Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
So we are not discussing on a discussion board?
Right…let the anger FLOW through you…
Right…let the anger FLOW through you…
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
For Reference: Space for a 5th Park at Walt Disney World
- Thread starter Haymarket
- Start date
Consider the poster saying there’s no reason to discuss.
Remember - there’s no point in discussions if he doesn’t think it’s worth discussing and doesn’t understand why anyone would want to discuss probably a dozen of subjects. 
I’m somewhat familiar with the RCID 2020 plan (but not to the level of a few others here). While there are pieces of suitable land, there’s no reason or desire to build out further right now. Not that this isn’t a good topic to discuss, I rather enjoy it! Please continue.
Something else to remember - Even ‘Marginally suitable’ land would require a very sizable investment to make it useable. Remember the pylons driven near the TTC years ago.
AdventureHasAName
Well-Known Member
Because a park located within the box formed by the boundaries of Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio would place a massive amount of people within day-trip driving distance - just like Orlando and especially Anaheim. It would also take a portion of the international burden from Mexico and South America off WDW. And, as it is west of the Mississippi River, it would be a location where Disney could build an entire Marvel park (it couldn't exactly market it that way, but that's another issue).
The largest problem in the parks division right now is overcrowding. Most of this problem has been intentionally caused by the company's management (with their "let's see how far we can push it before the customers begin flipping out on us" attitude), but another significant part of the problem is that there are just too many people willing to pay historically reasonable prices (adjusted for inflation) for a vacation or for an annual pass, that the parks cannot accommodate everyone that wants to visit when the park prices are set to welcome the middle class families. A new resort (especially with unique content - like a Marvel Park or Star Wars Park - in addition to a Magic Kingdom-style park) would lift that crowding burden and continue to allow the middle class to visit at prices they can afford. This is how you rebuild goodwill and restore brand loyalty for the next couple of generations.
In short, what the company needs right now is as many 8 year olds as possible to physically attend the parks as many times as possible. A new resort accomplishes this in a way that a 5th gate cannot do.
@Sirwalterraleigh, what’s your thoughts on building another WDW theme park, let’s just say towards the middle of the country? Wouldn’t that seriously negatively impact WDW in Florida? And perhaps the entire Orlando area theme parks.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Of course there is space for a fifth gate at WDW. Anyone who says otherwise is gaslighting.
TalkToEthan
Well-Known Member
So we are not discussing on a discussion board?
Right…let the anger FLOW through you…
Returns like this deserve high accolades.
See what this cat did?? He used a Disney character(yes, by acquisition but Disney nonetheless) to make a convincing point, a funny one at that.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
…if Disney were to build more parks, it would dilute their client pool out…
In essence: it would likely spread more existing potential customers out, not create new ones.
It’s not like people in New Mexico are gonna say “hey…ever heard about this “disney” place? They just built one in Nacogdoches…let’s go!!”
So what would happen is they would then be spreading out customers over 3 really high overhead places instead of 2.
To what end? Are more people gonna be making more money to travel? Nope. Not statistically. That was 20th century thought that they built wdw with…but that is in the past.
Don’t he surprised if fewer people end up in Orlando and Anaheim…and fairly soon. That’s where they’re trending…not because they want it…because they are exceeding reasonable prices for the product…already.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I guess neither of us understands referencing, probably because it is useless in this case. So I will bid a fond ado and let the referencing begin.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
See ya around sport. Reference away!
I'm curious about all the land that is marked green "conservation/unsuitable for development". I would assume in the 60s when the land was bought, Disney would think that land is available for them to do whatever they want. I wonder at what point did it become taboo to develop the swamp/wetland of those areas. The green area west of World Drive / Epcot is so large, it's a shame it's not available for future use.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Pointing this out, prior to 2020 Disney was buying more land around the resort, to the tune of 1000-2000 acres, to expand its buffer. There’s no reason to believe they will stop buying land in the future, some of which could open up new development opportunities.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
No, that’s not what marginally suitable means and the site plan is pretty good evidence against that story.Something else to remember - Even ‘Marginally suitable’ land would require a very sizable investment to make it useable. Remember the pylons driven near the TTC years ago.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
It was the 70's. It can be developed but takes a ton of money to make it stable and requires offset properties to be acquired to mitigate the development.
In short there are many other plots that require less investment to develop.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
From the very beginning, Disney always planned to have a significant amount of conservation space. Go look at Walt’s master plan and there’s tons of space not being used, with most everything along what is now World Drive and down in the Celebration area.
Not going to go dig up my copy of the 2020 report - What does “marginally suitable” mean? Genuinely curious, as my understanding has been that the land could be useable but needed “something” first. If that’s not the case then I’d love to know more accurately what it means.
Maybe not. But the crowds don't seem to be going anywhere. Eventually there will come a time when a 5th park makes sense, but now is not the time. A 5th park makes more sense than an entire new resort in Texas.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Suitable – Areas given a suitable rating are generally forested uplands, pasture lands, or other undeveloped
sites outside the Conservation areas. There are 2,825 acres (19.9 percent of the undeveloped land) in this
category. Lands classified as suitable are generally above the 100-year flood elevation. However, in a few
instances, corrective drainage improvements would be required prior to construction.
Marginally Suitable – Areas given a marginally suitable rating have identified or recognized constraints for
development. This classification corresponds to wetlands that are above the 100-year flood elevation.
Development in these areas is strongly discouraged and would require mitigation of wetland impacts above
and beyond what is prescribed in the District’s Long Term Permits. There are 2,256 acres in this category or
15.9 percent of the undeveloped land area.
Unsuitable – Land in the unsuitable category has the most restrictive development constraints. It has been
applied to wetlands below the 100-year flood elevation and to all wetland and uplands Conservation Areas.
Most of the acreage is in the Reedy Creek Swamp. Land with this designation is considered unavailable for
development. The 9,093 acres with this designation represent 64.2 percent of the undeveloped land area.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Crowds have risen on a steady curve…something Disney identified and built to accommodate - until Iger.
That’s why it’s a mess…they didn’t add capacity and everyone feels it - but doesn’t necessarily understands why?
The issue with more sites is that the “increases” they see will be tempered much more by spreading out those already in the pool. It wouldn’t be the same as adding another park/day at wdw. We ran into this wall with DAK. We hit the 7 day barrier that they didn’t fully imagine existed. Now with really high prices, you can’t expect people to just “make the money appear”…let alone the time.
SteveAZee
Well-Known Member
Has anything been developed or put into areas that were once labeled "Marginally Suitable"?
SteveAZee
Well-Known Member
Yes, the crowds continue to increase. I do wonder if there is indeed a cap to it and/or if Disney sees it in studies or demographics or surveys. If they will continue to increase, it'll more efficient for them to build out existing parks with added capacity and 'draw', then finally, perhaps, a fifth park at WDW, and finally build at another site in the US.
Once they've determined they're getting maximum profit per park/resort guest, only then will they consider a real expansion. Unlikely to happen until they see how the market responds to Epic Universe. Finally, the Play Pavilion in... 2028?