DisneylandForward

[Disgruntled Walt]

True. Also if they keep all the Avengers with their masks and helmets on and find some good voice actors the changes don’t need to be an expensive undertaking.

Or they could just build some frigging animatronics and they could keep the original actors the same age forever! You know, like how James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart were able to appear in the Great Movie Ride several decades after they were deceased.

 

[mickEblu]

That's in 4 years. If they want to have something for the '28 Olympics, the bulldozers need to arrive this October for the new fiscal year.

Much like downtown LA and its currently graffiti-coated and tent-riddled state, or the non-existent OCVibe construction for the Honda Center events, I'm doubtful that the '28 Olympics will see much change or "new stuff" show up at Disneyland.

yeah its not looking good but that would have been the smart play. Still not too late though if they get started in the next few months like you said.

 

[mickEblu]

I have hope considering the parks panel is supposed to be filled with huge annoucements this year, and I am hoping it goes beyond the extent of confirming existing rumors.

Right and they already wasted the Avatar announcement.

 

[TP2000]

Right and they already wasted the Avatar announcement.

How many times has Bob announced that now? I've lost count.

Avatar in Anaheim has been announced by Bob at least three times, maybe four. He needs new material.

 

[mickEblu]

How many times has Bob announced that now? I've lost count.

Avatar in Anaheim has been announced by Bob at least three times, maybe four. He needs new material.

I have it about 7 or 8. Also three retractions of it going into DCA when they kept slipping up.

 

[MistaDee]

I'm a bit confused - I mean... that is the attraction, is it not? And ironically one of the issues is it still lacks enough queue space. I'm sure it can be utilized better, but the attraction as it exists in Epcot has a 4.5 acre building. A terribly shaped one at that. You can't exactly just lop off more than half the attraction and call it the same attraction.

The coaster is still inside the Universe of Energy building.

View attachment 787780



Can you demonstrate what you are measuring? I think you might be cutting more backstage buildings than I was.

I'm not contemplating cloning the entirety of Cosmic Rewind, which inefficiently uses a legacy structure, then awkwardly connects to said structure resulting in a much greater footprint than would be necessary if building from the ground up.

I'm just imagining Disney would use the same ride system and thus use the coaster's show building as a rough proxy for what area may be required for a building built from scratch. I think taking the ~1.5 acre new show building and doubling it to get ~3 acres is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

Disney could vary the size of pre-shows, how elaborate the queue is, or even the length of the ride to better fit the space.

Here are 3 ways to skin a cat:

1. 4.5 acres: Original, maximalist measurement, assumes peripheral backstage buildings could be relocated into under utilized parade buildings or into a new multi-story structure behind Mission Breakout leaving only enough buffer for a backstage road:

2. 3.5 acres, retaining peripheral backstage buildings (what are these for?)

3. 4.3 acres Red Car Trolley Facility Incorporated into Show Building, access/service tunnel included
'

I won't pretend to have an intimate knowledge of the importance of these particular backstage buildings or how easy it would be to construct a showbuilding over some minor existing infrastructure. With Mickey & Minny's Runaway Railway Disney has already demonstrated a willingness to rearrange backstage infrastructure to support the development of new attractions and I'd say DCA is in far more urgent need of major new attractions so further backstage renovation would be even more justified here than in Toon Town

Maybe we're talking past each other here as I don't see the same limitations you do. As I don't think they have to "jam" the show building into any of the DisneylandForward plots. And given that the plot behind M:BO is much smaller than any of the plots for DisneylandForward I don't see how its the ONLY place that a show building the size of Cosmic Rewind can go.

So what is the height of Cosmic Rewind show building? And what is the height limitation that you think DisneylandForward has that would prevent it going into any of those plots? And have you accounted for the set backs that can be used to place larger buildings? If you don't mind can you use like Google maps or something to draw it out so its clear.

My understanding is the Cosmic Rewind height is 140 feet according to this link. I'm not arguing that it would be impossible to fit the showbuilding into the DisneylandForward plot based on the height limits and setbacks.

My point is that the expansion pad behind Cosmic Breakout is most well suited for a story coaster because:

1. far enough removed from main guest areas so it can be tucked away and back
2. already located next to the tallest structure in the resort, and near the similarly very tall Cadillac Range so its giant size wouldn't loom over its immediate area.


I had a meeting get cancelled today so I decided to use that time to do a little digging into the height limits/setbacks in the new expansion zone. This is my understanding of the height limits and setbacks for the DisneylandForward plot aka "Plot B" or "Parking Lot" in the planning/environmental review documents.

The chart below presents a cross-sectional West to East look at the DisneylandForward plot: Walnut Street on the left and Disneyland Drive on the right with the height limits and setbacks and some reference points of existing structures. The purple profile would be a hypothetical story coaster show building 300 feet in diameter built on the eastern end at first opportunity given the setbacks, while the turquoise represents the Pixar Place Hotel:

So you'd essentially have the vertical height of the matterhorn as a giant box looming over the DisneylandForward and right near the Pixar Place Hotel. This could potentially be useful as a means to provide a visual berm and create a more immersive space within the expansion plot, but it's quite a significant structure and would require Disney to be planning multiple expansions ahead in order to incorporate it into future sightlines and themes for other lands.

Disney hasn't demonstrated that level of foresight in recent years, so I personally find it more feasible to just stick it in the corner behind ToT where it seems to fit like a nice Tetris piece. Maybe that's just my own bias, along with mentally identifying the story coaster with the Avengers theme already present in DCA but it just seems like the best location would be the DCA corner.

One thing we do know is that if there is any sort of grand reveal for Avatar land it probably has to be placed behind the Monorail track. Not that that’s saying much as it isn’t located very deep into the backlot as it’s right in front of Monsters Inc. All kind of makes you wonder why it would be going in the backlot and not Simba lot? Obviously the answer is that it must be easier or quicker to get started on this project in Hollywoodland but why? The bridge over DL drive and perhaps having to shut down the street? Maybe they can’t do that until the new parking structure is built? Or maybe they have more concrete plans for the Simba lot than we realize? The DTD parking lot being unavailable? The original DTD lot is usually pretty empty.

This is a bit of a headscratcher for me as well, the Monorail and necessary bus loop redevelopment both seem like bigger constraints than starting off in the Simba lot. I know insiders are pointing to the Backlot but I'm curious if the DisneylandForward approval may have allowed them to pivot to that option.

 

[TheRealSkull]

I'm not contemplating cloning the entirety of Cosmic Rewind, which inefficiently uses a legacy structure, then awkwardly connects to said structure resulting in a much greater footprint than would be necessary if building from the ground up.

I'm just imagining Disney would use the same ride system and thus use the coaster's show building as a rough proxy for what area may be required for a building built from scratch. I think taking the ~1.5 acre new show building and doubling it to get ~3 acres is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

Disney could vary the size of pre-shows, how elaborate the queue is, or even the length of the ride to better fit the space.

Here are 3 ways to skin a cat:

1. 4.5 acres: Original, maximalist measurement, assumes peripheral backstage buildings could be relocated into under utilized parade buildings or into a new multi-story structure behind Mission Breakout leaving only enough buffer for a backstage road:
View attachment 787872

2. 3.5 acres, retaining peripheral backstage buildings (what are these for?)
View attachment 787873

3. 4.3 acres Red Car Trolley Facility Incorporated into Show Building, access/service tunnel included
'
View attachment 787874


I won't pretend to have an intimate knowledge of the importance of these particular backstage buildings or how easy it would be to construct a showbuilding over some minor existing infrastructure. With Mickey & Minny's Runaway Railway Disney has already demonstrated a willingness to rearrange backstage infrastructure to support the development of new attractions and I'd say DCA is in far more urgent need of major new attractions so further backstage renovation would be even more justified here than in Toon Town



My understanding is the Cosmic Rewind height is 140 feet according to this link. I'm not arguing that it would be impossible to fit the showbuilding into the DisneylandForward plot based on the height limits and setbacks.

My point is that the expansion pad behind Cosmic Breakout is most well suited for a story coaster because:

1. far enough removed from main guest areas so it can be tucked away and back
2. already located next to the tallest structure in the resort, and near the similarly very tall Cadillac Range so its giant size wouldn't loom over its immediate area.


I had a meeting get cancelled today so I decided to use that time to do a little digging into the height limits/setbacks in the new expansion zone. This is my understanding of the height limits and setbacks for the DisneylandForward plot aka "Plot B" or "Parking Lot" in the planning/environmental review documents.

The chart below presents a cross-sectional West to East look at the DisneylandForward plot: Walnut Street on the left and Disneyland Drive on the right with the height limits and setbacks and some reference points of existing structures. The purple profile would be a hypothetical story coaster show building 300 feet in diameter built on the eastern end at first opportunity given the setbacks, while the turquoise represents the Pixar Place Hotel:

View attachment 787880
So you'd essentially have the vertical height of the matterhorn as a giant box looming over the DisneylandForward and right near the Pixar Place Hotel. This could potentially be useful as a means to provide a visual berm and create a more immersive space within the expansion plot, but it's quite a significant structure and would require Disney to be planning multiple expansions ahead in order to incorporate it into future sightlines and themes for other lands.

Disney hasn't demonstrated that level of foresight in recent years, so I personally find it more feasible to just stick it in the corner behind ToT where it seems to fit like a nice Tetris piece. Maybe that's just my own bias, along with mentally identifying the story coaster with the Avengers theme already present in DCA but it just seems like the best location would be the DCA corner.




This is a bit of a headscratcher for me as well, the Monorail and necessary bus loop redevelopment both seem like bigger constraints than starting off in the Simba lot. I know insiders are pointing to the Backlot but I'm curious if the DisneylandForward approval may have allowed them to pivot to that option.

To be honest, I have always seen Zootopia going in the Backlot because the monorail would fit in with theming quite well. I see Avatar in the Simba lot, assuming WDI will want no restraints in terms of space. My own speculation though.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm not contemplating cloning the entirety of Cosmic Rewind, which inefficiently uses a legacy structure, then awkwardly connects to said structure resulting in a much greater footprint than would be necessary if building from the ground up.

I'm just imagining Disney would use the same ride system and thus use the coaster's show building as a rough proxy for what area may be required for a building built from scratch. I think taking the ~1.5 acre new show building and doubling it to get ~3 acres is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

Disney could vary the size of pre-shows, how elaborate the queue is, or even the length of the ride to better fit the space.

Here are 3 ways to skin a cat:

1. 4.5 acres: Original, maximalist measurement, assumes peripheral backstage buildings could be relocated into under utilized parade buildings or into a new multi-story structure behind Mission Breakout leaving only enough buffer for a backstage road:
View attachment 787872

2. 3.5 acres, retaining peripheral backstage buildings (what are these for?)
View attachment 787873

3. 4.3 acres Red Car Trolley Facility Incorporated into Show Building, access/service tunnel included
'
View attachment 787874


I won't pretend to have an intimate knowledge of the importance of these particular backstage buildings or how easy it would be to construct a showbuilding over some minor existing infrastructure. With Mickey & Minny's Runaway Railway Disney has already demonstrated a willingness to rearrange backstage infrastructure to support the development of new attractions and I'd say DCA is in far more urgent need of major new attractions so further backstage renovation would be even more justified here than in Toon Town



My understanding is the Cosmic Rewind height is 140 feet according to this link. I'm not arguing that it would be impossible to fit the showbuilding into the DisneylandForward plot based on the height limits and setbacks.

My point is that the expansion pad behind Cosmic Breakout is most well suited for a story coaster because:

1. far enough removed from main guest areas so it can be tucked away and back
2. already located next to the tallest structure in the resort, and near the similarly very tall Cadillac Range so its giant size wouldn't loom over its immediate area.


I had a meeting get cancelled today so I decided to use that time to do a little digging into the height limits/setbacks in the new expansion zone. This is my understanding of the height limits and setbacks for the DisneylandForward plot aka "Plot B" or "Parking Lot" in the planning/environmental review documents.

The chart below presents a cross-sectional West to East look at the DisneylandForward plot: Walnut Street on the left and Disneyland Drive on the right with the height limits and setbacks and some reference points of existing structures. The purple profile would be a hypothetical story coaster show building 300 feet in diameter built on the eastern end at first opportunity given the setbacks, while the turquoise represents the Pixar Place Hotel:

View attachment 787880
So you'd essentially have the vertical height of the matterhorn as a giant box looming over the DisneylandForward and right near the Pixar Place Hotel. This could potentially be useful as a means to provide a visual berm and create a more immersive space within the expansion plot, but it's quite a significant structure and would require Disney to be planning multiple expansions ahead in order to incorporate it into future sightlines and themes for other lands.

Disney hasn't demonstrated that level of foresight in recent years, so I personally find it more feasible to just stick it in the corner behind ToT where it seems to fit like a nice Tetris piece. Maybe that's just my own bias, along with mentally identifying the story coaster with the Avengers theme already present in DCA but it just seems like the best location would be the DCA corner.




This is a bit of a headscratcher for me as well, the Monorail and necessary bus loop redevelopment both seem like bigger constraints than starting off in the Simba lot. I know insiders are pointing to the Backlot but I'm curious if the DisneylandForward approval may have allowed them to pivot to that option.

Thank you for the more detailed response. This allows us to speak in more detail. I completely disagree with your assessment but I thank you for the detailed response.

A couple things -

- The area you're using for the expansion behind M:BO is larger than the actual usable available space. I posted an image which has a more accurate depiction of available space, not saying its definitive but its accurate based on previous discussions had over the years on this forum. For example in your images you're cutting off most if not all of the backstage road that goes into Cars Land. You're also using area that is currently taken up by what would be the entrance/exit to the attraction as part of your measurements. This can't be used for show building if its to be used for ingress/egress from the attraction, not to mention queue space, etc. You also have the trolley tracks that you've cut across in all your images, ie those are likely not moving as if they were Disney would have done it while building out Avengers Campus. So long story short, your example 2 is closer to the available usable space.

- When talking about the set backs and show building placement for DisneylandForward against Walnut, you have to think that Disney is likely to put service roads and other backstage buildings behind any show building. For example the setback between Katella any DCA show building is a minimum of 125ft, I believe. And the setback from Harbor to M:BO is something like 250ft. So those setbacks aren't going to be a huge deal, and the height can be covered by facade like they've done in other areas of the resort, just hopefully more complete than RSR or GE. And I don't think it would require Disney to plan much into the future with it, as sightlines aren't as important as they used to be to Disney. They can still place proper theming on any building while still allowing themselves future expansion.

In the end Disney is going to do whatever its going to do. We could all be incorrect in our assessments here and Disney could do something completely different. But I still really am not convinced that the spot behind M:BO is the ONLY space that can be conceivably used for a Cosmic Rewind sized show building. As I don't think it would be the only large scale building they planned for DisneylandForward.

 

[BrianLo]

Disney could vary the size of pre-shows, how elaborate the queue is, or even the length of the ride to better fit the space.

Yes, I too think you are also being far too generous with your theoretical space, example 2 is closer, but it’s a far more cautious version of what @Disney Irish outlined.

Could they pull it off? Yes. But it would be a lesser version of Cosmic Rewind than you hope for. The launch would be a loss. The coaster would ultimately be shorter. The queue would probably drop some of the pre show to pull it off.

But should they? I disagree, but that’s all my opinion.

Are they going to build a coaster here? No, not at this time. That option seemed to have been passed over several proposals ago.

 

[Disney Irish]

Yes, I too think you are also being far too generous with your theoretical space, example 2 is closer, but it’s a far more cautious version of what @Disney Irish outlined.

Could they pull it off? Yes. But it would be a lesser version of Cosmic Rewind than you hope for. The launch would be a loss. The coaster would ultimately be shorter. The queue would probably drop some of the pre show to pull it off.

Agreed, they would have to lose a lot of the elements that make Cosmic Rewind a good experience. And it wouldn't be a launch coaster which means they couldn't pull off the "take off" aspect of the theming.

Are they going to build a coaster here? No, not at this time. That option seemed to have been passed over several proposals ago.

Yep, this is just a retread of the Capt America coaster that was rumored years ago but scrapped due to capacity. Dunno if Cosmic Rewind solved that capacity issue, but it wouldn't be very logical to go back to a coaster when they already passed on one years ago.

The Pan or FoP2.0 ride systems seem more logical.

 

[MistaDee]

Thank you for the more detailed response. This allows us to speak in more detail. I completely disagree with your assessment but I thank you for the detailed response.

A couple things -

- The area you're using for the expansion behind M:BO is larger than the actual usable available space. I posted an image which has a more accurate depiction of available space, not saying its definitive but its accurate based on previous discussions had over the years on this forum. For example in your images you're cutting off most if not all of the backstage road that goes into Cars Land.

I'm not particularly interested in nitpicking precisely whose google maps drawing is more accurate down to the foot, but alas....that appears to be what we're now doing

None of my images cut across trolley tracks except for the last which contemplates a show building built above the trolley tracks. I'd also add that no one on this board can categorically define what the "actual usable available space" is, that's up to Disney.

I'll point out that in all of my images the backstage road that goes into Carsland is retained, I used the width between the admin building and that little fenced in trailer space as a rough gauge for how much space to leave with the showbuilding. If that's incorrect by a few feet I'll trust you can use your imagination as to what might be done.

Images for reference:

You're also using area that is currently taken up by what would be the entrance/exit to the attraction as part of your measurements. This can't be used for show building if its to be used for ingress/egress from the attraction, not to mention queue space, etc. You also have the trolley tracks that you've cut across in all your images, ie those are likely not moving as if they were Disney would have done it while building out Avengers Campus. So long story short, your example 2 is closer to the available usable space.

I'm measuring the expansion area for the total space available to build the attraction, obviously that will include the entrance? I have never said otherwise...

Again the show building measurement from Epcot is just to get a rough estimate for the space available.

- When talking about the set backs and show building placement for DisneylandForward against Walnut, you have to think that Disney is likely to put service roads and other backstage buildings behind any show building. For example the setback between Katella any DCA show building is a minimum of 125ft, I believe. And the setback from Harbor to M:BO is something like 250ft. So those setbacks aren't going to be a huge deal, and the height can be covered by facade like they've done in other areas of the resort, just hopefully more complete than RSR or GE. And I don't think it would require Disney to plan much into the future with it, as sightlines aren't as important as they used to be to Disney. They can still place proper theming on any building while still allowing themselves future expansion.

I'm not sure what your point is here - the chart I showed includes the 30 foot minimum setback from Walnut Street for vertical construction and the additional setback necessary to build up to 140 feet. My point remains that a 140 foot building is a lot to plan around, merely stating "sightlines aren't as important as they used to be" isn't really a meaningful solution to that problem.

Don't get me wrong, it can absolutely be done - maybe they build a gigantic mountain range against Walnut that transitions from those big floating mountains on Pandora into the Neverland Volcano or something similar, I'm just skeptical they'll be able to successfully plan that far into the future based on their recent stop/start approach to projects. If you want to hide a 140 foot tall box you can either put it in a corner where 3.5 sides are already taken care of - or you can start from scratch. I know which one I think is easier.

In the end Disney is going to do whatever its going to do. We could all be incorrect in our assessments here and Disney could do something completely different. But I still really am not convinced that the spot behind M:BO is the ONLY space that can be conceivably used for a Cosmic Rewind sized show building. As I don't think it would be the only large scale building they planned for DisneylandForward.

After going through the exercise to chart out the height limits between Disneyland Drive and Walnut Street, and seeing how it compares to the Paradise Pier/Pixar Place Hotel I am more inclined to agree. My position is that the M:BO expansion pad is the best place to put a Cosmic Rewind giant box, but I'll concede that with enough foresight and extensive spending on rockwork they could certainly work it into the DisneylandForward plot.

Yes, I too think you are also being far too generous with your theoretical space, example 2 is closer, but it’s a far more cautious version of what @Disney Irish outlined.

Could they pull it off? Yes. But it would be a lesser version of Cosmic Rewind than you hope for. The launch would be a loss. The coaster would ultimately be shorter. The queue would probably drop some of the pre show to pull it off.

But should they? I disagree, but that’s all my opinion.

Are they going to build a coaster here? No, not at this time. That option seemed to have been passed over several proposals ago.

It would not necessarily be a lesser degree of Cosmic Rewind. Let's say 3 acres of the space will be used for the roller coaster and leave half an acre of show building for the queue. At 140 feet tall we could easily make the queue unfold over two stories giving a surface area of a full acre for all your pre-show wants and desires.

3 acres of space is plenty to have multiple launches within the show building and they could get creative, slow the ride down slightly, make the turns tighter or twistier - whatever might support the Avengers story they're trying to tell.

I'd rather have that experience than a Peter Pan 2.0 set in the Marvel-verse. You can head up the highway to Universal for a similar enough time on Transformers - which, funny enough, is a great example of how theme park designers can creatively use space to fit a big attraction into a small footprint.

 

[MisterPenguin]

For RotR, Disney dug down deep to create the turntable for the first space transport. Even in the Florida swamps.

Could not a significant chunk of the gravity building be sunk into the ground to avoid towering sightline offsets?

 

[Disney Irish]

For RotR, Disney dug down deep to create the turntable for the first space transport. Even in the Florida swamps.

Could not a significant chunk of the gravity building be sunk into the ground to avoid towering sightline offsets?

Exactly, there are many inventive ways Disney can put a huge show building into any of the DisneylandForward plots and not worry about the height issue against Walnut.

 

[TP2000]

This is silly. Galaxy's Edge proved that Disney can, and will, move cheap and non-essential "backstage" buildings and infrastructure whenever they need to. If they really want it. None of this stuff in the DCA backstage area can't be rebuilt elsewhere, including the cheap pre-fab trolley barn they built for the Red Car attraction. Who says the Red Car Trolley has to end just east of Guardians of the Galaxy? Why can't it continue onward, or end on the other side of the Guardians tower?

Everything between Cars Land and Hollywood Land can be demolished and moved elsewhere, rebuilt, or replicated in a new location. And the abandoned tram route from 1998 that hasn't been used since 2009 is perfectly acceptable as a backstage access road, as it has been used as such for 15 years now.

This entire area is up for grabs and usable, and it measures about 7 and a half acres.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm not particularly interested in nitpicking precisely whose google maps drawing is more accurate down to the foot, but alas....that appears to be what we're now doing

None of my images cut across trolley tracks except for the last which contemplates a show building built above the trolley tracks. I'd also add that no one on this board can categorically define what the "actual usable available space" is, that's up to Disney.

I'll point out that in all of my images the backstage road that goes into Carsland is retained, I used the width between the admin building and that little fenced in trailer space as a rough gauge for how much space to leave with the showbuilding. If that's incorrect by a few feet I'll trust you can use your imagination as to what might be done.

Images for reference:
View attachment 787913
View attachment 787912



I'm measuring the expansion area for the total space available to build the attraction, obviously that will include the entrance? I have never said otherwise...

Again the show building measurement from Epcot is just to get a rough estimate for the space available.



I'm not sure what your point is here - the chart I showed includes the 30 foot minimum setback from Walnut Street for vertical construction and the additional setback necessary to build up to 140 feet. My point remains that a 140 foot building is a lot to plan around, merely stating "sightlines aren't as important as they used to be" isn't really a meaningful solution to that problem.

Don't get me wrong, it can absolutely be done - maybe they build a gigantic mountain range against Walnut that transitions from those big floating mountains on Pandora into the Neverland Volcano or something similar, I'm just skeptical they'll be able to successfully plan that far into the future based on their recent stop/start approach to projects. If you want to hide a 140 foot tall box you can either put it in a corner where 3.5 sides are already taken care of - or you can start from scratch. I know which one I think is easier.



After going through the exercise to chart out the height limits between Disneyland Drive and Walnut Street, and seeing how it compares to the Paradise Pier/Pixar Place Hotel I am more inclined to agree. My position is that the M:BO expansion pad is the best place to put a Cosmic Rewind giant box, but I'll concede that with enough foresight and extensive spending on rockwork they could certainly work it into the DisneylandForward plot.



It would not necessarily be a lesser degree of Cosmic Rewind. Let's say 3 acres of the space will be used for the roller coaster and leave half an acre of show building for the queue. At 140 feet tall we could easily make the queue unfold over two stories giving a surface area of a full acre for all your pre-show wants and desires.

3 acres of space is plenty to have multiple launches within the show building and they could get creative, slow the ride down slightly, make the turns tighter or twistier - whatever might support the Avengers story they're trying to tell.

I'd rather have that experience than a Peter Pan 2.0 set in the Marvel-verse. You can head up the highway to Universal for a similar enough time on Transformers - which, funny enough, is a great example of how theme park designers can creatively use space to fit a big attraction into a small footprint.

The total space you've calculated is not all usable, this is the point that both @BrianLo and I have been saying. Also you have to think about the configuration of the coaster and the physics it requires, how can it fit in the space along with the launch platform, load/unload platform, entrance/exit, queues with preshow space, etc. Just saying they have x amount of space doesn't mean it can actually fit what you're proposing. But I guess we'll see whenever they get around to putting an attraction there, I just won't be surprised if its not a coaster.

As for the height issue, as @MisterPenguin pointed out they can sink the building into the ground to lower its height so its not "towering over" the land or require a huge setback.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is silly. Galaxy's Edge proved that Disney can, and will, move cheap and non-essential "backstage" buildings and infrastructure whenever they need to. If they really want it. None of this stuff in the DCA backstage area can't be rebuilt elsewhere, including the cheap pre-fab trolley barn they built for the Red Car attraction. Who says the Red Car Trolley has to end just east of Guardians of the Galaxy? Why can't it continue onward, or end on the other side of the Guardians tower?

Everything between Cars Land and Hollywood Land can be demolished and moved elsewhere, rebuilt, or replicated in a new location. And the abandoned tram route from 1998 that hasn't been used since 2009 is perfectly acceptable as a backstage access road, as it has been used as such for 15 years now.

This entire area is up for grabs and usable, and it measures about 7 and a half acres.

View attachment 787918

Not saying you're wrong overall, as anything is possible, I do think your expansion map is a bit too generous though (just my opinion).

But for example if the Trolley barn was going to be moved for a future 3rd attraction behind M:BO they would have moved it when they were building the land, this is what many thought would happen. Its not like they didn't already have plans to place a 3rd attraction behind M:BO. So the fact they didn't sort of indicates they intent to keep it right where it is today.

 

[TP2000]

Here's those three buildings on the east (right) side of the satellite photo I posted above, under construction in early '09.

They were built on the cheap, as offices and maintenance facilities and an event catering kitchen for the planned expansion of DCA circa 2012. They are two stories, pre-fab, metal sided buildings. Sort of like a double decker trailer, the cheapest construction you can get away with under 21st century building codes.

This isn't Versailles. These three buildings could be demolished and rebuilt somewhere else for a couple Million bucks. And that price includes the cheap carpet in the conference room and at least 3 Keurig machines for the break rooms.

 

[TP2000]

Not saying you're wrong overall, as anything is possible....

But for example if the Trolley barn was going to be moved for a future 3rd attraction behind M:BO they would have moved it when they were building the land, this is what many thought would happen. Its not like they didn't already have plans to place a 3rd attraction behind M:BO. So the fact they didn't sort of indicates they intent to keep it right where it is today.

If I were submitting a budget for a project, I wouldn't move the building that needs moving until I had funds for the building that replaces it.

Until that specific budget gets approved, the trolley barn stays where it is. That's how smart budgets work. Ka-ching!

 

[Disney Irish]

If I were submitting a budget for a project, I wouldn't move the building that needs moving until I had funds for the building that replaces it.

Until that specific budget gets approved, the trolley barn stays where it is. That's how smart budgets work. Ka-ching!

Or you lump it into the budget of an already planned land budget for the surrounding area. That is how Disney budgets works. Ka-Chow!

 

[BrianLo]

Why does everyone hate the Red Car Trolley.

Anyways when everyone stops playing armchair imagineers, the attraction is supposed to be Pan and is also serving the needs of HKDL as a co-funded project. I for one hope to heaven they don't go back to the drawing board a fourth time...