Construction Suitability Map - Reedy Creek / Disney World

[englanddg]

Thought this may be interesting for everyone who likes to play "trains" with the Disney World sites, but wants to keep things quasi-realistic in terms of feasibility, or for comp hosts looking to add a layer of feasibility to their posted challenges.

Plus, it's just neat to look at!

Here is the breakdown of plots of land at Disney World that are suitable, partially suitable, or unsuitable for construction.

You can read the whole plan here (it's a rather large PDF though, be aware of that!)
http://rcid.org/Portals/0/Documents/Comprehensive_Plan/2020_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

 

[Hakunamatata]

Dang. Looks like Uncle Walt got ripped off. Lol.

 

[Voxel]

Thought this may be interesting for everyone who likes to play "trains" with the Disney World sites, but wants to keep things quasi-realistic in terms of feasibility, or for comp hosts looking to add a layer of feasibility to their posted challenges.

Plus, it's just neat to look at!

Here is the breakdown of plots of land at Disney World that are suitable, partially suitable, or unsuitable for construction.

You can read the whole plan here (it's a rather large PDF though, be aware of that!)
http://rcid.org/Portals/0/Documents/Comprehensive_Plan/2020_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

This is interesting.. Considering one of the Suitable location near bay lake had a pylon test in where the pylon sunk down and was never found again.. I guess it suitable for construction at a high cost and because its not currently protected land.

 

[englanddg]

This is interesting.. Considering one of the Suitable location near bay lake had a pylon test in where the pylon sunk down and was never found again.. I guess it suitable for construction at a high cost and because its not currently protected land.

YES, I noted that exact spot was considered "suitable" (it's the pad south of Contemporary and above TTC, if anyone else is curious what he's talking about). Shocked me!

"Suitable" means "at or around the cost of MDE and FP+"?

 

[Voxel]

YES, I noted that exact spot was considered "suitable" (it's the pad south of Contemporary and above TTC, if anyone else is curious what he's talking about). Shocked me!

"Suitable" means "at or around the cost of MDE and FP+"?

Or does "suitable" imply protected Wetlands or not, that could be the principle of their definition.

 

[englanddg]

Or does "suitable" imply protected Wetlands or not, that could be the principle of their definition.

I didn't read through the PDF, but that could be it. The Reedy Creek dev document is 100+ pages long.

 

[Voxel]

I didn't read through the PDF, but that could be it. The Reedy Creek dev document is 100+ pages long.

I read through it a bit and its seems as it is based around Conservation land as seen here:

 

[Tom]

Or does "suitable" imply protected Wetlands or not, that could be the principle of their definition.

I don't think the term suitable is being used as a legal term, but more literally. If you'll notice, the unsuitable land (green) follows the major natural waterways. So, that's all likely VERY saturated ground, as well as being in the floodplains.

If this map says it's unsuitable, it's probably considered a "lake" in "dry" states like Indiana. Saying its suitable just means that it is physically possible to build, not necessarily that it is advisable.

 

[Tom]

I read through it a bit and its seems as it is based around Conservation land as seen here:
View attachment 97544

Right, but I think one led to the other, and not vice versa. As in, they determined the dark green land was a write-off in terms of future usability, so they said, "Alright, that's protected wetlands now."

 

[R W B]

I'm sure they have a lot of smart people who go and determined build quality maps like this but being that I'm from south Louisiana where we are mainly water/swamp, I wonder just how "unsuitable" that land really is. I wonder how different building codes are between La and Fl. I say this because I've seen entire shopping centers built on what was pure swamp before. Just my curiosity.

 

[Voxel]

Right, but I think one led to the other, and not vice versa. As in, they determined the dark green land was a write-off in terms of future usability, so they said, "Alright, that's protected wetlands now."

I'm not sure, I know early blueprints utilized the wetland for attractions based on Florida's natural state. I also remember reading somewhere that in early years Disney agreed to maintain some level of wetland conservation in return for certain benefits with Orange County and the State of Florida... I could be wrong, I'm trying to find that information again.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm sure they have a lot of smart people who go and determined build quality maps like this but being that I'm from south Louisiana where we are mainly water/swamp, I wonder just how "unsuitable" that land really is. I wonder how different building codes are between La and Fl. I say this because I've seen entire shopping centers built on what was pure swamp before. Just my curiosity.

The plan is released because of certain requirements of political districts but in many ways is ultimately a tool made by and for Disney. In many ways the map should be more thought of as where it will be cheapest/easiest to build, not where building absolutely can or cannot occur. The EPCOT Building Code is handled very seriously by the Reedy Creek Improvement District but it being unique is all about it being more malleable.

I'm not sure, I know early blueprints utilized the wetland for attractions based on Florida's natural state. I also remember reading somewhere that in early years Disney agreed to maintain some level of wetland conservation in return for certain benefits with Orange County and the State of Florida... I could be wrong, I'm trying to find that information again.

Conservation is part of the legal basis for the Reedy Creek Improvement District even existing.

 

[Voxel]

Conservation is part of the legal basis for the Reedy Creek Improvement District even existing.

That's what I thought. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

 

[R W B]

The plan is released because of certain requirements of political districts but in many ways is ultimately a tool made by and for Disney. In many ways the map should be more thought of as where it will be cheapest/easiest to build, not where building absolutely can or cannot occur. The EPCOT Building Code is handled very seriously by the Reedy Creek Improvement District but it being unique is all about it being more malleable.


Conservation is part of the legal basis for the Reedy Creek Improvement District even existing.

That makes a lot more sense. It was hard to believe that this "section A" is good to build but "section B" right next to it can't be built on. What you said makes sense though.

 

[Tom]

I'm sure they have a lot of smart people who go and determined build quality maps like this but being that I'm from south Louisiana where we are mainly water/swamp, I wonder just how "unsuitable" that land really is. I wonder how different building codes are between La and Fl. I say this because I've seen entire shopping centers built on what was pure swamp before. Just my curiosity.

With enough money, just about anything is possible. You can lime-stabilize the soil or drill piers to refusal (like they did for Avatar), or a number of other methods to build something on wet soil.

I'm sure the EPCOT Building Code addresses it, but the International Building Code, as well as engineering standards, covers it anyway.

I'm not sure, I know early blueprints utilized the wetland for attractions based on Florida's natural state. I also remember reading somewhere that in early years Disney agreed to maintain some level of wetland conservation in return for certain benefits with Orange County and the State of Florida... I could be wrong, I'm trying to find that information again.

In the early years, they spent a FORTUNE building things where most people wouldn't. There are lineal-miles of piers under buildings and monorail footings at, and between, MK and Epcot. I forget the exact figures, but I know SSE has some extremely deep footing piers. They just went until they hit the point of refusal.

But yes, part of "the deal" was preservation. Originally a lot of it was in Osceola County, because of a taxing dispute or something. Over time, they've rearranged to suit their needs. Now, they're trying to keep as much of it along waterways, since that's where the most unsuitable construction sites would lie anyway. There's a lot of convenience in the equation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But yes, part of "the deal" was preservation. Originally a lot of it was in Osceola County, because of a taxing dispute or something.

The land was taxed at lower agricultural rates (something that is widely available and not a particular deal). The dispute was over Disney's boom in construction being in Orange County, who got hotel, property and sales tax revenue, but Osceola still having to support the ramifications of Disney's expansion. The big end result was Disney offloading much of the tax burden by developing Celebration.

 

[Sam Magic]

I'm sure they have a lot of smart people who go and determined build quality maps like this but being that I'm from south Louisiana where we are mainly water/swamp, I wonder just how "unsuitable" that land really is. I wonder how different building codes are between La and Fl. I say this because I've seen entire shopping centers built on what was pure swamp before. Just my curiosity.

Same. Some crack-pot even wants to build a subway system in Baton Rouge.

Still, I think Louisiana has redefined what is suitable and what isn't. Get some Louisianian's down at Disney and they will develop the whole thing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Same. Some crack-pot even wants to build a subway system in Baton Rouge.

Still, I think Louisiana has redefined what is suitable and what isn't. Get some Louisianian's down at Disney and they will develop the whole thing.

Again, it is not a definitive "Yes-No" document.

 

[Steel City Magic]

Here is the breakdown of plots of land at Disney World that are suitable, partially suitable, or unsuitable for construction.

You can read the whole plan here (it's a rather large PDF though, be aware of that!)
http://rcid.org/Portals/0/Documents/Comprehensive_Plan/2020_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

Sure this isnt the map for Fallout 4?

 

[englanddg]

With enough money, just about anything is possible. You can lime-stabilize the soil or drill piers to refusal (like they did for Avatar), or a number of other methods to build something on wet soil.

I'm sure the EPCOT Building Code addresses it, but the International Building Code, as well as engineering standards, covers it anyway.



In the early years, they spent a FORTUNE building things where most people wouldn't. There are lineal-miles of piers under buildings and monorail footings at, and between, MK and Epcot. I forget the exact figures, but I know SSE has some extremely deep footing piers. They just went until they hit the point of refusal.

But yes, part of "the deal" was preservation. Originally a lot of it was in Osceola County, because of a taxing dispute or something. Over time, they've rearranged to suit their needs. Now, they're trying to keep as much of it along waterways, since that's where the most unsuitable construction sites would lie anyway. There's a lot of convenience in the equation.

Don't summon PeterAlt!