News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

peter11435

Well-Known Member
How many total people fit on the islands, the rafts, and the Liberty Belle concurrently now? How long do they stay there on average? How many people could TSI conceivably entertain in an hour if utilized to capacity?

How does that compare to how many people can fit in the queues, shops, and attractions concurrently in the Cars area, and how long are they spending on entertainment and shopping relative to non-quality time spent standing in line?

And who cares how long the attraction track is and how frequently it rises and falls if the total attraction throughput and time spent on the attraction is not notably different from any other attraction? That's actually space inefficiency if the footprint is especially large for the experiential payoff considering other attractions of presumably similar ride time often take up much less space.
It doesn’t even matter how many people could be on the island or the boat. It matters how many people were on the island and the boat. Which was just a tiny fraction of what could be in those locations.
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
It doesn’t even matter how many people could be on the island or the boat. It matters how many people were on the island and the boat. Which was just a tiny fraction of what could be in those locations.
Not disagreeing that this change will see more traffic and interest. I was responding only to the assessment that the usage of space will be physically more "efficient". There will still be very little non-attraction "walking space", and a lot of the real estate that was the river is used as a physical buffer.
 

phillip9698

Well-Known Member
How many total people fit on the islands, the rafts, and the Liberty Belle concurrently now? How long do they stay there on average? How many people could TSI conceivably entertain in an hour if utilized to capacity?

How does that compare to how many people can fit in the queues, shops, and attractions concurrently in the Cars area, and how long are they spending on entertainment and shopping relative to non-quality time spent standing in line?

And who cares how long the attraction track is and how frequently it rises and falls if the total attraction throughput and time spent on the attraction is not notably different from any other attraction? That's actually space inefficiency if the footprint is especially large for the experiential payoff considering other attractions of presumably similar ride time often take up much less space.

How many people COULD fit on an attraction is irrelevant if people don’t want to experience it.

The new use of the land will be more efficient just from people actually wanting to go over there and experience the attractions n
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
The one at Disneyland was cut in half, has entirely different construction, is not built in a swamp, does not connect to a natural body of water, sees significantly less rainfall, and is maintained at natural height.
We have structures going back centuries, and Disney can't maintain a riverbed for over 50 years? Give me a break. We don't need to be fed the nonsense. They either let it deteriorate and therefore decided it is not worth fixing and will just utilize the space for something else. Or the riverbed is just fine, but they still want to trash it anyways.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
We have structures going back centuries, and Disney can't maintain a riverbed for over 50 years? Give me a break. We don't need to be fed the nonsense. They either let it deteriorate and therefore decided it is not worth fixing and will just utilize the space for something else. Or the riverbed is just fine, but they still want to trash it anyways.
Can you point to a similar structure that’s been around centuries without needing significant maintenance/replacement?

Do you have a concrete pool that’s been around over 50 years without needing to be replaced/resurfaced?
 

larryz

I'm Just A Tourist!
Premium Member
Give me a babbling brook or give me death

Wish.jpg
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Not disagreeing that this change will see more traffic and interest. I was responding only to the assessment that the usage of space will be physically more "efficient". There will still be very little non-attraction "walking space", and a lot of the real estate that was the river is used as a physical buffer.

Toy Story Land is a great example of this. The attractions are popular, but it's still a relatively inefficient use of space.

With a better design, it could offer everything it currently offers plus more on the same plot of land.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Can you point to a similar structure that’s been around centuries without needing significant maintenance/replacement?

Do you have a concrete pool that’s been around over 50 years without needing to be replaced/resurfaced?
You just made my point. You are saying Disney didn't maintain it. I am glad we are on the same page.
 

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member

peter11435

Well-Known Member
You just made my point. You are saying Disney didn't maintain it. I am glad we are on the same page.
Thats not at all what I’m saying. Disney has maintained it. Over the decades the river has received significant care. It’s been drained several times. It’s been resurfaced. It’s been patched. It’s been sealed. Tracks have been replaced. It has been cared for and maintained. No amount of care and maintenance prevents the need for future additional care and maintenance.

At this point the work that may need done going forward may not be financially justified when the money could be instead invested in attractions people actually want to experience.
 

Charlie The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
Unique merch costs them more.

They order in smaller quantities, have to deal with the logistics of shipping and storing and eventually discounting and moving to one of their outlets for stuff that doesn't sell. When they go to refresh, they have to start the whole process over again.

Mostly the same reasons the individual resorts don't have their own uniquely designed and packaged toiletries in the rooms anymore - much cheaper to put in larger orders for generic WDW stuff than for the Contemporary, Grand Floridian, Polynesian, etc. and if they run low at one resort, they can just send a generic box of whatever there from a central storage location rather than reordering a bottle of shampoo with a unique design and scent intended for a particular location.

It's all just them cutting corners to shave pennies off their costs while raising what they charge guests for increasingly less unique and interesting products and services.

A lot of people don't care about the toiletries or the magnets or other things like that individually but it's the death by a thousand cuts principle at work. In the case of the resorts, it's not exactly difficult to draw the line from how we got from there to whole build-outs like the Riviera that with less unique and complex architecture, were easier to design, construct and will be cheaper to maintain over the years going forward.

In the case of the parks, it's easy to see why it's the same generic stuff in most places. They want to put shops everywhere but don't want to deal with the costs associated with making the merchandise those shops sell unique, any more than they think they have to anymore unless they are subletting space and making money off someone else selling their own stuff in them (i.e. Sunglass Hut, Arribas Brothers, etc.)
You're completely right. It's a sign of how different the company is today VS the Eisner era and earlier.
 

psherman42

Well-Known Member
That's a bit of an exaggeration. One is a few acres of man made river in a swamp in central Florida and the other is 843 acres in the middle of the largest city in the US. Central Park is owned by the city and therefore owned by it's citizens.

I am sorry you feel the way you do. I felt the same too until my son (who will one day be in our shoes) was as excited as I have ever seen him for anything in his 11 years. My wish is that one day people come to realize that what they want or hold close to them may not be long for this world and they could see that there are others (the future WDW Magic forum contributors) who may take an equal amount of joy in what is too come and that in itself should bring joy to you.

If the current Imagineers are truly stewards of Walt's vision I believe that is what Walt would be happiest about. What joy will this new land bring to the children of tomorrow?
I mean, that’s great that your son is excited. But wouldn’t he be just as excited if they put this area somewhere else and kept the river?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom