Toy Story Hotel Planned to replace Paradise Pier Hotel?

[Disney Irish]

it doesn’t take 50 years to recoup the costs of the existing build. And I highly doubt Disney is keeping 90 rooms for cash sales. From what I understand Disney retains 2% of rooms when all is said and done. They probably have to sell less than half of all units (guesstimate 2 years) to recoup the cost and then its profit from then on out. You are asking Disney to forgo these profits to tear down and rebuild the same thing half a mile away? Why would they do that? What about Disney , or any other profitable business would you point to as a model for this idea? With due respect , It would get people fired for malpractice

Lets be clear, I'm not asking them to do anything. It was something wondered by another poster, and I just commented. For all we know Disney will sit on the property for the next 100 years, we don't know. Its a discussion with no impact on anything Disney does.

And so who is getting fired for Starcruiser? That thing lasted less than 2 years and already is needing more money spent on it just so they can do something with it. So tell me again that Disney cares about foregoing profits. Because if they really did they would have just lowered the price for Starcruiser and rode it out until it was profitable. As the idea itself was sound but just too expensive.

So with all due respect Disney's own actions counter your argument.

 

[mlayton144]

Lets be clear, I'm not asking them to do anything. It was something wondered by another poster, and I just commented. For all we know Disney will sit on the property for the next 100 years, we don't know. Its a discussion with no impact on anything Disney does.

And so who is getting fired for Starcruiser? That thing lasted less than 2 years and already is needing more money spent on it just so they can do something with it. So tell me again that Disney cares about foregoing profits. Because if they really did they would have just lowered the price for Starcruiser and rode it out until it was profitable. As the idea itself was sound but just too expensive.

So with all due respect Disney's own actions counter your argument.

The starcruiser was profitable?

 

[Disney Irish]

The starcruiser was profitable?

Nope, they spent $400M on it and had to take a $300M loss write down when they shut it down.

 

[Nirya]

Point of order, but Disney still doesn't own the plot of land that Pixar Place stands on, or even the building itself, right? So I imagine they were given a budget by the company that does own the land and made do with that.

I only say this because I assume Disney's first option here would have been to just tear the building down and replace it with rooms on the new construction for Toy Story Lot.

 

[Phroobar]

Point of order, but Disney still doesn't own the plot of land that Pixar Place stands on, or even the building itself, right? So I imagine they were given a budget by the company that does own the land and made do with that.

I only say this because I assume Disney's first option here would have been to just tear the building down and replace it with rooms on the new construction for Toy Story Lot.

Urban myth. We don't know that for a fact. No one online has ever confirmed that with actual physical documentation.
Razing the building and starting over is far more expensive than a referb.

 

[NobodyElse]

Urban myth. We don't know that for a fact. No one online has ever confirmed that with actual physical documentation.
Razing the building and starting over is far more expensive than a referb.

You bring up two separate points (that may or may not be related).

Yes, normally refurbishment should normally be less expensive than tearing down and rebuilding a structure. But most all of us have seen instances where a refurbishment doesn't achieve the end results a developer wants, so they opt for the tear-down (full or partial) and rebuild.

Now to the "Urban myth". I have no more first-hand knowledge than you do. The concept has been batted around here several times, and I haven't seen the mystery contract that supposedly lays out the conditions of use, etc., but to me there's clearly something different about that property.

Take a look at this (2021) document. (CLICK HERE)

Lots of pretty maps where that parcel sticks out like a sore thumb for various reasons I don't claim to fully understand. Notably it fell under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, but not the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. Many other distinctions, like it's considered a Low Density C-R district, as opposed to a Low - Medium Density C-R district, etc.

The last page gives us this Disney-owned or Controlled Properties info:

And a bonus clip for reference, showing ARSP differentiation, and other "owners".

So, there seems to be something(s) that set this property apart from (for instance) the other Disney hotels.

If I knew the Chao Family, I might ask them.

