Additional Attractions versus Replacement Attractions

[po1998]

Not counting Pandora(which was built in space not being used), in many cases we see attraction "replacement" versus attraction "adds". Is this simply a case of keeping operational costs down(staffing, maintenance of attraction, etc...) when you do a replacement, or is there more to it than this?

From shuttered attractions like WoL, to attractions that are a shell of their former self(BLT before it was bulldozed, JIYI, SGE, Animation Courtyard, Main St. Shops, etc...

Do the head honchos not care how much time you spend in line instead of being able to enjoy more attractions?

In the case of all 4 parks, there is room for expansion...if that is the way they would choose to go.

It is great to see new lands being built finally, but is there really enough for guests to do in the lands to offset the costs? 2 attractions in Pandora, 2 in SWL and 2 in TSL...6 attractions total for how much money? While theme is important, I still contend that most guests aren't wandering around a land for hours on end just "looking around". They paid $100+ to get into a park, and they want things to do.

I'd love to see a historical attraction count for each park from opening until now...then again, maybe I don't want to see these numbers.

 

[Bolt]

Not counting Pandora(which was built in space not being used), in many cases we see attraction "replacement" versus attraction "adds". Is this simply a case of keeping operational costs down(staffing, maintenance of attraction, etc...) when you do a replacement, or is there more to it than this?

From shuttered attractions like WoL, to attractions that are a shell of their former self(BLT before it was bulldozed, JIYI, SGE, Animation Courtyard, Main St. Shops, etc...

Do the head honchos not care how much time you spend in line instead of being able to enjoy more attractions?

In the case of all 4 parks, there is room for expansion...if that is the way they would choose to go.

It is great to see new lands being built finally, but is there really enough for guests to do in the lands to offset the costs? 2 attractions in Pandora, 2 in SWL and 2 in TSL...6 attractions total for how much money? While theme is important, I still contend that most guests aren't wandering around a land for hours on end just "looking around". They paid $100+ to get into a park, and they want things to do.

I'd love to see a historical attraction count for each park from opening until now...then again, maybe I don't want to see these numbers.

This thread is kind of all over the place in questions. But simply put, yes, if you build great attractions, you can get more people to come to the park. Look at all the theme parks (Disney, Universal, SeaWorld annual attendance).

 

[turtles221]

Not counting Pandora(which was built in space not being used), in many cases we see attraction "replacement" versus attraction "adds". Is this simply a case of keeping operational costs down(staffing, maintenance of attraction, etc...) when you do a replacement, or is there more to it than this?

From shuttered attractions like WoL, to attractions that are a shell of their former self(BLT before it was bulldozed, JIYI, SGE, Animation Courtyard, Main St. Shops, etc...

Do the head honchos not care how much time you spend in line instead of being able to enjoy more attractions?

In the case of all 4 parks, there is room for expansion...if that is the way they would choose to go.

It is great to see new lands being built finally, but is there really enough for guests to do in the lands to offset the costs? 2 attractions in Pandora, 2 in SWL and 2 in TSL...6 attractions total for how much money? While theme is important, I still contend that most guests aren't wandering around a land for hours on end just "looking around". They paid $100+ to get into a park, and they want things to do.

I'd love to see a historical attraction count for each park from opening until now...then again, maybe I don't want to see these numbers.

Actually, Pandora was built on top of Camp Minnie Mickey, but that closed years ago to prepare for Pandora.

 

[Chef Mickey]

WDW has seemingly unlimited space that is largely unused when dreaming up something new. We typically get closures and re-themes versus entire new areas (think a grassland).

I disagree with this approach as capacity becomes a bigger concern every year. Even Pandora and Star Wars are being built on previously developed areas.

 

[JIMINYCR]

I'm not sure Disney really is overly concerned about length of lines or time of waits. They certainly have the space and could add more attractions to spread out the number of guests over more attractions. That importance of increasing guests over rides has been shown by the additions of DVC's and the push to get room counts increased over adding a park. Their concern is number of guests that enter the turnstiles. Once the bodies enter the parks they are more interested in potentially adding revenue by guests shopping, eating and purchasing items. Rides dont add more money to the pot after youve entered. Once they have attracted the guests to the park and theyve paid the ticket price, the rides have done their job. A Pandora drives interest and renews numbers, once youre in it doesnt matter how long you have to wait, but you may buy more costly items like Banshees.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

While Toy Story land and Star Wars Land took up old attraction locations, What needs to be considered is the nature of the old attractions and the locations of them.

