• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Flamingo Crossing Hotels

SoccerMickey

Active Member
I
I'm quite sure you guys know what I'm talking about.

I know what you're talking about and seeing projects like this can be a bitter pull to swallow when you see old film footage of Walt saying, "we have enough land to hold all the ideas and plans we can possibly imagine" and they still tout that message publicly but then we see them slowly selling off parcels. We've seen it with Crossroads, Celebration, Four Seasons, Little Lake Bryan, and now Flamingo Crossing. To be fair, the plans and ideas he was talking about, and pitching to the state of Florida look nothing like what is the current state of Disney World, and who knows if his vision would have survived to this day.
I guess the cold hard facts is this is the new Walt Disney Company and making this land attractive for prospective buyers is more attractive than developing it themselves.
 

CDavid

Well-Known Member
I was just looking at the tax maps for orange county and it looks like a Hess Station is going across the street from Walgreens. The tax map also has the 2 hotels on it so I think it is right. Another interesting thing is that Orange Lake owns part of the land on Flamingo Crossing Blvd. So I wonder if there is a deal between Orange Lake and Disney yet or if there will be one. I know it would be benfitial to Orange Lake if they could gain access to WDW without going on the public roads and I could see WDW wanting to buy some of the land Orange Lake owns. This could be something benefitial to both companies and could explain why the timeshares were in the Flamingo Crossing plans.

Got a link?

Where are Walgreens and the Hess station going in relation to the two hotels?
 

BoarderPhreak

Well-Known Member
I know what you're talking about and seeing projects like this can be a bitter pull to swallow when you see old film footage of Walt saying, "we have enough land to hold all the ideas and plans we can possibly imagine" and they still tout that message publicly but then we see them slowly selling off parcels. We've seen it with Crossroads, Celebration, Four Seasons, Little Lake Bryan, and now Flamingo Crossing. To be fair, the plans and ideas he was talking about, and pitching to the state of Florida look nothing like what is the current state of Disney World, and who knows if his vision would have survived to this day.
I guess the cold hard facts is this is the new Walt Disney Company and making this land attractive for prospective buyers is more attractive than developing it themselves.
Exactly what I was getting at... As I understand it, Disney isn't actually selling off parcels as much as they are leasing them; so at the end of the lease, Disney can just raze whatever's there if they choose. But it's not exactly a short-term lease, nor is the razing of said construction simple, free or quick. In any event, yeah - the point is that large sections of the property are being taken up by third-parties.

Just thinking out loud here; assume pie in the sky thinking here... If Disney wanted to expand Epcot (greatly). They can't expand to the west because of the Swan/Dolphin and the Boardwalk complex and can't to the east because of major roadways and other construction. The south is also out for the same reason, though there is a narrow strip of free space. The only "real space" to expand is to the northwest. So essentially Epcot is painted into a corner already. At least MK, AK and HS still have plenty of buffer... I'd just hate to see the property get too fragmented or full where space becomes an issue.

And of course, let's not forget traffic on-property because of all the extra stuff...
 

CDavid

Well-Known Member
Just thinking out loud here; assume pie in the sky thinking here... If Disney wanted to expand Epcot (greatly). They can't expand to the west because of the Swan/Dolphin and the Boardwalk complex and can't to the east because of major roadways and other construction. The south is also out for the same reason, though there is a narrow strip of free space. The only "real space" to expand is to the northwest. So essentially Epcot is painted into a corner already. At least MK, AK and HS still have plenty of buffer... I'd just hate to see the property get too fragmented or full where space becomes an issue.

The property is already fragmented in unfortunate ways due to poorly planned and badly located prior development. However, roads and backstage infrastructure can be moved, and even unsuitable land generally built upon, just so long as someone is willing to write a big enough check.

Epcot, however, has plenty of unused expansion pads (many in World Showcase), and it appears that (sometimes major) shuffling of backstage areas would get you even more. Hollywood Studios is the park which is most hemmed in, primarily by by World Drive, its own parking lot, and unsuitable land. Again, all of that can be remedied, but at a cost.


Thanks.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
Original Poster

fc.jpg
 

Ignohippo

Well-Known Member
Epcot, however, has plenty of unused expansion pads (many in World Showcase), and it appears that (sometimes major) shuffling of backstage areas would get you even more. Hollywood Studios is the park which is most hemmed in, primarily by by World Drive, its own parking lot, and unsuitable land. Again, all of that can be remedied, but at a cost.


I'd love to know what their thinking was when they built DHS and hemmed it in like that with little possibility for future expansion. For a company as smart as Disney (sometimes), that was a really odd thing for them to do.
 

maxairmike

Well-Known Member
I'd love to know what their thinking was when they built DHS and hemmed it in like that with little possibility for future expansion. For a company as smart as Disney (sometimes), that was a really odd thing for them to do.

It was a hasty answer by Eisner to Universal to match their offerings and an attempt to move some production to Florida. It was never really intended to be the full theme park it has become.
 

Ignohippo

Well-Known Member
It was a hasty answer by Eisner to Universal to match their offerings and an attempt to move some production to Florida. It was never really intended to be the full theme park it has become.


Well, it was always intended to be a mixed-use park. That really doesn't answer the question.

What would've happened if the film studio would've been widely successful? There still wouldn't have been any way to expand.

It's just bizarre how they butted it right against World Drive (which was always the boundary). It makes no sense!
 

majortom1981

Active Member
That map link is cool .shows which land is marked for parks and resorts and which land can't be built on. there are a lot of parks and resorts labeled properties.
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Just because something is currently listed as conservation does not mean it can't be built on in the future. The part I find most amazing is the off property sites. I am always interested in business deals and can come up with plans that would benefit both sides. If you look carefully you will see land that orange lake owns that Disney could use in expending flamingo crossing into something wonderful. I sure if Disney wanted to they could give orange lake direct access to Disney roads which would increase orange lakes value and allow orange lake expand and build more timeshare units at a higher cost and give Disney the land they want. A win for everyone. There is also lots of land outside Flamingo Crossing on the west for more another theme park if Disney wanted. In any case I see enough land inside the main park boarders to build 2 or 3 more major theme parks and a number of new resort hotels and DVC's.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Just because something is currently listed as conservation does not mean it can't be built on in the future. The part I find most amazing is the off property sites. I am always interested in business deals and can come up with plans that would benefit both sides. If you look carefully you will see land that orange lake owns that Disney could use in expending flamingo crossing into something wonderful. I sure if Disney wanted to they could give orange lake direct access to Disney roads which would increase orange lakes value and allow orange lake expand and build more timeshare units at a higher cost and give Disney the land they want. A win for everyone. There is also lots of land outside Flamingo Crossing on the west for more another theme park if Disney wanted. In any case I see enough land inside the main park boarders to build 2 or 3 more major theme parks and a number of new resort hotels and DVC's.
Reedy Creek Improvement District is legally obliged to maintain a certain amount of land for conservation purposes. And just because there is physical room for more parks doesn't mean there is any money in building them.
 

DisneyGentleman

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't expect any Disney amenities, and certainly not park transportation (unless provided by a third party, as many offsite hotels already do). Remember that these hotels are on Disney property, but located outside the WDW arch which welcomes you to Disney World (and people like to stop in the middle of the road to take a picture of).
Sort of like Lake Buena Vista Lite.
 

gsimpson

Well-Known Member
Some construction folks I knew around the time HS was built said it was located there because the infrastructure build out was must less complex, faster, and smaller than if they located it else where plus the roadway access for guest was much cheaper and faster to build and apparently Eisner was bent on getting it out of the ground as quickly as possible. WDI (or was it still WED back then) wanted the park in another location with a substantially different foot print but the schedule mandated some compromises. The Swan and Dolphin where part of a rather elaborate deal with Tishman who was the general/lead contractor for the construction of Epcot Center. They originally were managed by another Tishman division, I believe under the Sheraton banner, and Met Life held the note for the buildings. Part of the reason Disney did it, along with getting some breaks presumably from Tishman, was that Disney back then had no hotel credibility and they couldn't convince any business folks to stay on property and Eisner - for all of his faults - was bright enough to know that Disney could become a convention destination and that would be difficult without hotels business people were willing to use.
 

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

Top Bottom