KaliSplash
Well-Known Member
The An$wer is $imple.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Will we ever see a fully indoor land at WDW?
- Thread starter Andrew25
- Start date
Figments Friend
Well-Known Member
We have had an indoor land here at Walt Disney World since 1982.
Already built, appreciated, and lived in.
It is called The Land and it is over at Epcot….
-
Already built, appreciated, and lived in.
It is called The Land and it is over at Epcot….
-
jloucks
Well-Known Member
I mean, I get your point, and it is not inherently wrong. but I think the goal is just to increase desirability thus increasing demand. ...and with increased demand, you can increase price.
And, as far as "smart enough" goes, just remember, if you're of average intelligence, half of everybody else is dumber than you. They are who heatstroke is for. ...exception of course for those that do not have a choice aka workers.
jloucks
Well-Known Member
Right? I would change "give in" to "capitalize on" to get to the core philisopy.
jloucks
Well-Known Member
Just something to consider when declaring an indoor land too expensive due to AC/Heat operational costs. A 15-minute internet research project yielded a price figure of $438,000-$1,000,000 to control the environment in an area as large as an indoor land at an amusement park. That is just a fraction of a percent of the budget for WDW. I don't think maintenance cost is the issue. Up front costs, now those are going to be steep. tens of millions for all the units and structures to support them.
In conclusion, it is NOT electricity that is prohibitive.
In conclusion, it is NOT electricity that is prohibitive.
John park hopper
Well-Known Member
Short answer No --- maybe its me but what is air conditioned at WDW seems to not be as cool as it used to be --cost saving measure ?
disneypopstar
New Member
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
The "smart enough" comment was what would be called unfortunate wording. I know that there were a lot of people that had no choice but to go in the middle of summer. I should have said that instead. My point was that after all these years, that particular issue hasn't seemed to stop anyone that could afford it from going. So the idea that Disney could be convinced to spend that kind of money to enclose an entire land is a whole lot of silly thinking. And what land would they cover over? All of them or just specific ones? Also did the OP mean 100% coverage of a land including between attractions? That is what I assumed, or was it something like the entire Magic Kingdom or all the individual theme parks? One of my memories from my first visit in 1983 was that almost all the attractions that could be covered were housed in show buildings and that all the individual attractions were covered at least partially. In which case, Disney always did have that going for them.
To me it was more the demand that Disney start having high flying thrill rides that made that situation problematic. Then people stopped complaining about the lack of thills and, instead, complained about ugly buildings blocking some random view. I have been posting on this and other discussion sites for over 20 years and one thing we could always rely on was that somebody will have something to complain about no matter how good things appeared to be. I would have just been happy with having the queue's covered and AC'd. The worse was my favorite attraction, 20K Leagues Under the Sea! For some reason it had the longest lines and was like standing directly on the sun. I still put up with it because as lame as it was, I was always impressed with the way the illusion was done. I really miss the old subs.
Last edited:
I think I better location for an indoor park would be like a place like Las Vegas. With its drier air, its actually easy to cool a large space with swamp cooling (evaporative cooler) that has misting water into a filter with a fan behind to cool down the air.
The only gotcha in Las Vegas is prime locations are not cheap.
The only gotcha in Las Vegas is prime locations are not cheap.
JIMINYCR
Well-Known Member
Think about how miserable it would be if the system goes down in a totally enclosed park. The time to figure out the issue and then get it up running at a cool enough temp would be lengthy. In that time the hot sun baking the roof and reflecting heat downward.... Trying to recool the area once back to a running state and have guests regain being comfortable would be daunting.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Hey, not fair if you are going to insist on bringing logic into this discussion. Remember that everything in a Disney Park runs on magic.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Under the current leadership no.
I wont say never but maybe someday when there is leadership is in place who understands the value WDW has to the company, then maybe.
Consider this. Perhaps not the entire land indoor but maybe a land where all attractions (including queues) food, merch, are all indoors and the only time you are outside is to move between buildings.
I wont say never but maybe someday when there is leadership is in place who understands the value WDW has to the company, then maybe.
Consider this. Perhaps not the entire land indoor but maybe a land where all attractions (including queues) food, merch, are all indoors and the only time you are outside is to move between buildings.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Ever been on Test Track and noticed the complex of giant fans behind Mission: SPACE? That’s the park’s central cooling planet where they chill water that is then fed throughout the park to be used for the air conditioning systems in the various buildings. Chilled water systems are used for campuses and large buildings because they’re efficient and have a good bit of redundancy built into them. A facility of such a scale wouldn’t have a single point of failure for the climate control.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
I hope not, one of the best parts of the Disney parks is they feel like parks.
That said I think they've already touched on solutions in other parks, Epcot has a ton of indoor ride areas, DL Paris has covered pathways that connect much of the park for events like rain, the arcades that parallel their main street, etc. They just need to expand on these ideas a bit and they could have the best of both worlds.
We have a fully indoor amusement park here in Vegas, the Adventuredome, and it's fun but not even in the same category as a Disney park, it has a glass exterior, fake mountains, fake plants and trees, etc but it still feels 100% like you're in a building. Even extremely immersive, extremely well done areas like the canals at the Venetian here in Vegas you still 100% feel like you're indoors. I just don't think it's possible to replicate the feeling of a Disney park indoors.
That said I think they've already touched on solutions in other parks, Epcot has a ton of indoor ride areas, DL Paris has covered pathways that connect much of the park for events like rain, the arcades that parallel their main street, etc. They just need to expand on these ideas a bit and they could have the best of both worlds.
We have a fully indoor amusement park here in Vegas, the Adventuredome, and it's fun but not even in the same category as a Disney park, it has a glass exterior, fake mountains, fake plants and trees, etc but it still feels 100% like you're in a building. Even extremely immersive, extremely well done areas like the canals at the Venetian here in Vegas you still 100% feel like you're indoors. I just don't think it's possible to replicate the feeling of a Disney park indoors.
Last edited:
mergatroid
Well-Known Member
If we're working on the premise that the new leadership is so bad, that would mean the old leadership was good or at least better. That being the case then why wouldn't the old (good leadership) have made an entirely indoor land if it were needed or were such a great idea? I'm not trying to be argumentative and agree the current leadership is far from great but I just don't see the idea of an entirely indoor land not being built because of bad leadership, I just don't see the need for it and the restrictions it would impose?
As for "Perhaps not the entire land indoor but maybe a land where all attractions (including queues) food, merch, are all indoors and the only time you are outside is to move between buildings" then Liberty Square is probably the closest to the description with HM and HOP being indoor attractions. The queues if busy may be in the sun but if that were such an issue that people were complaining about then they could add extra cover, but again the old leadership were happy to have it how it is so it couldn't have been a big issue to the guests or surely it would have been addressed back then?
In all the many years I've been on this site I can't ever remember there ever being a conversation going on where people have been asking for an entirely indoor themed land. I imagine that's because it's not really necessary or even that appealing. Add to that the size of the land would surely be reduced if we wanted it due to the cost and the building would be expected to be 'hidden' meaning a height restriction also. Then the ceiling would have to be themed to make it not feel like you're in a building so people wouldn't complain and it just seems a bit unnecessary.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
This is a discussion forum so we discuss stuff.
I said maybe because you never know. Maybe it’s more like, “probably not.” There are theme parks around the world that are mostly indoor, like Lotte world in South Korea, that indoor space easily big enough for a land at WDW.
As for leadership, I never used the word bad for the current leadership, but it fits for many decisions they made (in my opinion), nothing to do with building a all indoor land at WDW.
I can’t speak for the previous leadership as to why they never considered an all indoor land, maybe because it wasn’t as hot out in previous decades? A discussion for another thread on another discussion board as I presume that cannot be even discussed on these boards.
I just said that the current leadership would never consider it; in my opinion, the current leadership wants to milk the cash cow called WDW for every thing they can while spending as little as they can.
Are they spending money to “expand” WDW now? They are, if you consider “destroy and replace” expanding, I also think they taking the cheapest route possible in my opinion.
Last edited:
wdwfan4ver
Well-Known Member
In the Imagineering forum, I created indoor theme park concepts back in 2014 and 2015.
One of the reasons I did at the time was Walt Disney himself actually had plans of an indoor theme park called River Front Square back in the 1960s before being canceled for multiple reasons.
mergatroid
Well-Known Member
That's what we're doing, discussing it? I've not suggested or hinted that we can't or shouldn't and I'm just discussing my opinion like you are even though mine differs to yours, I've no idea why we're discussing what the forum is for?
I'm not defending current management and I'm greatly against the destruction of ROA however when you say that Disney aren't expanding they're actually expanding the Magic Kingdom to construct the proposed Villains Land and building into the Studios car park (expanding again) for the Monsters attraction so that's factually incorrect.
I've had a look at Lotte World in South Korea just now so thanks for mentioning that, it looks interesting. Personally though when I look at it, it shows the problems that I mentioned in my previous post about the theming aspect. At no point do you not feel that you're not inside a building, you can clearly see the building from outside it and inside it and there's parts of the park that are actually outside.
I'm pretty sure that an indoor land could be built by any company willing to invest in it, but my thinking is why would they want to do this in Orlando where there's enough people going even though there isn't an indoor land? And if they decided that they wanted to do it, the cost for whatever was in that land would increase a great deal due to the fact that it was having to be covered by an air conditioned building. Add to the fact that every man and his dog complains about 'site lines' or show buildings being seen within the park such as GOTG and Tron etc, and that means paying even more money to 'hide' those buildings.
Now that might really appeal to some people and those people could argue that Disney could afford to do it and they'd probably be right, but at some point I'd argue that the cost would have to be justified for the reasons behind the decision making. As far as I can see, there's not really been a demand for this to be done to make it a worthwhile venture? For instance I'm sure some folk would be delighted if the castle in the MK was gold plated, it could be done but for what purpose? Now I realise that an 'indoor land' would offer coolness to a lot of people and a gold plated castle would just be a vanity thing for bragging rights, however both are things that would cost a lot and very few people are asking for. For this reason I'd imagine that management (good or bad) and guests in the park would prefer the extra money to be spent on making better attractions and lands rather than on building a one off land indoors when there's seemingly no current demand for one that I've ever heard of.
That doesn't make either of us wrong in our opinions and to you it might seem a great idea and worthy of the money. I'm more pointing out the logistics of it and the cost. If we look at Epic Universe for instance, a brand new and wonderful theme park in it's own right that cost a fortune to build. There's probably a reason why that's not entirely indoors, nor does it contain a land that's entirely indoors. I'd put that reason down to the cost and the restrictions it would create, along with there not being enough people saying it's too hot for an outside park and refusing to go. This is why I'm kind of saying the idea of it being because Disney management wouldn't pay for it is sort of misleading. I'm sure they wouldn't just like Universal just didn't, however I can 100% see the financial justification for both companies not wanting to.
Last edited:
mergatroid
Well-Known Member
I rarely if ever go on the Imagineering forum, so apologies that I missed your idea. I was more referring to the two most popular parts of the forum where I've never recalled it being discussed. Things that usually contain very popular ideas amongst Disney fans tend to be mentioned on threads regularly or evolve into their own threads such as the Yeti not being fixed, people suffocating due to no air conditioning on the skyliner or Galaxies Edge not featuring the original characters.
I'll try to find your thread though, sounds interesting and thanks.
Pix E. Dust
Well-Known Member
1. It costs a lot of money.
2. They have plenty of demand as is. So, why spend the money?
2. They have plenty of demand as is. So, why spend the money?