AVATAR Concept Art released

[jt04]

By south, I was implying the Speedway.

North is the most feasible, if MK Drive is moved. East would require substantial water management changes...massive changes. West.....the HM isn't going anywhere.

East in the manner that SM is east. Just something small added just outside the tracks would be possible.

North behind BatB and IaSW.

And west behind HM if IaSW was ever, um, reimagined elsewhere.

 

[jt04]

@jt04 pull your head out of that hole.

Do you really think that Disney is going to give up the parking lot's pure profit so that some other company can lay claim to partial ownership of infrastructure and potential profits from said infrastructure?

Such deals are limited to a pre-negotiated time frame. Disney farms out plenty of work and that increases all the time. So yeah, a 30 year agreement where the contractor fronts all the capital and does not involve any direct investment has to be tempting in this economy.

Just making up these numbers. Any deal might be much shorter or longer but I have no doubt it could happen.

 

[unkadug]

Such deals are limited to a pre-negotiated time frame. Disney farms out plenty of work and that increases all the time. So yeah, a 30 year agreement where the contractor fronts all the capital and does not involve any direct investment has to be tempting in this economy.

Just making up these numbers. Any deal might be much shorter or longer but I have no doubt it could happen.

I don't see it happening. First of all there is a legal liability issue. What happens if someone is hurt in the deck. Who is responsible? Disney or Corporation X? What happens if there is a building issue...who repairs the building? Nobody is going to that invest that much money and have no ownership rights.

 

[jt04]

I don't see it happening. First of all there is a legal liability issue. What happens if someone is hurt in the deck. Who is responsible? Disney or Corporation X? What happens if there is a building issue...who repairs the building? Nobody is going to that invest that much money and have no ownership rights.

Disney would own the building and be insured. Parking garages can last a century if built right. How long have the UO garages been functioning? And they still are fine. Probably paid for themselves 10 times over. They are no-brainers as investments.

 

[doctornick]

Yes, but once DAK uses up the main plots it has, it's really out of room.

So, once it uses all it's available space, it will be out of space? That's some dizzying logic. At this point, DAK literally have a ton of cleared but undeveloped land. It has a massive amount of expansion space.

And even once they use the stuff already earmarked for future development, they still have space that can be redeveloped for guest use (e.g. the land on the west side of the park or behind Asia/Dinoland). Saying that other parks which are more closed in have space for development but DAK does not seems absurd to me. There's literally no need to even consider the parking area in DAK considering other options should land be needed (which wouldn't be needed for a long time).

 

[unkadug]

Disney would own the building and be insured. Parking garages can last a century if built right. How long have the UO garages been functioning? And they still are fine. Probably paid for themselves 10 times over. They are no-brainers as investments.

But why go to the extra expense in the first place if you don't have to?

Why give up that revenue to begin with if you don't have to?

 

[jt04]

But why go to the extra expense in the first place if you don't have to?

Why give up that revenue to begin with if you don't have to?

As some have desribed, it greatly enhances the guest experience. Which leads to an increase of repeat visits. Also, Disney saves on tram expenses. Seen the price of diesel lately? Also, they can brag on investing in a green future. It is also safer and more secure for guests. Also, I am sure the insurance premiums for tram transport are quite pricey.

I can probably think of more.

 

[Next Big Thing]

So, once it uses all it's available space, it will be out of space? That's some dizzying logic. At this point, DAK literally have a ton of cleared but undeveloped land. It has a massive amount of expansion space.

And even once they use the stuff already earmarked for future development, they still have space that can be redeveloped for guest use (e.g. the land on the west side of the park or behind Asia/Dinoland). Saying that other parks which are more closed in have space for development but DAK does not seems absurd to me. There's literally no need to even consider the parking area in DAK considering other options should land be needed (which wouldn't be needed for a long time).

When I originally mentioned the parking area being used for part of the park, I was never talking about anytime soon. I'm not a dumbass. I know DAK has plenty of expansion space for years to come.

My only point was, eventually if they need/want to expand into the parking lot, then building a parking garage would only be a natural thing to do.

 

[unkadug]

As some have desribed, it greatly enhances the guest experience. Which leads to an increase of repeat visits. Also, Disney saves on tram expenses. Seen the price of diesel lately? Also, they can brag on investing in a green future. It is also safer and more secure for guests. Also, I am sure the insurance premiums for tram transport are quite pricey.

I can probably think of more.

No the guest experience is enhanced by what is INSIDE the theme park.

The security issues with the parking decks ( not to mention the aforementioned liability issues) will more than compensate for the savings in diesel, which will be at a minimum since there will still be a need for the trams unless you plan on building these decks right NEXT to the theme park (which brings up the thematic issues previously dismissed by you).

Do you REALLY think that each individual tram is insured separately ?

