DHS CARS LAND

[Ignohippo]

When the decision to build a fifth gate is made, it will be a "high level" decision, and will be based on prior feasibility studies, which are summarized in the Reedy Creek report.

Yeah, I thought about a fifth gate when the Lucasfilm deal was announced. When you really think about it, it just doesn't make sense.

You would need a huge amount of construction for a whole new park, you'd need a whole infrastructure for it, new roads, signs, parking lots, a new electrical sub-station, backstage areas, an entire park worth of cast members, ground crews, food service facilities and staff, landscaping, etc., etc.

AND you take the chance of cannabilizing the attendance from the other parks. It just isn't worth it when you can seamlessly add it on to DHS.

 

[danlb_2000]

The plan is a roadmap that looks at suitability of land, and describes, in depth, the possibilities for development inside and outside of the major parks. It is, in essence, a feasibility summary in terms of future development, and yes, it talks about development inside of existing parks, such as Epcot, DHS and others. You would need to remove LMA & Backlot to squeeze in Carsland.

When the decision to build a fifth gate is made, it will be a "high level" decision, and will be based on prior feasibility studies, which are summarized in the Reedy Creek report.

But in your previous post you said there are no plans to develop inside DHS. So you mean there are possibilities for development inside the major parks, except DHS?

 

[SirLink]

The official Reedy Creek future development plan looks at utilizing space in parking lots for expansion, and even the possibility of parking garages. When it comes to DHS, official expansion pads are the parking lot, and across World Drive though they admit that would be a little difficult. There are no plans for redevelopment of existing developments inside of DHS.

I think, honestly, that fans look at DCA and assume that something would be torn out of DHS to build Carsland there. Carsland was built on a parking lot, and BVS involved removing store facades on Sunshine Plaza. So, yes, it would be unprecedented in terms of totally removing 1/3 of DHS to build something new.

Makes more sense to build Carsland elsewhere, and to retool/reimagine the backlot, especially since this wouldn't involve shutting down 1/3 of DHS for three years. Remember, DCA had construction walls, but attraction capacity wasn't decreased as it was a parking lot that was lost, in terms of Carsland.

I think fans of WDW like to think that DHS is having massive problems, when in fact it is a profitable park pulling in about 10 million guests a year. Much different from where DCA was. And some folks seem to conveniently ignore the real fact that if you closed the backlot and other attractions, that yes, it would decrease park capacity and this would mean less guests, and less $$.

So, yes, if they build Carsland at DHS (a big if considering Star Wars, Avatarland), it would be in the parking lot, and they would probably build a parking garage for DHS.

 

[Mike730]

Dude. Yes. That's the official Reedy Creek development plan.

Perhaps you dont fully understand the purpose of the development plan. The main purpose is to govern the location and intensity of land use and development by providing the foundation for regulating proposed new projects, to convey advanced directoin to the private sector by station clearly the district's expectations for growth and conservation, and to guide public investment in new facilities, such as roads, water, wastewater and solid waste systems, and water quality facilities. When the plan specifically discusses expansion of the parks and resorts, it organizes land that can be used beyond what is already being used for the park.

For instance, if a DHS expansion was upon us, they wouldn't mention the area used for offices and cast member facilities as expansion areas, despite their ease of access for such a possibility. These spaces are already being used, and besides the permits that would need to be filed for any such building project, there would not need to be any buying or selling or re-categorization of land earmarked (see what I did thar ) for conservation. Would RCID say "hey, that defunct soundstage and crappy American Idol show would make a great place for a Star Wars expansion1!1!!!!1" ?

No, but they would say that the land beside it that's a beautiful lush jungle of floridian wildlife can't be used. And, we approve the building of a parking structure if the parking lot is needed for such an expansion.

The official Reedy Creek future development plan looks at utilizing space in parking lots for expansion, and even the possibility of parking garages. When it comes to DHS, official expansion pads are the parking lot, and across World Drive though they admit that would be a little difficult. There are no plans for redevelopment of existing developments inside of DHS.

The RCID isn't Disney. The places mentioned for possible expansion aren't there as their way to say "this is where the next expansion will be", they're there to say "hey, we're here if you need us." "Official Expansion Pods" aren't the only places development can happen. The RCID plans don't mention plans for redevelopment in the parks because it would make no sense for them to do so. It's and obvious possibility and it's not the purpose of the plan.

OH and also,
WHY WOULD A PIXAR EXPANSION GO ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PARK AS PIXAR PLACE??
It makes no feasible sense.

 

[Mike730]

The development plan is a just a high level plan for how land can be effectively used. I have looked at it before and I have never seen anything in it about how the space already occupied by attractions can be used. Nothing in the plan precludes Disney from removing LMA and replacing it with Carsland.

This guy said in 3 sentences, what I meant in an essay...

 

[Ignohippo]

Perhaps you dont fully understand the purpose of the development plan. The main purpose is to govern the location and intensity of land use and development by providing the foundation for regulating proposed new projects, to convey advanced directoin to the private sector by station clearly the district's expectations for growth and conservation, and to guide public investment in new facilities, such as roads, water, wastewater and solid waste systems, and water quality facilities. When the plan specifically discusses expansion of the parks and resorts, it organizes land that can be used beyond what is already being used for the park.

For instance, if a DHS expansion was upon us, they wouldn't mention the area used for offices and cast member facilities as expansion areas, despite their ease of access for such a possibility. These spaces are already being used, and besides the permits that would need to be filed for any such building project, there would not need to be any buying or selling or re-categorization of land earmarked (see what I did thar ) for conservation. Would RCID say "hey, that defunct soundstage and crappy American Idol show would make a great place for a Star Wars expansion1!1!!!!1" ?

No, but they would say that the land beside it that's a beautiful lush jungle of floridian wildlife can't be used. And, we approve the building of a parking structure if the parking lot is needed for such an expansion.

The RCID isn't Disney. The places mentioned for possible expansion aren't there as their way to say "this is where the next expansion will be", they're there to say "hey, we're here if you need us." "Official Expansion Pods" aren't the only places development can happen. The RCID plans don't mention plans for redevelopment in the parks because it would make no sense for them to do so. It's and obvious possibility and it's not the purpose of the plan.

OH and also,
WHY WOULD A PIXAR EXPANSION GO ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PARK AS PIXAR PLACE??
It makes no feasible sense.

THANK YOU!!!!

 

[menamechris]

I find it amusing when some people think if they talk about something over and over and over and over again... it will somehow come true. Keep a journal and write down your armchair imagineering/WDW dream plans in that. But it really doesn't need to be forced into every thread on these boards again. And again. And again...

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

AND you take the chance of cannabilizing the attendance from the other parks.

Cannibalization happens, but it doesn't mean the whole resort loses. AK brought in six million in its first year, cannibalized 3.3 million from the other parks, BUT . . . the resort was up 2.3 million overall.

Here's some numbers to consider:

A new fifth gate could bring in approximately 7 million guests a year.
Of this 7 million, perhaps 4 million would be cannibalized, and 3 million would be added to WDW overall attendance.

The thing with DHS is that this little park would have problem expanding its annual attendance from 10 million to 14 million (the same as MK!?), should Carsland go there by removing BLT and LMA. There simply isn't enough room, unless they go the parking lot route, or across World Drive, in terms of expansion.

But, with a fifth gate, you grow WDW's attendance, AND cannibalization helps the other parks some so that refurbs can be done more easily, and relieves pressure at the lines, making the vacation experience overall better for the average guest.

We all know that they *couldn't* shutdown Splash for refurb at MK last winter due to a loss of capacity at MK, even though Splash breaksdown all the time. WDW needs capacity, and the best way to do that is with a fifth gate.

From an artistic standpoint, a lot of diehards think that DHS needs to gut two attractions and build Carsland. They might be right from an artistic standpoint, but not at all from an operational, or financial standpoint. WDW gets a lot of foreigners and others who don't mind LMA and Backlot. Of course, I would think they would spend a couple hundred millions to upgrade these attractions before trashing them, and we haven't seen plans for upgrading Backlot.

Let's see, 3 million new guests at a fifth gate, how much does the average guest spend again?

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

The RCID isn't Disney.

You gotta be joking! The history of RCID goes to the heart of WDW, it is how the Mouse got the power to do what it does on the property!

Can't believe I have to find something on Wiki to prove that Disney = RCID.

"A five-member Board of Supervisors governs the District, elected by the landowners of the District. These members, senior employees of The Walt Disney Company, each own undeveloped five-acre (20,235 m²) lots of land within the District, the only land in the District not technically controlled by Disney or used for public road purposes. The only residents of the District, also Disney employees or their immediate family members, live in two small communities, one in each city. In the 2000 census, Bay Lake had 23 residents, all in the community on the north shore of Bay Lake, and Lake Buena Vista had 16 residents, all in the community about a mile north of Downtown Disney. These residents elect the officials of the cities, but since they don't actually own any land, they don't have any power in electing the District Board of Supervisors."

