News Disneyland Working on Future Master Plan- includes Theme Park Expansions, Retail/Entertainment Space, and More!

[Stevek]

Expedition Everest. Why not? Makes as much sense as the rest of this silliness.

Expedition Mt Shasta

 

[flynnibus]

The thing is that under their deal with the city they could build that today, without any need to go get permission. They need permission to build more park there.

The fact that they’re doing this means they have SOMETHING in mind for that space that is park focused.

Or... after the last years of fights with the city and surroundings has shown them they were more hindered than they like and want to reset the table while the gettins are good (recovery and city council are in their favor).

This looks to be just disney working their regulatory side.. my take

 

[el_super]

So that makes the Eastern Gateway and new Parking Structure a priority.

Then why didn't they submit the approval for that, seemingly already completed plan, rather than work on this DisneylandForward concept?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Given that Disney likes to pick up property every decade, how would new parcels be treated under what they are proposing? Yes, I know it says they don’t intend to expand beyond their current borders, but they didn’t own the Fujishige fields, the Eastern Gateway site north of Pumbaa or the CM lot on Ball Road 30 years ago, when the DRSP was being crafted, either.

 

[el_super]

They needed approval because the current plans have some very specific approvals but also some very specific limitations. That is the larger framework they want relaxed. They want carte blanche to do what they want where they want.

For those curious: Excerpts from The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (1996)

3.3.2 Hotel District​

​

The Hotel District is the second largest district within The Disneyland Resort and covers approximately 97 acres. The Hotel District is intended for hotels, accessory retail, recreational uses (i.e., swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.), and landscaped areas​

​

Up to 1,000 hotel rooms may be constructed as part of the theme park. If any of these rooms are not constructed in the theme park, then the number of rooms permitted in the Hotel District will increase by an equal amount of rooms. The total number of rooms permitted within The Disneyland Resort, however, will not exceed 5,600 rooms, excluding those rooms permitted by District A and the C-R and Anaheim GardenWalk Overlays (discussed in Section 3.3.3.5, District A and in Section 3.3.5, C-R Overlay and Section 3.3.6, Anaheim GardenWalk Overlay). Guest and visitor vehicular access to hotel rooms within the Theme Park District will be from West Street/Disneyland Drive. Up to 350,000 square feet of the theme park square footage may be developed as retail entertainment center uses in the Theme Park and/or Hotel District(s), with associated parking within the Hotel District. The retail entertainment center use may straddle West Street/Disneyland Drive.​

​

The site elements of the Hotel District—buildings, vehicle circulation/access, parking facilities, landscaped open space, recreation facilities, and pedestrian paths—will be arranged in a way that focuses visitors inward to the center of the District. To achieve this, parking facilities will generally be located at the perimeter of the site, and hotel buildings in the center. The hotel buildings will be oriented to landscaped open spaces, recreation areas, and pedestrian paths that will help create a resort environment. A central pedestrian walk will connect the hotel buildings together, and to the transition area on the west side of the Theme Park District adjacent to West Street/Disneyland Drive.​

​

Visitors and hotel guests arriving at the Hotel District by vehicle will enter the District from West Street/Disneyland Drive. The Major entries into the hotels will be oriented to West Street/Disneyland Drive, which will have a unique resort character created by landscaped parkways and special street features such as banners, night lighting, or other elements intended to create a festive resort atmosphere (Section 5.0, ‘Design Plan,’ contains a more detailed description of the character of West Street/Disneyland Drive).​

​

The hotel parking facilities may be in parking structures located adjacent to Walnut Street. These facilities will be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the Walnut Street public right-of-way. Additional parking facilities, including parking structures and surface parking lots may be located anywhere within the Hotel District, though most facilities will be located at the perimeter, consistent with the overall sight design concept. More information about the design and treatment of parking facilities on Walnut Street can be found in Section 5.0, ‘Design Plan’.​

​

​

The plan Disney is bound to right now, has strangely specific uses for that land pinned in. Disney's argument is that they should be about to build theme park attractions, but it seems important to point out, they are not asking that the area be zoned to a theme park, which seems like it would be the easy way to achieve what they outlined in their proposal.

So sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one: it's not easy to define what they want to build there, because they don't know what they want to build there.

 

[el_super]

Or... after the last years of fights with the city and surroundings has shown them they were more hindered than they like and want to reset the table while the gettins are good (recovery and city council are in their favor).

