Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
If they build a fifth park, they will put it in a place where they can re-use as much infrastructure from an existing park as possible. They'd love to be able to use the same parking lot for two parks, for example.
-
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
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
They simply create a usable space by altering that map and since they created that map, they can change it. The only thing that they have to do to comply with ecological demands is the very reason why they are continuously buying land outside the original boundaries. If they want to build on what currently is wet lands they have to create a suitable substitute on other land that they have purchased exactly for that purpose. That is why the idea of another park is not really wanted and rightfully so.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The map is not just whatever. It’s an assessment of conditions, not something simply changed.
Last edited:
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, and if they want to reassess those conditions they can and will. They usually do have to compromise to do it but they can and you know it. They have done it before, many times. Please pull heads out of the sand (or in this case swamp) and play with a little reality. The whole point was that if they want to build something they have the money, engineering and motive to change things. The whole reality of WDW being where it is would testify to that ability. Transforming a cow pasture and swamp into the place that WDW is wasn't just a stroke of luck. That came from a lot of changes to what was available and creative engineering. Even Walt couldn't have bought that much land at the price he did without the help of nature rendering that land as not exactly prime.
It’s worth remembering the original two developments (MK and Lake Buena Vista) were built on the highest land areas. Since then the next best areas have been developed. Available usable land is finite. Sometimes problems are built around or incorporated (east pond and Showcase Lagoon at EPCOT Center), avoided (north of ToT) or overcome at great expense (Universe of Energy).
Sometimes the engineering required isn’t worth the cost no matter how appealing the location may be (Mediterranean resort)
Sometimes the engineering required isn’t worth the cost no matter how appealing the location may be (Mediterranean resort)
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
For sure, but the discussion was did they have the place to build, not is it economically worth the effort. So we have two factors in this decision. One is do they even want to build a 5th gate at all and secondly is the return going to match the investment. Those two can and probably are intermingled, but doable if feasible.
The whole thought is likely not even thinkable. If they are concerned about the competition from Universal, I think they missed the window of opportunity to be the undisputable king of theme parks, at least in the Orlando area, for years to come. First they sat on their hands for at least one plus decade and did practically nothing to build new attractions, they weakened their imagineering department by pushing out their most creative people, assumed that Universal was landlocked and nothing to worry about all they while Uni was expanding, re-imagining and not putting massive roadblocks in the way of people passing through the turnstiles. Then the final straw was to decide the every movement you made inside the property needed to be paid for regardless of what you were paying just to stay on or enter the themed properties. There is nothing like greed to take a great company and experience than turn it into a one and done. I don't know a business in the world that has ever continued to be viable over time with that philosophy. You need the next generation to still maintain that desire to go there to be healthy over the long haul.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Being able to make a site suitable is completely separate from an assessment of existing conditions. This map was an assessment of existing conditions. It is a reflection of reality as it existed.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I always thought this are was interesting. A couple years ago they build a new laundry facility and kennel in this are and you can see the lengths they went to, to stay within the area that were suitable for construction.
Unless I'm reading things incorrectly, it looks like they built on the marginally suitable land there, not the suitable land?
danlb_2000
Premium Member
No, it's all build on the red suitable land. Even the access road follows the thin strip of suitable land.
Ah, I thought the red was marginally suitable and green was suitable, I had them backwards. Thanks!
They really did "stay within the lines" when they built those two facilities, didn't they?
PrinceCharming617
Well-Known Member
There's definitely plenty of space for a 5th park. Especially if they buy land for Nature Preserve off property. To comply with the nature act.
Robbiem
Well-Known Member
it would be interesting to see how things change over time. Like the cost of building upwards there often comes a time when the engineering costs come down and the land value increases so the return eventually justifies the investment- I wonder at what point somewhere like the Mediterranean/ Venetian site becomes financially viable?
If I recall, Osceola Parkway from World Drive to DAK was considered a huge feat of engineering despite it being just a road and bridge.
jloucks
Well-Known Member
This, this right here. I am glad you said what is actually going on.
Talk of a 5th gate comes up here continually. Aint gonna happen anytime soon, especially the period we are entering (economically). Problems also exist with the area surrounding Disney.. 192 and I-4 are already a nightmare, now imagineer all the new employees commuting in for work and all the guests coming to the park on top. Now think about what it will do to WDW infrastructure, more Disney buses and cars bouncing from park-park and to hotels etc.
I am not sure of the stability of that land, I looks a bit swampy, that would cost bigtime to stabilize it for a park, parking lot and access roads. I am sure Disney knows the entire land and feasibility since the 70's.
What would the cost be ? Maybe shoot to keep it at the 10 billion mark (truly a guess based on Epcot being about 1.4 billion 40 years ago)
I am not sure of the stability of that land, I looks a bit swampy, that would cost bigtime to stabilize it for a park, parking lot and access roads. I am sure Disney knows the entire land and feasibility since the 70's.
What would the cost be ? Maybe shoot to keep it at the 10 billion mark (truly a guess based on Epcot being about 1.4 billion 40 years ago)
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
If only there was some sort of map…
Just for some perspective:
Tokyo DisneySea cost 335 billion yen in 2001.
121.57 yen per dollar was the average rate in 2001, but it was 107.3 in 2000 and 113.73 in 1999. 114.2 is the average.
Using that average, 334 billion yen would be $2.92 billion in let's call it 2000. That's about $5.05 billion today.
Epcot's $1.4 billion in 1982 is around $4.32 billion today.
(I don't think a fifth park would cost quite so much as the guessed $10 billion.)
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Pre-pandemic, Universal was already spending more than $6 billion on the South Campus in Orlando.
A new 750-acre campus isn't just a park. What will Epic Universe, the park itself, cost?
Last edited: