47 Square Miles & What has not been used.

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Okay I've looked on the maps of WDW and as to what I can see it only looks like not too much of the 47 square miles have been used...If you look at the map that's in the new DVD booklet it looks freakin small....So my question is..do you think will see more resorts or a park (surley not for a loooooonnggg time) or can they fit anything else anymore instead of just adding new attractions to the parks?

 

[JPVonDrake]

According to http://www.rcid.org/ (Reedy Creek Improvement District official website)

Disney has used:

Residential - 11 acres .04 %

Retail/ Restaurant - 145 acres 0.58%
Office Space - 50 acres 0.20%
Other Comercial - 49 acres 0.20%

Resort Hotels - 1,842 acres 7.39%
Campgrounds - 277 acres 1.11%
Golf Courses - 940 acres 3.77%

Major Theme Parks - 1,692 acres 6.79%
(Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Disney/MGM Studios, Animal Kingdom)
Minor Theme Parks - 341 acres 1.37%
(Blizzard Beach, Typhoon Lagoon, River Country, Disney Speedway, Discovery Island, Wide World of Sports)
Other Entertainment - 204 acres 0.82%

Support Facilities - 689 acres 2.76%

Roads - 1,565 acres 6.28%
Other Public Facilities - 867 acres 3.48%

Agriculture - 1,012 acres 4.06%

Undeveloped Open Space - 6,096 acres 24.46%

Conservation - 7,617 acres 30.56%
Water Bodies - 1,527 acres 6.13%
(Reedy Creek Swamp, Bay Lake, Seven Seas Lagoon, World Showcase Lagoon, Village Lake, Lake Buena Vista, Club Lake)

TOTAL 24,924 acres 100.0%

Above does not include areas removed from RCID (Town of Celebration, Disney Wildlife Preserve)

Hope this helps! :sohappy:

 

[Master Yoda]

The numbers I have heard on land usage go like this. Roughly 25% of the 47 square miles have been developed, 25% will never be developed which leave about 23.5 square miles of undeveloped property left over. The problem that comes into expanding the parks is that in many cases they are hemmed in by natural or man made boundaries. So if you look at a satellite image of Disney property you can see how EPCOT and MGM have reached there size limit and MK and AK have some area left to expand. Also one of the biggest overlying themes in the development of Disney was that each park seemed secluded. In a nut shell you can’t look at MGM from EPCOT or MK from AK. Now that rule if you will has been bent in the WS area of EPCOT. The Swan and Dolphin as well as Soarin are clearly visible and it does take away from the experience. The least expensive way to modify the parks is to remove unpopular and or unprofitable attractions and replace them with new ones. The next option is to somehow remove or relocate the boundaries which would be very costly and in some cases impossible. The other option is to create a 5th park but with that comes a myriad of other problems that have been discussed to death on this board. When there is a need (right now ½ of Pop Century is unfinished because there isn’t the guest volume to fill the rooms) will more than likely see new resorts long before a new park.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Disney still has a ton of space that it can build on, and most of it will probably never be used. There will come a point where there is no reason for them to build anymore. At the most you would see one more new theme park, and that probably wouldn't happen for a good 15-20 years at this point.

 

[Robfasto]

Here is a satellite picture that has nearly all the Disney property that is North of U.S. 192 you can pretty much see the property line so you can see for yourself

Whole Property Satellite Picture

 

[peter11435]

Here is a satellite picture that has nearly all the Disney property that is North of U.S. 192 you can pretty much see the property line so you can see for yourself

Whole Property Satellite Picture

Yeah, but remember about 40% of there property is south of 192.

 

[Lynx04]

Yeah, but remember about 40% of there property is south of 192.

I have heard somewhere that the land south of 192 is going to be kept as wildlife preserve. I don't know if that is true or not and only heard it on this site.

 

[Laufschneller65]

The numbers I have heard on land usage go like this. Roughly 25% of the 47 square miles have been developed, 25% will never be developed which leave about 23.5 square miles of undeveloped property left over. The problem that comes into expanding the parks is that in many cases they are hemmed in by natural or man made boundaries. So if you look at a satellite image of Disney property you can see how EPCOT and MGM have reached there size limit and MK and AK have some area left to expand. Also one of the biggest overlying themes in the development of Disney was that each park seemed secluded. In a nut shell you can’t look at MGM from EPCOT or MK from AK. Now that rule if you will has been bent in the WS area of EPCOT. The Swan and Dolphin as well as Soarin are clearly visible and it does take away from the experience. The least expensive way to modify the parks is to remove unpopular and or unprofitable attractions and replace them with new ones. The next option is to somehow remove or relocate the boundaries which would be very costly and in some cases impossible. The other option is to create a 5th park but with that comes a myriad of other problems that have been discussed to death on this board. When there is a need (right now ½ of Pop Century is unfinished because there isn’t the guest volume to fill the rooms) will more than likely see new resorts long before a new park.

I can sometimes see The Tower of Terror from Epcot right over Morroco. Personaly I think it ruins the atmosphere of the park along with the Swan and Dolphin and the new Soarin Atraction. so I hope they don;t make that mistake again, and again.

 

[peter11435]

I have heard somewhere that the land south of 192 is going to be kept as wildlife preserve. I don't know if that is true or not and only heard it on this site.

That is somewhat true. Since they are going to keep some land as a wildlife preserve, then it would only make sense to do this with the land south of 192. Disney would not want to be transporting guests that far south unless they had no more land left north of 192. The main reason I pointed this out is that with the land south of 192, Disney is free to develop nearly 100% of there land north of 192.

 

[Lynx04]

That is somewhat true. Since they are going to keep some land as a wildlife preserve, then it would only make sense to do this with the land south of 192. Disney would not want to be transporting guests that far south unless they had no more land left north of 192. The main reason I pointed this out is that with the land south of 192, Disney is free to develop nearly 100% of there land north of 192.

Thanks for clearing that up, makes sense.

 

[macopia]

I remember reading somewhere that Disney was having tax issues with Osceola county and just decided to make that area a preserve.

 

[Erika]

I am probably in the minority, but I like WDW just how it is. I love that feeling of isolation from one spot to the next (with the occasional peek-a-boo). New stuff is always fun but I hope they don't go overboard and build too much. Bigger is not always better.

 

[ThreeCircles]

I remember reading somewhere that Disney was having tax issues with Osceola county and just decided to make that area a preserve.

An article I read said that Disney purchased about 12,000 acres in Osceola county so that they could "build out" the Walt Disney World Resort if they wished. Thus the "wildlife preserve" acerage is actually in Osceola and not at WDW any longer.

 

[MichelleBelle]

I am probably in the minority, but I like WDW just how it is. I love that feeling of isolation from one spot to the next (with the occasional peek-a-boo). New stuff is always fun but I hope they don't go overboard and build too much. Bigger is not always better.

Agreed! The last thing WDW should do is OVER-build and make things too overwhelming for guests. I hope that a 5th park will someday be added but there's still lots than can be done with that potential money to improve on the current parks (like AK or even the MK). I think that before they consider using more of the property they need to improve on things already on the property. Adding another park or parks or too many other things on the property would take focus away from the stuff that's already there, and the whole WDW experience would suffer... dirtier parks, no re-furbs, overcrowding, etc...

 

[PBarton]

Agreed! The last thing WDW should do is OVER-build and make things too overwhelming for guests. I hope that a 5th park will someday be added but there's still lots than can be done with that potential money to improve on the current parks (like AK or even the MK). I think that before they consider using more of the property they need to improve on things already on the property. Adding another park or parks or too many other things on the property would take focus away from the stuff that's already there, and the whole WDW experience would suffer... dirtier parks, no re-furbs, overcrowding, etc...

I agree there 100% -Everyone likes to see new attractions springing up everywhere (although not at the expense of older classics of course), but it gets to the point of over saturation.

If a large percentage of the available land was used by new theme parks it would be impossible to "See everything" in the usual 14 night stay. It is just about right at the moment, I would rather see money spent on tidying up Main Street etc.

Isn't it true that a significant proportion of the land is not usable anyway due to very soft/swampy land??

 

[Domboy]

Here is a satellite picture that has nearly all the Disney property that is North of U.S. 192 you can pretty much see the property line so you can see for yourself

Whole Property Satellite Picture

Wow - that is cool!

But can someone label the areas so I can see where things are - before some smart alec says cant you see MK, EPCOT, MGM AK hehe i can - but its the other stuff that I think is more exciting - the "behind the scenes" buildings

Or is there another post that has that?

Cheers muchly

 

[POOHKILLEDTOAD]

I am probably in the minority, but I like WDW just how it is. I love that feeling of isolation from one spot to the next (with the occasional peek-a-boo). New stuff is always fun but I hope they don't go overboard and build too much. Bigger is not always better.

full agreement here. it is kinda neat to see a little quick glimpse of a structure or two as you drive down world drive.

 

[cloudboy]

Doesn't it surprise anyone else that nearly as much space is taken up by roads as are taken up by the main parks?

 

[Slipknot]

Doesn't it surprise anyone else that nearly as much space is taken up by roads as are taken up by the main parks?

Not really. When you have a ton of property that guests can visit, you need all the roadways you can get.

 

[marni1971]

Remember that a fair part of WDW will never be built on due to unsuitable ground - east and west of Animal Kingdom (Reedy and Boggy Creeks) and the Venitian/Meditteranian Resort site spring to mind.

Also areas have to be kept clear for flood control and 100 year storm scenarios too (although some have already been built on; the MK parking lot for example would be partly underwater in a 100 year storm)