 

[chadwpalm]

I'm not a historian when it comes to this stuff, but was Googling around about it.

According to this article (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-12-12-fi-13269-story.html) Disney bought the hotel in late 1995. It's not specific about the property (land), but this quote:

"Like many Japanese investors who bought at the height of the real estate market only to see property values plummet in recent years, Tokyu recently has attempted to untangle itself from its California land holdings and recently sold properties in San Diego."

...leads me to think that the purpose of the sale was to get rid of everything......property and the building on it. Disney most likely owns it all, but I don't think that's the issue here.

As @NobodyElse stated above, that land falls under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, not the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. The ARSP was adopted in 1994 and the DRSP adopted in 1993......both before Disney owned that land, hence why it was adopted into the ARSP.

DisneylandForward deals with the modification of the DRSP, so I would assume that since that property falls under the ARSP that is why it is not being earmarked to be torn down for any expansion or changes done on that side of Disneyland Dr.

According to the ARSP, that land is zoned for Retail, Office, and Hotel Activities. Perhaps Disney didn't think it was worth pushing to try amd get two Resort Specific Plans updated for the sake of of DisneylandForward. It's a tough enough uphill battle just to get one plan changed to favor Disney to use their land however they want.

Just my two cents. I could be totally off on all of this.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm not a historian when it comes to this stuff, but was Googling around about it.

According to this article (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-12-12-fi-13269-story.html) Disney bought the hotel in late 1995. It's not specific about the property (land), but this quote:

"Like many Japanese investors who bought at the height of the real estate market only to see property values plummet in recent years, Tokyu recently has attempted to untangle itself from its California land holdings and recently sold properties in San Diego."

...leads me to think that the purpose of the sale was to get rid of everything......property and the building on it. Disney most likely owns it all, but I don't think that's the issue here.

As @NobodyElse stated above, that land falls under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, not the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. The ARSP was adopted in 1994 and the DRSP adopted in 1993......both before Disney owned that land, hence why it was adopted into the ARSP.

DisneylandForward deals with the modification of the DRSP, so I would assume that since that property falls under the ARSP that is why it is not being earmarked to be torn down for any expansion or changes done on that side of Disneyland Dr.

According to the ARSP, that land is zoned for Retail, Office, and Hotel Activities. Perhaps Disney didn't think it was worth pushing to try amd get two Resort Specific Plans updated for the sake of of DisneylandForward. It's a tough enough uphill battle just to get one plan changed to favor Disney to use their land however they want.

Just my two cents. I could be totally off on all of this.

This seems like a valid assessment to me. Besides other than aesthetics Disney may not see any reason to tear it down at the moment. Save the big CapEx investment for when DisneylandForward get approved.

 

[aleh021]

Ultimately, if it had made more sense to tear down Paradise Pier Hotel and rebuild, they would've done it. But there are clearly more implications then any us will ever really know about.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Ultimately, if it had made more sense to tear down Paradise Pier Hotel and rebuild, they would've done it. But there are clearly more implications then any us will ever really know about.

I still don't think the continued existence of PPH necessarily proves anything conclusively one way or another except that in the 90s, DLR was clearly acting in the interest of creating a hotel inventory as quickly and cheaply as possible.

This could be proof that PPH is a valuable part of their portfolio, but the fact that it didn't have any operating restaurants until recently and a retheme had to occur to draw guest interest suggests otherwise.

As I said previously in the thread, it could be something as simple as Disney refusing to close the hotel-and lose roughly a third of their resort inventory-unless sufficient lodging capacity is built elsewhere to absorb the loss of revenue. That doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't make sense to tear it down, it just means that they're not willing to do it yet.

If new resorts are built on the Toy Story Lot, and PPH continues to operate largely as it does now once they're up and running, then it would make more sense to definitively say they find long-term value in the hotel. Until then, I'll remain skeptical.

 

[gerarar]