News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[Blobbles]

Knew I could count on you! So this was talked about back then...that was the era when I was mostly complaining about Avatarland and didn't read much else.

2017…that seems so long ago. Remember he Moana volcano coaster?

 

[danlb_2000]

From the response letter:




(Emphasis mine.)
?!



Which document was this from?

140801-15 was a permit from back in 2014 where they added the Mira Lago site as well as some other property to RCID to offset future wetland impact. You statement above seems to mean that they have no provided enough offset to accommodate impacts to any wetlands on Disney property beyond the Wildlife Conservation Management Area (WMCA).

 

[Bocabear]

Ahh the Moana Volcano Coaster... the ride we really wanted as opposed to the Cars attraction and park destruction no one wanted....

 

[Advisable Joseph]

140801-15 was a permit from back in 2014 where they added the Mira Lago site as well as some other property to RCID to offset future wetland impact. You statement above seems to mean that they have no provided enough offset to accommodate impacts to any wetlands on Disney property beyond the Wildlife Conservation Management Area (WMCA).

Actually, I was wondering if Disney still needed to demonstrate somehow that there were no reasonable alternatives before using the wetlands, even with the mitigation agreement. I thought SFWMD was satisfied with Disney's reasoning on earlier projects, but was putting their foot down now.

---

There used to be water around Big Thunder Mountain in earlier plans. I'm having trouble reconciling that with the map you mentioned, unless the map is missing some dams or ....

 

[Casper Gutman]

As always, doom-speculating with nothing concrete to back it up.

Except for several decades of experience with how Disney operates, concept art, Disney’s own words, and the ability to walk around the plot of land involved wishing is bounded on three sides by major attractions.

Actually, that’s another point. If we assume MK has 8 major attractions, this change directly and negatively affects 3 of them - nearly half. Put another way, it is detrimental to 2 of the parks 4 top attractions (3 before the calamitous Splash change).

 

[JackCH]

Except for several decades of experience with how Disney operates, concept art, Disney’s own words, and the ability to walk around the plot of land involved wishing is bounded on three sides by major attractions.

Actually, that’s another point. If we assume MK has 8 major attractions, this change directly and negatively affects 3 of them - nearly half. Put another way, it is detrimental to 2 of the parks 4 top attractions (3 before the calamitous Splash change).

I mean people responded to your points using the concept art but you didn't really engage in that conversation and are just continuing to make further negative conclusions based off the assumed premise.

 

[Stripes]

140801-15 was a permit from back in 2014 where they added the Mira Lago site as well as some other property to RCID to offset future wetland impact. You statement above seems to mean that they have no provided enough offset to accommodate impacts to any wetlands on Disney property beyond the Wildlife Conservation Management Area (WMCA).

From Disney’s response, it sounds like the SFWMD in their RAI didn’t factor in the additional 575 acres of allowed wetland impacts on top of previous permit balances that was approved in Application 140801-15.

A lot of the RAI requests that the SFWMD made appear to be due to the fact that they didn‘t know about 140801-15, at least from what I understand.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I mean people responded to your points using the concept art but you didn't really engage in that conversation and are just continuing to make further negative conclusions based off the assumed premise.

One post responded meaningfully, and it seems to be inaccurate. Look at the concept art. The large load building is directly between the front of Splash and Piston, not off to the side. The description in the post is based on wishful thinking. What’s more, the drop is far from the only spot on Splash that offers an elevated view of what is now the RoA.

Perhaps the concept art is inaccurate. It often is. However, this is a VERY rare case of Disney building a new ride on a plot that is currently surrounded on three sides by guest areas. We can look, right now, at the spot the Cars ride will occupy. We can almost circle it. There is not a lot of room to hide the huge load building or obscure the ride itself. Folks arguing that this won’t interfere with three of MKs major rides aren’t assuming , they’re wishing.

 

[James Alucobond]

One post responded meaningfully, and it seems to be inaccurate. Look at the concept art. The large load building is directly between the front of Splash and Piston, not off to the side. The description in the post is based on wishful thinking. What’s more, the drop is far from the only spot on Splash that offers an elevated view of what is now the RoA.

Perhaps the concept art is inaccurate. It often is. However, this is a VERY rare case of Disney building a new ride on a plot that is currently surrounded on three sides by guest areas. We can look, right now, at the spot the Cars ride will occupy. We can almost circle it. There is not a lot of room to hide the huge load building or obscure the ride itself. Folks arguing that this won’t interfere with three of MKs major rides aren’t assuming , they’re wishing.

I agree that the building is in fact between the two, but I think how visible it will be depends on the relative height and angles. For instance, there's a taller pitched roof attached to the grandstand, which may be what actually aligns with the relatively narrow and compressed sightline you get when exiting the Splash drop. Hard to say how it's going to play out when we can't really get a sense of the elevation and precise angles from the art.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I agree that the building is in fact between the two, but I think how visible it will be depends on the relative height and angles. For instance, there's a taller pitched roof attached to the grandstand, which may be what actually aligns with the relatively narrow and compressed sightline you get when exiting the Splash drop. Hard to say how it's going to play out when we can't really get a sense of the elevation and precise angles from the art.

Even so, the question then becomes if the backside of a group of anthropomorphic cars is significantly less harmful to the storytelling on Splash then an unthemed roof?

HM, Splash, and BTM were all DESIGNED to leverage the RoA. It’s integral to their aesthetic and narrative choices. There is no alteration you could make to MK that would impact as many headline attractions as replacing the RoA with a Cars ride. It would be unthinkable for a company that cared, even a little, about storytelling and theming.

 

[mickEblu]

Ronny DeSantis - we need you to save the ROA.

 

[James Alucobond]

Even so, the question then becomes if the backside of a group of anthropomorphic cars is significantly less harmful to the storytelling on Splash then an unthemed roof?

HM, Splash, and BTM were all DESIGNED to leverage the RoA. It’s integral to their aesthetic and narrative choices. There is no alteration you could make to MK that would impact as many headline attractions as replacing the RoA with a Cars ride. It would be unthinkable for a company that cared, even a little, about storytelling and theming.

The back of the grandstand and the surrounding architecture looks solid in the artwork, so I don't think you're going to be able to see in to where the cars are. I'm assuming it's all intended to simply look like vaguely Old Faithful Inn-styled structures from outside the land. The two main trees that frame the narrow view you get when exiting Splash/TBA are also on land unlikely to get touched during this rework, so I think it may not be as bad as you imagine. I'm honestly much more worried about potential views from Big Thunder where it looks like the structures designed to block Cars from the rest of the land may diminish.

Also, this is not to say that the idea is better than RoA. Not really arguing with the second paragraph. Just saying that I think they may have planned to mitigate views of unthemed roofs from what I'm seeing in the artwork.

 

[Doberge]

Love that Disney asked for 60 days, SFWMD granted 30 days, and Disney responded by starting the next SFWMD 30 day resonse clock by dropping its answer just before the weekend before Christmas, thus giving SFWMD fewer business days to respond.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Also, this is not to say that the idea is better than RoA. Not really arguing with the second paragraph. Just saying that I think they may have planned to mitigate views of unthemed roofs from what I'm seeing in the artwork.

They didn’t with Ratatouille until it was too late and that was placed in its spot in part to improve the view from the Skyliner. Disney currently likes putting a lot of equipment and ductwork on roofs.

 

[James Alucobond]

They didn’t with Ratatouille until it was too late and that was placed in its spot in part to improve the view from the Skyliner. Disney currently likes putting a lot of equipment and ductwork on roofs.

Very possible. I'm just saying that the artwork doesn't immediately raise a red flag for me as if it is unplanned in this case.

 

[mysto]

The painstakingly accurate simulated aged blacktop parking lot from Dinoland USA will be relocated to cars land! It fits the theming perfectly, will spruce up the views from various rides by eliminating any obstructions, and will offer an accountant-pleasing cost savings to boot. It's a win-win-win, and we all know management likes a win, so it's a lock.

There will be a brass plaque crediting Rohde for this bit of whimsy.

Mr. Mysto has spoken.

 

[JackCH]

One post responded meaningfully, and it seems to be inaccurate. Look at the concept art. The large load building is directly between the front of Splash and Piston, not off to the side. The description in the post is based on wishful thinking. What’s more, the drop is far from the only spot on Splash that offers an elevated view of what is now the RoA.

Perhaps the concept art is inaccurate. It often is. However, this is a VERY rare case of Disney building a new ride on a plot that is currently surrounded on three sides by guest areas. We can look, right now, at the spot the Cars ride will occupy. We can almost circle it. There is not a lot of room to hide the huge load building or obscure the ride itself. Folks arguing that this won’t interfere with three of MKs major rides aren’t assuming , they’re wishing.

It’s fair to debate but I just think you are doing the very thing you accuse others of, just in reverse.

To dismiss others as just wish casting just seems condescending and dismissive.

I think it has the greatest impact on BTMR, and the least on Haunted Mansion, which will have a decent amount of distance from the cars from what I can tell.

 

[JackCH]

HM, Splash, and BTM were all DESIGNED to leverage the RoA. It’s integral to their aesthetic and narrative choices. There is no alteration you could make to MK that would impact as many headline attractions as replacing the RoA with a Cars ride. It would be unthinkable for a company that cared, even a little, about storytelling and theming.

This point is very valid. It doesn’t personally bother me as much as you and others, but it is a very good point and definitely a negative consequence of this move.

However, I do think the extent of it depends a lot on the theming of the nature and rockwork. I don’t mind the cars part of it if the nature still looks good.

 

[Casper Gutman]

It’s fair to debate but I just think you are doing the very thing you accuse others of, just in reverse.

To dismiss others as just wish casting just seems condescending and dismissive.

The post you directed me to respond to ignored both the concept art and the physical reality of Splash.

If folks want to argue that this change won’t negatively impact three major rides and the area as a whole by making reference to Disney’s past behavior and the copious available information, that’s great.

But we’ve done this often. Here’s where it likely ends up: “Do I wish they’d tried a little harder to hide Cars from Thunder and Splash? Sure. Do I wish the ride had a bit more to look at? Sure. But it’s done now and removing RoA was inevitable, so instead of being negative all the time let’s focus on Villains Land which is just three years away.”

PS: based on concept art and other info, I am very optimistic about the AK changes even though I’m one of the rare few who loved Dinoland. My negativity really is based on what Disney shows us and how they act.

 

[peter11435]

The post you directed me to respond to ignored both the concept art and the physical reality of Splash.

If folks want to argue that this change won’t negatively impact three major rides and the area as a whole by making reference to Disney’s past behavior and the copious available information, that’s great.

But we’ve done this often. Here’s where it likely ends up: “Do I wish they’d tried a little harder to hide Cars from Thunder and Splash? Sure. Do I wish the ride had a bit more to look at? Sure. But it’s done now and removing RoA was inevitable, so instead of being negative all the time let’s focus on Villains Land which is just three years away.”

PS: based on concept art and other info, I am very optimistic about the AK changes even though I’m one of the rare few who loved Dinoland. My negativity really is based on what Disney shows us and how they act.

You continue to intentionally misinterpret the released concept art. Which itself isn’t even an entirely accurate representation of what will be built. The view from Splash won’t be what you think, and the artwork doesn’t even show that it would be. But you don’t care because your mind has already been made up.