New Land Suitability Plan

[lazyboy97o]

That's what I was surmising as well. Some of the land is straightforward unsuitable, period. The stuff that could maybe kinda sorta possibly be developed someday with a boatload of money and effort will require offsets.

And also - How big is their appetite to buy more land to do those offsets? Right now, I think it's completely off the menu. May as well nip this one in the bud right now, before people see the shades of green (which always baffled me) and think there's plenty of build-able land.

The water management offsets don’t necessarily need to be in newly acquired land. It could be things like increasing the size of existing ponds or building new ones.

 

[JoeCamel]

Good catch. I saw the small changes on the lower right of that area but somehow not north of Frontierland. Genuinely wondering if that all but kills their blue sky plans announced for the area? I’d imagine the cost to both make it suitable plus potentially the need to buy more land for offsets (presuming, of course, they wouldn’t give up any suitable land they currently own) would be pretty high.

I wonder how much of the land they already aquired is still available for offset? They might have some in the bank if a backbone to commit can be found
Written last night but failed to post it

 

[danlb_2000]

I wonder how much of the land they already aquired is still available for offset? They might have some in the bank if a backbone to commit can be found
Written last night but failed to post it

Or how much of the Marginally Unsuitable has already gotten the offset. The land by DHS we removed from the conservation easement when they acquired to new land to offset it.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

So this is a good thing, right? More land deemed at least somewhat suitable to build on?

 

[ToTBellHop]

So this is a good thing, right? More land deemed at least somewhat suitable to build on?

Sure but not surprising. Did anyone doubt that they COULD build beyond Big Thunder? Regardless of actual construction timetables, I’m sure Reedy Creek just wanted this done before the Governor’s Seedy Freak District arrived.

 

[HauntedPirate]

So this is a good thing, right? More land deemed at least somewhat suitable to build on?

Will it matter, though, if it costs them a billion-plus to make a large enough plot of land suitable to build on? (I have no idea how much it could cost, just throwing out WDI-like numbers for anything these days)

 

[tissandtully]

Good thing affordable housing only requires Unsuitable land!

 

[lentesta]

Here is the color code for the maps.

View attachment 766095

Nice catch here, @danlb_2000.

 

[AshaNeOmah]

Is the RCID plan even applicable any longer? It might give hints to what was planned, but with the district change... I wonder what that means for these plans.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So this is a good thing, right? More land deemed at least somewhat suitable to build on?

It’s just more detail. It doesn’t really change Disney’s ability to develop the land.

Is the RCID plan even applicable any longer? It might give hints to what was planned, but with the district change... I wonder what that means for these plans.

As of right now the District cannot meaningfully change the Comprehensive Plan. The reason they are suing Disney is to void the development agreement that locks the zoning based on the plan in place.

 

[Advisable Joseph]

I think I downloaded a copy of this plan Spring of 2023?

Anyway

From Table 2-1 of my copy:

Uses	2020 Base Condition	2027 5 Year Increment Maximum	2032 5 Year Increment Maximum
Major Theme Parks	4 Parks	1 Park	(Blank)
Minor Theme Parks	3 Parks	1 Park	1 Park

Why are they saying that if Disney wants to add another major park, it must be by 2027 instead of 2032? Would that be the time it is open to the public, or the time official documents for the park are delivered to the government?

It seems Disney may be permanently unable to add a "fifth gate" unless they act by 2027. If Disney cannot add another major park, what will it do with all of the land D'Amaro has been talking about? A hyper-expansion of Magic Kingdom blobbing into all of the potentially useable land relatively nearby? Turn Animal Kingdom into a zoo by shutting down the theme park rides and declare it a minor park, thereby freeing up a slot for another major park?

 

[MR.Dis]

Right around 2019 -, Disney purchased around 2700 acres of land around WDW. At the time it was speculated these purchases were going to be used for offset with new projects that were being in design. Covid set alot of plans back, but maybe we now see the method to their madness.

 

[JoeCamel]

I think I downloaded a copy of this plan Spring of 2023?

Anyway

From Table 2-1 of my copy:

Uses	2020 Base Condition	2027 5 Year Increment Maximum	2032 5 Year Increment Maximum
Major Theme Parks	4 Parks	1 Park	(Blank)
Minor Theme Parks	3 Parks	1 Park	1 Park

Why are they saying that if Disney wants to add another major park, it must be by 2027 instead of 2032? Would that be the time it is open to the public, or the time official documents for the park are delivered to the government?

It seems Disney may be permanently unable to add a "fifth gate" unless they act by 2027. If Disney cannot add another major park, what will it do with all of the land D'Amaro has been talking about? A hyper-expansion of Magic Kingdom blobbing into all of the potentially useable land relatively nearby? Turn Animal Kingdom into a zoo by shutting down the theme park rides and declare it a minor park, thereby freeing up a slot for another major park?

While I doubt WDW will add a park at all the table says add one park every five years. It isn't happening in any case

 

[danlb_2000]

I think I downloaded a copy of this plan Spring of 2023?

Anyway

From Table 2-1 of my copy:

Uses	2020 Base Condition	2027 5 Year Increment Maximum	2032 5 Year Increment Maximum
Major Theme Parks	4 Parks	1 Park	(Blank)
Minor Theme Parks	3 Parks	1 Park	1 Park

Why are they saying that if Disney wants to add another major park, it must be by 2027 instead of 2032? Would that be the time it is open to the public, or the time official documents for the park are delivered to the government?

It seems Disney may be permanently unable to add a "fifth gate" unless they act by 2027. If Disney cannot add another major park, what will it do with all of the land D'Amaro has been talking about? A hyper-expansion of Magic Kingdom blobbing into all of the potentially useable land relatively nearby? Turn Animal Kingdom into a zoo by shutting down the theme park rides and declare it a minor park, thereby freeing up a slot for another major park?

This document doesn't spell out what Disney will or even can do, the limits are what the plan takes into consideration. These are also development maximums, meaning no more then 1 new major park by 2027.

 

[MR.Dis]

One more thing about land acquisitions, Disney purchased 235 acres of land just to the Northwest of where the Beyond Thunder Mountain is supposed to be. Really want to speculate, what about a new resort and DVC on that land with a second entrance available only to those who stay at the new resorts.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

One more thing about land acquisitions, Disney purchased 235 acres of land just to the Northwest of where the Beyond Thunder Mountain is supposed to be. Really want to speculate, what about a new resort and DVC on that land with a second entrance available only to those who stay at the new resorts.

I feel like Disney typically only buys land to offset what they are building. (For environmental reasons) But I could be wrong.

 

[Advisable Joseph]

This document doesn't spell out what Disney ... can do ...

Are you sure? I thought I saw passages demanding that Disney prove future projects will not exceed the limits of Table 2-1.

These are also development maximums, meaning no more then 1 new major park by 2027.

That's what I wrote? We appear to be at cross-purposes here?

Anyway, I thought of a saner way of interpreting Table 2-1:

From Table 2-1 of my copy:

Uses	2020 Base Condition	2027 5 Year Increment Maximum	2032 5 Year Increment Maximum
Major Theme Parks	4 Parks	1 Park	(Blank)
Minor Theme Parks	3 Parks	1 Park	1 Park

Maybe the increment is the increment for the maximum amount of parks from that time forward, not the maximum amount of actual addition parks?

 

[Advisable Joseph]

As far as I can see it is not addressed directly in the plan. I think they key may be this phrase from the Marginally Unsuitable description "require compensating storage to be provided." This means that if they want to develop this land they have to provide equivalent land elsewhere to offset it. The Marginally Suitable land on the other hand would not need offsets but would still require a lot of storm water control remediation.

I think Marginally Unsuitable land is in the 100-year floodplain (within the elevation?), which is becoming a much more serious issue than it sounds, if you haven't followed hurricanes which have hit Disney the last few years. Historic flooding!

 

[nickys]

Around Magic Kingdom, there are two areas behind the park that have gone from Unsuitable to Marginally Unsuitable. The area at the back of the park between the park and the railroad track has gone from suitable to either Marginally Suitable or Marginally Unsuitable.

View attachment 766097

Why would the area between MK and the railroad track have been downgraded?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I feel like Disney typically only buys land to offset what they are building. (For environmental reasons) But I could be wrong.

The big change they made in the late 2010s was to buy parcels, like the one near celebration and the Reedy Lake parcels, to rebuild a buffer around the resort.

Sprawl around WDW is another contributing factor to the flooding problem.