DisneylandForward

[GravityFalls]

Trying to find some common ground here. What about a small boutique theme park exclusive to Club 33 members? Like Star Wars Galactic Starcruiser, but even less accessible. An idea we can all hate.

 

[DrStarlander]

If they simply add another DCA-level park

Will the third gate have, in addition to the initial 7-9 rides, several shows and a big nighttime extravaganza?

The lake in my image is bigger than Paradise Bay at DCA (or is it Pixar Bay? Who knows).

DCA doesn't get enough demand now, as many feel its still a half day Park. So where is this demand that warrants a 3rd gate? A future demand that may never materialize?

It doesn't get enough demand because it's still a weaker park priced the same as a great park.

Trying to find some common ground here. What about a small boutique theme park exclusive to Club 33 members? Like Star Wars Galactic Starcruiser, but even less accessible. An idea we can all hate.

Hmmm, compared to another shopping center? Another Sunglass Hut and Sephora?

At least I can aspire to be a Club 33 member

 

[Disney Irish]

It doesn't get enough demand because it's still a weaker park priced the same as a great park.

And the only way it becomes better and increases demand is to expand out (beyond the upcoming 4 attractions) so more can be added to the Park, meaning into Simba. Which is the domino that drops that leads to TSL not being used for a 3rd gate but rather hotels. So dunno what to tell you.

 

[coffeefan]

I'd prefer for them to make DCA almost as good as Disneyland, then I might want to visit for multiple days. If they simply add another DCA-level park; then that just means 2 So Cal Disney parks I'd never pay full admission to visit.

Its the same issue I have with Florida wanting a 5th gate. Why? Just finish building out the parks that exist. I'd love to not be able to complete all of AK in 5 hours. To have a DHS that offers more unique attractions beyond Slinky Dog Dash and some stage shows from the 90's. A World Showcase that offers more unique experiences to explore the folklore and culture of these countries.

Fix what exists rather than trying to just keep building cheap knock offs that feel thin and empty.

Disney World is a lot more susceptible and vulnerable to tourism fluctuations than Disneyland is. Given the trends in tourism makes Disneyland's expansion the safer growth option. I know that wasn't exactly your point, but it's another point why I don't think DL should turn into a hotel mall city. Disneyland should continue to prioritize the local market because it makes it more stable.

 

[coffeefan]

I'm not the one who brought up WDW examples, YOU did. I just refuted those examples as they don't apply.

Today, you brought it up. The past few days, I don't know, there's been a lot of discussion.

One would say that DLR already competes with both those competitors directly with just the two parks they already have.

Not in direct products, as the example showed.

 

[Disney Irish]

Today, you brought it up. The past few days, I don't know, there's been a lot of discussion.

I never brought up WDW in this thread, anything said by me on WDW in this thread was in response to someone else bringing up WDW as examples such as yourself.

Not in direct products, as the example showed.

DCA has literally been called the Six Flags or Seaworld of DLR on this very board. So other than no animals, they directly compete with both already.

 

[Distorian]

And the only way it becomes better and increases demand is to expand out (beyond the upcoming 4 attractions) so more can be added to the Park, meaning into Simba. Which is the domino that drops that leads to TSL not being used for a 3rd gate but rather hotels. So dunno what to tell you.

But this is false. DCA would have more demand if it were a good park. Expansion will not suddenly make Avenger's Campus a place I want to visit, or Pixar Pier no longer gaudy. The only way to make DCA a park worth visiting is to commit to its theme and go all in on a romantic vision of California. There is a reason Buena Vista Street, Grizzly Peak, Soarin' over California, Cars Land, Tower of Terror, and Paradise Pier are/were the best lands/attractions in the park, and that's because they weren't shoehorned excuses for profit but artistically crafted to create a environments worth visiting in a coherent setting. Even if Pandora is well done, it will never be harmonious with the rest of the park, which will always hurt the park's overall appeal.

 

[coffeefan]

I never brought up WDW in this thread, anything said by me on WDW in this thread was in response to someone else bringing up WDW as examples such as yourself.

As I said, today, March 5, 2006, you inserted WDW when you unsolicitedly quoted someone else's post with a WDW example.
For the record, I am not against using WDW examples; I am just calling out the double standards.

DCA has literally been called the Six Flags or Seaworld of DLR on this very board. So other than no animals, they directly compete with both already.

Animals are kinda a big part of it. In the context of the example you quoted and I assume agreed with "competitor park theme," Disney park theme.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Depending on what you call a 'ride', DL has ~37 rides and DCA has ~20.

If a third gate is suppose to be 'competitive' with the other two parks, it'll need to open with at least 20 rides. Otherwise, no one will want to go to the new "half-day" park with only 9 rides.

I think this is what makes the discussion about what they’ll do with the Toy Story lot so fascinating, IMHO it’s too far away from DLR to make sense as a hotel and shopping based district, that would need major foot traffic to be profitable and they’re not going to get that without a major “theme park” attraction to draw people away from DL, the flip side is I think it’s too small a footprint to create a “theme park” that can draw people away from what currently exists a mile away, DCA is feet away and struggles to draw people away from DL… I think whatever they plan is going to be completely different from what’s been built elsewhere.

 

[coffeefan]

DCA doesn't get enough demand now, as many feel its still a half day Park. So where is this demand that warrants a 3rd gate? A future demand that may never materialize?

Does having the #2 and #5 theme parks in North America and consistent growth not show there's demand?

Top 20 Most Visited Theme Parks in the US in 2024 | News | ThemeParks-US.com

The new 'TEA Global Experience Index' (formerly known as the 'Theme Index and Museum Index Report') is a collaboration between the Themed Entertainment Association, research partners, and editorial partners that provides critical insight into trends shaping leisure and entertainment markets...

www.themeparks-us.com

 

[Disney Irish]

As I said, today, March 5, 2006, you inserted WDW when you unsolicitedly quoted someone else's post with a WDW example.
For the record, I am not against using WDW examples; I am just calling out the double standards.

Any mention of WDW or Orlando by me was in response to someone else who brought it up first. And why? Because I don't discuss them at all.

In fact YOU are the first person today (easy to look because its only a page and half worth of posts) that brought up WDW in this thread directly to me with this post -

Disney World had four theme parks and water parks before Universal opened a second park. Also the Knotts to DCA example is shaky, given it was a downgrade from Westcot.

And so anything that I said about WDW or Orlando was in response to that and subsequent posts by others. Again because I don't openly discuss them on my own, especially in DL threads, as I don't go to WDW or Orlando.

The original post that I believe you are talking about that I responded to, if you notice I didn't even talk about WDW, I ignored all WDW references in that post.

So you have me confused with someone else.

Animals are kinda a big part of it. In the context of the example you quoted and I assume agreed with "cometitor park theme," Disney park theme.

Unless now you're advocating for a DAK style Park as the 3rd gate its a silly point you're trying to make. On direct products (your words not mine) DLR directly competes with both Six Flags and Sea World in the theme park side of things minus the animals at Sea World.

 

[coffeefan]

Depending on what you call a 'ride', DL has ~37 rides and DCA has ~20.

If a third gate is suppose to be 'competitive' with the other two parks, it'll need to open with at least 20 rides. Otherwise, no one will want to go to the new "half-day" park with only 9 rides.

So... ya think a 3rd gate will open with 20 new rides?

Based on conservative estimates Westcot could be the size of 4 themed lands the size of Tropical Americas each and a little more. So that's 4 E-tickets, 4 D-tickets, 4 flats, and 4 themed restaurants with shops.

 

[Disney Irish]

Does having the #2 and #5 theme parks in North America and consistent growth not show there's demand?

Top 20 Most Visited Theme Parks in the US in 2024 | News | ThemeParks-US.com

The new 'TEA Global Experience Index' (formerly known as the 'Theme Index and Museum Index Report') is a collaboration between the Themed Entertainment Association, research partners, and editorial partners that provides critical insight into trends shaping leisure and entertainment markets...

www.themeparks-us.com

What is the gap difference between #2 and #5? That will show you how much lower in demand DCA is compared to DL, meaning it has to grow on its own and not part of just the overall Resort growth. Logically that means DCA has to expand beyond the upcoming 4 attraction, unless you think that those 4 attractions are going to make up all that gap.

Adding an additional Park can also cannibalize growth at the other two Parks. So its also a tradeoff by doing that.

This is a long discussion had many times over on this forum (as well as others I've been involved with for almost 2 decades). The overall consensus at the time was that SoCal with its primarily locals draw couldn't sustain a 3rd gate. Now you can say that a new gate would draw tourists, but so can any new expansion to the Resort, even expanding the two existing Parks and adding new lands. So once again I say that we're basically just two sides of the same coin, its a flip of where that expansion takes place.

 

[coffeefan]

Any mention of WDW or Orlando by me was in response to someone else who brought it up first. And why? Because I don't discuss them at all.

In fact YOU are the first person today (easy to look because its only a page and half worth of posts) that brought up WDW in this thread directly to me with this post -

My post was in response to your post citing a post using WDW and Orlando competition to connect to why DLR doesn't need a third park (from today btw).

And so anything that I said about WDW or Orlando was in response to that and subsequent posts by others. Again because I don't openly discuss them on my own, especially in DL threads, as I don't go to WDW or Orlando.

The original post that I believe you are talking about that I responded to, if you notice I didn't even talk about WDW, I ignored all WDW references in that post.

I'll just say we view things differently and move on.

So you have me confused with someone else.


Unless now you're advocating for a DAK style Park as the 3rd gate its a silly point you're trying to make. On direct products (your words not mine) DLR directly competes with both Six Flags and Sea World in the theme park side of things minus the animals at Sea World.

I'm not. I'm challenging the claim that a competition component needs to exist for a third gate to happen. I would take a Disney park next to the ocean with a beachfront resort though.

 

[Disney Irish]

My post was in response to your post citing a post using WDW and Orlando competition to connect to why DLR doesn't need a third park (from today btw).



I'll just say we view things differently and move on.

Except if you go back to my post you'll see I don't even mention WDW or Orlando, I ignored those parts of the post I was replying to. I talked about the SoCal region and local competition. Never once bringing in WDW or Orlando do the conversation until YOU did. The original poster of that post even understood my point when they responded before you brought in WDW and Orlando.

I'm not. I'm challenging the claim that a competition component needs to exist for a third gate to happen. I would take a Disney park next to the ocean with a beachfront resort though.

But if no competition component exists then why would Disney build it in the first place? Just kicks? There has to be a business justification why they build it, and if no competition exists then I don't see there being a large motivation for them to do that.

I understand that you and a few others here want one. But I'm again looking at it from a realistic business perspective, as I've said before.

Right now there doesn't seem to be a business reason, a competition reason, a local regional reason, or even a Resort reason on why a third gate is needed. It all stems from some fan desire. And before you say that is enough, this is the DisneylandForward thread, where we're discussing the future of what the Resort will be. And that means looking at things realistically not just what fans desire.

 

[coffeefan]

What is the gap difference between #2 and #5? That will show you how much lower in demand DCA is compared to DL, meaning it has to grow on its own and not part of just the overall Resort growth.

The parks don't need to have attendance parity for the third park to happen. It's also kinda obvious that they are limited by their difference in capacity and size.

Logically that means DCA has to expand beyond the upcoming 4 attraction, unless you think that those 4 attractions are going to make up all that gap.

I never said such a thing. As I've said consistently, a third could open and DL/DCA could expand over time too. As has been the case based on historical examples.

Adding an additional Park can also cannibalize growth at the other two Parks. So its also a tradeoff by doing that.

What's your angle? Are the parks not packed enough for you?

This is a long discussion had many times over on this forum (as well as others I've been involved with for almost 2 decades). The overall consensus at the time was that SoCal with its primarily locals draw couldn't sustain a 3rd gate. Now you can say that a new gate would draw tourists, but so can any new expansion to the Resort, even expanding the two existing Parks and adding new lands. So once again I say that we're basically just two sides of the same coin, its a flip of where that expansion takes place.

And two decades ago, I would've agreed with that position. But situations change with new information and developments.

 

[Disney Irish]

The parks don't need to have attendance parity for the third park to happen. It's also kinda obvious that they are limited by their difference in capacity and size.

