choco choco
Well-Known Member
There is no project. Disney is asking for permission to start a project.
That’s it. That’s the update.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
DisneylandForward
- Thread starter flutas
- Start date
There is no project. Disney is asking for permission to start a project.
That’s it. That’s the update.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
The Walgreens thing was a joke.
But how much money do they have to spend on "attractions"? I can't find anything specific to that in the planning documents from Anaheim. All I could find is this..."• $1.9 billion: minimum investment by Disney in theme park, lodging, entertainment, shopping and dining within 10 years"
Disney wants the parking/hotel areas west of Disneyland Drive rezoned so they don't have to only put parking and hotels there, as the original 1996 zoning agreement for that land requires.
As we've seen in recent budgets $1.9 Billion doesn't get you what it used to for theme parks. Especially when that $1.9 Billion is also being used for "lodging, entertainment, shopping and dining" in the same space and spending a chunk of that money to build a convention-business hotel development on the current Toy Story lot.
How do you know that? How much of the $1.9 Billion is dedicated to theme park attractions, and how much of it is dedicated to "lodging, entertainment, shopping and dining"?
I am sure they will put at least one new land for each park across those pedestrian bridges over Disneyland Drive. But as seen from budgeting, that gets us maybe one E Ticket for each park, and perhaps a C Ticket or two... sometime in the 2030's. Yay?
They also get to build 3,300 new hotel/DVC rooms on that property west of Disneyland Drive, and that hotel construction of 3,300 new rooms counts as part of their $1.9 Billion commitment. Those additional 3,300 hotel/DVC rooms are also allowed to add up to 500,000 square feet of additional conference and retail/dining space in the "theme park" area.
You wanna bet they max out that number of hotel rooms, even if it means cancelling a second theme park land?
No ones hating on anything, I'm just providing some context and the actual reality of what DisneylandForward does and what it doesn't. DisneylandForward has no language in it that specifices how much money is spent on "attractions".
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I get the sense not all of us have read the actual planning documents submitted to the Anaheim city planning commission on this DisneylandForward plan.
I have read the Disney website on DisneylandForward, but it is so purposely vague yet happy-shiny as to be almost unusable as an information source. It's like flipping through the splashy displays at a DVC sales kiosk.
Luckily, the city of Anaheim has a nice website for DisneylandForward specifically, and they've done a nice job of providing all of the relevant planning documents for the project. They also include the original 1996 documents for review, that Disney now wants to amend and change because it locked in the land west of Disneyland Drive to only parking or hotel uses.
The Anaheim website is here below, and when you scroll down just a bit you find all the links to the planning documents and fact sheets. It's handy, and an interesting read!
If anyone can find the part where it says exactly how much money TDA has to spend on theme park rides, I'd love to see it. So far, I can't find a thing about that, just a general "theme park district" that gets to build an additional 3,300 hotel rooms where the surface parking lots now are.
www.anaheim.net
I have read the Disney website on DisneylandForward, but it is so purposely vague yet happy-shiny as to be almost unusable as an information source. It's like flipping through the splashy displays at a DVC sales kiosk.
Luckily, the city of Anaheim has a nice website for DisneylandForward specifically, and they've done a nice job of providing all of the relevant planning documents for the project. They also include the original 1996 documents for review, that Disney now wants to amend and change because it locked in the land west of Disneyland Drive to only parking or hotel uses.
The Anaheim website is here below, and when you scroll down just a bit you find all the links to the planning documents and fact sheets. It's handy, and an interesting read!
If anyone can find the part where it says exactly how much money TDA has to spend on theme park rides, I'd love to see it. So far, I can't find a thing about that, just a general "theme park district" that gets to build an additional 3,300 hotel rooms where the surface parking lots now are.
DisneylandForward | Anaheim, CA - Official Website
The city of Anaheim and the Disneyland Resort are looking at updating the mix of uses in the Anaheim Resort.
www.anaheim.net
TP2000
Well-Known Member
And for those who haven't seen it, here is the Disney created version of a DisneylandFoward website. It's not nearly as substantive or informative as the Anaheim website, but at least it looks nice.
You can turn it into a drinking game by taking a drink every time they use the word "immersive". And take a shot every time they use the word "innovative".
www.disneylandforward.com
You can turn it into a drinking game by taking a drink every time they use the word "immersive". And take a shot every time they use the word "innovative".
DisneylandForward | Anaheim
DisneylandForward is a blueprint to guide development and growth over the next 40 years. As Disney invests, key improvements will be required to address the Resort's growth and minimize impacts.
www.disneylandforward.com
TP2000
Well-Known Member
In the DisneylandForward plan, the Toy Story parking lot gets a zoning change to allow 1,850 new hotel rooms to be built there, with up to 390,000 square feet of attached dining/retail/entertainment. Plus a 5 story parking garage for 5,000 cars for hotel guests and mall visitors.
That is in addition to the 3,300 new hotel rooms that can be built in the DCA and Disneyland expansion areas west of Disneyland Drive, plus 500,000 new square feet of conference space and hotel specific retail/dining. So the total number of new hotel rooms that Disney can build as part of DisneylandForward expansion is 5,150 new hotel/DVC units.
Those 5,150 new hotel rooms and 890,000 square feet of conference and hotel specific retail/dining count towards the $1.9 Billion expenditure Disney would commit to.
That is in addition to the 3,300 new hotel rooms that can be built in the DCA and Disneyland expansion areas west of Disneyland Drive, plus 500,000 new square feet of conference space and hotel specific retail/dining. So the total number of new hotel rooms that Disney can build as part of DisneylandForward expansion is 5,150 new hotel/DVC units.
Those 5,150 new hotel rooms and 890,000 square feet of conference and hotel specific retail/dining count towards the $1.9 Billion expenditure Disney would commit to.
Last edited:
Read today's L.A.Times article on it. Unless I'm misreading this, not much of a penalty if they don't deliver what they promised.
"Under the plan, Disney promises to invest between $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion within the next 10 years. If Disney’s investment does not reach the $2.5-billion mark, the company vows to pay an additional $5-million payment to the city."
"Under the plan, Disney promises to invest between $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion within the next 10 years. If Disney’s investment does not reach the $2.5-billion mark, the company vows to pay an additional $5-million payment to the city."
October82
Well-Known Member
I don't see why the city wouldn't approve DisneylandForward without a $5 million penalty but it does seem laughably small in comparison to the size of the claimed investment amount.
October82
Well-Known Member
An adult oriented park doesn't have to be [six flags style] thrill rides and alcohol. TDS is very much an adult oriented park that doesn't go in that direction and is largely successful.
An adult oriented park with a bit of FantasySprings probably has enough cross-demographic appeal to work well in Anaheim.
As you say, I expect what we'd get instead is a random assortment of indistinct IP lands. Disney seems bizarrely intent on cloning the Frozen (TDS seems far better than the versions in Paris and Hong Kong, guess which one Anaheim would get) and Toy Story lands (very at home in DCA 1.0), so color me largely unexcited for both the quality and thematic choices of any potential DisneylandForward projects.
Last edited:
MarvelCharacterNerd
Well-Known Member
TDS was built in a location (and culture) where people aren't having group fistfights in the middle of lands or stripping naked on rides or screaming at their kids* or destroying walls and fixtures in queues, and the f-word isn't heard every ten steps or so. I love DLR (and WDW) but the alcohol-fueled aspect of their modern incarnations attracts a shall-we-say less respectful crowd than in Tokyo.
Alcohol sales make money and any new US park will have plenty of alcohol for sale. Sad but very likely true. :/* I'm still traumatized from the other day at DCA when a woman next to me suddenly stopped and whirled around and YELLED at the top of her lungs "(__kid's name__) STOP PICKING YOUR NOSE!!!" I know it sounds funny but she practically blew out my eardrums shaming her kid who was walking like 15 feet behind her. But it was more proof that yes, moms do have eyes in the back of their heads. lol
October82
Well-Known Member
TDS was built in a location (and culture) where people aren't having group fistfights in the middle of lands or stripping naked on rides or screaming at their kids* or destroying walls and fixtures in queues, and the f-word isn't heard every ten steps or so. I love DLR (and WDW) but the alcohol-fueled aspect of their modern incarnations attracts a shall-we-say less respectful crowd than in Tokyo.
Japan is 39th in the world in alcohol consumption. The US is 35th. While there are certainly cultural differences and obnoxious people everywhere (despite it possibly manifesting differently in different cultural contexts), it's certainly possible to have adult oriented experiences that aren't simply alcohol sales and thrill rides. DAK is an example of a US park with more adult themes and broad appeal that doesn't really rely on either. EPCOT and DCA have both made alcohol part of their brand personas in part because it takes less capital investment.
DAK is a bit of a special case in that it relied (especially early on) on animal exhibits rather than elaborately themed structures, but the real issue with more adult oriented parks is that they're expensive. TDS cost somewhere in the $3-4 billion range while DCA cost around a 1/4-1/3 of that amount in 2001 dollars. FantasySprings will likely cost a similar amount to the total capital investments in DCA since ~2008 or the total amount Disney has promised to invest as part of DisneylandForward over the next decade. One park has relied on restaurants and alcohol sales for capacity while the other largely doesn't.
This isn't to say some recent additions to the domestic parks aren't without merit, but the the issues with any potential Disneyland Resort expansion are the same ones they've been for the last two decades. Disney is not willing to spend on the domestic parks what it takes to consistently deliver industry leading experiences. They also seem to lack the vision to do so and prefer to use the parks as marketing vehicles for other parts of the company.
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
TDS was built in a location (and culture) where people aren't having group fistfights in the middle of lands or stripping naked on rides or screaming at their kids* or destroying walls and fixtures in queues, and the f-word isn't heard every ten steps or so. I love DLR (and WDW) but the alcohol-fueled aspect of their modern incarnations attracts a shall-we-say less respectful crowd than in Tokyo.
They sell plenty of alcohol in Tokyo DisneySea, and I have 20 years of bar tabs from Magellan's to prove it.
And Iskpiari (Downtown Disney) is just as close to the Tokyo Disneyland front gate as the similar boozy mall is in Anaheim.
This isn't an issue of alcohol, it's an issue of culture and good taste. There is a growing demographic of Americans, and many of them live in SoCal, who are tacky and tasteless, and behave that way in public. Whether they are wearing their dingy pajamas out in public, or swearing at their kids in line for Big Thunder Mountain, it's the same crowd and the same demographic. No alcohol is required.
A similar demographic doesn't really exist in Japan. Or many other countries, and some US states.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
It's all just a big political ploy.
It's also why the original newspaper headlines claimed that Disney would invest $2.5 Billion in Anaheim in a decade's time, but then a day later they edited the headlines to read $1.9 Billion. The $1.9 Billion is the actual figure TDA is working with.
What I'd like to know is if this is a dollar figure tied to inflation. Is it $1.9 Billion in 2024 dollars that when spent in 2031 would only be $1.5 Billion? Or does the $1.9 Billion in 2024 float on the official inflation rate and thus effectively increase as the decade timetable rolls along?
Disney Irish
Premium Member
The $2.5B number includes the all incentives that Disney is committing to spend around Anaheim including housing, parks, etc., if the project gets approval. So its $1.9B over 10 years for the Resort and $600M+ for Anaheim over the same period.
shambolicdefending
Well-Known Member
We've talked a lot about Disney's issues with inflationary spending, but claiming that they're "long since past" the days of sudden budget cuts seems like sort of a silly thing to argue, IMO. Of course that's not true.
I'll wait until we see the final fine print on what they're contractually committed to before passing judgment. I doubt it will be specific enough to guarantee it will be "attractions" as a guest would strictly define them.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s the truth. The things people talk about being cut due to budget aren’t cut because the project budget was reduced but because the money was shifted to another aspect of the project.
October82
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how to read this question. When it comes to whether the city allows DisneylandForward to proceed shouldn't depend on whether there's actually a business case for what Disney has suggested they want to do. That's up to Disney to make a decision about since its their money and their risk. Ultimately it's important to remember that everything shown is purely conceptual to illustrate how 'zoning' changes would allow Disney to develop their properties. Disney hasn't made any formal commitments to specific projects and the amounts they've committed to spending over the next decade are not going to be enough to build thousands of hotel rooms, shopping, and the equivalent of a third park's worth of attractions. It's not significantly more than they've already discussed spending in Anaheim over the same timespan. DisneylandForward is about giving them the flexibility to develop hotels/shopping that they haven't had before as market conditions allow.
In terms of whether there is a business case for more hotel rooms and shopping, I would assume the answer is yes, at least over the longterm. Disney has been trying to expand the number of hotel rooms for several years, is in the middle of a Downtown Disney expansion, and the resort plans going back to pre-DCA have included far more Disney branded hotel rooms than exist today. Hotel occupancy rates across the resort are seemingly quite high, and with a built in market for conventions at the Anaheim convention center and tourism to Southern California more generally, the floor on hotel occupancy is likely quite high. I don't think the existing resorts even tap into all of the markets available to Disney were Disney to have several thousand more rooms available to them. Whether they can maintain the same high rates with that level of supply is a separate question and likely depends on whether there is a case for a third gate as a vacation destination with a local heavy market in Anaheim. I suspect new mixed use/shopping districts are meant to capture more of the locals market.
Nirya
Well-Known Member
I mean, I know what I would do if I was Disney and money was no object.
Forget using the westside land for expansions to both existing parks. THAT should be the third gate. Use the Toy Story Lot to build a new, grander Disneyland Hotel with an extension of the monorail line/PeopleMover that can also service Convention Center traffic to the parks. Then you tear down the existing hotel and boom, plenty of space to build a third park. (This is also another instance where Disney should have absolutely bought the GardenWalk when it had the chance, as it would have made it really easy to build a transpo route on Disney-only property that connected the TSL to the new Puumba lot and security checkpoint).
Obviously, there's a lot of logistical issues that would need to be ironed out here - for example, parking for the Grand Californian/Pixar Place hotels and DTD is going to be even more of a mess and would almost necessitate the building of an underground lot in that area - but this feels like the cleanest path to what Disney would ideally want: a third gate they could profit off of rather than two expansions that would not generate longer stays at the resort by themselves.
Forget using the westside land for expansions to both existing parks. THAT should be the third gate. Use the Toy Story Lot to build a new, grander Disneyland Hotel with an extension of the monorail line/PeopleMover that can also service Convention Center traffic to the parks. Then you tear down the existing hotel and boom, plenty of space to build a third park. (This is also another instance where Disney should have absolutely bought the GardenWalk when it had the chance, as it would have made it really easy to build a transpo route on Disney-only property that connected the TSL to the new Puumba lot and security checkpoint).
Obviously, there's a lot of logistical issues that would need to be ironed out here - for example, parking for the Grand Californian/Pixar Place hotels and DTD is going to be even more of a mess and would almost necessitate the building of an underground lot in that area - but this feels like the cleanest path to what Disney would ideally want: a third gate they could profit off of rather than two expansions that would not generate longer stays at the resort by themselves.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Whether there is a need or not is irrelevant as they are already permitted to build that under the current DRSP from 1993. DisneylandForward doesn't ask for any change in the number of rooms, Disney is only asking for zoning changes so they can develop what they were already permitted to build.
Now whether they actually build all that capacity is another matter. But as was already answered, yes its likely needed in the long term as this is looking out over the next 30-40 years. They already have ~2k rooms now between 3 hotels, so it's likely only adding another 2-3 hotels anyways.
shambolicdefending
Well-Known Member
Where I come from, shifting money away from one thing and to another instead, is also called a "budget cut."