DisneylandForward

[mickEblu]

As a non-SoCal visitor, the fact that most of the year it's only truly hot from ~11-5 might give me pause at committing to a water park day, no matter whose name was on the sign. If I didn't know how the day's temperatures typically progressed and I was a tourist who popped out at 10 AM to check the temperature, I might be tempted to re-evaluate my plans for the day.

Maybe it doesn't matter because that 11-5 window would naturally be the busiest time of day anyway, but I also know that I was here in December and there was absolutely nothing that could have happened to get me to go on a water ride, let alone go to a full blown water park.

Were there people at the hotel pools that day anyway? Yes. But would there be enough to make a water park viable 365 as is usually the case in Orlando? I doubt it.

I also think that with DLR you need something to appeal to the locals as well. While this site is perhaps a biased sample of locals, I don't think it's far-fetched to believe that people who live in the OC or greater LA wouldn't be convinced unless Disney built the DisneySea of water parks.

A water park at DLR on the Toy Story lot is such a non starter. It’s almost not even worth discussing.

 

[mickEblu]

Forget about just the cold. How about walking around wet with that Santa Ana Breeze hitting you?

 

[Distorian]

A waterpark doesn’t need to be interesting enough to get people to GO to DLR, it just needs to be interesting enough to get people to stay another day.

It's not even interesting enough to visit on a heatwave in August when the power's out.

 

[Disney Irish]

So lets all just agree that no one here is going to get 100% of what they want with TSL. Its too small and too far from the core Parks to do any real concept that is its limiting factor.

Which is why a hybrid of all of it is probably what Disney is going to go with for it. Hotels with retail/dining, a theme entertainment area whatever that maybe, and parking for all of it. As boring as that may be its probably the closest to reality as any idea thrown out in the thread the last week.

 

[mickEblu]

So lets all just agree that no one here is going to get 100% of what they want with TSL. Its too small and too far from the core Parks to do any real concept that is its limiting factor.

Which is why a hybrid of all of it is probably what Disney is going to go with for it. Hotels with retail/dining, a theme entertainment area whatever that maybe, and parking for all of it. As boring as that may be its probably the closest to reality as any idea thrown out in the thread the last week.

Hybrid = Jack of all trades and master of none. This would be a mistake.

 

[Disney Irish]

Hybrid = Jack of all trades and master of none. This would be a mistake.

So a hybrid concept can't be good?

 

[mickEblu]

So a hybrid concept can't be good?

I won’t say can’t but I would say using a moderately size piece of land and splitting it up into multiple things that don’t move the needle is a worse idea than doing one big thing that does.

 

[Disney Irish]

I won’t say can’t but I would say using a moderately size piece of land and splitting up into multiple things that don’t move the needle is a worse idea than doing one big thing that does.

How do we know what will or won’t move the needle until we see concepts? A third gate doesn’t automatically move the needle either. In fact, if it’s a repeat of DCA 1.0 then it surely won’t move the needle. So we can continue to go back-and-forth on this, but in the end, it will be whatever it will be.

 

[mickEblu]

How do we know what will or won’t move the needle until we see concepts? A third gate doesn’t automatically move the needle either. in fact, if it’s a repeat of DCA 1.0 then it surely won’t move the needle.

I know what I know.

 

[Disney Irish]

I know what I know.

Well start applying to Disney then, because I’m sure they could use your prognostication skills.

 

[mickEblu]

Well start applying to Disney then, because I’m sure they could use your prognostication skills.

Thank you if you could put in a good word I’d appreciate that

 

[BrianLo]

You’re going to compare a water slide at a hotel or two water rides (both of which have drastically lower wait times in the winter) to Disney using their last piece of sizeable real estate on a water park? lol cmon man. A Disney water park in California would never be open all year because it would never happen. Definitely not on the Toy Story lot. And if it did happen it wouldn’t justify the cost of operation for 1/2 the year.

For the record, I am not emotionally advocating for this. I agree, anything that could not operate most of the year would be a non-starter and they wouldn’t build that.

What remains most likely, like always, is nothing.

 

[mickEblu]

For the record, I am not emotionally advocating for this. I agree, anything that could not operate most of the year would be a non-starter and they wouldn’t build that.

What remains most likely, like always, is nothing.

Gotcha so what exactly did I say then that was a tad silly?

 

[BrianLo]

Gotcha so what exactly did I say then that was a tad silly?

I was never talking about a product that would be open a 1/4 of a year. Likewise (not you) I clearly was not talking about a product that would require people to schlep across public roads and not including parking.

IF (which I don’t think they are likely to), they will build something that works. Which could be nothing more than an elaborate hotel pool complex. Or more likely it sits undeveloped.

 

[DrStarlander]

My preference is for Westcot as closely to Tony Baxter's vision as possible. However, because I like to see different possibilities visually, here is a version with the retail, two hotels (about 1,000 rooms) and the Warner Bros. indoor theme park from Abu Dhabi (1.6 million square feet).

While it's not necessary for a park to be indoor in Anaheim (and personally I prefer outdoors), the benefits of indoor parks is they can achieve more density with limited space. The "in between spaces" are eliminated and things can be executed in a more compressed way (multiple stories are even possible). Ideally an indoor park features IPs and lands that can benefit from lighting control, like Mermaid Lagoon at Tokyo DisneySea. So, maybe an Aladdin land in perpetual golden hour, or a Villains land in perpetual night, Asgard, Dagobah, Nemo & Dory's coral reef, London in perpetual wintertime, etc.

This plan also includes some outdoor waterside areas (it need not be entirely indoors). In fact, alternately, what's shown as retail could just be 12 more acres of outdoor theme park space (e.g., 2 lands).

 

[DrStarlander]

I have been vocal in my dislike of Downtown Disney, and I wanted to put some specifics to it, since this conversation includes a discussion of potential retail at Toy Story.

I think some of the very best retail has strong placemaking and such a good, vibrant, energized feel because it mimics the analogue of an urban environment. They are, essentially, idealized city streets (turned over to pedestrians). The Grove and Americana at Brand are a couple of handy examples, seen here:

The buildings are continuous/inline and efficient, and architectural dollars are focused on the street-front facades and streetscape details. This general format, of course, is common with malls, but these developments deliver on the urban analogue with over-the-top thematic details like differentiating street vs. sidewalks, street-style landscaping, trolleys, and urban park-like water features.

It's no surprise to Disney park fans why an idealized urban environment would be great: Main Street, New Orleans Square, Buena Vista St. This certainly shouldn't be a surprise to Disney.

So what baffles me is how they approached Downton Disney. It is mostly separate buildings, unrelated in architectural style, and following no clear analogue. It's not city-like, town-like, world's fair-like. It's nothing familiar and lacks any coherent concept or metaphor of a place. It is, basically, random, opportunistic, unmoored, and capricious. It's too much pad, and not enough inline-- in shopping center lingo.

Overall, it's inefficient. Because the buildings are not continuous/inline, guests can see multiple (sometimes all) sides of the buildings. That means the costs of unique, quality, and thematic architectural materials/details must be spread across more square footage, downgrading everything. It's all cheapened. And for no benefit of placemaking. And every time a tenant changes and the building needs to be revamped for a new tenant, the project is significantly more expensive than if they just had to revamp the facade. So they get no strong sense of place, no analogue/metaphor, and pay the price. It's a double-whammy of badness.

I wouldn't be so critical if better examples weren't so prevalent. Not just the better retail centers that exist, but examples in their own theme parks. (Theme parks are a derivative of movie backlots to begin with -- efficiency and focusing expenses on 'only what people can see' such as facades was core to Disneyland.) If they build more retail at Toy Story I hope they learn from this mistake.

 

[Distorian]

I have been vocal in my dislike of Downtown Disney, and I wanted to put some specifics to it, since this conversation includes a discussion of potential retail at Toy Story.

I think some of the very best retail has strong placemaking and such a good, vibrant, energized feel because it mimics the analogue of an urban environment. They are, essentially, idealized city streets (turned over to pedestrians). The Grove and Americana at Brand are a couple of handy examples, seen here:
View attachment 911097
View attachment 911098

The buildings are continuous/inline and efficient, and architectural dollars are focused on the street-front facades and streetscape details. This general format, of course, is common with malls, but these developments deliver on the urban analogue with over-the-top thematic details like differentiating street vs. sidewalks, street-style landscaping, trolleys, and urban park-like water features.

View attachment 911099View attachment 911100View attachment 911101View attachment 911102

It's no surprise to Disney park fans why an idealized urban environment would be great: Main Street, New Orleans Square, Buena Vista St. This certainly shouldn't be a surprise to Disney.

So what baffles me is how they approached Downton Disney. It is mostly separate buildings, unrelated in architectural style, and following no clear analogue. It's not city-like, town-like, world's fair-like. It's nothing familiar and lacks any coherent concept or metaphor of a place. It is, basically, random, opportunistic, unmoored, and capricious. It's too much pad, and not enough inline-- in shopping center lingo.
View attachment 911103
Overall, it's inefficient. Because the buildings are not continuous/inline, guests can see multiple (sometimes all) sides of the buildings. That means the costs of unique, quality, and thematic architectural materials/details must be spread across more square footage, downgrading everything. It's all cheapened. And for no benefit of placemaking. And every time a tenant changes and the building needs to be revamped for a new tenant, the project is significantly more expensive than if they just had to revamp the facade. So they get no strong sense of place, no analogue/metaphor, and pay the price. It's a double-whammy of badness.

I wouldn't be so critical if better examples weren't so prevalent. Not just the better retail centers that exist, but examples in their own theme parks. (Theme parks are a derivative of movie backlots to begin with -- efficiency and focusing expenses on 'only what people can see' such as facades was core to Disneyland.) If they build more retail at Toy Story I hope they learn from this mistake.

Excellent analysis.

 

[CoastalElite64]

in lieu of reading the article to see what Robert really has to say, since it's gate-kept,

Some paragraphs from the article so people see for themselves-

"What do Californians have against water parks?

When SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment decided to switch one of its water parks to a Sesame Place theme, its Aquatica park outside San Diego was the obvious choice. Sure, Southern California and Northern Baja California provides a huge market of families with young children, which is essential for a Sesame Street-themed attraction. But Aquatica wasn’t exactly packing in the crowds under its old design. The Chula Vista park was by far the least-attended of the company’s water parks."

"Sure, Californians can just go to the beach instead. Yet Florida offers hundreds of miles more ocean coastline than California, and Florida dominates the water park attendance list with five of the top seven parks in the nation, despite being the nation’s third-most populated state. The second-most-populated state, Texas, has six of the top 16 most-visited water parks in the country."

"
The man the World Waterpark Association called “the father of the waterpark” was a Californian. A decade after co-founding SeaWorld San Diego, George Millay developed Wet ‘n Wild, which is considered the original modern water park. But Millay built that park in Orlando, not California.

Maybe he knew something? When making the switch to Sesame Place, SeaWorld Parks added nearly a dozen non-water attractions, including kiddie rides, shows, an interactive Sesame Street neighborhood and a parade. It made what was exclusively a water park into more of a theme park."

 

[MistaDee]

They’d certainly need to compromise on parking. A third gate warrants another 10k parking spaces. The current parking solution allows them to take their existing parking lots offline. But I don’t think they in any way account for 15M-25M more guests annually.

You make a great point about how parking infrastructure can indicate what Disney's future plans might be.

Mickey & Friends: 10k spaces

Eastern Gateway: 6k spaces - although I do remember seeing reports on "one of the largest parking structures in the country" a little while ago citing 17,000 spaces. I guess that's no longer the plan? It definitely speaks to your point though, that an appetite did exist for Disney to significantly boost the total number of spaces available.

Existing surface lots: ??? - I can't seem to find any data on how many spots there are in the Simba + other DL Forward surface lots actually are. Anyone know roughly how many that would be?

DL Park 2024 attendance: 17.3M
DCA 2024: 10M

I don't think a third gate would warrant 15-25M more guests, that seems very high. Given we'd be expecting a smaller park than even DCA, I think something like 6-10M would probably be realistic.


It does make me curious how much of the TSL would need to be parking garage to account for the surface lots its replacing itself, as well as any new demand the 3rd gate or hotel/shopping district would attract

 

[Distorian]

Is there any reason the parking lots between Pixar Pals and the Disneyland hotel could not be converted into another large parking garage?