I never said such a thing. As I've said consistently, a third could open and DL/DCA could expand over time too. As has been the case based on historical examples.

Do they HAVE TO HAVE parity, no. But should DCA not move from the perception of a "half day" Park to "full day" Park before there is even consideration of a 3rd gate? And that only comes with attendance boosts through expansion. And again I don't see that expansion happening (at least not in a meaningful way or in the same timeline) if a 3rd gate happens first (or even at all).

What's your angle? Are the parks not packed enough for you?

No angle, just pointing out that there is a natural cannibalization that happens among existing Parks when you add another Park. So that cannot be ignored especially when talking about overall attendance.

And two decades ago, I would've agreed with that position. But situations change with new information and developments.

What situation change? What new information and development? A new fence? Which is what prompted this whole exchange starting a couple days ago by the way. There is no new information or development over the last few weeks (or even last few years) that make a 3rd gate any more likely than there was 20 years ago.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

Do they HAVE TO HAVE parity, no. But should DCA not move from the perception of a "half day" Park to "full day" Park before there is even consideration of a 3rd gate? And that only comes with attendance boosts through expansion. And again I don't see that expansion happening (at least not in a meaningful way or in the same timeline) if a 3rd gate happens first (or even at all).

Not to jump in here (as I'm about to), but while I agree this is the right way to think about it, I'd argue that this likely isn't the way Disney is thinking about it.

That's evidenced by how WDW was expanded to DHS and DAK. It's not like they waited for EPCOT to reach MK levels of attendance, or DHS to reach EPCOTs. Nor did they wait for DHS to be seen as a full day park before building DAK.

Those are logical and smart metrics, but I don't think that's what Disney considers at least in silo. I think one thing they do take into consideration is how much would a third park boost the holistic value of the Disneyland Resort package. How much more could they bump the price of a package with a third park included in the mix - aka the WDW model? What's the incremental gain there? Also, with LLs in the mix now, how much of the new gate's attractions could be, in a way, self funded?

 

[Disney Irish]

Not to jump in here (as I'm about to), but while I agree this is the right way to think about it, I'd argue that this likely isn't the way Disney is thinking about it.

That's evidenced by how WDW was expanded to DHS and DAK. It's not like they waited for EPCOT to reach MK levels of attendance, or DHS to reach EPCOTs. Nor did they wait for DHS to be seen as a full day park before building DAK.

Those are logical and smart metrics, but I don't think that's what Disney considers at least in silo. I think one thing they do take into consideration is how much would a third park boost the holistic value of the Disneyland Resort package. How much more could they bump the price of a package with a third park included in the mix - aka the WDW model? What's the incremental gain there? Also, with LLs in the mix now, how much of the new gate's attractions could be, in a way, self funded?

Agreed, that they wouldn't look at it alone and in a silo, it would be part of the overall metrics some of which I already mentioned in other posts.

Metrics that include -

1. SoCal region and demographics
2. Competition from the local region
3. Overall market trends both inside and outside of the theme park space
4. Attendance figures for the entire Resort and each individual Park.
5. Could the same potential gains from a 3rd gate be part of an DL/DCA expansion instead at much cheaper the price

And a few others that we don't even know about, many many complexities.

I know that several want to bring in WDW here as a comparison. But that as I mention is a different region with its own set of issues. So while its nice to look at we don't know if Disney is trying to even make DLR into another WDW. Because if that happens that means there is potential cannibalization that will happen with travel to WDW from both international travel and even domestic travel, meaning an impact there. And that isn't something I see Disney wanting to do.

These are all things that go into the complex decision about whether a 3rd gate is even viable let alone cost effective to put into DLR.

And then I go back to this, there is still no new information that is even pointing that Disney has changed its position on this since the last time Iger addressed it and said no it wasn't happening.

 

[etc98]

I can't wait to shop at Sam's Club and Aldi in the Toy Story Lot. Add a hotel and it'll be a goldmine!

I vote for Chapek to come back and bring Bullseye with him (not the Disney character but the Target mascot) to announce with huge fanfare that Target is coming to the Disneyland Resort