LOL, those folks in Reedy Creek sure are all nice! But why do they all work for the Mouse?

 

[menamechris]

Cannibalization happens, but it doesn't mean the whole resort loses. AK brought in six million in its first year, cannibalized 3.3 million from the other parks, BUT . . . the resort was up 2.3 million overall.

Here's some numbers to consider:

A new fifth gate could bring in approximately 7 million guests a year.
Of this 7 million, perhaps 4 million would be cannibalized, and 3 million would be added to WDW overall attendance.

The thing with DHS is that this little park would have problem expanding its annual attendance from 10 million to 14 million (the same as MK!?), should Carsland go there by removing BLT and LMA. There simply isn't enough room, unless they go the parking lot route, or across World Drive, in terms of expansion.

But, with a fifth gate, you grow WDW's attendance, AND cannibalization helps the other parks some so that refurbs can be done more easily, and relieves pressure at the lines, making the vacation experience overall better for the average guest.

We all know that they *couldn't* shutdown Splash for refurb at MK last winter due to a loss of capacity at MK, even though Splash breaksdown all the time. WDW needs capacity, and the best way to do that is with a fifth gate.

From an artistic standpoint, a lot of diehards think that DHS needs to gut two attractions and build Carsland. They might be right from an artistic standpoint, but not at all from an operational, or financial standpoint. WDW gets a lot of foreigners and others who don't mind LMA and Backlot. Of course, I would think they would spend a couple hundred millions to upgrade these attractions before trashing them, and we haven't seen plans for upgrading Backlot.

Let's see, 3 million new guests at a fifth gate, how much does the average guest spend again?

With all of this number crunching and theory you are proposing - Could you please back up and summarize what happened after 9/11/01? The resort was on the verge of collapse because of its sheer size. Capacity and growth are great when times are good. Its how you plan to keep a enormous operation like WDW running on fumes when times are bad that make a sound business decision. Disney does not need additional capacity. With the Fantasyland expansion in MK, it isn't at near the risk of closing due to crowds now. Epcot hasn't since 2000, I believe. I don't know if DAK ever has.

But seriously - are we going to have to discuss this every other week for the rest of our lives waiting for a 5th gate?

 

[EOD K9]

CarsLand was designed to fit perfectly into the corner of the park where LMA and the BLT are now. If you place a satellite pic of CarsLand at DCA onto that area, it fits perfectly. The streets even line up! That isn't by coincidence

Can you post a pic of that?

 

[flynnibus]

But seriously - are we going to have to discuss this every other week for the rest of our lives waiting for a 5th gate?

Well there is my way....

A click is the answer..

 

[RAXIP]

Cars Land:

RSR only:

 

[djkidkaz]

Cars Land:

RSR only:

Have you heard anything about this project moving forward Raxip?

 

[Ignohippo]

Cars Land:

RSR only:

Thanks for the assist RAXIP!!

If they go RSR without Radiator Springs it'd be tragic. IMO, Radiator Springs is just as much of a draw, if not more, than RSR.

 

[Ignohippo]

Cannibalization happens, but it doesn't mean the whole resort loses. AK brought in six million in its first year, cannibalized 3.3 million from the other parks, BUT . . . the resort was up 2.3 million overall.

Here's some numbers to consider:

A new fifth gate could bring in approximately 7 million guests a year.
Of this 7 million, perhaps 4 million would be cannibalized, and 3 million would be added to WDW overall attendance.

The thing with DHS is that this little park would have problem expanding its annual attendance from 10 million to 14 million (the same as MK!?), should Carsland go there by removing BLT and LMA. There simply isn't enough room, unless they go the parking lot route, or across World Drive, in terms of expansion.

But, with a fifth gate, you grow WDW's attendance, AND cannibalization helps the other parks some so that refurbs can be done more easily, and relieves pressure at the lines, making the vacation experience overall better for the average guest.

We all know that they *couldn't* shutdown Splash for refurb at MK last winter due to a loss of capacity at MK, even though Splash breaksdown all the time. WDW needs capacity, and the best way to do that is with a fifth gate.

From an artistic standpoint, a lot of diehards think that DHS needs to gut two attractions and build Carsland. They might be right from an artistic standpoint, but not at all from an operational, or financial standpoint. WDW gets a lot of foreigners and others who don't mind LMA and Backlot. Of course, I would think they would spend a couple hundred millions to upgrade these attractions before trashing them, and we haven't seen plans for upgrading Backlot.