 

[jt04]

No the guest experience is enhanced by what is INSIDE the theme park.

The security issues with the parking decks ( not to mention the aforementioned liability issues) will more than compensate for the savings in diesel, which will be at a minimum since there will still be a need for the trams unless you plan on building these decks right NEXT to the theme park (which brings up the thematic issues previously dismissed by you).

Do you REALLY think that each individual tram is insured separately ?

Where did I say they were insured seperately?

Investing inside the parks would not be effected if no capital was required for the garages.

Uni's garages can't be seen from the parks and no trams are required. They spend nothing on fuel, maintenace of trams, insurance or payroll. Probably much less on security due to the ease of remote monitoring.

And the real impact on guests is when departing the parks. No need to wait in yet another queue or having to get into a sweltering car that has been baking in the Florida sun all day.

Also, any land made available by former parking lots could be used for resorts, convention space, water parks or theme park expansion. All if which would generate more revenue than the existing parking lots.

 

[unkadug]

Where did I say they were insured seperately?

Investing inside the parks would not be effected if no capital was required for the garages.

Uni's garages can't be seen from the parks and no trams are required. They spend nothing on fuel, maintenace of trams, insurance or payroll. Probably much less on security due to the ease of remote monitoring.

And the real impact on guests is when departing the parks. No need to wait in yet another queue or having to get into a sweltering car that has been baking in the Florida sun all day.

Also, any land made available by former parking lots could be used for resorts, convention space, water parks or theme park expansion. All if which would generate more revenue than the existing parking lots.

Good grief....where to even begin....

You said that they would save money by not having to insure Trams. As if they pay ala carte prices for insurance.

Investing inside the parks is the only thing that matters to guests.

The real impact on guests will be a nightmare when everyone is trying to funnel out of a parking garage at the same time.

No park is really hurting for space that only the parking lot space would alleviate.

 

[jt04]

Good grief....where to even begin....

You said that they would save money by not having to insure Trams. As if they pay ala carte prices for insurance.

What? Any policy would cover all trams. Whether it was 5 or 500. Price would be dependent on the number of trams. 0 trams would equate to 0 insurance for trams.

Investing inside the parks is the only thing that matters to guests.

No, I am quite sure the overall experience matters. Including resorts and transportation.

The real impact on guests will be a nightmare when everyone is trying to funnel out of a parking garage at the same time.

Works at Universal just fine. Never had a problem exiting UO and Disney has more land for ramps and also new resorts.

No park is really hurting for space that only the parking lot space would alleviate.

Not yet. And certainly the Studios could benefit now by adding garages.

Now look. You made me break out my red pen.

 

[unkadug]

Now look. You made me break out my red pen.

When was the last time you are at Universal leaving the parking deck?

 

[unkadug]

This is just getting stupid.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't see it happening. First of all there is a legal liability issue. What happens if someone is hurt in the deck. Who is responsible? Disney or Corporation X? What happens if there is a building issue...who repairs the building? Nobody is going to that invest that much money and have no ownership rights.

It's done all the time... just look at sports stadiums around the country. GroupA builds it to lease to GroupB. Or GroupA builds it, and contracts GroupB to operate it.

Heck, your argument flies against every lease arrangement out there.

And you don't need to insure trams separately to have them impact your insurance. Adjusters look at how you operate to set costs.

I'm not trying to defend jt here.. but your counters are limp.

 

[unkadug]

It's done all the time... just look at sports stadiums around the country. GroupA builds it to lease to GroupB. Or GroupA builds it, and contracts GroupB to operate it.

Heck, your argument flies against every lease arrangement out there.

And you don't need to insure trams separately to have them impact your insurance. Adjusters look at how you operate to set costs.

I'm not trying to defend jt here.. but your counters are limp.

I still don't see it happening at Disney because Disney would NEVER give up the parking lot income especially when parking lot land is so plentiful.

 

[jdmdisney99]

Sooo...that Avatar concept art's looking good, huh?

 

[DinoInstitute]

Sooo...that Avatar concept art's looking good, huh?

Yes, very very good, very very good.

 

[flynnibus]

I still don't see it happening at Disney because Disney would NEVER give up the parking lot income especially when parking lot land is so plentiful.

You mean like they did with Golf?

I could see them outsourcing it... but not letting some 3rd party operate it for their own gain. There simply is no reason to with the RCID setup and plenty of people willing to contract to the mouse. Disney can contract it out if they don't want to deal with the labor or running it themselves (like they've done with valet).

 

[Figment2005]

After parking in the ones at DlR and at UNI, I would like to never see a parking lot. Covered transportation and a covered vehicle can't be beat in the heat and/or rain. Also, both those garages were very large and didn't have that in closed feeling most garages give you.

But what if you're parked on the roof?