DisneylandForward

[Nirya]

Ok, I get you're doing a bit, but it is important to note those apartment complexes on the east side of the Toy Story lot were a consistent target for eminent domain by the city when it was trying to push its Gene Autry Way extension plan (the only thing holding it up was that Disney was unwilling to budge on giving up the land). Acquiring those complexes would not be a huge burden for the company, with the only thing realistically holding them back being bad PR from displacing a bunch of people.

Similarly, we know Garden Walk keeps going on sale and has been offered to Disney multiple times. I imagine that any build on the Toy Story lot, regardless of what ultimately ends up there, would be preceded by Disney sitting down and actually looking to add Garden Walk to its portfolio.

 

[Disney Irish]

Ok, I get you're doing a bit, but it is important to note those apartment complexes on the east side of the Toy Story lot were a consistent target for eminent domain by the city when it was trying to push its Gene Autry Way extension plan (the only thing holding it up was that Disney was unwilling to budge on giving up the land). Acquiring those complexes would not be a huge burden for the company, with the only thing realistically holding them back being bad PR from displacing a bunch of people.

Except that isn't needed now since Gene Autry isn't being extended and so I don't see the City using eminent domain now in order to give Disney more land for expansion. And the property owners would likely jack up the cost to a prohibitive level making Disney end up not wanting to buy it.

Similarly, we know Garden Walk keeps going on sale and has been offered to Disney multiple times. I imagine that any build on the Toy Story lot, regardless of what ultimately ends up there, would be preceded by Disney sitting down and actually looking to add Garden Walk to its portfolio.

Disney has had multiple opportunities to buy it in the past, not once but unless I've lost track at least 3 times in the last couple decades. And they have passed on it every time, including most recently while Chapek was still in-charge (and that was when DLForward planning was already under way so would have known what future plans they want to do).

So while I won't say its impossible, I still find it hard to believe that Disney would now reconsider and just buy it and what would be a huge increase over what they could have gotten it for previously.

Plus as mentioned there is already contracts with Anaheim for the existing hotel, as well as future hotels on the site. So it would make it less likely to be developed.

 

[Nirya]

Except that isn't needed now since Gene Autry isn't being extended and so I don't see the City using eminent domain now in order to give Disney more land for expansion. And the property owners would likely jack up the cost to a prohibitive level making Disney end up not wanting to buy it.


Disney has had multiple opportunities to buy it in the past, not once but unless I've lost track at least 3 times in the last couple decades. And they have passed on it every time, including most recently while Chapek was still in-charge (and that was when DLForward planning was already under way so would have known what future plans they want to do).

So while I won't say its impossible, I still find it hard to believe that Disney would now reconsider and just buy it and what would be a huge increase over what they could have gotten it for previously.

Plus as mentioned there is already contracts with Anaheim for the existing hotel, as well as future hotels on the site. So it would make it less likely to be developed.

If Disney wanted the land those apartment complexes are on, I'm pretty sure they could get them for a reasonable price, up to a small premium. These aren't luxury condos that are bringing in a ton of money as-is, it's low-income housing that has consistently been cited as a problem area for the city crime-wise. The city wouldn't eminent domain the property, but I'm sure they would be more than happy to help facilitate a sale to Disney in order to rid themselves of a problem.

Similarly with Garden Walk, I doubt there would be a huge increase in a sale price, especially since Disney could threaten to make things as difficult as possible to access Garden Walk from the parks/hotels etc, which would drive the value of the property down. In this instance, I don't think Disney particularly cares about the businesses currently at Garden Walk and more wants the property to provide a connected throughline from the Toy Story lot to the EGW and rest of the resort, so I don't think they'd mind leaving the existing hotels as they are. Hell, they could help those hotels out by offering a dedicated PeopleMover connection in Garden Walk for those hotel guests.

 

[DL-fan]

Other than will cost $100B+, take about 75 years, and we'll all be long dead.

Speak for yourself, I’ll be pushing 115

 

[Disney Irish]

If Disney wanted the land those apartment complexes are on, I'm pretty sure they could get them for a reasonable price, up to a small premium. These aren't luxury condos that are bringing in a ton of money as-is, it's low-income housing that has consistently been cited as a problem area for the city crime-wise. The city wouldn't eminent domain the property, but I'm sure they would be more than happy to help facilitate a sale to Disney in order to rid themselves of a problem.

Have you never heard the stories of how property owners will jack up land prices just because Disney is attached? Not to mention the pact that many owners around the Resort area made to not to sell to Disney. It doesn't matter if its low income housing or not right now, the moment Disney is known to try to buy it all all the surrounding owners will jack up the purchase prices, that is if they even sell. A $200K low income house can easily become $1M, etc. So instead of it costing $10M to get the entire lot, you could be looking at $100M or more to get them all, etc., as an example. I'm just not sure that is worth it to Disney at that point.

Similarly with Garden Walk, I doubt there would be a huge increase in a sale price, especially since Disney could threaten to make things as difficult as possible to access Garden Walk from the parks/hotels etc, which would drive the value of the property down. In this instance, I don't think Disney particularly cares about the businesses currently at Garden Walk and more wants the property to provide a connected throughline from the Toy Story lot to the EGW and rest of the resort, so I don't think they'd mind leaving the existing hotels as they are. Hell, they could help those hotels out by offering a dedicated PeopleMover connection in Garden Walk for those hotel guests.

Again same issue, the moment the Disney name is attached the price goes up.

Also you think that GW cares about no access at this point, that is an empty threat.

I know its easy for us to say "Disney can just buy it", but there is a decision and real costs behind that that aren't as easy and in many cases may not make it feasible.

 

[Disney Irish]

Speak for yourself, I’ll be pushing 115

I'll be over 125 by that point, so we better hope for some miracle pill to be developed.

 

[GravityFalls]

Speak for yourself, I’ll be pushing 115

I think you can make it, 75 years of medical advances will make 115 feel like the new 85!

 

[DrStarlander]

I have, many of them. And there is a reason why many new ones don't get built and why they don't go down very far underground with large basement structures (also why most homes in CA don't have basements). A whole utlidoors type facility wouldn't likely be feasible due to the potential earthquake issues.

First, I said the utilidor area would be at grade and the park surface elevated (40 feet up). This is a multi-story commercial building on grade. Physically, it's a mall. With the finish quality (theming), IP, and admission price of a theme park. Instead of the department stores and multi-plex theater it has attractions. It's not very unusual really.

But as far as basements in California, it's because they don't need deep foundations to get below a frost line as in other climates. Why build one if you don't need it?

They don't own any property the connects the Resort to this plot of land, to do that would require easement rights by either the City or those property owners. They couldn't even get the Harbor businesses to give them easement rights to build an entry to the walkway for the original EGW plan (which is why the bridge will now have public access), so I don't see them getting any easement rights for this plan of yours nor do I see Disney purchasing up any property to be able to do that.

They can include all the pink service road in their current work. The walkway from the garage to the bridge will be elevated and the service road would run under it. Now, or later, they could try to get the city allow tunnels under the streets (blue). The city has agreed to some bridges, they may agree to tunnels too. Decades are a long time. Lots of tax revenue to make. Universal is looking at running tunnels all over Orlando, Disney just needs a hundred yards or so. Well, they don't need it, but it would be cool.

I've never said make it a whole shopping center. I've said all along make it a hotel (mostly)/retail. It'll be primarily for hotels with light retail.

They don't need that much in new hotels if they only have two theme parks. Following your frequent "if it was a good idea it would already be done" logic: If there is a demand for more hotels for the two theme parks, they would be built already. There's lots of undeveloped and inefficiently developed land around there.

 

[GravityFalls]

Have you never heard the stories of how property owners will jack up land prices just because Disney is attached? Not to mention the pact that many owners around the Resort area made to not to sell to Disney. It doesn't matter if its low income housing or not right now, the moment Disney is known to try to buy it all all the surrounding owners will jack up the purchase prices, that is if they even sell. A $200K low income house can easily become $1M, etc. So instead of it costing $10M to get the entire lot, you could be looking at $100M or more to get them all, etc., as an example. I'm just not sure that is worth it to Disney at that point.


Again same issue, the moment the Disney name is attached the price goes up.

Also you think that GW cares about no access at this point, that is an empty threat.

I know its easy for us to say "Disney can just buy it", but there is a decision and real costs behind that that aren't as easy and in many cases may not make it feasible.

There's no point in pricing out the only likely buyer. You have to remember that sitting on an unproductive asset will cost money over time in maintenance and property taxes. They'll sell.

 

[Disney Irish]

First, I said the utilidor area would be at grade and the park surface elevated (40 feet up). This is a multi-story commercial building on grade. Physically, it's a mall. With the finish quality (theming), IP, and admission price of a theme park. Instead of the department stores and multi-plex theater it has attractions. It's not very unusual really.

Yeah, still don't see that as being what will be done. But nice thoughts though.

But as far as basements in California, it's because they don't need deep foundations to get below a frost line as in other climates. Why build one if you don't need it?

You do know that not all of California is warm year round right? There are locations what do get really cold, and still have earthquakes. And how do I know, because I've lived there. So yes that is among the reasons, but its also because of the earthquakes.

They can include all the pink service road in their current work. The walkway from the garage to the bridge will be elevated and the service road would run under it. Now, or later, they could try to get the city allow tunnels under the streets (blue). The city has agreed to some bridges, they may agree to tunnels too. Decades are a long time. Lots of tax revenue to make. Universal is looking at running tunnels all over Orlando, Disney just needs a hundred yards or so. Well, they don't need it, but it would be cool.

View attachment 910124

Again nice idea I just don't see it happening. The relationship is Anaheim hasn't eased that much I just don't see Anaheim approving all the easement rights to make that happen.

But as you said decades are a long time, so who knows.

They don't need that much in new hotels if they only have two theme parks. Following your frequent "if it was a good idea it would already be done" logic: If there is a demand for more hotels for the two theme parks, they would be built already. There's lots of undeveloped and inefficiently developed land around there.

Disney was already developing a 5 Diamond Hotel for the existing DL Hotel Parking lot back in 2017, it got cancelled because of fights with Anaheim at the time, so it would have been built if it didn't get cancelled. So if you don't think they still want that and other hotels then you don't know Disney.

 

[Disney Irish]

There's no point in pricing out the only likely buyer. You have to remember that sitting on an unproductive asset will cost money over time in maintenance and property taxes. They'll sell.

There are many options besides just selling out to Disney.

Rentals for example. You can improve the properties and rent it out for higher due to it being next to prime real estate, no one said they had to be low income forever. Longer term you make more money in rental income than you do by selling out to Disney.

 

[Disney Irish]

First, I said the utilidor area would be at grade and the park surface elevated (40 feet up). This is a multi-story commercial building on grade. Physically, it's a mall. With the finish quality (theming), IP, and admission price of a theme park. Instead of the department stores and multi-plex theater it has attractions. It's not very unusual really.

But as far as basements in California, it's because they don't need deep foundations to get below a frost line as in other climates. Why build one if you don't need it?


They can include all the pink service road in their current work. The walkway from the garage to the bridge will be elevated and the service road would run under it. Now, or later, they could try to get the city allow tunnels under the streets (blue). The city has agreed to some bridges, they may agree to tunnels too. Decades are a long time. Lots of tax revenue to make. Universal is looking at running tunnels all over Orlando, Disney just needs a hundred yards or so. Well, they don't need it, but it would be cool.

