Do you want to build a new resort?

LittleGiants16

Well-Known Member
If you're putting your resort in Australia, maybe you should think about focusing on aspects of their history versus American history. Some lands are transferrable (Tomorrowland, Fantasyland), but Liberty Street/Square and Frontierland could and should be switched out for new concepts when taken overseas. Both of these lands are Disney's take on American history, and they do this, in part, to allow us as Americans to step into our own past. Overseas, this notion of our own, shared history is largely lost. Just my two cents.
 

MA Screamin'

Well-Known Member
Weren't we going for one megapark? Or back to three? I actually think three would be better for crowd flow and levels, but originality would maybe be sacrificed in terms of IPs in our Magic Kingdom. We could keep our castle new and go from there, as well as the lands themselves featuring new stuff (Tomorrowland, special lands, rides, maybe new park-specific characters).

@LittleGiants16 Australian history land would be amazing! It would probably be taking as propaganda or what not, but play it safe and go for Aussie history. @WED99 We need your help!
 
Last edited:

Thrill

Well-Known Member
Brace yourselves for a wealth of possibly nonsensical input:
  • Location: Australia and Dubai have been suggested. They have their benefits, but from a realism standpoint, a new resort is at least ten years out (Shanghai will need to be open before another resort really hits the drawing boards). In a decade, I have a feeling that Brazil will be ready to support its own Disney resort. Brazil is almost ten times as populated as Australia, and it has the benefit of some populated neighbors.
  • On a mega-park: I like the idea, but question its practicality. Crowd control is an issue, for sure. A solution to that is to build a multi-gate mega-park. (Almost) every spoke has its own entryway, hotels, etc. This keeps congestion to a minimum outside of the hub. To fix that, we could have a circle of pathways/rails/PeopleMovers/horse-drawn chariots halfway between the hub and the berm to better handle crowds. These solutions present their own unique Imagineering challenges; the issue is no longer crowd control but maintaining effective transitions and designing novel entranceways.
  • With that said, it is easiest to modularize the resort. Integrating hotels into parks is neat, but separating the parks keeps things flexible for future expansion. A shopping center integrated into a park sounds good until you realize that people need to buy a ticket to buy merchandise, and you might kill sales that way. A shopping district should be separated from everything else. Theme it heavily, but don't put it inside anything ticketed.
  • A minimal-IP castle park is a dream. That is all.
 

Voxel

President of Progress City
Brace yourselves for a wealth of possibly nonsensical input:
  • Location: Australia and Dubai have been suggested. They have their benefits, but from a realism standpoint, a new resort is at least ten years out (Shanghai will need to be open before another resort really hits the drawing boards). In a decade, I have a feeling that Brazil will be ready to support its own Disney resort. Brazil is almost ten times as populated as Australia, and it has the benefit of some populated neighbors.
  • On a mega-park: I like the idea, but question its practicality. Crowd control is an issue, for sure. A solution to that is to build a multi-gate mega-park. (Almost) every spoke has its own entryway, hotels, etc. This keeps congestion to a minimum outside of the hub. To fix that, we could have a circle of pathways/rails/PeopleMovers/horse-drawn chariots halfway between the hub and the berm to better handle crowds. These solutions present their own unique Imagineering challenges; the issue is no longer crowd control but maintaining effective transitions and designing novel entranceways.
  • With that said, it is easiest to modularize the resort. Integrating hotels into parks is neat, but separating the parks keeps things flexible for future expansion. A shopping center integrated into a park sounds good until you realize that people need to buy a ticket to buy merchandise, and you might kill sales that way. A shopping district should be separated from everything else. Theme it heavily, but don't put it inside anything ticketed.
  • A minimal-IP castle park is a dream. That is all.
Note about Brazil. Terrible location for even planning right now. Rumor has it that Brazil will not be ready for the Summer Olympics and the Fiasco of the world cup should show inability host. (Even the locals are against both of the events occurring in Brazil right now.) Even Athletes are disgusted by the water quality for events. The water pollution is another statement. They have spent money over the last two decades to fix with no changes. Brazil (While a great disney location) have more then a decade worth of work before it becomes an viable location for anything other then money.
 

RMichael21

Well-Known Member
Of we integrate Resort Hotels into the parks and we have 3 hotels, then maybe we should integrate 1 or 2 of the three. That way, not all of the hotels are so close together and not all of them have secondary entrances into the park(s).
 

Voxel

President of Progress City
Of we integrate Resort Hotels into the parks and we have 3 hotels, then maybe we should integrate 1 or 2 of the three. That way, not all of the hotels are so close together and not all of them have secondary entrances into the park(s).
One note about integrated entrance. They are great, but don't make the mistake that the Grand Californian does in Disneyland. Do not have rooms over top the entrance, and provide ample sound proofing to that area. Noise is the biggest complaint I hear about the Grand Californian.
 

mahnamahna101

Well-Known Member
Brace yourselves for a wealth of possibly nonsensical input:
  • Location: Australia and Dubai have been suggested. They have their benefits, but from a realism standpoint, a new resort is at least ten years out (Shanghai will need to be open before another resort really hits the drawing boards). In a decade, I have a feeling that Brazil will be ready to support its own Disney resort. Brazil is almost ten times as populated as Australia, and it has the benefit of some populated neighbors.
  • On a mega-park: I like the idea, but question its practicality. Crowd control is an issue, for sure. A solution to that is to build a multi-gate mega-park. (Almost) every spoke has its own entryway, hotels, etc. This keeps congestion to a minimum outside of the hub. To fix that, we could have a circle of pathways/rails/PeopleMovers/horse-drawn chariots halfway between the hub and the berm to better handle crowds. These solutions present their own unique Imagineering challenges; the issue is no longer crowd control but maintaining effective transitions and designing novel entranceways.
  • With that said, it is easiest to modularize the resort. Integrating hotels into parks is neat, but separating the parks keeps things flexible for future expansion. A shopping center integrated into a park sounds good until you realize that people need to buy a ticket to buy merchandise, and you might kill sales that way. A shopping district should be separated from everything else. Theme it heavily, but don't put it inside anything ticketed.
  • A minimal-IP castle park is a dream. That is all.
Agreed, any castle park will have characters in it (Mickey and Friends, Pooh, Princesses, etc)
 

Thrill

Well-Known Member
Note about Brazil. Terrible location for even planning right now. Rumor has it that Brazil will not be ready for the Summer Olympics and the Fiasco of the world cup should show inability host. (Even the locals are against both of the events occurring in Brazil right now.) Even Athletes are disgusted by the water quality for events. The water pollution is another statement. They have spent money over the last two decades to fix with no changes. Brazil (While a great disney location) have more then a decade worth of work before it becomes an viable location for anything other then money.

Those are certainly challenges. The good news is that Disney is building with pollution (Shanghai's air is a concern). And when it comes down to it, all Disney needs is for a little patch of Brazil with high quality water. Cleaning water takes time, but it's do-able in small areas. As for Brazilian construction issues, we'd have to hope that Disney can keep contractors in line a bit better.

Agreed, any castle park will have characters in it (Mickey and Friends, Pooh, Princesses, etc)

Apologies for being vague; I meant that in the sense that I'd love to see a park without characters.
 

mahnamahna101

Well-Known Member
Those are certainly challenges. The good news is that Disney is building with pollution (Shanghai's air is a concern). And when it comes down to it, all Disney needs is for a little patch of Brazil with high quality water. Cleaning water takes time, but it's do-able in small areas. As for Brazilian construction issues, we'd have to hope that Disney can keep contractors in line a bit better.



Apologies for being vague; I meant that in the sense that I'd love to see a park without characters.
Agreed. Keep the characters in one huge 250 to 300 acre gate, and make the other two parks original
 

Voxel

President of Progress City
Those are certainly challenges. The good news is that Disney is building with pollution (Shanghai's air is a concern). And when it comes down to it, all Disney needs is for a little patch of Brazil with high quality water. Cleaning water takes time, but it's do-able in small areas. As for Brazilian construction issues, we'd have to hope that Disney can keep contractors in line a bit better.
Valid points, but another element to look into. Brazil is struggling with the cost of operation whereas China is more economically prosperous, Don't get me wrong I wanna see a Disney park in South America, I believe their is to much civil unrest in these areas for it to be done at the present moment. Give it a decade at best, but realistic 20 years. :D
 

JokersWild

Well-Known Member
When did "mega park" get thrown into the mix? Haha.

I've been wondering the same.

Look, guys, we should really try sorting this out soon because we're not really getting anywhere. Why don't we do two parks, a resort complex, and a shopping center. No mega parks. No integrated shopping centers. Maybe an integrated hotel. This isn't really that difficult. The point of this, I assume, was to all get together and have a massive open brainstorm to create something wonderful. Let's consolidate, bring our ideas a bit back into reality and figure this out relatively soon so we can get going on the smaller details.
 

LittleGiants16

Well-Known Member
My only input on the last few posts is that I agree that we should stay away from Studio Ghibli. Not only is it far removed from the Disney Brand (for a reason) but it really does not connect well with Mass American audiences.
My point exactly. If the resort is to be placed in Australia, perhaps Australians ardmore fond of Studio Ghibli than we are over here. With that being said, Studio Ghibli still does not scream Disney to me.
 

WED99

Well-Known Member
Weren't we going for one megapark? Or back to three? I actually think three would be better for crowd flow and levels, but originality would maybe be sacrificed in terms of IPs in our Magic Kingdom. We could keep our castle new and go from there, as well as the lands themselves featuring new stuff (Tomorrowland, special lands, rides, maybe new park-specific characters).

@LittleGiants16 Australian history land would be amazing! It would probably be taking as propaganda or what not, but play it safe and go for Aussie history. @WED99 We need your help!
Australian History = British convicts slaughtering aboriginals and taking their land, then apologizing a century later. There were some wars in between and a famous man hunt and that's about it.

Oh and a dingo stole a baby.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom