News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

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.
 

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.
 

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?
 

Mr. Sullivan

Well-Known Member
I don't think that's an accurate way to describe the attraction though. I would say it celebrates the US government institutions and concept, sure, but the actual presidents are really more acknowledged rather than celebrated.
I don’t disagree with that! Like I said, I like the attraction a lot. Again, I just think there’s a lot of people today who aren’t comfortable having anything regarding the presidency and the men who’ve held it discussed in any way that doesn’t also provide context for it.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
No. The entire weight of the water has to be supported by the riverbed because of Earth's gravitational pull on all of the water, not just the part at the bottom. If the riverbed was only supporting the water directly above it (whatever that means...) the rest of the water would just fly off into space. Draw a free body diagram of the riverbed. Or for an easier place to start, grab a cup of water and put it on a scale. Fill it a little bit with water. Fill it a little bit more. Fill it a little bit more. And watch the scale continue to rise. Water is not weightless, whether at the top, middle, or bottom of a cup, pool, or river.
Any random square foot of the river bed is only support the water directly above it. The river isn’t that deep so it doesn’t have some obscene, unusual amount of water acting on it.

And how do you know the river system only has small leaks? What do you know about the quality and condition of the concrete foundation? I'm not saying it's in shambles because I haven't seen it either. I'm only saying that someone with known ties to Disney, who has very possibly had direct conversations engineers explaining the rationale for eliminating ROA, has offered us a very plausible and physics-based explanation for the tough decision to replace ROA. We cannot be so blinded by our own biases to keep ROA that we start to make up our version of physics out of convenience.
Why have you not looked at the river bed? There are photos of it from 2020 when it was drained.

People with ties to Disney have also pushed nonsense.

One of the consequences of failure is leakage of water, as I explained. The ground beneath the riverbed is porous and the water would escape into ground and aquifer beneath that. The water would need to be replaced. The Seven Seas Lagoon being connected makes it so that the water level doesn't drop appear to drop precipitously in ROA because the volume of water is distributed. So rather than 1 foot drop in ROA and same water level in SSL, we maybe see a 1cm drop altogether. But make no mistake, the same volume of water has left the proverbial building. And its the same amount of water you need to pump back in to recover 1 cm of SSL + ROA as it would be to refill just ROA by 1 foot (I'm guessing the ratio, I don't actually know)
The Rivers of America is part of a giant system that intentionally filters water into the ground and the aquifer. That’s a big part of what the water management system does. The entire Rivers of America could become porous and there would be plenty of water in the system, it is minuscule compared to just Seven Seas Lagoon and Bay Lake.

The water level in the Seven Seas Lagoon and the Rivers of America do not rise and fall together. There are locks in between that manage the water level of the Rivers of America.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
This kind of talk is insulting on so many levels. People want to experience the riverboat and the atmosphere that currently exists.

Don’t insult people who enjoy Disney world for being Disney world.
I’m not trying to insult you personally. I’m stating a fact. The vast majority of Disney visitors do not want to experience the riverboat and island.

I enjoy both of them. I visit the island and ride the boat. But I also know the vast majority of MK guests are not interested in either of them.
 

The Chatbox Ghost

Well-Known Member
Just a FYI. Fantasy Land expansion did get kinetic water features. I love water features both natural and artificial. Even though I have ridden SDMT dozens of times, I either forgot or didn't realize they existed. View attachment 809648View attachment 809647
If the difference between concept art and reality is anything to go by... oh no.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom