DisneylandForward

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
In what scenario would a city like Anaheim say no to Disney then? Obviously Disney is gearing up for a fight, so who are they fighting with?
why does it have to be a fight? Disney gives proposal city reviews it they say no or yes and then back to drawing board. That is what negotiations are for and if Disney offers more to the city then they are more likely to get backing.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
But this bridge is fine, right?

View attachment 543696
maxresdefault.jpg


Ugg. So it what works on the west side won't work for the east side. It only points out how little effort is made on this.
 

truecoat

Well-Known Member
View attachment 543705

Ugg. So it what works on the west side won't work for the east side. It only points out how little effort is made on this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a cool bridge but I felt it was more another item used to hold up the project by the hotels and business' put out by the plan.

How about something like this? Probably my favorite pedestrian bridge near where I live.

mpls bridge.jpg


It would need a little more something also.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Well they are spending a million plus already on this Disneyland Forward business. Why spend the money if this is a slam dunk?
Nothing is a slam dunk, but negotiations can drag on for 2 years. Angels took a long time to reach an agreement with Anaheim and they had other options like moving to Tustin. Still, the deal was done. Disney can have a true negotiations or stamp their foot.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a cool bridge but I felt it was more another item used to hold up the project by the hotels and business' put out by the plan.

How about something like this? Probably my favorite pedestrian bridge near where I live.

View attachment 543710

It would need a little more something also.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the South Coast Plaza bridge.
ff023dadf9f25a2ac66fc0ef18df0d86.jpg
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
But this bridge is fine, right?

View attachment 543696

That's a roadway with no pedestrian access and no surface street businesses. You literally only see that going 40 miles per hour.

Harbor Blvd. in the Anaheim Resort District is as close to a dynamic pedestrian streetscape as you'll get in Orange County, with maybe a few exceptions in downtown Orange, Fullerton, San Clemente, or Laguna Beach.

To saddle Harbor Blvd. for the next 75 years with such a cheap and charmless design proposal as Michael Colglazier's TDA came up with in their failed Eastern Gateway proposal would be a huge mistake. This doesn't have to be a gold-plated design to impress the Gods. But it does need to be pleasing to the eye, perhaps even unique, and look like something more than a freeway overpass with some cheap Mickey heads slapped on the sides of it.

Just because Anaheim's Planning Commission during the 2010's approved way too many beige stucco corporate boxes to be built on vacant lots or to replace flea-bag drug motels doesn't mean that Anaheim can't have nice things.

Michael Colglazier thought very little of Anaheim, the CM's who worked there, and the paying schmucks who vacationed there. But he's gone now. We can elevate this design to a noticeably higher level. We honestly don't have to put up with mediocre. Spend some money. Do something nice. It's going to be there until long after we are all dead and buried.

But this.... this isn't it....

maxresdefault.jpg
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
It's even more pleasant to walk through it.
View attachment 543712

That pedestrian bridge the Segerstrom's built is lovely. I don't shop at South Coast Plaza as much as I used to, but I am still there a few times per year and this bridge is part of it. I always valet park over in front of Capital Grille, just out of habit and because that's where I end my shopping evening in the bar, in the corner booth beneath the oil painting of John Wayne smoking a cigarette. But that bridge on the opposite side of this massive mall, just next to Nordies, leading to another slightly less massive mall is terribly convenient to get to Sur la Table and Crate&Barrel and my Apple Store.

On a breezy summer evening it's actually quite pleasant to walk out there and look north to the blue mountains and purple-pink clouds.

The bridge that TDA proposed a few years ago to cross Harbor is noticeably less charming. It's a cement freeway overpass.
 
Last edited:

el_super

Well-Known Member
Nothing is a slam dunk, but negotiations can drag on for 2 years. Angels took a long time to reach an agreement with Anaheim and they had other options like moving to Tustin. Still, the deal was done. Disney can have a true negotiations or stamp their foot.

Maybe Disney can threaten to move to Tustin too.
 

chadwpalm

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Access can be adjusted.
map.jpg

I'm only assuming this is what you are talking about. Getting rid of Disneyland Dr. allowing the expansion to easily roll over to the west without the need for bridges or tunnels.

So now there is no need for front drop-off entrances at PPH or GC that are a staple of large hotels because the public can't get there anymore. No drop-offs, no valet. The PPH parking garage is now useless for the same reason. How do hotel guests get to their hotels? Park at Mickey and Friends and walk with their luggage for half a mile? And how do delivery trucks get supplies to the hotels and remaining restaurants in DTD? Do they go through the theme parks? Perhaps they build an access road just north or south of the DLH, but that just adds traffic to Walnut which the city and its residents would be against.

I think the logistics behind this would be greater than simply building two more bridges.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
FYI, trying to close Disneyland Drive would be a big no-no from the city. No way would Walnut, a street outside of the resort area, be allowed to have a major traffic increase. And Harbor Blvd has move vehicles on it than the city wants. The city wants to move vehicles off of Harbor and Katella, which is why the city wants Gene Autry Way.

The city, and its residents, need to approve the deal, and making traffic worse is not acceptable.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
FYI, trying to close Disneyland Drive would be a big no-no from the city. No way would Walnut, a street outside of the resort area, be allowed to have a major traffic increase.

Maybe that's what Disneyland wants to move forward with.

And Harbor Blvd has move vehicles on it than the city wants. The city wants to move vehicles off of Harbor and Katella, which is why the city wants Gene Autry Way.

Building more roads reduces traffic? That's the first I've heard of that.

The city, and its residents, need to approve the deal, and making traffic worse is not acceptable.

But there's a great big beautiful tomorrow.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
View attachment 543984
I'm only assuming this is what you are talking about. Getting rid of Disneyland Dr. allowing the expansion to easily roll over to the west without the need for bridges or tunnels.

So now there is no need for front drop-off entrances at PPH or GC that are a staple of large hotels because the public can't get there anymore. No drop-offs, no valet. The PPH parking garage is now useless for the same reason. How do hotel guests get to their hotels? Park at Mickey and Friends and walk with their luggage for half a mile? And how do delivery trucks get supplies to the hotels and remaining restaurants in DTD? Do they go through the theme parks? Perhaps they build an access road just north or south of the DLH, but that just adds traffic to Walnut which the city and its residents would be against.

I think the logistics behind this would be greater than simply building two more bridges.
It’s still a design problem that can be solved. You can build access roads into the plan. You could use internal transit for hotel guests. You could close between Magic Way and Katella Ave, using Downtown Drive and Paradise Way for hotel access. You could extend the Disney’s California Adventure access road along Katella and Walnut.

Building bridges is still a process that would likely take years causing disruption to traffic patterns for visitors and through traffic each time one is built. Lowering the road like at Downtown Disney is an even bigger, longer endeavor as you have to move utilities as well. Either one will be a long, complicated process that is going to negatively impact neighbors. Even if bridges were the easiest, owning the road would simplify the logistics
 
Last edited:

choco choco

Well-Known Member
Does anybody find the claim that Katella is too trafficky rather dubious? I go to the Resort District often. I have family who live in the platinum triangle. I've never heard anybody complain about Katella. It's usually pretty wide open.

The main reason Disneyland Drive gets backed up is the amount of cars going to the Simba lot. If the Simba lot is gone, there isn't a transfer of cars going to Walnut St, mostly nobody will have reason to go back there. As a compromise, Disneyland Drive could be rerouted to basically butt up against Walnut St, running parallel to it and outlining the westernmost edge of the Resort District as hotel access and residential buffer.

Or use the large street into Disneyland Hotel (doesn't have a name), connect it to Downtown way then into Paradise Way to give access to the hotels. Everything east of this is therefore theme park space.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom