DisneylandForward

[Nirya]

Or maybe the city wants major roads to access the Convention Center, which it owns.

The Disneyland Drive exit from South Bound I5 including the Carpool lane takes folks directly to the West Street Parking Structures.

Gene Autry Way has a Northbound I5 carpool exit and if the new road is built takes folks to the main entrance area.

Since the Convention Center brings in a lot of business and guests, and of course the city wants to cater to them.

Disneyland Drive also has a regular, non-carpool exit on the Southbound I5, so it at least makes sense to keep it around. Gene Autry Way does not have anything similar, and there is no way to add something like that without redesigning the entire section of freeway and access routes.

The Convention Center already has access via Harbor and Katella. Honestly, West (which is what Disneyland Drive turns into for those who don't know) has more access to the Convention Center and parking. There really is no need to have that extension beyond city officials wanting it.

 

[BayouShack]

I didn’t even know Gene Autry’s Half A Way existed until I made a wrong turn onto it and had to drive a whole *mile* before I was able to do a U-turn.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I didn’t even know Gene Autry’s Half A Way existed until I made a wrong turn onto it and had to drive a whole *mile* before I was able to do a U-turn.

Because it is designed as a highway that is supposed to slice through the city.

 

[co10064]

So if everything Disney is asking for in this plan comes to fruition, would Disney be allowed rezone and potentially demolish or redevelop the Paradise Pier? or does this "rezoning" only apply to "undeveloped" areas?

 

[lazyboy97o]

So if everything Disney is asking for in this plan comes to fruition, would Disney be allowed rezone and potentially demolish or redevelop the Paradise Pier? or does this "rezoning" only apply to "undeveloped" areas?

Disney is not pitching a specific plan and their "possibility" shows the Paradise Pier Hotel. The hotel plot is outside of the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan but is in the Resort District Specific Plan so the changes to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan would not apply. Disney also does not own the land beneath the Paradise Pier Hotel so any redevelopment would have to meet the terms of the lease or be approved by the owner.

 

[Practical Pig]

I also have questions about the Paradise Pier Hotel situation. As I understand it from the posters more informed than I am on this, Disney owns the building but not the land, along with the practical complications come with that. In theory, could Disney implode the existing structure and redevelop the property? If so, would it have to be replaced by a new hotel?

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

Why do you want them to blow up such a charming building?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I also have questions about the Paradise Pier Hotel situation. As I understand it from the posters more informed than I am on this, Disney owns the building but not the land, along with the practical complications come with that. In theory, could Disney implode the existing structure and redevelop the property? If so, would it have to be replaced by a new hotel?

I’m not sure if Disney even owns the buildings but it would all depend on the terms of their lease. A somewhat similar situation is the single tenant buildings at Disney Springs. Disney owns the land and the building, but they are all built by the tenant with Disney’s approval. A new tenant could come in and start over if they desired and got Disney’s okay. While there are stories of this weird attachment to the Paradise Pier Hotel that just doesn’t make sense for a commercial real estate owner. What can be built on the plot is probably more limited by its zoning (which I have not double checked) than the landlord.

 

[TP2000]

I also have questions about the Paradise Pier Hotel situation. As I understand it from the posters more informed than I am on this, Disney owns the building but not the land, along with the practical complications come with that. In theory, could Disney implode the existing structure and redevelop the property? If so, would it have to be replaced by a new hotel?

The situation with the Paradise Pier Hotel can only be described as being a cluster-blank.

I have had people I trust that are involved intimately with Disney, and people I trust who are involved intimately with the real estate market in the Anaheim Resort District, all try and explain it to me. And it's just... a mess.

Which is why it's an ugly 1980's hotel that sits there exempt from any design plans or any zoning laws. It also sits there decade after decade not getting any better, and only given the most basic of bedspread refurbishments that a mega-Billion dollar owner company can manage. The tiny lobby bar sucks. The 1990's buffet restaurant sucks. The one decent Japanese restaurant off the lobby was closed over a decade ago, and friends tell me it's now a giant storage room with the former Tepanyaki dining room turned into a workroom for flower arrangements and amenity basket production for Disney's upcharged guests. I'm not making that up.

And yet there it stands, decade after decade. In all its 1980's glory. Looking yellow and ugly and pointless.

Even after Burbank spends a couple Billion to expand DCA and Disneyland with a few new lands across Disneyland Drive, the ugly Paradise Pier Hotel still exists. Like a cockroach after World War III. And no one can do anything about it, thanks to some 1990's Japanese lawyers and Michael Eisner that locked in ugly mediocrity for many decades to come.

 

[DLR92]

The situation with the Paradise Pier Hotel can only be described as being a cluster-blank.

I have had people I trust that are involved intimately with Disney, and people I trust who are involved intimately with the real estate market in the Anaheim Resort District, all try and explain it to me. And it's just... a mess.

Which is why it's an ugly 1980's hotel that sits there exempt from any design plans or any zoning laws. It also sits there decade after decade not getting any better, and only given the most basic of bedspread refurbishments that a mega-Billion dollar owner company can manage. The tiny lobby bar sucks. The 1990's buffet restaurant sucks. The one decent Japanese restaurant off the lobby was closed over a decade ago, and friends tell me it's now a giant storage room with the former Tepanyaki dining room turned into a workroom for flower arrangements and amenity basket production for Disney's upcharged guests. I'm not making that up.

And yet there it stands, decade after decade. In all its 1980's glory. Looking yellow and ugly and pointless.

Even after Burbank spends a couple Billion to expand DCA and Disneyland with a few new lands across Disneyland Drive, the ugly Paradise Pier Hotel still exists. Like a cockroach after World War III. And no one can do anything about it, thanks to some 1990's Japanese lawyers and Michael Eisner that locked in ugly mediocrity for many decades to come.

For all this time, I thought Disney own right everything including the lot that Paradise Pier Hotel sit on.
Now I understand why for all this time, no major remake treatment made on the hotel for more than decades! It seem the investment was not truly worth to buy it in the first place...

 

[Robbiem]

The situation with the Paradise Pier Hotel can only be described as being a cluster-blank.

I have had people I trust that are involved intimately with Disney, and people I trust who are involved intimately with the real estate market in the Anaheim Resort District, all try and explain it to me. And it's just... a mess.

Which is why it's an ugly 1980's hotel that sits there exempt from any design plans or any zoning laws. It also sits there decade after decade not getting any better, and only given the most basic of bedspread refurbishments that a mega-Billion dollar owner company can manage. The tiny lobby bar sucks. The 1990's buffet restaurant sucks. The one decent Japanese restaurant off the lobby was closed over a decade ago, and friends tell me it's now a giant storage room with the former Tepanyaki dining room turned into a workroom for flower arrangements and amenity basket production for Disney's upcharged guests. I'm not making that up.

And yet there it stands, decade after decade. In all its 1980's glory. Looking yellow and ugly and pointless.

Even after Burbank spends a couple Billion to expand DCA and Disneyland with a few new lands across Disneyland Drive, the ugly Paradise Pier Hotel still exists. Like a cockroach after World War III. And no one can do anything about it, thanks to some 1990's Japanese lawyers and Michael Eisner that locked in ugly mediocrity for many decades to come.

Its a sad state of affairs. Like any agreement I’m sure Disney could make a deal with the land owners but the question is if they want to pay the price it would cost.

 

[truecoat]

It’s THE 5, THE 110, THE 101, THE 405, and so on.

 

[choco choco]

Ok, but who owns the air rights above the Paradise Pier Hotel land?

 

[Darkbeer1]

Ok, but who owns the air rights above the Paradise Pier Hotel land?

The land owner, who in this case gave a very specific set of rights to the lessee aka Disney which is spelled out in detail on the lease.

 

[Movielover]

Ok, but who owns the air rights above the Paradise Pier Hotel land?

That would be Mr. Wang...

(Kudos if you were referencing the movie that I think you were referencing! )

 

[the.dreamfinder]

So, about all those Airbnb’s west of the resort district, some of which are on Walnut.

 

[Darkbeer1]

The first details of the Angel Stadium development came out yesterday.

Latest filing in Angels’ plan for development around stadium identifies first areas for work

Where fans enter and exit to get to the stadium won’t change, but surface parking will be replaced by multiple parking garages; several public parks also will be spread around the property.

www.ocregister.com

Looking at the details, the east end of Gene Autry Way is at the 57 freeway. Potential freeway entrances/exit would assist vehicles getting into the "Mobility Hubs", aka Parking Structures. Those same freeway accesses would allow both Disneyland and Convention Center guests a simple, direct route to the resort area, and keeping them off popular streets like Katella, Ball and Harbor.

 

[Darkbeer1]

FYI, on Tuesday the 13th, I will be attending a meeting on the matter, so Disney is starting to push this out quickly.

I find the decision to time this as the Angel Stadium project interesting, but then, with the 2028 Olympics coming, all three big projects (Including the Honda Center OCV!BE development) do tie together, and offer options like parking sharing during development.

 

[flutas]

FYI, on Tuesday the 13th, I will be attending a meeting on the matter, so Disney is starting to push this out quickly.

I find the decision to time this as the Angel Stadium project interesting, but then, with the 2028 Olympics coming, all three big projects (Including the Honda Center OCV!BE development) do tie together, and offer options like parking sharing during development.

Also hearing some murmurings about the 21st being...something?

Sounds like more community outreach type of stuff to try and get the citizens of Anaheim to lobby on TDA's behalf.

 

[Darkbeer1]

So, I was in a long Zoom meeting this morning including multiple CM's and city reps. I am going to discuss the part that had us preview and critique the DLR presentation that is planned to be presented to community groups and others, aka public info, so I am not going to get into trouble for disclosing internal info, but even with what I post, I am going to err to the conservative answers.

One very interesting point, the current Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (DRSP) from the 1990's allows 6 million square feet of Theme Park Development. Including SW:GE and Avengers Campus, only 3 Million has development, so Disney has more than enough now. They just really need a place to build. The main backstage area (north of DL) gave up 30% for SW:GE and 15% for Runaway Railroad.

Disney is just starting the Public Scoping period, which is required by law for planning commission purposes, basically public input. The next step is the EIR, required due to CEQA, it is the Environment report, also required prior to going in front of the planning commission.

Outreach to the Hotels/Businesses has started in regards to the Eastern Gateway and how to provide access, etc. Disney made it clear they don't want a repeat of the first attempt. But it is clear that the project has a high priority in the overall scope of things.

DisneylandForward is "A Planning Process" and all the artwork was Vague on purpose

The Toy Story lot will be a mixed use, and not a Third Park. Think more like a Disney Springs, aka DtD upgrade. They also stated that you shouldn't look at the current access points remaining in use. While Gene Autry Way wasn't mentioned, it was hinted at a couple of times. Seems like that will be a negotiation chip in the upcoming months/years.

The PPH was left off due to the fact Disney doesn't own the land, but might still be added depending on how ongoing talks with the landowner goes.

A pedestrian bridge at Harbor and Katella was brought up, as was the Pedestrian Bridge for the Eastern Gateway.

I think that was it.

My biggest critique was that more needs to be added to what tangible benefits the city, its residents and businesses will get out of the deal. If your presentation is designed for them and wanting their support, you need to give them things, similar to the Vague Artwork. Not everyone is a Disney/Theme Park Fan, and you need something for those folks to understand and accept. Alas, Jobs, tax revenue and economic benefits are not "things" some folks understand.

The business end was fairly positive with the economy opening up, the Green Tier, and the new Convention Center.

Nothing exciting regarding tonight's City Council meeting.