I know you've advanced that POV before and I just have a different view, but people are going to see and use the resort in different ways.
No doubt that putting specific attractions into each Park or even specific sections of a Park might more sense thematically from our perspective, but Disney may not see it that way, which is the point. Disney has different priorities than we as fans do. Also not saying that shouldn't be discussed as two separate Parks, but we should be looking at things through the lens of the whole Resort.
If some guests see it as all one big seamless park, and other guests like me see them as two parks but one is only worth visiting every couple/few times at the resort, and for half as many days as DL, then the win-win for exploiting both mindsets is pour all the investment into what we call "DCA," i.e., Simba.
See this is my point, I'm not talking about from a guest perspective. Every guest will look at things differently, they most likely see it as two separate Parks similar to you because they have to pay for two separate tickets. I'm talking about purely from a Disney perspective, and how posters here are talking about DL proper shouldn't be touched or xyz IP should only be put into DCA and not DL because its not "core Disney". Disney very likely doesn't see things the same way, they look at the Resort as a whole and what investments they should put into it as a whole rather than just "Hey I'm spending $1B at DL and spending $1B at DCA".
Again this isn't about the guest perspective.
Is it? Because if many had their way here Avatar wouldn't be going into the Backlot and instead go into Simba and Coco would take over other areas like Goofy's and that corner of the Park. Which we know aren't Disney's choices. So I think we again need to change our perspective and look maybe at how Disney does make their choices, rather than what "we" think they should do.
Not sure how well that would go over with guests as they would expect what they see in the movies, ie Arendelle. But from a creative perspective I think it would be an interesting take on the Nordic region.
I am not quite sure what this is in reference to, as I haven't read all the responses or really know what all the acronyms mean, but I think everything you said it a fair representation of what I said.Are you talking about expanding Disneyland Park into DLF parking west of Disneyland Dr.?
If so, my answer to that is that DL doesn't need it. I think while anecdotal, the trip report (so far) by @PUSH is a perfect example. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but they visited for four days and have reported on three days so far. They went to:
- DL Day 1
- DL Day 2 until the sun was going down, went to DCA including WOC, then back to DL afterward
- DCA Day 3 until this...
...so they went back to DL.
- Day 4: ???
(Even if they went back to DCA Day 4...(we'll find out)...the fact they had never been to DCA before and felt they had done it all in so little time is noteworthy.)
But the point is, this Disney Parks fan has spent so far a majority of their time at DL rather than DCA even though DL is similar to MK, which they've been to dozens of times.
DCA, which charges the same admission as DL, is desperately in need to more to do and more reason to hang around, to come close to balancing out crowds with DL. If they expand DL into DLF it will just throw the balance off more.
@PUSH also mentions the issue of walking to the farthest reaches of DL to get to attractions, and a DLF expansion west of Disneyland Dr. will only exacerbate that...imagine how far that is from TL. And it will ruin the symmetry and beauty of Walt's park layout (a complaint I've seen about Fantasy Springs at TDS).
Whereas DCA is already a lopsided, inelegant layout, or as @PUSH said it:
The DCA DLF can't fix that, but it's not going to hurt as much as it could at DL. And if they were smart they would have embraced this long, right-curving lopsided design and celebrated that with a strong spinal path with transport (like the trolley or a Tokyo DisneySea style elevated train) to turn a fundamental bug into a unique feature -- and provide transport from BVS to Simba and back for tired feet.
So, DL doesn't need expanding over there, and it might hurt the overall park's feel. That land could be used for whatever hotels, waterpark, etc. they need at the Resort. DCA meanwhile desperately needs top tier themed areas and attractions and Simba happens to be the spot available.
My point is those are two recent examples where the armchair imagineering differs from Disney decisions, and there are loads of others examples like TL sitting the state its in or Tiana, etc, ie that Disney's choices don't necessarily follow the same logic. They have different priorities than what "we" who discuss this stuff on the daily who throw out ideas do. So they aren't exceptions, its basically the norm in most cases where the armchair imagineering and Disney's decisions don't line up.
I would agree, by and large all "locals" view it as one big Park, whether that be via the MKs or the Park Hoppers.
I hope it was okay to cite your trip report, it's been fun to read, and I appreciate the effort you've put into it!
Yep, DLR is basically a country club/spa that also sells day passes. The business needs both, but they are different customers with different perceptions and needs. The company's investment decisions, including expansion, would seem to take these different customers into account, based on their understanding of the customers' wants, motivators, etc., and modeling business outcomes.