The Backlot Tour was way past its prime when it closed. That backlot Tour got smaller through the years and it was to see that it needed to go away. LMA going away was part cost, but it was deeper than that. Some of the buildings on streets of America was a waste space being actually a fake facade and only being used for the Dancing Lights. LMA's true problem was the location of it and Disney wanting getting a rid of the production theme of the park.

Indiana Jones is basically right now the last of that production theme of the park, but that is up to what the next CEO of Disney wants. Iger is going to be gone after July 2nd, 2019 or if he's forced out early if the feds find Disney did H 1-B abuse.

 

[typhoonbeach]

I'm not sure Disney really is overly concerned about length of lines or time of waits. They certainly have the space and could add more attractions to spread out the number of guests over more attractions. That importance of increasing guests over rides has been shown by the additions of DVC's and the push to get room counts increased over adding a park. Their concern is number of guests that enter the turnstiles. Once the bodies enter the parks they are more interested in potentially adding revenue by guests shopping, eating and purchasing items. Rides dont add more money to the pot after youve entered. Once they have attracted the guests to the park and theyve paid the ticket price, the rides have done their job. A Pandora drives interest and renews numbers, once youre in it doesnt matter how long you have to wait, but you may buy more costly items like Banshees.

I definitely agree with this. Leading up to the opening of Pandora, it became clear in my mind that, while the new area may not have many rides, its purpose to reign in new interest for Animal Kingdom and alleviate crowding concerns was the primary function (in my opinion). Regardless of what could have been or was on that area, Pandora seems to be a more symbolic land for the company's end goal in the future, a commitment to really stellar theming after years of the park's, more or less, stagnating.

 

[danlb_2000]

Actually, Pandora was built on top of Camp Minnie Mickey, but that closed years ago to prepare for Pandora.

Only part of it, and the main things in CMM, Festival of the Lion King and the M&Gs, were moved elsewhere.

 

[_caleb]

If the park gets bigger (by adding attractions in previously undeveloped areas), operating costs increase (they have to pay for cast members and maintenance). Often when they close attractions and build new ones in the same place, they're not only adding cool new stuff, they're also optimizing the use of that space.

 

[Chef Mickey]

If the park gets bigger (by adding attractions in previously undeveloped areas), operating costs increase (they have to pay for cast members and maintenance). Often when they close attractions and build new ones in the same place, they're not only adding cool new stuff, they're also optimizing the use of that space.

Closing Snow White for a character greet and changing Maelstrom to Frozen was not optimizing space though.

 

[_caleb]

Closing Snow White for a character greet and changing Maelstrom to Frozen was not optimizing space though.

If you think about it from a cost standpoint, it was. Snow White was likely more expensive to run and maintain than the Princess Fairytale Hall while holding the same number of guests (or more) on that footprint of land. Frozen capitalized on the popularity of the IP and, for a modest up-front investment, now squeezes a ton more people into that same footprint of land. And then there's the huge increase in merchandise sales for each of these...

 

[Chef Mickey]

If you think about it from a cost standpoint, it was. Snow White was likely more expensive to run and maintain than the Princess Fairytale Hall while holding the same number of guests (or more) on that footprint of land. Frozen capitalized on the popularity of the IP and, for a modest up-front investment, now squeezes a ton more people into that same footprint of land. And then there's the huge increase in merchandise sales for each of these...

Then let's agree it was a ridiculous and insignificant cost saving measure if it was done for that reason.

Not saying the addition of Frozen didn't increase traffic. I'm saying it should have been done as a separate, completely new ride. Disney has the scratch to pull it off...they are just cheap and lazy. World Showcase should be the celebration of countries and their history....it was clearly a budget job to use an existing ride system and put up some projectors. I like the ride, just not there and I'm sick of Disney acting like they can't afford to develop new space.

 

[_caleb]

I agree! I wasn't trying to defend these decisions, just trying to explain! I would have preferred expansion to these overhauls. They certainly do have the money to build new attractions, or to have less-than-optimal returns on every square inch of the property.

I wish management held classic ip's in higher regard. Snow White is more important (and valuable in the long term!) than the meet-and-greets. I know they can't just continually grow the parks with new attractions, but attendance seems to indicate that they would have no problem filling additional space!