about that land. Its now 5500 acres in this decade. Even adding just 1/3 of that as land they can now build on at WDW would be 1833 acres of new development. And all they have used now is a small amount at HS. They will have to say something soon because $23 million is a lot of stockholders money.

Not to get pedantic, but they have 1.49 Billion outstanding shares. $23 million is 1.5 cents spent per outstanding share. A drop in the proverbial bucket for DIS.

 

[seascape]

Not to get pedantic, but they have 1.49 Billion outstanding shares. $23 million is 1.5 cents spent per outstanding share. A drop in the proverbial bucket for DIS.

I hope the analysts ask about it on the quarterly call. 1.5 cents per share is abou 1% of the quarterly profit so while it's not huge it is not immaterial.

 

[Prince-1]

And it's nice PR to say that Disney cares about conservation......so that they can clearcut their own property to build DVC Resorts.

Well they are phasing our plastic straws

 

[Missing20K]

I hope the analysts ask about it on the quarterly call. 1.5 cents per share is abou 1% of the quarterly profit so while it's not huge it is not immaterial.

They have 4.15 Billion in cash and cash equivalents. $2.79 per share. I'm of the opinion this cost is pretty immaterial.

 

[Master Yoda]

What are the conservation requirements that they have to follow? (It's x percentage of all the land they own, correct?)

It is pretty complicated, but the short version is the The Florida Department of Environmental Protection typically decides what is and is not wetlands. You can build on wetlands if you go through a process called mitigation. This is generally done by buying and preserving another piece of property on the same watershed. As mentioned before, it is rarely a 1 to 1 trade.

The video below goes a little more in depth to the mitigation process.

 

[MisterPenguin]

If the previous 3,000 acre purchase was just for the mitigation of the area marked for conservation between DHS and CBR, then that was 3,000 acres of mitigation for just 250 acres of conversion of conservation to development. That would be a 1:12 ratio.

If that's the normal ratio, these new purchases are giving Disney another 210 acres to convert. For comparison, DHS before it's current expansion, with all its back lot and parking, is that size.

 

[Franklin47disneyguy]

If the previous 3,000 acre purchase was just for the mitigation of the area marked for conservation between DHS and CBR, then that was 3,000 acres of mitigation for just 250 acres of conversion of conservation to development. That would be a 1:12 ratio.

If that's the normal ratio, these new purchases are giving Disney another 210 acres to convert. For comparison, DHS before it's current expansion, with all its back lot and parking, is that size.

Fifth gate lets go

 

[Rodan75]

If the previous 3,000 acre purchase was just for the mitigation of the area marked for conservation between DHS and CBR, then that was 3,000 acres of mitigation for just 250 acres of conversion of conservation to development. That would be a 1:12 ratio.

If that's the normal ratio, these new purchases are giving Disney another 210 acres to convert. For comparison, DHS before it's current expansion, with all its back lot and parking, is that size.

Those are some bold IFs.

Isn't there land that isn't in conservation status already earmarked for a 5th gate if they wanted to do that?

But even if this is for hotels and infrastructure, why would they build more rooms and more infrastructure if they didn't also add another gate. And I realize that folks have a valid argument that the 4 gates already don't have enough to do. But @ParentsOf4 projected that a new gate would have to happen by the mid-20's to keep up with the current pace of DVC and Resort attendance growth.

While it seems improbable, we could actually be getting closer to another new park of some sort. Although I think their money would be better spent building another Disneyland somewhere in North America to take some pressure off of MK and DL.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Those are some bold IFs.

Isn't there land that isn't in conservation status already earmarked for a 5th gate if they wanted to do that?

But even if this is for hotels and infrastructure, why would they build more rooms and more infrastructure if they didn't also add another gate. And I realize that folks have a valid argument that the 4 gates already don't have enough to do. But @ParentsOf4 projected that a new gate would have to happen by the mid-20's to keep up with the current pace of DVC and Resort attendance growth.

While it seems improbable, we could actually be getting closer to another new park of some sort. Although I think their money would be better spent building another Disneyland somewhere in North America to take some pressure off of MK and DL.

I don't see them continuing to build more and more hotels without expanding each park more or eventually building a 5th gate.

I wonder internally their statistics on when families vacate to Disney now, do they just stay there for the week or do they now more easily take uber/lyft to Uni more than before. If so, I could see a 5th gate being possible but only when all 4 parks have their expansions where they want them as well. I would love to see something in development though. Spreading out the crowds more would be really good for Disney as well

 

[Bocabear]

I am afraid that the 5th gate would be another California Adventure or Hong Kong Disneyland...a park full of shopping and character meet and greets but woefully thin on actual rides and attractions...which was also the problem with DHS when it forst opened and Animal Kingdom... I would rather they concentrate on their existing parks bringing them all up to full potentian before starting another half-baked 5th Gate

 

[Rodan75]

I don't see them continuing to build more and more hotels without expanding each park more or eventually building a 5th gate.

I wonder internally their statistics on when families vacate to Disney now, do they just stay there for the week or do they now more easily take uber/lyft to Uni more than before. If so, I could see a 5th gate being possible but only when all 4 parks have their expansions where they want them as well. I would love to see something in development though. Spreading out the crowds more would be really good for Disney as well

I would imagine that the Disney folks think each of the parks within the next 3 years will be worth the $150 peak day price tag without significant unannounced enhancements (Epcot still feels like an untapped opportunity). Which would pull them toward a 5th gate to warrant another $150 peak day price tag.

I agree with your thought process about Uni and I think that a 5th gate would also be about spreading out existing crowds even further.

 

[Master Yoda]

I don't see them continuing to build more and more hotels without expanding each park more or eventually building a 5th gate.

I wonder internally their statistics on when families vacate to Disney now, do they just stay there for the week or do they now more easily take uber/lyft to Uni more than before. If so, I could see a 5th gate being possible but only when all 4 parks have their expansions where they want them as well. I would love to see something in development though. Spreading out the crowds more would be really good for Disney as well

They will of course hit a tipping point, but they are far from it. If every Disney resort were at 100% capacity and every guest were to go to Epcot it would just barely hit a phase 4 closure.

Disney is going to go with whichever option will bring the most ROI. Right now, rooms are that option.

 

[danlb_2000]

Those are some bold IFs.

Isn't there land that isn't in conservation status already earmarked for a 5th gate if they wanted to do that?

But even if this is for hotels and infrastructure, why would they build more rooms and more infrastructure if they didn't also add another gate. And I realize that folks have a valid argument that the 4 gates already don't have enough to do. But @ParentsOf4 projected that a new gate would have to happen by the mid-20's to keep up with the current pace of DVC and Resort attendance growth.

While it seems improbable, we could actually be getting closer to another new park of some sort. Although I think their money would be better spent building another Disneyland somewhere in North America to take some pressure off of MK and DL.

The original 3000 acres are much further from WDW then the more recent purposes and the permits say nothing about developing it, so it's safe to assume that that 3000 is just for conservation.

 

[jt04]

What a great day. I almost missed it. My guess is a new resort and an intermodal transportation hub.

Wishful thinking is new DAK land and water park.

 

[Prototype82]

But they can't employ 4 shamans.

 

[GhostHost1000]

They will of course hit a tipping point, but they are far from it. If every Disney resort were at 100% capacity and every guest were to go to Epcot it would just barely hit a phase 4 closure.

Disney is going to go with whichever option will bring the most ROI. Right now, rooms are that option.

true but not everyone that goes to Disney stays at a Disney resort either so I think a 5th gate would be 2-fold. spread out the crowds more to provide a better guest experience and keep people on their property (even if not in their resorts) more. A lot of families will go to all parks for 1 day. if they have a 5th most will go for 5 but now I'm wondering if some go 4 and then spend a few at Uni?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Those are some bold IFs.

Isn't there land that isn't in conservation status already earmarked for a 5th gate if they wanted to do that?

But even if this is for hotels and infrastructure, why would they build more rooms and more infrastructure if they didn't also add another gate. And I realize that folks have a valid argument that the 4 gates already don't have enough to do. But @ParentsOf4 projected that a new gate would have to happen by the mid-20's to keep up with the current pace of DVC and Resort attendance growth.

While it seems improbable, we could actually be getting closer to another new park of some sort. Although I think their money would be better spent building another Disneyland somewhere in North America to take some pressure off of MK and DL.

Well, even for things like expanding park footprints, like they did for DHS, it would be helpful to convert contiguous land. A lot of what is designated for development is in a patchwork and many places have already expanded to the limit of their little patch.

See here: https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/maps-of-the-reedy-creek-2010-2020-plan.935133/#post-7935692

Also, I found this article: https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs...s-so-they-can-destroy-wetlands-closer-to-park

Which says that 3000 acres previously was for a 575 acre offset. So, updating the ratio to 1:5.2. If this holds for a new offset, then that's 420 acres that can be converted.

 

[Rodan75]

The original 3000 acres are much further from WDW then the more recent purposes and the permits say nothing about developing it, so it's safe to assume that that 3000 is just for conservation.

understood. I'm referring to the potential offset.

I thought there was already land within the current WDW footprint that was allocated for development of another Theme Park that was developable already so that there would be no offset needed.

 

[Rodan75]

Well, even for things like expanding park footprints, like they did for DHS, it would be helpful to convert contiguous land. A lot of what is designated for development is in a patchwork and many places have already expanded to the limit of their little patch.

See here: https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/maps-of-the-reedy-creek-2010-2020-plan.935133/#post-7935692

Also, I found this article: https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs...s-so-they-can-destroy-wetlands-closer-to-park

Which says that 3000 acres previously was for a 575 acre offset. So, updating the ratio to 1:5.2. If this holds for a new offset, then that's 420 acres that can be converted.

That is great! How in the world do you remember the sheer amount of reference material you've pushed into these threads?

I still think Disney would rather build another gate to soak capacity than to flesh out the existing parks further. I agree with most folks that building out the existing parks makes more sense, especially for Single Day guests. But I think a 5th park makes more sense from a resort/DVC growth perspective.

 

[Master Yoda]

That is great! How in the world do you remember the sheer amount of reference material you've pushed into these threads?

I still think Disney would rather build another gate to soak capacity than to flesh out the existing parks further. I agree with most folks that building out the existing parks makes more sense, especially for Single Day guests. But I think a 5th park makes more sense from a resort/DVC growth perspective.

Expanding the existing parks costs much less than building a 5th one. My money is on them continuing to do that until they have no other choice but to build a full fledged 5th gate.

I think we will see a boutique park (eg Discovery Cove) long before a 5th gate.