DHS Makeover - What we know so far.....

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Sorry if this has already been discussed, but does the idea of "Toy Story Land" kind of put the general Pixar expansion rumors to bed? It looks/sounds/feels like they've committed to a very Toy Story-specific concept. I've seen several folks suggest that Toy Story Land could be a kind of "Phase 1" for Pixar expansion, but I feel like a land of this size would feel shoehorned into a larger related land.
In The Toy Story Land presentation they said they are moving DHS away from the working studio theme and more into immersive themed lands, so to me it makes sense to have separate Pixar lands each focusing on a different movie. The budget that has been thrown around, the space available, and the current rumors all point to there being more then Star Wars and Toy Story coming to DHS.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
DHS is pretty much landlocked by unsuitable land...
Is that a fact? I was under the impression that the land surrounding DHS was unbuildable because it has been designated as such, not because there's something inherently wrong with the land itself. My understanding was that the land could be built if other land on property currently slated for expansion was re-designated as conservation space.
 

WDW95

Active Member
But a land that is not suitable for anything would definitely not be suitable for the point loads of a garage. DHS is pretty much landlocked by unsuitable land so it makes sense to stay within the current foot print as much as possible. I am not saying they are definitely building a garage, but it is not an outrageous idea.
The rumor is that the garage would be built on the current parking lot. What I am saying is that the land the parking lot is sitting on now is engineered to hold only a parking lot. It is not engineered to hold a garage. If a garage is added here, significant expense would still have to be undertaken to prepare the land for the garage.
 

WDW95

Active Member
Is that a fact? I was under the impression that the land surrounding DHS was unbuildable because it has been designated as such, not because there's something inherently wrong with the land itself. My understanding was that the land could be built if other land on property currently slated for expansion was re-designated as conservation space.
They can even use off property land for conservation like they did for DAK. Im pretty sure all of WDW was unsuitable at one point. It would be interesting to see how the distribution of suitable and unsuitable land has changed over the years.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
Is that a fact? I was under the impression that the land surrounding DHS was unbuildable because it has been designated as such, not because there's something inherently wrong with the land itself. My understanding was that the land could be built if other land on property currently slated for expansion was re-designated as conservation space.
Most of the unsuitable land is designated as conservation. Since it's already hard to build on, it makes sense to use it as conservation land. From the RCID master plan:

"Unsuitable – Land in the unsuitable category has the most restrictive development constraints. It has been applied to wetlands below the 100-year flood elevation and to all wetland and uplands Conservation Areas. Most of the acreage is in the Reedy Creek Swamp. Land with this designation is considered unavailable for development. The 9,093 acres with this designation represent 64.2 percent of the undeveloped land area."

The other thing to remember is that they have a limited amount of existing wetlands that they can impact. They submitted a permit last year to increase this amount, but it was never approved. Of course there are always ways around these things, but they involve extra money and more hoops to jump through, so they are always going to favor the easier path when possible.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
The other thing to remember is that they have a limited amount of existing wetlands that they can impact. They submitted a permit last year to increase this amount, but it was never approved. Of course there are always ways around these things, but they involve extra money and more hoops to jump through, so they are always going to favor the easier path when possible.
Are you suggesting they purchased the Mira Lago property without doing their due diligence and now they're stuck with wetlands credits they can't use?
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
The rumor is that the garage would be built on the current parking lot. What I am saying is that the land the parking lot is sitting on now is engineered to hold only a parking lot. It is not engineered to hold a garage. If a garage is added here, significant expense would still have to be undertaken to prepare the land for the garage.
There would also be significant expense in building a parking lot on unsuitable land. We just don't know for sure how big the difference would be.
 

Brad Bishop

Well-Known Member
You also get the double punch of WDW expanding so massively in the 90s and the USA becoming cheaper and cheaper for tourists to visit, that for those in search of a Disney fix the price difference between Paris and Orlando became narrower, which didn't help DLP's quest to get guests who wanted to spend a week or more at Disney parks. Many people said 'for not much more, we could go to Florida', while nobody, when offered the choice said 'I'd much rather go to DLP than WDW!'.
I used to work for a company in the UK and asked them about Disneyland Paris. Many thought it was too expensive and, if you're going to do Disney and spend all of that money, then you may as well do it right and head to Florida where everything is.

They saw a lot more value in traveling to Florida for 4 parks over, what sounds like, 1.5 parks in Paris. Also, USF/IOA were factors in their decision with them being just down the road.

I read up on the problems of Disneyland Paris a year or two back and, outside of them kind of competing with Florida, there were a few things that stuck out:
- employees were generally rude and unhelpful
- management has it's own share of problems.
- They made everything really ornate when they built the place but, with that ornateness, comes maintenance which they couldn't afford and then it just got worse from there.

I remember reading one of the comments on DLP, from a British person, and they basically wanted to go to Florida, not only for all of the other reasons above, but also because the people in Florida treated you like a guest instead of a pest.

I've never been to DLP so I don't have any first-hand experience.
 

Next Big Thing

Well-Known Member
The park will have lost 8 attractions. Maybe more.

And it's getting 4. 2 of those are for kiddies.

Add Rat and the Door Coaster and another SW D+ and they'd be getting there.

It doesn't quite add up yet.
I think 4 RIDES are the key thing though. The things we're losing are things like LMA, Sparrow, Idol (which got replaced), OMD, Animation (replaced with Launch Bay), BLT (replaced by TS Land), and an incredibly old/outdated Voyage of the LM.

Sure, I hate losing One Man's Dream and Animation, but this park has always been short on RIDES. We only lose 1 of those in all the closures and we are getting 4. I'll be damned if there aren't other side attractions within these lands too. Lands that are 14 and 11 acres need content beyond just rides.
 

WDW95

Active Member
Also, what are the odds that Star Tours even will remain in the new Star Wars Land? The ride where you get to drive the Millenium Falcon sounds similar to Star Tours. Both would seem kind of redundant. We know Disneyland's will not be incorporating Star Tours. There is no reason Star Wars Land needs to be located near Star Tours.

It may make more sense to place it in the back of the park, where Catastrophe Canyon is now. It will help to provide a draw to the back of the park and distribute crowds more evenly. Toy Story Land could provide access to this land.
 
Top Bottom