DisneylandForward

[MistaDee]

I think the consensus has been that the path to the bridge to the Simba lot expansion will be located where the parade gates are between Paradise Gardens and Emotional Whirlwind but who knows? I do think they ll be spending so much money and have so much construction going on that they’ll only take on a project like this if it’s absolutely necessary.

That makes more sense as a location, maybe with a little widening so there's not such a pinch for a 3 way merge

This is exactly what I am banging my head against the wall.

Where's the DCA's hotel, where's DCA's backstage, where's DCA's bus loops, where's DCA's parking? You can't have a satellite park and ignore all these things that actually contribute to the function of DCA.

Just because it is theoretically big enough to support an on stage park, does not mean Disneyland Resort owns enough property to fully support it and all the other things they want/need to do. The existing infrastructure barely supports DLR as is and you are getting rid of your massive Toy Story lot.

The new parking structure fixes the deficit and add parking to support future crowds that a massively upscaled Disneyland and DCA will bring in. It allows them to develop Toy Story Lot. It does not provide parking for the Toy Story lot development.

Your "third park" is already being grafted onto the other two. Disneyland Resort does not have enough space for a 'fourth' park. Without significantly scaling back future hotel plans and sending the resort into a massive transit and parking hole. I'm going to level with you, this current company does not put parks above hotels.

Even if they acquired more land, that new land is not zoned and approved for hotel keys. So where are those going? The answer to that is cancelling Disneyland Forward and shifting back to more retail and dining in that space.

You can have a third park or you can expand the existing two. You are not getting both, unless the company buys significantly more land. Which if you actually wanted to get your hopes up, I think would be the Angel Stadium.

I guess I'm just not clear where you seem to be finding the authority to state anything in such categorial, absolute terms. The Toy Story Lot was literally just re-zoned for theme park uses - does that mean it will be built in the exact same size, shape and hotel ratio as DCA? Probably not.

Could it be a smaller concept? Maybe a mixed-use dining/retail area with some individual ticketed attractions, maybe even a smaller, more exclusive, more expensive 3rd gate - at this point Disney probably won't even decide for another ten years. The point is they now have the zoning to build theme park experiences in that space, so I'd argue this is precisely the time for people to be dreaming, if that's what floats their boat.

This is a Disney fan-board where people come to share their ideas and interests. If you're feeling the need to bang your head against the wall because the urge to tell more people just how wrong they are is that powerful, then maybe it's time to take a step back eh?

 

[PiratesMansion]

That makes more sense as a location, maybe with a little widening so there's not such a pinch for a 3 way merge



I guess I'm just not clear where you seem to be finding the authority to state anything in such categorial, absolute terms. The Toy Story Lot was literally just re-zoned for theme park uses - does that mean it will be built in the exact same size, shape and hotel ratio as DCA? Probably not.

This is a Disney fan-board where people come to share their ideas and interests. If you're feeling the need to bang your head against the wall because the urge to tell more people just how wrong they are is that powerful, then maybe it's time to take a step back eh?

My dude, @BrianLo has been around much longer than you have and states things in pretty even-handed, level headed terms. He's very much entitled to his opinion and anything you're reading into his response is likely coming from you, and not from anything he's actually said.

By contrast, where do you, someone who has only posted here with regularity for maybe a month tops, seem to be finding the faux-authority to dictate how literally anything goes here, what opinions people have, how accurate their takes are, or to be the arbiter of what is or is not a sensical take? To paraphrase Mean Girls, you barely even go here!

 

[MistaDee]

My dude, @BrianLo has been around much longer than you have and states things in pretty even-handed, level headed terms. He's very much entitled to his opinion and anything you're reading into his response is likely coming from you, and not from anything he's actually said.

By contrast, where do you, someone who has only posted here with regularity for maybe a months tops, seem to be finding the faux-authority to dictate how literally anything goes here, what opinions people have, how accurate their takes are, or to be the arbiter of what is or is not a sensical take? To paraphrase Mean Girls, you barely even go here!

Are we only allowed to express our opinions if we've "been here"? I wouldn't consider the culture depicted in Mean Girls to be one adults would look to replicate in any spaces they inhabit: real or imagined.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is why I'm finding issue with how some folks seem to be shutting others down with "banging their heads on the wall" exasperation

 

[PiratesMansion]

Are we only allowed to express our opinions if we've "been here"? I wouldn't consider the culture depicted in Mean Girls to be one adults would look to replicate in any spaces they inhabit: real or imagined.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is why I'm finding issue with how some folks seem to be shutting others down with "banging their heads on the wall" exasperation

All I will say is that if you think BrianLo is truly shutting down people's opinions, you haven't been here long enough, or haven't seen enough. Simple as that.

