Rumor Disney resort of some kind in Texas?

[GladToBeHear]

I’m from Central Texas (Austin area) and I first heard this almost continual rumor back in about 1978.
Supposedly, Disney was buying up land just north of us using fictitious company names like they did in Florida.
So, these rumors have been going on and off for, at least, roughly 46 years now…

View attachment 818200

I'm in north Austin. I think the land Disney has bought in the Jarrell area (north of Austin) is either for one of the planned Storyliving by Disney communities (this would be an ideal place for it) or some type of data farm. Or both. If they were to build any parks here in TX -- I think north of Houston would be the place for it. Especially with no theme parks in the greater Houston area and with the Disney Cruises out of Galveston (south of Houston).

 

[coffeefan]

I dunno... I see Uni's TX park as more of a feeder park for the Orlando/Hollywood parks. I always felt that the Orlando/Hollywood parks struggled to cater to the under 42" height range (something Disney does well) where as Uni's TX park will cater almost exclusively to the under 42" age group (with next to nothing for the older kids). The park in TX won't detract from the other two parks because it serves a different demographic. The same concept doesn't work as well with Disney because their parks already do a pretty good job catering to the under 42" crowd.

But is a feeder necessary when the Uni parks are doing just fine? I find the motivation puzzling, also why not build a feeder adjacent to the existing parks if that's the concern? I'm curious to see the results once it all pans out though.

I think there's a valid critique that the premier parks (Disney/Uni) are becoming out of reach for working families. But if that's the main issue, I think a park in the northeast or lakes, despite their challenges would be more impactful on that front, considering that's the most populated region of the country.

 

[BrianLo]

Not sure what you mean by a fraction of Volcano Bay.

VB is 770 million in a post inflationary tally and Universal Kids (including the hotel and more infrastructure than VB required) is 550. I’d estimate they are spending about half as much on the actual park.

Your last paragraph is such a silly goose thing.

I’m not saying it won’t be successful. I’m saying no one here who isn’t in the Texas area or has kids currently under 6 (or plans to) should really care about this project. My choice between Legoland, Sesame Street and Universal Kids is none of the above. I’m not the target demo.

less than a Legoland is also not sincere.

I guess we’ll see, but I’m honestly trying to protect your overly optimistic projections. You already thought it was 3x bigger than it will be.

 

[hopemax]

This is the primary reason I say Disney needs a third US castle park, people are worried it would poach from DL and WDW but I see that as one of the main reasons to build it, DL and WDW are both overcrowded and the guest experience suffers as a result , the experience at both would greatly benefit from losing a couple million guests a year to a third park.

Exactly. Disneyland and MK at 18-20 million is not a good experience. If attendance dropped into the 14-16 million range, it would be a lot more comfortable and therefore enjoyable for everyone, and allow WDW breathing room to properly build out underdeveloped or underutilized areas to actually be able to *support* 20 million guests, that they didn't do over the last 15 years, while they mucked around with MDE, if they actually want 20 million. But operationally, shrinking the labor needs may help WDW's bottom line too.

 

[britain]

Exactly. Disneyland and MK at 18-20 million is not a good experience. If attendance dropped into the 14-16 million range, it would be a lot more comfortable and therefore enjoyable for everyone, and allow WDW breathing room to properly build out underdeveloped or underutilized areas to actually be able to *support* 20 million guests, that they didn't do over the last 15 years, while they mucked around with MDE, if they actually want 20 million. But operationally, shrinking the labor needs may help WDW's bottom line too.

What do ya’ll think? Even if nothing happens for another decade, or two, or four, is a 3rd domestic destination inevitable, if given enough time as the nation’s population increases?

 

[co10064]

Looking at Disney’s history, I feel that any regional-style experience just wouldn’t fit in with the company’s mantra.

Consider Disney Quest. Yes, it was done on a budget, but that didn’t get too far. Disney Stores themselves have largely closed. Rumored Australia projects never made it off the ground.

As for a half-day experience, one only has to look at the original MGM or DAK to realize this company is allergic to “half-day” pricing.

Times could have certainly changed, but my gut feeling is Disney goes big or goes home. And while I don’t doubt Disney has extensively studied the Texas area, I don’t see them pulling the trigger anytime soon under current leadership.

 

[celluloid]

For the record I have no actual issues with the product. It looks like a really nice offering.

It’s the fan base running away with thinking this is a stepping stone or even the same miniature product as a Universal destination resort that

VB is 770 million in a post inflationary tally and Universal Kids (including the hotel and more infrastructure than VB required) is 550. I’d estimate they are spending about half as much on the actual park.



I’m not saying it won’t be successful. I’m saying no one here who isn’t in the Texas area or has kids currently under 6 (or plans to) should really care about this project. My choice between Legoland, Sesame Street and Universal Kids is none of the above. I’m not the target demo.



I guess we’ll see, but I’m honestly trying to protect your overly optimistic projections. You already thought it was 3x bigger than it will be.

No I didn't. I mentioned the resort land. It has a hotel to it, but it also has expansion land. A lot can fit in 97 acres.

You don't need to be in the demographic to see that this has bigger potential and is larger in scale and market then Sesame Place.

It is not UO and it is not Sesame Place in scale. Both can be true.

 

[BrianLo]

No I didn't. I mentioned the resort land. It has a hotel to it, but it also has expansion land. A lit can fit in 97 acres.

You don't need to be in the demographic to see that this has bigger potential and is larger in scale and market then Sesame Place.

It is not UO and it is not Sesame Place in scale. Both can be true.

Sure a lot can fit… but the opening day resort is 32 acres, not 97.

97 is the land they acquired and you are conveniently glossing over parking.

To be fair the product actually appears wedged in size between sesame place and legoland. So you are not wrong.

 

[coffeefan]

What do ya’ll think? Even if nothing happens for another decade, or two, or four, is a 3rd domestic destination inevitable, if given enough time as the nation’s population increases?

they expand DL and DW to their maximum capacities before taking on a third park. DL has enough space for a 3rd gate and DW has much more space.

 

[BrianLo]

What do ya’ll think? Even if nothing happens for another decade, or two, or four, is a 3rd domestic destination inevitable, if given enough time as the nation’s population increases?

It certainly appears to have the population density and GDP to support what would be somewhat more of a locals park ala Tokyo and Anaheim. But they need better transit… even though I guess both American parks get by without.

The Seoul metropolitan region would be my other bet for the most economically viable place for them to look next. India and Brazil both don’t have the GDP to fully support it yet, maybe in a couple more decades.

 

[DarkMetroid567]

It’s just hard to believe this can be anything more than regional in a location like Frisco. Yes, TX is a huge market, but it’s still out of the way — 4+ hours away from Houston and Austin and not en route to any location with the exception of Oklahoma City.

Maybe if it was more centrally located in Dallas, it could be perceived as more of a destination park. But even then most people are not planning Dallas vacations. Places like SDC are in the middle of nowhere but at least they have additional tourism draws like the Ozarks. Dallas? Ehh…

 

[celluloid]

It’s just hard to believe this can be anything more than regional in a location like Frisco. Yes, TX is a huge market, but it’s still out of the way — 4+ hours away from Houston and Austin and not en route to any location with the exception of Oklahoma City.

Maybe if it was more centrally located in Dallas, it could be perceived as more of a destination park. But even then most people are not planning Dallas vacations. Places like SDC are in the middle of nowhere but at least they have additional tourism draws like the Ozarks. Dallas? Ehh…

It only has to be a destination to those already visiting and for those in surrounding areas(millions) that don't have a park of this caliber in quality of operations and design.
This is the right answer for people in Oklahoma City vs building in Oklahoma, as you mentioned. The climate is geographically great and centralized to many densley populated areas.
Besides the boom that has been happening to Frisco, you have the panoramic area and notice the economic strength and people spending.

Millions visit Dallas proper and around. And many millions live around to driving distances. This offers something of value to families at a level not done yet.
Frisco was speficially chosen for this reason.

I have not seen anyone claim it is an international or self draw on par with Central FL, nor does it have to be.
It has the goal of increasing dollars and advocates for its company.

 

[britain]

It only has to be a destination to those already visiting and for those in surrounding areas(millions) that don't have a park of this caliber in quality of operations and design.
This is the right answer for people in Oklahoma City vs building in Oklahoma, as you mentioned. The climate is geographically great and centralized to many densley populated areas.
Besides the boom that has been happening to Frisco, you have the panoramic area and notice the economic strength and people spending.

Millions visit Dallas proper and around. And many millions live around to driving distances. This offers something of value to families at a level not done yet.
Frisco was speficially chosen for this reason.

I have not seen anyone claim it is an international or self draw on par with Central FL, nor does it have to be.
It has the goal of increasing dollars and advocates for its company.

Nutshell: Regional park in a super robust region aimed at an underserved demo.

 

[GenChi]

If this actually happened it would be indicative of admitting the traditional media to lifelong Disney fan pipeline is faltering, especially since media taste has shifted to gaming from film/tv that Disney has been slow to adapt from, and parks need to be leaned on to be the entryway. That or it's the only way they think they can grow the company going forward.

It's fun to think about, don't think it'll ever happen. Especially not a "regional" park or younger gearing park, the overcrowded for a new park from this company would be way too massive if they didn't do a full castle park. Just the cost of this endeavor would be high too

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

How is that theme park in Oklahoma coming along? 2 billion was the price tag if I remember correctly.

 

[MKeeler]

If they ever actually go through with this, I still think between Austin and San Antonio makes the most sense. Put there, the resort would be served by two major cities and international airports. From there, further easy access to two heavily traveled interstate highways (I-35 and I-10). If built out where the resort would be more closely accessed by the 130 toll and you nearly have a copy of Orlando. Further, it puts the resort within a six hour drive of the major cities in Texas, western Louisiana, Oklahoma City, and northern Mexico.
It would need to be a third castle park, or something similar in scale, to have the right amount of pull to the destination. Even if they just built a castle park with the unique variations of rides that have been built in the international parks (especially as I don't see the park in Texas having as much of an international pull from European and Asian markets), that would make the park a must visit location for locals and WDW/Disneyland visitors alike. Pretty easy to put together - Adventureland like Hong Kong or Shanghai's Pirates and Adventure Isle, Frontierland like Grizzly Gulch, Phantom Manor, etc, Fantasyland with Fantasy Springs rides or Beauty and the Beast from Tokyo Disneyland, etc. All known quantities that work, all similar enough but unique from what is offered in the other stateside parks. Would seem to be the appropriate release valve for the crowds they are seeing in CA and FL.

 

[larryz]

they expand DL and DW to their maximum capacities before taking on a third park. DL has enough space for a 3rd gate and DW has much more space.

But Orlando & DW infrastructure is just about tapped out. Time to infest develop another location.

 

[Jrb1979]

But Orlando & DW infrastructure is just about tapped out. Time to infest develop another location.

How about enjoy the parks that are in those areas that you want another castle park at.

 

[larryz]

How is that theme park in Oklahoma coming along? 2 billion was the price tag if I remember correctly.

I wonder if they considered the Texas - Oklahoma dynamic.

No self-respecting Texan is going anywhere near anything in Oklahoma.

 

[larryz]

How about enjoy the parks that are in those areas that you want another castle park at.

Given the current complexities of planning and "enjoying" a Disney resort vacation, that's more what my future looks like anyway.

Notice I didn't say "expense"...