Disney buys 1000 acres of land

seascape

Well-Known Member
The last 3000 acres provided enough conservation land to build in almost all the land to the west of Flamingo Crossing. In fact if you look at the Orange County property maps you will see they subdivided land there for two parks, one on the north of the new road and one to the south. Both well over 100 acres each plus land for parking. Will they actually build there? Maybe not but this new land will allow them to build more parks and more Resorts on existing property. As for all the land they own south of the existing park, I would like to see them develop a boutique resort for those interested in the environment. A 100 room hotel to explore the entire Disney conservatory.
 

monothingie

Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
Premium Member
Hopefully whatever this is for, is something BIG. The wizard down the road is apparently ready to throw money at the parks to beat the mouse. The mouse seems to be content



And the prices go up and up...and the bubble gets bigger and bigger...
 

deeevo

Well-Known Member
Hopefully whatever this is for, is something BIG. The wizard down the road is apparently ready to throw money at the parks to beat the mouse. The mouse seems to be content


IMO the only way they can get ahead of Disney is to create the bubble WDW has with the transportation system that WDW has to keep people on property and create that immerse experience that WDW is famous for. I do not believe they have the ability to do this the way the Universal is laid out for the future.
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
I don't see how a Nintendo land can compare to either Harry Potter or Star Wars. Nintendo produced some great games and will be popular but they are different games and putting them in the same land will be fun but in no way can it have a common theme. I loved the original games on the original NES but never got into any of the other systems. 8 bit systems required game play and programming over video and IMO were better than what is out there now. I know it's only my opinion but Harry Potter provided the perfect environment for a themepark while Nintendo lacks it.
 

The Pho

Well-Known Member
I don't see how a Nintendo land can compare to either Harry Potter or Star Wars. Nintendo produced some great games and will be popular but they are different games and putting them in the same land will be fun but in no way can it have a common theme. I loved the original games on the original NES but never got into any of the other systems. 8 bit systems required game play and programming over video and IMO were better than what is out there now. I know it's only my opinion but Harry Potter provided the perfect environment for a themepark while Nintendo lacks it.
Nintendo if done correctly, offers dozens of obvious choices for full immersion to the same degree as Hogwarts or Pandora. There are many fully fleshed out worlds for them to choose from to create and adapt the characters into. Whether its Hyrule or the Mushroom Kingdom or one of the many others, they could very easily produce something that is visually unique and with rides that bring the games to life. I'd say that Nintendo brings them more options than Harry Potter does, because with that they were pretty much locked into starting with Hogwarts or Diagon Alley, and then not much else that's unique to the property.
 

UpAllNight

Well-Known Member
I love Universal, but for them to compete with Disney it starts with the movies. And they’re absolutely not in the same league as Disney at making good ones.

I’m attached to Disney as I grew up on Disney, and continue to enjoy their films. I don’t have 10% of that attachment to Universal.

Universal can spend a fortune and not overcome Disney for this reason alone. I still hope Disney reacts though. They’ll be spooked by higher hotel occupancy at Universal....I admit the gap will be reduced if they go family friendly for gate 3.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
I don't see how a Nintendo land can compare to either Harry Potter or Star Wars. Nintendo produced some great games and will be popular but they are different games and putting them in the same land will be fun but in no way can it have a common theme. I loved the original games on the original NES but never got into any of the other systems. 8 bit systems required game play and programming over video and IMO were better than what is out there now. I know it's only my opinion but Harry Potter provided the perfect environment for a themepark while Nintendo lacks it.

I don't think you need to have a single immersive environment for it to work. Think of it like Fantasyland which has a unifying theme, but it's not meant to be a single immersive environment.
 
Last edited:

bunnyman

Well-Known Member
This, like the 3,000 acre purchase a few years ago, has nothing to do with development of a 5th gate. They do this because it lowers their taxes. They pass it off as being in the name of conservation, which is more of a side effect.

Yeah, it sounds like what happens in NY on Long Island with what they call "Pine Barren Credits" or in ski country when resorts swap land with the government; all in the name of development rights elsewhere.
 

Stripes

Premium Member
Yes, there is very little chance of a 5th gate any time soon for a variety of reasons.
I’m not desperate for any fifth gate as there’s plenty of room for expansion of the existing parks. There’s even more room within existing parks for expansion than even a fifth gate would bring.

But, I don’t understand how a fifth gate is very different from an equally large expansion of existing parks. What makes one plausible and the other prohibitive?
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
I’m not desperate for any fifth gate as there’s plenty of room for expansion of the existing parks. There’s even more room within existing parks for expansion than even a fifth gate would bring.

But, I don’t understand how a fifth gate is very different from an equally large expansion of existing parks. What makes one plausible and the other prohibitive?
There’s a lot of added expense and labor involved in a fifth park that doesn’t exist with expansion of the existing parks.

Running utilities to an undeveloped site

Transportation infrastructure and labor to a new destination

Back of house support facilities needed and labor involved

Labor for things like parking, main entrance, security, etc.

Not to mention the potential for cannibalizing attendance at the existing four parks.
 
Last edited:

Stripes

Premium Member
This is probably a question for @danlb_2000 .

Does the value of the land set aside for conservation have an effect on how much they’re allowed to develop, or is it just how much land is set aside?

I ask because Mira Lago was $11.5 million for 3,000 acres versus this purchase which was $23 million for 965 acres.
 

TwilightZone

Well-Known Member
I don't see how a Nintendo land can compare to either Harry Potter or Star Wars. Nintendo produced some great games and will be popular but they are different games and putting them in the same land will be fun but in no way can it have a common theme. I loved the original games on the original NES but never got into any of the other systems. 8 bit systems required game play and programming over video and IMO were better than what is out there now. I know it's only my opinion but Harry Potter provided the perfect environment for a themepark while Nintendo lacks it.
You are underestimating the popularity of nintendo. Several announcements from them got number 1 in the past.
Also nintendo world is being spread out into 3 lands. We already know the first land is mario themed in the third theme park.
The second might be Zelda in islands of adventure.
And the third might be pokemon where kidzone is.
EDIT: You are also underestimating the immersiveness of Nintendo games, a lot of them, especially newer ones are super immersive and would make great theme park lands.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
This is probably a question for @danlb_2000 .

Does the value of the land set aside for conservation have an effect on how much they’re allowed to develop, or is it just how much land is set aside?

I ask because Mira Lago was $11.5 million for 3,000 acres versus this purchase which was $23 million for 965 acres.

I don't know for sure, but I doubt the value has anything to do with it.
 

DisneyJoe

Well-Known Member
This is probably a question for @danlb_2000 .

Does the value of the land set aside for conservation have an effect on how much they’re allowed to develop, or is it just how much land is set aside?

I ask because Mira Lago was $11.5 million for 3,000 acres versus this purchase which was $23 million for 965 acres.
No, nothing to do with the value of the land.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom