DisneylandForward

[Disney Irish]

How are you going to get away with a traditional style park with only 2-3 lands? I think a world showcase is a much better concept. Specifically for the land available at Toy Story. The idea is to bolster the lack of attractions with essentially a highly detailed outdoor mall that is an attraction in and of itself with food and beverage offerings from all over the world.

The point was not a full traditional style park. Its to give all the options that all of us want, just not in a full 3rd gate or even a whole hotel/retail district. Give a hybrid of all our ideas.

Is there enough room for a mini world showcase on the Simba lot? How many acres it?

Its ~22 acres usable space give or take when including 10% backstage, and depending on where you slice it and include the existing DTD parking.

 

[coffeefan]

If you remove the TDA building and its facilities from the equation I think you'll find that DCA has proportionally the same amount of allocated backstage as DL.

Costuming is one thing. But Entertainment would need its own space, so would Operations, so would OVD, so would Security, so would all the other things needed to run a Park daily. You cannot cart a lot of that stuff from 2 miles away. Unless of course you're wanting it to be a bare bones Park that isn't going to have much in it.

Well, I disagree. DCA has lean/efficient backstage operations. Westcot could probably allocate around 20% and supplement support from DLR and surrounding facilities.

I don't think I'm calling for that at all. I also still don't think DLR needs a 3rd gate, just like I don't think WDW needs a 5th. And as much as I like the overall concepts being discussed you won't convince me that it cannot go into an expansion slot and requires a 3rd gate. A 3rd gate is just a no-go in my opinion, and I've already given my reasons why.

But it will be, because building a hotel island with 3-4 hotels, plus the inevitable premium hotels at DL/DCA with park views, will be a total shock to the fabric of DL. Think of it this way: Disneyland is the New Orleans to Disney World’s Las Vegas of theme parks.

 

[TP2000]

No, Disneyland Forward merely represents a master agreement pitch than an actual plan.

It’s hard to say if either resort domestically is accelerated right now. Because we very much had an adequate bolus of projects in the back 2010’s. A lot of this just feels like Pandemic era catchup to the traditional pace they hit.

All that makes sense. And a jumping off point for this post-luncheon thought game for me.

From that artwork Disney released, they had 15 rides divided between both parks slotted into the entire Westside expansion area. Which makes sense from an acreage standpoint. Add in Avatarland's assumed 2 rides where the abandoned Hollywood Land is now, 3 new rides in a New New New Tomorrowland, 2 rides possible on the expansion pad north of Star Wars, plus another 3 rides on what's left of the old parking lot, and you've got 25 new rides between 2030 and Disneyland's 100th in 2055. So...

Does Disneyland Forward actually represent accelerated growth for the Disneyland Resort, or just a place to put diminished growth in the future? It appears that it keeps things on par with the 1990's in a single park.

Here's how the growth of the Disneyland Resort, combining both parks post 2000, has looked after the park got established and off and running with the big triple E Ticket expansion of 1959. DCA was a big add as any new park is, but for purposes of incremental "expansion" it counts from 2002 onward:

1960's: 12 New Attractions, 4 E Tickets (Flying Saucers, Treehouse, Tiki Room, Mr. Lincoln, Small World, Primeval World, Pirates, PeopleMover, Mission to Mars, Inner Space, Carousel of Progress, Haunted Mansion)
1970's: 5 New Attractions, 3 E Tickets (Bear Jamboree, America Sings, MSEP, Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain)
1980's: 5 New Attractions, 2 E Tickets (Pinocchio, Fantasyland Theater, Captain EO, Star Tours, Splash Mountain)
1990's: 7 New Attractions, 2 E Tickets (Go Coaster, Trolley, Roger Rabbit, Fantasmic!, Indy, Rocket Rods, Innoventions)
2000's: 10 New Attractions, 2 E Tickets (Millionaire, Heimlich's, Flyers, Buggies, Boogie, Tower, Monsters Inc., Buzz Lightyear, Nemo Submarines, Midway Mania)
2010's: 10 New Attractions, 3 E Tickets (Mermaid, Mater's, Flying Tires, Cars Racers, Red Car, World of Color, Philharmagic, Rollin' Roadsters, Target Run, Rise Before Dawn)
2020's: 6 New Attractions, 1 E Ticket (Spiderman, Runaway Railway, Pillow Guy Walt, Marvel E, Marvel C, Coco)

Disneyland Forward Begins Opening....

2030's: 6 New Attractions, 2 E Tickets ( Avatar E Ticket, Avatar D Ticket, Tomorrowland E Ticket, 2 Tomorrowland Family Rides, New Pixar Pier Spinner in East Helix)
2040's: 9 New Attractions, 2 E Tickets (Disneyland West Expansion = 2 E Tickets, 7 Family Rides/Spinners)
2050's: 9 New Attractions, 3 E Tickets (DCA West Expansion = 2 E Tickets, 5 Family Rides/Spinners, Disneyland North E Ticket, Disneyland North Family Ride)

The good news is that at least we know they've got the land to keep up a modest, 1990's type of expansion pace through Disneyland's 100th anniversary.

But I wonder if maybe TDA was just a tad disingenuous when selling this concept to Anaheim residents and politicians?

I get the sense it wouldn't have been as exciting had they said "For the next 40 years we'd like to grow both parks at a rate similar to the 1990's when we just had one park, so please rezone everything for us and promise never to tax our tickets."

 

[Distorian]

Yeah much preferred to Disneys Epic Universe.

We should only be so fortunate to receive Disney's Epic Universe. We are far more likely to get Disney's Adventure World.

All that makes sense. And a jumping off point for this post-luncheon thought game for me.

From that artwork Disney released, they had 15 rides divided between both parks slotted into the entire Westside expansion area. Which makes sense from an acreage standpoint. Add in Avatarland's assumed 2 rides where the abandoned Hollywood Land is now, 3 new rides in a New New New Tomorrowland, 2 rides possible on the expansion pad north of Star Wars, plus another 3 rides on what's left of the old parking lot, and you've got 25 new rides between 2030 and Disneyland's 100th in 2055. So...

Does Disneyland Forward actually represent accelerated growth for the Disneyland Resort, or just a place to put diminished growth in the future? It appears that it keeps things on par with the 1990's in a single park.

Here's how the growth of the Disneyland Resort, combining both parks post 2000, has looked after the park got established and off and running with the big triple E Ticket expansion of 1959. DCA was a big add as any new park is, but for purposes of incremental "expansion" it counts from 2002 onward:

1960's: 12 New Attractions, 4 E Tickets (Flying Saucers, Treehouse, Tiki Room, Mr. Lincoln, Small World, Primeval World, Pirates, PeopleMover, Mission to Mars, Inner Space, Carousel of Progress, Haunted Mansion)
1970's: 5 New Attractions, 3 E Tickets (Bear Jamboree, America Sings, MSEP, Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain)
1980's: 5 New Attractions, 2 E Tickets (Pinocchio, Fantasyland Theater, Captain EO, Star Tours, Splash Mountain)
1990's: 7 New Attractions, 2 E Tickets (Go Coaster, Trolley, Roger Rabbit, Fantasmic!, Indy, Rocket Rods, Innoventions)
2000's: 10 New Attractions, 2 E Tickets (Millionaire, Heimlich's, Flyers, Buggies, Boogie, Tower, Monsters Inc., Buzz Lightyear, Nemo Submarines, Midway Mania)
2010's: 10 New Attractions, 3 E Tickets (Mermaid, Mater's, Flying Tires, Cars Racers, Red Car, World of Color, Philharmagic, Rollin' Roadsters, Target Run, Rise Before Dawn)
2020's: 6 New Attractions, 1 E Ticket (Spiderman, Runaway Railway, Pillow Guy Walt, Marvel E, Marvel C, Coco)

Disneyland Forward Begins Opening....

2030's: 6 New Attractions, 2 E Tickets ( Avatar E Ticket, Avatar D Ticket, Tomorrowland E Ticket, 2 Tomorrowland Family Rides, New Pixar Pier Spinner in East Helix)
2040's: 9 New Attractions, 2 E Tickets (Disneyland West Expansion = 2 E Tickets, 7 Family Rides/Spinners)
2050's: 9 New Attractions, 3 E Tickets (DCA West Expansion = 2 E Tickets, 5 Family Rides/Spinners, Disneyland North E Ticket, Disneyland North Family Ride)

The good news is that at least we know they've got the land to keep up a modest, 1990's type of expansion pace through Disneyland's 100th anniversary.

But I wonder if maybe TDA was just a tad disingenuous when selling this concept to Anaheim residents and politicians?

I get the sense it wouldn't have been as exciting had they said "For the next 40 years we'd like to grow both parks at a rate similar to the 1990's when we just had one park, so please rezone everything for us and promise never to tax our tickets."

I hadn't thought about it before, but looking at this made me realize Disney opening a third gate in time for Disneyland's 100th in 2055 would make a lot of sense. Really every move they're making now should be toward the goal of making Disneyland "perfect" for the park's centennial.

 

[Disney Irish]

Well, I disagree. DCA has lean/efficient backstage operations. Westcot could probably allocate around 20% and supplement support from DLR and surrounding facilities.

I'd have to do the actual calculations, which I'm too lazy to do right now, but I think you're not realizing how much DCA has in regards to backstage facilities, also never claimed it was efficient lol. Nor do I think you realize how much would need to be used in an isolated Park even 2 miles away.

But it will be, because building a hotel island with 3-4 hotels, plus the inevitable premium hotels at DL/DCA with park views, will be a total shock to the fabric of DL. Think of it this way: Disneyland is the New Orleans to Disney World’s Las Vegas of theme parks.

And which do you think Disney is going to look towards from a financial sense? 2000+ rooms in 3-4 hotels at hotel island where they can get $1M+ in nightly bookings plus whatever from retail/dining and at a fraction of the cost ($1-2B) of a 3rd gate, or spending $5-10B on a 3rd gate. This is still Disney we're talking about, they are going to choose the least costly more revenue generation option, and that will always be more hotels, retail, dining, which has the cheapest operation and highest ROI.

Also you're forgetting again that Disney was already slated to build another hotel less than a decade ago, so it was already in the plans. So that "shock" that you think will happen was already in the works prior to any of this.

 

[TP2000]

I hadn't thought about it before, but looking at this made me realize Disney opening a third gate in time for Disneyland's 100th in 2055 would make a lot of sense. Really every move they're making now should be toward the goal of making Disneyland "perfect" for the park's centennial.

Agreed.

I purposely stacked the deck in the 2040's to entirely Disneyland Park expansion, as it readies itself for 2055. Obviously that Disneyland Park expansion timeline would flex into the early 2050's, but to keep the list tidy I just gave it to the 2040's.

That way, you would have new rides and a big new land to the west up and running and the park itself would lean heavily into new entertainment and a 100th campaign, much the same way they did so fabulously for the 50th in '05.

Typing out that post, I was surprised at how beneficial the 2010's were to the entire Resort. That was truly a Golden Age it turns out. Even at the time, circa 2012-2016, the gang here knew it was a helluva lot of fun. But in hindsight, it really stands out and can only be challenged by the Swinging 60's when Walt and his entire team were truly at the tip top of their game!

 

[Disney Irish]

I hadn't thought about it before, but looking at this made me realize Disney opening a third gate in time for Disneyland's 100th in 2055 would make a lot of sense. Really every move they're making now should be toward the goal of making Disneyland "perfect" for the park's centennial.

Well if this is indeed what happens, you may be the only one of us in this discussion left alive or young enough to fully experience and enjoy it. Most of the rest of us will be in our 80s, 90s, or 100s, lol.

 

[coffeefan]

And which do you think Disney is going to look towards from a financial sense? 2000+ rooms in 3-4 hotels at hotel island where they can get $1M+ in nightly bookings plus whatever from retail/dining and at a fraction of the cost ($1-2B) of a 3rd gate, or spending $5-10B on a 3rd gate. This is still Disney we're talking about, they are going to choose the least costly more revenue generation option, and that will always be more hotels, retail, dining, which has the cheapest operation and highest ROI.

But why would a parks fan want this? Only someone from the inside would want this.

But regardless, you would still need to compare the ROI for a third park vs more hotels. Universal Orlando reported a 22% increase from EU. Why did they do that when they could've just built more hotels?

Also you're forgetting again that Disney was already slated to build another hotel less than a decade ago, so it was already in the plans. So that "shock" that you think will happen was already in the works prior to any of this.

That hotel was only being proposed because of tax incentives. That's why plans disappeared when the tax incentive went away. Since then, DLH did get a new tower though.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I don't understand why some are so adamantly against more hotel expansion.

Historically Disneyland has had extremely high hotel occupancy, which is part of why their hotel rates are so high. There absolutely is more demand for more Disney hotel inventory, and where does that money go? At least some of it will go right back into the parks.

More hotels (assuming they're done with consideration to the realities of the resort, logistics, theme, etc.) are a win-win for the resort even if nobody that regularly posts on this board ever stays there. It probably doesn't make sense to build a GCH sprawling-style hotel, but more hotel rooms-assuming the hotel is done with any degree of care-should sell themselves pretty readily and enable further spending on attractions.

Now, does that mean I want them to go ahead and build Hotel City in the Toy Story Lot? Of course not. But building hotels is something that should help everyone get what they want-the mouse more $$$, the guests more attractions.

 

[Disney Irish]

But why would a parks fan want this? Only someone from the inside would want this.

I'm looking at it from a realistic perceptive, not looking at it from the fan desire.

As other posters said it really takes away focus from DL and DCA, which I don't know if that the desire that some here have, but its not my desire. I rather they focus on making DL and DCA the best they can be for the next 50 years rather than trying to take focus away from them.

But regardless, you would still need to compare the ROI for a third park vs more hotels. Universal Orlando reported a 22% increase from EU. Why did they do that when they could've just built more hotels?

Hotels, retail, and F&B are the quickest, easiest, cheapest, and largest ROI at a Resort. This isn't even debatable.

EU is trying to increase capacity for Uni overall in Orlando to compete with WDW. DLR doesn't have that same competition in Anaheim, no other operator in the entire SoCal region has two let alone three parks. You don't see USH adding a second gate do you?

That hotel was only being proposed because of tax incentives. That's why plans disappeared when the tax incentive went away. Since then, DLH did get a new tower though.

That was not the only reason why it was proposed, it just was a benefit. The DVC tower was the smaller alternative, but proves that Disney wants more hotel.

 

[AJFireman]

I see this going as a mixed use with Hotel/Retail/Attractions/Restaurants. This isn't just for Disney but for that area as whole. They have some big conventions already, but I have read Comic Con wants to relocate and to attract others. From the Convention center its a short walk plus all the hotels locally. Straight down Convention Way into an entrance plaza for the reveal. I know when I have been to the Convention Center food options are at a minimum with only hopes of a good food truck showing up but then they have long lines and you have to stand around to eat. You could easily walk over and have a TSR restaurant experience. Having hotels there and places to eat would attract that convention crowd that now can say they are staying at a Disney Hotel without the inconvenience of trying to get to the Convention Center daily if staying at the current Disneyland Hotels. DTD I know is not everyone favorite but every time I walk through its crowded and looking at the parking lot its mostly full.

Also for those Imagineering there are still the Anaheim Resort and the Disneyland Resort Specific Plans to contend with. They just spent years and money to get it changed I don't see them going oops we forgot to change something can we add it.
-Some items to note are the apartments East and South of TSL are not in either plan and zoned for Apartments.
-Gardenwalk just had built JW Mariott in 2020 so there would probably be some buyout there if they closed it. Also the city just approved extensions for building the other hotel and timeshare this past February. Gardenwalk still has plans. There 2 restaurants street side do pretty well. Pulling people into the center is where they fail. I have been to shows at the HOB and there are 2 other nightclub type places that get crowded with a line to get into.
-Pixar Pier hotel plot was only approved for 80,000 sq ft (about 1.8 acres) of Theme Park Usage with Disneyland Forward when the plot over 5 acres. And 18,000 sq ft already in use. The Parking Garage covers about the 1.8 acres of land so I do not see the Hotel going anywhere.
These are just some of the things I have found

Could even be themed as a WESTCOT with its 4 lands. The old WESTCOT Plans called for hotels above each land looking over the park. Each land can have restaurants, and retail themed to that area with a flare towards Disney. Even when I hear Disney would not have moderate or even a value resort in California, but you are calling for a Value Theme Park because you would have to charge less. Once all is said and done this area is locked in yet Disneyland and DCA will both have major expansion into parking lots adding more land and attractions increasing its size. So how are they to attract visitors to the TSL Theme Park with an admission cost when they have 2 much larger parks next door to each other. Remember when they couldn't attract visitors right next door with its California Theme. Now you want them to bus over for this new area walking over to the Eastern Gateway for transportation. Unless it's out of this world amazing, I just don't see someone at Disneyland/DCA making the effort without some kind of incentive all the time to a half day park.

 

[coffeefan]

I'm looking at it from a realistic perceptive, not looking at it from the fan desire.

Then say in advance you're playing the Chapek role.

As other posters said it really takes away focus from DL and DCA, which I don't know if that the desire that some here have, but its not my desire. I rather they focus on making DL and DCA the best they can be for the next 50 years rather than trying to take focus away from them.

And those posters were already disproven with the DCA/DL vs Paris example. The post from TP2000 shows that as well.

Hotels, retail, and F&B are the quickest, easiest, and largest ROI at a Resort. This isn't even debatable.

Location, location, location. There are plenty of options for any of those. They don't have another option large enough for a third park.

EU is trying to increase capacity for Uni overall to compete with WDW. DLR doesn't have that same competition in Anaheim. You don't see USH adding a new gate do you?

USH is locked by a movie studio, DLR is not.

That was not the only reason why it was proposed, it just was a benefit. The DVC tower was the smaller alternative, but proves that Disney wants more hotel.

I'm sure they do. But using the proposed tax-subsidized hotel did not support that point.

 

[Disney Irish]

Then say in advance you're playing the Chapek role.

I'm not playing any role. I'm looking at this again from a realistic point-of-view, which I said. And there is no indication that Disney is even considering a 3rd gate, or any specific idea, even the hotel district at this point for TSL. We could be looking at 30+ years away before they do anything there.

From a fan point-of-view, there are many many opinions on the subject, only one of which is a 3rd gate.

And those posters were already disproven with the DCA/DL vs Paris example. The post from TP2000 shows that as well.

That is a matter of opinion. Which again is what this all comes down to.

Location, location, location. There are plenty of options for any of those. They don't have another option large enough for a third park.

And just like others mentioned, TSL is not the only location for a 3rd gate either. There are locations scattered around the region that can host a 3rd Disney Park, if that is what Disney is looking to do, and are much larger than TSL.

USH is locked by a movie studio, DLR is not.

Yes but the point is still the same. Disney doesn't have the competition in the region like they do in Orlando. They are the only operator that has multiple Parks. Knotts is the closest and its only because they have a 15 acre water park, which isn't even a full Park, its more an add-on to the main Park.

So again this idea that Disney NEEDS a 3rd park in Anaheim is just false based on the regions needs and competition. So using EU doesn't support that point since its on the other end of the country in a different region via different competition.

I'm sure they do. But using the proposed tax-subsidized hotel did not support that point.

Any new future hotel in Anaheim will have the potential of some tax subsidy, it just won't be the same tax subsidy, so that is a strawman to say it doesn't count just because it was cancelled. Disney could have moved ahead with that hotel, they decided not to just like they decided to originally cancelled the EGW around the same time even though they also could have moved forward with it due to fights with the City. And instead they moved forward with additional rooms via a new tower to DLH, which does support the point of them wanting to add more rooms/hotels.

 

[coffeefan]

I don't understand why some are so adamantly against more hotel expansion.

Historically Disneyland has had extremely high hotel occupancy, which is part of why their hotel rates are so high. There absolutely is more demand for more Disney hotel inventory, and where does that money go? At least some of it will go right back into the parks.

More hotels (assuming they're done with consideration to the realities of the resort, logistics, theme, etc.) are a win-win for the resort even if nobody that regularly posts on this board ever stays there. It probably doesn't make sense to build a GCH sprawling-style hotel, but more hotel rooms-assuming the hotel is done with any degree of care-should sell themselves pretty readily and enable further spending on attractions.

Now, does that mean I want them to go ahead and build Hotel City in the Toy Story Lot? Of course not. But building hotels is something that should help everyone get what they want-the mouse more $$$, the guests more attractions.

I don't think anyone has said they're against more hotels. Just that some of us want park expansion to correlate with increased hotel capacity, so that DLR keeps its charm, balance, and enjoyable experience.

 

[Disney Irish]

Just that some of us want park expansion to correlate with increased hotel capacity, so that DLR keeps its charm, balance, and enjoyable experience.

If that is the case, then everyone is on the same page and saying they want increased hotel capacity via park expansion, the only debate is where that happens and what type of park expansion.

 

[coffeefan]

If that is the case, then everyone is on the same page and saying they want increased hotel capacity via park expansion, the only debate is where that happens and what type of park expansion.

It's an important distinction. It's a new theme park with a hotel and Simba expansions with a hotel or Simba expansions with a hotel and a hotel island complex with multiple hotels.

 

[Disney Irish]

It's an important distinction. It's a new theme park with a hotel and Simba expansions with a hotel or Simba expansions with a hotel and a hotel island complex with multiple hotels.

It depends on which scenario we're talking about, because there have been many discussed the last two days.

Anyways really the two main scenarios are -

Simba/DLH lot with DL/DCA expansion, TSL for Hotel/retail/dining district

and

TSL 3rd gate (no hotel), Simba with Hotel or two (maybe a land), and whatever other DL expansion in the DLH lot (or even a hotel)


Anything else is just a variation of these. All get hotels, all get new park additions, again it all just depends on where it goes. And any distinction is just a matter of perspective.

 

[BrianLo]

I just can’t understand why they’d need 2-3 more hotels if there’s is no 3rd gate.

I mean technically HK and Shanghai are up to 4 hotels now and each only have 1 gate. 2-gated Tokyo has 5. I’m sure Disneyland resort wants more hotels.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

I mean technically HK and Shanghai are up to 4 hotels now and each only have 1 gate. 2-gated Tokyo has 5. I’m sure Disneyland resort wants more hotels.

Doesn't HKDL have 3, not 4? Just land reserved for a fourth which, as far as I know, hasn't been announced. Not sure of the average occupancy there but if it's 80%+ and with the upcoming Marvel expansion, sure maybe it's worth the fourth.

And Shanghai, as we know, is actively preparing for their second gate, to which the fourth hotel is a key connectivity point between the first and second gates, in addition to more lodging capacity.

Both resorts are significantly different beasts from DLR in terms of maturity and tourist mix that would call into question anything more than a single hotel add without adding an additional park, IMO.

 

[BrianLo]

Doesn't HKDL have 3, not 4? Just land reserved for a fourth which, as far as I know, hasn't been announced. Not sure of the average occupancy there but if it's 80%+ and with the upcoming Marvel expansion, sure maybe it's worth the fourth.

And Shanghai, as we know, is actively preparing for their second gate, to which the fourth hotel is a key connectivity point between the first and second gates, in addition to more lodging capacity.

Both resorts are significantly different beasts from DLR in terms of maturity and tourist mix that would call into question anything more than a single hotel add without adding an additional park, IMO.

Sorry yes, miscounted. It’s probably better to just count revenue rooms if I’m being honest.

Disneyland - 2400
Tokyo Disney - 2300
HKDL - 1700
SDL - 1200 (~1700 soon) +?500 with the fourth
DLP - 5700

When I replied to the context I also meant contextually if there is a built out Disneyland forward. Not today. As is, DLR would seem to have occupancy loads to support another hotel, though my suspicion is they’d want more significant DVC sell through first and that’s probably the key factor stalling hotel 4. A fully built out DLF I don’t see much reason they couldn’t float a 5th.

And I know why people do not want TS lot turned into a hotel oasis, but there’s quite a lot of sensibility to put a Disney hotel down there. It would tap into the convention crowd as well. As would some dining.