This looks to be just disney working their regulatory side.. my take

Sorta, but add in a dash of being publicly embarrassed every time they make a proposal for something and then have to back out of it. As others have mentioned, most companies will seek some form of informal approvals before pitching a massive idea like this, but with Disney, any hint at a new plan or project gets blown way out of proportion. Disney was pushed into announcing projects that they weren't entirely confident in (two hotels and a parking structure) only to back out when the approvals/public support weren't there.

This is their way of managing that PR. By getting all the pre-approvals for mixed use, they can announce projects when there is a guarantee they will happen without the black eye associated with having to abandon the plans due to lack of political capital.

 

[flynnibus]

Disney was pushed into announcing projects that they weren't entirely confident in (two hotels and a parking structure) only to back out when the approvals/public support weren't there

Meh

Disney was working against a hostile council, anti big-corp societal pressures, and has always dealt with neighbors that feel bullied by Disney. They were never going to get a backroom handshake deal in private and then make a big splash with 100% support. The kind of public works and tax-intertwined projects Disney were working with were always going to be fought out in public.

This is the nature of the beast when you dance with government and other citizens.

This is their way of managing that PR. By getting all the pre-approvals for mixed use, they can announce projects when there is a guarantee they will happen without the black eye associated with having to abandon the plans due to lack of political capital.

It's not going to be slam dunks like this either. This is just reworking some elements of the regulatory chains Disney operates under. When they are still fighting things like the ticket tax ideas, or who falls under what labor classifications, or who pays for what... there is still going to be horse trading and bluffing.

Let's not forget the Resort District plan, and the Disneyland specific plan is a model conceived almost THIRTY years ago now. Looks like Disney is trying to use this opportunity to reset some of that framework to give them the flexibility they desire going forward.

Flexibility is the key word here IMO - This seems to be about opening up potentials.

 

[el_super]

Disney was working against a hostile council, anti big-corp societal pressures, and has always dealt with neighbors that feel bullied by Disney. They were never going to get a backroom handshake deal in private and then make a big splash with 100% support. The kind of public works and tax-intertwined projects Disney were working with were always going to be fought out in public.

Yeah... and they always should be. But Disney is a very PR oriented company and the latest, very public, string of losses for Disney has to be something they would/should be concerned about. I'd actually think that some of this is probably covering for some piece of bad news that is still coming down the pike.

 

[Brer Oswald]

This is very premature concern but I hope that if DL ever expands to the West that NOS keeps its intimate feel. That area in the back of NOS with the shops, French Market, Magnolia park, the train station and Mansion are near perfection. I’m hoping the land would indeed connect from Critter Country instead. Goodbye Winnie the Pooh store.

The only reason “Pooh Lite” is there is because of the store.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I used a coffee bean soaked bourbon in my Whiskey Sour nightcap, so let's put my caffeine buzz to work and do this for Critter Country too!

I've outlined Critter Country in purple and hashmarked the expansion space beyond the Tiana's Bayou Bash N' Splash, Presented by Ziploc ride building. As you can see, the way the triangle shaped park works, 1989's Critter Country is much closer to Disneyland Drive than 1966's New Orleans Square is. So there is far less space to work with in expanding Critter Country to get to a themed bridge to cross Disneyland Drive to the expansion pad.

It might be best to assume the Burbank and TDA executives of 2030 are competent and smart enough to know they must invest big into this project, and thus we get an expanded and plussed up New Orleans Square instead of merely 50 yards of landscaped walkway behind Tiana's Bayou Bash N' Splash, Presented by Ziploc.

View attachment 542436

Not so sure it can be sponsored by “Ziploc”. From what I’ve been told, “Zip” is a minstrel term.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

Meh

Disney was working against a hostile council, anti big-corp societal pressures, and has always dealt with neighbors that feel bullied by Disney. They were never going to get a backroom handshake deal in private and then make a big splash with 100% support. The kind of public works and tax-intertwined projects Disney were working with were always going to be fought out in public.

This is the nature of the beast when you dance with government and other citizens.


It's not going to be slam dunks like this either. This is just reworking some elements of the regulatory chains Disney operates under. When they are still fighting things like the ticket tax ideas, or who falls under what labor classifications, or who pays for what... there is still going to be horse trading and bluffing.

Let's not forget the Resort District plan, and the Disneyland specific plan is a model conceived almost THIRTY years ago now. Looks like Disney is trying to use this opportunity to reset some of that framework to give them the flexibility they desire going forward.

Flexibility is the key word here IMO - This seems to be about opening up potentials.

The neighbors angle is interesting to say the least. Disneyland was there before all those surrounding homes, wasn't it? Even if some did pre-date it, I have to imagine those owners are long gone. Anyone who lives there now knew what they were moving in next to.

 

[el_super]

The neighbors angle is interesting to say the least. Disneyland was there before all those surrounding homes, wasn't it? Even if some did pre-date it, I have to imagine those owners are long gone. Anyway who lives there now knew what they were moving in next to.

They may have known what was there when they moved in, but this is a matter of changing what is going to be there in the future. For instance, many of the homes around the resort were built around 1957, before Disneyland started shooting off fireworks every night. Changes in use like that, could have a detrimental impact on the surrounding homeowners.

 

[Stevek]

They may have known what was there when they moved in, but this is a matter of changing what is going to be there in the future. For instance, many of the homes around the resort were built around 1957, before Disneyland started shooting off fireworks every night. Changes in use like that, could have a detrimental impact on the surrounding homeowners.

Yep...while some folks might think seeing fireworks every night would be cool...take off your Disney hat and you realize how disruptive it would be to have to hear them all the time.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Yep...while some folks might think seeing fireworks every night would be cool...take off your Disney hat and you realize how disruptive it would be to have to hear them all the time.

I used to live less than a 10-minute car ride away from the DLR. Even as a Disney fan, hearing the fireworks in the evenings when I was home was oftentimes distracting and a bit annoying. I got used to it but it was never not irritating.

 

[choco choco]

What nobody's pointing out about that map is they've also extended in-park Disneyland space in the North all the way up to Ball Road. Seemingly splitting up the backstage areas with theme park space in between, and essentially taking out the large merchandise warehouse and parade building that sit there right now.

 

[Nirya]

It’s good to temper expectations, but remember the whole reason they are being public about this is that they ALREADY have the rights to turn those parking lots into shopping. They WANT Anaheim to grant the rights to turn those areas into theme park attractions. This is what they are explicitly saying in their own press.

That's a very generous reading into what's happening here.

A better read would be that Disney wants the ability to build whatever they want on the land and not be subject to city approval. It's the equivalent of the mystery box gag from Family Guy. Anything could be built on that land, like a theme park! Will it be a theme park? Probably not, but it could be! Don't you want a new theme park?

 

[_caleb]

I used to live less than a 10-minute car ride away from the DLR. Even as a Disney fan, hearing the fireworks in the evenings when I was home was oftentimes distracting and a bit annoying. I got used to it but it was never not irritating.

I lived 7 miles away, but hardly ever heard them. My cousin lived farther away than I did, and heard them every night (and HATED it).

ETA: I wonder how far the sound of a swarm of drones would carry?

 

[britain]

That's a very generous reading into what's happening here.

A better read would be that Disney wants the ability to build whatever they want on the land and not be subject to city approval. It's the equivalent of the mystery box gag from Family Guy. Anything could be built on that land, like a theme park! Will it be a theme park? Probably not, but it could be! Don't you want a new theme park?

I'd say that's a very cynical way of looking at what's happening here.

The time for Disney to be a lousy bait-and-switch member of the community has passed. They're opening up themselves to being better participants in the public process this time around regarding the Eastern Esplanade. What's the worst thing that could happen?
"Muah-ha-ha! You gave us carte blanch to build on our hotel parking lots! NOW we're not going to build more attractions! We are going to build more and more DVC UNITS!!!!"

 

[_caleb]

Would this "plan" allow Disney to build underground without further permission as well?

 

[Darkbeer1]

I'd say that's a very cynical way of looking at what's happening here.

The time for Disney to be a lousy bait-and-switch member of the community has passed. They're opening up themselves to being better participants in the public process this time around regarding the Eastern Esplanade. What's the worst thing that could happen?
"Muah-ha-ha! You gave us carte blanch to build on our hotel parking lots! NOW we're not going to build more attractions! We are going to build more and more DVC UNITS!!!!"

The city would be very happy with lots more DVC units, since they are subject to the TOT taxes. We need about $12 Million a year to pay of the new loan we are about to agree to.