Let's see, 3 million new guests at a fifth gate, how much does the average guest spend again?

Except for the law of diminishing returns. There are only so many people who can afford a Disney vacation. It can also be argued that they could spend a third of the cost of building a new park (by adding it onto DHS) and still get those extra 3+ million people to the resort. If they make the expansion good enough, it won't matter if it's an expansion or a fifth gate.

As for it not being an operational advantage to shut down those two attractions, TDO has wanted them closed for years. LMA is expensive to operate and opens TDO up to crazy liability. The Backlot Tour is closed at least a quarter of the year as it is now, is expensive to operate and has had most of the reason it even exists closed. And this is coming from someone whose son's very favorite things are LMA and the BLT. We will be very sad to see them go.

Unfortunately, the only thing that may save them is Luke Skywalker.

 

[Ignohippo]

Oh, and I believe any new Star Wars expansion would start where Star Tours is now and go over the entrance road and use the land between the road and the creek (which could be re-routed farther out as well).

 

[Mike730]

You gotta be joking! The history of RCID goes to the heart of WDW, it is how the Mouse got the power to do what it does on the property!

Can't believe I have to find something on Wiki to prove that Disney = RCID.

"A five-member Board of Supervisors governs the District, elected by the landowners of the District. These members, senior employees of The Walt Disney Company, each own undeveloped five-acre (20,235 m²) lots of land within the District, the only land in the District not technically controlled by Disney or used for public road purposes. The only residents of the District, also Disney employees or their immediate family members, live in two small communities, one in each city. In the 2000 census, Bay Lake had 23 residents, all in the community on the north shore of Bay Lake, and Lake Buena Vista had 16 residents, all in the community about a mile north of Downtown Disney. These residents elect the officials of the cities, but since they don't actually own any land, they don't have any power in electing the District Board of Supervisors."

LOL, those folks in Reedy Creek sure are all nice! But why do they all work for the Mouse?

We know RCID is Disney's tool to do what aver they want, but RCID is a government entity. Whether or not Disney employees are also on the RCID board doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that the RCID wouldn't consider land already in use an "expansion pad".

All im saying is that just because it doesn't say it in the RCID plan, doesn't mean it wont happen. The plan doesn't take everything into account, only things that require specific and/or extended work and research by the RCID.

On the fifth park discussion:
I think the most telling reason for why a fifth park is at least decades away is whats happening right now with UNI. Guest often aren't adding a day or two at UNI to their vacation, they're replacing a day or two at Disney with one at UNI. The same thing would happen if another park was added. Many guests would replace a day at one of the parks to experience another, or simply squeeze their two least favorites into one day.

 

[marni1971]

Dude. Yes. That's the official Reedy Creek development plan.

Dude, no.
That's the same plan advocating building more Futureworld in Epcots parking lot too.

 

[danlb_2000]

Cannibalization happens, but it doesn't mean the whole resort loses. AK brought in six million in its first year, cannibalized 3.3 million from the other parks, BUT . . . the resort was up 2.3 million overall.

Here's some numbers to consider:

A new fifth gate could bring in approximately 7 million guests a year.
Of this 7 million, perhaps 4 million would be cannibalized, and 3 million would be added to WDW overall attendance.

The thing with DHS is that this little park would have problem expanding its annual attendance from 10 million to 14 million (the same as MK!?), should Carsland go there by removing BLT and LMA. There simply isn't enough room, unless they go the parking lot route, or across World Drive, in terms of expansion.

But, with a fifth gate, you grow WDW's attendance, AND cannibalization helps the other parks some so that refurbs can be done more easily, and relieves pressure at the lines, making the vacation experience overall better for the average guest.

We all know that they *couldn't* shutdown Splash for refurb at MK last winter due to a loss of capacity at MK, even though Splash breaksdown all the time. WDW needs capacity, and the best way to do that is with a fifth gate.

From an artistic standpoint, a lot of diehards think that DHS needs to gut two attractions and build Carsland. They might be right from an artistic standpoint, but not at all from an operational, or financial standpoint. WDW gets a lot of foreigners and others who don't mind LMA and Backlot. Of course, I would think they would spend a couple hundred millions to upgrade these attractions before trashing them, and we haven't seen plans for upgrading Backlot.

Let's see, 3 million new guests at a fifth gate, how much does the average guest spend again?

There are numerous Photoshop images people have posted in this thread the demonstrate that is wrong. There is clearly enough room. I am not saying they will never use the parking lot for expansion, just that Carsland would fit in the LMA/BLT area, which is where insiders have said it would go if built.