Additional Gate/Park Locations at WDW?

[mm121]

over time theres discussion about adding a 5th or 6th gate at wdw..

the question when looking at the map is where another gate would fit.

thoughts?

if it was a smaller gate such as a waterpark i'd put it where the ORANGE circle is located, as this would help spread out more traffic towards the southern end of the property.

a big gate could fit here if parking was located elsewhere, such as a centralized parking facitlity located at the RED square.

a big gate could fit at the PURPLE circle, however congestion would be a concern.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If you're interested in the actual possibilities, the land suitable for additional parks is outlined in the Reedy Creek Improvement District Comprehensive Plan.

 

[mm121]

If you're interested in the actual possibilities, the land suitable for additional parks is outlined in the Reedy Creek Improvement District Comprehensive Plan.

where can this be found?

regardless.. i like my logic of putting the next gates still along world drive,

though maybe on the west side (at the south end), not the east side as I initially suggested.. this definitely keeps the resort easiest transportation wise, with all the parks off the main artery, or arterial extensions (AK/Epcot)

 

[lazyboy97o]

where can this be found?

regardless.. i like my logic of putting the next gates still along world drive,

though maybe on the west side (at the south end), not the east side as I initially suggested.. this definitely keeps the resort easiest transportation wise, with all the parks off the main artery, or arterial extensions (AK/Epcot)

http://rcid.org/FormsReports.aspx

 

[danlb_2000]

over time theres discussion about adding a 5th or 6th gate at wdw..

the question when looking at the map is where another gate would fit.

thoughts?

if it was a smaller gate such as a waterpark i'd put it where the ORANGE circle is located, as this would help spread out more traffic towards the southern end of the property.

a big gate could fit here if parking was located elsewhere, such as a centralized parking facitlity located at the RED square.

a big gate could fit at the PURPLE circle, however congestion would be a concern.

The purple circle is not considered build-able land, and the orange circle isn't in Disney owned property. Part of red is one of the reaming large plots that could be used for a new park of hotel.

You can see the full land user breakdown here:

http://rcid.org/Portals/0/Documents/Comprehensive_Plan/2020_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

Here is the land suitability map from that plan:

 

[AngieTink27]

over time theres discussion about adding a 5th or 6th gate at wdw..

the question when looking at the map is where another gate would fit.

thoughts?

if it was a smaller gate such as a waterpark i'd put it where the ORANGE circle is located, as this would help spread out more traffic towards the southern end of the property.

a big gate could fit here if parking was located elsewhere, such as a centralized parking facitlity located at the RED square.

a big gate could fit at the PURPLE circle, however congestion would be a concern.

The red rectangle looks to be too small of space to build a proper park. It appears to be even smaller than DHS.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Reality is that the above guide was created by Disney as Reedy Creek. One and the same. If they wanted to change that chart and alter the dark green areas to be usable, all it would take is a suggestion and a signature and it would be done. They have enough land to build many parks but the point is that they are not going to in the foreseeable future. They can't handle what they have now. I don't see WDW as ever getting any bigger then it is right now. I know I can't see into the future, but, nothing points in the direction that would make me think that it would be beneficial unless Uni buys up most of Orlando and builds way larger. Not going to happen to a significant enough degree either.

 

[danlb_2000]

Reality is that the above guide was created by Disney as Reedy Creek. One and the same. If they wanted to change that chart and alter the dark green areas to be usable, all it would take is a suggestion and a signature and it would be done. They have enough land to build many parks but the point is that they are not going to in the foreseeable future. They can't handle what they have now. I don't see WDW as ever getting any bigger then it is right now. I know I can't see into the future, but, nothing points in the direction that would make me think that it would be beneficial unless Uni buys up most of Orlando and builds way larger. Not going to happen to a significant enough degree either.

The land that is designated unsuitable is not simply that way by choice, there are particle reasons why it has this designation, mainly because it is very low lying and prone to flooding. Yes, they can build anywhere if they really wanted to, but these area are going to be more expensive to build on then the ones market suitable.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The land that is designated unsuitable is not simply that way by choice, there are particle reasons why it has this designation, mainly because it is very low lying and prone to flooding. Yes, they can build anywhere if they really wanted to, but these area are going to be more expensive to build on then the ones market suitable.

It actually serves a double purpose and that is to keep the wetlands in place and keep environment advocates placated and Disney looking like saints in the process. However, If they decided that they could make money you can bet that those wetlands would be re-located in a heart beat.