DisneylandForward

[TP2000]

Parking is actually 35 dollars now.

Well, of course it is.

Here's the updated costs for a family of four to get to Disneyland for the day, based on $35 parking fee.

Mass Transit - Metrolink, MTA and/or OCTA
Burbank to Harbor Bus Stop = 2 Hours, 17 minutes (2 trains, 1 bus), $12.25 per adult one-way & $66.50 for 4 round-trip
Mission Viejo to Harbor Bus Stop = 1 Hour, 43 minutes (1 train, 2 buses) $11.25 per adult one-way & $54 for 4 round-trip

Private Car - 2019 Toyota Camry with a combined 30 MPG and gas at $4.60 per gallon
Burbank to Disneyland Parking = 1 Hour, 36 miles, $13 in gas, $35 for parking, $47 for 4 round-trip
Mission Viejo to Disneyland Parking = 45 minutes, 22 miles, $8 in gas, $35 for parking, $42 for 4 round-trip

 

[lazyboy97o]

Setting aside the first version of the concept; the trolley suburbs of the 1910's and 20's like Shaker Heights. The incredible growth of the suburbs since 1950 happened because Americans were "prohibited" from choosing to live in apartments in the cities? It seems to me that 150 Million Americans made the choice themselves, on purpose, to buy a house in the suburbs with a lawn and garage and a backyard. They chose that option on purpose.

If the suburbs are not your scene, that's fine. There's plenty of apartments and condos to buy in town. Anaheim has a huge stock of apartment blocks to offer, with literally thousands of units for rent or sale, for example...

View attachment 771778

That you present the choice as single family homes or apartments is a perfect illustration of the lack of choice. Those are not the only two housing typologies. Having a house with a lawn, garage and backyard also doesn’t forcing everyone to use a single road for access in and out the neighborhood. It doesn’t require making duplexes illegal. It doesn’t require making apartments above a street of shops illegal. It doesn’t require making a street of shops illegal. It doesn’t require not building sidewalks. It doesn’t require building schools tens of miles away. It doesn’t require every business have a massive parking lot that mostly sits empty. When it opened, Main Street USA represented something that was instantly recognized as an ideal but one which would be illegal to build in much of the country during the second half of the twentieth century.

 

[TP2000]

When it opened, Main Street USA represented something that was instantly recognized as an ideal but one which would be illegal to build in much of the country during the second half of the twentieth century.

Main Street USA represents an era when cars were not yet owned by the middle classes, which is why there are no parking spaces or garages along the street, and thus its planning and design makes no sense circa 1965.

Main Street USA also sanitized the period-appropriate transportation of horses and their stinky manure in muddy streets.

Here is what the "main street" of Marceline, Missouri actually looked like in 1905 on a good day, not Walt's fantasized and sterilized theme park version. The chunks in the road aren't cookie dough, by the way.

If your argument is that it's now illegal to build housing and commercial properties that would allow for horse manure to gather at the curbs, or to pretend that even most working class folks today don't have at least one car, then I'm not sure that's a planning argument that is sound.

I would rather have well planned communities that realize cars have been around for 120 years and aren't going anywhere until we invent Star Trek transporters, than live in a community that didn't plan for the realities of 21st century living by its comfort-seeking and affluent residents.

 

[Consumer]

If Main Street USA was built in an American city today, people would complain about gentrification.

 

[DLR92]

What is the water tower used for? If exclusively for Disney use, it can be moved elsewhere if needed or even made a part of any expansion of the area. If exclusively for the hotels, then if Disney does buy them then its usage wouldn't be needed anymore. So that being there doesn't seem to confirm much of anything regarding buying out that corner in my opinion.

I do not know the use of the water tower personally, I know it was not there when Carsland did not exist.

Advocating for more public transit is not the same as advocating to take your car away. I would love to not have to rely on owning a car to exist within society, but I would definitely still own a car for the reasons you said. But not everyone wants, or more importantly, not everyone can afford a car and the issue becomes the lack of alternatives. In what sane world does "the most developed country" not even have sidewalks / walkways in many major cities connecting parts of town? Sidewalks that just end abruptly? No bike lanes / infrastructure but 6 lanes for cars?

The fact that our country as a whole and even our own state doesn't have high speed rail due to lobbying in the past from car manufacturers and even in the present (Elon Musk presenting the Boring Company as an alternative to high speed rail, which ended up being awful and all that time and money spent could have been used all these years to have a functioning rail system by now or in the next few years) is incredibly silly. I traveled to Italy and Czech a few years ago and did not need to rent a car / have my own car once in my 3 weeks, there were plenty of options to walk or take public transit for short or long distances.

When you are physically isolated from reaching anything around you without some form of car transportation, that is not the ultimate sign of freedom. The car is literally a prison, it constricts your freedom of choice to transport however you wish. Tell me you've never heard people complain about sitting in bumper to bumper traffic when they're tired on the way home from work. I know it, for the last 6 months I've driven an hour to work each way and finally moved much closer a few weeks ago and sitting in a car for an hour before and after work with no choice of alternative is not freedom.

US has never invested enough in public transportation. Especially with California. Car manufacturers of all brands were definitely at fault. Look at California. Californians love their automobile. Can’t blame them. But vehicles are honestly a money pit. It doesn’t hold value. You have to spend $$$$ for parts and maintenance.

Our infrastructure cannot take in all the traffic of all cars commuting to work and places for leisure. It’s ridiculous to continue ignore public transportation. I live far out in Palmdale. North of LA. It is exhausting to drive to LA. I would like to see more reliability of metro. I would take metro to Disneyland if feasible from Palmdale.

 

[October82]

If the people don't want it, then don't force it on them?

Why do you think people would be forced to do anything?

Changing zoning to allow developers to build things that aren't single family homes just means allowing the market to build what people do want to spend on. There's no one advocating for forcing people out of single family neighborhoods or for getting rid of people's cars. It's in fact a very conservative proposal - allow free markets to be free. Allow developers to build and profit from development. Allow people to choose how they get from point A to point B.

 

[October82]

I do not know the use of the water tower personally, I know it was not there when Carsland did not exist.


US has never invested enough in public transportation. Especially with California. Car manufacturers of all brands were definitely at fault. Look at California. Californians love their automobile. Can’t blame them. But vehicles are honestly a money pit. It doesn’t hold value. You have to spend $$$$ for parts and maintenance.

Our infrastructure cannot take in all the traffic of all cars commuting to work and places for leisure. It’s ridiculous to continue ignore public transportation. I live far out in Palmdale. North of LA. It is exhausting to drive to LA. I would like to see more reliability of metro. I would take metro to Disneyland if feasible from Palmdale.

An observation that many people miss when talking about public transit - countries like Denmark and the Netherlands are much more pleasant places to drive because people have alternative options. Cars are great for a lot of things, but they shouldn't be the only option.

 

[DLR92]

An observation that many people miss when talking about public transit - countries like Denmark and the Netherlands are much more pleasant places to drive because people have alternative options. Cars are great for a lot of things, but they shouldn't be the only option.

My post is a rant about us obsession with cars.

 

[duncedoof]

No you guys don't get it. If no car, then China.

 

[TP2000]

An observation that many people miss when talking about public transit - countries like Denmark and the Netherlands are much more pleasant places to drive because people have alternative options. Cars are great for a lot of things, but they shouldn't be the only option.

As an old Swede who has visited both countries, and still has some extended family in Copenhagen (it was a mixed marriage that my Aunt Ingrid didn't approve of!) on a "country" level the comparison between densely populated but geographically small Denmark or the Benelux countries and the USA is not even close to comparable.

The entire nation of Denmark, including all North Sea & Baltic islands, is less than the size of San Bernardino County.

The entire nation of the Netherlands is slightly smaller than Denmark, and 4,000 square miles smaller than San Bernardino County.

Inside the state of California spanning its 163,000 square miles you could fit the following list of European countries; the United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland. With half of Ireland to spare.

So when we talk wistfully of high speed rail linking all of our favorite theme parks with our local bus stop and charging us only $2 for a 175mph ride to Disneyland, it's important to realize the huge scale and scope of the United States. Especially with sprawling and massive mega-regions like Southern California.

 

[choco choco]

We are flying out of SNA.

Fly into LAX, two nights near universal, 5 nights near Disneyland.

Fly in on a Sunday, Tuesday travel day to Disneyland, fly out the next Sunday from SNA.

Ah so you're not actually staying in Hollywood on your Disneyland days. You're staying in Anaheim, gotcha.

The metrolink between Union station to Anaheim ARTIC is wonderful. It's like the easiest 35 minutes you can ask for. It really isn't even a "travel day" and you may just go to the parks that day and have an extra day in Southern California for something else.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Ah so you're not actually staying in Hollywood on your Disneyland days. You're staying in Anaheim, gotcha.

The metrolink between Union station to Anaheim ARTIC is wonderful. It's like the easiest 35 minutes you can ask for. It really isn't even a "travel day" and you may just go to the parks that day and have an extra day in Southern California for something else.

Yeah! We thought of perhaps doing something the morning of, before leaving Hollywood, and then getting into Disneyland area late afternoon, check-in at hotel, and then enjoy downtown Disney and such for the evening, before an early rope drop start the next day!

 

[choco choco]

Bob mentioned on the Morgan Stanley call that everyone thinks Disneyland is landlocked, but they can expand Disneyland by up to 50%.

He means the resort as a whole. But Disneyland Park has plenty of room to expand if they got rid of Mickey and Friends and Pixar Pals parking structures. It was always a dumb design to put the two structures there. I guess back during Mickey and Friends their choices were limited due to where they wanted California Adventure sited, but there's no excuse for Pixar Pals' construction. I wrote years ago that that decision would hamstring future expansions and, well, here we are.

 

[TP2000]

He means the resort as a whole. But Disneyland Park has plenty of room to expand if they got rid of Mickey and Friends and Pixar Pals parking structures. It was always a dumb design to put the two structures there. I guess back during Mickey and Friends their choices were limited due to where they wanted California Adventure sited, but there's no excuse for Pixar Pals' construction. I wrote years ago that that decision would hamstring future expansions and, well, here we are.

Out of curiosity, what would you put on the old Pinocchio parking lot that is now the Pixar Pals structure? And what benefit would it bring to Disneyland Park or overall Resort expansion?

 

[J4546]

Out of curiosity, what would you put on the old Pinocchio parking lot that is now the Pixar Pals structure? And what benefit would it bring to Disneyland Park or overall Resort expansion?

View attachment 771945

A massive themed hotel with the direct access to park?

 

[TP2000]

A massive themed hotel with the direct access to park?

With the 1996 zoning, and with the DisneylandForward plan, Disney has about 2,300 hotel rooms left they're allowed to build on their own property. That includes whatever 1,000 to 1,5000 rooms they build on the Toy Story Lot for the convention expense account crowd.

If that leaves them only 800 to 1,300 rooms left propertywide, why would they build an upscale resort hotel next to an existing 10,000 space parking garage and a tram loading area? Cut off from Downtown Disney and the resort core itself?

The old Pinocchio surface lot, now the Pixar Pals structure, seems the best use of that periphery land: Tie it in to the existing tram and freeway access infrastructure and grow the parking capacity to a level they've needed since at least 2010.

 

[Nirya]

Now, if you wanted to say the way the tram path runs cuts off any potential expansion into the north hotel parking lot, then ok yeah that's a conversation you could have, but again I assume any expansion that way is still a decade out at best and would by necessity involve a reworking of how people are moved from the parking structure to the main gates (underground PeopleMover???).

 

[chadwpalm]

Now, if you wanted to say the way the tram path runs cuts off any potential expansion into the north hotel parking lot, then ok yeah that's a conversation you could have, but again I assume any expansion that way is still a decade out at best and would by necessity involve a reworking of how people are moved from the parking structure to the main gates (underground PeopleMover???).

Any connector bridge would have to cross Disneyland Dr. anyway, so if that street is going to be sunken under the bridge like for the DTD bridge, then they can just do the same with the tram path.

 

[TP2000]

Any connector bridge would have to cross Disneyland Dr. anyway, so if that street is going to be sunken under the bridge like for the DTD bridge, then they can just do the same with the tram path.

Exactly.

The tram path is no more an impediment to resort expansion westward than that awesome break room behind Innoventions with the well-stocked vending machine and Judge Judy playing non-stop on a 50 inch TV is to a full Tomorrowland redo.

 

[choco choco]

Out of curiosity, what would you put on the old Pinocchio parking lot that is now the Pixar Pals structure? And what benefit would it bring to Disneyland Park or overall Resort expansion?

View attachment 771945

The smart thing to do would be to reserve that area for theme park space, since it is easily connectable to Disneyland's main circuit. It is not zoned for theme park use right now, but that is what Disneyland Forward is intended to remedy. Someday, far into the future, they will want to use that lot for shows, rides and attractions, and the only way to achieve it will be to bulldoze both parking structures.

As I said in my original comment, I understand how during the Eisner era the parking structure had to go there. But Pixar Pals should have been built on the Pumbaa lot. Everybody knew it, and the only reason it didn't go there was Disney's stubborness - something about a bridge, I believe.