lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Hotels don’t cost billions.
-
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
Yes, but how much will the actual park cost, and how much was the 750 acres? The park itself can't be more than a third of that acreage, right?
Where did you find the $6 billion figure?
The key point I'm making is that a fifth park won't cost $10 billion in today's money. I'm pretty sure Epic Universe, i.e., the park itself, cf. "the campus," won't cost that much.
We'll eventually know the figures. I'll bookmark this and come back to it when we know.
Last edited:
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
The ability to manipulate the map is part of an assessment of existing conditions and why RCID is so vital to TWDC. Yes, they have rules to follow but the option is always there and like I said, they have used it many times over the last 50 years. It is a reality, past tense has absolutely no application other than what was happening at the time of the map creation. It is a reference to a point in time, but history is past and means nothing except that reference. Degree of difficulty is no barrier to what can happen. Desire, money, engineering and planning can make almost everything possible. When dealing with "do they have a spot on that existing map", probably not many, however they can make a spot if they want too regardless of what the map might point out for that past time so it is part of the answer of Yes, plenty of space but at a cost. Is it worth it? That is up to them to decide.
I admit that I was guesstimating , but with inflation at 8% ish (and I think we are being lied to on that) Wood, Steel and other construction materials up huge. I know I put a roof on my house in Fl (5miles for WDW) in 2017 and it cost 10.5K and my neighbor is replacing his and it is 15.5K and our houses are mirror images of each other, that roof would have been 2K when Epcot was built.
I guess my point in this reply is to say that with sharp inflation that we are in now, even if they came up with a price at todays prices and the quote was 4.3 billion, thats not to say that the materials on year 3 of the project may not be almost double the prices at ground break.
Thats why this is certainly not the time to enter a project like this.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Escalation and supply limitations with construction materials have not been uniform.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Good news the price of lumber, sheetrock and plywood is falling back
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Now if only the cost of making forgettable D+ content and box office failures could fall back, TWDC would be in better shape.
Why? Because the land was not suitable?
Andrew25
Well-Known Member
Yes, it had to pass over Reedy Creek. (FYI - during the Hurricanes Disney was heavily monitoring it, I remember walking to the bridge in Celebration and seeing a ridiculous amount of water rush under. )
Brad Bishop
Well-Known Member
It's interesting that on the WDW side we think, "Oh.. just add a park." On the DLR side they already have more attractions across their two parks than all of the attractions from all of the parks in WDW put together.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Wdw will never add another park that a park hopper gets you into. The numbers just don’t support it
But more in each? That makes tremendous sense.
Yeah I was in Home d Po the other day and a sheet of 1/2" plywood was $35, it was like $80 a few months ago. Steel is still outrageous
Coaster Lover
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Isn't the whole notion of a 5th gate at WDW more or less... pointless? There is a psychological aspect to theme parks that guests need (at least) one day per theme park (and if you look at ALL of the promotional stuff for WDW, marketing is constantly reminding guests that they'll want to plan at least two days at MK).
The typical American vacation is one week (one day for travel to, five days of fun, one day for travel from). With four parks, two waterparks, and a large shopping district, Disney has more than enough to convince guests to stay for one week. Adding another park likely won't have a significant impact on getting guests to stay longer (people will just spend less time at other Disney properties thus cannibalizing business). It's why a third theme park is so important to Universal. People look at Universal's line up and think "I can get two parks and a water park done in 3-4 days... then what?" and they end up taking the last day or two of their week long vacation to go elsewhere (money lost from Universal's pocket).
As such, Disney needs to push to get more (new/returning) guests to Disney (not to get them to stay longer) and simply adding to the current parks can do that just as well (WWoHP is a fine example of where just adding the right property/land to a park can have a MAJOR impact without the need for a whole new park).
The typical American vacation is one week (one day for travel to, five days of fun, one day for travel from). With four parks, two waterparks, and a large shopping district, Disney has more than enough to convince guests to stay for one week. Adding another park likely won't have a significant impact on getting guests to stay longer (people will just spend less time at other Disney properties thus cannibalizing business). It's why a third theme park is so important to Universal. People look at Universal's line up and think "I can get two parks and a water park done in 3-4 days... then what?" and they end up taking the last day or two of their week long vacation to go elsewhere (money lost from Universal's pocket).
As such, Disney needs to push to get more (new/returning) guests to Disney (not to get them to stay longer) and simply adding to the current parks can do that just as well (WWoHP is a fine example of where just adding the right property/land to a park can have a MAJOR impact without the need for a whole new park).
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
I think the logic goes that a 5th gate would reduce MK visitation enough it becomes a one day park.
Illogical and contrary to what we know is true but it is boi's wanting someone to build them a new playground, not anything that can or will happen.
SteveAZee
Well-Known Member
I think there's just this odd psychology with WDW... with a new park springing up every 9 or so years leading up to 1998, there's just an assumption that that would keep on going. I don't remember visiting other parks in the US and think "you know what this needs... another park!". I visited often before Epcot opened and again before Disney/MGM did, and I never really thought much in the interim about waiting and wondering about the 'next park'. Seems like, between the crowds and the perceived momentum, we feel like it's just a given that there'll be another one coming soon.
Eric M Blake
Active Member
I think THIS point is vital to keep in mind: In the end, arguably the only part of the 5th Gate that needs to be in a full-on "suitable" red area is the park itself. The parking lot can use "marginally suitable" yellows or even "unsuitable" greens adjacent to the red.
In other words, I'm liking the spot pointed out by the Original Poster, between the MK parking lot and Ft Wilderness, more and more as the "given" spot for where it's going to be.
After all, the only other major "suitable" area that wouldn't require a LOT of "finesse" (like the area just north of the Animal Kingdom reserve...) would be right next to Wide World Of Sports...and frankly, even that aside, that'd make WDW a BIT too bottom-heavy. I'd prefer some balance in the northern half, myself.
Eric M Blake
Active Member
Come to think of it, the area across World Dr from DHS is actually a third full-on "suitable," again with the green around it for potential parking. Of course, that'd kinda require the park would be relatively small...but then, no smaller than DHS. A "butterfly," If you will.
Personally I suspect it'd be more likely that it'll be a resort/hotel area, for that reason. Not another water park, of course, since Blizzard Beach is pretty close to the area.
But you never know. Maybe Disney will go "Less is more, since it works for DHS."
Personally I suspect it'd be more likely that it'll be a resort/hotel area, for that reason. Not another water park, of course, since Blizzard Beach is pretty close to the area.
But you never know. Maybe Disney will go "Less is more, since it works for DHS."
Last edited:
DonniePeverley
Well-Known Member
They will only build a 5th park - once Epic Universe starts to take guests away from them.
So even if you are a Disney fan, we all better hope Epic Universe blows us all away.
So even if you are a Disney fan, we all better hope Epic Universe blows us all away.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
It makes no sense to build a fifth park. Simply expand the existing ones. It costs much less and it would add capacity to the existing parks.
This is a fun hypothetical discussion but there will never be a fifth park because MONEY.
This is a fun hypothetical discussion but there will never be a fifth park because MONEY.
Eric M Blake
Active Member
Iger is already on record about a $17 billion investment involving WDW, regarding a 10 year plan. (Disney's also on record that this has not changed with the axing of the Orlando Imagineer office building, in case you're wondering.)
Part of the investment involves the expansion in the back portion of Magic Kingdom, of course. But that's hardly the be-all end-all of $17 billion. It's certainly not 10 years in the making.
Doing the math, the odds are ever in our favor for a 5th Gate. Never say never.
Part of the investment involves the expansion in the back portion of Magic Kingdom, of course. But that's hardly the be-all end-all of $17 billion. It's certainly not 10 years in the making.
Doing the math, the odds are ever in our favor for a 5th Gate. Never say never.