Well, they have done the monorail wraps (not on the EPCOT line of course) - I think they're slowly seeing how far they can push.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Exploratory geotechnical borings for new Epcot retention pond suggest new projects are in the works
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Well, they have done the monorail wraps (not on the EPCOT line of course) - I think they're slowly seeing how far they can push.
raymusiccity
Well-Known Member
When the ranchers sold their land to the Disney shell companies, they thought it was 'Unsuitable for Development', too!
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
Yeah I find it hilarious when someone says "not suitable for development!" Hello! MK was built on a swamp!
danlb_2000
Premium Member
It's not "hilarious" at all, it's a specific designation given to specific pieces of land in RCID development plan. Yes, all of WDW is pretty low lying but different areas have different conditions that make some more suitable for development then others. Yes, all land is buildable, but some is much easier then others and I have seen a number of cases where Disney went out of their way to avoid developing on "unsuitable land". The designations aren't hard rules but they do guide development.
"Not suitable" is a designation RCID came up with to characterize land they can't build on... without a lot of hoopla, or, may never be able to build on if they don't get permission from the proper state agency. It is arguably poor nomenclature. It should have been labeled "Conservation Set-Aside."
It is land that is designated for conservation. And they legally can't build on it without permission as per their original agreement with the State of Florida. And to get that permission, they need to buy a heck of a lot more property off-site and put that aside for wetlands conservation. Which is what they just did to put up the new DHS parking lot in a conservation designated area which had been labeled "not suitable."
The land WDW originally identified to be the area set aside for wetlands conservation tends to be low lying swampland in the 100 year flood plain. It's land that's difficult to build on, but not impossible. Once they do decide to build on it, they need to: drain it; put up or rearrange canals and re-/detention ponds; and then, put tons and tons of soil on it to raise it up out of the flood plain -- just like they're doing for the DHS parking lot.
Not all of WDW is swamp, there is plenty of land well above the water table, as well as plenty right at or under the water table.
See this thread for the maps: https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/maps-of-the-reedy-creek-2010-2020-plan.935133/
danlb_2000
Premium Member
This is not entirely accurate, "Not suitable" does not necessarily mean it's conservations land. Most, if not all the conservation land is considered not suitable, but not all of the not suitable land is designated for conservation.
Okay, I see that now. Problem is that some of the maps have different areas labeled "Conservation." And there are some areas that are labeled unsuitable which are not labeled 'conservation', but, do fall in the 100 year flood plain.
EvilChameleon
Well-Known Member
I never knew I wanted a hotel with a view of Illuminations until now.
IMHO it's too expensive for what you get. Newport and Sequoia are nicer. Again IMHO.Ah, OK. I stand corrected. It's still the one I want to stay at though, it's the one with the ice rink in the front of it during winter, at least I think it is lol! So I'm still annoyed
No, there were two highest and most suitable areas for large development. The MK area was one, the city of LBV was the other.
Outside of that you move down the suitability list until you get to unsuitable.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
Oh okay. But still the point remains. Lots of the area built on now was "unsuitable."
nickys
Premium Member
It's the ice rink that seals it for me (in winter obviously), otherwise I agree. But in general I can't help but think the "perks" for staying at one are very few.
My DS priced out a stay for him and 2 friends for 3 nights. Onsite it came to about £750 each, at one of the neighbour hotels it was more like £280. I've suggested he prices it out using our remaining DVC points for the year to get 3 nights at Sequoia, just to see what it comes out as, but I think even just tickets and Eurostar will be similar to offsite.
I really, really must go back. It was years ago we went, before we had kids. Only 1 park, and we just did a day out of a week in Paris. Time to go again
deWild
Well-Known Member
I haven't kept up with this thread so I truly don't remember the context in which I posted this. Would this be considered detracting away from the atmosphere of the park if the GOTG building were that tall?
ABQ
Well-Known Member
Some would say so, wouldn't they? There are times I notice the Soarin' building, sometimes I don't. Guess it depends on the cloud cover of the day. Though, for me, it doesn't really detract from the experience. The GotG building will be much harder to see, I bet. Being so far north. Going to need Mr Pengiun to put together a virtual view from the Torii gate at the Japan pavilion.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
When talking about land suitability we just need to avoid talking in absolutes. Some people say it's un-suitable so they can't build there, others suggest that the suitability rating is meaningless because they can build anywhere they want. The truth is actually in the middle.
Well...you actually can build anywhere, Kansai International Airport should be proof enough of that, it just gets more expensive.
GCTales
Well-Known Member
Absolutely...."unsuitable" really is only an indication that a) there are more preferable locations in terms of investment required to develop.
There is not location on Dinsey property that is truly "unsuitable for development" if Disney is willing to invest the money, time, effort, and materials required to do so.
bclane
Well-Known Member
I think it would depend on if/how they themed it. If they themed it to look like, say, the NASA vehicle assembly building off in the distance or something cool like that, it would definitely add to the park in more ways than just adding a thrill ride. But more than likely it will be themed to look like a giant blue or green box. I'm fine with that actually as I'd rather they spent the money on more attractions but then again, I'm in the camp that thinks the building won't be that obvious from most sight lines.
I quite enjoyed the newly renovated Newport Bay Club when we stayed at Disneyland Paris for two nights last month.
From the parking lot, the gravity building will be giant block off to the left as visible as the FoP building entering the parking lot at DAK. But, once in the park, you'll only catch glimpses of its top over the treeline and other buildings, just like the buildings of FW seen from WS.
If they build two or more resorts near the Epcot front gate (or over it!), well, that will be much more noticeable and there's a good chance that one of them will block the view of the gravity building... unless you're in the resort itself and looking out the window. As much as the FW pavilions were built to be seen from all sides originally, there's quite a bit of backstage additions and staging and utility buildings that have gone up spoiling that view from the backside.
1 - UoE
2 - Orange line is a guess at the top of the connector corridor to the Gravity Building
3 - Go-away-green Gravity Building over WoL
4 - hulking silver/grey Test Track building... from this perspective the Space Restaurant is hidden by it, but if you go a bit higher, or they build it taller than the Space pavilion, it will be seen over the Test Track building
5 - Mexico angry that some non-WS buildings are destroying pristine sightlines and the theme of being in eleven countries all squashed around a lake