 

[Disney Irish]

That makes more sense as a location, maybe with a little widening so there's not such a pinch for a 3 way merge



I guess I'm just not clear where you seem to be finding the authority to state anything in such categorial, absolute terms. The Toy Story Lot was literally just re-zoned for theme park uses - does that mean it will be built in the exact same size, shape and hotel ratio as DCA? Probably not.

Could it be a smaller concept? Maybe a mixed-use dining/retail area with some individual ticketed attractions, maybe even a smaller, more exclusive, more expensive 3rd gate - at this point Disney probably won't even decide for another ten years. The point is they now have the zoning to build theme park experiences in that space, so I'd argue this is precisely the time for people to be dreaming, if that's what floats their boat.

This is a Disney fan-board where people come to share their ideas and interests. If you're feeling the need to bang your head against the wall because the urge to tell more people just how wrong they are is that powerful, then maybe it's time to take a step back eh?

I think we do know more definitively what Disney will do with TSL.

Disney presented an environmental impact report as part of DisneylandForward. This EIR included a noise study for the project including TSL.

Here is the same noise study for TSL which shows proposed layout of buildings -

Notice is says "theme park experience" but doesn't have any of the normal indicators of a 3rd gate, meaning its something small. Plus notice the big hotel layout. If this was really planned on being a 3rd gate the noise report would have outlined it more like the one they did for the west side but without the hotel -

This is why we know with pretty good certainty that Disney has no plans to build a 3rd gate on TSL now or in the future. Now of course plans could change so there is always a possibility, but it would probably be pretty slim of it happening.

Also this why we know Disney is ok with and planning on putting large show buildings in the DisneylandForward expansion.

 

[PiratesMansion]

It's probably fair to say that if the TSL is ever put into place as a third theme park (or "third park", as the case may be), there are a long list of things that would need to be put in motion before such a thing would ever happen.

I imagine that the existing parks and all of the DLForward plot would have to be bursting at the seams with obvious potential for growth still present, AND they would have to have a handle on parking and logistics, AND they would have to have some sort of practical, long-term idea about the third park, it's theme, development trajectory, etc.

AND some assurance that DCA wouldn't fall immediately and perpetually upon the opening of that theoretical third gate, as happened to Epcot upon the opening of MGM.

So I can buy the idea that TSL won't be developed as a third gate until a) every other possible expansion option has been utilized, b) it seems obvious that parks would gain much more than they would lose with a park developed on that site, c) sufficient infrastructure work has been undertaken to make such a move practical, and d) DCA appears to be fully stabilized going forward.

It doesn't necessarily mean that TSL will never be developed in that way; it is possible that circumstances might evolve to a point when such expansion is favorable for the resort. But such circumstances are far in the future, if they indeed transpire at all.

 

[BrianLo]

This is a Disney fan-board where people come to share their ideas and interests. If you're feeling the need to bang your head against the wall because the urge to tell more people just how wrong they are is that powerful, then maybe it's time to take a step back eh?

I’m actually trying to be kind and educate people that just because you can visualize an acreage of space here and there does not mean every parcel of land they own outside of the Eastern Gateway is destined for on-stage theme park development. Lots of teenage new members often start to visit this boards and sort of run away with things, this isn’t the place.

The resort still needs more parking and accommodations and backstage reaccomodation and would need significant new backstage facilities. We also have pretty clear indications of what the company is generally thinking. Why deny that? Of course it could all change, but I’m trying to onboard everyone to the reality that more theme park staging somewhere has to eventually equal less somewhere else. There’s a ‘realistic’ defined limit to what can be done. Even new land purchasing does not allow Disney to shift their currently approved keys around outside of its existing property.

If we get into why was Disney even was motivated to engage in this Disneyland forward proposition, it was not about rezoning boundaries for theme park development in so far as it was to retain developmental control. We got here because the city blocked a hotel and a parking garage after all. We got here because they were not building a hotel exactly where their master planning had agreeably placed it years before.

The company has not suddenly changed in their pursuit, Disneyland resort is quite short on Disney owned accomodations.

We have a very good idea about what the current thought process is for generalities of this development. You’d have really loved the earlier iterations of this discussion (not from me) where we were uncategorically told all of this was fake and Disney was never going to build real additional theme park space at all. We have an imagineering sub forum here on the board if that interests everyone. That would be a great place to take these sort of discussions about unlimited possibilities. This is not the right place.

 

[BrianLo]

It doesn't necessarily mean that TSL will never be developed in that way; it is possible that circumstances might evolve to a point when such expansion is favorable for the resort. But such circumstances are far in the future, if they indeed transpire at all.

Precisely. And the real true unfortunate reality that no one wants to listen to is they have active plans for a hotel (plus DVC) probably by end or early next decade there. Once that’s done on the scale they seem to be considering we’re into a 50 year contract and it’s all a bit moot for all of our lifetimes.

I’d LOVE it if Disney would buy Garden Walk and was sourcing land for a third major transit hub. But they really don’t seem to be doing so.

But they feel there is good money to be made by accommodations and retail down there by convention guests. Who would more willingly wander over there for dinner or maybe even stay there for the Anaheim convention center. Garden Walk seems to be a total pipe dream that they’ve refused several times now.

 

[DLR92]

I’m not certain there will be a third gate. TSL is enough space to build a decent park. But their still lack of space for maintenance and support logistics for a third park.

 

[MistaDee]

I think we do know more definitively what Disney will do with TSL.

Disney presented an environmental impact report as part of DisneylandForward. This EIR included a noise study for the project including TSL.

Here is the same noise study for TSL which shows proposed layout of buildings -

View attachment 788263

View attachment 788261

Notice is says "theme park experience" but doesn't have any of the normal indicators of a 3rd gate, meaning its something small. Plus notice the big hotel layout. If this was really planned on being a 3rd gate the noise report would have outlined it more like the one they did for the west side but without the hotel -

View attachment 788264

View attachment 788265

This is why we know with pretty good certainty that Disney has no plans to build a 3rd gate on TSL now or in the future. Now of course plans could change so there is always a possibility, but it would probably be pretty slim of it happening.

Also this why we know Disney is ok with and planning on putting large show buildings in the DisneylandForward expansion.

You do understand that the entirety of what's included in the DisneylandForward proposal is designed to get the zoning approvals Disney is after, right?

Underneath that image is the operative fine print:

"conceptual in nature" It may also be worth pointing out how the proposal describes the site: "Theme Park East Overlay" because that is exactly what Disney has fought and won the right to build. If they do eventually plan to build a third gate there, and I'm not claiming that's what will happen - only that's what they now are entitled to do, then there will be additional environmental reviews conducted and all Disney has to do is prove they will have sufficient noise mitigation measures so as not to exceed what's allowable. For that plot, it would likely mean almost entirely indoor attractions.

I won't pretend to know "with pretty good certainty" what Disney, with a new CEO, sometime in the 2030s or even 2040s intends to do with that site. What I do know is that they can build a theme park of some shape, size, flavor or price point in that space, if they so choose.

I’m actually trying to be kind and educate people that just because you can visualize an acreage of space here and there does not mean every parcel of land they own outside of the Eastern Gateway is destined for on-stage theme park development. Lots of teenage new members often start to visit this boards and sort of run away with things, this isn’t the place.

The resort still needs more parking and accommodations and backstage reaccomodation and would need significant new backstage facilities. We also have pretty clear indications of what the company is generally thinking. Why deny that? Of course it could all change, but I’m trying to onboard everyone to the reality that more theme park staging somewhere has to eventually equal less somewhere else. There’s a ‘realistic’ defined limit to what can be done. Even new land purchasing does not allow Disney to shift their currently approved keys around outside of its existing property.

If we get into why was Disney even was motivated to engage in this Disneyland forward proposition, it was not about rezoning boundaries for theme park development in so far as it was to retain developmental control. We got here because the city blocked a hotel and a parking garage after all. We got here because they were not building a hotel exactly where their master planning had agreeably placed it years before.

We have a very good idea about what the current thought process is for generalities of this development. You’d have really loved the earlier iterations of this discussion (not from me) where we were uncategorically told all of this was fake and Disney was never going to build real additional theme park space at all. We have an imagineering sub forum here on the board if that interests everyone. That would be a great place to take these sort of discussions about unlimited possibilities. This is not the right place.

We're discussing what new possibilities Disney is specifically entitled to under the new DisneylandForward plan. Your opinion on what may or may not be feasible is merely that, so I'd ask you kindly keep the gatekeeping within the limits of your own castle. I'm afraid the noise pollution from heads bashing walls may exceed what's allowable under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.

 

[PiratesMansion]

We're discussing what new possibilities Disney is specifically entitled to under the new DisneylandForward plan. Your opinion on what may or may not be feasible is merely that, so I'd ask you kindly keep the gatekeeping within the limits of your own castle. I'm afraid the noise pollution from heads bashing walls may exceed what's allowable under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.

I missed the part where everyone else has just an opinion and you alone are speaking from the perspective of 100% unquestionable facts.

 

[MistaDee]

I missed the part where everyone else has just an opinion and you alone are speaking from the perspective of 100% unquestionable facts.

Would you mind pointing out where I claim to be speaking from 100% unquetionable facts? Outside of reference to publicly available documents that is

 

[Disney Irish]

You do understand that the entirety of what's included in the DisneylandForward proposal is designed to get the zoning approvals Disney is after, right?

Underneath that image is the operative fine print:

View attachment 788294

"conceptual in nature" It may also be worth pointing out how the proposal describes the site: "Theme Park East Overlay" because that is exactly what Disney has fought and won the right to build. If they do eventually plan to build a third gate there, and I'm not claiming that's what will happen - only that's what they now are entitled to do, then there will be additional environmental reviews conducted and all Disney has to do is prove they will have sufficient noise mitigation measures so as not to exceed what's allowable. For that plot, it would likely mean almost entirely indoor attractions.

I understand that completely. But do you know that the TSL has always had some basic approvals for a 3rd gate under the DRSP? Which is why everyone has been insistent over the years that that is what Disney should do with it. So they didn't need zoning changes for that to be done. The zone changes now actually allows them to build mixed use, ie hotels and retail on TLS, something they weren't allowed to do before. Hmm, why do you think Disney would want that zoning change.....

And so the real issue becomes that when Disney does build something other than a 3rd gate it becomes fairly final and some just can't accept that.

I won't pretend to know "with pretty good certainty" what Disney, with a new CEO, sometime in the 2030s or even 2040s intends to do with that site. What I do know is that they can build a theme park of some shape, size, flavor or price point in that space, if they so choose.



We're discussing what new possibilities Disney is specifically entitled to under the new DisneylandForward plan. Your opinion on what may or may not be feasible is merely that, so I'd ask you kindly keep the gatekeeping within the limits of your own castle. I'm afraid the noise pollution from heads bashing walls may exceed what's allowable under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, why would we call it a zebra? If Disney has said multiple times through public statements as well as proposals, EIRs, etc, they've put forth that they have no plans for a 3rd gate; then why would anyone believe they would just go ahead and build a 3rd gate just because they now have carte blanche to do so with new zoning (which they didn't need in this case anyways)? But yes as said before it is possible they could still build a 3rd gate at the direction of some future CEO, it just seems pretty slim on it happening.

 

[BrianLo]

We're discussing what new possibilities Disney is specifically entitled to under the new DisneylandForward plan. Your opinion on what may or may not be feasible is merely that, so I'd ask you kindly keep the gatekeeping within the limits of your own castle. I'm afraid the noise pollution from heads bashing walls may exceed what's allowable under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.

We are allowed to dream - and I’ve very kindly and directly asked about seven times now where the hotel complex, parking garage, retail zone and backstage supports go in your vision.

That’s my original illusion to head banging (which was not even about this conversation here, it was another another forum). Why won’t this simple question be addressed? This isn’t meant to agitate you, it’s a probe to consider things a bit more fully. Not a demand or a form of gatekeeping, but a touch of realism in the visions.

My personal opinion is I like the way they’ve done things now by shifting a lot of that to Toy Story out of the old hotel zone to preserve expansion space for DL and DCA. It appears it’s come at the current expense of that satellite site at this juncture as a viable full third theme park. I’m fully open to the possibility of revision and have said so. I just am asking to address the consequences, which would be a major hotel complex invading something. They are approved for a little more than 3200 additional hotel rooms, which is more than double of their current usage.

It seems their current thought process would be to utilize Toy Story lot, which would long term take it out of the realm of possibility once DVC enters the fray and leads to 50 year ownership contracts.

Fortunately we don’t have to wait exceedingly long, some bells will get rung that can’t be as easily undone over the next 10 years.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Would you mind pointing out where I claim to be speaking from 100% unquetionable facts? Outside of reference to publicly available documents that is

Tone, my child, tone.

Among other things, I fail to see how others are gatekeeping but you certainly are not, even as you tell other people to keep their opinions to themselves-and if not in those exact words, close enough so that there's no doubt in your implied meaning.

 

[ProjectXBlog]

We're discussing what new possibilities Disney is specifically entitled to under the new DisneylandForward plan. Your opinion on what may or may not be feasible is merely that, so I'd ask you kindly keep the gatekeeping within the limits of your own castle. I'm afraid the noise pollution from heads bashing walls may exceed what's allowable under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.

If you want to be active on these forums, you really have to humble yourself and learn how things work. Logic, data, pragmatism, and historical context do not amount to “opinion.” It is simply foolish to think we will be getting anything resembling a 3rd gate within any timeframe relevant to the topic at hand. You need to find a different hill to die on here.

 

[DLR92]

I still think Disney plans for TSL is to be a glorified Disney Springs on steroids. Or their take on Americana At Brand. It is perfect to plan an area for hotel grounds, shopping and dining and mixed light entertainment use.

I wish there were plans for third park, their just not enough space or empty land to buy out. Buying already developed land is a big killer. It already more inflated in value. That why I still think Disney will skip again to not buy Garden Walk. They skipped out when the deal was TOO good. Why buy a troubled commercial space when they can start from scratch with their own land they have itching to be developed for hotel lodging.

 

[MistaDee]

We are allowed to dream - and I’ve very kindly and directly asked about seven times now where the hotel complex, parking garage, retail zone and backstage supports go in your vision.

That’s my original illusion to head banging, why won’t this simple question be addressed? This isn’t meant to agitate you, it’s a probe to consider things a bit more fully. Not a demand or a form of gatekeeping, but a touch of realism in the visions.

My personal opinion is I like the way they’ve done things now by shifting a lot of that to Toy Story out of the old hotel zone to preserve expansion space for DL and DCA. It appears it’s come at the current expense of that satellite site at this juncture as a viable full third theme park. I’m fully open to the possibility of revision and have said so. I just am asking to address the consequences, which would be a major hotel complex invading something. They are approved for a little more than 3200 additional hotel rooms, which is more than double of their current usage.

It seems their current thought process would be to utilize Toy Story lot, which would long term take it out of the realm of possibility once DVC enters the fray and leads to 50 year ownership contracts.

Fortunately we don’t have to wait exceedingly long, some bells will get rung that can’t be as easily undone over the next 10 years.

Do you mean allusion?

I'd point out that I've never claimed to be articulating a complete vision for a fully functional 3rd gate, merely that theme park use of some kind, gated or not, is exactly what is now possible in that space. It may be a full fledge theme park experience, or it might be mixed-use, with retail and hotel integrated.

If you're asking me what might make a fully-fledged 3rd gate scenario possible? I'd guess that it would be the 2040s by that point, GardenWalk has gone bankrupt 3 times, Disney buys it for a lark and partners with the Angels to build a big garage on one of their lots with some sort of skyway or peoplemover solution bringing people to the resort proper.

Now do I think that's likely? Certainly not, but I wouldn't say it's absolutely impossible

 

[MistaDee]

Tone, my child, tone.

Among other things, I fail to see how others are gatekeeping but you certainly are not, even as you tell other people to keep their opinions to themselves-and if not in those exact words, close enough so that there's no doubt in your implied meaning.

So first I'm claiming my statements as 100% fact and now it's my tone is making those statements? It looks like this might be a case where you may be doing a little too much reading between the lines. Nowhere did I tell anyone to keep their opinion to themselves, only that they should not express their opinions as 100% facts...

But speaking of tone, please don't @ me with "my child" it's condescending and rude

This is specifically what I referred to as gatekeeping:

We have an imagineering sub forum here on the board if that interests everyone. That would be a great place to take these sort of discussions about unlimited possibilities. This is not the right place.

If you want to be active on these forums, you really have to humble yourself and learn how things work. Logic, data, pragmatism, and historical context do not amount to “opinion.” It is simply foolish to think we will be getting anything resembling a 3rd gate within any timeframe relevant to the topic at hand. You need to find a different hill to die on here.

Again, there seems to be some confusion as to what hill I'm on and who's dying. I'm not claiming they're going to build a 3rd gate just pointing out that it's a possibility.

Thanks for sharing your opinions on humility and foolishness tho

 

[BrianLo]

Now do I think that's likely? Certainly not, but I wouldn't say it's absolutely impossible

Nor did I.

This is specifically what I referred to as gatekeeping:

We have an imagineering sub forum here on the board if that interests everyone. That would be a great place to take these sort of discussions about unlimited possibilities. This is not the right place.

This was not meant to be condescending. It's actually a better place for this type of discussion of the pure what ifs hypotheticals.

I wanted to converse about the Coco ride in actuality.