View attachment 910124


They don't need that much in new hotels if they only have two theme parks. Following your frequent "if it was a good idea it would already be done" logic: If there is a demand for more hotels for the two theme parks, they would be built already. There's lots of undeveloped and inefficiently developed land around there.

I will add, that I don't think they are bad ideas, I just don't think they will happen.

Just as a reminder this is what was sold to Anaheim for DLForward.

One of the things that got brought up over and over in the public hearings on it was the fear of a 3rd Park being opened and it having a negative impact to the area. This is why Disney had drawn it up this way in the graphic as TSL being Hotels/Retail/Dining with some light theme park experience. And that all theme park expansion would be on the west side.

Now of course this doesn't bind Disney into this, but this is what was sold. And any deviation from this would likely sour the relationship with Anaheim again, and I just don't see Disney willing to do that at this point.

 

[Nirya]

The city of Anaheim was the one pushing for a third theme park on the Toy Story lot, which is why it was zoned that way even prior to DisneyForward. And DisneyForward wasn't aimed at the city itself, but was a sell to the community - the city council is very much in Disney's corner on all of this. All Disney Forward is was a re-zoning push to allow Disney to do whatever it wanted with its property.

 

[GravityFalls]

There are many options besides just selling out to Disney.

Rentals for example. You can improve the properties and rent it out for higher due to it being next to prime real estate, no one said they had to be low income forever. Longer term you make more money in rental income than you do by selling out to Disney.

Sure on a long enough time frame you'll receive more revenue from a perishable asset (hotels, rentals, etc.) than a one time sale. But this ignores any potential revenue received from reinvesting that money into other assets. It's the reason why people take the lump sum over monthly payments when they win the lottery.

 

[Disney Analyst]

The city of Anaheim was the one pushing for a third theme park on the Toy Story lot, which is why it was zoned that way even prior to DisneyForward. And DisneyForward wasn't aimed at the city itself, but was a sell to the community - the city council is very much in Disney's corner on all of this. All Disney Forward is was a re-zoning push to allow Disney to do whatever it wanted with its property.

Precisely, and all the maps, imagery, concept, were created and used as a tool to paint a picture for the community, a "what if?".

 

[Disney Irish]

The city of Anaheim was the one pushing for a third theme park on the Toy Story lot, which is why it was zoned that way even prior to DisneyForward. And DisneyForward wasn't aimed at the city itself, but was a sell to the community - the city council is very much in Disney's corner on all of this. All Disney Forward is was a re-zoning push to allow Disney to do whatever it wanted with its property.

Agreed, but Disney can’t just unilaterally do whatever it wants just because zoning has now been changed. They still have to get permits, work with the City, work with surrounding communities, etc.

 

[Disney Irish]

Sure on a long enough time frame you'll receive more revenue from a perishable asset (hotels, rentals, etc.) than a one time sale. But this ignores any potential revenue received from reinvesting that money into other assets. It's the reason why people take the lump sum over monthly payments when they win the lottery.

And why most lottery winners end up broke just a few years later.

 

[Disney Irish]

Precisely, and all the maps, imagery, concept, were created and used as a tool to paint a picture for the community, a "what if?".

Agreed it was all “what if”, just like all this 3rd gate discussion is really just a “what if” and not really what Disney is even planning or even considering.

 

[Disney Irish]

Lets play this out the other direction.

Lets say that Disney doesn't build a 3rd gate on TSL, and instead does actually build out a hotel/retail/dining district there instead. And then builds out the west side with expansion with multiple lands and attractions.

Is anyone really going to be believably upset?

 

[GravityFalls]

And why most lottery winners end up broke just a few years later.

Haha of course, but none of those individuals think they'll end up broke. It takes a very self aware person to admit to themselves that they won't invest the money properly.

If you are financially responsible, taking the lump sum and reinvesting the money is the better move. It wasn't the best analogy for me to bring up. Decision to sell land won't be made without consulting serious financial advisors, the same can't be said for your average lottery winner.